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

A specific pro and contra management audit in the local government is closely related to the
specific features of the management in local governments.
We have already mentioned several reasons why we think a management audit in local
governments makes sense. The basic one is that management is management, and it can be good
or bad everywhere, thus it may be assessed everywhere according to a certain set of requirements
related to effectiveness and efficiency, and, normally, may be improved everywhere by means of
such assessment.
We must also mention some arguments of those who think that there is no sense in a
management audit in the local government. The basic objections are related to controllability of
actions and measurability of results.
When local administrations are totally dependent on current political leadership, their rights are not
protected, the code of conduct is not established, and the very notion of professional carrier does
not exist (substituted by the idea of ‘good relations’ or ‘being our guy’) – it is common to say “We
can not control anything, we just do what we are asked to do, we do not have money to do
something else, we do not have a power to decide how to do it better, ...etc. “. Politicians think that
they cannot control administration because it is corrupted and unprofessional, because “they do
not like to work” and “they can not work”... Officers think that they cannot control the issues
because politicians are interfering all the time, and so on. However, the deeper reason is the
question of responsibility. Those, who are not in position to control anything, can not be considered
responsible for the results – thus those, who try to keep off the responsibility, always insist on pure
controllability of issues. They are afraid of a management audit and they hate the very idea of
auditing them.
When the only considerable result of any work is to keep bosses (political or administrative ones)
pleased – then any other result loses its importance. Those, who serve the bosses rather than
provide services to the public always prefer to think and say that they work well if “there are no
claims or rebooks from the heads”. They report to someone, and are not responsible for
something. Consequently, it has become ‘impossible’ to decide if streets are clean or dirty, if
schools teach children well or not, if the water supply is good or not, if the environment is safe or
not, etc. All these things have become the matter of “merely opinion”, and there is likely no one
who can prove that his opinion is better than the other one.
The byword has become “you can not satisfy everybody”, so, it does not matter how many there
are unsatisfied people with your services; there is no point to measure it – just keep one satisfied –
your boss. This result should be under the control, it should be estimated all the time. All the rest is
just a trouble and unnecessary complication. Such civil servants are also afraid of a management
audit and hate the idea of auditing them.
Finally – if an audit is needed or not – it is a political decision, which is to be done by the top
management or political leadership. They may adhere to the position that the results of local
government activity are not measurable and not controllable – then nobody is really accountable,
and, of course, nobody needs any management audit. Or, alternatively, they may hold the opinion,
that results are measurable and controllable, they are responsible for them and need to find the
best way how to manage them. Then the management audit is very much in request. And our
business – just to carry it out well enough.
169