Abstract In Mr. Lipsky’s (1980 publication of Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individuals in public service he described those “public service workers who interact directly with the citizens in the course of their jobs and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work”, as street-level bureaucrats. (Lipsky, 2010, p.3) Throughout the text Mr. Lipsky touched on some very key points as it pertains to the community and the contributions that these street-level bureaucrats possess and I cannot help but to agree wholeheartedly with his assessment. In this paper, I will discuss the individuals that make the policies that are being implemented as well as those individuals that are being held accountable for seeing these policies …show more content…
He refers to managers as those individuals “interested in achieving results consistent with agency objectives”. (p.18) Lipsky expresses that the manager is ‘result oriented’, meaning these individuals implement each policy and sees that they are all fulfilled from start to finish. They have now problem with going against the grain and will do everything in their power to accomplish the task. Most street-level bureaucrats believe that if the task is completed how you got the result is not important. Lipsky believes that the manager is unselfish and the street-level bureaucrats are self-serving. I do agree with his observance of both managers and street-level bureaucrats in some aspects but I also believe that each case is different so to stereotype a group based on a few individuals is unfair in my …show more content…
He believes that holding individuals accountable doesn’t exactly pin point what the true issues are especially leaving a vague line between what superiors seek and what subordinates do. Lipsky’s definition touches on two very important aspects of accountability: the first being the relationship between people and groups he states that “one is always accountable to ‘one’ accountability is not abstract”; he believes that both parties should be specified in being held accountable so that there would leave no room for confusion. The second being the individual’s behavioral patterns as it pertains to accountability. He believes that accountability can be determined where behavioral patterns are present and predictable. In turn this means that accountability cannot succeed without changes or improvement of behavioral patterns. (Lipsky, 2010, p. 160) I agree with Lipsky’s opinion about accountability I believe that without implementing what one’s duties are and strictly enforcing them each you have no way to make someone take responsibility for the tasks
Accountability is a subject that covers everything from knowing how many diapers are left for the baby, to knowing how many AT-4 Rocket launchers are in the Platoon, who has them, and how experienced they are with using it. If you hold yourself accountable for your actions then your superior will not have to, because you already know the proper course of action to take to correct your issue, and to present any change to them so as to keep the Unit in working condition, and the Corps able to complete its mission.
-Compared to books like Michael Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy Maynard-Moody and Musheno’s book allows the interviewee to speak for themselves and explain what they do allowing both the reader and the authors to analyze their stories. While these two books do cover some of the same dilemmas in regards to public service Lipsky discussed it with more objective facts
• Accountability: We don’t say, “It’s not my fault” or “It’s not my job.” We take responsibility for meeting our commitments – our personal ones as well as those of the entire organization. We take ownership of the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines accountability as: “the quality or state of being accountable; especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one 's actions. Accountability is one the most important aspects in the military and civilian life style. Holding Marines accountable for their actions and having every Marine and piece of gear assigned to you accounted for is required at all times. It ensures the safety and stability of all the Marines.
Now for the Army, it becomes an obligation more than“willingness” while you have to be willing to do it as well. Those that are unable to be accountable are the ones that jeopardize the combat readiness of any unit. Basically it is the understanding that from the bottom up. Top down and laterally everyone is going to do and is willing to do the right thing even when no one else is looking. This is practiced at your home base where everyone is assigned tasks and details not only including your own job that you are expected to do and do right but hold others accountable as well as a system of “check yourself, then check your buddy.” Doing the job correctly and ensuring others do it as well and do it safely are all part of accountability in the military as one does not have to experience combat to understand that just being in the military is inherently dangerous given the types of equipment and weapons that are used to train and deploy with. As an example any live weapons range you go to part of the safety brief is “everyone here is a range safety” meaning anyone can call a cease fire if they observe dangerous behavior or a situation regardless of rank and it can be a Colonel or a brand new private, does not matter. As such in that event everyone becomes accountable not only for the operation of the range, the mission objective to have everyone qualify but do it in a safe
In the book, The Case for Bureaucracy author, Charles T. Goodsell conveys his assertion for bureaucracy. He argues that Americans have a lot of wariness concerning the government. Goodsell’s major takeaway however, is that wariness in government is normal it promotes checks and balances yet, this is the sole reason why college graduates do not want to become a part of public service careers.
