Student Name

Student ID
Contents
Brief 1..............................................................................................................................................2
Public & Private sector Ethics.....................................................................................................2
Introduction..................................................................................................................................2
Discussion....................................................................................................................................2
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3
Brief 2..............................................................................................................................................4
Public Service Motivation............................................................................................................4
Introduction..................................................................................................................................4
Discussion....................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................5
Brief 3..............................................................................................................................................6
Management and Governance (Representative Bureaucracy).....................................................6
Introduction..................................................................................................................................6
Discussion....................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................8
References........................................................................................................................................9
Brief 1
Public & Private sector Ethics
Introduction
The significance of ethics could not be ignored, it is vital for a harmonious society. Ethics
helps to form an equilibrium between personal interests and the good of society, in the scenarios
where the law is unable to interfere (Hawkins, et al., 2011). Ethics help to adopt best practices
without them being made compulsion. In the public sector code of ethics serve as a charter of
accountability between the administration and public. In the “private sector”, ethics helps to
improve the lucrativeness of business due to transparency (Hawkins, et al., 2011). The private
and public sectors are governed by different principles of ethics and are led under different
perceptions. The juxtaposition of public and private sector ethics embeds the differences, these
are needed to bridge when these two sectors are working for achieving a unified goal (Johansen
& Frederiksen, 2020).
Discussion
Ethics provide a line of communication between the general population and government
officials. Keeping to a set of ethical standards helps to guarantee that the public gets the services
they need in an equitable way (Hawkins, et al., 2011). It also lays out expectations for how the
government should conduct itself in terms of transparency. As a result, the community is more
willing to put their faith in you. The administration helps the people realise that they are working
in their best interests by building an environment of trust. Co-workers in public service may
expect one other to conduct themselves professionally, and the public can likewise expect it from
their leaders. Leaders in public administration have the rules they need to carry out their duties
and motivate their staff and committees to implement laws in a professional and fairway thanks
to a robust code of ethics (Andrews, 2020).

Advantage of public administration defined by high ethical standards of behaviour is

timely and informed communication with the public. With this kind of transparency, a person
can build trust and prevent or minimize the difficulties that may arise when information is leaked
from outside sources (Sullivan et al., 2021). It is preferable for the leaders and administration to
communicate important information directly to the people. All parties may work together toward
the same objective via effective communication. It is only through open lines of communication
that the people of a community may have a say in key decisions.
 Public and Private sector collaboration programs are becoming popular across the globe;
where it comes to ethics there are several conflicting agendas in these two sectors (Gottschall et
al., 2015). Public sector ethics is derived majorly from the Weberian model and focuses upon the
process values whereas Private sector ethics is based upon outcome values (Guisado & Franco,
2021). So, while working together these both sectors must bridge the gap of ethics due to
different guiding principles governing either of the sectors.

The employees of the private sector use more egotism; in accordance with the
utilitarian’s focus, every action in the private sector is outcome-driven (Mulgan, 2020) .In the
private sector, everything is considered up to the mark if there is profit in the end. Here an
example could be quoted that, it is an acceptable amount of risk if the occasional injury happens
in the private, while many people are being benefited (Jacobsen, 2021). Private sector
organizations most of the time businesses determine their ethics as per their requirement and
nature of the business. If it is said that in the private sector ethics is used as a catalyst to earn
profit it would not be wrong. Implementation of ethics helps to improve the operations and that
ultimately leads towards increased profitability (Ketelaar, Manning and Turkisch, 2007).
Despite the shared ideals of efficiency and effectiveness, the public sector is devoted to
sustaining liberal-democratic government principles, such as impartiality and accountability,
whereas the commercial private sector puts greater emphasis on profit and innovation
(Jurkiewicz, and Mujkic, 2021). As a result, government employees must be mindful of the
potential dangers of conflicting sets of values. Public sector reporting and scrutiny processes are
much more extensive than those in the private sector, which indicates that outsourcing might
have a significant impact on accountability and transparency (Riccucci and Van Ryzin, 2017).
Public accountability agencies, such as government auditors and ombudsmen, may require
contractors to provide access. "Commercial-in-Confidence," for example, should not be used as
an excuse for excessive secrecy by public officials.
Workers in the private sector tend to be more egotistical, since they are more concerned
with the result of their actions (Brewer, 2019). Most enterprises in the private sector base their
ethical standards on their own requirements and the nature of their operations. In the private
sector, ethics may be exploited as a means of generating profits. When ethics are put into
practise, operations improve, which leads to more profits.
 A contract may be necessary to ensure that the contractor is adhering to public-sector
ideals or that they are working with nonprofits that already adhere to these values. In the future it
is speculated that the collaboration among the public and private sectors will increase; these
sectors must work together to achieve their targets. For improved professional relationships
among these sectors, the conflict of ethics must be removed (Schiff, et al., 2021). These conflicts
if ethics could only be removed by virtue of increased understanding of guiding principles of
ethics prevailing in either of the sectors by the other sector. Increased understanding of
perspectives is required (Hawkins, et al., 2011).
Conclusion
The significance of ethics to either of the sectors for instance public and private could not
be ignored. If the analysis is performed in either of the sectors it could be seen that the drivers, as
well as the expected outcomes of the ethics, are different. Nolan’s seven principles/ best
practices are mandatory to adhere to, in the public sector but there is no such compulsion in the
“private sector”. Though some of the “private sector” organizations voluntarily adopt Nolan’s
principles it is not widely adopted in in the public sector as the private sector. Private sector
organizations follow the regulatory frameworks provided to them by their governing bodies.
Code of corporate governance is widely adopted across the globe in the private sector
organizations; this code ensures transparency and that makes the increased profitability evident.
For the collaboration of the public and private sector, it is necessary that they must understand
the governing principles and drivers of ethics of each other.
Brief 2
Public Service Motivation
Introduction
The theme of “Public Service Motivation” (PSM) is being discussed in this brief. There is
no existence of the public service sector without the concept of “Public Service Motivation”
(Vandenabeele, et al., 2018). Before the advent of the concept of “Public Service Motivation”,
personal gains and benefits were the main priority of the people associated with the public sector.
This theory helped to challenge the behaviour of the bureaucrats, that, they longed for the
reputation, authority & power, and other benefits related to the position they hold at the
public office (Breaugh, et al., 2018). The concept of “public service motivation” was a paradigm
shift for the public service sector; now civil servants consider it as their responsibility to serve
the public and ensure their welfare. Social welfare and securing the public interest are the duty
that a public servant needs to perform with due diligence (Vandenabeele, et al., 2018). PSM
increases the tendency of volunteering for social causes and making donations for the betterment
of society. Due to the less specific organizational goals in the public sector, it is almost
impossible to monitor performance and evaluate it. Similarly, in the public sector, no external
rewards could be used as motivational factors; the only thing that governs the performance of the
public servants is intrinsic motivation for example behavioral choices (Breaugh, et al., 2018).

Discussion
The perspective that currently prevails in public service sector is of “Public Service
Motivation”; it is the concept that advocates self-determination as a catalyst of performance in
the public domain. The work behaviour of a civil servant, in the light of the PSM theory, is
expected to be impacted by moral obligations, values by virtue of religion, connection with
society, and intrinsic trigger to serve society (Asseburg & Homberg, 2020). Emotional
association with the social causes makes it easier for the public servants to outperform; this
association helps them eradicate the problem by participating actively in the process of finding
the solution to that issue (Miao, et al., 2019). Pro-social acts of a public servant are dependent
upon the emotions they have towards society and the public. When the emotions and cognitive
ability of a public servant conglomerates it optimizes the performance; it increases his or her
interest and triggers to perform pro-socially (Asseburg & Homberg, 2020).
 The public sector professionals were shown to be motivated by intrinsic benefits, rather
than extrinsic rewards, and thus demonstrated the existence of public service motivation
(Jurkiewicz and Mujkic, 2021). Altruistic reasons were shown to be the sole link between public
service and motivation. There was no way to know whether public service motivation exists, or
if it does, to what degree or kind, or whether it influences performance. Depending on the
geographic, historical, political, and institutional context, the public service values that underlie
the measuring scale may vary. As a result, Jurkiewicz and Mujkic, (2021) scale has undergone
further alterations. Furthermore, it is vital to emphasise that dismissal procedures have not
changed with the introduction of performance-based contracts. Some OECD nations for example
Belgium and the Netherlands have implemented position-specific, short-term contracts or
agreements, but generally, there has not been a significant growth in the number of short-term
employment contracts. In Belgium, for example, senior public officers at the highest levels sign
six-year mandates related to a particular role, yet they are generally career civil servants with the
associated civil service rank.
According to Kim, (2021) an additional factor of democratic governance should be
included when calculating PSM. This was done to incorporate European ideals or principles of
public service, such as "equality," "permanence," and "accountability," which were regarded
fitting in a European environment. To better represent the principles that guide administrative
activity in a particular nation, some academics have incorporated additional elements in their
studies. Performance measurement outcomes should be included in promotion choices and
professional acknowledgement of achievements, according to Ketelaar, Manning and Turkisch,
(2007). Moreover, monetary incentives, are likely to inspire Senior civil servants. The
motivations to play for the sake of reputation are lower than the motivations to play for money.
PSM has several drawbacks, and the most significant drawback is that it can only account
for factors that can be seen. The matching approach does not take into consideration factors that
is not noticed in the selection process. Additional criticisms of PSM include the need for large
sample sizes, high overlap between the treatment and control groups, and hidden bias since the
approach only adjusts for observable factors to the extent that they are perfectly measured
(Mulgan, 2020). According to Brewer, (2019), matching on observable variables may release
bias owing to underlying unobserved confounders, which raises general concerns about
matching. It has also been suggested that bias reduction can be ensured (asymptotically) only by
modelling the qualitative causal linkages between treatment, outcome, and observable and
unobserved variables (Brewer, 2019). This happens when the investigator is not able to rule out
other possible reasons for an observed association between independent and dependent variables
because of inadequate experimental controls.
Conclusion
The prevalence of PSM has helped to enhance the condition of life of the public; it has
improved the performance of the “public sector”. It has increased the tendency of prioritizing
public interest over the personal interest of the conflict of interest that arises. Before the advent
of the concept of PSM people belonging to the public sector used the power they had under their
position to protect their interests. The altruistic behaviour of the public servants seemed to
diminish as the concept of PSM prevailed in the society.
Brief 3
Management and Governance (Representative Bureaucracy)
Introduction
This brief focuses on the importance of ethnic and demographic diversity in the public
sector and bureaucracy. Governments across the world are worried that the public sector, and in
particular the bureaucracy, does not adequately reflect the country's many ethnic groups
(Vinopal, 2020). Multinational immigrants are cultivating the notion of diversity in the UK's
public sector. As a result of the wide range of ethnic origins represented in the public sector, an
idea of real representation is fostered. This subject encompasses a wide range of societal
challenges, including racial prejudice, gender bias, and more. Increasing diversity and inclusion
effectively combat bullying.
Discussion
Bureaucratic diversity affects public service delivery. However, a well-established body
of macroeconomic data shows that social variety has a detrimental influence on economic
performance, despite claims to the contrary in the management literature (Talmor, 2021). Ethnic
diversity has been linked to worse economic development, poorer policy choices, and greater
conflict in cross-jurisdictional. The goal of the notion of multiplicity in public administration is
to respond to the changing demographics of nations. Globalization is transforming the
demography of almost every location, and its effects on the human population are more far-
reaching than those of colonialism and cross-border migrations/displacements (Sabharwal,
Levine and D’Agostino, 2018). To better integrate minorities, women, and members of other
social groups into public administration, there are several worldwide diversity initiatives (Lundy
et al., 2021). Diversification might be taken a step further, with the eradication of cultural
concerns and social equity challenges, as well as administrative neutrality and a broader audience
for administrative decision-makers.
Research by Meier and Funk, (2017) on representative bureaucracy began with an
examination of how well bureaucracies mirrored the people they served. Measures were devised
to show how much bureaucracies were "passively representative". The representative ratio was
the most often used metric, and it simply compared the proportion of women and people of
various races and ethnicities in a government bureaucracy with that proportion in the broader
population. People's stratification inside and across bureaucracies was also explored using other
metrics for example agency and department distribution.
A passive bureaucracy and an active bureaucracy are defined by political theorists. A
bureaucracy that is demographically representative of its users is said to be passively
represented. When bureaucrats generate policy results that favourably impact the people they
represent, passive representation becomes active representation (Hong, 2021). These results are
both symbolic and real. Symbolically, a more diverse bureaucracy indicates equitable access to
authority, which in turn increases public trust in the institution. That this symbolism also
enhances constituent involvement and favourable encounters with bureaucrats leads to
"coproduction" of beneficial results is Hong (2021) hypothesis. Increased diversity in an
organisation has the potential to curb discriminatory practices and diversify the perspectives of
both employees and decision-makers. Bureaucrats, like politicians, are the face of administrative
authority, enforcing regulations with wide latitude. The key distinction is that members of the
electorate may hold a lawmaker responsible. When it comes to the implementation of policy,
bureaucrats, who are selected and granted practically unrestricted freedom by the government,
are the exception.
