RJ Redden

Organizational Development

I.
The case for collaboration in public administration has been in the making for decades. The
transformation from the old public administration to the new public service has been lengthy, and the
concept of collaboration is seen by many to be integral to the transformative process. Put in simplistic
terms, times have changed, and public organizations must change with them. According to Kettl, “At the
dawn of the twenty-first century, neither the theory nor the practice of American public administration
proved sufficient for the problems that it has to solve”(Kettl, 2002).
What constitutes the need for change, and why is collaboration seen as the cornerstone? Though
many factors form the basis of the need for change, two factors form the bedrock of the case for
collaboration: government failure and technology. The failure of government agencies to share
information was, in part, what led to the attacks on September 11th. Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophe
in itself, but the organizational and political chaos in which the disaster was handled exacerbated an
already appalling situation. High profile government failures form the current political landscape, but far
more pervasive are the multitude of smaller scale failures that affect the average citizen. Traditional ideas
of public administration have clear boundaries and set definitions, and as such have little relevance in the
modern world. Lone administrators providing single file solutions, the clear divide between politics and
administration, and bureaucratic paternalistic transference are no longer viable solutions to today’s
problems. As a result, organizations have needed to develop solutions that are more responsive to the
public they serve. The mode of service delivery has changed to a much more complex networked model
of both public and private organizations, and this is a primary factor in the call for collaboration. What
has led us to the network service delivery method? According to Ansell and Gash, it has largely been a
response to failure and political pressure(Ansell, 2007).
In addition, technology has provided advanced opportunities for communication that would
scarcely have been dreamed of only twenty years ago. Indeed, information availability and
communication seems to be moving faster than many public organizations can keep pace. Globalization
and the interconnection of nations are revising the very notion of boundaries. The need for timely and
accurate information communication becomes more critical as time passes, not only in the wake of the
disaster in Haiti, but also events such as the political uprising in Iran. The difficulties of one country are
no longer contained within lines on a map, but are shared on a global level. Given the world situation at
this time, it seems that the need for collaboration is stronger than ever before. National governments are
not the only ones thinking along international lines; nonprofit organizations operate and receive funding
from around the world(Kee, 2008), creating a new global distribution of services. This distribution must
cross more than just the boundaries of time and place, but language and culture as well, thus adding to the
argument for collaboration.
Several organizational factors impede change to collaborative systems. First and foremost, the
bureaucratic social character itself can impede the collaborative process. The bureaucratic social character
is one that values clarity, unambiguous rules, and hierarchical pecking order(Maccoby, 2007). It is a
personality that seems in diametric opposition to the idea of collaboration, which can be a chaotic
process, rife with gray areas and multiple interpretations. In contrast, the interactive social character lends
itself very well to the concept of collaboration. Interactives view work in an entirely different way, as a
“game” that they can “win”. Roles and identities shift easily and frequently, according to whatever is
needed to win the game. For interactives, the gray areas and multiple interpretations that collaboration
often brings are an opportunity, as opposed to an obstruction.
According to Ansell and Gash, power/resource imbalances, incentives to participate, and a pre-
history of antagonism and cooperation can facilitate or impede collaboration, depending on the current
RJ Redden
Organizational Development

organizational climate(Ansell, 2007). Power and/or resource imbalance at the outset of collaboration
often lead to the silencing of minority group voices. In addition, even though some groups may seem to
have adequate representation in numbers, some groups lack the skill and expertise necessary to engage in
successful collaboration. This factor can be transformed, however, with more focused attention to the
equal representation of disadvantaged/minority groups.
Incentives to participate can obstruct collaboration, particularly when the incentives to participate
are low and the alternative routes to the desired results are present. It is here that we must acknowledge
that collaboration takes a considerable amount of work. When alternatives routes to the desired outcome
are present, such as court rulings or potential legislation, the separate parties become much less interested
in a collaboration process that takes much time and effort, and may produce unwanted results. However,
when there are strong incentives to participate, when all of the participants see a relationship between
collaboration and positive outcome, incentives to participate become a facilitating factor. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, the prehistory of antagonism/cooperation between stakeholders plays a critical
role in whether or not a collaboration process will be effective. Upon reading that statement, one might
assume that a history of positive cooperation and low antagonism would be the most favorable conditions
for a successful collaboration. While that is indeed a fortunate occurrence, the evidence also shows that
stakeholders with a history of low cooperation and high antagonism can have a successful collaboration,
if the stakeholders are highly interdependent. Though this is a less likely recipe for successful
collaboration, it nonetheless illustrates the importance of a sense of common purpose and a shared future
in the collaborative process.

