A review of the literature on public administration from any university textbook, academic anthology or assigned reading list does not reveal a treatment of leadership in a practical or theoretical context. Organizational theory and decision-making models and management approaches are the bread and butter of the study of public administration. Ironically, leadership texts are not found in public administration or political science literature; rather, they are found on business reading lists and in business publications.
When leadership is addressed in the literature, it is treated as a heroic, charismatic personal attribute – a noun. A person has it or does not, which largely explains why study and research in leadership has been ignored. I have a different understanding of leadership- as a verb. Leadership acts on “what might be” instead of limiting itself to “what was.” Leadership is forward looking- it seeks solutions to tomorrow’s challenges instead of solving yesterday’s problems. Leadership maximizes and optimizes its existing resources instead of seeking more. Leadership sees constraints and setbacks as temporary and transient and seeks success in spite of them. Leadership does not seek silver-bullet solutions nor does it place all its hopes in technology at the expense of processes. Leadership looks outward and seeks answers from the knowledge and experience of others. Leadership lifts, values and develops the people surrounding the leader. Leadership recognizes its stewardship as a system instead of a collection of singular components and, as a result, can see the relationships contained within the whole. Leadership calculates both long-term and short-term risk and return and has the courage to act decisively. Leadership seeks excellence and rejects that which is merely adequate.
“Managership” is inward-looking, centered on the present moment and is satisfied with doing what has already been safely and successfully done by themselves or others. “Managership” muddles through projects and operations seeking outcomes that suffice, or in other words, that which is “good enough for government work.” “Managership” seeks solutions in increased or new resources- more people, more money and more technology. “Managership” deals with issues and makes decisions as they occur- chronology is its prioritizing and organizing principle. “Managership” analyzes and deliberates on single issues as discrete decisions. “Managership” sees people as tools and expendable commodities to be consumed in the course of business. “Managership” settles for local efficiencies at the expense of the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole system. “Managership” celebrates and adopts “best practices” because someone else has already taken the risk of innovating.
The decentralized and sometimes politicized nature of election administration in the US make it difficult to recruit and prepare administrators who are more than bureaucrats, caretakers and guardians of the status quo. To be sure, the field would be much improved with a more universal application of the principles of “managership” which comprise the core of the best training currently available to election administrators. While an improvement, “managership” promises only limited benefits.
Leadership, as I am defining it, , is manifest by those fortunate enough to have been mentored and developed by those who are leaders and also by those who bring experience outside of public administration to election administration. Leadership calls for a more consistent and proactive development of the next generation of leaders. As a profession, it is incumbent on those who claim leadership to combine their collective knowledge and wisdom to move away from “managership” and to train and prepare tomorrow’s (and today’s) leaders in election administration.
Who is in?