BALANCING ACCOUNTABILITY WITH RESPONSIVENESS – BUILDING RESPONSIBLE FLEXIBILITY IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

By Richard Pratt 

University of Hawai’i

Introduction

Societies cannot prosper politically, economically or socially without effective, public-regarding public institutions.  They simultaneously reflect and sustain democracy, encourage and channel the forces of market economies, and store and legitimate shared values.

How well government organizations have performed these roles varies from place to place, and is subject to debate. In many parts of the world there are concerted efforts to enlarge the responsibilities of local governments through decentralization. This critical shift is driven by the hope that these empowered organizations not only will pick up responsibilities that have heretofore been centralized, but also will do this in a way that is more public-regarding.

Public bureaucracieshave been asignificantchallenge to realizing this hope. The obstacles they present to all al levels of government are reflected in the global conversation that has taken place over the last thirty years.

To provide context for what follows, this paper first briefly reviews the dilemmas that bureaucracies present and the efforts made to address them.  It then suggests that dissatisfaction with those recent alternatives has created an opportunity to experiment with other more realistic approaches, and that this may be especially opportune for local government.  In this context the idea of responsible flexibility is explored as a way to balance essential levels of accountability with desirable levels of responsiveness.  An example of responsible flexibility ispresented,and the paper concludes by suggesting criteria for judging to what degree an initiative represents “responsible flexibility”. 

 

Introduction

Societies cannot prosper politically, economically or socially without effective, public-regarding public institutions.  They simultaneously reflect and sustain democracy, encourage and channel the forces of market economies, and store and legitimate shared values.

How well government organizations have performed these roles varies from place to place, and is subject to debate. In many parts of the world there are concerted efforts to enlarge the responsibilities of local governments through decentralization. This critical shift is driven by the hope that these empowered organizations not only will pick up responsibilities that have heretofore been centralized, but also will do this in a way that is more public-regarding.

Public bureaucracieshave been asignificantchallenge to realizing this hope. The obstacles they present to all al levels of government are reflected in the global conversation that has taken place over the last thirty years.

To provide context for what follows, this paper first briefly reviews the dilemmas that bureaucracies present and the efforts made to address them.  It then suggests that dissatisfaction with those recent alternatives has created an opportunity to experiment with other more realistic approaches, and that this may be especially opportune for local government.  In this context the idea of responsible flexibility is explored as a way to balance essential levels of accountability with desirable levels of responsiveness.  An example of responsible flexibility ispresented,and the paper concludes by suggesting criteria for judging to what degree an initiative represents “responsible flexibility”. 

The Challenges Faced By Public Organizations

Bureaucracies, both private and public, have been the targets of criticism in Western industrial societies for almost as long as they themselves were adopted as an improvement over earlier tradition and personality driven organizations. Recurring complaints include, among others, over defined roles and excessive specialization;internal segmentation (“siloing”) and organizational rigidity; inability to adapt to changing environments; excessive rules, often disconnected from organizational goals; the separation of knowledge from the authority to act on it; and information hording as a source of power. Public bureaucracies, which today are referred to as “traditional” organizations, also have faced charges of being unaccountable (“There is no one responsible.”) despite their claims of giving accountability the highest priority.

Over the last 30 years such traditional public organizations have faced global challenges from several directions. One challenge has come from repeated economic crises that have simultaneously increased the need for critical public services while producingbudget deficits in national and local governments.

Another has come from advocates for business and market solutions who argue forcefully that public organizations need to face competition and to utilize private sector practices. They have urged re-thinking, in a business-oriented way, the rules that govern key areas such as personnel, budgets and purchasing. Their recommendations include the privatization of functions, contracting out work to private and nonprofit companies and, within the organization,giving managers more authority to hire, promote and fire. Proposals of this kind collectively were referred to as New Public Management (NPM).^[1]

NPM generally has been judged as promising more than it delivered. (c.f., Dunleavy, Manning, Sarker and Vigod-Gadot) This is partly the result of a “one size fits all” prescription that under valued the importance of context. It also was harmed by its advocate’sapparent belief that there is only one right way to undertake reform. An unexpected outcome of NPM is that it has set the stage for a period in which efforts at reform can have more realism whileretaining their urgency. (For more detail on this point see Pratt 2007.)

In this context one of the most challenging questions to be addressed is how organizations with public responsibilities will balance the demand to be more responsive and adaptive against the need to be publicly responsible and accountable.  Greater responsiveness may make it possible for public organizations to perform with more agility, but this risks abandoning or weakening rules that emphasize equal treatment and guard against various forms of corruption. An emphasis on accountability can help ensure services are provided equitably and reduce the misuse of public resources, but hobble the organization’s performance and under-utilize its employees.  These opposing priorities present a dilemma that public organizations will find it harder toavoid addressing:  what is the optimum balance between an emphasis on “order” (clear lines of authority, defined roles, and respect for rules) and “flexibility” (more distributed authority, loosely defined roles, and discretionary rules).It is helpful to refer to efforts finding this balance as the search for responsible flexibility.

Local governments are promising environments forexperiments in responsible flexibility.  Transferring certain functions to organizations that are less rigid than those at the national level, without sacrificing public accountability, is an important goal of decentralization.  Local organizations in turn usuallyhave less role specialization and role rigidity because they undertake a broader range of responsibilities with fewer staffing resources.  Both of these factors suggest there is fertile ground for experimenting with responsible flexibility.  Even with this advantage, the leaders of these organizations, as well as the communities they serve, may under appreciate the opportunities to make changes or overstate the risks involved in doing so.

The remainder of this paper describes an experiment in responsible flexibilityat the local level and draws lessons from it.

           

A New Kind of Community Place in Japan

Public libraries epitomize the challenges facing public organizations. The function they have performed has been accepted historically as an important resource for communities and a platform for democracy.  The explosion of information resources,combined with how quickly local libraries become targets for cuts when public budgets are stressed, threaten their future. Can libraries adapt to their new environment by re-balancing order and flexibility, and if they can, what lessons are there for other public organizations?

The Context For Local Innovation

Neat the Musashino-Sakai rail station in Musahino City about 30 kilometers from central Tokyo is a building with large, oral windows.  Call Musashino Place, from a distance it looks like a contemporary office building. A closer looks however reveals not only a new kind of community resource but also an experiment in responsible flexibility.  Something interesting is going on here.

Musashino Place’s uniqueness as a public organization is tied to its historical and institutional background.  It is a new public facility, but also the realization of the City’s long-term commitment to comprehensive planning and public participation. In addition, in its story are many signs of national decentralization, local experimentation, and a spirit of challenge to centralized rules and regulations.[2]

Musashino Place opened in July 2011 after two years of construction.  The full title of the facility at the entrance is “Musashino Place – a House for People, Town, Information and Creation.”  For most people, it was a sudden, surprising appearance of a new public facility, but for those involved in the planning processes, it was the realization of a community vision that evolved over several decades. 

Musashino Place --Multiple Functions

The library is named Musashino Place, not Musashino City Library.  "Place" is intentional and points to its mission as a physical space where several functions are brought together on behalf of individuals and community.  In this place individuals are expected to have support for learning across the life cycle, and the community to find a resource for what it wants to be today and what it hopes to become tomorrow.

To achieve this, Musashino Place is attempting to seamlessly integrate four functions -- that is, to bring them together without the divisions, boundaries and rigidities that so often are disappointing when functions “belong to” individual programs in a traditional organization. This integration is at the heart of the experiment. These four functions are lifelong learning, citizen group activities, engaging children and youth, and being a rich source of information.

A.  Providing diverse lifelong learning opportunities

This is intended to meet the needs of individuals across the life cycle. Its importance is driven bycontemporary changes in Japan, primarily because of the multiple effects of globalization and information technology. Japanese today embody a greater diversity of values, interests and opinions than was true historically. Throughout their life they must be able to make decisions that reflect who they are. This creates a need for a place that can support individuals to gain enough autonomy, self-confidence and relevant information to make those decisions.

