Insurance for Decision MakersAuthor(s): F. Louis VallaSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 41, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1981), p. 716Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975757 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 11:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.37 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:35:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

716 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

work force was apparently "prepared" for changes which addressed sources of dissatisfaction with existing personnel practices. At least in 1979-1980, employee attitudes were part of a larger picture suggesting an opportunity for major innovations. Recent events in the Congress, Executive, and OPM itself, however, have not been promising. I suppose one should not be particularly surprised. A major force behind CSRA was hostility toward civil servants. Given the technical problems associated with implementing some- thing as ambitious as the performance appraisal and merit pay provisions of CSRA, a lack of commitment on the part of the Congress and the Executive should be fatal.

Although the language of the CSRA is broad enough to allow flexible and imaginative implementation, it does im- ply some questionable assumptions. For example, insofar as merit pay is concerned, it is almost taken for granted that: (1) relevant dimensions of individual performance can be clearly defined and measured accurately, and (2) in- dividuals are actually able to control their performances along these dimensions. If either of these assumptions does not hold, approaches based on individualized incentives become impossible or simply formalistic exercises. It is also worth noting that even if assumptions (1) and (2) hold, the real implementation costs may be so high as to make the en- tire enterprise administratively irrational (political ra- tionality is another matter).

There is, of course, a large body of research on incentives and innovation in organizations available to those inter- ested in assessing the CSRA's chances for success over the long run. Employee attitudes are one element, but many other factors-including those described by Loney and Anderson-must be considered. Unfortunately, we always seem to be in the position of having to worry about im- plementation after fundamental decisions have been made

on the basis of the most fragile of assumptions: the tech- nical "types" can work out the details. Good luck, Loney and Anderson.

Lloyd Nigro Department of Political Science

Georgia State University

Insurance for Decision Makers

To the Editor: PAR, No. 2, March/April 1981, pages 268-278, contains

an article entitled "Managing Without Immunity: The Challenge for State and Local Government Officials in the 1980s."

While certain constraints on the actions of state and local governments are desirable, it is hoped that these organiza- tions will not become paralyzed by fear of legal retribution and neglect effective and forceful administration of pro- grams under their jurisdiction. In these testing times we need energetic and innovative government action that goes beyond the minimum required by programs. Proper educa- tion and legal advice will become requisites for officials making decisions in touchy areas.

It is indeed an ill wind that does not blow up some oppor- tunity for an enterprising group, as witness a recent mailing enclosing an application for liability insurance for public officials! Wouldn't it be a good idea for affected govern- ment units to provide insurance for decision-making of- ficials?

F. Louis Valla Long Beach, California

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1981

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.37 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:35:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions