Week 3 - Assignment: Explain How Employee Investment Improves Retention and Morale

Innovations_in_Public_Leadership_Development_----_Part_I._Changing_Conceptions_of_Public_Leadership1.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Week 3 - Assignment: Explain How Employee Investment Improves Retention and Morale

Part I

Changing Conceptions of Public Leadership

Morse, Ricardo S., and Terry F. Buss. Innovations in Public Leadership Development, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1900028. Created from ncent-ebooks on 2022-02-03 15:22:02.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

This page intentionally left blank

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Culture and Leadership

Marc Holzer

Leadership for Policy Implementation

The implementation of public policy is one of the enduring frustrations of government. In a comprehensive overview of the subject in the International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, David J. Houston (1998) held that “implementation typically involves a wide range of actors with diverse interests and competing goals, including formal policymakers, bureau- cratic officials from all levels of government . . . , private sector organizations, nonprofit organizations, clientele groups, and other interested citizen groups” (p. 1093). Although he does include “planning, communicating, negotiating” among the “activities” of implementation, nowhere in his comprehensive re- view of the subject does he mention leadership or partnership per se. Rather, he describes comprehensive theories of policy implementation that involve many factors. Our first premise is that leadership is an equally important activity, perhaps the most important part of the activity mix.

Our second premise is that simplistic models of leadership are at odds with the complexities and subtleties of public policy implementation. Traditional, simplistic models of leadership pervade our society and condition our public managers from a very early age. Those ingrained top-down models frustrate policy implementers—or public servants—by making the least, rather than the most, of our critical human resources.

Models of excellent leadership can be especially powerful in informing the study of public administration/implementation. They offer salient mod- els that can gain and maintain the attention of busy policy implementers. If better leadership “prescriptions” are to be constructed, they will have to rely on lessons of successful leadership through new lenses, and the literature of leadership offers especially powerful lenses, often focusing on partnerships as a means to the stated goals of a particular public policy.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

22 MARC HOLZER

Our third premise is that programs in public administration and public affairs, as well as in business and management, are expending much effort in undoing the assumptions that students bring to the classroom; as a corol- lary, they are ignoring the problems and constraints of such deep-seated, albeit simplistic, views. Those simplistic assumptions essentially follow an authoritarian, or Theory X, model.

• Leaders must be strong and decisive; under continuous pressure, they must act on the spot, reaching decisions without taking much time to consider the subtleties and implications.

• Leaders are expected to act as authoritarian, lone decision makers; they may solicit advice, but their operative paradigm is “the buck stops here,” the adage that the decision is on their desk, on their watch. They are expected to act, and they do so as much to serve their egos as to respond to the expectations of their colleagues, superiors, and board members that they present a strong and decisive persona.

• The “team” must back up the leader, right or wrong. Team members do not argue; soldiers carry out their orders, athletes execute their plays, and subordinates follow directions.

• Authority emanates from the top and is to be automatically accepted. Members of an organization, paid or volunteer, rarely talk back or chal- lenge top-down directives. And they are just as often ignored in the formulation of decisions and strategies.

• Leaders know best and the workforce must therefore follow. Generals and Secretaries of Defense view wars as too complex for the average soldier or citizen to understand. Principals view education as too complex for students, parents, and even teachers to comprehend.

Thus, public management is driven by assumptions of leadership that are widely accorded legitimacy by the workforce exposed to Theory X-type role models from birth.

• Young children are socialized to follow the authoritative directions of their parents. This is a necessary pattern of survival and cultural transfer- ence that often continues throughout the life cycle of parents’ relation- ships with their children.

• As they grow and gain independence, other authority-oriented role models insert themselves.

■ Students are expected to follow the lead of their teachers and, later, their professors, who are given immense authority to direct, judge, punish, and reward.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP 23

■ Student-actors must follow the directions of the drama coach or direc- tor of the school play.

■ Student-athletes are acculturated never to question the edicts from their coaches.

Those role models are reinforced throughout adulthood. The prevailing stereotype of the authoritative leader is reinforced and appears in multiple venues.

• On the silver screen—In Patton, George C. Scott portrays the revered general as a larger-than-life figure, intimidating his troops into coura- geous actions, accusing slackers of cowardice, and exposing himself to enemy fire as an exemplar to his troops. That image, as portrayed by other actors who represent real and fictional characters, is a thread through movies of wartime “action” and Cold War deception, of the Wild West, and of police and firefighting heroics.

• On television—Shows offer prime-time stereotypes of those in command almost hourly: authoritative police commanders on Law and Order, a decisive doctor on House, and a confident president on West Wing. Commercials on both TV and radio almost invariably present the boss as a figure to be feared and to be pleased. The executive’s voice is loud and strong, his or her manner is forceful, and his or her subordinates are relegated to inferior positions.

• Popular fiction—The genre of Michael Crichton and colleagues—deals primarily in stereotypes of powerful figures (albeit sometimes bumbling as he/she ignores the advice of subordinates). Novels of politics or crime trade in images of strong Presidents, CIA directors, admirals and gener- als, commissioners and commanders. The language is idiomatic, and the characterizations are two-dimensional.

• Sports—The image of the lone, aggressive decision maker is reinforced daily, and especially on the weekends, through athletic contests that are televised or in person: the football or basketball coach pacing the sidelines who is playing the role of chess master, while the players are simply pieces on the game board; the baseball manager sitting at the end of the bench strategizing; the Olympic coach directing the preparation of the compliant skater or runner; the World Cup coach shouting at the soccer team.

• Comics—Although the boss is often portrayed as insensitive, the power relationship is that of superior to inferior. In Dilbert, the staff typically suffers from the wrong-headed behavior of management, but the incum- bent, incompetent managers seem to survive. In Blondie, the boss is the productivity figure while Dagwood is the buffoon.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

24 MARC HOLZER

Although simplistic assumptions are widely discredited in the research- based literature, few people are exposed to it or are taught those research findings. In the United States, tens of millions of people staff public and quasi-public organizations (nonprofits, private sector contractors). Only a very small percentage (in the range of tens of thousands) are educated in public management at the graduate level (Master of Public Administration [MPA], Master of Public Policy, and similar degrees), and even many of those gradu- ates have never been exposed to courses on leadership per se. Most people in positions of public sector leadership come from fields in which there is little but the stereotypes to inform their expectations: law, medicine, engineering, social work, education, and so on.

Leadership as a Complex Construction

As alternatives to the simplistic assumptions that inundate our children and that are reinforced through adulthood by the media, analyses and case studies of leadership offer a set of creative recommendations for how our courses on leadership, motivation, and behavior might more effectively reverse the no- tions of authority that our society so pervasively communicates, suggesting alternative models that would make much better use of our human resources in the quest for more effective public organizations and programs. We can- not govern in the twenty-first century from first-century models such as the Caesars.

As examples of the efficiency and power of leadership cases, we cite the examples of two federal administrators: Nancy Hanks of the National Endow- ment for the Arts (NEA) and Colin Powell of the Department of Defense. Both are examples of how cases may help develop models for leadership, and both offer insights on building and maintaining sometimes fragile partnerships.

The Case of Nancy Hanks

According to Margaret Jane Wyszomirski (1997), Nancy Hanks, as the second chairperson of the NEA (1969–1977), is generally acknowledged to have been an especially successful policy implementer who executed a strategy for advancing and adapting the agency to a changing policy environment. Hanks brought unusually deep and broad leadership skills to the NEA.

During Hanks’s tenure, the agency budget increased twelvefold. Its staff increased six-fold. The number of applications for funding increased tenfold. The number of grant awards rose by a factor of seven. Overall, Hanks nur- tured an arts boom throughout the country. Theater audiences more than tripled. Dance audiences increased by a factor of ten. Other measures of the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP 25

arts showed similar growth. Just as important, artists and government officials came to feel they were full partners in a set of long-term endeavors.

Wyszomirski characterizes the ingredients of Hanks’s leadership—the “recipe” for implementation—as four major elements: environmental context, bureaucratic resources, political tactics, and personal style.

In terms of the context, Hanks was relatively nonpartisan. Although a Republican, she was acceptable to President Nixon as “neither an artist nor a politician”(p. 125). As a “neutral” figure, she was able to build partnerships (i.e., political coalitions) by avoiding any political or artistic labels. Rather, according to Wyszomirski, she described herself modestly as a budgeting specialist, an arts administrator who could creatively put a program into a political context. She was adept at partnering: building networks, convening panels of experts, coordinating advisory committee decisions, integrating diverse viewpoints, and reformulating information and opinion into an ac- ceptable, practical product. She also has been described as an individual with great attention to detail and a facility for meticulous preparation.

In addition to her personal characteristics, Hanks defined a long-term financial growth strategy for the agency. Wyszomirski (p. 129) describes her three goals as:

1. Cultural resources development, targeting nonprofit arts agencies for competitive grants;

2. Availability of artistic resources to a much wider audience; and 3. Advancement of our cultural legacy by funding new creative op-

portunities for artists and new artistic experiences for audiences.

Each of these three goals was the basis for a new coalition of partners: arts agencies, audiences, and artists.

To fund these initiatives, Hanks took advantage of the newly passed Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to secure more than $10 million in transitional funding. In addition, by developing “challenge grants” as a new category of funding, which required a three-to-one match of private-to-fed- eral dollars, she effectively stretched NEA’s budget. Both actions required substantial coalition building in the arts and political communities, as well as alliance building with other federal agencies such as the U.S. Information Agency and the General Services Administration. To staff NEA’s initiatives, she built a capable, loyal staff, in large part by drawing on her wide networks. That staff underscored and reinforced her own capabilities and was very much a fourth partner in building momentum for the arts.

Finally, Hanks became known for results-oriented programs (p. 133). She often relied on ideas that had been successfully piloted elsewhere, often at

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

26 MARC HOLZER

the state level. By paying attention to such innovations, she was able to adapt workable ideas rather than risk implementing something entirely new.

Compared to her successors who were notably less successful, Hanks is viewed as a person with the right qualities and the necessary skills to take advantage of a policy environment that presented opportunities for implemen- tation of public policy. She is known as a leader who worked effectively with a broad range of allies, including bureaucrats in her own agency and in other federal venues, and politicians in the White House and Congress.

Overall, then, we can extract the following guidelines from the Hanks case.

1. Build networks resulting in partnerships. 2. Bring technical expertise to the position. 3. Increase resources and disburse them to partners. 4. Integrate diverse viewpoints. 5. Adapt proven ideas. 6. Demonstrate results. 7. Build a capable, loyal staff as internal partners. 8. Take advantage of opportunities in the policy environment.

The Case of Colin Powell

Nancy Hanks had a clear mission, one in which she ardently believed: growth of the arts. General Colin Powell’s most public implementation task, how- ever, was to implement an even clearer mission, but one that he may not have initially supported, the Persian Gulf War. However, by all accounts he did so in an effective manner.

According to Jon Meacham (1997), Powell reportedly had reservations about going to war against Iraq. As an alternative, he favored a strategy of containment. But Powell’s responsibility as Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff was to implement the President’s decision to go to war. By all accounts, Powell was adroit in his support of the President, partnering with different players to build a supportive constituency.

Meacham characterizes Powell’s skills as more than technical. In the White House, he was considered surprisingly adept politically and was a major player who knew how to work the levers of power at the departmental and interagency levels. Among members of the press, he was viewed as especially cooperative in helping to develop stories, a clear indication of his subtle skillfulness in enlisting the press as a policy implementation partner.

Like Hanks, Powell’s attributes included an efficient manner and an ability to get things done. He was firmly committed to the principles of merit, and

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP 27

he attributed his success to the Army’s objectivity in assessing the skills and accomplishments of its members. Powell clearly felt that his success in the military was based solely on his performance. That statement alone under- scored his awareness of the need to build and maintain support within the military bureaucracy over the long haul (i.e., the course of his career).

By reputation, Powell was characterized, in terms of policy implementa- tion, as a conservative manager. He is described by Meacham and others as someone who knew how far he could take an argument, and he was under- standably reluctant to antagonize other decision makers who did not share his understanding of facts, strategies, or tactics. But his persuasive abilities enabled him to fight for federal funds for defense and to prevail. He proved an effective negotiator. In 1990 he took the initiative, convincing President George H.W. Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to maintain a “base force” of 1.6 million troops, and overall defense spending of $290 billion (Meacham 1997, p. 164). In arguing for those numbers, he used his ties with the press to “float” his own position in advance of that of the White House. He was able to preserve Cold War levels of funding without a Cold War enemy. He did this in part by building a coalition of interests within the Department of Defense, a mutually advantageous strategy of multiple, overlapping forces, thus begging the questions of efficiency and redundancy and minimizing op- portunities for drastic budget cuts.

During the Gulf War, Powell was as adept at being a politician as he was at being a military strategist. According to General Norman Schwarzkopf, he was never sure whether Powell was representing his own views or those of others.

Overall, Powell emerged from the Persian Gulf War as a hero—highly respected and positioned for future leadership. The military had accomplished its mission, and he was perceived both as an effective leader, by his troops and the public, and as an effective soldier, by his civilian superiors. He had successfully implemented national policy largely by recruiting organizational allies and maintaining coalitions, much as he had done in earlier budgetary and intradepartmental “wars.”

We can also extract guidelines for successful policy implementation from the Powell case, according to Meacham.

1. Know how to “partner” in the process of implementing desired policy.

2. Become a reliable source for potential press partners. 3. Project an image of efficiency. 4. Advocate principles of merit, thereby building a positive image for

the organization.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

28 MARC HOLZER

5. Build both internal and external coalitions. 6. Be able to represent the views of other partners. 7. Argue preemptively, thereby facilitating partnership opportunities. 8. Be willing to implement orders to be an “inside” partner.

The Leadership Literature

What implementation insights can we extract from the leadership literature as a whole? Perspectives on leadership are often framed as guides, and a sampling of those distillations may help a policy-level official build a salient overall model of leadership for implementation. For example, in addition to the personal and political attributes emphasized above, John Baldoni (1998), a well-known writer on leadership, defined six key attributes of leadership messages.

1. Character: Effective leadership over the long run should be moral. 2. Bearing: Confidence should emerge from bearing, which is the public

presentation of character. 3. Attitude: Optimism holds more potential than pessimism. 4. Words: The public face of the inner person. 5. Deeds: A leader is ultimately the sum of his or her accomplish-

ments. 6. Wisdom: A willingness to look ahead as well as a willingness to be

flexible in changing conditions.

Although a distinctly different perspective than each of the two cases above, Baldoni’s list offers a complementary perspective on partnering. The attributes he describes not only serve the individual, but also serve to attract and hold the support of superiors, peers, and subordinates who find it attrac- tive and advantageous to be associated with such a leader. If the sum of these six points may be labeled as “charisma,” then such charisma may be viewed as a collective signal to potential allies, or partners. Charisma itself will not ensure implementation, but by helping to recruit and hold allies, that set of attributes will certainly make policy implementation more likely.

Addressing the military, Maureen Leboeuf (1999) defined an alternative philosophy of leadership. It certainly complements the more pragmatic view of General Powell. Leboeuf presents a complex view of leadership, one that is rooted in abstractions rather than skills or personal chemistry:

1. Vision: Idealistic and a vision of the future organization. 2. Values: Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and

personal courage.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP 29

3. Care for soldiers/employees: Quality of life, proper training and equipment, safety, family support, and timely recognition for a job well done.

4. Leader development: Formal schooling, leader training within the organization, and empowerment.

5. Managing change: Recognize that change is inevitable and strive to master it; clearly articulate the reasons for change and how it ties into the organization’s mission and purpose.

6. Diversity: Value and listen to every member of the organization. 7. Sense of humor: To help build rapport and cooperation (pp. 30–33).

Much of Leboeuf’s list is advice on partnering, especially with the organization’s all-important internal partners: soldiers/employees and future leaders. She is suggesting that both abstractions and tangible improvements in their quality of life will build support for a leader’s agenda. Her advice on diversity (number 6) is merely that everyone may have something valu- able to offer in terms of strengthening the implementation system, and sometimes in terms of avoiding disastrous mistakes. Even the advice as to sense of humor offers help in partnering in terms of personal rapport and spirit of cooperation.

Conclusion

Overall, innovative partnerships between the public and nonprofit and private sectors, and across agencies, departments, levels, and even branches of the government, serve as models for significantly higher levels of accomplish- ment after we begin to think outside the usual bureaucratic box. Federal, state, and local officials need to encourage and support effective partnerships that accomplish government’s policy-related goals. When permitted to approach problem solving creatively, public servants can create partnerships toward more productive, more responsive government.

In particular, implementation requires public sector managers who are willing to rethink human resource management. In a society with higher, quality-oriented expectations, the simplistic bureaucratic, hierarchical man- agement style that our culture communicates is insufficient. Yet, too many organizations, public and private, fail to intelligently utilize or maintain their expensive human capital. The reason for this is simple: it is difficult and it takes much time and effort. The more enduring but more difficult way to implement improved performance is to develop each worker’s individual capacity and desire to function at the highest level possible. Employees at all levels are the partners on which the success of every public organization rests.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

30 MARC HOLZER

The enlightened leadership and management of human resources is par- ticularly important in the public sector because government’s most extensive and expensive investments are people; most public organizations devote 50–85 percent of their budgets to employee salaries and benefits. Because those “human resources” have complicated needs, responsive public organizations have adopted enlightened human resource practices, rejecting an authoritarian, bureaucratic style. Public organizations have often recognized that a produc- tive organization is humane, structured around not only the task but also its members and their human needs. They understand that the art of leadership inheres in getting people to work well for the organization by grasping and responding to their needs.

But organizational leaders also understand that intended services are achieved not by isolated individuals working alone and competing with each other, but by teams working cooperatively and supporting their colleagues. Thus, effective leaders recognize that partners within the organization are teams as well as individuals.

It might be tempting to adopt either of the cases or lists above as a model. It might even be tempting to develop a “leadership schematic.” But we must caution that this type of schematic cannot and should not be considered a formula for leadership toward implementation. No single model is sufficient or specific to any individual’s particular problem-solving situation. Each individual has to form his or her own schematic or roadmap. Each imple- mentation situation will differ in significant ways. Some will necessarily emphasize a certain subset of skills. It would be naïve and misleading to consider each element of equal weight and import. Yet, over the long run, each is potentially important. At the same time, we must acknowledge that this picture is incomplete. What is salient will depend on the individual, the situation, the group, the resources, and so on. To implement policy ef- fectively, one must be willing to search for and to adapt insights on leader- ship; thus, this schematic should differ on an individual basis and should evolve over time.

Leadership, in its simplest formulation as outlined in the first part of this chapter, may be taken as the “born leader.” But few if any leaders are born to the job. Even those with the most powerful personal attributes learned such behaviors from family, friends, teachers, and even television and other media. The most effective leaders go beyond the simple prescriptions and assumptions communicated by the culture, and continue to learn about leadership. This learning empowers their ability to implement policies and priorities. Even for very busy decision makers, who are so busy implementing public policy that they do not have time to read the heavier texts and journal articles, effective means to learning for leadership may include:

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP 31

• Books: A search of the Web will yield hundreds of titles on leadership. Similarly, a visit to any good bookstore will yield dozens. For example, Montgomery Van Wart has recently written Dynamics of Leadership in Public Service: Theory and Practice (2005). Amazon.com lists some fifty books on leadership as bestsellers.

• Articles: Short discussions of leadership are widely available in the print and electronic media, particularly in magazines in both formats and in electronic blogs. Searches under the term “leadership” on various search engines produce links to thousands of articles.

• Online resources: Excellent, thoughtful examinations of leadership are available via cases on the Web, such as the Hartwick Classic Film Leadership Cases (www.hartwickinstitute.org) and the Electronic Hall- way (www.hallway.org). Diverse cases are found on such sites as the Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program (www.fireleadership. gov), including its Leadership in Cinema program. GovLeaders.org links to a wide range of publications, games and simulations, degrees, and institutes specifically focused on public sector leaders.

Leadership resources, in print or video or online, may offer richer, deeper visions of effective leadership. For the most part, those visions run counter to the relatively simplistic, top-down model that so pervades our culture. But perhaps the more thoughtful analyses and reflections on leadership are insuf- ficient guides by themselves to the extent that they are simply overwhelmed by the leadership messages inherent in popular culture and bestselling titles, messages that are built on the lessons of a Patton, an Attila the Hun, or a prominent coach.

The most effective approach to leadership development may be to deliver sophisticated lessons as part of structured leadership development experi- ences. For example, many MPA programs, and in particular Executive MPA programs, offer courses in leadership, as do other degree programs, continu- ing education courses, and public management conferences. Those more thoughtful and structured approaches to the study of leadership—approaches characterized by partnering and collaborative behaviors—may effectively help undo the assumptions or behaviors many managers have subconsciously absorbed but have never consciously questioned.

References

Baldoni, John. 1998. “The Leadership Message.” Available at: http://www.bus.ualberta. ca/rfield/Speeches/John%20Baldoni%201998–1.htm (accessed April 9, 2007).

Houston, David J. 1998. “Implementation.” In International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, ed. Jay M. Shafritz, 1093–1097. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

32 MARC HOLZER

Leboeuf, Maureen K. 1999. “Developing a Leadership Philosophy.” Military Review 79(3): 28–34.

Loverd, Richard A. 1997. Leadership for the Public Service. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Meacham, Jon. 1997. “Colin Powell: How Colin Powell Plays the Game.” In Leadership for the Public Service, ed. Richard A. Loverd, 159–170. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Van Wart, Montgomery. 2005. Dynamics of Leadership in Public Service: Theory and Practice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Wyszomirski, Margaret Jane. 1997. “From Nancy Hanks to Jane Alexander: Generating Support for Art’s Sake at the National Endowment for the Arts.” In Leadership for the Public Service, ed. Richard A. Loverd, 121–149. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

3 From the New Public Management to the New Democratic Governance

Leadership Opportunities and Challenges

Stephanie P. Newbold and Larry D. Terry

The concept of governance is critical to the study and practice of public administration and even more central to the specific opportunities and chal- lenges that affect public sector leadership. Scholars have defined governance in a multitude of ways and in a plethora of different contexts. The public ad- ministration community relies on the term frequently, but a single, agreed-on definition does not exist. This, as a result, leads to a great deal of confusion when scholars and practitioners emphasize the term “governance” as a means of comparing or critiquing different theoretical approaches to public admin- istration, such as those associated with New Public Management (NPM) or New Democratic Governance (NDG).

Donald Kettl (2002) defines governance as “the way government gets its job done” (p. xi). He argues that traditions stemming from the administrative and political philosophies of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Woodrow Wilson transformed the nation’s governance structure. Carolyn Heinrich and Laurence Lynn (2000) maintain that governance “gen- erally refers to the means for achieving direction, control, and coordination of individuals or organizations . . . and may be defined as regimes of laws, administrative rules, judicial rulings, and practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable activity” (pp. 2–3). Jon Pierre (2000), in a similar line of argu- ment, supports the position that governance has two distinct meanings. The first focuses on “empirical manifestations of state adaptation to its external environment and the second denotes a theoretical representation of social systems co-ordination and the role of the state in that process” (p. 3).

Gary Wamsley et al. (1990) make the compelling case that governance

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

34 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

should permeate the theoretical and practical underpinnings of public ad- ministration. Their definition integrates old institutionalism with normative, constitutional theory. The foundations of Wamsley’s model are present in Peter Bogason and Juliet Musso’s (2006) assumption that governance “can be understood as encompassing both structure and process, both institutional and procedural dimensions” (p. 5). Jos Raadschelders (1999) moves in this direction as well, arguing: “The purpose of public administration is to govern, and thus government and governance are the core concepts that help us to organize the study of Public Administration” (p. 288). Eva Sorensen (2006), by contrasting government with governance, contends that the latter “denotes a complex governing process in which a multitude of public and private ac- tors interact to govern society” (p. 99). Lester Salamon (2002a) finds merit in this approach, but his definition of governance “relies on a wide array of third parties in addition to government to address public problems and pursue public purposes” (p. 8). Salamon’s perspective complements key elements associated with NDG.

This discussion highlights how a select group of highly regarded public administration scholars define governance and apply it to the roles and responsibilities traditionally associated with governing. We recognize that other definitions for governance exist and that each provides a distinct way of conceptualizing how this concept affects the administration of public agencies and elements of public sector leadership—theoretically and practically.

For the purposes of this chapter we define governance as the historical, political, institutional, legal, and constitutional foundations that enable gov- ernment to exist and function within the boundaries established by the U.S. Constitution. This definition builds on Jan Grell and Gary Gappert’s (1992) notion that governance is a broader concept than government because it holds the potential “to influence government as well as its traditional institutions and actors” (p. 68). An interesting way of deepening the field’s collective understanding of this process is by thinking of public administration as being part of an “ever-democratizing constitutional republic.”1The administrative state is not perfect—as the history of the nation certainly reflects—and it has not always lived up to the grand normative principles embedded within U.S. constitutional tradition. The administrative state, however, is constantly seek- ing new ways to preserve constitutional tradition, to enhance its institutional legitimacy, to provide essential public services, and to ensure that it does not function in a hollow environment (Terry 2006; Milward and Provan 2000; Milward, Provan, and Else 1993). In a word, “good governance is vital for the protection of the rights of citizens and the advancement of economic and social development” (Kim et al. 2005, p. 647).

The purpose of this chapter is to raise important leadership questions as-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 35

sociated with public administration’s transition from NPM to NDG. Analyzing this transition is essential for deepening the field’s ongoing debate regarding how we think about and define governance. First, this chapter describes the key elements of NPM and analyzes its institutional effects on the administra- tive state. Although many public administration scholars have focused on the theoretical foundations of NPM, questioned whether it represents a separate and distinct field of public management inquiry, and pondered its credibility, the field has not scrutinized the strengths and weaknesses of NDG in the same manner. Therefore, our second objective is to describe and evaluate the core elements of NDG, including transparency, networks, and civil society/par- ticipation. Finally, this chapter outlines the central tenets of old institutional- ism as a means of providing a distinctive way of scrutinizing the theoretical underpinnings of NDG. Old institutionalism, as understood through the lens of Philip Selznick (1957), provides public administration with the necessary insight to examine important institutional dynamics associated with NDG, particularly leadership in the public sector.