At the same time there is in Japan, like in some many places, a universe of easilyaccessible information through the constantly expanding digital revolution. This instant availability can be exhilarating, but also overwhelming and isolating to individuals. This creates the need for a place where people can gather to connect around shared interests and concerns, the very kind of community environment that is shrinking in urban and suburban Japan.

Putting these two together, Musashino Place’s lifelong learning function seeks to reframe two contemporary phenomenathat normally are seen to be in conflict -- increasing individual diversity and the desire for community -- into issues that can be addressed together.

Citizen Group Activities

Musashino Place is where groups can organize. This function is served in two primary ways. The first is, by means of physical design and library policy, affording easy access to spaces in which diverse groups can form and meet. It includes larger community gatherings for special events, such as speakers, forums and films. "Space" in this case includes recognition that these kinds of activities will produce noise not accepted in a traditional library. 

The second way community organizing is supported is through a deliberate focus on networking.  The staff cultivates an awareness of the interests of individuals and groups and then look for opportunities to cross-fertilize those interests if it appears the parties involved may benefit.  For example, a staff member may know several individuals or small groups that are concerned about environmental issues and might decide toinitiate an informal get acquainted meeting to explore possibilities for cooperation and shared planning.

Engaging children and youth

Parts of Musashino Place are set-aside for children and their parents, and some for older youth. The 2^nd level basement “belongs” to youth no older than 18, and other library users are not allowed into this space. It contains, among other things, workstations for individuals and small groups, a game room, music and dance rooms, and room for cooking and crafts. It is, in short, a place that offers youth a variety of ways to get together on an informal basis. Staff promote these connections– for example by facilitating development of a mentor program –but with the understanding that users can dowhatever they like as long as they respect others following their interests. In addition, staff has to take into account that these activities too can generate noise at a level not toleratedat a traditional library.  This is accepted as part of what Musashino Place is; something that, ifmanaged carefully, not only can co-exist but also enrich the library's other functions.

A rich source of information

This comes closest to what libraries traditionally have been. Musashino Place contains book collections for children and youth as well as general and specialized books for adults.  Like other libraries, it maintains hardcopy resources so that users are better equipped to interpret information from television, radio and the Internet.  It provides general introductions to topical areas, with the option of exploring specific subject matter in greater depth.  Staff let users know what resources are available, as well as being sensitive to what level of information is most appropriate for a specific person.

A library attempting to fulfill these four functions is unusual, but not unique.  What is particularly unusualis how the library integrates these functions across what would be rigid boundaries in a traditional Japanese public organization. For this to work each function must be something for which all staff membersnot only accept some responsibility but also have the discretional authority to act.Organizationally, what is required organizationally to do this?

Musashino Place As A Public Organization[3]

Musashino Place is the newest of three libraries in Musashino City, opened in July 2011.  The three libraries -- Musashino Place, Kichijoji Library and Chuo Library –are staffed by City employees and operate within the same broad set of rules and regulations common to both bureaucracies and the civil service. The City provides funding, but there is an important exception in the case of Musashino Place. Funding for it comes in two ways and this difference gives it acarefully calculated degree of independence that is the basis of its experiment as a public organization.

Chuo Library organizes a budget through discussion with all three libraries.  As is common practice, each library proposes what it wants and then requests that it be included in the budget. Chuo Library administration then applies to Musashino City government for the funding. Once approvedthe money is allocated and purchases are overseen by Chuo Library staff.  

The budget covers all of the operating costs for the Chuo and Kichijoji libraries, including personnel. For Musashino Place however while covering such things as purchasing books and periodicals and holding events that involve the three libraries, the budget excludes significant employee expenses. This leads to an important difference with the two other City libraries, and with public organizations in general, in the rules governing personnel. When the library opened in July 2011 it was only partially staffed by City civil service employees.^[4] Funding for the remaining staff also was from Musashino City, but it came from a designated administrative organization, “Musashino Place Lifelong Learning Foundation.”^[5]  The Foundation, a “public interest incorporated foundation”, is not a civil service organization,but has its own administrator whooversees funds for Musashino Place and one other public organization in Musashino City, a community recreational center.

