Iwant to contrast the contribution of political and

Transcription

1 LECTURE Many hands on the tiller: Change, governance and leadership * Paul G. Thomas Iwant to contrast the contribution of political and administrative leaders to governance. At a time when politics is a much discredited activity, there is a great deal of talk about the need for dynamic and creative leadership within the public services of Canada, to fill an apparent void. My argument is that more will be gained in terms of improved government performance from better political leadership than from better leadership and management within the public service. In short, we have a greater need for total quality politics (TQP) than for total quality management (TQM). I will offer some suggestions on what qualifies as TQP. Paul G. Thomas is a full professor in the Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, whose current research deals with leadership in the private sector. Earlier in his career, he was the coauthor of the best-selling textbook Canadian Public Administration. His recent publications have dealt with topics such as organizational change in the public sector, ministerial responsibility and accountability, and performance measurement in the public sector. In addition to his academic work, Professor Thomas has been a consultant to government at the federal and provincial levels and to several royal commissions and task forces. Professor Thomas holds a BA (Hon) and an MA from the University of Manitoba and PhD from the University of Toronto. The concept of change Change has always been a feature of society, but today it seems to be more intense, dramatic and fundamental in nature. To quote the jargon of the change management literature, all organizations must deal with frame breaking, rather than simply frame bending, changes. On the basis of strong claims about the pace, scope and depth of the changes occurring, there are calls for the radical overhaul of existing institutions. Organizations are urged to rethink their purpose or mandate, their structures and processes, their leadership styles and value systems, and their relationships with the world around them. In the case of the public sector, the call for wholesale change has been accompanied by the widespread denigration of the past performance of government, particularly the inability or unwillingness of bureaucracies to change. In my opinion, both of these complaints that all changes * This article is an abridged version of a lecture delivered by Professor Thomas in November 1998, at the Conference on Leadership Development in the Public Sector, in Victoria, British Columbia. The conference was sponsored by the Victoria regional group of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada and the School of Public Administration, University of Victoria. Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 29, No. 1 (25-29) 25

2 occurring today are revolutionary and that governments are unable to change represent gross exaggerations. First, Canada is a country that has experienced major transformations in the past: the settlement of the West; the transition to an urban, industrialized society; two world wars; the Great Depression; and the construction of an extensive post-war welfare state, to name but a few. Second, the public service has adapted faster and better than other parts of the political system (e.g., cabinets, legislatures and political parties) to the growing volume and complexity of the decisions faced by governments today. As with all large organizations, public services contain sources of inertia and resistance to change. But not all resistance to change is irrational and counter-productive. For instance, one could argue that there is a legitimate type of leadership in the public service called administrative conservatorship, which seeks to protect the integrity of institutional values and arrangements. On the matter of change, I am arguing that not all developments are as revolutionary in their impacts as they first appear. It is also clear, however, that a number of trends and pressures have created a distinctive, more challenging context for the activities called governance and leadership. The challenges facing governments, however, go far beyond better management and stronger leadership within the public service. The governance challenge In the 1994 Report to the Club of Rome, the distinguished Israeli political scientist Yehezkel Dror wrote: No existing governance system is geared to deal with such sudden and radical changes in opportunities and dangers as present themselves today. Most governments are less and less able to cope with the demands made upon them, although some distinguished exceptions demonstrate that improvements are possible. 1 While governance is an ancient term, it has taken on a new cachet because of its popularity in the corporate sector, in referring to the need to strengthen the role of boards of directors in setting directions for companies. Governance in the public sector is many times more complicated than it is in private firms. While business leaders are expected to steer the corporate ship intelligently and profitably on the sea of society, leaders within the public sector are held accountable to some extent for the conditions of the sea itself. Aboard the ship of state, there are ongoing debates about who actually is, and even about who should be, at the helm. Should politicians have exclusive control over the tiller? Do they have the navigational skills to keep the ship afloat in stormy weather? Should public servants simply remain below deck, do the rowing, operate the rudder and occasionally throw out the anchor? And what 26 Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 29, No. 1

