Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL

necessary and possible scope and level of services and the actual scope and level of services. Do
they actually do what they have to and could do? Why do not they do the things that they have to
do?
Another question comes alongside to complete the picture – Do they really do only the things that
they have to do in accordance with the legislation and if something more – then why? Such
inventory of activities helps a lot to disclose the obstacles for proper operation or cases of
misconduct. It allows improving the range of activities and use of resources drastically.
The point for the next question – How do they do it? – Refers to the given level of performance. Do
we have just individual improvisations that are based on individual considerations and may be
successful in some cases and unsuccessful in others, or, alternatively, we have a set of definite
management systems (structures, procedures, plans, criteria, etc.) that are based on
organizational assets (tacit knowledge) and ensure a sustainable quality of operation? Thus, the
assessment of a compliance with the request for any given order of making decisions or way of
action in any specific aspect (as being understood and consciously accepted and controlled) - has
a lot of sense. Any given order may be established in a form of a procedure, instruction, plan,
agreement etc. It may be very simple. It may even fix the notion that there is no any definite order
of making a certain decision or performing a certain operation, but, therefore – there should be
clear criteria and a sufficient level of the control of the results, and also visible accountability of
those who are directly responsible for the results to be achieved.
On the other hand, having excellent written procedures does not automatically mean using them.
Thus, the question – Do they follow established procedures, and if not – then why? – is also
eligible. This is exactly about having managerial systems effectively implemented. The common
supervision of local government operations addresses usually the compliance with national
legislation and regulations and answers the question if one or another decision or action is legal or
not. A management audit has to answer the question if the organization really functions in a
controllable manner. It refers to the issues, which are fully, or partly regulated by national
legislation as well as to the aspects which are left for discrepancy of management and the issues
that are fully in the hands of local administration. So, if the results are not satisfactory – is it caused
by bad legislation, bad procedures or rather by ignoring given legislation and established
procedures?
Whether or not the organization is able to eliminate avoidable costs and continuously improve is
also a good question in respect of the local government administration. In practice, it means the
presence or absence of the system of regular objective evaluation of results achieved using the
resources that were available. The question is – Is the organization efficient and does it have the
system for continuous analyzing and improving of its efficiency? The answer would also include
certain assumptions related to the factors of effectiveness, which were basically addressed above.
A management audit cannot revise the scope of activity in a sense if those things are worth to be
done. Politicians must do it. But whatever is done may produce or not the expected results (be
effective or not), and may involve reasonable or unreasonable costs (be efficient or not) – that is
the business of management, and the matter for the management audit.
The true and fair presentation of the results of an audit is even more crucial in respect of local
governments than in case of any other institution. Such presentation may have a great impact on
the local government effectiveness and efficiency. It also creates specific challenges. On one hand
– it is not possible to keep findings of the audit in secret. That may complicate the process of
gathering information and prevent openness in collaboration with the staff. On the other hand –
political opposition against those, who have ordered the audit, may use the presentation of the
results. When political situation is unstable, consequences of an audit may be hardly predictable,
and the fear of harm from discovering certain facts or from misusing the findings by other parties is
always present. Nevertheless, a wider view on audit as a measure for discovering useful facts
(Where are we with our management system?), not looking for faults (Who did something wrong?)
may help to ensure right mind settings from the very beginning of the process.
168