Since they are hired through the Foundation these library employees are not subject to the same employment rules that apply to their civil service counterparts.  This in turn gives the director of Musashino Place, himself a civil service employee, broader decision-making authority regarding personnel matters. He has much broader latitude in hiring decisions and in defining job responsibilities, both of which have wide ramifications for any organization. For new employees he can decide to prioritize hiring a specialist in a particular field; someone with less, or more, experience; or a person who as a good team member and fits well with the mission regardless of his or her specific knowledge. This would be extremely difficult under existing civil service arrangements. For current employees he can definewhat responsibilities belong, or don’t belong, in a job.  Alternately, he can be less precise, emphasizing instead that work support the library’s mission of integration across its four functions.  Why has this arrangement been made?

Musashino Place represents an effort to establish a more flexible, mission-focused organization while retaining a high degree of public accountability. This can be seen in the following areas.

(1) Openness.  Bureaucratic organizations are well known for the ways in which the hierarchy of authority and the functional statements that define units stifles communication.^[6] Musashino Place is relying on an organizational structure that is flatter and less centered around individual programs.[7]

In practical terms it means any staff member has permission to talk to any other staff member, regardless of his or her position.  This freedom may seem obvious, but in bureaucratic organizations it frequently is not possible because of the emphasis on role specialization and hierarchy. Japanese bureaucratic organizationsgive particular emphasis to sectional boundaries. It is “normal” for an employee seeking the help of a counterpart in another unit to have to make a request through his or her boss.  That boss in turn communicates with the individual’s boss for approval.  

(2) Mission focused. The open structure is complemented by a focus on mission rather than on role responsibilities. It is harder to adapt and respond quickly to what has to be done to meet the mission when roles are rigidly defined.  Lead-time, planning and negotiations are needed. Greater role flexibility, on the other hand, means staff can be expected to use their own discretion about the best way to use time and energy on behalf of shared goals.  

In practical terms a staff member can take time to look for connections between users or groups, or join with colleagues from other sections of the library on a special project or event planning.  It also sets up an expectation that this mission focused orientation will be supported by training that helps employees know how to manage basic library functions – acquisitions, cataloguing, counter service and checkout -- while at the same time not seeing themselves as traditional “librarians”.

(3) Sensitive Rule Enforcement.  Every organization has rules whose purpose is to reward, channel or restrain certain kinds of behaviors so they are in line with broader organizational policies.  In a traditional library, for example, rules are used to maintain an environment in which people can concentrate on reading or writing without continuous disturbances. In such settings staff enforce these rules against noise and food with little need for judgment.

The issue of judgment highlights the fact that rules, whilenecessary in any organization, also present problems and can lead to dysfunction.^[8]This happenswhen conditions change that led to the rules, the organizational setting sends conflicting messages about which rules have priority, the staff is not given the discretion to make judgments in specific situations, and when rule enforcement is used as a source of power.

Musashino Place's integrated multiple functions will, by their very nature, at times be in tension with one another. The library accepts food and drink, even alcoholic drinks, in the café, which shares the first floor with journal and newspaper reading areas. It also understands noise is what comes with the "noisy connections" of children, youth, community groups and special events. Noise and quiet at times must be at odds with one another, presenting a potential dilemma. "Sensitive enforcement" in which staff exercises discretion and judgment is required to avoid that dilemma.  Too much rigidity will turn away users whose activities include noise, while being too lax will drive off users looking for a quiet place.  Either outcome would undermine the goal of integrating the four functions synergistically.  For this integration to be successful the staff must be able to exercise discretion and use judgment in relation to shared but sometimes conflicting organizational priorities.  This broad-based, continuous exercise of discretion and judgment in a more flexible rule environment is unusual in a public organization.

(4) Integrating sub-contractors.  Today, for a variety of reasons, it is common for public organizations to contract out services to the private or not-for-profit (NGO) sectors. Sometimes it is for cost savings; other times it is a service the organization would like to offer but for which it does not have, and perhaps does not wish to develop, the expertise. Sub-contracting becomes more attractive if the service can generate a revenue stream that partially or entirely supports it.  Of course from a budgetary standpoint, the most desirable situation is if the service produces revenue for the larger organization.

