Transformational stewardship


Published on

Tambahan Materi Kuliah Layanan Elektronis Pertemuan 7
Transformational stewardship

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transformational stewardship

  1. 1. TRANSFORMATIONAL STEWARDSHIP: LEADING PUBLIC SECTOR CHANGE Working Paper #3 April 2006 James Edwin Kee Kathryn Newcomer Mike Davis A Publication of The Center for Innovation in Public Service,A Collaborative Research Partnership of The George Washington University School of Public Policy and Public Administration, and BearingPoint, Inc.
  2. 2. Transformational Stewardship: Leading Public Sector Change James Edwin Kee, Kathryn Newcomer and Mike Davis The George Washington University Final Draft April 11, 2006 Public sector leadership in the 21st Century is challenging and change-oriented.Rapidly evolving global conditions and shifting political and economic influences arechanging our ideas of “what” government should do. Advancements in operationaltechnologies and methodologies, and rising expectations of leadership, require a similarevolution in “how” government accomplishes its mission. Unfortunately, the tragedy ofthe 9/11 terrorist attacks, the multiple NASA disasters, and the failed FEMA response toHurricane Katrina, highlight the necessity for public leaders to adapt quickly to varioustypes of events. Public leaders face rapidly changing circumstances that require them totransform their organizations. Public sector change is a risky business. Organizational change is inherentlyunsettling, demanding new approaches to traditional structures, and sometimes newparadigms altogether. Pay-for-performance, competitive sourcing, public-private-partnerships, performance-based budgeting, and other initiatives often create anunsettling environment in which the public leader must satisfy a variety of constituencieswhile shaping new organizational norms and values. To meet the challenge of change, public leaders in the 21st Century must betransformational stewards. We contend that transformation and stewardship arereciprocal and mutually-reinforcing aspects of public service, and are two vitalresponsibilities for tomorrow’s government leaders. As “transformational stewards,”public leaders must pursue organizational transformation, while serving as stewards oftheir organization and core public administration values. We posit that public leaders ofthe future require heightened creativity and initiative, concern for the larger publiccommunity, and careful management and leadership of change. Transformationalstewardship is a dynamic equilibrium reflecting dedication to service and strategy, andagility and accountability. While on the surface this observation may seem obvious, the implications ofpublic leaders as transformational stewards are more significant than they may appear.For public leaders and managers to fulfill their role as leaders of change, many of ourtraditional assumptions about the nature of public service must be reconsidered andreconciled. This reconciliation must occur at several levels – from the conceptualizationand rationale behind the public leader’s place in government, to the roles, practices andskills that characterize transformational stewards and their organizations. In this chapter, we seek to establish the foundation for this vision of publicleadership by presenting three important aspects of transformational stewardship. First,we explore the concept of transformational stewardship as a new way to define public 2
  3. 3. leadership, building on traditional thinking about leadership and public administration,while extending this thinking to address the transformational challenges of modern publicservice. Second, we present a specific tool to enable public leaders to better manage therisk of change, thus fulfilling their transformational stewardship responsibilities. Here,we draw on our previous work modeling change-related risk in order to provide acomprehensive backdrop for considering the transformational steward’s responsibilities.Finally, we consider the specific roles and responsibilities of transformational stewards inrelation to the different aspects of a particular change. Before describing the concept oftransformational leadership, however, we want to briefly consider some of the majordemands for change on public sector leaders.The Landscape for Public Sector Leaders The need for transformational leadership in the public sector is most evident whenwe examine the pressures for change felt by today’s public managers. These changepressures come from many sources: an aging public sector workforce, resourceconstraints, new horizontal relationships with nonprofit and private sector organizations,globalization, technology breakthroughs, and increasingly complex public problems. Inmany cases, these demands for change conflict with one another, and constantly competefor the public manager’s time and resources. The following are a few high visibilitychange drivers in the federal government (state and local governments face similarpressures): • The change to be more performance oriented – managers must meet evolving performance management demands presented by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), pay-for-performance, the application of OMB’s Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART), and demands for performance measurement in a variety of other laws. • The change to become a younger and more diverse workforce - managers must prepare for a major changeover in staff (half of all top civil service executives are over 50), while ensuring that the institutional knowledge that resides in these existing staff members is not lost. • The change to become more competitive and entrepreneurial – managers must compete with the private sector to continue doing the public’s business (e.g., competitive sourcing), or must engage in new, unfamiliar public-private partnerships. • The change to restructure to meet evolving mission requirements and stakeholder expectations – managers must create and evolve new organizations to meet new national threats or needs (Homeland Security, FEMA) or increasing expectations of constituents and Congress to be more consumer friendly (IRS). The one common element in all of the above forces for change is the need foragencies to adapt and transform themselves. Yet, change is not easy. While potentialrewards may be great, change carries risks for the agency, the manager, and otherstakeholders. This is true in the private sector as well as the public sector; but there isreason to believe that change in the public sector is more “risky” than the private sector. 3
  4. 4. A private-sector CEO has to satisfy his or her Board of Directors and ultimately thestockholders, but can often proceed in relative secrecy, without a great deal ofcollaboration. In contrast, public sector leaders have significantly more stakeholders.They include those within the organization, such as unions and senior politicalappointees, and those outside the organization, such as political leadership (both electedand appointed), suppliers, citizens/consumers and others. Generally speaking,organizational change in the public sector must be transparent, requires extensiveconsultation, and is usually conducted in a highly visible arena. Additionally, the natureof political leadership results in a short-term horizon for many of the stakeholders,making long-term change initiatives more problematic. While we refer to “organizational change,” the reality is that change is notorganizational unless it is first individual change, and then team change. At these levels,several change stakeholders emerge – including employees, peers, and agency leadership.For each of these stakeholders, there are distinct and often very different perceptions,expectations, and “stakes” in whatever change is being proposed. In addition, theperceptions, expectations and stakes of the manager also influence the course of change.While local stakeholders are more prominent in the manager’s daily environment, theincreasing complexity and scope of the managerial role in government—with itsincreased emphasis on public-private partnerships, globalization, and intergovernmentalarrangements—means that all stakeholders, to some degree, must be on the manager’sradar. Collectively, these relationships and their influences on the change processconstitute the manager’s “change landscape.” Becoming aware of and thinking criticallyabout this landscape is a critical first step toward deliberately negotiating it withproficiency and skill.Transformational Stewardship Given the strong change influences that have emerged in the contemporary publicleadership landscape, how does the concept of transformational stewardship provide aviable path for fulfilling the responsibilities of public service? In order to answer thisquestion, we first address the seeming paradox of public sector leaders as both changeagents and stewards of the public trust as they seek to accomplish their organizationalroles and responsibilities. At the heart of this discussion is an ongoing debate aboutmanagerial discretion and the role of public managers that harkens back to the Finer(1940)- Friederich (1940) debate—arguments that have recently been rejoined in thediscussion between advocates of “New Public Management” (NPM) and those that seethe role of public managers as conservators within a tightly controlled system ofdemocratic accountability. New Public Management is one of the current change drivers—an embodiment ofa “tidal wave of government sector reform” that has swept the world since the 1980s(Kettl, 1999). The widespread adoption of NPM ideas reflects its advocacy by a numberof international organizations, including the World Bank. This reform movement largelyis a reaction to a perception that government agencies have become too large andineffective, and therefore must transform themselves. The leadership literature and 4