3 happens if the politicians are unwilling or unable to chart a clear course? In such circumstances, is the ship of state simply tossed around by outside forces and kept afloat by public servants? What happens if the steerers do not trust the rowers? Does failure to deliver the world s best practice in rowing lead to punitive cuts over the back ( cutbacks ) from the vigilant guards (i.e., central agencies)? Those on the upper deck claim to have the interests of the rowers at heart, but they also have the power of exit by shoving an underperforming rower out the porthole and replacing him or her with another one. Is there any possibility of communication from the galley to those on the top deck? Do the admirals tell the rowers how fast they must row by way of the latest benchmarking instrument the monotonous beating of a drum? Finally, what about the passengers? What happens when they become frustrated, divided and even mutinous? Today, governance involves numerous complicated structures, processes, rules and relationships among governmental and non-governmental institutions. It involves shared power and requires collaborative approaches to leadership. The notion of legitimacy is central to governance within democratic societies. It consists of the basic acceptance, satisfaction and support of citizens for the processes, decisions and outcomes of the policy and administrative processes. There is a crisis of legitimacy facing many governments today. In Canada, the crisis does not involve withdrawal from the political process, or refusals to comply with laws. However, during the past three decades, there has been a slow but steady downward spiral of trust and confidence in governments. In the current anti-politics mood, the idea of removing or insulating decision making from political pressures and political calculations becomes more appealing. In Banishing Bureaucracy, 2 David Osborne and Peter Plastrik argue that they are writing about governance, not politics. They tell public managers they do not have to wait for permission before they reinvent. Politicians must learn to live with managers taking action they do not like, as long as managers are acting ethically and producing results. They even go so far as to suggest that public managers can clear the decks of unnecessary functions, though they may have to get permission of elected officials. When politics becomes a discredited activity, the participation of public servants in the governance process becomes more openly acknowledged, legitimate and actively promoted. In other words, the emerging concept of governance ends up substituting managerial words and deeds for political words and deeds. Managerial approaches end up masquerading as solutions to what are essentially political problems. Visionary entrepreneurial and shrewd public managers who are able to bypass or overcome the constraints arising from the political process are celebrated as folk heroes in the bestsellers on new public management. However, there are serious implications for political responsibility, the rule of law, traditional public service values of anonymity, neutrality and trusteeship, and for ultimate democratic accountability, if we go too far in unleashing entrepreneurial bureaucrats to develop their own visions of organizational change. In summary, our changing conceptions of governance mask the fundamental issue of what ought to be the relationship between elected and appointed officials in a democratic society. The concept of leadership This brings me to the unique nature of the leadership function in government. Leadership involves directing, motivating and encouraging people. Management is concerned with more concrete activities like planning, budgetting, staffing, etc. Both leadership and management are important to good government. During the 1940s and 1950s, senior public servants were content to be called administrators. Then, from the 1960s to the 1980s, they insisted on being called managers. And now everyone wants to be called a leader. Society has been conditioned in many ways to look for heroic leadership. Certainly the business media regularly celebrates the efforts of bold and dynamic CEOs who are able to transform companies single-handedly on the basis of their visions of the future, their eloquence and their abilities to make tough decisions. Lately, this image of the heroic leader has come to dominate our thinking about leadership in the public sector. However, there are complications and dangers in applying the superleadership model in government. Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 29, No. 1 27