Musashino Place's sub-contracting appears to be a service it wanted to provide, but for which it did not have or wish to have the expertise.  The service offered -- a cafe whose menu ranges from coffee and tea to complete meals, and includes beer and wine after sunset -- is quite unusual for a public library.  In order to make the cafe part of this library, and consistent with the priority given to the integration of functions, a provision stipulates that the cafe must sponsor activities supportive of Musashino Place’s mission. The café staff does this by participating in book readings, author forums and through a program called “Talking About” that invites dialogues on a wide range of general interest topics.

Musashino Place: Formative Processes

If this is a different kind of government organization, then what can we learn from the formative processes that created it?

A. Vision and Persistence

Any organizational innovation first requires openness to an alternative to what currently exists – that is, to what is “normal”. There are no realistic alternatives without compellingimages that show how things might be different.

The vision statement for what Musashino Place eventually became was written 15 years before it became a reality.  The vision’sendurance shows that some people were moved by apromising image.  That compelling vision fueledwhat also was needed:  persistence. Persistence is required because few ideas, no matter how good, become realities based simply on their merit.  One reason for this is that innovationsare virtually assured to be threats to current practices, despite the shortcomings of those practices. The threats may bewidespread and diverse, or from a small, powerful group. Either way the benefits that are derived from, or simply the familiarity with, what exists provide strong incentives to protect the status quo.  This is why it is easier to start a new organization, like Musashino Place, than to re-make one. Even so,the kind of persistence shown by the champions of Musashino Place is critical. 

Community Environment

It is hard to try something new in a community setting that is apprehensiveabout, unfamiliar with or perhaps even hostile to innovation.  Communities differ in their openness to change, and this openness may vary over time.  A community might be more open if it is facing a crisis and the feeling of threat is shared.  On the other hand, being fiscally stable may make support for new ideas harder to obtain.   For whatever historic and contemporary reasons, Musashino City appears open to innovation, even to the point of prizing the identity of innovator in comparison to neighboring communities.  That self-perception provided fertile ground for an experiment like Musashino Place.

Clearly Better Than Alternatives

It is easier to promote an innovation if it can be shown to deliver something of value that is better than other options. This requires recognizing the factors that make sense to differentconstituencies, inside and outside of the organization.In the case of Musashino Place the high cost of scarce land played an important role.  It was broadly acceptedthat merging the four functions in one place, rather than constructing three or four separate buildings, was more cost effective.  On the other hand a public-private partnership that joined the library with a shopping center or some other retail activity was a potentially more cost effective alternative. This approach, which required combining public and private goals, was widely seen as dampening the strong commitment to community building that Musashino Place was intended to embody.

Good timing

Doors of opportunity open and close, generally beyond anyone's control.  Doors are closed when factors critical to success are not aligned. Thislikely foretells the end of aninitiative.  Open doors may signify that something, perhapsat best problematic earlier, now is possible.  Planning to elevate the Musashi-Sakai JR Station occurred during the same period as that for Musashino Place. The justification for funding to raise the rail line rested in part on helping to re-join the north and south of the community that the rail had divided. This wasimportant because the library’s goal of community building paralleled the goal of the station workand it receivedvaluable public funding.  Preparation and persistence, withattentionto when circumstances open doors, can bring infavorable timing.

Organizational Leadership

A new organization requires, in addition to good day-to-day management, leadership that is appropriate for the particular challenges accompanying beginnings. Leadership has to do at least two things in this environment.  The first is to embody in practice the values of the new organization.  “Role modeling” is one way to refer to this; another is the contemporary American English phrase "walk the talk".

If an organization is trying to adopt new practicesbeing able to observe someone who embodies what is expected in the new setting will help its employees. That will be true especially in a public organization that must push aside strongly internalized, traditional bureaucratic patterns. Aligning talk and action is critical because, although exciting, a new organization is fragile in the early days when a culture is being invented, shaped and tested. A leader who is saying one thing and doing something else will be especially destructive, potentially undermining the credibility of the whole effort.