  5. 5. adherents of NPM place a great deal of emphasis on the role of leaders in organizationalchange. They are the entrepreneurs (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), change agents (Kotter1996), and creators of “new mental maps” (Black & Gregersen 2002). The term“transformational” best fits this type of leader. Burns (1978) defined transformationalleadership as a process where the leader and follower engage each other in creating ashared vision that raises the level of motivation for both leader and follower,transforming the organization. A chorus of public administration scholars, however, has raised some seriousconcerns about transformational leaders in the public sector who are seen as potentiallyunaccountable “wild-eyed entrepreneurs” (Terry 1995, 1998; Moe 1994). To this group,public managers must first and foremost be “conservators,” politically and legallyaccountable within a vertical hierarchy. NPM processes, it is argued, with their emphaseson efficiency and entrepreneurial activity of government managers, interfere withdemocratic governance and with other values that are highly prized—such as fairness,justice, and democratic participation. Upon initial analysis, the concept of stewardship would seem to align with criticsof NPM. A steward is “a person who manages another’s property or financial affairs, orwho administers anything as an agent of another” (Random House 1968). A commonstewardship definition is “to hold something in trust for others” (Block 1993, xv). LikeBlock, we view stewardship in a broad sense, which entails wisely using the resourcesavailable in a creative process that aggressively pursues the mission of the organization.This broad view envisions the leader creating a balance of power in the organization witha primary commitment to the larger community, wherein each person joins in definingpurpose. Stewardship is a governance strategy designed to create a strong sense ofownership and responsibility for outcomes—including change—at all levels of theorganization. It also means giving more control to citizens, and creating self-reliance andpartnerships among the organization’s stakeholders (Block 1993; Kee 2003).Thus, the concept of transformational stewardship is a vision of the public sector leaderand manager that fully embraces the necessities of change that define contemporarypublic leadership. This concept envisions an active public leader, facilitating changethrough building organizational capacity, developing partnerships, and thoroughlyanalyzing the risks of change, in order to maximize potential gains while minimizing—tothe extent possible—potential losses associated with change.Attributes of Transformational Stewardship Transformational stewardship, in the broadest sense, can be thought of as aleadership function in which those exercising leadership (those with “legitimate”authority as well as others throughout the organization) have developed certain attributesthat guide their actions. These attributes reflect leaders’ personal outlook or beliefs (theirinner-personal beliefs or traits), how they approach a situation (their operationalmindset), how they involve others in the function (their inter-personal actions/interactionswith others), and their commitment to change and innovation (their change-centricapproach). While there are many leadership attributes, Table 1displays a list of the 15 5
  6. 6. attributes that we believe are most important for transformational stewardship, followedby a discussion of each attribute. <<TABLE ONE HERE>>Inner-personal Leadership Beliefs/Traits The “trait” theory of leadership is one of the most persistent concepts about whatmakes a good leader. Some argue that individuals are either born with leadership traits(such as intelligence) or not. Others argue that the most important leadership traits arethose that can be learned (such as understanding the job or task at hand). Trait theories ofleadership attempt to develop a list of defined characteristics of leadership; common onesinclude intelligence, self-confidence, decisiveness, courage, empathy, determination,integrity and sociability. Among the recent proponents of the trait theory of leadership arethe “emotional IQ” or maturity approach of Goleman, Mckee and Boyatzis (2002) whobelieve that leadership traits can be learned through self-evaluation and mentoring. We believe the most important personal leadership beliefs/traits are not ones thatwe are born with, but those that develop throughout our lives and provide us continuingguidance on how to act in a particular situation—they become inner-personal guides toour actions. We believe that the most vital traits for transformational stewards are ethicalconduct, a reflective, continuous learning attitude, empathy toward others, and theforesight or vision to lead an organization toward a preferred future. Ethical: An overriding inner-personal trait, commonly cited, is integrity or ethicalvalues and standards. Transformational stewards must maintain a high level of standardsfor themselves and their organizations that allows leaders and followers to elevate theorganization to a higher plane. Leadership scholar James MacGregor Burns (1978) positsthat moral values lie at the heart of transformational leadership, and allow the leader toseek “fundamental changes in organizations and society” (in Ciulla 2004, p. x). Similarly, those arguing for a servant leadership approach (often aligned with theconcept of stewardship) argue for the importance of “core ethical values, includingintegrity, independence, freedom, justice, family and caring” (Fairholm 1998, 133).Ethics and moral standards have their roots in principles we learn throughout our lives,either from parents or mentors, or from our own inquiries into what constitutes justaction. Reflective/Continuous Learning: Margaret Wheatley suggests that: “Thinking isthe place where intelligent actions begin. We pause long enough to look more carefully ata situation, to see more of its character, to think about why it is happening, and to noticehow it is affecting us and others” (2005, 215). Transformational stewards are willing tostep back and reflect before taking action. They take the time to understand and to learnbefore acting. A Chinese proverb asks, “Can you remain still, while the water is turbidand cloudy, until in time it is perfectly clear again?” (Thompson 2000, 175). 6
  7. 7. Thompson argues that “Beyond a certain point, there can probably be no personalgrowth, no individualization, without the capacity for self-reflection” (2000, 152). Just ascontinuous learning is critical for an organization (Senge 1990), it must start with theorganizational leader. Self reflection, including personal awareness and continuouslearning, is not always easy or calming—just the opposite—“It is a disturber and anawakener” (Greenleaf 1977). Transformational stewards must be awake to newapproaches to problems, new understandings of relationships, and potential consequencesof actions and impacts on others. In this manner they can lead with confidence. Empathetic: A transformational steward demonstrates concern for others, bothwithin and outside of the organization. Organizational change involves potential winnersand losers. If leader are seen as primarily acting in their self-interest, transformation ofthe organization could be derailed. However, if leaders have a genuine concern for othersand address potential losses, they may find the path easier. Empathy is a trait that is aproduct of both our nature and how we are nurtured; but understanding its importance canprovide us with an incentive to pay more attention to the needs, views, and concerns ofothers. Empathy is more than just being a “good listener:” though that is an importantskill, leaders must both hear and understand. Thompson explains: “if by that we meanonly that we have learned certain skills and techniques that make the other person feelheard, we have still largely missed the point. To empathize is to both hear andunderstand, and to grasp both the thoughts the other person is trying to convey and thefeelings he or she has about them (2000, 181)”. Transformational stewards participate inother persons’ feelings or ideas, leading to a broader understanding of the situation andpotential courses of action. Foresight/Vision: A transformational steward is able to look beyond the currentsituation and see the big picture and potential for the organization. This is true throughoutthe organization, although as a leader progresses in an organization and has moreresponsibility, the vision and foresight required are greater (Follett in Graham 2003). Mary Parker Follett refers to the need for leaders to “grasp the totalsituation….Out of a welter of facts, experience, desires, aims, the leader must find theunifying thread…the higher up you go the more ability you have to have of this kind.When leadership rises to genius it has the power of transforming, transformingexperience into power.” (Follett in Graham 2003, 168-9). While vision is necessary totransform an organization, it is equally necessary for a good steward. Failure to fullyassess potential gains and risks for an organization will lead to a waste of resources andan inability to achieve the full potential of the organization. Follett continues: I have said that the leader must understand the situation, must see it as a whole, must see the inter-relation of all the parts. He must do more than this. He must see the evolving situation, the developing situation. His wisdom, his judgment, is used, not on a situation that is stationary, but on one that is changing all the time. The ablest administrators do not merely draw logical conclusions 7