II.
Decades before many other leadership authors were born, Mary Parker Follett wrote
about the changing face of leadership. Traditional leadership at that time involved domination,
and aggressiveness was viewed as a virtue. Follett proposed the opposite idea. According to
Follett, the “essentials of leadership” include a thorough knowledge of one’s job and a strong
grasp of what she called “the total situation”, finding a “unifying thread” among the vast array of
facts and experiences of people involved in the situation (Follett, 1949). Follett saw that
traditional (bureaucratic) managerial thinking was limited in scope and effectiveness long before
many of her peers, and the chief strength of her writings is a willingness to break from tradition
and discover what truly works. Additional testament to the strength of her arguments is the
influence that her writings have had over current managerial thinking.
The main weakness in Follett’s arguments is that certain elements are largely theoretical.
In her discussion of followership, she lays out a set of guidelines for the ideal leader/follower
relationship. When it is applied at a practical level, the effectiveness of the argument wanes
somewhat. Rarely in the working world do we see the ideal intelligent leader paired up with
intelligent followers. Additional focus on actions taken in non-ideal situations might have been
informative.
Kee and Newcomer also stress a different type of leadership for a changing world. Their
focus lies in leadership as it applies to organizational change, as opposed to everyday working
conditions. In their view, change centric leaders must take leadership a step further and become
RJ Redden
Organizational Development

“transformational stewards”(Kee, 2008). In short, transformational stewardship is a balance

between making changes in a public organization and protecting the public interest.
The argument for transformational stewardship is that it is the approach that comes
nearest to approaching and managing all aspects of organizational change. It is a systematic view
of change that many organizations need in order to transform. The argument against
transformational stewardship is that it may well be an unrealistic expectation. First, the leader
must indeed be a person with excellent training, in order to have the characteristics needed to be
a transformational steward (visionary foresight, reflective learning oriented, integrative systems
thinking). Second, the organization must be such that it supports this type of leadership. The
organization should be flexible and willing to take risks. Public organizations are generally not
known for these characteristics.
In Maccoby’s text, he focuses on the kinds of leaders people need in today’s knowledge
economy. The author articulates the need for change in leadership skills based on the fact that the
traditional ways of leadership do not function well in the modern world.
His premise is that leaders need to develop the concept of Personality Intelligence in
order to become the leaders that society needs. “The thesis of this book is that in these
tumultuous times, we urgently need leaders who will mobilize people for the common good”
(Maccoby, 2007). Today’s knowledge workers are a different breed. The greater the knowledge
and experience of the worker, the more likely it is that the worker knows the means of
production better than the boss. The Interactive social character informs the attitude of many
knowledge workers, which means that most workers prefer collaborative communities rather
than clearly defined roles and hierarchy. In contrast, most management level workers prefer a
more structured, bureaucratic environment. According to the author, Personality Intelligence is
the way to connect with people of diverse styles and personality types. The leaders we need can
no longer rely on rigid, formulaic solutions to communication problems.
The strengths of his argument are that no matter what type of social character one is
dealing with, Personality Intelligence produces results. Personality Intelligence is a plan that is
structured around flexibility, which is critical in an ever changing, loosely defined knowledge
economy. No matter what blend of personalities a manager needs to deal with, no matter what
the situation, Personality Intelligence is flexible enough to make a positive impact.
Though his arguments are well constructed, there remain a few areas of weakness. For
instance, the text focuses on leadership only as it applies to the upper management levels, failing
to take into account the ideas that leadership occurs in many places beyond the boardroom. In
addition, much of the book focuses on the leadership skills of the individual. While this is a very
common form of leadership, it would be an excellent expansion to see these principles applied to
so-called “leaderless” teams and virtual teams that are beginning to take root in the workplace.
There are specific concepts that are essential to leadership in public administration.
Private industry has both a clear motivation and a definite set of stakeholders. Public
administration has no such set of initiatives. While financials are significant, the provision of
services is more important and more difficult to measure. In addition, the stakeholders in many
public organizations are too numerous to calculate. Private industry must deal with
RJ Redden
Organizational Development

accountability and transparency issues, but only with their own board of directors. Public
organizations must be accountable and transparent with the general public; many of whom
fundamentally disagree on which public services should be provided.
Perhaps the most important concept of leadership in public administration is the idea of
the public interest, generally defined as “the common good”(Kee, 2008). There has been much
argument over the existence/importance of the public interest as it applies to leadership. Certain
schools of thought consider the public interest to be irrelevant, since it can neither be defined nor
measured. Others consider the public interest to be important, but are undecided as to the extent
to which it should inform public decisions. These are interesting arguments, particularly in the
light of the concept of democracy, which also defies concrete definition and measurement. Both
concepts, however, serve as a guide to public administrators. Though the definition of the public
interest is elusive, it still serves as a compass on the path of organizational transformation.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 543-571.
Follett, M. P. (1949). Freedom & Coordination: Lectures in Business Organisation by
Mary Parker Follett. (L. Urwick, Ed.) London: Management Publications Trust, Ltd.
Kee, J. E., & Newcomer, K. E. (2008). Transforming Public and Nonprofit
Organizations: Stewardship for Leading Change. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Kettl, D. F. (2002). The Transformation of Governance. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Maccoby, M. (2007). The Leaders We Need: and What Makes Us Follow. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.