New Public Management

Description

Since the 1980s, scholars and practitioners have meticulously described the strengths and weaknesses of NPM. The principles of microeconomic theory largely influenced the development of this line of inquiry. Terry (1998) was one of the first scholars to outline the different theoretical approaches of NPM. Quantitative/analytic management, liberation management, and market-driven management (pp. 195–196), as well as public choice theory, transaction cost economics, and principal-agent theory, led to his argument that the incorpora- tion of these theoretical perspectives into public administration led to a specific form of neo-managerialism. Former Vice President Albert Gore’s Report of National Performance Review (1993) and David Osborne and Ted Gaebler’s Reinventing Government (1992) laid the foundation for the application of these theories to public sector management. Public administration, as a result, has been grappling with the implications of this movement ever since.

James Thompson’s (2006) position that “management and performance shortcomings of federal agencies are rooted in the political rather than the managerial system” (p. 496) highlights an important dynamic associated with NPM. Supporters of this line of inquiry argue that government should do more with fewer resources, treat citizens as customers, and compete with the private sector to determine which sector can perform public services more economi- cally, effectively, and efficiently. These political preferences in administrations

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

36 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

have extraordinarily affected how agencies provide public service delivery, implement a wide range of policies, and manage programs (Kettl 1993; Milward 1994; Prager and Desai 1996; Wallin 1997; Johnstone and Romzek 1999; Milward and Provan 2000; Savas 2000; Van Slyke 2003).

Key Elements

Liberation management and market-driven management are the core elements associated with NPM. The former supports the notion that civil servants are not only competent, capable, knowledgeable, and highly skilled, but they also recognize the value of quality management to the organization in which they serve (Peter 1992; Light 1997). Proponents of this approach argue that managerial problems develop because of the “bureaucratic system with its burdensome rules, controls, and procedures” (Terry 2006, p. 114). Market- driven management, by contrast, emphasizes competition and gives preference to private sector values, especially economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, over values associated with public sector management, such as responsibil- ity, responsiveness, and representativeness (Loffler 1997; Considine 2001). Advocates of this approach maintain that encouraging public managers to rely on market forces as civil servants motivates them to improve performance (Terry 2006, p. 114).

Critique

Public administration scholars have examined and critiqued the key elements of NPM extensively (Box 1998, 1999; de Leon and Denhardt 2000; Denhardt and Denhardt 2003). The Constitutional School is particularly sensitive to the liberation and market-driven managerial approaches espoused by NPM supporters. The Constitutional School is a group joined in a loose confedera- tion that is characterized by an interest in the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for their research and practice.2 These scholars’ public administration is broader and deeper in both scope and perspective than what the theoretical and practical underpinnings of NPM provide. To make this case, we need look no further than Alexander Hamilton’s observation in Federalist 27: “It may be laid down as a general rule that [the people’s] con- fidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration” (Cooke 1961, p. 172). One way to measure citizen confidence in government is certainly through economic performance indicators, but in a separation-of-powers system of government, leaders must also take into account other considerations, particularly in cases affecting the protection of individual rights.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 37

Public servants must protect and defend not only individual rights but also constitutional integrity, transparency, and rule of law (Rosenbloom 2007) for the citizenry to maintain confidence in government. NPM does not take into account these normative factors for policymaking, management, analysis, and evaluation techniques of public agencies, especially in matters affecting democratic governance. Christensen and Laegreid (2002) argue “under NPM accountability is based on output, competition, transparency and contractual relations, and thus represents a departure from public administration of the old school, where various forms of accountability were based upon process and procedures, hierarchical control, trust, and cultural traditions” (p. 277).3

Finally, Kirlin (1996) presents an important critique of NPM’s reliance on micro-economic theory: “Economists sometimes adopt a view of the functions of government to fit their tools of analysis. In support of their chosen approach, they distort the history of government, making it subordinate to economics when it clearly is not” (p. 170). The omission of normative, democratic, and constitutional principles from NPM provides an opportunity for theories as- sociated with NDG to challenge this school of thought.

New Democratic Governance

Description

In comparison with NPM, NDG is a relatively new line of inquiry, intend- ing to shift public administration’s dialogue and understanding about the normative dimensions associated with democratic governance. NDG draws our attention to important areas of concern omitted by NPM and its micro- economic orientation. According to Bevir (2006), “If markets and networks are replacing bureaucracies, perhaps we need new means for ensuring that the latter mechanisms remain appropriately democratic” (p. 426). Salamon (2002a) describes the new governance process, especially as it relates to the theoretical underpinnings and elements of NDG.

It finds commonalities flowing from the tools of public action that they employ. It thus shifts the unit of analysis from the individual program or agency to the distinctive tools or technologies that programs embody. Underlying this ap- proach is the notion that the multitude of different government programs really embody a more limited number of basic tools or instruments of action that share common features regardless of the field in which they are deployed (p. 10).

This way of thinking also supports one of the central themes from the Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government in 2005, which focused

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

38 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

on the idea that “good governance is vital for the protection of the rights of citizens and the advancement of economic and social development” (Kim et al. 2005, p. 647).

A number of scholars have pointed out serious theoretical and practical concerns with NPM and support a new approach or line of inquiry for examin- ing the relationship between the state and its citizenry (King and Stivers 1998; Box 1998, 1999; DeLeon and Denhardt 2000; Denhardt and Denhardt 2003; Boyte 2005). The key elements associated with NDG provide a thoughtful response and well-argued critique of NPM.

A Closer Look at Civil Society/Participation, Transparency, and Networks

NDG pays particular attention to civil society/participation, transparency, and networks. It examines the need for greater citizen collaboration not only with government agencies but also with civil society initiatives and programs (Hirst 1994; Stivers 1994). Stoker (2006) outlines broader elements associ- ated with NDG, including defining public intervention by the search for public value; affording greater legitimacy to a wider range of stakeholders; building and maintaining a strong commitment to a public service ethos; and requiring an adaptable, learning-based approach to the challenges of public service delivery.4

The key elements of NDG present a way for citizens to express any pos- sible frustration when dealing with the undemocratic structure of Weberian democracy (Golembiewski and Vigoda 2000; Vigoda 2002; Thompson 1983). More specifically, civil society initiatives, according to Cooper and Musso (1999), provide a meaningful and productive way for citizens to articulate dissatisfaction with administrative agencies and public services at all levels of U.S. government. NDG’s emphasis on collaboration, cooperation, and public-private partnerships provides a well-grounded response to NPM’s microeconomic orientation that treats citizens as customers (Osborne 2000; Teisman and Klijn 2002; Salamon 2002a).

The modern-day third sector emerged to meet the growing needs of citizens in large part because government agencies could no longer provide the mul- titude of services needed and requested by the citizenry at large. Hansmann (1987) argued that government failure theory played a major role in this contemporary transformation. As Young (2001) pointed out:

This body of [governmental failure] theory has been used to explain why private nonprofit organizations arise to provide public goods and services on a voluntary basis, even in the presence of governmental provision. . . . Moreover,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 39

since government must provide its services universally to all its citizens, it is limited in its ability to experiment on a scale with new programs, which creates another niche for private nonprofit organizations (p. 190).

Salamon (2002b) provides complementary support for these arguments in his defense of why the nonprofit sector is a resilient aspect of American society. Salamon maintains that the third sector “embodies two seemingly con- tradictory impulses that form the heart of American character: a deep-seated commitment to freedom and individual initiative and an equally fundamental realization that people live in communities and consequently have respon- sibilities that extend beyond themselves” (p. 3). DeLeon (1997) argues that civic associations are linked to a specific type of political education. Building on the ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville, he recognized the considerable role that local governments and townships play with regard to encouraging active citizen participation in local, state, and national politics.

Civil society initiatives and programs are an important element of this conversation. Edwards (2004) outlines three distinct roles and responsibili- ties associated with civil society: (1) civil society emerged as an arena for collective action distinct from states and markets; (2) civil society is part of a normative tradition that emphasizes the importance of preserving values associated with trust, cooperation, tolerance, and nonviolence; and (3) civil society underscores noteworthy democratic values associated with public deliberation and active citizenship. Edwards and Foley (2001) argue that the most important role attributed to civil society is the notion that these types of organizations “play a major role, if not the major role, in building citizenship skills and attitudes crucial for motivating citizens to use these skills” (p. 5, emphasis in original). In addition, they illustrate a variety of public and quasi- public functions that civil society organizations provide, including, “healing the sick, counseling the afflicted, supporting the penniless, educating both young and old, fostering and disseminating culture, and generally providing many of the necessities and adornments of a modern society” (p. 5).

One dimension of the NDG philosophy is that strengthening communities helps facilitate a more open and active dialogue between citizens, public ad- ministrators, and government agencies. Citizens, as a result, are more likely to make a more active and meaningful contribution to the policy process. As Musso et al. (2006) note, “The building blocks of political activity— organizing, working with others, compromise—depend on high levels of trust and tolerance, norms of reciprocity, and commitments to community” (p. 81). Transparency is crucial to this conversation. Perry, Mesch, and Paarlberg (2006) astutely observe that one way civil servants contribute to increasing the public’s knowledge of organizational performance is through “being more

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

40 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

transparent; partnering with researchers to assess organizational intervention; and engaging in more experiments to determine what works” (p. 511).

Increased public support for the community as a whole establishes what Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) call “the creation of shared interests and shared responsibility” (p. 554), and if interests and responsibilities are shared, a more transparent, open administrative state will be more likely to emerge. Rosen- bloom (2000) also underscores the significance of transparency in building a legislative-centered public administration. The Freedom of Information Act (1966), Privacy Act (1974), Government in the Sunshine Act (1976), Inspector General Act (1978), Paperwork Reduction Acts (1980, 1995), and Government Performance and Results Act (1993) represent legislation passed to create more transparency.

Like transparency, networks are important to NDG. Salamon (2002a) maintains that the defining characteristic of networks is their “establishment of interdependencies between public agencies and a host of third-party actors” (p. 11). Networks are effective tools for policy implementation that involve one or more public or nonprofit agency. O’Toole (1997) argues that public administration should take networks seriously because of their broad impact on administration and the increased importance of the third sector and its collaboration with government agencies, and because the policy process is becoming increasingly more complex.

Critique

At first glance, it appears that the tenets of NDG are benign and representa- tive of the values inherent to democratic governance and the Constitutional School, but this line of inquiry, like NPM, deserves scrutiny. Bevir’s (2006) commentary on system governance, which he argues is “committed to the ideals of dialogue, participation, consensus, empowerment, and social inclu- sion” (p. 426), highlights an important concern associated with NDG and one that merits serious scholarly consideration. System governance represents a clear and direct shift from NPM to NDG because of its emphasis on new institutionalism and communitarianism. However,

[System Governance] should not be treated as a viable substitute for repre- sentative democracy, as if a process of top-down consultation with organized interests were enough to offset the democratic deficits associated with multilevel networks. And it certainly should not be mistaken for a radical, participatory democracy that fosters pluralism and dialogue. System governance generally consists of attempts to improve the effectiveness of established institutions by means of officially sponsored and managed participation . . . . If it ever succeeded

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 41

in genuinely broadening participation, it would run up against the possibility that citizens and associations act as catalysts for change, overturning existing norms, practices, and institutions instead of enhancing their legitimacy and effectiveness (Bevir 2006, p. 434).

This perspective resonates with O’Toole and Meier’s (2004) concern regarding the dark side of networks: political dynamics do not disappear when agencies operate in a network environment. Instead, they are more likely to increase. Raab and Milward (2003) draw attention to the problems of “dark networks.”5

They make the case that dark networks should be contained because of their reliance on secrecy, use of physical force, and information processing. Salamon (2002a) has contributed by addressing the organizational and institutional concerns that often arise when government agencies lose control and oversee their programs when they transition from a traditional hierarchical structure to a network model.

Vigoda (2002) raises a principal concern regarding civil society/participa- tion initiatives. He maintains that this element of NDG more closely resembles NPM than its supporters are willing to acknowledge. In a blistering critique, he argues:

The motivation to meet the demands raised by citizens is equivalent to satis- fying the needs of a regular customer in a regular neighborhood supermarket. Responsiveness in the public arena closely complies with business-oriented statements such as “the customer is always right” and “never argue with the clients’ needs” that every salesperson memorizes from the first day at work. (p. 529)

With regard to transparency, an important question that public administra- tion needs to address is whether too much transparency hinders the ability of government to act in an efficient and effective manner. We have assumed that transparency is a concept that stands alone without meriting serious scrutiny or critique because of the normative values that it embodies as being representa- tive of an open and responsive government. This, like any idea influencing the theoretical and practical dynamics of the field, should not be the case.

Scholars and practitioners should examine every theory and scrutinize its strengths and weaknesses in order to develop a more comprehensive un- derstanding of its application to the administrative state and its governance structure. This critique, therefore, provides an opportunity to examine how the tenets of old institutionalism provide the scrutiny needed to examine how the key elements of NDG hold the potential to undermine the constitutional and institutional integrity of the U.S. administrative state.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

42 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

Old Institutionalism

Description

Philip Selznick is regarded as the leader of the old or traditional institutional movement. In his seminal work, Leadership in Administration (1957), Sel- znick illustrates the importance of leadership and statesmanship to the study and practice of good administration. In the opening sentence of this work, Selznick maintains:

The nature and quality of leadership, in the sense of statesmanship, is an elusive but persistent theme in the history of ideas. Most writers have centered their attention on political statesmen, leaders of whole com- munities who sit in the high places where great issues are joined and settled. In our time, there is no abatement of the need to continue the great discussion, to learn how to reconcile idealism with expediency, freedom with organization. (p. 1)

In connecting leadership to statesmanship, Selznick serves as the in- tellectual foundation for this chapter. For leaders of the public service, maintaining, conserving, and connecting leadership with statesmanship provides a critical way of thinking about the relationships between career civil servants and the state they serve, and building citizen confidence in the administration of U.S. government. This was one of Hamilton’s objectives in Federalist 27.