  8. 8. from the array of facts of the past which their expert assistants bring to them, they have a vision for the future. (Ibid. 169, emphasis added).Operational Mindset The “Style” approach or theory of leadership focuses on how leaders interact withfollowers, and stresses the need for leaders to balance a “concern for people” with“concern for production or results.” The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid is one of themost well known tools reflecting this approach (1985). We believe that the operationalmindset of a transformational leader is important but goes beyond balancing people withresults, to include a number of attributes of both transformational leader and steward. Trustee/Caretaker: Transformational stewards recognize that they hold theirposition and use organizational resources for others, not for their own self-aggrandizement. They take responsibility for the public in general, both current andfuture generations, and future members of the organization. Thus the broad concept of“public interest,” while not always easy to define, must be a constant touchstone for theleader. Public servants, whether elected, appointed, or part of the large civil servicesystem, are only temporarily in charge of their resources and responsibilities. They holdthem in trust for the public—hence they serve the public and must act in the publicinterest, not for personal self-interest. “Public managers are, after all, public servants,”argues Colin Diver (1982, cited in Moe [1994]). “Their acts must derive from thelegitimacy, from the consent of the governed, as expressed through the Constitution andlaws, not from any personal system of values, no matter how noble” (404). In NPM’srush to “steer” rather than “row,” the Denhardt and Denhardt note that we have toremember “who owns the boat” (2003, 23). Kass (1990) defines public stewardship as “the administrator’s willingness andability to earn the public trust by being an effective and ethical agent in carrying out therepublic’s business” (113). Because ethical considerations may conflict with efficiencycriteria, Kass believes that stewardship requires that efficiency and effectiveness (thetraditional measures of administrative success) be “informed by and subordinated to theethical norms of justice and beneficence” (114). Mission Driven: Transformational stewards fiercely and courageously pursue themission of their organization. In most cases, they act as agents of those who establishedthat mission—the legislature, the chief executive, or the courts. Sometimes, conflictinggoals and agendas require the public servant to arbitrate. To the question “What shouldpublic managers do in the face of legislative ambiguity: ask for clarification, or provideit?” Behn says that public managers must courageously define their responsibilities(1998, 215). It may be in the legislature’s interest to be ambiguous; in addition, “thepolitical process itself creates a diffusion of power and responsibility that makesarticulation of central values difficult” (Kee and Black 1989, 28). Thus, thetransformational steward must seek to find the common purpose, values, and aims thatdrive the organization. 8
  9. 9. Public managers can find this common purpose by engaging the people in theiragencies, citizens, and other stakeholders who will assist the leader in defining theagencys mission or core values—in effect, determining the public interest. Follett notesthat the “invisible leader” becomes the “common purpose” and that “loyalty to theinvisible leader gives us the strongest possible bond of union” (Follett in Graham 2003,172). At other times, the organizational mission is clear, but the organization may havemultiple means of achieving the mission, and its leaders must weigh how those meanswill affect the agency, its mission, and the larger public interest. “Legislation, publicscrutiny, and constitutional checks and balances all create legitimate legal and politicallimitations on the freedom of public managers to act. Yet within the constraints, there isconsiderable room for experimentation and action” (Kee and Black 1989, 31). Unlessproscribed or prescribed to act in a certain fashion, the agency leader (with the people inthe agency) has considerable latitude as to how to pursue the mission. Accountable: Transformational stewards measure their performance in atransparent fashion and share those results with those who can affect the organization andits success. This is consistent with efforts at the federal level to get agencies to articulateand measure progress toward their performance goals (for example, the GovernmentPerformance Results Act). Transformational stewards support processes such asperformance-based budgeting, balanced scorecards, and other efforts to measure programresults in an open fashion and subject them to periodic review and evaluation. What isimportant is not measurement for the sake of measurement or the creation of short-termoutput measures, but measurement for the sake of legitimate feedback and programrevision aimed at achieving the agency mission. “Stewardship asks us to be deeplyaccountable for the outcomes of an institution…” (Block 1993, 18). An open process ensures accountability and allows others to see how the agencyand its stewards are defining and fulfilling the public interest. This, by necessity, must bea multi-faceted process, as Vail (1989) suggests, that considers a variety of importantvalues, not simply economic ones that might drive a single bottom-line mentality. Anopen process provides a natural check on how transformational stewards define and leadprogress toward achievement of the organization’s mission. Finally, transformationalstewards, throughout the organization, take responsibility (legal, professional, andpersonal) for the results (Harmon 1990, 1995). Attention to Detail: Transformational stewards know that details do matter(Addington and Graves 2002). Details are often the way in which government programsensure important democratic values, such as equitable distribution of public benefits oraccess to public programs. Process “red tape” is often the means by which we ensureadherence to procedural imperatives; however, it should not be used as cover or excusefor lack of performance. Rather, transformational stewards need to distinguish betweenthose processes designed to achieve certain public purposes and those designed primarilyto impose excess control. With the latter, transformational stewards might seek waivers,exceptions, etc. to enable the agency to better organize itself to accomplish its mission. 9
  10. 10. Inter-personal/Interactions with Others Leadership theories increasingly stress the importance of the leader’s interactionwith others. For example, the “Situational” approach characterizes the leader’s role alonga “supportive” and “directive” matrix, based on the development level of the followers(Hersey and Blanchard, 1993). Leaders delegate, support, coach, or direct, dependingupon the capacity of the followers—specifically as to the job (competence) andpsychological maturity (commitment) of the followers. We see transformationalstewards approaching their interactions with others differently than many other leadershiptheories prescribe. The chief goals for transformational stewards are empowerment andengendering trust in employees throughout the organization. Trust Builder: Transformational stewards build program success throughdeveloping and maintaining trust—with the members of their agencies, their constituents,and their principals. Leadership is principally about developing trust, wherein leadersand agency members accomplish mutually valued goals using agreed-upon processes.“Leaders build trust or tear it down by the cumulative actions they take and the word theyspeak—by the culture they create for themselves and their organization members.”(Fairholm 2000, 91--check). Developing trust is about building community, “the creation of harmony from,often diverse, sometimes opposing, organizational, human, system and programfunctions” (Id at 140--check). Public stewards also must build trust with the citizens theyserve and the principals (executives and legislatures) to whom they report. Mitchell and Scott (1987) insist that stewardship “is based on the notion thatadministrators must display the virtue of trust and honorableness in order to be legitimateleaders” (448). Trust is an ephemeral thing, hard to gain, easy to lose. Trust leads toinvolvement of citizens and grants of discretion from principals. Empowering: Closely related to trust is the concept of empowerment. Trustdemands empowerment of agency employees and, where possible, decentralization ofauthority—real decision-making—throughout the organization. Follett, writing in the1920s, put it this way: “Many are coming to think that the job of a man higher up is not tomake decisions for his subordinates but to teach them how to handle their problemsthemselves, teach them how to make their own decisions. The best leader does notpersuade men to follow his will. He shows them what is necessary for them to do in orderto meet their responsibilities…the best leaders try to train their followers themselves tobecome leaders (Follett in Graham, 173). Developing leaders for a common purpose is a key function of transformationalstewardship. Stone (1997) makes a useful distinction between the market and the “polis.”In the market, economic principles and incentives are the norm. In the polis, the“development of shared values and a collective sense of the public interest is the primaryaim” (quoted in Denhardt and Denhardt, 2003, 73). To the extent that leaders empower 10
