1. Evaluate the concept of administrative liaison officer as a strategy for achieving integration. Is this an...

Question:

1. Evaluate the concept of “administrative liaison officer” as a strategy for achieving integration. Is this an example of the mutual adjustment strategy?

2. How will the officers achieve integration when they will have no authority over either the administrative functions or the programs to be integrated?

3. What would be the most important personal characteristics to look for in an applicant for these positions?

Recently, the governor of a southeastern state created a Department for Human Resources. It combined many formerly distinct state agencies that carried out health and welfare programs. The department’s organization chart is shown in Exhibit 1. The functions of each of the bureaus were described in the governor’s press release:

The Bureau for Social Insurance will operate all income maintenance and all income supplementation programs of the Department for Human Resources. That is, it will issue financial support to the poor, unemployed, and needy, and it will issue food stamps and pay for medical assistance.

The Bureau for Social Services will provide child welfare services, foster care, adoptions, family services, and all other general counseling in support of families and individuals who require assistance for successful and adequate human development.

The Bureau for Health Services will operate all departmental programs that provide health service, including all physical and mental health programs. This bureau will take over the functions of the Department of Health, the Department of Mental Health, and the Commission for Handicapped Children.

The Bureau for Manpower Services will operate all labor force development and job placement programs of the department, including all job recruitments and business liaison functions, job training, worker readiness functions, and job counseling and placement.

The Bureau for Administration and Operations will consolidate numerous support services, such as preaudits, accounting, data processing, purchasing, and duplicating, now furnished by 19 separate units.

.:.

Soon after the department began to operate in its reorganized form, major problems arose that were traceable to the Bureau for Administration and Operations (BAO). Prior to reorganization, each department had had its own support staff for data processing, accounting, personnel, and budgeting. Those staffs and equipment had all been relocated and brought under the direction of the BAO commissioner. Employees who had once specialized in the work of one area, such as mental health, were now expected to perform work for all the bureaus. In addition, they had to revise forms, procedures, computer programs, accounts, and records to conform to the new department’s policies. Consequently, the department began to experience administrative problems. Payrolls were late and inaccurate; payments to vendors and clients were delayed; and personnel actions got lost in the paperwork. Eventually, the integrity of the department’s service programs was in jeopardy.

The executive staff of the department, consisting of the secretary, commissioner, and administrator of the Office for Policy and Budget, soon found itself spending more time dealing with these administrative problems than with policy formulation. Apparently, the department’s effectiveness would depend on its ability to integrate the functions of BAO with the needs of the program bureaus. Also, the executive staff was not the appropriate body to deal with these issues. Aside from the inordinate amount of time spent on the administrative problems, a great deal of interpersonal conflict was generated among the commissioners.

The BAO commissioner was instructed by the secretary to give his full-time attention to devising a means for integrating the administrative functions. After consultation with his staff, the idea of an administrative liaison officer was formulated. The BAO commissioner presented the staff paper that described this new job to the executive staff for discussion and adoption. According to the commissioner, there was simply no procedural or planning means for integrating the administrative functions. Rather, it would continue to be a conflict-laden process requiring the undivided attention of an individual assigned to each of the four bureaus.