Selznick’s (1996) conceptualization of old institutionalism preserves thick institutions, whereas NPM and NDG practices have a tendency to advance a hollow state with thin institutions. According to Selznick (1957), organizations become institutions through a process in which they are infused with value beyond their technical specializations. Selznick (1996) vigorously defended this position thirty-nine years after he wrote Leadership in Administration when contrasting “old” and “new” institutionalism: “Values do have a central place in the theory of institutions. We need to know which values matter in the context at hand; how to build them into the organization’s culture and social structure; and in what ways they are weakened and subverted” (p. 271). Insti- tutional leadership, therefore, is an essential component of old institutionalism. Institutional leaders, according to Selznick, play an integral role in preserving and conserving institutional integrity. They are experts “in the promotion and protection of values,” which work to protect an institution’s distinctive com- petence, mission, and roles—an essential component of Selznickian thought. Selznick’s argument is important to the idea that the key elements associated

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 43

with NPM undermine the integrity of administrative institutions by creating a hollow state with thin institutions (Terry 2006).

Selznick’s later work, The Moral Commonwealth (1992), lays the founda- tion from which to examine the key elements of NDG with greater scrutiny. For our purposes, one of the most important aspects of this work is Selznick’s expanded understanding of institutional integrity as it relates to leadership:

We cannot know what integrity requires unless we have a theory of the in- stitution. What counts as integrity and what affects integrity will be different for a research university and a liberal arts college; for a constitutional court and a lower court; for a regulatory agency and a highway department. Each institution, or each type of institution, has special functions and values; each has a distinctive set of unifying principles. When an institution is charged with lack of integrity, the charge always contains an implicit conception of what the institution is or should be (1992, p. 324, emphasis in original).

The historical, political, institutional, legal, and constitutional foundation of U.S. governance determines the type of integrity essential to the maintenance and preservation of the state and its administrative agencies. As important as civil society programs and networks are to meeting the growing needs of citizens, the institutional values and norms essential to preserving the integrity of these organizations are different from the values of public sector agencies. Governmental organizations emphasize institutional integrity by preserving and conserving constitutional tradition, which is not only an essential element of U.S. governance but also, to borrow from Selznick, an important aspect of “political statesmanship” (1957, p. 1).

Civil servants safeguard the institutional integrity of their respective agencies in several important and distinctive ways. Rohr (1986) argues that the oath of office is critical for developing a constitutional theory of public administration. Once civil servants take their oath of office to defend the Constitution, they must use their discretionary powers wisely “in order to maintain the constitutional balance of powers in support of instilling individual rights” (Rohr 1986, p. 181). Rosenbloom, Carroll, and Carroll (2000) build upon Rohr’s argument in their support of constitutional competence for public managers because, as they correctly point out, “whole areas of public management are permeated by constitutional law” (p. 1). Protecting the individual rights of citizens is one of the most important responsibilities of the career civil service. Leaders of civil society programs and nonprofit organizations are not bound by a constitutional oath of office or by the legal environment of public management, which re- quires a high level of competence in constitutional law in an effort to ensure that individual rights are protected as much as possible.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

44 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

How Old Institutionalism’s Key Elements Provide a Needed Critique of NDG

Charles Perrow (1986) called attention to the most important and distinctive element of traditional institutional thought—its emphasis on the environment. The process of institutionalization, according to Perrow, “is the process of organic growth, wherein the organization adapts to the strivings of internal groups and the values of the external society” (p. 167). Institutional leadership, according to Selznick (1957), has important environmental functions, which is why he was interested in developing a political orientation as a means of underscoring the significance of institutional leadership to the institutional environment. Selznick (1957) argues, “The link between ‘polity’ and ‘poli- tics’ must constantly be kept in mind. To be sure, the political process always involves an actual or potential contest of wills, but it also includes the continu- ous redefinition of public interest and the embodiment of those definitions in key institutions” (p. 61).

This argument is an intellectual parallel to Madison’s observation in Federalist 51, where he reminds us that we can find ourselves only in some- thing greater than ourselves: “The interest of the man must be connected to the constitutional rights of the place” (Cooke 1961, p. 349). When public servants no longer view themselves as a product of the Constitution and of the nation’s democratic institutions, public virtue diminishes. When this occurs, according to Madison, ambition becomes an “auxiliary precaution.” Ambition, therefore, works to safeguard the separation-of-powers system since it ensures that people’s personal interests are connected directly to the government. In a word, the same government that controls the people will also control itself. Theories associated with NDG do not provide the type of institutional environment Publius created in 1787 as a corrective institutional tool for protecting and legitimating the government’s administrative institu- tions vis-à-vis constitutional tradition.

Beyond the grand theoretical and constitutional foundation that Publius (Cooke 1961) established, contemporary scholars have also articulated concerns associated with contracting out traditional government or public services. Kirlin (1996) built on Selznick’s argument regarding institutionalization. He maintained, “Government action creates value without which private creation of value would be rare and very difficult. By providing the frameworks and institutions within which individuals, businesses, and other nongovernmental social groupings can create value, governments create a broader and more pervasive value for society” (p. 163). Kirlin’s point speaks directly to why our definition of governance is crucial to this conversation. If we interpret the concept of governance as meaning the historical, political, institutional, legal, and constitutional foundations that en-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 45

able government to exist and function within the confines of the American state, then we can begin to grapple with the structural and institutional consequences NDG brings in its effort to critique the microeconomic orientation of NPM. What NPM omits in its efforts to make government resemble the private sector and what NDG overlooks in its attempt to emphasize civil society, participa- tion, networks, and transparency is the connection and legitimacy of the state’s governance heritage to its administrative institutions.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to scrutinize the key elements of NDG, particularly civil society/participation, transparency, and networks. A careful and thoughtful examination of NDG reveals that it is not as benign as it first appears. This analysis, however, does not weaken the importance of NDG’s critique of NPM. What this argument does provide, is a cautionary framework in which to understand what the state has the potential to lose when govern- ment agencies are no longer the primary source for public service delivery. As Paul Appleby (1945) noted over six decades ago, the essential character of government is different from other sectors because of its size, political character, scope of responsibility, and measures of accountability. He went on to argue that leadership in government is also different from what the private sector demands of its executives or, as this research indicates, what advocates of NDG require of its organizational and network leaders.

Selznick’s (1957) incorporation of statesmanship into his discussion about what leadership qualities are needed for good administration should not be lost on the field. Statesmanship is important to any serious intellectual exchange regard- ing democratic governance (Newbold 2005). Public service leaders safeguard the nation’s constitutional tradition and protect the normative and constitutional values embedded in the state’s governance structure. When we, as scholars and practitioners, preference the key elements of NPM or NDG at the expense of the state’s institutional integrity, we are less able to protect the distinctive competence, mission, and roles that are uniquely characteristic to public administration.

Notes

Larry and I outlined this chapter together and submitted a proposal to the 2007 American Society for Public Administration’s Annual Conference in Washington, DC, in June 2006. Unfortunately, he passed away before we completed this work. On matters of leadership in the American administrative state, his voice is greatly missed.

1. Gary L. Wamsley, Virginia Tech, coined the term “ever-democratizing constitu- tional republic,” many years ago and uses it frequently to discuss ideas relating to public administration theory.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

46 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

2. This label was agreed on by Richard Green, Karen Hult, Doug Morgan, Stephanie Newbold, John Rohr, and David Rosenbloom at the 2007 Southern Political Science Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

3. The unit of analysis regarding how the authors apply the concept of transparency in this article is significant. Transparency, in this context, refers to an economic orientation whereas NDG scholars maintain that transparency is citizen and/or service oriented.

4. Boyte (2005) maintains that democratic governance is comprised of “(1) translation of methods of citizen organizing elsewhere by naming its practices and ideas as a politics that can be practiced generally; (2) the democratization of professional practices; and (3) a renewal of the concept of democracy as a society, centered on shared civic responsibility for the creation and sustenance of public goods” (p. 542).

5. Raab and Milward (2003) use three examples of dark networks: heroin trafficking, Al Qaeda, and arms and diamond smuggling.

References

Appleby, Paul. 1945. Big Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Bevir, Mark. 2006. “Democratic Governance: Systems and Radical Perspectives.” Public

Administration Review 66(3): 426–436. Bogason, Peter, and Juliet Musso. 2006. “The Democratic Prospects of Network Gover-

nance.” American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 3–18. Box, Richard. 1998. Citizen Governance: Leading American Communities into the 21st

Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ———. 1999. “Running Government Like a Business: Implications for Public Administra-

tion Theory and Practice.” American Review of Public Administration 29(1): 19–43. Boyte, Harry. 2005. “Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and Politics.”

Public Administration Review 65(5): 536–546. Christensen, Tom, and Per Laegreid. 2002. “Symposium on Accountability, Publicity, and

Transparency: New Public Management: Puzzles of Democracy and the Influence of Citizens.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10(3): 267–295.

Considine, Mark. 2001. Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-Work. Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Cooke, Jacob. 1961. The Federalist. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Cooper, Terry, and Juliet Musso. 1999. “The Potential for Neighborhood Council Involve-

ment in American Metropolitan Governance.” International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 2(1&2): 199–232.

deLeon, Linda, and Janet Denhardt. 2000. “The Political Theory of Reinvention.” Public Administration Review 60(2): 89–97.

deLeon, Peter. 1997. Democracy and the Policy Sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Denhardt, Janet, and Robert Denhardt. 2000. “The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering.” Public Administration Review 60(6): 549–559.

———. 2003. The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Edwards, Bob, and Michael Foley. 2001. “Civil Society and Social Capital: A Primer.” In Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective, ed. B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, and M. Diani, 1–16. Hanover, CT: University Press of New England.

Edwards, Michael. 2004. Civil Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1966).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 47

Golembiewski, Robert, and Eran Vigoda. 2000. “Organizational Innovation and the Sci- ence/Craft of Management.” In Current Topics in Management, vol. 5, eds. M. A. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, and K. D. Mackenzie, 263–280. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gore, Albert. 1993. From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: The Report of the National Performance Review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b (1976). Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, § 20, 107 Stat.

285 (1993). Grell, Jan, and Gary Gappert. 1992. “The Future of Governance in the United States.”

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 522(1): 67–78. Hansmann, Henry. 1987. “Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organization.” In The Non-

profit Sector: A Research Handbook, ed. W. W. Powell, 27–42. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Heinrich, Carolyn, and Laurence Lynn, eds. 2000. Governance and Performance: New Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Hirst, Paul. 1994. Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-452, § 1 (1978). Johnstone, Joycelyn, and Barbara Romzek. 1999. “Contracting and Accountability in State

Medicaid Reform: Rhetoric, Theories, and Reality.” Public Administration Review 59(5): 383–399.

Kettl, Donald. 1993. Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

———. 2002. The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kim, Pan Suk, John Halligan, Choel H. Namshin, and Angela M. Eikenberry. 2005. “To- ward Participatory and Transparent Governance: Report of the Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government.” Public Administration Review 65(6): 646–654.

King, Cheryl, and Camilla Stivers. 1998. Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirlin, John. 1996. “What Government Must Do Well: Creating Value for Society.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 161–185.

Light, Paul. 1997. The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945–1995. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Loffler, Elke. 1997. The Modernization of the Public Sector in an International Comparative Perspective: Implementation in Germany, Great Britain and the United States. Speyer, Germany: Forshungsinstitut Fur Offentliche Verwaltung.

Milward, H. Brinton. 1994. “Implications of Contracting Out: New Roles for the Hollow State.” In New Paradigms for Government: Issues for the Changing Public Service, eds. P. Ingraham and B. Romzek, 41–62. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith Provan. 2000. “Governing the Hollow State.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 359–379.

Milward, H. Brinton, Keith Provan, and Barbara Else. 1993. “What Does the Hollow State Look Like?” In Public Management Theory: The State of the Art, ed. Barry Bozeman, 310. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Musso, Juliet, Christopher Weare, Nail Oztas, and William E. Loges. 2006. “Neighborhood Governance Reform and Networks of Community Power in Los Angeles.” American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 79–97.

Newbold, Stephanie. 2005. “Statesmanship and Ethics: The Case of Thomas Jefferson’s Dirty Hands.” Public Administration Review 65(6): 669–677.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

48 STEPHANIE P. NEWBOLD AND LARRY D. TERRY

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Osborne, Stephen, ed. 2000. Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in Inter- national Perspective. London: Routledge.

O’Toole, Laurence. 1997. “Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agenda in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 57(1): 45–52.

O’Toole, Laurence, and Kenneth Meier. 2004. “Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the Dark Side of Networks.” Public Administration Review 64(6): 681–693.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 45 U.S.C. Ch. 35 (1980). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 45 U.S.C. Ch. 35 (1995). Perrow, Charles. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 3rd ed. New York:

McGraw Hill. Perry, James, Debra Mesch, and Laurie Paarlberg. 2006. “Motivating Employees in a

New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited.” Public Administration Review 66(4): 505–514.

