Task network dimension

Performing particular functions or delivering specific public services sometimes needs not a single but a number of government organisations. Therefore, a third dimension, the task network, which relates to the ability of an organisation to bring together other organisations to perform particular tasks, can also influence the capacity of public sector institutions. Hilderbrand and Grindle argue that the better the ability of an organisation to coordinate with other organisations, the better the capacity of the organisation to

perform its functions (Hilderbrand and Grindle 1997:13).

The importance of coordination in development literature is not a new issue. For example, writing about the institutional dimension in regional development, Cheema (1980a:6) observed that good coordination amongst government organisations ensured that limited resources were efficiently used and not wasted, conflicting goals were eliminated, and overlapping functions were reduced. Cheema's conclusion was that good coordination amongst government organisations could be achieved by standardisation, by planning or by mutual adjustment. Coordination by standardisation could be implemented by creating procedures and rules that govern the actions of each organisation into an independent relationship, whereas coordination by planning could be carried out by setting the boundaries for the interdependent organisations to govern their actions. Coordination by mutual adjustment was seen as dependent on the willingness of the organisations involved to modify their internal operations for reciprocal task interdependency (Cheema 1980a:7).

Hilderbrand and Grindle indicate that a lack of coordination that weakens the capacity of public sector agencies can occur between agencies setting polices and those implementing them. In more recent times there is also an issue of ‘coordination among different providers, including separate government and private organisations’ (Hilderbrand and Grindle 1997:46). However, in the

case that similar public functions or services are delivered or provided by different organisations, it can also be argued that the capacity of an organisation to perform its functions is dependent more on its ability to compete, than to coordinate with, other organisations. In other words, within the task network dimension, coordination is important to the capacity of an agency particularly when its functions can only be performed in cooperation with other organisations. On the other hand, the pressure of competition is more relevant to the capacity of an agency when it competes with other agencies to deliver similar functions.

For example, reviewing 159 institutions in developing countries Israel (1987) concluded that most of these institutions enjoyed a monopoly or near monopoly. However, with railways being the exception, institutions that were exposed to some form of competition had a higher level of institutional performance than those that were not (Israel 1987:101-2). More recently, the World Bank acknowledged the potential contribution of competitive pressure to the success of development programs and the increasing empirical evidence supporting the need to introduce competition into public sector organisations to improve their institutional capacity (Pradhan 1998:55-6). More comprehensive arguments and counter-arguments, as well as evidence on the effect of competition towards the institutional capacity of government agencies to deliver services or to perform their functions, together with the

findings from this study, are presented in Chapter Seven. 2.1.4 Organisational dimension

The organisational dimension of capacity is used by Hilderbrand and Grindle to refer to the structures, processes and resources of the organization, and management styles adopted by members of the organisation. Their view is that the capacity of institutions is affected by, among other things, how goals are established, how tasks are structured, how authority relations are defined, and how incentives and disincentives are provided (Hilderbrand and Grindle 1997:37). For example, it is argued that the clarity of organisational goals affects institutional capacity because clear organisational goals can guide staff to perform their tasks and responsibilities (Zeithaml et al. 1990:83). On the other hand, vague organisational goals do not help the creation of a sense of mission and commitment amongst staff, which are also important to the capacity of institutions to perform their functions (Hilderbrand and Grindle 1997:49). Rainey (1991:33) indicates that the vagueness of organisational goals and objectives is more observable in government agencies and, indeed, is one of features that differentiate public organisations from private organisations. At this point human resources management practices become significant in an organisation’s ability to achieve its goals. Apart from organisational objectives, the goals that each individual within the organisation should achieve must also be clear and understandable. Therefore, the existence of a

job description, which can guide individuals within the organisation to achieve their own goals, is another factor within the organisational dimension that affects capacity of institutions. If all individuals in an organisation complete their goals, the unit's goals will be achieved, and then the organisation's overall objectives will be accomplished. On the other hand, when staff do not understand what is expected from them, and how to accomplish that expectation, role ambiguity may emerge and the overall objectives of the organisation will not become a reality (Robbins 1994:199). Rewarding individuals within organisations who have successfully performed in accordance with the job description, and punishing those who have failed, is another factor that may contribute to better institutional capacity. In general, a human resources management approach will argue that to motivate individuals within the organisation to perform well they must be rewarded and punished in accordance with their performance (Abowd 1990). However, to be able to fairly reward and punish individuals within an organisation, the organisation should be equipped with a workable performance appraisal system. This performance appraisal should be able to differentiate between individuals who perform well and those who perform badly, and should be applied impartially.

The style of management adopted within an organisation is another important factor that determines whether or not an institution has the

capacity to perform its functions. Generally, a less hierarchical management approach, a high participation of lower level staff in decision-making processes, and an intense but less formal communication and interaction style between management and lower level staff, is seen by the human resources management approaches as likely to contribute positively to the capacity of organisations to perform their functions and achieve their objectives (Hughes

et al. 1996; Werlin 1991b; Yoder and Eby 1990).

The availability of physical resources needed by individuals within the organisations to perform their functions is also an important contribution to capacity of an institution. In their study, Hilderbrand and Grindle (1997:50) show that government institutions occupying aged, badly maintained and abused buildings which lack office equipment tend to have a significantly lower capacity to perform their functions than organisations having more convenient and pleasant offices and adequate office equipment (Taylor 1992; Phillips 1991).