A leader also needs to communicate a compelling vision of the new organization to its various constituencies.  This can be challenging because there are many constituencies – different types of users, tax payers and elected officials, to name a few -- that want to have their interests and concerns taken into account.  They have to be communicated with over and over again.  The leader's work is to know which message is appropriate, and be willing and able to offer it repeatedly and with passion. 

Musashino Place:  Measures Of Success

It is too early to have gathered information that clarifies whether the public investment in Musashino Place is justified. At this point there are only a few indicators. Library data indicate Musashino Place is doing very well on one conventional “output” measure. Over 4000 patrons come in on weekdays, and about 7000 on each weekend day.  This is 1.5 times above projections, and, taking into account days it is closed, translates into around 1.3 million visitors annually. This is remarkable in a relatively small community.This measure can be joined in the future to other quantitative measures, such as the time it takes to check out a book or video, the waiting time for other services, and user responses to survey questions about the library experience. Over time library staff as well as an evaluation committee within the Board of Education will monitor theseand other measures.

These measurements are meaningful and relatively inexpensive. However theyfall short of what is needed to determine if Musashino Place is having a significant impact related to its mission of creating synergies and helping the community become what it wants to be. Measures that do this are referred to as mission-related "outcomes" andare ultimately what is needed to knowif a public organization is deserving of public support.

Outcome measures for public organizations present challenges. They almost always are more difficult to measure than the kind of “outputs” described above. How do you assess Musashino Place’s affect on community identity or, more relevant to the focus of this paper, its degree of responsible flexibility?In addition, outcome measures typically are expensive to design and use. These expenses, of time and money, are consequential for any organization, and especially significant for public organizations vulnerable to criticism for engaging in costly endeavors not directly related to user services.  Finally, no matter how well designed and applied, they will not be equally relevant or convincing to every constituent.  What is an important measure of responsible flexibility to an elected official who is accountable to taxpayers is unlikely to be the same for the mother of a three year-old or a community group. It is necessary to first ask what "success" looks like from diverse perspectives, and then find the right combination of output and outcome measures.

Given all of this,what kind of questionsshould we seek to answer inthe future?   Here are some suggestions:

·      Conditions of employment of non civil service staff.  Is non civil service staff being treated fairly in terms of job responsibilities and job security? In what ways do their working conditions and job benefits vary from civil service employees?  What is the working relationship between civil service and non civil service employees?  Is there high turnover?  Is Musashino Place regarded as a desirable place to work?

·      Leadership Tenure and Style.  Has leadership shown a consistent orientation, or have there been swings between more traditional and more adaptive styles?  How has this affected the organization’s culture?  What mechanisms have been developed to help make appropriate leadership transitions?

·      Workplace Integration.  Do staff feel that they are able to cover responsibilities in their functional areas as well participate across the four areas? To what degree does this cause stress and dissatisfaction?  What training programs are in place to facilitate balancing section focus and integration?

·      Organizational Integrity and Ethics.  Has the flexibility that staff enjoys been misused, such as by treating users differently.  Have library resources been appropriated for personal benefit?  Do the public and elected officials view Musashino Place as a publicly responsible organization?

·      Public Understanding.  Do residents of Musashino City understand Musashino Place’s synergistic mission of serving individuals and building community? Is that mission valued?

·      Measuring Outcomes. Are outcome measures being used that address Musashino Place’s ability to meet its mission?  Are the measures affordable and sustainable, and do they address the concerns and interests of different constituencies?

·      Role Model.  Have other communities adopted some or all of the Musashino Place experiment?  What directions has the adaptation taken?

These and other questions will be worth asking over the next years. Answers to them will show how things are going with Musashino Place, but also suggest what is possible for other public organizations in Japan.  It is possible that libraries are sufficiently different from other services that there is not much transference, but that is not clear. It seems equally possible that with creative thinking Musashino Place may offer lessons in the ways that innovation can take place at the local level. 

Reflections On The Idea Of Responsible Flexiblity

In The Future of Governing B. Guy Peters described and assessed four models of public organizations proposed as ways of “rebalancing” the traditional public bureaucracy.  The models derived from a global conversation about alternativesto traditional public organizations.  He labels the alternatives “The Market Model”, “The Participatory State “, “Flexible Government”, and “Deregulated Government.”