  11. 11. others (employees and citizens), they become co-leaders and stewards in fulfillment ofthe public interest. This is a fundamental role, and opportunity, for transformationalstewards throughout the organization. Power Sharing: Transformational stewards rely less on positional authority fortheir power and more on personal power sources, persuasion and moral leadership toaffect change (Hill 1994). Beyond personal power, transformational stewards rely on“group power.” Follett claims that “it is possible to develop the conception of power-with, a jointly developed power, a co-active, not a coercive power.” And “the great leadertries…to develop power wherever he can among those who work with him, and thengathers all this power and uses it as the energizing force of a progressing enterprise”(Follett in Graham, 103, 173). Coalition Builder: Transformational stewards recognize that they cannot fullymeet their mission with their given resources (people, dollars, etc.) without involvingothers. They know that horizontal relationships and coalition building with otherorganizations, within government, in the nonprofit sector, and the for-profit sector areessential for the success of their organization. Such coalitions might be critical for theorganization’s successful transformation or vital when the organization is faced with acrisis (such as Hurricane Katrina). Coast Guard Admiral Joel Whitehead refers to thenecessity of developing “pre-need” relationships, noting that this is one of the CoastGuard’s fundamental principles—a recognition that they can not do everything and mustrely on others as partners in achieving their organizational mission (Whitehead 2005).Change-Centric Approach Building upon trust, empowerment and power sharing, transformational stewardsare able to be change-centric, focusing on the needed change itself, rather than the sourceof the call for change (from the leader, top down, or from the followers, bottom-up).What matters is finding the proper balance of top-down and bottom-up management thatleads to a successful change effort (Kee and Setzer 2006). Achieving positive changeshould be the focus, not assigning inflexible leadership roles. The focus of change-centricleadership is on the successful change effort itself, which is not to say leadership has noimportant role to play. On the contrary, the leader or leaders of an organization serve asfacilitators of change. They should strive to be cognizant of when change efforts requiremore initiative from the top, and when the success of change efforts may hinge uponallowing more employee participation in formulation of the change vision. Dialogueamongst all levels of leadership is encouraged, but not to the extent of damaging thedecision-making process. Sometimes the top leaders in an organization will need tomake change decisions, especially when time and resource constraints do not allow formore employee involvement. However, change efforts in the public sector are oftencompleted over a longer time frame, and thus, more participation from lower ranks can becultivated. The concept of change-centric leadership is very consistent with Follett’s“law of the situation” (Fox and Urwick 1973). In order to be change-centric,transformational stewards need to be creative, innovative, and comfortable withambiguity and with navigating complex systems. 11
  12. 12. Creative/Innovative: Transformational stewards do not wait for a crisis toinnovate and create, they attempt to build an environment that values continuous learningand in which workers constantly draw on current and past experiences to frame a newfuture for the organization. Peter Vaill (1996) acknowledges that “creative learning” isseemingly a contradiction in a world of institutional learning where people who “know”transfer knowledge to people who do not know. However, in a change environment thereoften is no “body of knowledge” to transfer; thus it is up to the transformational stewardto create the knowledge. This requires an inquiring mind willing to explore options. Justas an artist might not always know what the final product will look like, transformationalstewards must be open to the unknown, willing to surprise themselves, and to recognize“in that surprise is the learning” (Vaill 1996, 61). Comfortable with Ambiguity: Transformational stewards recognize thatconflicting organizational objectives and priorities often require a careful balancing act:continuity and change; efficiency and equity; etc. Public managers, like their privatecounterparts, live in an era of “permanent white water,” bombarded by pressures bothfrom within and without the organization (Vaill 1998). Transformational stewardsrecognize that their “solutions” are among many plausible alternatives and must becontinually reassessed and adjusted as conditions change. Integrative/Systems Thinker: Thanks largely to Peter Senge’s pathbreaking bookThe Fifth Discipline (1990), systems thinking has become one of the most importantconcepts in the field of leadership. But systems thinking is not an easy concept to graspor apply. Vaill notes continuing evidence that demonstrates an absence of systemsthinking: our tendency to think in black and white; to believe in simple linear cause-effectrelationships; to ignore feedback; to ignore relationships between a phenomenon and itsenvironment; and to ignore how our own biases frame our perceptions (Vaill 1996).Vaill sees the core idea of systems thinking in the balancing and interrelating of threelevels of phenomenon: first, the “whole,” or phenomenon of interest itself; second, theinner workings of the whole—the combining and interacting of the internal elements toproduct the whole; and third, the world outside the whole that places the phenomenon inits context—all moving dynamically in time (Ibid at 108-09). Vaill argues that the key tolearning systems thinking—and we believe it can be learned—is “understanding oneselfin interactions with the surrounding world” (110). A prime example of systems thinking is presented by Steven Kelman, formerdirector of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy within the Office of Managementand Budget. In his book Unleashing Change, Kelman recounts his first-hand experienceleading procurement reform efforts during the first Clinton Administration (2005).Although Kelman saw a need for reform, he did not push a change agenda down throughthe ranks. Instead, he sought information, attempting to understand the procurementsystem as a whole and its many parts that made up the whole. He found that many of thefrontline procurement officers were also calling for change in the system. Kelman refersto these individuals as the “change vanguard,” allowing their innovations and creativityto take the lead. Kelman utilized the power of his position to unleash the change effort 12
  13. 13. that was formulating at the lowest levels. In this instance, he served as a facilitator of thechange effort; he was both a leader pushing for change while simultaneously helpingthose in the change vanguard to see their initiatives succeed.Building the attributes for transformational leadership Transformational stewards are special leaders, combining personal traits, specificmindsets, relations to others, and a change centric approach that enables them to succeedin meeting the changing needs of public managers. Table 2 summarizes the key attributeswe envision for transformational stewards and it grounds this model in existing literature. <<TABLE TWO HERE>> An example of an organization that supports transformational stewardship is inthe U.S. Coast Guard, where leaders emphasize pushing leadership down throughout theorganization, and encourage a flexible approach to collaboration and decision making.According to Donald Phillips and Adm. James M. Loy (USCG, ret.) in their bookCharacter in Action (2003), leadership in the Coast Guard exhibits a number of idealsthat are very consistent with transformational stewardship: a decentralized decision-making structure, a stress on individual initiative along with promoting team over self,cultivating caring relationships and strong alliances, effective communications, makingchange the norm, encouraging decisiveness, and empowering the young. Furthermore,although graduates of the Coast Guard Academy receive a heavy dose of the sciences,those subjects are complemented by several specific courses in leadership—more thantypically exist in professional “management” degrees.A Change Appraisal Tool for Transformational Stewards Through our study of the mechanics and dynamics of change in individuals andorganizations, we have come to believe that transformational stewardship encompasses aset of competencies that can be understood as tangible, articulable skills and abilities—especially well suited to of which is managing the risks of both public and privateleaders. Awareness of the sources and nature of operational risk is rapidly becomingessential for change leaders. While the concept of “risk management” was initially onlyapplicable to financial analysts and insurance providers, risk analysis can inject a dose ofreality and anticipation into any change planning process. Transformational stewardshave a critical strategic advantage. They are skilled in assessing of the factors that arepreconditions to change success and in assessing risks involved in change efforts inunderstanding where managers or leaders can most appropriately shape the changeprocess. We offer a conceptual tool to assist public leaders to assess and mitigate change-related risks. It is a function of three sets of factors: 1) The complexity of the changebeing undertaken, 2) The intensity of stakeholder perceptions of their stake (theirpotential gain or loss) in the change outcome, and 3) The change capability of theorganization. Analyzing the interrelationship among these sets of factors can help leaders 13
  14. 14. comprehend the level of risk involved in any given change. They can then employappropriate strategies to empower and involve internal and external stakeholders toreduce risks. We provide a framework for assessing the level of risk presented by changeefforts in Figure1. The three sets of factors represent the nature of the change, the stakesreal or imagined in the outcome of the change, and organizational capability. The magnitude and scope of the change affects the risk involved (Path A), as doperceptions of both internal and external stakeholders regarding how much they gain orlose through change processes (Path B). The intensity in the feelings held by eitherinternal or external stakeholders about how they will be affected will affect every risk(Path C), but may be mitigated by the organizational capability (Path D). Leaders requireorganizational resources to reduce anxiety among stakeholders and to reduce the overallrisk to the ongoing organizational performance (Path E). <<FIGURE ONE HERE>> Viewing change risk as a function of the three sets of contributing risk factorssimplifies the often ambiguous responsibility to lead change by reducing it to a moretangible charge – to act to influence change by identifying and addressing the sources ofrisk that stand to impede the change process. By anticipating and strategically managingrelationships between complexity, stakes and organizational capabilities, atransformational steward can control the level of risk to the organization and its network.Managing change efforts without the knowledge of change risk factors are much moreunpredictable and potentially counterproductive: pushing for too much change, too fast,could be risky for both the leader and the organization; pushing too slowly may also bedangerous—organizations may miss major opportunities or be viewed as recalcitrant andinefficient. In either case, leading change is “risky business,” and understanding just howrisky it is can give transformational stewards much needed leverage. Transformationalstewards have an advantage in leading change because their inner-personal traits, theiroperational mindset, and the way they relate to others help them facilitate change. Coast Guard Admiral Patrick Stillman stated the challenge: What we want to achieve is a realistic sense of simplification of change so the leaders can do their jobs. Similar to cost schedules and performance and project management, the utility of risk management, from both an internal and external perspective, is to identify what leaders must be aware of. They must be aware of the change landscape and find methods of reducing the complexity of change. There is a need to maintain the altitude of focus in order to achieve the change outcomes. Also, we must ruthlessly measure outputs and inputs in order to achieve the desired outcomes and put accountability at the top of the priority list, or change will fail. That is the challenge and opportunity (2005).Roles and Responsibilities of the Transformational Steward 14
  15. 15. Although public leaders continually deal with change, the responsibilitiesassociated with transformation and stewardship need further articulation. Without a clearunderstanding of transformation and stewardship roles, leaders and managers may lackthe skills necessary to facilitate successful change processes and to deploy necessaryresources to affect successful transformation. Being technically proficient andmanagerially inclined is necessary but insufficient for leading effective organizationaltransformation. In agencies whose very mission and future depends on significantchange (which we would argue is the majority), the failure of leaders to recognize andunderstand their transformational responsibilities means that – at best – the performanceof these roles will be ad hoc, making organizational success unpredictable. Compellingexamples of this occur in agencies that experienced a major institutional failure,subsequently attempted to realign their capabilities, and then experienced a second majorbreakdown that exposed the insufficient system change. Two very public examples come to mind from recent history: The FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In thecase of FEMA, the agency’s response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 was viewed by manyto have fallen well below expectations. Agency reorganization and realignment to ensuremore effective responses to disasters was undertaken in the mid 1990’s. In 2005,following a decade of publicly touted improvement at FEMA, and its reorganization intothe new Department of Homeland Security, Hurricane Katrina exposed the fact that thereforms had not sufficiently addressed basic management deficiencies. While HurricaneKatrina presented a disaster of epic proportions and many of the conditions were simplyunanticipated, many of FEMA’s failures were no different than those mistakes identifiedin previous reviews. In the case of NASA, the safety-focused reforms from onecatastrophic shuttle disaster were insufficient to address management conditions that ledto a second catastrophic disaster. In both FEMA and NASA, certain technical advancements and alignments werenecessary and may have been only indirectly related to subsequent breakdowns. Butwithout a doubt, the management conditions that persisted through the episodesmentioned were critical factors in the public failures. Why? There were certainly skilledand committed managers and leaders in both organizations who were very capable publicservants. We would argue though, that when the complexity of change, stakes, andrequired organizational capabilities are not understood, it is unlikely that leaders andmanagers will act with awareness of what to do and how to do it. Most public leaders andmanagers receive little or no progressive training and development related to thechallenge of leading and managing major organizational change. When we consider theprevalence of organizational transformation, the consequences of leaders’transformational ignorance make it clear that defining and understandingtransformational stewards’ roles and responsibilities is an indispensable part of buildingorganizational change capability. 15
  16. 16. We have organized the leaders’ roles and responsibilities in analyzing the majorrisk factors in a change or transformation (complexity, stakeholder perceptions, andorganizational capability) in Table 3. <<TABLE 3 HERE>>Complexity While the complexity of a change may seem a given—uncontrollable andunalterable by the leader—in actuality, the transformational steward has variousresponsibilities that can influence how the complexity of the change interacts withstakeholders and the organization itself. Perhaps the most important leadership role is thedevelopment of strategies, processes, policies and procedures, and structures to deal withthe complexity. For example, a leader should undertake an analysis of the complexity of aproposed change or transformation prior to initiating the change itself. The existence and utilization of formal strategies aimed at identifying andmeasuring the scope and magnitude of a change will provide the leader with theinformation necessary to move forward or to alter change strategies to accommodate thedegree of change complexity, and the type of change (for example voluntary vs.involuntary change). If the scope of change exceeds the current organizational ability toaccommodate it, the leader might consider scaling down the scope or developing a pilotproject to allow the organization to gain experience in dealing with the change. A transformational steward will need to adjust organizational processes, policies,and procedures (the three “Ps”) and the organization’s structures depending upon thecomplexity of the change. This might involve restructuring team roles, responsibilities,and reporting relationships to accommodate the scope and magnitude of the change.Finally, a transformational steward must be aware of the impact on the organization’sculture of the change. Complex changes may stretch the fabric of the organization’sculture. Transformational steward’s must overcome or mitigate the difficulty of culturalchange in relation to the change complexity. While each case is unique, Kelman’sapproach of using a “change vanguard” to pilot procurement reform was an effectivemethod of obtaining the support of key actors that helped initiate a cultural change(2005).Stakeholder Perceptions Awareness and identification of those who have a stake in the change event is acritical task for the transformational steward. The leader must understand the possibleinfluences stakeholders can exercise on a proposed change event, and the strength andlikelihood that those influences will impact the change. Learning from past changeefforts and how they were impacted by various stakeholders can provide importantinformation to the change leader. To enhance the success of a change, thetransformational steward may need to tailor change strategies in order to mitigatenegative stakeholder perceptions and magnify positive influences of stakeholders. 16
  17. 17. Transformational stewards should develop a formal process for identifying thosewho have a stake in the change and develop a method to measure their perceived gains orlosses due to the change—this is similar to a “stakeholder analysis,” or “social networkanalysis.” This identification should include the types and degree of importance ofvarious stakes (e.g., resources.) that stakeholders perceive to be affected by the change.Finally, leaders should develop processes to help stakeholders understand and beprepared for likely gains or losses due to the change, correcting any misperceptions ofstakeholders regarding the magnitude of the gain or loss. Proactive action can reduce resistance to change. This may require themodification of organizational structures to enhance communication with and help toinvolve external and internal stakeholders in the change process. Transformationalstewards must be aware of the extent to which the organizations culture supports andencourages the identification and involvement of internal and external stakeholders in thechange process. Leaders also must overcome or mitigate problems arising from a culturethat doesnt support or encourage stakeholder involvement in the change process.Organizational Capability In general, the more “change-centric” the organization, the more capable theorganization is to handle major change and transformation efforts. As with changecomplexity and stakeholders, the transformational steward’s role (in the short run) is oneof diagnosing organizational strengths and weaknesses and developing strategies toovercome weaknesses. In the long-run, the transformational steward should seek toenhance the change capability of the organization. An organization’s capacity to deal with change is limited. However, atransformational leader can enhance that capacity through effective use of organizationalresources—time, money, human capital, and infrastructure. This will only happen if theorganization already has in place good structures, processes, policies, and procedures thatsupport effective and efficient resource utilization. If not in place, a transformationalsteward should build that capacity in the long-run, including promoting an organizationalculture to use resources in an innovative, flexible and efficient fashion. In the short run,the leader should focus on those areas most important to implement the change—addressing those areas that might inhibit the change effort. For example, if budgetaryflexibility is crucial for a successful change, that may need to be the leader’s priority.Further, the transformational steward may want to alter stakeholder roles andresponsibilities and reporting relationships in order to maximize the efficient use ofresources. This might include developing internal and external partnerships in the changeprocess.Internal and External Communication and Collaboration We believe that effective communication and collaboration with internal andexternal stakeholders are critical to successful organizational change. This would includetheir involvement in strategic planning of the change, instituting routine processes and 17
