Chapter Two, Public Resources Management, in the du Toit et al (2002) textbook dealt primarily with the context of Public Resource Management and was almost entirely SR-. It contained definitions of resources, public resources and Public Resource Management: “According to Schwella, et al. (1996: 6), Public Resource
Management focuses on the relationship between public management, skills and techniques and the scarce resources used to achieve legitimate and legal policy goals and objectives” (du Toit et al, 2002: 35). A list of the different categories of
should have. Management of Resources dealt with principles: “Political component –
the way in which society is governed” (du Toit et al, 2002: 37); decisions: “For example, it would be unwise to make a decision about a particular situation without having knowledge about what cause the situation to develop” (du Toit et al, 2002:
45) and functions: “... government institutions have to perform a variety of
functions...” (du Toit et al, 2002: 50).
Differing strengths of SR were found in the Gildenhuys (2004) textbook chapter on Public Resources Management. Chapter Six, Public Resources Management, had as its main subsections: financial management; personnel management; information management; inventory management and management of accommodation. Personnel Management discussed ethics as “a set of moral principles”, which suggested that ethics comprises prescribed sets of behaviours that could be generically applied, rather than being a concern of social relations of power specific to PM. This suggests weaker SR-. Furthermore, Public Management was described in terms of compliance with a “code of good conduct” (Gildenhuys, 2004: 286). Discussions about professionalism in this chapter could be defined as both SR+ and SR-, as it referred to both qualities and skills as was seen in: “the qualities or typical
features of a profession or of professionals, especially its qualities of competence, skills and ethical conduct” (Gildenhuys, 2004: 292). A further example of SR+ was
seen in the definition of a professional as a person “with integrity, who preserves
high moral standards under any circumstances” (Gildenhuys, 2004: 305). To
conclude, Chapter Six in the Gildenhuys (2004) textbook exhibited both stronger and weaker social relations.
The prescribed textbook for Public Office Management module had a chapter entitled “Personal Attributes and Self-awareness” (Badenhorst et al, 2005). This clearly indicated an emphasis on social relations. Somewhat surprisingly then, the chapter had many elements of weaker SR. While it listed essential attributes for an office manager as “drive and ambition, integrity and reliability, friendliness and
sincerity, helpfulness and loyalty” in order to get on with people (Badenhorst et al,
2005: 107), all indicative of SR+, the main focus of the chapter was on skills such as “technical skills, conceptual skills and human skills which focused on job functions” (Badenhorst et al, 2005: 106). Furthermore, the listed attributes were generic in nature and not based on any “privileged insight” (Maton 2000: 87) of the PM knower.
There was evidence of SR+ in Chapter Nine, entitled “Public Office Management” in the du Toit et al (2002) textbook: “According to Silvis (1995: 32), this requires that
office workers display: a positive attitude; initiative and good judgement; confidentiality; dependability; accuracy; punctuality; consideration; courtesy; tactfulness and teamwork” (du Toit et al, 2002: 297). The aforementioned list
referred to the qualities of office workers in order to minimise “negative actions such
as complaining and gossiping” (du Toit et al, 2002: 297). Further evidence of a focus
on social relations was seen in the section on client expectations: “…clients in
general share certain expectations from service providers. These expectations include being: dependable, efficient, prepared to take responsibility; helpful; accountable; professional; flexible; competent; trustworthy; pleasant; able to honour promises; able to do things right the first time and able to portray a positive attitude”
(du Toit et al, 2002: 309) and “the following characteristics…are essential for good
interpersonal skills…caring attitude; reliability; sincerity; co-operativeness; honesty and resourcefulness” (du Toit et al, 2002: 309-310). These lists of attributes all
indicated a valuing of a particular disposition, or set of social relations, but the discussion did not move beyond a listing of the attributes to an engagement.
du Toit et al’s (2002) chapter on Public Service Delivery exhibited both stronger and weaker SR. Firstly, examples of SR- could be seen in planning, organising, leading, co-ordinating and controlling which were conceptualised as skills and not as qualities. For example: “Organising the activities of education institutions and setting
up an infrastructure from which personnel can work to achieve the objectives they are appointed to achieve is important” and “Control is important to ensure that everyone works towards achieving the objectives” (du Toit et al, 2002: 83). The focus
was on “actions to deliver services” and “functions that must be carried out“(du Toit et al, 2002: 89) and not on qualities, and this was evidence of SR-. Ethics was defined in terms of compliance to principles rather than to a shared ownership of core values: “Ethics in government institutions mean that public administration and
management must comply with certain generally accepted principles” and “Section 33(1) of the Constitution determines that everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair; in other words, complying with a set of ethical principles” (du Toit et al, 2002: 111).
