While it is doubtful that in such political soup one can swim without an occasional scalding, neutrality is still the ideal. By raising oneself above the level of common partisanship, by becoming almost "hyper-rational," the educated person is in a position to develop an almost intuitive sense of propriety. Since it has long been commonly accepted that politics comprises the administrative ether, education is still the best hope for neutral competency. In Peter Salovey's words that "An educated person has the ability to appreciate, learn from, and embrace contradiction, even when we might prefer closure." Service to the public interest is thus not for the fainthearted, but it especially not for the ignorant.
Kenneth Ashworth's collection of missives cum essays, Caught Between the Dog and the Fireplug, make this point abundantly clear. Ashworth extols the virtues of life-long education in both the formal and informal sense. If serving the public interest is comprised mainly of being conscious of of the policymaking process and sensitive to its effects, then reason and analysis are de rigeur to solving societal problems effectively. What develops these kinds of skills better than education? While the inevitable answer is "not much," Ashworth's whole trope of inveterate advice to the ingenue makes it clear that experience counts as well. After all, a student driver does not learn how to drive merely by studying the operation of a motor vehicle and the rules of the road. Those are essential but would be incomplete without actual time behind the wheel. Ashworth's literary form speaks volumes: experience is essential to competency, especially where the public interest is at stake.
Though much of his recollections he retells with tongue firmly implanted in cheek (making his argument all the more persuasive, I might add), there is an iron core of logic in every anecdote and proverb. Of course, were one to take him at his word, few but the deranged would be compelled to enter the Thunderdome of public service (let alone his beloved niece, Kim). To do so, pretty much requires one to suffer:
- Derision and contempt
- Unpleasant and difficult people
- Corruption and temptation
- Indifference and inequity
- Favoritism and bias
Looking at that list it is hard to imagine that anyone rational would seriously consider going into public service. However, Ashworth makes a good case that ONLY the most rational should consider it. For instance, when faced with the derision and contempt of opponents, Ashworth points out:
"Your public life will be spent between the extremes on almost every important public policy decision you make....As a thinking person you will choose to favor in your mind and perhaps in your actions some groups over others. Such choices will put you at risk. But it will be your preferences about whom you seek to assist that will distinguish you from the chaff and flotsam that make up far too much of every bureaucracy in this country, public and private." (p. 36-37)
Thus, integrity and character will be determined as much by those whom you choose to oppose as by those whom you choose to support. Only the most rational decision-makers ought to put themselves into a position where not only their competence but their whole system of values is constantly under assault. Furthermore, the opposition's lack of competence and rationality offers hope.
The same may be said of the daily grind of having to deal constantly with unpleasant people. While this might tend to wear the hardiest administrator down, the rational one can find a sound defense in the weaknesses of such people. Essentially, they lack confidence in their abilities, use people as means to ends and exercise power clumsily. Leadership to them is about control and one-upsmanship--about keeping themselves "above" subordinates and colleagues alike. However, the experienced administrator has a secret weapon:
"Most of the time what they underestimate is your courage and your tenacity and your willingness to go to battle. As a result, if you are modest and quiet, your opponents will do a lot of bluffing." (p. 55)
Being above the fray much of the time means that enemies will tend underestimate the rational administrator. Then, when he or she has marshaled the substantive and instrumental sources of power, a sense of reason and proportion is never lost. As Lyndon Johnson points out, "The task of leadership...Is to avoid irreconcilable positions." In other words, it pays to study all positions and be prepared to defend on on hand and compromise on the other.
When it comes to compromise, however, professional ethics should never be on the table. The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Code of Ethics makes it quite clear that officials should always demonstrate personal integrity by avoiding conflicts of interest or the taint of partisanship. The experienced administrator keeps his or her personal needs out of the policy arena. To do that, you must be aware of your own weaknesses:
"Whatever your greatest personal need and desire is, there will lie your greatest need and temptation. Acknowlege what it is you want and desire most and take warning from that knowledge....keep yourself and your personal wants out of the picture and be governed by your social values and by actions that uphold the principles of our democratic society." (p. 87).
Otherwise, administrators risk losing self-respect and becoming their own worst enemies. In fact, responsible administrators have an even more acute obligation than the average decision-maker to do the right thing. They cannot sit back and let nature take its course. Such indifference cedes that the so-called "hidden hand" of reality shape events:
"In the modern world, no government can sit on the sidelines and permit some mindless social mechanism to define how we all relate to each other. Government must be the major organized intelligence in a society for pursuing the interests and progress of all the people. No other institution can do that. No hidden hand will do it equitably." (p. 163-164).
Thus, responsible administrators are obliged to use the power of policy making to make things better. His complete citation of Carl Schurz's aphorism is perhaps the most touching part of the book: "My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be set right," Policy making is, therefore, a primary means of setting things right. Ashworth claims that their is an intrinsic moral sense beyond all traditional sources of wisdom that requires such behavior. However, a truly humane response can only come from an informed moral center, one which takes into account the long-view as well as a more intuitive one.
When administrators act, however, they must be fully cognizant of the effect of their decisions. The complete implications of policy making may sometimes only be known in the fullness of time. Through concern for effects, administrators can minimize the human tendency toward bias and favoritism. Though the actions of boards are beyond the control of administrators, they are not beyond their influence. Ashworth describes his style of agenda-setting and problem solving as "tough." The E.D.'s job is to, in effect, make board members' lives more difficult. After all, no promises were made that everything would be peaches and cream. That means that to act democratically, leadership entails increasing openess in the decision making process as much as is practicable. Furthermore, it means reducing inequities and responding to the rights of the minority. This is especially true when faced with true evil:
"I refuse to be discouraged because I refuse to stand disarmed. We can never permit ourselves to be half-hearted for what is good as we oppose those who are wholehearted for what is evil." (p. 161).
Administrators can arm themselves by expanding their knowledgebase and rising above their specialty. Ashworth uses the metaphor of the iceberg in which one's specialty is just what is visible above the water line. I see an advanced degree and the education it represents as being affecting professional growth both above and below the water line. The MPA program in particular provides lots of opportunities to develop depth of specialty knowledge, including the use of particular tools and techniques to apply to problem analysis. Leadership, however, requires a broader sense of the mission of the organization and its place in the social spectrum. I think I have benefited most from that kind of broadening through studying theory and then applying it in case analyses. This kind of learning forces students like me to ask harder questions and think through the implications of their recommendations. That set the stage for real learning when I have been frequently confronted by the limitations of my own thinking.
Of course, the contradictions I have faced in the classroom are nothing compared to those I will face in the real world. That brings me back to my original questions. There are no easy answers to these. Indeed Ashworth spends 184 pages without clear answers, which is, perhaps, more a reflection of the complexities of public leadership than his ability to impart them. What I appreciated most about this book was the sense that reality is more complicated not just than we do imagine, but than we can imagine. Administrators must stand in awe even of just what exists above that waterline. However, Ashworth has pointed the way toward understanding: there is no substitute for experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment