Photo credit: www.govexec.com
The Dilemma: To Support or To Sabotage
The United States currently stands at a critical juncture, prompting civil servants and organizations dedicated to promoting effective governance—such as the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), and the Partnership for Public Service (PPS)—to consider important strategic choices. Their aim should be to collaborate constructively to better serve the American populace.
The essential takeaway is that these groups have the option to work together in a manner that pushes the nation forward, or they might choose to act in ways that could undermine this collective ambition, potentially leading to a counterproductive trajectory.
First, It’s Time to Cease Criticism of Public Service
It is evident that there is significant apprehension regarding the current administration’s actions, particularly in how it approaches governance. The dismantling of many commendable aspects of government is troubling and signals a potential long-term detriment to federal service. There are ways to address inefficiencies within the government without treating federal employees with disdain. Most individuals enter public service driven by a desire to contribute to society. It is essential to acknowledge this commitment even when personnel changes are necessary. A small gesture of respect can go a long way in maintaining morale and dedication among civil servants.
Overall, transparency and support for employees, including acknowledgment of their work, yield considerable benefits and can facilitate a more productive working environment. If the administration genuinely wishes to serve the American public, it must engage with its federal workforce positively rather than disparaging them.
It is possible to effect rapid changes within government structures. Bureaucrats can slow down processes when they feel threatened or disrespected. While strong-arm tactics may yield short-term victories, it is ultimately the overarching goals that hold importance.
Keeping the Election in Mind
Despite valid criticisms directed at the Trump administration, it is crucial to recognize that a significant portion of Americans supported this direction through their votes. Even if the current administration continues on its path, dismissing the value of respect is counterproductive.
An essential principle is that all federal employees take an oath that deeply influences their actions in this unique democratic framework. Unlike other nations, civil servants in the U.S. are inherently intertwined with the political landscape. The necessity for expertise arose from the growing complexity of government functions, leading to the establishment of a merit-based civil service that ideally remains apolitical.
However, it’s essential to note that the power of civil servants is derived from the political system. Their authority over citizens is closely linked to the political decisions in play. It is vital for civil servants, especially those in pivotal roles, to offer sound advice to new appointees. Nonetheless, political appointees are not obligated to heed this counsel, creating a complex dynamic that public servants must navigate.
Federal workers must act in accordance with the will of the electorate in their professional duties. However, it is equally important to understand that they should not follow directives that could lead to harm, complicating their ethical obligations.
The Role of Good Government Organizations
This ethical conflict raises significant challenges for organizations like NAPA and ASPA, which advocate for the interests of public servants. They must prepare to navigate a scenario where their constituents are expected to operate with political neutrality, even when faced with administration practices that may appear disrespectful or dismissive.
One approach might be to overlook the implications of the 2024 election results while addressing both the substance and approach of the new administration’s policies. Alternatively, these organizations could adopt a wait-and-see stance, remaining vigilant as the judicial system and Congress respond to the new dynamics.
Another avenue would be to acknowledge the election results and strive to aid the incoming administration, while still maintaining a critical perspective on its conduct. It is crucial to prioritize the public’s interest in these discussions.
However, organizations focused on good governance cannot disregard the reality that civil servants function within a political context. If they choose to reject the electoral outcome, they risk steering public servants away from their responsibility to serve the electorate. This could unwittingly suggest that the electoral process was flawed or illegitimate.
This does not excuse any mismanagement or shortcomings in the administration’s approach. The real question is whether organizations like NAPA and ASPA can simultaneously support the newly elected administration’s goals while advocating for more effective methods to realize those objectives.
I am convinced that there is a responsible way forward. Organizations should be willing to accept the administration’s goals as long as they are lawful, even if it entails difficult choices. This does not imply a lack of concern; rather, it emphasizes the importance of the mission.
Organizations can find common ground by endorsing the objectives while advocating that a better, more compassionate approach is achievable. By doing so, they can fulfill their role as advocates for effective public administration, ensuring that while they respect the democratic process, they also actively engage in shaping its execution in a manner beneficial to all stakeholders.
Moreover, good governance organizations bear a duty to voice their perspectives on the long-term implications for public service while accepting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Ignoring the electorate’s voice invites significant risks.
Ron Sanders is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and has served in various influential roles across governmental and educational institutions. His extensive background includes leadership positions within the Defense Department and the IRS, among others. His perspectives reflect deep insights into public service dynamics and governance.
Source
www.govexec.com