Maintaining basic public values is a key consequence of altering the workforce of public
administration or other efforts to attract varied civil workers (Meier and Funk, 2017)/The reform
of diversity must be implemented at all levels of the public domain if service quality is to be
raised and social mobility to be improved. People from diverse socioeconomic and ethnic origins
approach life and problem resolution in different ways. As a result, minorities' representatives
are better able to understand the problem they confront and to act at the grassroots level to
eliminate it (Moon and Christensen, 2021). The diversity of the public sector's employees has the
unintended consequence of making the sector's organisations more representative of society. To
close the socioeconomic divides in the public sector, organisations must look and act like the
people they serve (Talmor, 2021).
Organizations with a diverse range of members are seen to be less skewed. It impacts the
organization's transparency and improves the decision-making process. Decisions made and
services provided by the public service sector have a significant influence on people's daily lives.
This necessitates that groups of this kind have enough social diversity. It was proposed to the
OECD secretariat at the annual meeting of the PEMWP in 2008 that they focus on the issue of
public sector employment diversity (Lundy et al., 2021). Since then, all OECD countries have
focused on the goal of creating a representative bureaucracy (Vinopal, 2020). As recently as
2010, the European Union acknowledged the importance of representative bureaucracy as a
pressing issue. Without adequate representation, sustainable growth and the reduction of social
inequity are impossible in the eyes of the EU. Maintaining social harmony might be one of the
many benefits of a well-rounded public service portfolio that includes both professional and non-
profit components. To address an increasing need for women's participation in public and social
institutions, the European Commission launched a five-year strategy in 2010. This strategy laid
out a path for achieving gender parity, including in the public sector, and emphasised the need of
improving the number of females in high-ranking positions in government (Riccucci and Van
Ryzin, 2017).
Administrative institutions play a crucial role not just in the execution of public policy
but also in more substantive political choices concerning the allocation of essential public
services, thus concerns about a representative bureaucracy are understandable (Hong, 2021). The
socioeconomic origins of bureaucrats have a significant impact on results experienced by
customers and people, as research from public administration experts and others has revealed, as
well. Both administrative discretion and symbolic representation play a role in this, with
bureaucrats taking positive efforts to help disadvantaged groups, and people themselves deeming
administrative agencies to be fairer and more trustworthy.

Conclusion
Public organizations, public administration, and bureaucracy are already making attempts
to attract more women and ethnic minorities. To prevent bullying and social prejudice, all
demographics must be represented accurately in policymaking. Human factors play a large role
in policy and administrative decision making; the choices are heavily influenced by who is
making the decision or who is participating in the decision-making process. The likelihood of
societal approval of a choice increases if the decision's stakeholders have a voice in the process.
Stability in society is eventually the result.
 References

An, S.H., Song, M. and Meier, K.J., 2021. Representative bureaucracy and the policy
environment: Gender representation in Forty‐Four countries. Public Administration.
Andrews, L., 2020. Brexit, Cabinet Norms and the Ministerial Code: Are we Living in a post‐
Nolan Era. The Political Quarterly, 91(1), pp. 125-133.
Asseburg, J. & Homberg, F., 2020. Public service motivation or sector rewards? Two studies on
the determinants of sector attraction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1),
pp. 82-11.
Baarspul, H.C. and Wilderom, C.P., 2011. Do employees behave differently in public-vs private-
sector organizations? A state-of-the-art review. Public management review, 13(7),
pp.967-1002.
Bishu, S.G. and Kennedy, A.R., 2020. Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative
bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), pp.559-588.
Breaugh, J., Ritz, A. & Alfes, K., 2018. Work motivation and public service motivation:
disentangling varieties of motivation and job satisfaction. Public Management Review,
20(10), pp. 1423-1443.
Brewer, G.A., 2019. Public service motivation: Overcoming major obstacles to research
progress. In A research agenda for public administration. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brunjes, B.M. and Kellough, J.E., 2018. Representative bureaucracy and government
contracting: A further examination of evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), pp.519-534.
Figenschou, T., 2020. Public Sector Communication and NGOs: From Formal Integration to
Mediated Confrontation. The handbook of public sector communication, 1(1), pp. 259-
271.
