Our name, 3psmars, highlights these three keywords, Policy, Planning and Public Sector Management. We decided to spell out these keywords in our name to emphasize the importance of separating functions and the need to involve all the cadres of responsibility in our campaign.

We did this bearing in mind the age-long debate on leadership versus management. It is often said that  people interchangeably use the words leadership and management whereas the two differ in identity and roles as far as running of organizations, governments and affairs are concerned. While some leaders might make good managers and some managers might be good leaders,  the two concepts are different.

According to e-how.com, the leader’s authority most often comes from the leader himself. He has worked to broaden his influence until it feels only natural to follow him. Leaders generally seek to inspire their followers to work independently, motivating them to do the best job possible. Leaders are also generally focused on constant improvement or growth and have an eye on the big picture at all times. Key concepts to a leader are: influence, inspiration, motivation, growth and vision. The manager, however,  has generally put in years of work to achieve her position; this is where her authority originates.  Key concepts to a manager are: position, procedure, adherence and analysis[1] A good leader is a constant visionary, while a manager is apt in getting the best hands together to transform visions into actionable programmes and execute them to produce the desired results.

In the public sector, where focus is in  the business of governance, management leadership, under normal circumstances, the political class, those who do not have to earn their position by the number of years they have spent, but are politicians who inspire followership and are kept in the helms of affairs, are naturally looked-upon for their global visions most oftentimes derived from political ideologies. They  get public servants who had earned trust on their positions to figure out how this visions are channeled through planning, programming, executing, monitoring and reporting to produce results that will benefit the electorates. Managers, those we could refer to as career public servants, international civil servants, workers of NGOs and the civil society organizations are supposed to transform vision into policies and programmes, while overseeing their execution by sourcing for resources, both human and material.

At 3psmars, we ensure that this distinction is made. The constant pressure on governments around the world for greater transparency and accountability by taxpayers for the use of public resources has made clarification of roles, in the quest for better results inescapable. Public concern in the face of escalating national account deficits, a declining confidence in political leadership and the need for a more transparent and accountable governance have all been important factors contributing to the emergence of RBM in the public sector. Distinguishing success from failure to make sure that success is supported and failure does not continue to take resources away in waste is a major component of what the principles of managing for development results tends to address. The distinction is made more possible when roles are clearly defined and responsibilities distributed and shared. RBM facilitates actions in this respect.

3psmars will therefore continue to focus on the distinctive approach in its measures towards educating and promoting actions towards managing for development results.

[1] See:http://www.ehow.com/info_8076608_differences-between-leadership-management.html#ixzz2vaZxlyqH