  18. 18. procedures that promote two-way communication between all stakeholders and seniormanagement, and instituting processes to measure stakeholders perceptions of existingcommunication and collaboration systems. The transformational steward must breakdown structural barriers to authentic communication and collaboration, and attempt toencourage perceptions among all stakeholders that that their ideas will be heard and takenseriously, and that their involvement is vital to the change effort. Processes andprocedures might include advisory committees, membership on change teams, town halltype meetings, and even suggestion boxes (that are acknowledged and responded to).Implementation Good strategies and policies will not alone ensure success. Transformationalstewards should learn from the past, recognizing the causes of implementation successesand failures. Some common implementation strategies include: creating a designatedchange team, rotating staff into and out of a change team, promoting processes thatensure transparent and accurate two-way communication between the change team andleaders external to the team, and ensuring that HR personnel have the authority toeffectively manage the change teams. Transformation, however, cannot be accomplishedby a change team alone. A key to implementation is the degree to which transformationalstewards can develop effective collaborations with stakeholders within and without theorganization—creating true partnerships for change. Perhaps the most important role of a transformational steward is in helping createan organizational culture that supports change. This includes creating an openness to newideas, creating mechanisms for authentic two-way communication, quickly addressingfalse perceptions and rumors, and, in general, creating “learning organizations” (Senge1990) that encourage systems thinking, self-reflection, and periodic reviews of what isworking and what can be improved.Common Ingredients Transformational stewards require three common ingredients in order to besuccessful. Effective leaders require sufficient information to understand and enact thechange, clear and consistent intent that provides the purpose to change, and enableswillingness and commitment, and the necessary influence to accomplish the change ortransformation. If any of these critical ingredients are missing, then the transformationalsteward may not be able to fully achieve his or her responsibilities. The combination ofthese three ingredients can ensure transformational stewards are successful in leveragingorganizational capability to facilitate effective change.Varying Roles of Transformational Stewards: Politician, Career Servant, Supervisor The common elements and responsibilities for successful transformationalstewardship noted above establish a foundation for discussing the specific roles of theunique public sector leaders who guide transformation in government. These includethree basic actors: 1) political appointees serving in an executive leadership role, 2) 18
  19. 19. career civil servants in executive leadership roles, and 3) first-level supervisors and mid-managers assuming responsibilities for change implementation. While there are always adiverse range of actors and influences in any transformation effort, we will focus on thedistinct responsibilities of these actors. An important starting point for understandingthese differences is the consideration of where each actor’s influence is greatest and mostuseful. Once this is defined, it is possible to more clearly frame the specific roles thateach transformational steward plays.Political Appointees For political appointees, their primary influence is with higher political leadershipand outwardly with external groups and organizations involved in the transformationprocess. Due to the external relationships and expectations inherent in the politicalleadership role, these transformational stewards are generally most valuable in theirability to understand and influence the external stakeholders in the executive branch, aswell as outside interest groups and interested members of the legislature. The coretransformational role of the political leader is that of the “Advocate”. In this capacity,political leaders are vital to establishing an integrated and compelling case for changethat blends the policy and management priorities of the organization. They are also mostlikely to be knowledgeable about their agency’s operational capacity, limitations,strengths and obstacles. This connection hinges directly on the relationship between thepolitical leader and the next level of career leadership in the agency. One of the frequentrisks of politically-driven transformation is that there is no real appreciation of what theagency is doing well, and what the actual priorities are in order to improve performance.When this is coupled with rapid turnover of political leaders, the transformationallandscape can quickly become an amalgam of fractured, disconnected initiatives andconfused, paralyzed processes.Career Executives The second major type of transformational steward is the career executive, who isessential for the success and legitimacy of any change effort. While the politicaltransformational steward is chiefly an “Advocate,” the career leader must be bothAdvocate and “Architect”. In this capacity, the career leader is the linchpin, responsiblefor assessing and synthesizing the transformational capacity of the organization andtranslating it upward to enable clear prioritization and realistic transformationalexpectations. Similarly, the career transformational steward must effectively support andengage political leaders to develop the change vision and priorities, and then translate thatdownward and laterally to ensure alignment of action at each level. It is in this middleground that the career leader must craft the transformation plan, including scope,approach, objectives and measures. For career leaders who are peripherally involved and who are not charged withspecifically acting as the transformational architect, their career role is that of “owning”the transformational agenda as a process or functional sponsor. A key to transformationalstewardship is the pushing down of responsibility for the transformation to a wide 19
  20. 20. spectrum of career managers. For example, in the area of e-government transformations,career executives steward the transformation process as primary “owners” of businessprocesses or organizational functions, “architecting” the shape and nature of thetransformation. The career leader must fulfill the transformational responsibility toanticipate and address change impacts, while simultaneously working to articulate andresolve issues and remove transformational obstacles. This role places the career leaderin the dual capacity of both architect and broker, as he/she stewards to the variousinterests represented by teams, units, functions and higher political leadership. Duringimplementation, the career leader’s focus turns toward establishing integrated, sustainedcapabilities resulting from the transformation effort. Because the career leader’s tenurewith the organization is the stabilizing influence across rotating political leadership,his/her stewardship role is critical and is the safeguard of the organizations longer termtransformational interests. But the stewardship role should not take a backseat to theneed for career executives to be visibly and strongly in support of transformation;otherwise, the change effort is likely to be problematic.Mid-level Manager/Supervisor The third and final transformational steward that we have identified is that of thefirst-level supervisor and mid-level manager. There are approximately 125,000 first-levelsupervisors in the federal government alone (and perhaps another half million at the stateand local level), and they are the most critical link that connects the larger idea oftransformation within an organization to the existing structures and processes of theorganization (NAPA, 2003). These transformational stewards are likely to havepredominantly technical skills—unless they have been involved in a leadershipdevelopment program that specifically addresses change and transformation. Successfulfirst-level supervisors develop and apply transformational awareness and skills, ratherthan merely relying exclusively on technical knowledge to achieve transformationobjectives. Unlike more senior transformational stewards, first-level supervisors play a muchmore tactical role in the transformational process. It must be noted, though, that thistactical responsibility requires that supervisors understand and articulate the morestrategic aspects of transformation. These leaders and managers are the connectionbetween the action of the transformation in the people and processes of the organization,and the overarching plan and vision that is stewarded primarily by career leaders. In thisway, first-level supervisors’ and managers’ primary influence is interpersonal—alltransformation success or failure begins and ends with the people in the organization. The first-level supervisor’s role involves bilateral communication – feedinginformation forward to employees in order to clarify and strengthen the nature andpurpose of the change, while inquiring, listening, and feeding information back to highercareer leaders about the organization’s capacity for change at the level where the work isdone. Interpersonal interaction is clearly critical to strengthening this link. 20
  21. 21. When working with teams, supervisory transformational stewards are the primarytouch-point with the source of resistance and angst related to the change effort. Here, thedynamic balance of “transformation” and “stewardship” is extremely important, as it isimportant for the transformation to move forward in implementation, but it is equallyimportant that it be a collective, owned process. For this to occur, supervisors act as the“vent” for releasing the pressure of resistance, capturing valuable insights about whatworks and what doesn’t, and which employee needs are most important, and thentransferring that energy into useful feedback and dialogue about the change process. Thebalance in this activity is to allow for open dialogue, yet keep it constructive. To thedegree that the supervisory steward can accomplish this with awareness anddeliberateness, the transformation process can be led and managed effectively. Still, itshould be noted that this balance involves an acute awareness of when the risks ofdisplaced anger and/or unproductive cynicism are occurring. As one example, juniormilitary leaders are often taught that an important tool for accomplishing this “keep itconstructive and deal with it now” kind of climate is for the leader to explicitlycommunicate to team members that they take ultimate responsibility for acting to resolvethe issues or enforce the final decisions. Even if this may not always be completelypossible in practice, the ethic of immediacy and responsibility permits transformationalstewards at this level to prevent the “infection” of displaced criticism and helplessnessfrom taking hold and growing within the team. In sum, effective transformation requires the collective, complementary action oftransformational stewards at all levels within the organization. By outlining the majortransformational stewardship responsibilities for the political, career, and supervisoryactors, we have presented a baseline for considering necessary characteristics andpractices for successful change. Defining these aspects is a critical first step todeveloping more change-capable organizations.Conclusion: Public Leadership as Transformational Stewardship 21st Century organizations, private, public and non-profits, according to Block, facethree principal challenges (1993): The challenge of doing more with less, controlling• costs and finding innovative ways to solve service demands;• The challenge of quality—providing higher levels of service to the consumer, client, and/or citizen; and• The challenge of adaptability—the need to respond to changing demands and outside forces.As the 21st Century gets underway, we would add the following to Block’s list:• The challenge of globalization—the need to examine the organization in a global context and analyze possible opportunities and threats.• The challenge of horizontal relationships—while democratic accountability continues to demand vertical reporting and performance monitoring, increasingly, public agencies are involved in a variety of horizontal relationships that will change the manner the agency does business: agency to agency; federal agency to state agency (or local); agency to nonprofit organization; agency to for profit organization. 21
  22. 22. • The challenge to understand the nature of change itself. There is a paucity of data and analysis on public sector change, which creates a vacuum for public managers and a potential research venue for public administration scholars. What leadership approach has the most potential to deal with these challenges? Forthe public sector, we believe the answer is transformational stewardship. Leaders at alllevels in organizations can contribute to facilitating small scale and large scale, voluntaryand involuntary, change. Transformational stewardship provides a balance of competinginterests, the need to change and the need to be constant to core public values. Transformational stewardship is not just the responsibility of the person at the “top”of the organization chart, or the person with formal authority. The “leader” cannot do itherself; but the leader can engage others in a dialogue about how they are contributing tothe organization; how they are contributing to the organization; and how they are helpingthe organization deal with the modern challenges they face. In this fashion, publicleaders can encourage transformational leadership throughout the organization,facilitating change and minimizing the risks of change. 22
  23. 23. Table 1 Key Attributes of Transformational Steward in the Public SectorInner-personal Beliefs or Traits • Ethical • Empathetic • Visionary/Foresight • Reflective/Learning OrientedOperational Mindset • Trustee/Caretaker • Mission Driven • Accountable • Attention to DetailInterpersonal/Interactions with Others • Trust Builder • Empowering • Power Sharing • Coalition BuilderChange-Centric Approach • Creative/Innovative • Comfortable with Ambiguity • Integrative/Systems Thinker 23
  24. 24. Table 2 Attributes of Transformational StewardshipAttribute: Description: Selective Supporting Authors:Inner-PersonalTraits/BeliefsEthical Maintains high standards of integrity for Burns 1978; Ciulla themselves and their organization, 2004; Fairholm elevating organization to a “higher plane.” 2000; Johnson 2001; Thompson 2000.Reflective/Learning Able to step back from the situation and Senge 1990;Oriented consider alternative meanings and Thompson 2000; options; learns from success and failures; Greenleaf 1977; self-aware and tolerant. Wheatley 2005.Empathy Demonstrates concern for others, both Autry 1992; Coles within and without the organization, over 2000; Goleman self-interest; takes others views and 1998; Thompson concerns into account; self-deprecating. 2000.Visionary/Foresight Able to look beyond the current situation Bass and Avolio and see big picture for the mission and the 1994; Bennis and organization; constantly scanning the Nanus 1995; Burns environment; strategically aware; creating 1978; Fairholm vision for the future. 1998; Follett in Graham 2003.OperationalMindsetTrustee/Caretaker Holds position and organizational Block 1993; resources in trust for others—the public, Denhardts 2003; in general, and future members of the Diver 1982; Kass organization. 1990; Kee 2003;Mission Driven Fiercely and courageously pursue the Block 1993: Kee and mission of their organization; creating Black 1989; Follett “common purpose.” in Graham 2003; Matheson and Kee 1986;Accountable Measures results in multiple ways, in a Behn 2001; Block transparent fashion, and shares with those 1993; Demming that contribute or affect the organization’s 1986; Harmon 1990, success. Transformational stewards take 1998; Moe 2001; responsibility (legal, professional, and Romzek and personal) for the results. Dubnick 1987. Vaill 1989a;Attention to Detail Details often affect the manner in which Addington and 24
  25. 25. change is seen and felt by those within and Graves. 2002; Block without the organization; a 1993; Moe 1994; Transformational Stewardship is able to Terry 1995 sort out those that impact people from the “red tape” that slows change.InterpersonalAbilities/Interac-tions with OthersTrust Builder Builds program success through Fairholm 1997, developing community and maintaining 2000; Greenleaf trust—with the members of their agencies, 1977; Mitchell and their constituents, and their principals Scott 1987; Phillip (Congress and political leadership). and Loy 2000Empowering Within the organization and for citizens Denhardts 2003; that are served by the organization; TS is Follett in Graham at the center of the motivation of both 2003; leaders and followers—everyone in the organization can do it.Power Sharing Relies less on positional authority and Autry and Mitchell more on persuasion, moral leadership, and 1998; Follett in group power to achieve goals. Graham 2003; Hill 1994; Kee 2003;Coalition Builder Recognizes the importance of building Kelman 2005; coalitions with other organizations, within Phillips and Loy government, in the nonprofit and for- 2003. profit sectors.Change-CentricApproachCreative/Innovative Focus is on the change needs for the Bennis 2000; organization, rather than who leads the Dunphy 2005; Kee change; encourages others to find and Whitney 2006; solutions to organizational problems; open Thompson 2000; to new ideas, intuition, inspiration; willing Vaill 1996. to take risks.Comfortable with Conflicting organizational objectives and Depree 1989; KeeAmbiguity priorities often require a careful balancing and Black 1989; act: continuity and change; efficiency and Thompson 2000; equity, etc. Transformational Stewards Vaill 1989. recognize that their “solution” is only one of many plausible alternatives.Integrative/Systems Understanding forces for change and Atwood et. al 2003;Thinking interrelationships; ability to find Follett in Graham integrative, rather than polarizing, 2003; Senge 1990; solutions Thompson 2000; Vaill 1996. 25
  26. 26. Table 3: Leadership Roles and Responsibilities Roles and Responsibilities: Strategy Process Structure Culture Transformational Steward Organizational and Processes, policies, team roles,Change Complexity Formal strategies to and procedures are responsibilities, and Awareness of how change identify, measure, and developed and reporting relationships complexity will impact(Magnitude & Scope of adjust to the scope and adjusted to address are restructured to organizational culture and effortsChange) magnitude of a change. the complexity of the accommodate the to mitigate adverse impacts. change. scope and magnitude of the change. Processes, policies Organizational Awareness of the extent to which and procedures to structures are the organizations culture Formal strategies toStakeholder Relations identify, measure, and communicate with modified to enhance supports and encourages the stakeholders, to communication with identification and involvement of(Perceptions of gain or adjust to perceptions of receive formal and help to involve internal and external stakeholders gain or loss of affectedloss due to change) stakeholders. feedback, and to external and internal in the change process. Efforts to mitigate perceptions stakeholders in the strengthen cultural support and of loss. change process. overcome cultural resistance. Strategic use of resources--time, money, Processes, policies Organizational human capital, and and procedures to structures that Promotion of a culture that seeks Capacity infrastructure--in an ensure the effective enhance the efficient to use resources in an innovative, Organizational Capabilities efficient and effective and efficient use of use of resources flexible, and efficient fashion. manner during the change resources. during a change. process. Processes, policies Organizational Internal & Genuine involvement of and procedures to structures that Creating an environment under External internal and external promote facilitate which stakeholders feel that their stakeholders in the communication and communication and ideas will be heard and taken Communication strategic planning of any collaboration between collaboration between seriously during the change & Collaboration major change. all stakeholders and stakeholders and effort. senior management. senior management. Processes, policies Organizational and procedures to Creating an implementation structures--such as a facilitate change and environment open to new ideas, Development and use of a designated change encourage innovation, that addresses false perceptions, Implementation change implementation such as transparency, team--that support and encourages authentic strategy. and facilitate the rotational communication between the implementation of the assignments, and change team and management. change. feedback loops. 26
  27. 27. Figure 1 Risk Assessment Framework Change Complexity(magnitude and scope) B Stakes (internal and external stakeholders’ perceptions) D A Organizational Capability (resources, internal and C external communication and collaboration) E Change Risk 27
  28. 28. ReferencesAddington, Thomas and Stephen Graves. 2002. The Forgotten Role. Life@Work. 1(6):25-33.Attwood, M., Pedler, M., Pritchard, S., and Wilkinson, D. (2003), Leading Change: AGuide to Whole Systems Working, Oxon: Policy Press.Autry, James. 1992. Love and Profit: The Art of Caring Leadership. New York City:Avon Books.Autry, James and Stephen Mitchell. 1998. Real Power: Business Lessons from the Tao TeChing. New York: Riverhead Books.Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness ThroughTransformational Leadership, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.Bennis, Warren G. 2000. “Leadership of Change”, in Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds.),Breaking the Code of Change. HBS Press: Boston, pp. 113-121.Bennis, Warren G. and Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge,Harper & Row, New York.Behn, Robert. 1998. What Right do Public Managers have to Lead? PublicAdministration Review. 58 (3): 209-224.___________ 2001. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington DC: Brookings.Black, J. S. and Gregersen, H. B. 2002. Leading Strategic Change: Breaking Through theBrain Barrier, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. 1985. The Managerial Grid III, Gulf, Houston, TX.Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership, Harper & Row, New York.Block, Peter. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Coles, Robert. 2000. Lives of Moral Leadership. New York: Random House.Demming, W. Edward. 1986. Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for AdvancedEngineering Study.Denhardt, Janet V. and Robert B. Denhardt. 2003. The New Public Service. Armonk, NY:M.E. Sharp. 28
  29. 29. Depree, Max.1989. Leadership Is an Art. New York City: Doubleday.Diver, Colin. 1982. Engineers and Entrepreneurs: The Dilemma of Public Management.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1(3): 402-406Dunphy, D. 2000. “Embracing Paradox; Top-down versus Participative Management ofOrganizational Change; A Commentary on Conger and Bennis”, in Beer, M. and Nohria,N. (Eds.), Breaking the Code of Change, HBS Press, Boston, pp. 123-135.Fairhom, Gilbert. 2000. Perspectives on Leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.___________ 1997. Capturing the Heart of Leadership: Spirituality and Community inthe New American Workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger.Finer, Herman. 1940. “Administrative Responsibility to Democratic Government.”Public Administration Review. 1: Spring, 335-350. Reprinted in Francis E. Rourke. 1965.Bureaucratic Power in National Politics. Boston: Little Brown and Company.Fox, E.M. and L.F. Urwick, eds. 1973. Dynamic Administration—The Collected Papersof Mary Parker Follett. New York: Pitman.Friedrich, Carl J. 1940. Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility.Public Policy. 1: 1-20. Reprinted in Francis E. Rourke.1965. Bureaucratic Power inNational Politics. Boston: Little Brown and CompanyGoleman, Daniel. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam, New York.Goleman, D. McKee A. and Boyatkzis R.E., (2002) Primal Leadership: Realizing thePower of Emotional Intelligence, HBS Press, Boston.Graham, Pauline. 2003. Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management. Washington DC:Beard.Greenleaf, Robert K. 1977. Servant Leadership: A Journal into the Nature of LegitimatePower and Greatness. New York City: Paulist Press.Harmon, Michael M. 1990. The Responsible Actor as ‘Tortured Soul’: The Case ofHoratio Hornblower. In Henry D. Kass and Bayard L. Catron, ed. Images and Identitiesin Public Administration. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.__________ 1995. Responsibility s Paradox: A Critique of Rational Discourse onGovernment. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. 1993. Management of Organizational Behavior:Utilizing Human Resources, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 29
  30. 30. Hill, Linda A. 1994. Exercising Influence. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business SchoolNote 9-494-080.Johnson, Craig. 2001. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.Kass, Henry D. 1990. Stewardship as a Fundamental Image of Public Administration. InHenry D. Kass and Bayard L. Catron, eds. Images and Identities in PublicAdministration. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.Kee, Jed and Roger Black. 1985. Is Excellence Possible in the Public Sector? PublicProductivity Review Spring.Kee, James Edwin. 2003. “Leadership as Stewardship,” unpublished manuscript, GeorgeWashington University, Washington, DC.Kee, James Edwin and Whitney Setzer. 2006. Change-Centric Leadership. Workingpaper. Washington DC: Center for Innovation in the Public Service, George WashingtonUniversity.Kelman, Steven. 2005. Unleashing Change: A Study of Organizational Renewal inGovernment, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Kettl, Donald. 1997. The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes,Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 16 (3): 446-462.Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading Change, HBS Press, Boston.Light, Paul C. 1997. The Tides of Reform. Making Government Work 1945-1995. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.Lynn, Laurence E 2001. The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional publicadministration really stood for. Public Administration Review. 61 (2): 144-160.Matheson, Scott M. with James Edwin Kee. 1986. Out of Balance, Salt Lake City:Peregrine Smith Books.Moe, Ronald. 1994. The ‘Reinventing Government’ Exercise: Misinterpreting theProblem, Misjudging the Consequences. Public Administration Review. 54 (2): 446-462.__________ 2001. The emerging federal Quasi government: Issues of Management andAccountability. Public Administration Review. 61 (3): 290-312.Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler 1992. Reinventing Government: How theEntrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison. 30
  31. 31. Peters, B. Guy 1996. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS:University Press of Kansas.Phillips, J. T. and Loy, J. M. 2003. Leadership in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard onLeadership, The Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD.Romzek, Barbara S. and Melvin J. Dubnick, 1987. Accountability in the Public Sector:Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review. 47 (3): 227-38.Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Dooubleday.Spears, Lawrence C., ed. 1998 Insights on Leadership. New York: John Wiley._____________. 2002. Focus on Leadership. New York: John Wiley.Stillman, Patrick, Admiral. 2005. Remarks December 9. Expert Panel on Transformationand Change, Center for Innovation in the Public Sector, George Washington University.Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York:W.W. Norton.Terry, Larry D. 1995. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: The Administrator asConservator. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.__________ 1998. Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the New PublicManagement Movement. Public Administration Review. 58 (3): 194-200.The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition. 1968. NewYork: Random House.Thompson, C. Michael. 2000. The Congruent Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Vail, Peter. 1989. Managing as a Performing Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.__________ 1989a.. Spirituality in the Age of the Leveraged Buyout. Keynote address toa conference on Spirituality in Life and Work, Georgetown University, Washington DC,July 21.___________ 1996. Learning as a Way of Being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Wheatley, Margaret J. 1984. Leadership and the New Science: Learning aboutOrganizations from an Orderly Process. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama Press___________. 2005. Finding our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Times. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler. 31
  32. 32. Whitehead, Joel. 2005. Remarks at George Washington University, October 22, to PAD203 Class. Washington DC. 32