Contemporary political rhetoric and management reforms have highlighted accountability issues for government. A troubling feature associated with these management reforms is a gap between the expectations of management reform and the reality of the American culture of accountability. This culture gap is likely to be particularly evident in organizations that are structured around principles of command and control, such as the military. This article explores the cross pressures individuals face when they are urged to demonstrate initiative and obedience to command while operating within a web of accountability relationships that represent several different behavioral standards against which their performance can be judged. To conduct this research, the authors interviewed members of the Accident Investigation Board appointed by Major General Ryan, Commander of the United States Air Force Europe (USAFE), to investigate the April 1996 crash in Croatia of the military transport plane carrying United States Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and his party of distinguished visitors. These personal interviews were supplemented with the official reports of the Accident Investigation Board and transcripts of testimony before the Board. Based on these data, we analyze the accountability dynamics involving the various military officials associated with the “mishap flight.” We find that while institutional rhetoric and managerial conditions encouraged entrepreneurial behavior and initiative, the administrative reality still emphasized a risk‐averse, rules‐oriented approach to accountability when things went wrong.

No abstract

This article fills a gap in both the public management and human resources literatures by applying a conceptual model supported by a criteria-based evaluative framework to assess and compare the nature and capacity of city government human. resources management systems. Various management reforms have swept through many American governments recently, but

No abstract

Amid the focus of public management reforms on improving the performance of public organizations

What are states doing with respect to human resource practices to improve government operations? Using data collected by the Government Performance Project, this article identifies emerging trends and innovations in state personnel systems. Specifically, it provides a national comparison in the areas of personnel authority, workforce planning, selection, classification, and performance management. Results show that many states are delegating authority for personnel functions to agencies and managers, shifting their human resource missions to being more proactive and collaborative with agencies, and adopting performance management systems that integrate organizational and individual goals. In short, many states are investing considerable resources to modernize their human resource management systems.

No abstract

What are the key challenges for the public sector at present, and what will the future public service look like if it is to meet these challenges? These questions were put to public‐sector leaders at a conference at the Wye River Plantation in June 1999. The leaders agreed on aspects of a broad vision for the future and the urgent need for a detailed debate on the transition questions that arose.