To achieve this performance-based results, therefore, it becomes important to reflect on the public service and the functions of public managers. Contrary to the transactional model of leadership which takes public manager as mere administrators who measure the temperature of the bureaucracy, managerialism insists that public managers must be freed from the bureaucratic operating mechanism and framework that limits their vision, creativity and capacity for managerial innovation.

This then implies that administrators and front-line managers will not only be empowered to make critical decisions and achieve discretionary autonomy as a measure of the responsiveness of the system, they will also be held accountable for performance and measurable outcomes which emphasises customer satisfaction and productivity.

McGregor conceptualises managerialism in terms of Theory Y which not only provides a better understanding of human nature that undergird the bureaucracy, but also articulates a transformational understanding of administrative leadership.

While Theory X has a gloomy perspective on personnel dynamics, and of employees in an organisation being motivated only by the bare need for food, shelter and survival, the Theory Y paradigm insists on the contrary that humans in any system or organisation are motivated by the need to satisfy the higher-order needs like social relationship, the search for esteem and dignity as well as the need to exercise their creative genius especially with regards to organisational performance.

McGregor’s Theory Y does not constitute a wholesale rejection of the Weberian traditional understanding of public administration. And this makes it a perfect theoretical framework for a neo-Weberian reconsideration of the required paradigm for rethinking the administration of government business. Given the failures of both the traditional Weberian tradition and the new public management and its managerial revolution, the neo-Weberian paradigm possesses the capabilities to incorporate useful insights from both frameworks. Its understanding of people, and of human resources management and human relations, constitutes a tremendous plank in building an organisational framework that gives the nod to productivity and performance.

But more than this, the framework of a shared transformative capacity of a leader, required by the Theory Y, turns public administration itself away from being a mere theory of government to a new understanding of it as a theory of governance. And within this new framework of governance, it provides the basis for a distributed paradigm of leadership that is the centerpiece of what has been called the change space model of leadership, rather than the path-goal theory.

The change space model emphasised the idea of a leadership rather than that of a leader anchored on a personality. Thus, even when there is one public manager around which the administrative dynamics are anchored, the leadership trajectory is distributed across many multilayered points, from the permanent secretary to the front-line manager.

How then can we begin to reimagine the transition from Theory X to Theory Y which the neo-Weberian institutional framework permits? I will outline two fundamental variables in terms of which we can assess any bureaucratic system. The first concerns the dynamics of the workforce and the workplace, and the second has to do with the implication of the Theory Y for the structure performance management protocols of the public service.

Theory X and Theory Y both have different frameworks that provide different perspectives of the workplace. Within the Theory X, the assumption that employees are lazy and irresponsible leads to a management style that is autocratic and utilises the carrot and stick method to motivation. And a rigid bureaucratic environment that essentially stifles the employees’ creativity and entrepreneurial innovation.

But if we shift the assumption and rather see employees as self-motivated and ethical, and management style becomes more participatory and empowering, then we arrive at more employee engagement at the workplace that boost morale and motivation, enhance creativity and innovation, and enhance more efficient performance and productivity outcomes. The idea of decentralisation (let managers manage), for example, provides department and individual managers with more autonomy and discretionary capacities in decision-making, while also empowering employees to have more say in procedural and performance matters.

This makes for more job satisfaction that enable the workforce to do more. However, this transition must also carry forward the understanding that some responsibilities might need the management-by-directive mechanism that demands direct supervision.

All this has direct implications for performance management. This is to the extent that the workforce and its responsibilities are crucial to how we shift the focus from processes to results. Performance management is therefore a process of (a) communicating organisational aims and objectives to all stakeholders, (b) setting performance targets to measure the achievement goals and objectives, and (c) ensuring that all these activities provide a basis for continuous learning, improvement and performance accountability.

Within a bureaucratic environment that is participatory, the performance management system (PMS) cannot be codified within the general orders. What is to be achieved, and how it is to be achieved will be a function of shared understanding. It will also involve a decentralised organisational process that, first, connects plans, strategies and blueprints to budgeting and funding; and second, cascades all this to the operational timelines of the ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs).

This enables the MDAs to arrive at their own vision, mission and value statements, as well as the performance strategies that distill, at the individual levels, performance contracts and target outputs between the key policy actors.

This is what it means for a performance management system to emphasise a participatory planning of performance goals, service standard setting, and establishment of performance improvement plans and measures between the superiors and subordinates. The system also ensures the setting up of a performance-based reward and sanction linkage that connects performance to individual and departmental accountability in ways that encourage continuous learning and incremental improvement.

For example, it is on the basis of performance reviews that supervisors decide as to whether their subordinates can be promoted, whether they need specific training to enhance their performance, or whether they deserve any performance-based rewards for the execution of their duties and responsibilities.

Concluded

Prof. Olaopa is Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission and Professor of Public Administration.