Peter, Thomas. 1992. Liberation Management: Necessary Disorganization for the Nano- second Nineties. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Pierre, Jon, ed. 2000. “Introduction: Understanding Governance.” In Debating Governance, ed. J. Pierre, 1–10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prager, Jonas, and Swati Desai. 1996. “Privatizing Local Government Operations.” Public Productivity and Management Review 20(2): 185–203.

Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1974). Raab, Jorg, and H. Brinton Milward. 2003. “Dark Networks as Problems.” Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory 13(4): 413–440. Raadschelders, Jos. 1999. “A Coherent Framework for the Study of Public Administration.”

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(2): 281–303. Rohr, John A. 1986. To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State.

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Rosenbloom, David. 2000. Building a Legislative Centered Public Administration: Congress

and the Administrative State, 1946–1999. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. ———. 2007. “Reinventing Administrative Prescriptions: The Case for Democratic-

Constitutional Impact Statements and Scorecards.” Public Administration Review 67(1) 28–39.

Rosenbloom, David, James D. Carroll, and Jonathan D. Carroll. 2000. Constitutional Competence for Public Managers. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Salamon, Lester, 2002a. “The New Governance and the Tools of Action: An Introduction.” In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, ed. Lester Salamon, 1–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2002b. “The Resilient Sector: The State of Nonprofit America.” In The State of Nonprofit America, ed. Lester Salamon, 3–61. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Savas, E. S. 2000. Privatization and Public-Public Partnerships. New York: Chatham House.

Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. 1992. The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. 1996. “Institutionalism ‘Old’ and ‘New.’” Administrative Science Quarterly 41(2): 270–277.

Sorensen, Eva. 2006. “Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance.” American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 98–114.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT TO NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 49

Stivers, Camilla. 1994. “The Listening Bureaucrat: Responsiveness in Public Administra- tion.” Public Administration Review 54(4):364–369.

Stoker, Gerry. 2006. “Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Gover- nance?” American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 41–57.

Teisman, Geert, and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2002. “Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme?” Public Administration Review 62(2): 197–205.

Terry, Larry. 1998. “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Man- agement Movement.” Public Administration Review 58(3): 194–200.

———. 2006. “The Thinning of Administrative Institutions.” In Revisiting Waldo’s Ad- ministrative State, eds. D. H. Rosenbloom and H. E. McCurdy, 109–128. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Thompson, Dennis. 1983. “Bureaucracy and Democracy.” In Democratic Theory and Practice, ed. G. Duncan, 235–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, James. 2006. “The Federal Civil Service: The Demise of an Institution.” Public Administration Review 66(4): 496–503.

Van Slyke, David. 2003. “The Mythology of Privatization in Contracting for Social Ser- vices.” Public Administration Review 63(3): 296–315.

Vigoda, Eran. 2002. “From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 62(5): 527–540.

Wallin, Bruce. 1997. “The Need for a Privatization Process: Lessons from Development and Implementation.” Public Administration Review 57(1): 11–20.

Wamsley, Gary L., et al. 1990. Refounding Public Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Young, Dennis R. 2001. “Government Failure Theory.” In The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector, ed. J. S. Ott, 190–192. Boulder, CO: Westview.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

4 Developing Future Leaders

James E. Colvard

Leadership and leaders must be defined before they can be rationally dis- cussed. A leader is someone you follow because you want to, not because you have to. Leadership is convincing someone to do what you want them to do and convincing someone not to do that which you do not want them to do. Leadership is an experientially acquired skill. It is not abstract, like science or mathematics, and thus cannot be taught in the classic manner. Much like the effect of oxygen on combustion, teaching in the classic manner of expounding abstraction can support and enhance the development process for leaders by furthering their understanding of experience.

Management is often viewed as the same as leadership. However, they are not the same. Management is historically dependent, is impacted by the state of technology, and can be taught. Leadership is historically independent, is not technology sensitive, and cannot be taught. Managers can be made; leaders are self-made. Management can be performed by machines: for example, a computer can manage a person’s schedule. Leadership is personal; only the person can decide what to put on the calendar. The act of deciding is the heart of leadership; the execution of the decision is management. Most organizations train many managers but develop few leaders. Historically, leadership has been the premium capability that determines the difference between success in organizations and among nations. In a future fraught with uncertainty, leadership is essential.

How Do We Develop Future Leaders?

It is said that generals always prepare to fight the last war, suggesting that military leaders have no vision. However, this statement means one only knows that which has previously occurred. Anticipating what will occur is problematic at best. Yogi Berra put it more simply when he said: “Prediction is very hard, especially when it’s about the future.” Thus, whether you are a military leader

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

DEVELOPING FUTURE LEADERS 51

or any other kind of leader, there is uncertainty about how to best prepare your staff to be leaders in an unknowable future. The only thing that is certain to them is that it will be different from what they have experienced.

Many things will indeed change. Techniques, whether the tools of technol- ogy or the structures of organizations, will change. Simply listing the technol- ogy changes that have occurred during our professional lifetimes would be a simple but time-consuming exercise. Take the process of communicating between a manager and his or her staff. The manager used to dictate a memo to a secretary who prepared a memo that the manager reviewed, signed, and then distributed to the staff. Today, the manager sits down and types a mes- sage on a computer, and it is then transmitted instantly to each member of the staff. Think of the many different human actions and interactions that something as common as e-mail has changed in office routines—the impact of technology becomes obvious.

When voice mail is included, the historical roles of the secretary and the supervisor or boss have dramatically changed. Technology changed the roles of the actor and the speed at which events occur, but the important fundamentals of communicating thoughts to a staff have not changed.

This is also the case in developing future leaders. The technology of the future, the institutional structures, and the social environment will change, but the fundamentals will not. This discussion will focus on those fundamentals, which are the individuals and their relationships to others in an outcome- focused activity. Organizations exist to achieve intended outcomes through purposeful activity. Such outcomes can be defined as work. In the complex processes of organizations, outcomes are determined by coordinated activi- ties, which requires management. Desired outcomes change over time and require changes in the activities intended to achieve them. Anticipating and adapting to those changes requires leadership.

The Functions of Managers Versus Leaders

Recognizing the difference between management and leadership is critical to the development of leaders because the process is different in both. The fol- lowing highlight their differences by describing the functions they perform.

• A manager takes care of where you are; a leader takes you to a new place.

• A manager deals in the present; a leader is concerned with the future. • A manager deals with determinism; a leader deals with probability. • A manager deals with short time frames; a leader deals with long time

frames.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

52 JAMES E. COLVARD

• A manager deals with complexity; a leader deals with uncertainty. • A manager is concerned with the finding of facts; a leader makes

decisions. • A manager is concerned with doing things right; a leader is concerned

with doing the right things. • A manager’s critical concern is efficiency; a leader’s critical concern is

effectiveness. • A manager creates policies; a leader establishes principles. • A manager sees and hears what is going on; a leader hears when there

is no sound and sees when there is no light. • A manager finds answers and solutions; a leader formulates the questions

and identifies the problems. • A manager looks for similarities between present and previous problems;

a leader looks for differences. • A manager thinks a successful solution to a management problem can be

used again; a leader wonders if the problem, set in a new environment, may not require a different solution.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of things that define differences be- tween management functions and leadership functions, but rather is sufficient to illustrate the point. If these differences in functions are accepted, people with different characteristics developed by different approaches will be required to effectively perform the roles. For example, good managers must pay great attention to detail, whereas good leaders must have exceptional conceptual skills and a propensity for the larger view. People who are restless and become bored with routines might better perform in a leadership role than a manage- ment role. Of course, they might be good at neither. It must be emphasized at this point that management roles include some leadership functions and that leadership roles include some management functions; the area between the two is a zone rather than a sharp line of demarcation.

Required Understandings for Managers and Leaders

What, then, should a person who is either going into a management position or will assume a leadership role learn? It can be argued that, among other things, he or she must learn how to:

• deal with the specific and the conceptual and how to separate the two; • balance the experiential and the cognitive or abstract in their development

process; • deal with the objective and subjective and not confuse the two;

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

DEVELOPING FUTURE LEADERS 53

• deal with uncertainty and manage risk; • use technology without becoming a machine; • deal with the short term and long term and recognize the value of each; • deal in a virtual world populated by “real” people; and • understand the different forms of power and the strengths and weaknesses

of each form.

It is useful to look at each of these in more detail. Professionals tend to advance in their careers by applying the specifics of their academic train- ing. Effective engineers, for example, are relentlessly attentive to each detail in their work. This is critical for successful accomplishment of their assigned tasks, and it is essential at the individual product or project level because they often have trouble moving to the general or conceptual level. For example, they might be very effective at designing an automobile but cannot visualize other forms of transportation. The great railroad corpora- tions in this country declined because they did not understand that their business was transportation and that railroads were only one of many ways to transport things.

Those who may become managers and leaders must first master the de- tails of their profession in solving real problems. This allows them to fully understand their profession, develop a record of accomplishment, and, most importantly, develop the confidence to act when they advance to positions in which the individual details are not available to them but they must make decisions anyway. This mastery of detail and progression to the general and conceptual requires attention to employee development, which is the respon- sibility of those currently in positions of leadership because it is they who have the power to make it happen.

In the development process, a plan must be laid out that takes cognitive and abstract preparation, commonly called formal education, and adds to it the experiential dimension of applying knowledge. A new employee comes into an organization having been taught that all problems can be solved and that there are definitive answers to all questions. The employee needs to develop the understanding that abstraction simulates reality and that in the “experi- enced world” (compared with the “theoretical world”) there are problems for which there are no obvious solutions and that answers do not exist for all questions. Telling a person about reality does not allow them to understand reality, they must experience it. Experience is the process that turns data into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom. A critical judgment that the existing leader must make is when an employee in a development stage should move on to the next stage.

In the early phases of development, future managers and leaders do specific

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

54 JAMES E. COLVARD

things that have objective outcomes. An engineer may design a given device, or an accountant may have to balance the books. As their roles change and they move into management, their activities involve less objective outcomes. They will have to develop a vision and make a plan or a decision. These activities involve subjectivity and require that the manager or leader be comfortable with an outcome that has no objective manifestation. This is often hard for specialists who are used to being able to “prove” that they have solved the problem.

Uncertainty and risk are part of decision making, in which outcomes can- not be proven and the path not taken cannot be evaluated. Again, specialists have trouble with this—it is probably the greatest emotional barrier they have to cross to become a successful leader. The key is self-confidence that will allow the decision maker to deal with failure when a decision is later proven wrong.

Modern technology depersonalizes the management process to the point at which managers can become mechanistic. It is critical for managers to retain a personal touch and contact through such things as informal meetings with their employees and social activities that allow human-to-human contact. This becomes more difficult as organizations go international, since managers may never see the people who work for them. E-mail and video teleconferencing will not totally compensate for this depersonalization. Maintaining the per- sonal touch in an impersonal world may become the management challenge of the current century.

As future managers progress from individual task execution to oversight functions, they must develop the ability to visualize the aggregation of short- term outcomes into a coordinated set that forms a desired long-term outcome. The attainment of coordinated, intended outcomes represents organizational work. The conceptualization of that composite is called vision.

With digitalization, our reality becomes more abstract or virtual, yet humans have not changed significantly and must accommodate to that virtual world. Managers and leaders will lag the technology consciousness of their younger employees and must recognize this in dealing with them.

The next section covers the forms of power and the strengths and weak- ness of each.

Forms of Power Available to Managers and Leaders

In organizations, power comes in three primary forms: authority, competence, and value. Authority is based on force and is the basis for most of today’s management structures. It is the gravitational model of power, where the higher you sit in the organization, the more force you have when you come down on

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

DEVELOPING FUTURE LEADERS 55

a subordinate. Position in the organization is the manager’s basis of power; the power belongs to the position, not the individual. Authority as the basis of power leads to pyramidal organizations. Authority-based organizations are very effective at executing tasks that are understood, because the process for their accomplishment is defined and the results of their accomplishment are observable.

Such organizations are based on command and control; only that which can be observed can be controlled. To be effective, authority-based orga- nizations must have the means of imposing sanctions on those who do not perform or on those who defy the organization. The military, churches, manufacturing industries, and certain government agencies effectively utilize authority-based organizations. In the public service, authority is critical in that it is the legitimating power behind action. Authority-based organiza- tions have severe limitations in dealing with a cognitive-based work world where ideation, discovery, and problem solving are dominant over observ- able task execution. It is not possible to observe what people are thinking; thus, it cannot be controlled.

Therefore, currently, even though hierarchic, authority-based organizations are necessary, another basis of power is needed—personal competence. Using this second form of power, competency-based organizations are becoming more common today. Such organizations tend to be flatter, with less weight given to where you sit and more emphasis placed on what you know. They tend to be more fluid and ad hoc in nature, with integrated teams that deal with problems as they emerge. Some of their limitations include ambiguity in the minds of employees who miss the certainty of a more structured organization. In addition, the use of expertise tends to depersonalize the individual and alien- ates him or her from the organization. Long-term development of individual expertise often falls through the cracks of the matrix organization.