Michael Lipsky’s Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individuals in Public Services (2010), highlights that street-level bureaucrats develop various coping mechanisms to survive their job. As illustrated by Lipsky (2010), there are three correlational indicators between mental health and street-level in the work environment: lack of resources, being overloaded, and role ambiguity. Since street-level bureaucrats respond on behalf of the “public interest,” they must create balance to be successful (Lipsky, 2010). Lipsky (2010), expresses that the primary role of street-level bureaucrats is based on performance and the decisions that they make can affect individuals lives. According to Lipsky (2010), street-level bureaucrats must interact, react and make decisions that are based on their clients’ behaviors/actions.
There are nearly 20 million people that are employed by the government in various positions in the United States of America and with just as many varying ways of implementing bureaucracy and appointing individuals to hold public administration positions. Managing the appointments of all of these public officials under one umbrella of how to properly perform governmental tasks is not an easy feat. The only way for America to accomplish what the electorate has set out for them to do is for public administrators to agree on core principles and values, and like history these values are always evolving. “Although we think in terms of institutions and principles, in the final analysis, organizations and governments are not charts and words on pieces
The most simple dictionary definition I have found is: The quality or state of being accountable; an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one 's actions. Accountability can be applied to many situations in the daily life and it can easily be overlooked in the civilian world, but when it comes to the US Army or any military branch, accountability is one of the most important things. That is why is instilled in every soldier since the moment they are shipped out to Basic Combat Training. The whole Army needs accountability to keep operations running 24/7. From the PVTs, all the way up to high ranking officers, we all need to be accountable for our assigned equipment, location/status, personnel, and our actions. If we are not held accountable of our
Legitimate authority only comes into account if the person also has the power to influence others. People may not agree with what they are being asked to do, but because they have legitimate power, they do so anyway. Heywood, 2000. "The 'Heywood'" Accountability in politics refers to the process of being held liable for your own actions. Many people, such as politicians, have a different degree to which they are held responsible for their actions and the consequences that may come as a result of such an action.
According to Evans, the Weberian bureaucracy was said to be the fundamental, institutional sources of growth and development in a state [cited in Selgert 2014]. It describes how bureaucracy is recruited by implementing meritocratic standards such as entry exams, and by providing rewarding and predictable long-term careers. The importance of bureaucratic authority was stressed, in which individual obey orders because of the commander’s position. The model of bureaucratic control was derived, which involves the use of authority and hierarchy to enforce and impact on the action, behaviour and performance of staffs within an organisation (Weber 1947). Nevertheless, it is very hard to give a clear definition because of the diversity of theories and viewpoints revolve around the concept of bureaucracy, such as Weberian and Marxist social theories.
Policy implementation, generally refers to processes and mechanisms put in place in order to implement and enforce policy decisions made by policy makers. Over the past few years, policy implementation has been the subject of numerous research and analysis into the complexity of the link between policy elaboration and policy implementation. Lipsky, through his Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, highlighted the crucial role played by local public officials, referred to as street level bureaucrats, who, unlike policy makers, are in constant and direct contact with citizens and are tasked with creating the mechanisms, rules and regulations intended to implement and enforce policies rendered-down from legislators. Most often, street level bureaucrats, though initially delighted with the idea of public service, are quickly disillusioned given the constraints they face in the execution of their daily tasks, ranging from inadequate working conditions, limited resources, huge workload, just to name a few. In order to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities, they create devices, tools, routines and coping mechanisms which in turn alter and hamper initial policy implementation goals. Street level bureaucrats are often presented with particular circumstances where they must exercise some level of autonomy and discretion as “they cannot do the job according to ideal conceptions of the practice because of the limitations of the work structures.” (Lipsky, 1990).
The street level bureaucrats who are doing daily face-to-face interaction with the clients perceive as key important of policy making. Lipsky mentioned, “That public policy is not best understood as made in legislatures or top-floor suites of high ranking administrators, because in important ways it is actually made in the crowded offices and daily encounters in street-level workers.” Based on this approach, policy implementation distinguishes from policy process, other words, policy maker is different with policy implementer.
The top level management is most accountable. Being accountable means being innovative as the person will think beyond his scope of job. Accountability, in short, means being answerable for the end result. Accountability can’t be escaped. It arises from responsibility.
Responsibility has to do with defining proper conduct; accountability with compelling it. The former concerns identification; the latter concerns power. The issue of responsibility is a practical one and the answer to this can come from an examination of the society’s needs to know and the media’s abilities to inform. The issue of accountability is a political one the answer to which can come from an analysis of centres of power-government, media organizations and public influence.