FUNCTIONING LEADERSHIP

I have in this blog described and explained a general view of politics and governance that, in its traditional form, had been the prevalent guiding mental construct of our political thought. That prevalence lasted from the nation's beginning until the 1950s. Through those years, other views of politics coexisted and challenged the prevalent view. As a matter of fact, the influence of what I call traditional federalism continuously diminished throughout those years. Then again, traditional federalist ideas and ideals are not totally foreign to our current political thinking and acting. One of the main purposes of this blog is to promote a more updated version of federalist thought in our curricular planning of civics and government courses. But at our core, this nation relies predominately, not exclusively, on the natural rights view to guide our political thinking. I was reminded of all of this as a reaction to the “tri-scandal” situation in which President Obama currently finds himself.

Within the challenging posture that I have taken – of promoting federation theory over the natural rights perspective – I have emphasized the communal character of federation theory. Generally, my argument has been that for an organized effort to be the most productive and efficient it can be, the mode of interaction between the members of the arrangement should be communal – that is, caring, cooperative, morally committed to the common good of the group – and, in addition, should promote equal standing among its members. Under this strategic mode, a member of an organized effort owes the group his loyalty, honesty, skills, knowledge, and trust. Such a commitment is based on a moral posture, but it also has very practical dimensions. With this type of interaction, members of a collective need not expend unproductive energies worrying about their fellow members doing them harm or having to engage in excessively competitive machinations. Yes, a certain level of competition is good, but it should be based on merit and carried on objectively with well established norms of behavior that are geared toward fairness. Equal standing does not mean equality of results – equal pay, equal power, equal status – but it means all members participate according to the same rules – equal condition. Advantages are earned by reasonable acknowledgment of contributions to the achievement of the organization's aims and goals. In short, the organization becomes a community dedicated to those aims and goals it has set for itself and, through that effort, for the mutual advancement of its members. There is, under an ideal federated arrangement, a cultivated and protected communal sense of advancement.

Then there is the function of leadership. All of the above pertains equally to the organization's leaders, even to the person at the top. A lot of the punditry on the various media outlets became highly critical of President Obama for poor leadership as a result of the three “scandals” that have erupted recently. Specifically, they found fault with his ability to be the tough boss who is disposed to having “heads roll” when people screw up in doing their government jobs. I don't want to make comment on this judgment; time will tell how it will turn out for the President. But I do think this whole episode or series of episodes provides a good case study by which to address and study the issue of effective leadership as viewed by federation theory.

To begin with, one needs not lose sight of the context in which the Presidency exists. The President is the “boss” of a huge bureaucracy. Between the civilian and military workforce, the federal government hires in the neighborhood of 4.3 million people. These people are distributed among a hefty number of departments, agencies, bureaus, and the like. The average federal worker has a multitude of bureaucratic layers between himself or herself and the President. In such an organization, one can readily see that to create an overall communal atmosphere from the top would be impossible, but I do think a President can set a tone and a message of what he or she values and is disposed to reward. A lot of this can be communicated by the political appointments the President makes. He or she can most definitely communicate it by how the White House staff is run. But the question remains, can such an approach – one that promotes a communal culture – be tough enough when the interest of the nation calls for the leader to take decisive action, willing to make those distasteful moves that include “throwing someone or some people under the bus.”

By all accounts, the very effective president, Ronald Reagan, was a really nice guy. He treated people kindly or that is what we are led to believe. To take on the tough guy role, he hired tough Chiefs of Staff, like Howard Baker, to “clean out what needed to be cleaned out.” Of course, even Reagan was able to be the bad guy at times, such as when he fired the air traffic controllers. But is this within the federalist way of doing things? At times, given the seriousness of a given set of conditions, a heavy hand is needed because an organization, no matter to what organizational theory it ascribes, needs to implement changes quickly if it is going to survive in an acceptable manner. Drastic changes will call for a new set of players to make those changes. This should be done in as judicial a way as time allows and, of course, basic rights of workers, depending on the contractual terms under which they work, should be honored. This latter concern is particularly important when one is talking about civil service workers as is the case for the majority of federal employees. If, on the other hand, time is more generous, then workers need to be given a chance to fix the problems, but that effort needs to be significantly planned out with intermediate steps identified and evaluations done at appropriate intervals. Disruption can ensue if leaders just go about disciplining or relieving people of their jobs without sensible and reasonable processes. In such cases, the message is “watch out, they're after us” or “be very careful how you do your job and don't take chances.” Such messages will stifle creativity and innovation. But the situation can be more serious: if trust and honesty are the issues, then the basis of any loyalty is compromised and more aggressive approach would be justified. All of this can be accommodated under a federalist model.

Under such challenges, the aim of maintaining the communal character of the organization should not be lost, but it also cannot be the obstacle that stands in the way of putting the organization on a productive path. Bigness is, in itself, a challenging factor. Bureaucracies, experience tells us, are, by and large, not the paragons of community. It is easy to get lost in the shuffle, but our public leaders need to take on the commitment of creating the environments that encourage a sense of belonging and mission. This, in turn, needs to reflect the purposes behind creating a worker's position in the first place.

In terms of teaching the topic, leadership – one usually not mentioned in civics classes – the above concerns could be used in organizing a lesson or two on the importance and function of governmental leadership. President Obama's recent “troubles” are just the latest of a long list of similar episodes. In each, US presidents have provided ample examples of these types of challenges that usually include their leadership skills being questioned.