The auxiliary functions which can be utilized in the

• execution of the generic administrative functions and

• functional activities, for example

• systems analysis and

• research

Source: Thornhill and Hanekom, 1995: 21

The tasks as reflected in Table 2.5 could be argued to be very similar to what managers do in the private environment, and therefore it would be natural to presume private management competencies to be public management competencies and thus easily transferable. This suggestion, however, has been subjected to critical debate as mentioned by Redman and Mathews (Ketel, 2005: 55). Stewart and Ranson, among others, are of the opinion that transferability is not possible due to the difference between the sectors and therefore insisted that general models of management cannot be applied to the public sector (Lawton & Rose, 1994: 195-197).

They used a framework, as illustrated in Table 2.6, to indicate the differences that exist between the two sectors. From this table it is clear that differences exist with regard to purpose and conditions, but not necessarily tasks. Van der Merwe agrees that there is a difference and bases the difference on a complex public management environment and a complicated public performance assessment process. Difficulty in assessing the results of policies, activities, and programmes complicate performance

Table 2.6: Management Comparison between Public and Private Sectors

Public Sector Private Sector

Purpose (what are their goals)

• multiple and fuzzy objectives

• arena for the pursuit of collective values

• expressed through collective choice

• need to serve clients and citizens, not just customers

• driven by the needs and availability of resources rather than the market

• promote individual choice in the market

• pursue profit

• promote competition

• increase market share

• clear objectives

Conditions (the context in which they carry out their operations)

• multiple stakeholders

• constraint by politics and the law

• public accountability

• secrecy in terms of business confidentiality

• measurable outputs in terms of product or service.

• operate under the gaze of the public eye

• little scope for negotiation of inputs – determined by politicians

• cannot measure outcomes

• not involved in policy formulation

• managers have the freedom to manage, to take risks

• flexibility and discretion to take decisions

• responsiveness to the customer

• driven by clear goals and responsibilities

Source: Lawton & Rose, 1994: 195-197

Ketel (2005: 57-58) made use of the Boyatzis’ competency framework to study the difference and discovered that the differentiation between the private and public sector on issues such as “goal” and “action” management, and “human resource management” is insignificant. However, when referring to the remaining areas of competence such as “leadership”, “directing subordinates” and “focusing on other clusters” it became significant.

Table 2.7: Key Roles and Associated Competencies Manage operations

1. Maintain and improve service and product operations.

2. Contribute to the implementation of change in services, products and systems.

Manage finance

3. Recommend, monitor and control the use of resources.

Manage people

4. Contribute to the recruitment and selection of personnel.

5. Develop teams, individuals and self to enhance performance.

6. Plan, allocate and evaluate work carried out by teams, individuals and self.

7. Create, maintain and enhance effective working relationships.

Manage information

8. Seek, evaluate and organise information for action.

9. Exchange information to solve problems and make decisions.

Source: Lawton and Rose, 1994: 194.

The differences between the private and public sector are significant and therefore the competencies are not transferable. However, some practices from the private sector should be transferred, such as public managers becoming more entrepreneurial and market-minded (Ketel, 2005: 55). This insight necessitated the UK in the early nineties to develop the Management Charter Initiative (MCI), which identified the key roles of public service management and the competencies associated with them as illustrated in Table 2.7. This list of competencies, however, does not represent the full spectrum of public management competencies and may be dated, and therefore needs to be supported by further exploration. In order to identify as many of the required competencies as possible today, a brief overview of the last three decades, and an exploration of international emphasis on competencies follows.

Authors such as Stewart (1986), Robbins and De Cenzo (1998), and Ketel (2005) highlight the development of competencies within the last three decades. During the eighties, Stewart (Lawton & Rose, 1994:199) defined competencies as being an awareness of managers to:

• political sensitivity, awareness and understanding;

• the management of public pressure and protest;

• fulfilling the conditions of public accountability;

• marketing for equity and other purposes;

• strategic management;

• the management of rationing;

• assessing a multi-faceted performance.

During the nineties Robbins and De Cenzo (Cheminais, Bayat, van der Waldt, & Fox, 1998: 15) identified technical skills, interpersonal skills, conceptual skills and political skills as required public management competencies. When these are compared to Table 2.7 it can be seen that there has been a shift in focus from the roles that the public manager has to play to the skills that are required. Robbins and De Cenzo focus on the abilities and skills that the public manager brings to the work environment and not only an awareness as does Stewart’s outcomes approach. The skills are qualified as follows:

• Technical skills refer to the ability to apply specialised knowledge or expertise in a given work situation or profession.

• Interpersonal skills are the skills required to work with, understand, and motivate other people, both individually and in groups.

• Conceptual skills refer to the mental ability to analyse and diagnose complex situations. This skill will allow managers to operate within a systems environment.

• Political skill refers the manager’s ability to acquire and exercise power, to establish and maintain a network of contacts, and to influence the various role players in the management domain.

Ultimately the summary of competencies as stated and explained by Virtanen and quoted by Ketel (2005: 61-63) will serve as the most recent example of required public management competencies. Virtanen provided a framework of five competency areas to explain the competencies of “new” public managers, and these

will serve as the basis for identifying specific competencies. These competencies closely relate to those proposed by Robbins and de Cenzo and are:

• task competence;

• professional competence in subject area;

• professional competence in administration;

• political competence;

• ethical competence.

Task competence as explained by Ketel (2005: 61-62) is the ability to perform given the means and the goals. The value competence is the motivation (why?), and the instrumental competence is the ability (how?). Professional competence is twofold.

Competence is firstly required within either a substantive line function or a specific staff function. The value competence is the control of the policy object, and the instrumental competence is the expertise of the policy object. Secondly, professional competence is required within the field of administration. Once again, the value competence is control of the policy programme, and the instrumental competence the expertise of co-operation.

Political competencies are the power as previously explained by Robbins and De Cenzo, but they also have to do with the values. The ideology and interests of the public manager set the value competencies, and the instrumental competence is possession of power. Ethical competence is the compliance to prevailing moral values and norms. The value competence is morality and the instrumental competence is reasoning in terms of ethics (Ketel, 2005: 62-63).

A most comprehensive list of competencies is presented by Ketel as identified by Virtanen in 2000, and is illustrated in Table 2.8. For the purpose of this study, the significant competencies are the competencies with a financial connotation, which are entrepreneurial, resource allocator and financial management. It may seem, however, that these competencies are theoretical in nature and therefore it is prudent to identify the public management competencies and their prevalence internationally.

Fortunately, research by Bhatta (2001) analysed the competencies as identified in five countries: USA, New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands and the UK. Although South Africa is not included, the findings in Table 2.9 suggest that the two

competencies prevalent in all countries investigated are “leadership” and “results orientation”.

Table 2.8: Competencies for Public Sector Managers 1. Conceptualisation

This section used the principles for good public management to identify the tasks of public management for comparison with management in the private sector. Once compared, significant differences appeared that restrict the transferability of general management competencies to public management. The process of identifying public

management competencies explored competency development of the last three decades and accepted the research by Ketel that identified Virtanen’s listed competencies as the most comprehensive indication of what is required in the public sector. Finally, a brief international comparison indicated the prevalence of public management competencies in practice. From this exploration, it is clear that financial literacy as a concept is not mentioned although it could be argued that it is implied as a public management competency.

Table 2.9: Comparison of Competencies across Countries

EMPHASIS ON COMPETENCY