Effective management and leadership in such organizations are critically dependent on the manager’s or leader’s ability to understand the level of competence of each individual, and thus to know where and how to effec- tively utilize them. The competence of an individual is a function of a very limited set of parameters and can be evaluated relatively easily. It begins with what a person is born with in terms of innate intelligence and energy. This innate capability is a given that people have nothing to do with; how- ever, how well they use that innate capability can control their attitude. The final parameter is the opportunity people have to develop their innate capability through the abstraction of formal education and the experiential dimension of practical experience. The manager or leader can quickly tell who in the organization has the smarts, energy, and attitude to succeed. As the holders of authority who legitimize development opportunities, managers

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

56 JAMES E. COLVARD

and leaders have the responsibility to provide development opportunities for employees.

The final form of power that is often undervalued is value and belief, which is based on emotions. Collective values and beliefs are a culture, and each organization has its own culture. Culture provides the unstated reflex- ive response to routine situations that an organization encounters. It is what sustains an organization and creates timesaving routines, but it also inhibits change. Breaking the “way we do things in this organization” pattern is the greatest barrier to organizational change.

Individual values and beliefs define character. A leader’s followers assess his or her character based on what he or she does—not what he or she says. If the values of the organization are consistent with the values of the individuals in the organization, they will be loyal to the organization. If the individual leader has positive values such as honesty, courage, and integrity, the followers will trust the leader. Trust in a leader magnifies their power of competence and authority. Authority allows a person to hold a position of leadership; the followers’ trust makes it possible for the person to lead.

Evolution of the Forms of Power

The previously discussed forms of power are based on an evolution of technol- ogy that progressed from physical to intellectual understanding. Civilizations began by understanding their physical world, how it was shaped, its size, and the nature of the physical elements that comprised it. It took a relatively long time for our understanding to evolve from thinking the Earth was flat to know- ing it is spheroid. Grasping the nature of the elements that comprise the Earth took more time. During the physical era, humans mainly functioned as task executors. Functions that were performed could be observed. Organizations, if they existed, were small, collegial, and male-dominated. Leadership was exercised through fear of physical force of the leader.

Once humans understood the limits of their world and its composition, they began to explore ways to change it to meet their needs and desires. That change progressed through a set of technological eras of chemistry, phys- ics, and biology. In the era of chemistry, humans learned how to combine natural elements to form synthetic or man-made elements. One of the criti- cal discoveries of this era was how to extract nitrogen from the air to make synthetic fertilizers. This discovery freed humans from agricultural tasks that were required to feed themselves and allowed concentration on other forms of technology. The industrial revolution grew out of this era. The complexity of multiple coordinated tasks that were required for factories, compared with the individual labor of agriculture, gave rise to organizations and required

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

DEVELOPING FUTURE LEADERS 57

management. The role of humans changed to add management to the function of task execution. The nature of work was still physical, had visible outcomes, and was understandable to the average person. Organizations of this era were large, hierarchy-based, and male-dominated. Power, in the chemistry era, still belonged to the leader.

The era of chemistry, which created synthetics at the macro level through the combination of natural elements, led to the era of physics, during which humans began to understand and alter the fundamental composition of natural elements. From this came the discovery of solid-state devices that created an explosive expansion in worldwide communication. Solid-state electronics gave way to massive computers and, as they became smaller and lighter, spawned satellites, cell phones, and international connectivity through the Internet. The era of physics shifted the role of humans from predominant task execution to problem solving and task execution. As a result, power became more intellec- tual and less physical and moved from the leader to the follower. The person in authority must solve the problem, but the person who knows how to solve the problem has the power. As power diffused, management approaches had to change. It was no longer possible to manage through command and control. It is not possible to control that which you cannot see. Thus, organizations became flatter, and management became more participative. Gender roles became more neutral as brainpower replaced muscle power, but cultural lag still gave a slight dominance to males.

The current era of technology is focused on biology. The major technical debates today are over gene altering, human cloning, and stem cell research. The questions today are not about the possibility of technology but rather about the moral and ethical questions surrounding the use of technology. Because this involves decision making (the essence of leadership) rather than task execution (the heart of management), it suggests that the future demands leadership.

Development Stages for Managers and Leaders

Given that the future will demand leaders, what is the best way to develop them? One way to look at the development process is to break it into stages or phases and make some judgments about when the employee should move from one stage or phase to the next.

Phase one is the entry or individual performer phase when a person transi- tions from the formal or academic education world into the reality of everyday work. This is the most critical and formative stage of professional develop- ment. It is when individuals develop the self-confidence they will need for later stages in their career. This is the only phase in which there is a direct

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

58 JAMES E. COLVARD

and clear association with the individual’s effort and outcomes, and thus is a true measure of the person’s professional competence.

It is critical in this phase that employees be given an assignment that chal- lenges them sufficiently that they feel they have accomplished something worthwhile when they complete it. This is essential for developing a sense of self-confidence. It is also important that they not be given tasks beyond their capability, causing them to fail and forever have doubts about their abilities. This phase should encompass the first five to seven years of a professional career. People need enough time to accomplish something for which they can be held accountable, but not to stay so long that they are repeating the same experience. In this phase, the individual is doing work for others. In the next phase, he or she will begin to do work with others.

This second phase transitions the person from being an individual performer to being part of a team. This can occur as either a supervisor with responsibili- ties for the outcomes of other efforts or as a member of a team in which the individual’s input is part of a collective effort and becomes homogenized into the team product. In either case, the individual becomes dependent on others for the ultimate execution of assigned tasks and cannot achieve them alone. This is an intermediate stage and should span no more than three years. It is in this stage that the person’s focus begins to transition from the objective to the subjective. At this point in a career the individual should be well aware that other people do not like to be treated as objects. Therefore, the individual must make a decision whether to stay in the professional discipline, such as engineering or accounting, or move into management. If this person moves onto the next phase, it is difficult to return to the technical function. There is a balance in this phase between task execution and coordination. Transition to the next phase shifts that balance decidedly toward planning, coordinating, and overseeing, and away from task execution.

The third phase is management, in which the person becomes responsible for things in which they do not have sufficient expertise to effectively perform the individual tasks alone. Managers clearly must depend on others to achieve the organization’s objectives. The previous stage should have prepared them for this. At this point, their role is clearly changing. They have moved to the general and must know the relationships among the specific, but are now responsible for making the whole work as opposed to working on each of the pieces. The challenge is to acquire resources, assign tasks, motivate people to perform them, and evaluate outcomes. It is here that the objective and subjective become clearly differentiated. Subjects are much more difficult to “control” than objects, and a manager quickly learns that controlling strate- gies will only work for things that can be seen and understood. The manager cannot see the cognitive processes of the staff, but he or she can react to the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

DEVELOPING FUTURE LEADERS 59

manner in which the staff is treated. An object, such as a computer, may fail to perform, but the staff does not get angry or upset by how the manager treats this situation. This transition to dealing with the subjective rather than the objective is often difficult, particularly for those who are very expert in their technical fields. This is why the best technical experts often do not make the best managers. It is not axiomatic that good technical people cannot become good managers, but it is more difficult because their prowess in the details makes them less tolerant of the limitations of the workers in that field, and they may tend to micro-manage.

Development as a manager is an experiential process because it requires interacting with humans, who cannot be abstracted. The world of things may be made virtual, but humans cannot. Therefore, to generalize management skills, the individual must manage in more than one situation involving dif- ferent groups of people. Since management, unlike science, is inductive, this is axiomatic. If the individual decides to move to the next phase, which is leadership, he or she should have spent from five to seven years in more than one assignment involving management.

The final phase in career development, before accepting the irresponsibility of retirement, is the executive, or leadership, phase. It is in this phase that the individual perfects the ability to lead by returning to the role of working for others. While the leader may be the executive in charge of the organization, that leader’s actions must be focused on serving and supporting the organization— hence, working for the organization that works for him or her. The leader’s role in this stage focuses on the future, and thus, the timeframe shifts from the short to the long. Managers below the leader are responsible for achieving the short-term objectives of the organization, while the leader is responsible for seeing that those objectives are met, the greater responsibility now becoming that of preparing the organization for the future.

The critical aspect of preparing the organization for the future is the de- velopment of future leaders. The current leader now has the power of author- ity to legitimatize the activities of others, the most critical of which is their development. The leader establishes the principles of the organization, which the managers then translate into executable policy directives. Thus, the leader creates the values of the organization.

Summary

The foregoing discussion focuses on the difference between management and leadership, the forms of power that undergird both, the evolution of technology that informs that power, and a logical set of stages of development that can be useful in preparing individuals to become managers and leaders.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

60 JAMES E. COLVARD

Management and leadership are inductive, not deductive; they are ex- periential and not abstract. Thus, managers and leaders must be developed through a combination of abstract education, which prepares them to learn, and a variety of experience assignments, from which they actually learn and generalize that learning.

Critical to this discussion are the evolution of technology and the impli- cations of that evolution on management. Those implications include the following:

• The complex demands of technology led to organizations, which evolved from vertical to horizontal organizations to distributed organizations.

• Power went from being physically based to being intellectually based and shifted from the leader to the followers.

• The role of humans evolved from doing to deciding. • Human interactions became more depersonalized and abstract. • Management by command-and-control no longer worked, and leadership

became required.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

5 Transformational Leadership Behavior

An Opportunity for Academic Department Chairs

Brian Gittens

Transformational leadership exhibited by academic department chairs has the potential to substantively and positively impact academic departments by positioning them to face challenges and be more adaptive to environmental changes. Positioning academic departments refers to shaping the departmen- tal culture so that it is reflective of what Cooke and Lafferty (1983) termed “constructive organizational cultural norms.” Constructive cultural norms are characterized by organizational learning that is facilitated by open communica- tion and striking a balance between organizational goals and members’ needs. This chapter explores the leadership context of higher education, including the challenge for academic department chairs. Finally, this chapter identifies opportunities for academic department chairs to increase their leadership capacity.

Leadership Context of Public Higher Education

Public higher education faces challenges that need to be addressed at every level of leadership, including academic department chairs. Higher education is being required to provide improved evidence of its effectiveness (Hincker 2005; Miller and Malandra 2006). In an environment of scarce resources, all constituencies—concerned citizens and public officials—are demanding justification for the higher costs of education and questioning the qualifica- tions of current college graduates (Miller and Malandra 2006). Constituencies are calling for systems of accountability for the use of public funds to meet societal needs and for assessing student learning outcomes from academic departments (Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Guskin and Marcy, 2002; Hecht

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

62 BRIAN GITTENS

et al. 1999; Miller and Malandra 2006; Newman, Couturier, and Scurry 2004; Rodd 2001; U.S. Department of Education 2006). “Higher education in this new century faces the paradox of being more critical than ever to society’s future while at the same time being under great pressure to prove its worth in educating students and justifying its use of financial resources” (Guskin and Marcy 2002, p. 4).

Department chairs, because of their role in fiscal operations and their responsibility for the integrity of the discipline and related student learn- ing outcomes, are directly affected by the increased call for accountability. To better understand the issues affecting higher education and ultimately academic department chairs, it is helpful to examine the impact of increased accountability for financial resources and assessing learning outcomes as they present challenges for them.

Accountability for Financial Resources

A salient challenge facing higher education is the need for developing ac- countability systems that address the use of financial resources. Declining state subsidies and rising operating costs have prompted a call for increased fiscal accountability in higher education. States play a critical role in funding higher education, but most face long-term budget shortfalls. As a result, higher education is receiving a diminishing proportion of appropriations (Miller and Oldham 2006). While most state budgets showed improvement in 2006, analysis conducted by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) concluded they all face potential deficits that will limit the funding of higher education (Jones 2006).

The NCHEMS study also found that in forty-six states, the growth in demand for other public services (K–12 education, social services, correc- tions, and Medicaid) will outpace the demand for higher education (Jones 2006). Support for these other services will result in lower levels of support for higher education (Guskin and Marcy 2002; Jones 2006; Leaming 1998; Newman et al. 2004). As state financial support for higher education contin- ues to decline, expenses for operating institutions continue to rise because of the increased competition for students (Wellman 2006). “Higher education institutions operate under what economist Howard Bowen coined the revenue theory of cost—which is that institutions raise all the money they can, and spend all the money they have” (Wellman 2006, p. 8). There is an assump- tion that resource availability is equated with quality and prestige, which is reinforced by common ranking measures that use measures of funds as key metrics (Wellman 2006).

The system of financing higher education is in a dysfunctional state since

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR 63

subsidies are declining, cost per student is increasing, and public concerns about rising costs are eroding the credibility of higher education (U.S. De- partment of Education 2006). In an environment of decreased funding and increased competition for existing financial resources, department chairs, as leaders in higher education, need to address the call for fiscal accountability that preserves academic quality and credibility (Dickeson 2006; Miller and Oldham 2006; Wellman 2006).

Accountability for Assessing Student Learning Outcomes

The preservation of academic quality and credibility means that higher edu- cation institutions must also develop accountability systems for assessing student-learning outcomes. Poor academic preparation of recent graduates and the need for an educated workforce necessitate a system of accountability for assessing student-learning outcomes (Miller and Malandra 2006). The per- formance of recent college graduates is cause for concern. In the most recent (2003) National Assessment of Adult Literacy survey,1 less than a third of recent college graduates could demonstrate an ability to read complex texts and make inferences (Miller and Malandra 2006). In the same survey, only 25 percent of college graduates scored high enough to be considered proficient from a literacy standpoint (Miller and Malandra 2006). In the 2006 National Survey of America’s College Students (NSACS), the American Institutes for Research found that 20 percent of four-year-degree holders have only basic quantitative literacy skills, and 50 percent did not score at the proficient level of literacy, meaning that they lack basic skills such as summarizing arguments in a newspaper editorial (Miller and Malandra 2006).

These statistics that belie the lack of academic preparedness of recent college graduates lend support to employers’ assertions that students are not being prepared for the workplace and that they lack the skill necessary for successful employment. Economic demand for a better-prepared workforce is critical for the competitive global environment (U.S. Department of Education 2006; Miller and Malandra 2006; Newman et al. 2004). The new skill sets that employers need include problem solving, critical thinking, and written com- munication skills (Miller and Malandra 2006). Currently, there are no agreed- on tests or assessments of student learning outcomes, but without sound data and an improved, objective accountability system that addresses the learning outcomes for student learning, policy and subsequent change are uninformed (Miller and Malandra 2006). Because of their leadership, knowledge of the academic discipline, and a relationship with faculty, department chairs are in a unique position to shape departmental culture toward greater accountability of program quality and student learning (Gmelch and Miskin 2004).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

64 BRIAN GITTENS

Summary

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2006), improved systems of accountability for financial resources and assessing student-learning outcomes serve as the bases for reform in the U.S. higher education system. Improved accountability systems would result in institutions that are more nimble, more efficient, and more effective. For individuals, this means access to educational opportunities that allow them to be more productive workers and engaged citizens.

Leadership Challenge for Academic Department Chairs

The leadership challenge for chairs is that despite the increased importance of their role, there is limited focus on developing a leadership paradigm that helps them shape an adaptive departmental culture. Adaptive departmental cultures refer to organizations that are flexible and responsive to external challenges (Denison 1990; Kotter and Heskett 1992). Such organizations are positioned to effectively address the call for increased accountability for financial resources and student-learning outcomes (U.S. Department of Education 2006).

Greater accountability for financial resources and assessing student-learning outcomes has direct implications for academic department chairs (Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Hecht et al. 1999; Lucas 2000; Wergin 2004). Chairs are responsible for making decisions about allocating limited resources while sustaining academic quality in the department (Hecht et al. 1999; Rodd 2001; Wergin 2003, 2004). The remainder of this chapter discusses the importance of the department chairs’ role and their responsibility for developing systems of accountability, and outlines departmental culture and the need for department chair transformational leadership behaviors. Finally, the association between department chair transformational leadership behaviors and departmental culture is discussed.

The Importance of the Role of the Department Chair

The importance of chairing a department involves three interrelated factors: operational oversight, decision making, and curriculum responsibility (Hecht et al. 1999; Murray 2000; Seagren, Creswell, and Wheeler 1993; Wergin 2004). First, the chairs’ daily contact with students, administrators, and faculty makes them an integral part of the operational oversight of the department (Weinberg 1984). Seagren et al. (1993) refer to chairs as the mechanism through which the intentions of top management flow down and information flows up. This role places the chair in the position of negotiator between departmental goals

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR 65

and individual goals (Hecht et al. 1999; Seagren et al. 1993; Murray 2000). Second, chairs are important decision makers. The decisions that chairs make have implications for financial resources, curriculum, and faculty development (Bennett 1983; Carroll 1990; Rodd 2001). Finally, the chair is responsible for the curriculum, ensuring that the individual faculty members’ talents are aligned with instructional needs, encouraging continued personal and profes- sional growth, and attesting to the adequacy of instruction and research (Ben- nett and Figuli 1990; Hecht et al. 1999; Murray 2000; Wergin 2003, 2004). The chair is the official on campus who provides important operational oversight and makes key decisions that affect the academic curriculum.

Department Chairs and Accountability

Because chairs provide significant operational oversight and are responsible for the curriculum, they are positioned to play an important role in the de- velopment of systems of accountability for financial resources and assessing learning outcomes (Hecht et al. 1999; Jones 2006; Murray 2000; Rodd 2001). Mandates that monitor the cost-effectiveness and quality of higher education have increased the importance of the chair’s role (Hecht et al. 1999) and expectations for their leadership in the change process within higher educa- tion institutions (Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Hecht et al. 1999; Lucas 1994; Murray 2000; Rodd 2001; Seagren et al. 1993). This section discusses how chair leadership can shape accountability systems for financial resources as well as assessing student learning outcomes.

The development of accountability systems for financial resources requires the leadership of department chairs. Chairs are responsible for allocation and accountability of financial resources within the department and determining priorities in an environment of diminishing resources (Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Hecht et al. 1999; Lucas 2000). Chairs can shape and determine priori- ties by allocating resources to reward and recruit new faculty, in alignment with departmental goals. The allocation of resources sends a clear message about who and what is important in an academic department since financial resources are aligned with departmental and institutional priorities, thus creat- ing a system of accountability that links funds to results (Gmelch and Miskin 2004). Chairs, because of their role in managing the operational budget of their departments, are best positioned to develop accountability systems for the use of financial resources (Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Lucas 1994).

The development of accountability systems for assessing student-learning outcomes also requires the leadership of department chairs. The leadership of department chairs is important in developing accountability systems for assess- ing student learning outcomes, since chairs are responsible for the quality of the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

66 BRIAN GITTENS

academic program, including its courses, curriculum, teaching, and research (Diamond 1998; Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Hecht et al. 1999; Lucas 1994; Murray 2000; Wergin 2003, 2004). Department chairs are best positioned to assess the quality of a particular discipline and areas of need since they are the only administrators with the requisite discipline knowledge and vantage point (Hecht et al. 1999). Furthermore, the daily contact with faculty and students provides opportunities for chairs to receive informal feedback about learner outcomes or convene more formal forums to assess program quality (Hecht et al. 1999; Wergin 2003). The department chairs’ responsibility for the cur- riculum and for preparing students creates an imperative for leadership that is focused on creating a system of accountability for assessing learner outcomes (Brown and Moshavi 2002; Hecht et al. 1999; Wergin 2003).

Overall, the department chair plays a significant role in addressing the call for increased accountability in higher education. The chair is the representative of the administration and acts as the change agent, entrepreneur, mediator, strategic planner, and consensus builder within the department (Diamond 1998). “Faculty may be viewed as the heart and soul of the institution, but the department chair is the glue, serving as the link between faculty and adminis- tration, between the discipline and the institution, and occasionally between parents and faculty” (p. ix). Chairs are also in a position to articulate the needs of upper-level administrators in a manner that motivates faculty and causes them to act (Birnbaum 1988; Rodd 2001; Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Wergin 2004). These multifaceted roles make chairs important leaders in addressing the call for increased accountability.

Departmental Culture

Before department chairs can address specific challenges of developing ac- countability systems for financial resources and assessing learner outcomes, they must understand and effectively negotiate factors that shape departmental culture. Academic departmental culture is characterized as individualistic, disjointed, and thereby difficult to manage or change (Brown and Moshavi 2002; Lucas 2000; Wergin 2003). Because of these characteristics, there is a strong resistance to leadership found in traditional hierarchical organiza- tions, and in most institutions, it may be more appropriate to think of faculty as constituents rather than as followers (Birnbaum 1988; Hecht et al. 1999; Murray 2000; Rodd 2001; Wergin 2004). Cultural norms in higher educa- tion interact to dictate expectations of behavior and modes of influence. This section outlines how dualism of control, lack of mission clarity, sources of power and control, and higher education as an open organizational system affect departmental culture.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR 67

First, dualism of control has a profound effect on departmental culture. Dualism of control refers to the organizational structure of colleges and uni- versities in which the conventional administrative hierarchy and the structure through which faculty make professional decisions exist in parallel (Corson 1960). The two structures are based on different systems of authority (Etzioni 1964). In conventional organizations, those who are higher in rank rely on administrative authority to make decisions and to direct the activities of oth- ers. In addition to this conventional administrative hierarchy, higher education has experts (faculty) who are not involved in coordinating business goals but rather have professional authority to provide specialized knowledge and judg- ments (Birnbaum 1988, pp. 9–15). Dualism of control sets the expectation that faculty are an integral part of decision making, thus a cultural norm of shared governance is established.

Second, the lack of mission clarity shapes departmental culture. Clarity of mission enables organizations to create systems of accountability and to establish performance standards. In a business setting, this often involves mea- suring earnings or profits. In higher education, however, there is no metric that is comparable to profits or money (Birnbaum 1988, pp. 9–15). A comparable metric does not exist “because of a disagreement on goals and in part because neither goal achievement nor the activities related to their performance can be satisfactorily quantified into an educational balance sheet” (Birnbaum 1988, p. 11). Lack of mission clarity contributes to a departmental culture in which ambiguity is the norm and the measurement of outputs is not emphasized.

Third, the various forms of power exercised in higher education affect departmental culture. French and Raven (1959) have identified five types of power that influence social groups: coercive power, reward power, legitimate power, referent power, and expert power. Coercive power refers to the ability to punish to gain compliance. Reward power is the ability to offer rewards or to decrease negative influences to gain compliance. Legitimate power refers to a common code or standard that grants authority and obliges another party to comply. Referent power results from the willingness to be influenced because of one’s identification with another. Expert power stems from the acceptance of influence from another because of the belief that the other has some special knowledge or competence. Overall, faculty are likely to be influenced more by internalized principles of academic freedom and ethical behavior and communications from colleagues who are seen as sharing their values than by other forms of power or influence (Birnbaum 1988; Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Lucas et al. 2000). The various sources of power help shape expectations and behaviors within departments by dictating reward systems and sources of influence, and thus directly impacting its culture.

Finally, departmental culture is influenced by higher education’s open

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

68 BRIAN GITTENS

organizational system. Organizations are considered open systems to the extent that external factors are allowed to enter the system and alter its ele- ments (Birnbaum 1988, pp. 31–40). Closed systems have rigid boundaries that limit environmental interaction. Inputs into closed systems are defined and controlled, do not change the elements of the system, and thus cause and effect can be predicted with great accuracy. In contrast, open systems, such as colleges and universities, have boundaries that are more permeable and that allow various interactions between the external environment and elements of the system (Birnbaum 1988). The open system of colleges and universities creates a complex web of constituents that contributes to dualism of control and lack of mission clarity, and defines sources of power that affect depart- mental culture (Birnbaum 1988).

Dualism of control involves the constant negotiation of administrative and professional subsystems, each beholden to external constituents. For faculty, these include their professional networks of colleagues and funding sources, while administrators must be sensitive to the needs of the president, trustees, and lawmakers (Birnbaum 1988). Similarly, the lack of mission clarity is fa- cilitated as different elements of the institution attempt to attend to the needs of the community through service and outreach, to students through teaching, and to funding agencies through research. All the major missions of the university may overlap, are interrelated, and shape one another without clear focus on any. Lastly, the sources of power and control are shaped by an open system because faculty view themselves as part of a system that extends beyond the formal boundaries of the university (Birnbaum 1988). Faculty form national and international networks based on their research interests and, as mentioned before, are influenced more by this expert or referent power (Birnbaum 1988). Administrative authority influences them to the extent that the authority aligns with and serves to support their professional activity (Birnbaum 1988; Gmelch and Miskin 2004). Understanding departmental culture is critical to ensuring alignment with institutional needs and the professional activities of faculty (Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Lucas 2000).

The nature of departmental culture forces chairs to rethink how tradi- tional concepts of leadership should be applied (Leaming 1998). Hallmarks of departmental culture include academic autonomy, complex professional networks, and shared governance (Birnbaum 1988). Therefore, traditional hierarchical approaches to leadership do not fit in higher education settings, and their applicability may likely cause resistance and dissonance and thus be ineffective (Birnbaum 1988). The recognition of the cultural context of academic departments and its attendant nuances, however, can assist depart- ment chairs in recognizing the limitations of and opportunities for effective influence on faculty.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR 69

Opportunities for Department Chairs

Transformational leadership provides a leadership paradigm that enables chairs to influence faculty within the cultural context of academic depart- ments. The new higher education landscape demands leadership that fosters innovation and flexibility from the institutions that serve the nation’s learners (U.S. Department of Education 2006). Transformational leadership has been empirically shown to facilitate a leader’s ability to develop a shared vision, foster innovation, and empower others to achieve higher levels of performance (Bass 1985; Burns 1978; Brown and Moshavi 2002; Erdman 2002; Eppard 2004). This section discusses the opportunities for transformational leadership behaviors of department chairs and its impact on influencing faculty.

Private sector experience suggests that the human resource practices that promote success in an environment of rapid change, complexity, and unpre- dictability support at least three values: flexibility, access to information at all levels, and risk taking (Gilliland 1997, p. 32). Transformational leadership has been empirically proven to promote flexibility and access to information by inspiring creativity through intellectual stimulation (Bass 1985) and the influ- ence orientation theme (Roueche, Baker, and Rose 1989). Transformational leadership also has been empirically linked to facilitating flexibility through creative problem solving (Woods 2004). Unfortunately, higher education in the United States has become increasingly risk adverse and at times self-sat- isfied (U.S. Department of Education 2006). Transformational leadership is characterized by leaders who assume risk as the status quo is challenged and the way of operating is redefined (Kouzes and Posner 1995). If universities are to prosper and change, then risk taking must be a controlling factor in university management (Leaming 1998).