Stronger social relations were evident, however, in the following definition of professionalism: “professionalism can be defined as ‘the way in which public
managers and their subordinate officials behave” (du Toit et al, 2002: 115). The
concern here was with conduct in the workplace. This behaviour was “evaluated
according to standards unique to the activities of public managers” (du Toit et al,
2002: 115). The qualities of professionalism that were judged were “diplomacy,
etiquette, manner, protocol” and “language” (du Toit et al, 2002: 115-116).
Diplomacy was defined as having tact, etiquette as obeying the conventional rules of society, manner as displaying good behaviour and protocol as observing the formalities of state occasions (du Toit et al, 2002). These all suggested a curriculum concerned with social relations.
Chapter Eight, Public Services, in the recommended Gildenhuys (2004) textbook for Public Service Delivery also presented different strengths of SR+ and SR-. It was clearly SR- as the discussion concerned the procedures: “multitude of diverse
functions” to be performed by public authorities (Gildenhuys, 2004: 364). The focus
was on the nature of public services and not the qualities of an administrator: “ …for
any service to qualify as a public service such service should comply with the following requirements: it must be non-apportionable; it must be non-exclusive…”
(Gildenhuys, 2004: 353) and principles related to it: “As is the case with most
socialist policies, nationalisation usually leads to inefficient and ineffective management of nationalised enterprises, resulting in low productivity and substantial financial losses” (Gildenhuys, 2004: 359). Here the focus was on the debate
between nationalising versus privatising the delivery of services to the public but it was presented as a set of facts to be understood rather than as an ideological position to be debated or adopted.
The chapter on Public Decision-Making in the prescribed textbook could be characterised by SR+ as it listed personal qualities for decision-making: “Knowledge
and experience, Good judgement, Creativity and ingenuity, Logic and reasons”,
however, the list also included the technical skill of “Data-processing” (Gildenhuys, 2004: 177). The rationale for the significance of personal qualities was because of influences of party politics and social values upon decision-making (Gildenhuys, 2004), which were seen to be problematic. But these were not understood as nuanced social relations of power but more as issues that could be simply set aside by the professional Public Administrator. There was also evidence of SR+ in the recommended textbook for Public Decision-Making as characteristics of effective decision makers were “reason and logic” (du Toit et al, 2002: 341). Characteristics of
individuals that would limit decision-making were “attitudes, prejudices and personal
views of decision makers” (du Toit et al, 2002: 356). In both textbooks, there was no
engagement in how such attributes might be developed or might be prevented, nor was there engagement in the relationship between such attributes and issues of power. Thus while the topics were strongly related to social relations, they were presented in ways which suggest the issues were neutral and straightforward. They were not discussed in ways that related to the development of specific ways of viewing the world, as would be expected to be the case if this was a course with stronger social relations.
Chapter Two on Public Needs in the prescribed textbook for Self-Management had weaker SR. This chapter outlined the principles of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as the basis of decisions made about public services to satisfy public needs. The public administrator had to “understand the nature of public needs…to decide what
services should be rendered by government” (Gildenhuys, 2004: 75). There was no
discussion of qualities or dispositions that the administrator should have in the chapter on public needs. However, Chapter Five, which dealt with Organising, did make reference to listening skills: “Public administrators can improve their ability as
empathetic listeners” (Gildenhuys, 2004: 207). The chapter also has stronger SR in
its comment that students could learn to take on the necessary traits: “It has been a
prevalent belief that all successful leaders had to be endowed with the necessary personal traits that come naturally. This may be true for political leaders, but it may be possible that chief executive officers can be educated and can learn by experience to become leading professional public administrators” (Gildenhuys, 2004:
223).
Stronger strengths for social relations were found in the recommended textbook for the Self-Management module: “To effectively practise self-management, you have to
understand your personality, behaviour and self-concept” (du Toit et al, 2002: 381).
Personal characteristics were stressed in this quotation. Students were directed to a questionnaire in Chapter Eleven that would assist them in determining their own self- concepts. Statements on the questionnaire spoke to feelings of success and satisfaction with work but also qualities of optimism, goal-orientedness, active listening skills, being balanced and responsible (du Toit et al, 2002).
evidence of both SR+ and SR-, though often discussions of topics related to social relations were not dealt with in ways that indicated that particular dispositions or attributes were valued as crucial to legitimation in the field of PM. I now discuss the degree of social relations in the study guides.