4 In government, leadership involves dual sets of activities. Politicians and public servants must collaborate for successful governing to occur. Each group of actors brings to the process a different set of motivations, preoccupations, ideas and skills. Under ideal conditions, the attributes of the two sets of actors complement and reinforce one another. Both politicians and administrators have legitimate roles to play in government. Politicians can claim legitimacy based upon their election to public office. Public servants can claim legitimacy in policy making based on their expert knowledge and experience. Politics involves reading public opinion and determining what actions are acceptable to the public. It involves negotiation and compromise between competing values and interests, as a means of reaching workable and acceptable solutions. While politicians have skills in mobilizing support for actions, administrative leaders should have skills at gathering information, analyzing issues and presenting options. Politicians are very aware of and sensitive to constituencies of all kinds. In contrast, public servants are less preoccupied with the impacts of policies on particular areas of groups and more interested in the overall benefits. As the public is well aware, politicians tend to be preoccupied with the short term, i.e., with actions that will contribute to their re-election. Administrators should, ideally, identify the longer-term implications of current policies. For politicians, publicity and claiming credit for policy improvements are the basis for electoral success. In contrast, public servants must avoid too high a public profile. Their views on sensitive issues are not for public consumption, or they should be presented cautiously. Politicians must worry more than public servants about how things look in government. Perception is said to be reality in politics. While not unmindful of the importance of appearance, public servants are frustrated when images rather than facts drive decision making. Politicians want to know from public servants whether their policy ideas are feasible in terms of both available knowledge and the political risks involved. Public servants Society has been conditioned in many ways to look for heroic leadership. want to know the degree of commitment of politicians to the goals they are pursuing. Both types of leaders face uncertainty and risk. Political leaders are often uncertain about what, if any, risks they are willing to take. Public servants are often uncertain about whether the policies they devise will work as intended. In this condition of shared uncertainty and mutual dependence, the politicians and the public servants must work together in trust and confidence to identify what is in the public interest. Leadership by public servants takes on a distinctive meaning because of the institutional context involved. The distinctive leadership task is to support and motivate others: elected representatives, colleagues and citizens. At times, public servants must fill the void when political leadership is missing. Once again, governing involves dual but shared leadership. Both types of leaders must cope with uncertainty and risks. Both types of leaders also must engage in similar activities and exhibit similar skills: they must understand and be comfortable with the exercise of power, while recognizing its limits; they must use this understanding to deal with conflict and resistance; they must be skilled in negotiation and compromise; they must be capable of dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity; they must demonstrate a capacity for self-reflection and intuitive thinking; they must develop good judgment about issues and people; finally, they must demonstrate the more obvious leadership skills of goal setting, delegating authority, motivating people, managing time and communicating effectively. While both types of leaders share many of the same characteristics, their respective leadership roles are decidedly different. And administrative leadership is not a substitute for political leadership. 28 Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 29, No. 1

5 The need for better political leadership I think we all agree that politics is an essential activity in our society. Properly understood and conducted political activity, however, is not an unwarranted or unfortunate constraint on effective public administration. Rather, politics is an indispensable source of knowledge, skills and legitimacy to define and guide public purposes. Improved political leadership will contribute more to the restoration of public trust and confidence in government than all the management reforms combined. Communities are in greater need of total quality politics than total quality management. The following table presents my ten principles of TQP. To be effective, public servants must act according to these principles. These are not infallible rules, but guidelines to the types of actions that will improve the capabilities of public servants as leaders. Principles of total quality politics Avoid-the-wrong-problem problem. Don t redefine political issues as management problems. Management methods are being mistaken for solutions. Recognize that not all change is good and that many people will not see the dismantling of programs and departments as progress. Be conscious of the price of heightened conflict caused by change. Engage politicians in transformational politics. Politicians should concentrate on identifying and attaining the public good, and not expect entrepreneurial bureaucrats to provide the vision. Practice citizen-centered government. Voters are not simply customers: they are the owners and should be active participants. Unlike the private sector, where each customer can be treated uniquely, citizens in a democracy must be treated equitably, which usually means being treated differently but appropriately. Practice frankness, honesty and courage in explaining and defending government programs and their costs. Don t insist that governments can continue in perpetuity to do more with less, better with less or, ultimately, everything with nothing. Don t exaggerate the inefficiencies in public agencies and don t encourage the disease of Hardening of the Auditors as the response. Avoid the Blame Game, which makes public servants the scapegoats for mistakes that arise as a consequence of the political process. Respect the Public Service. Public servants should be given resources, latitude and trust. Strive to develop a constructive partnership between the political and administrative sides of government. Politicians look to public servants for advice on the risks involved with change. Public servants look to politicians for direction and a commitment to change. Show sustained commitment to public service reform and be prepared to acknowledge mistakes. Endnotes 1. Yehezkel Dror. The Capacity to Govern, in the Report to the Club of Rome (Barcelona, 1994). 2. David Osborne and Peter Plastrik. Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government (New York: Addison Wesley, 1997). Optimum, The Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 29, No. 1 29