There is no denying the fact that during the 1980s there were enough fields for a new organizational loom to address the alleged deficiencies of the old bureaucratic model. This new approach stems from a general crisis of confidence among Owners. It culminates in the emergence of a variety of innovations in managerial approach that are ‘dominating the bureaucratic reform agenda’ in the 1980s and 1990s respectively, and as such the whole model demonstrates a dramatic shift in approach to how the organization operates. relevant organization.
The rigid, hierarchical and bureaucratic form of private management, which has prevailed for most of the 20th century, is changing to a flexible, market-based form of private management. The following concepts are of vital importance in this regard:
o Steady increase in efficiency
o Use of ‘increasingly sophisticated’ technologies
o A disciplined workforce to productivity
o Clear implementation of professional management role
o Managers are given the right to manage
Furthermore, materialization is seen and promulgated by some as antithetical to private service traditions, inimical to service delivery and somewhat undemocratic, even with dubious theoretical backing (ibid. Hughes further argues that particularly from a private management tradition the good parts of the old model (high ethical standards, service to the state) are being pushed aside in the headlong rush to adopt the new theory.His seven-doctrinal models of how ‘the organization’ should work are:
o Practical professional management in the private sector
o Explicit standards and performance measures
o Increased emphasis on output controls
o Disaggregation of units in the private sector
o Increased competition in the private sector (to this can be added actual privatization)
o Private sector management styles
o Greater discipline and parsimony in the use of resources
In this context, Hood, a renowned economist, has been criticized for his oversimplified equivalence between the private sector and the private sector and, more crucially, for very constant input-output ratios. It is evident that most of the entrepreneurial owners of private sector developments promote competition among service providers. They empower citizens by taking control of the bureaucracy out to the community. They measure the performance of their agencies, focusing not on inputs but on results. They are motivated by your goals, your missions, not by your rules and regulations. They redefine their clients as clients and offer them choices: between schools, between training programs, between housing options. They prevent problems before they arise, rather than simply offering services afterward. They put their energies into making money, not just spending it.
In view of the above, it is evident that the old private sector authority decentralizes authority by adopting participatory management. They prefer market mechanisms to bureaucratic mechanisms. And they don’t just focus on providing private services, but on catalyzing all sectors—private, private, and voluntary—to action to solve their community’s problems. The private sector should sincerely work to promote new products in order to enjoy the economies of scale in the course of time so that the economic stability of the country can be established under a solid framework of National Income based on virtually aggregated debate.