Gottschall, K., Kittel, B., Briken, K., Heuer, J.O., Hils, S., Streb, S. and Tepe, M., 2015. Public
sector employment regimes: Transformations of the state as an employer. Springer.
Guisado, Á. & Franco, H., 2021. Intelligence as a bureaucratic organization: dysfunctions of the
Weberian model. Revista Científica General José María Córdova, 19(34), pp. 478-496.
Hawkins, T., Gravier, M. & Powley, E., 2011. Public versus private sector procurement ethics
and strategy: What each sector can learn from the other. Journal of business ethics,
103(4), pp. 567-586.
Homberg, F., Vogel, R. & Weiherl, J., 2019. Public service motivation and continuous
organizational change: Taking charge behaviour at police services. Public administration,
97(1), pp. 28-47.
Hong, S., 2021. Representative bureaucracy and hierarchy: interactions among leadership,
middle-level, and street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 23(9), pp.1317-
1338.
Jacobsen, D., 2021. Motivational Differences? Comparing Private, Public and Hybrid
Organizations. Public Organization Review, 1(1), pp. 1-15.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E., 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature
Machine Intelligence, 1(9), pp. 389-399.
Johansen, M. & Frederiksen, J., 2020. Ethically important moments–a pragmatic-dualist research
ethic. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1(1), pp. 1-11.
Jurkiewicz, C.L. and Mujkic, E., 2021. Deconstructing NPM: Public Service Values in a Global
Public Administration. The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant, pp.225-239.
Ketelaar, A., Manning, N. and Turkisch, E., 2007. Performance-based arrangements for senior
civil servants OECD and other country experiences.
Kim, P.S., 2021. Government employment practices in East Asia: A case study of merit-based
recruitment and selection of civil servants in Japan and South Korea. The Palgrave
handbook of the public servant, pp.63-80.
Lapworth, L., James, P. & Wylie, N., 2018. Examining public service motivation in the
voluntary sector: implications for public management. Public Management Review,
20(11), pp. 1663-1682.
Liang, J., Park, S. and Zhao, T., 2020. Representative bureaucracy, distributional equity, and
environmental justice. Public Administration Review, 80(3), pp.402-414.
Lundy, J., Keast, R., Farr‐Wharton, B., Omari, M., Teo, S. and Bentley, T., 2021. Utilising a
capability maturity model to leverage inclusion and diversity in public sector
organisations. Australian Journal of Public Administration.
Meier, K.J. and Funk, K.D., 2017. Women and public administration in a comparative
perspective: The case of representation in Brazilian local governments. Administration &
Society, 49(1), pp.121-142.
Meier, K.J., 2019. Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for
research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), pp.39-56.
Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A. & Schwarz, G., 2019. Public service motivation and
performance: The role of organizational identification. Public Money & Management,
1(1), pp. 77-85.
Moon, K.K. and Christensen, R.K., 2021. Moderating Diversity, Collective Commitment, and
Discrimination: The Role of Ethical Leaders in the Public Sector. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory.
Mulgan, R., 2020. Public Sector Values in a Privatizing State. The Palgrave Handbook of the
Public Servant, pp.1-15.
Oliver, D., 2021. David Oliver: What price the Nolan principles for public office holders. bmj,
1(1), p. 373.
Riccucci, N.M. and Van Ryzin, G.G., 2017. Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance
social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), pp.21-
30.
Riccucci, N.M., 2018. Managing diversity in public sector workforces: Essentials of public
policy and administration series. Routledge.
Sabharwal, M., Levine, H. and D’Agostino, M., 2018. A conceptual content analysis of 75 years
of diversity research in public administration. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 38(2), pp.248-267.
Schiff, D., Borenstein, J., Biddle, J. & Laas, K., 2021. AI ethics in the public, private, and NGO
sectors: a review of a global document collection. IEEE Transactions on Technology and
Society, 1(1), p. 1.
Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H. and Henderson, H. eds., 2021. The Palgrave handbook of the public
servant. Palgrave Macmillan.
Talmor, I., 2021. Solving the problem of maximizing diversity in public sector teams. Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences, p.101191.
Vandenabeele, W. & Schott, C., 2020. Public Service Motivation in Public Administrations. In
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 1(1), p. 1.
Vandenabeele, W., Ritz, A. & Neumann, O., 2018. Public service motivation: State of the art and
conceptual cleanup. The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in
Europe, 1(1), pp. 261-278.
Vinopal, K., 2020. Socioeconomic representation: Expanding the theory of representative
bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), pp.187-201.