“Deregulated Government” comes closest to capturing what is being attempted at Musashino Place.  It emphasizes relaxing rules to make better use of the knowledge and skills of employeesand to encouragemore risk taking and experimentation.  Deregulation is expected to be especially valuable to local governments because their staffs typically are smaller, less specialization is possible, and more role flexibility is needed.

Each alternative to a traditional public bureaucracy brings potential concerns, and there are several for the deregulation model. The possibility of mistakes is increased in an environment where rules are less constraining of behavior and more individual discretion is exercised.  Deregulation may foster abuses, with some taking advantage of fewer rules with which to comply.  The balance between flexibility, consistency and fairness is also a concern.  A de-regulated environment may emphasize the efficiency gains of fewer rules to the point that public services are unpredictable or uneven. The organization may benefit from the ability to redefine roles and employee relationships, but there is a risk the staff will be treated unfairly in the form of increased responsibilities, difficult working hours, or reduced compensation.  To take one small example, Musashino Place has instituted a rotating shift system for non civil service staff in which shifts will change from day to day.  This is an efficient way to provide coverage across the longer hours the library is open, but whatabout the impact on employees and their families?

The choice between flexibility and order presents a dilemma, something that cannot be solved but must continuously be addressed. At its core the re-balancing is an on-going effort to achieve responsible flexibility.  If a public organization is responsibly flexible it has found a way to avoid too much rigidity and too much openness while gaining the public-regarding benefits of having some of each.  Finding the right balance will be challenging, and the balance point will vary from organization to organization.  The mission of some public organizations will be better served by greater flexibility; others will require greater order.  In addition, the balance is likely to change over time for an organization as its mission and external environment evolve. 

The Musashino Place experiment emphasizes maintaining traditional budgetary accountability while introducing flexibility in staffing.  It allows time to determine the right mix in the number of civil service and non civil service employees.  The issues presented by this experiment are more likely to be about abuses of, or by, personnel than about, for example, fiscal mismanagement or corruption. Other experiments will be shaped by what is needed in a particular context. These can take place in a variety of areas, including budgets and funding sources, procurement, the uses of technology, and the process of rule making and rule eliminating. However they occur certain questions can be asked about the likelihood of maintaining a public-regarding balance between order and flexibility.

First, is there a high level of transparency in designing, implementing and maintaining the experiment?  Do different public constituencies (users, elected officials, other agencies,) understand the goal? Is information relevant to each of these groups made easily available? 

Second, are forms of accountability built into the new process? Can results be evaluated using both output and outcome measures? Are these measures affordable and sustainable?Is there a commitment to using what is learned to make adjustments to the process?

Next, is the effort at responsible flexibility fair to employees and does it create a more, rather than less, desirable place to work?  Are there opportunities for employees to participate in the process, including its evaluation?  Both of these, but especially the first, are important for attracting and maintaining high quality staff in local government. Changes that reduce the quality of the work experience will make it harder for local government to compete with the private sector and nongovernmental organizations in recruiting and retaining competent staff.  From that perspective, responsibility flexibility offers an opportunity to reverse the negative view “government employment” has in many places.

Finally, is leadership effective in its support?  In particular are there sustained efforts to cultivate a strong public service ethic among elected officials and staff?  An ethic of public service helps to ensure that greater flexibility will be exercised in public-regarding ways. In the absence of such an ethic, on-going concerns about mistakes and corruption are likely to remain.Ironically, this could result in pressure for less, rather than more, desirable flexibility. 

Conclusion

           

            Local governments in many parts of the worldwill be givenmore responsibilities and resources in anerawhen decentralizationis in favor. Whether or not local governments succeed in meeting the promise to more effectively meet public needs depends in part on the organizational systems they adopt.  Traditional public organizations, such as those common at national levels, have been the target of criticism for a very long time.  The business-oriented alternatives spawned by those criticismsin recent years have been disappointing, but also have made it possible to approach the issue of creating more effective public organizations with both urgency and realism.  In this context the concept of responsible flexibility provides a way of thinking about what is needed. Local governments are optimal places to experiment with responsible flexibility in different areas.  This paper has described one such effort in local government in Japan.  Other local government organizations can benefit from this and other experiments by being aware of the questions that should be asked in the process of pursuing responsible flexibility. 