Because of its emphasis on referent and expert power, transformational leadership can assist chairs in influencing faculty. Faculty, like others in profes- sional organizations, are influenced by referent and expert power (Birnbaum 1988). Transformational leadership allows department chairs to exert refer- ent and expert power through the tenets of idealized influence (Bass 1985) and the values orientation theme (Roueche et al. 1989). Idealized influence has been empirically found to be positively associated with perceptions of organizational effectiveness and satisfaction of faculty (Brown and Moshavi 2002). Idealized influence refers to leaders behaving in ways that result in their being role models for their team members. The leaders are admired, respected, and trusted. Team members identify with their leaders and want to emulate them because the leaders are perceived as having extraordinary capabilities, persistence, and determination (Bass 1985).

Development of the values orientation theme (Roueche et al. 1989)—defined

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

70 BRIAN GITTENS

by exemplifying the moral fiber of the leader to include commitment, quality, integrity, trust, and respect through modeling—represents another opportunity for department chairs to exercise referent power. Brown and Moshavi (2002) found empirical evidence that supports that the extent to which department chairs can model desired behavior and build trust determines their effectiveness in influencing faculty (Bass 1985; Birnbaum 1988).

Department Chairs’ Transformational Leadership Behaviors and Departmental Culture

Most importantly, the transformational leadership behaviors of academic chairs can develop departmental cultures that position departments to address increased mandates for accountability by creating a shared vision and by fostering learning that leads to creativity and adaptability. Transformational leadership behaviors as described by Roueche et al. (1989) have as central com- ponents the development of a shared vision through open communication and through demonstrating enthusiasm for goal achievement. This shared vision and the attendant motivation, support, and development of subordinates may contribute to establishing a constructive organizational culture—characterized by open communication and adaptability (Cooke and Lafferty 1983; Eppard 2004). This section briefly describes how department chairs’ employment of the transformational leadership tenets of creating a shared vision and fostering learning may contribute to the adaptability of academic departments.

The context of higher education demands that chairs have the ability to create a shared vision and to create a culture that brings people together to work effectively (Rodd 2001; Wergin 2004). When departmental leadership is strong and adopts a transformational style, it is assumed that the climate exudes excitement and enthusiasm about the department’s work (Lucas 1994). The department chair, functioning as a team leader, can create a climate in which members can be supportive of each other as they develop and implement a shared vision. There is empirical evidence that suggests that campuses with transformative leaders will flourish because they will create an environment or culture in which issues are openly debated and all constituents’ interests are considered (Balthazard and Cooke 2004; Rodd 2001; Wergin 2004).

Roueche et al. (1989) developed a model of transformational leadership that was found to be effective in higher education through five themes sum- marized in Table 5.1. These themes, based on Burns’s (1978) conception of transformational leadership, describe behaviors that have been found to be effective in higher education settings.

Fostering learning in the department empowers faculty to engage in ad- dressing challenges that face the department through creative problem solving.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR 71

Table 5.1

Attributes of Transformational Leaders

Theme Attributes

Vision Possesses a future orientation Demonstrates a positive orientation toward change Takes appropriate risks to bring about change Demonstrates commitment to making appropriate

changes Is mission-oriented Develops a shared vision

Influence Orientation Places responsibility with authority Is action-oriented Causes team members to feel powerful Employs appropriate decisional style Demonstrates willingness to be influenced by

the team Builds a collaborative environment Encourages open communication Is in touch with team members Demonstrates high energy

People Orientation Understands the organizational ethos Rewards appropriately Demonstrates respect toward others Considers individual needs Is student-centered Values others

Motivational Orientation Is flexible in dealing with issues and people Encourages creativity Assists in the development of others Helps clarify expectations Attempts to inspire others

Values Orientation Demonstrates commitment to learning Advocates quality education Demonstrates high standards Demonstrates sound judgment Demonstrates openness and trust Demonstrates sense of humor Leads by example

Source: Drawn from Rouche et al. 1989.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

72 BRIAN GITTENS

Lucas (1994) asserts that a chair empowers others by creating a learning or- ganization characterized by individuals who strive for personal mastery and team learning and a chair who is committed to self-discovery and self-growth. Chairs can accomplish this change by demonstrating behaviors consistent with transformational leadership themes (Brown and Moshavi 2002). Personal and professional learning is intentional and goes beyond the discipline for which the department is educated (Lucas 1994). This learning has been empirically shown to facilitate creative problem solving that engages organizational members and creates an organizational culture better positioned to address external challenges in organizations in general (Eppard 2004; Kotter and Hes- kett 1992; Schein 2004) and asserted as important for academic departments (Rodd 2001; Wergin 2003, 2004). Optimally, transformational leadership behaviors can shape what Cooke and Lafferty (1983) termed constructive organizational cultures. Constructive cultures in which members are encour- aged to interact with others and to approach tasks in ways that will help them meet their higher-order satisfaction needs are characterized by achievement, self-actualizing, humanistic encouraging, and affiliative norms. The four norms associated with constructive cultures have been empirically shown to facilitate knowledge management and organizational performance through participatory decision making (Balthazard and Cooke 2004). The norms are characterized as follows.

1. A humanistic-encouraging culture characterizes organizations that are managed in a participative and person-centered way. Members are expected to be supportive, constructive, and open to influence in their dealings with one another.

2. An achievement culture characterizes organizations that do things well and that value members who set and accomplish their own goals. Members of these organizations set challenging but realistic goals, establish plans to reach these goals, and pursue them with enthusiasm.

3. A self-actualization culture characterizes organizations that value creativity, quality over quantity, and task accomplishment and indi- vidual growth. Members of these organizations are encouraged to gain enjoyment from their work, develop themselves, and take on new and interesting activities.

4. An affiliative culture characterizes organizations that place a high priority on constructive interpersonal relationships. Members are expected to be friendly, open, and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR 73

Transformational leadership behavior has been empirically linked to constructive organizational cultures (Eppard 2004; Woods 2004) but there has been little research focusing on department chairs. Given the evolving landscape of higher education, the need to develop chairs as transforma- tional leaders that shape departmental culture toward greater accountability is critical.

Conclusion

The development of accountability systems for financial resources and as- sessing student learning outcomes requires significant change that can be enabled by department chair transformational leadership (Altbach, Berdahl, and Gumport 1999; Gmelch and Miskin 2004; Guskin and Marcy 2002; Hecht et al. 1999; Newman et al. 2004; Rodd 2001; Wergin 2004). Guskin and Marcy (2002) warn that “ignoring the future fiscal realties and the need to focus on student learning can, and probably will have a devastating impact on colleges and universities” (p. 7). They add that “maintaining the present structures will eventually undermine the two things on which higher educa- tion has found its past success and must base its future: the quality of faculty work life and student learning” (p. 7).

Today’s educational climate requires transformational leaders who are capable of serving as agents of change (U.S. Department of Education 2006). Complexity and the need for change require academic department chairs who are capable of creating a vision; communicating that vision to others; stimulating people to think in different ways; formulating problems in a sophisticated, knowledgeable fashion that inspires creative solutions; and providing an organizational culture in which people achieve and feel appre- ciated (Lucas 1994). Department chairs should be transformational leaders. That is precisely the type of leader who can perform these essential tasks: revitalizing faculty and improving their professional development, using the untapped talents of the faculty, helping faculty formulate departmental goals and identifying new directions, creating a quality curriculum responsive to major changes in the discipline, and leading the development of departmental culture (Lucas 1994). Such skills do not come naturally for most department chairs; hence, the critical need to explicitly consider the development of this group of public leaders.

Note

1. See http://nces.ed.gov/naal/ (accessed November 26, 2007).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

74 BRIAN GITTENS

References

Altbach, Philip G., Robert Berdahl, and Patricia Gumport, eds. 1999. American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Balthazard, Pierre A., and Robert Cooke. 2004. “Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management Success: Assessing the Behavior–Performance Continuum.” In Proceed- ings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences, Island of Hawaii, January 5–8, 2004, by the University of Hawaii at Manoa College of Business. Avail- able at http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265577 (accessed November 26, 2007).

Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bennett, John B. 1983. Managing the Academic Department. New York: ACE/Macmillan. Bennett, John B., and David J. Figuli, eds. 1990. Enhancing Departmental Leadership:

The Roles of the Chairperson. New York: ACE/Macmillan. Birnbaum, Robert. 1988. How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization

and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, F. William, and Dan Moshavi. 2002. “Herding Academic Cats: Faculty Reactions

Transformational and Contingent Reward Leadership by Department Chairs.” Journal of Leadership Studies 8(3): 79–92.

Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Carroll, James. 1990. “Career Paths of Department Chairs: A National Perspective.” Re-

search in Higher Education 32(6): 669–688. Cooke, Robert, and J. Clayton Lafferty. 1983. Level V: Organizational Cultural Inventory—

Form I. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Corson, John. 1960. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill. Denison, Daniel R. 1990. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York:

John Wiley & Sons. Diamond, Robert M. 1998. Academic Leadership: A Practical Guide to Chairing the

Department (Foreword). Bolton, MA: Anker. Dickeson, Robert C. 2006. “Frequently Asked Questions About College Costs.” The Secretary

of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Available at: http://www. ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson2.pdf (accessed August 18, 2006).

Eppard, Randy. 2004. To What Extent Does Transactional and Transformational Leadership Predict Constructive and Defensive Cultures. PhD dissertation, Virginia Tech.

Erdman, Howard. 2002. Transformational Leadership Congruence: A Comparison Be- tween University and Community College Presidential Leadership. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1964. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. French, John, and Bertram Raven. 1959. “The Bases of Social Power.” In Studies in Social Power,

ed. D. Cartwright. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Gilliland, Martha. 1997. “Organizational Change and Tenure.” Change 29(3): 30–33. Gmelch, Walter, and Val Miskin. 2004. Chairing an Academic Department. Madison,

WI: Atwood. Guskin, Alan, and Mary Marcy. 2002. “Pressures for Fundamental Reform: Creating a

Viable Academic Future.” In Field Guide to Academic Leadership, ed. R. Diamond. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Hecht, Irene D., Mary Lou Higgerson, Walter Gmelch, and Alan Tucker. 1999. “Roles and Responsibilities of Department Chairs.” In The Department Chair as Academic Leader, chapter 2. Phoenix, AZ: ACE Oryx Press.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR 75

Hincker, Larry. 2005. “The Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act Update.” Virginia Tech News. Available at: http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/ story.php?relyear=2005&itemno=531 (accessed November 13, 2006).

Jones, Dennis. 2006. “State Shortfalls Projected to Continue Despite Economic Gains: Long-Term Prospects for Higher Education No Brighter.” The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/about/ bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/jones.pdf (accessed August 20, 2007).

Kotter, John P., and James L. Heskett. 1992. Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: Free Press.

Kouzes, James, and Barry Posner. 1995. The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraor- dinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leaming, Deryl. 1998. Academic Leadership: A Practical Guide to Chairing the Depart- ment. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Lucas, Ann. 1994. Strengthening Departmental Leadership: A Team-Building Guide for Chairs in Colleges and Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lucas, Ann F. 2000. Leading Academic Change: Essential Roles for Department Chairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, Charles, and Geri Malandra. 2006. “Accountability/Context.” The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Available at: http://www. ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/miller-malandra.pdf (accessed August 23, 2006).

Miller, Charles, and Cheryl Oldham. 2006. “Setting the Context.” The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Available at: http://www. ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/miller-oldham.pdf (accessed August 19, 2007).

Murray, Douglas J. 2000. “Leading University-wide Change: Defining New Roles for the Department Chair.” The Department Chair (Summer). Bolton, MA: Anker. Available at: http://www.acenet.edu/resources/chairs/docs/murray.pdf (accessed August 27, 2006).

Newman, Frank, Lara Couturier, and Jamie Scurry. 2004. The Future of Higher Edu- cation: Rhetoric, Reality, and the Risks of the Market. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Rodd, Laurel R. 2001. “The Art of Chairing: What Deming Taught the Japanese and the Japanese Taught Me.” Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin 32(3). Available at: www.mla.org/adfl/bulletin/V32N3/323005.htm (accessed August 29, 2007).

Roueche, John E., George A. Baker, and Robert Rose. 1989. Shared Vision: Transforma- tional Leadership in American Community Colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Schein, Edgar H. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seagren, Alan T., John W. Creswell, and Daniel W. Wheeler. 1993. The Department Chair: New Roles, Responsibilities and Challenges. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

U.S. Department of Education. 2006. A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of US Higher Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Weinberg, Scott S. 1984. “The Perceived Responsibilities of the Departmental Chairperson: A Note of a Preliminary Study.” Higher Education 13(3): 301–303.

Wellman, Jane V. 2006. “Costs, Prices and Affordability: A Background Paper for the Sec- retary’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education.” The Secretary of Education’s

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

76 BRIAN GITTENS

Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/about/ bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/wellman.pdf (accessed August 29, 2006).

Wergin, Jon L. 2003. Departments that Work: Building and Sustaining Cultures of Excel- lence in Academic Programs. Bolton, MA: Anker.

———. 2004. “Leadership in Place.” The Department Chair 14(4):1–3. Woods, Regina. 2004. The Effects of Transformational Leadership, Trust, and Tolerance

of Ambiguity on Organizational Culture in Higher Education. PhD dissertation, Regent University.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .