1. 1
Governance, Leadership & Public Value – PADM5243
Block Release Post-Graduate Diploma 2015
Essay Assignment
Lecturer: Dr. Ivor Sarakinsky
Student Name: Mr. Samkelo G. Buthelezi
Student Number: 325176
Topic: Too much “governance” is as bad as too little “governance”.
Critically Discuss.
Date: 20 July 2015

2. 2
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................3
Defining Governance – framing the discussion ............................................................................... 5
Government and Governance....................................................................................................5
Organisational (Institutional) Context......................................................................................... 6
Operational definition of Governance........................................................................................ 7
Too much governance and its consequences in the organisational context ......................................7
Too little governance and its consequences in the organisational context........................................9
Balanced governance and its consequences in the organisational context...................................... 10
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 11
Reference List............................................................................................................................. 12
Bibliography............................................................................................................................... 12

3. 3
Introduction
Governance is a particularly popular term in modern day and has been used quite
intensely by many scholars as well as by public and industry professionals (Jordan,
Wurzel, Zito, 2005). There are a multitude of definitions as well as explanations on
governance that are available – some are agreed upon and some have been the cause of
much debate within the field of politics and academia. Treib, Bahr and Falkner (2007)
highlight how the concept of governance is also quite ambiguous and broad in nature and
how this ambiguity also contributes to its vast popularity. There has been, arguably, a
continued growing interest in the exploration of the topic of governance, its approaches,
mechanisms, uses, as well as relevance across a variety of fields ranging from politics all
through to business and organisational settings (Treib et al., 2007). This poses an
opportunity for studying and exploring governance from a range of perspectives and/or
viewpoints. These are, often, attempts to make sense of the topic of governance, with a
particular emphasis and influence from the context within which an individual is situated.
Although complications, if not contradictions, may arise from such a variety of contexts,
it is worthy to note how meaning and decisions-making is derived from the notion of
governance.
It is somewhat inevitable to come to the realisation that the use of the term governance, in
some scholarly writing, already connotes a somewhat positive agenda or premise. There
is an expectation of good and of a benefit for those that are exposed and are afforded an
opportunity to interact with the concept of governance. Jordan et al., (2005), explore this
term in detail in an attempt to understand how it has been perceived as ‘good’ and
whether it has or has not eclipsed terms such as ‘government’, which now, arguably, tend
to have a negative connotation. The popularity of the term governance and its use to
somewhat indicate a new era, one that is better for all, is something that can be debated.

4. 4
Confusion can even arise for those that have not been exposed to the various researches
as well as the body of work on governance.
This essay offers a critical discussion of the topic; ‘too much governance is as bad as too
little governance’. The topic poses an opportunity for new insights on how to view or
approach governance, meaning that in as much as it may in most instances be viewed as
good (positive), there is now a need to discuss whether too much of this good thing may
actually be a bad thing and vice versa. For the purposes of ensuring that the reader
remains engaged and fully aware of the direction to be taken in this essay, two key
guideline parameters are given.
Firstly, in this essay, it is assumed that the reader is well aware and has been one that has
kept up with the governance debate and the development of the theories or approaches of
governance. Therefore, it is particularly important to take note of the use of the words
‘governance’ and ‘government’ throughout this essay. Secondly, the essay is presented in
an attempt to move away from the political debate or politically grounded way of
thinking, and to rather move towards more of an organisational (public/private body)
context in discussing governance. This means that in this essay, the ideas and theoretical
framework are borrowed from the writings that may to an extent have a political
grounding, however, particular interest is taken on how too much or too little governance
can illicit certain consequences on the organisational context or simply put the working
environment.
The essay is commenced with a section which provides different scholarly definitions of
governance as well as other terms that are deemed as important for framing the
discussion. From these, an operational definition of governance specifically, for the
purposes of this essay is developed and presented. This is done to also give a very
specific frame for the whole discussion to follow. The two sections that follow are a

5. 5
discussion of ‘too much’ governance and its consequences in the organisational context,
as well as ‘too little’ governance and its consequences in the organisational context
respectively. The succeeding section is a discussion of ‘balanced governance’ and its
consequences in the organisational context. The essay is ended with a conclusion of the
critical discussion on governance and to specifically reflect on the route taken in
discussing governance and the position taken. The limitations and shortcomings of this
essay will also be reflected upon in the conclusion.
Writing on governance proves to require skill and the ability to articulate ambiguous
terms and concepts effectively. Hence the need to commence with defining the key terms
utilised in this essay.
Defining Governance – framing the discussion
In this section of the essay, the key terms are defined in order to ensure that governance
as well the other key terms are understood and not misinterpreted or received out of
context. The definitions presented here are to an extent operational and not merely taken
as is from the authors. The following terms are defined; government and governance,
organisational context, as well as an operational definition of governance.
Government and Governance
According to Stoker (1998), government and governance are in essence inseparable
and cannot be claimed that one will exist in the absence of the other. Stoker (1998)
explains government as mainly being concerned with the process of decision-making
as well as the implementation of those decisions. The emphasis here is the fact that,
with government, there are clear lines and processes that must be clearly
communicated, in most instances to citizens, and are aimed at maintaining law, order,
and mobilising groups in the same direction (Stoker, 1998). What is importantly

6. 6
noted by Stoker (1998), in his writing on government and governance is the
distinction or attempt to distinguish government and governance. Stoker (1998)
refers to governance as pertaining to the changes that take place or have taken place
as a response to government. This does not mean that there is disconnecting between
government and governance, but rather suggests that where government ends,
governance takes over (Rustow, 1970). Governance focuses on a new order and a
new process of governing (Stoker, 1998). Governance is also explained as taking
note of the social element in the implementation of rules and order, which means
that, it is not only the state that falls within the premise of governing and being
governed but also the private sector (organisations) as being of much importance.
Organisational (Institutional) Context
Again, Stoker (1998) provides very useful insights on governance as summarising, in
practitioner and academic environments, the change in thinking as well as the ways
of working. This provides value in the attempt to bring forth the importance of the
‘organisational context’ in this essay. When one refers to new ways of working and
thinking, it is inevitable to consider the venue where such takes place. This takes
place, arguably, in most instances in the organisational or working environment. It
can be said, that the prevalence and use of concepts of governance are in the political
scene – even so, the political scene offers a particular type of ‘organisational context’
which is the focus area of this essay. Therefore, this means that wherever the
concept of governance is applicable, whether it is in politics (parliament), public
offices, or in the private sector – the bottom line here is that all these are forms of
organisations and provide context for governance and ways of governing to take
place. Treib et al. (2007), refer to modes of governance as split between policy,
politics, and polity. In this essay, the ideas on governance and the realm of polity

7. 7
from Treib et al. (2007), are borrowed in order discuss the importance of the
institutional/organisational context. According to Treib et al. (2007), governance in
the polity dimension is explored between concepts of hierarchy versus market,
centralised authority versus dispersed authority, and institutionalised versus non-
institutionalised interactions. These will be discussed in more detail in the coming
sections.
Operational definition of Governance
The definitions given above from various scholarly writers give a good background
and introduction to the concepts of government, governance, and what is referred to
by organisational context in this essay. It is important to now give a summation of
what governance means in this essay. Governance here is a holistic term for
referring to the organising, managing and maintaining of order in organisations.
Governance is understood as also comprising of all measures and tools deployed in
the organisation to not only maintain order, but to also balance power among the
different actors/participants in the organisation, as well as too ensure that the
organisation strives and reaches its set goals/objectives. The big question here,
which is the crux of the critical argument to follow, is whether too much of this
governance is as bad as too little of it, focusing specifically on the consequences of
each in the organisational context.
Too much governance and its consequences in the organisational
context
The notion of too much governance can immediately make one already consider how an
organisation would be characterised. One of the assumptions would be that the working
or organisational environment would not be a pleasant one or arguably a productive one.
This would however be debatable, depending on an individual’s preference of ways of

8. 8
working and thinking. Some might be of the immediate assumption that too much
governance could mean work is run on a tight schedule and with no room left slacking
and the missing of deadlines.
Peters (1995), refers to what he terms ‘excessive governance’, which basically means that
it is state or situation where by there is too much governance. That is to say that there is
too much effort on trying to maintain law and order in a particular environment, for this
essay, an organisational context. Peters (1995), is writing in the context of newly
democratised or democratising institutions. According to Peters (1995) there are three
key factors that constitute an environment where there is too much or excessive
governance.
Firstly, there is “little option for individual choice” in these organisational context or
institutions (Peters, 1995:127). The level of governance is ‘too much’ in the sense that
those that find themselves in these contexts almost always play the role of being
executors of the task allocated to them. This implies that these participants in the
particular organisation are not required to question or actively engage with the various
decisions that are arising from that particular organisation. The power does not rest with
these individuals, but instead lies with a higher power that makes all the decisions on their
behalf and these are to be deemed as being good enough and to their best interest.
Secondly, in these organisations with too much governance, there tends to be “few
opportunities for asserting alternative policy views” (Peters, 1995:127). Governance in
the organisations as mentioned earlier, plays the role of maintaining law and order as well
as finding new ways of thinking and working. In this situation, the participants in the
organisation are not even afforded the opportunity of contributing to what should be
implemented to upkeep the order and productivity in the organisation. Those in charge of

9. 9
governing the organisation, the elite few, make these decisions and choose policy/rules as
they see fit for the whole organisation.
Thirdly, there is “direct management control on making rules and maintain order” (Peters,
1995:127). This organisational context is one that does not facilitate consultation in the
process of the making of rules and the maintenance of order in the organisation. The
participants in the organisations are in a sense told and given an update of the rules and
any amendments to the rules as the management (elite few) see fit. The opposite end of
having too much governance is just as detrimental.
Too little governance and its consequences in the organisational
context
Peters (1995:127) offers two very concise points factors that characterise an environment
that has ‘too little’ governance, it is termed as a “deficit of governance”. The immediate
assumptions that come to one’s mind are that there is almost an absence of management,
or when there is any governance it is too weak. This deficit in governance is one that
hinders any form of productive or progress on the organisations part.
Firstly, Peters (1995:127), highlights these organisations as having “insufficient collective
control over the free will of individuals and groups”. This means that if there is any form
of free will afforded to the participants in these organisations it is not enough to create
any meaningful impact or outcome. Those participants in the organisation that attempt to
exercise their free will or to even arguably abuse their free will do so without any
consequence of any follow-up from management.
Secondly, Peters (1995:127), raises the notion that too much “expertise and contribution
to the rules and order is carried out by individuals” in these organisations. This in turn
creates a power imbalance, where too much power rests on the individuals in these
organisations. This causes a chaotic environment where management is unable to lead

10. 10
effectively. It is evident that the main aim of governance as striving to maintain order
and source new ways of working and thinking does not hold water in this organisational
context.
Balanced governance and its consequences in the organisational
context
Given the two preceding sections above on too much and too little governance, give a
clear indication that there should be a mid-ground that can be arrived at for governance to
be effective in the organisational context. There are two key requirements that form a
part in having balanced governance in the organisational context.
According to Peters (1995:128), there needs to be a “balance between the need for order
and freedom”. This basically means that there should not be the availability of one at the
cost of the other. Both order and freedom are a necessity for any healthy and effective
organisation to exist. Participants in the organisation need order, which is to have a
guideline on acceptable behaviour, adherence to key policies, as well as ensuring that all
participants strive towards achieving the greater organisational goal. Participants in the
organisations also need a reasonable amount of freedom in order to freely act on behalf of
the organisation with the confidence that their actions do not go against the organisations
goals and objectives. This also ensures that the participants in the organisation are able to
be innovative in their dealings on or behalf of the organisation within which they are
situated.
Secondly, a key requirement for balanced governance speaks to the level at which
management (elite few) has control of the policies and rules that govern the organisations
(Peters, 1995:128). In an organisation with balanced governance, there is consultation
that takes place between management and the participants in the organisation in order to
address what rules and order should govern both those in management and the

11. 11
participants. This ensures that the rules and proposed order is not seen an abstract
component that gets imposed on participants in the organisation, but rather is seen as a
necessity because of the fact that it is agreed upon and its value is confirmed by all those
that form a part of the organisation.
Conclusion
The discussion on governance is one that continues to draw much interest in the fields of
politics and academia alike. There are vast areas of discussion with regards to governance
that are yet to be discussed and further explored. In this essay, the discussion sought to
critically argue the topic ‘too much governance is as bad as too little governance’. The
discussion commenced in the definition of key concepts that were of importance to framing
the discussion. A discussion of the two extremes of governance was presented with specific
reference and emphasis to the organisational context. The argument here was that, in order
for governance to take place there needs to be a particular context within which it takes place.
Deliberately so, the governance discussion was an argument of how ‘too much’ (excessive)
governance and ‘too little’ (a deficit) of governance is undesirable in any organisation. The
difference factors and consequences were given as to why this position was taken. It was
then discussed that for organisations to be productive and effective in realising its goals and
objectives there should rather be balanced governance. This means there is no tilt towards
either of the extreme ends of governance but there is striving to reach the mid-ground
(balance) between the two. The essay, has however, faced the limitation going in-depth in
terms of the two governance extremes, which may debatably, leave more concepts
unexplored. There was also a deliberate move away from a political discussion or debate or
history of politics. This was done to ensure that governance is discussed in the light of
having an importance and relevance in organisations in the modern day regardless of whether
that organisation is a political one or not.

12. 12
Reference List
Rustow, D., “Transition to Democracy: Towards a Dynamic Model” in Comparative Politics
in Vol 2 No 3, 1970.
Peters G. B. “The civil service in the consolidation of democracy” in International Social
Science Journal, No 47, 1995.
Stoker G., “Governance as Theory: Five Propositions” in International Social Science
Journal, No. 155, 1998.
Treib O., Holger B. & Falkner H. Modes of Governance: towards a conceptual clarification,
Journal of European Public Policy 14:1, 2007.
Jordan A., Wurzel R., Zito A. “The Rise of ‘New’ Policy Instruments in Comparative
Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?” in Political Studies, Vol 53, 2005.
Bibliography
Jordana J. And Levi-Faur D. (eds.) The Politics of Regulation: Institutions And Regulatory
Reforms For The Age of Governance, 2004.
Minogue M. and Cari L. (eds.) Regulatory Governance in Developing Countries, 2006.
Olowu, D., and Sako, S., (eds.) Better Governance and Public Policy: Capacity Building and
Democratic Renewal in Africa, 2002.
Pierre J. and Guy Peters B. Governance Politics and the State, 2000.