References

Bozeman, B. and M. K. Feeney.2011. Rules and Red Tape – A Prism for Public Administration Theory and Research.New York and London: M.E. Sharpe. 

Dunleavy, P.,Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and J. Tinkler.2006.New Public Management is dead – long live digital-era governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 467–494.

Jones, G. 2001.The public sector ethos under attack in Kitchin, H.(ed).A Democratic Future,London: Local Government Information Units.

Manning, N. 2001.The legacy of the New Public Management in developing countriesInternational Review of Administrative Sciences 67:297–312.

Musashino City. 1972.The First Long-term Plan http://www.city.musashino.lg.jp/dbps_data/_material_/_files/000/000/004/448/14794-2.pdf.

Pratt, R.2007.Reforming Reform:  Bringing Realism and Urgency to Improving Public Institutions.Manila: annual meeting of the Network of Asian and Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Affairs and Governance.

Pratt, R. 2006.New Public Management, globalization, and public administration reform” Dator, J. Pratt, R. and Y. Seo (eds)Fairness, Globalization and Public Institutions, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Pratt, R, and T. Nishio. forthcoming fall 2013. Musashino Place and the concept of flexible responsibility:the public organization of the future of local government in Japan?Journal of Social Science.

Peters, B. G. 2001. The Future of Governing. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Sarker, A. E.2006. New Public Management in developing countries: An analysis of success and failure with particular reference to Singapore and Bangladesh.The International Journal of Public Sector Management (downloaded) 19:180-199.

Vigod-Gadot, Eran et. al. 2005. Public sector innovation for the managerial and post-managerial era:  promises and realities in a globalizing public administration.InternationalJournal of Public Management 8: 57-71.

Appendix A

Questions asked of the Musashino Place Director, Mr. Yoichi Maeda and his staff.

How much autonomy does this have as a public organization?

What rules had to be changed for this to work?

Given this degree of flexibility, how do you show you are accountable?

What was the process for getting to this degree of flexibility?

Where are you still experimenting (i.e., most important areas)? 

The style and vision of Mr. Maeda and other leaders has been crucial.  Can it be passed on?

What advice do you have for others who would like to do something like this?

---

[1]George Jones summarizes the characteristics of NPM, in contrast to "Old Public Administration," that (a) governing is like running a business, (b) public functions should ideally be privatized, (c) fragmentation to facilitate competition rather than coordination is preferred, and (d) the public and private sectors should be closely intertwined in collaborative activities. (p.66).

[2]Musashino City has been a pioneering local government in terms of long-term comprehensive planning and policy innovation. The City’s first long-term plan covered the period from 1971 to 1980. The word Musashino Place didn’t appear in the plan, but its basic idea was contained in it.  It was in the third Long-term Plan (1993-2004) that the idea of establishing a new multi-purpose cultural facility through a public library was stipulated clearly.

[3]Musashino Place is also interesting as a physical space. It is designed to emphasize openness and the absence of boundaries, and in a sense to be like a small village where someone makes the rounds, seeing other community members and sometimes coming across the expected.  For more on this point see Pratt and Nishio.

[4]They remain with the library today. Depending on the direction this experiment takes, civil service numbers may shrink proportionally if not replaced after transfer to other City positions or retirement.

[5]In 2012, in a new legal framework, the Foundation became a public interest incorporated foundation, but the essential structure and functions remain the same, fully funded by Musashino City as before.

[6]In English these invisible but powerful boundaries are referred as a “silos”, which refers to the towers built on farms to store crops and protect them from the outside environment.

[7]This openness is reinforced by the curving, edgeless architecture and the unobstructed sightlines on each floor.

[8]For an interesting analysis of functional and dysfunctional rules in organizations, see Bozeman and Feeney.