The Opposite of Courage is Conformity

“The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it is conformity.” ~Rollo May

Almost every definition of courage recognizes that courage is not the absence of fear.  Without over-emphasizing or being over-dramatic, we all have fears.  Some of them are deeply personal and private- self doubt, failure, change, acceptance, self worth, control, etc.  These private fears derive from our own experiences and insecurities and we inevitably take them to work with us.  These fears might be either exacerbated or soothed by our workplace environment and interactions.  t, in any case, they are always present and we act in response to them in one way or another.

Rather than responding to fears, the challenge as a leader is to act courageously and to foster courage in others.

               Act.  Courage is action in spite of fear.   Fear paralyzes.  Fear prevents thinking and reasoning.  Fear stifles our voice.  Fear is embodied in the silent, empty-eyed and frozen appearance of the proverbial “deer in the headlights.”  Just as fear and inaction seal the fate of the deer as a car barrels towards its unwitting target; fear, inaction, and conformity seal the fate of individuals and organizations (although not as suddenly or dramatically.)

               Risk making a mistake.  Inaction because of the fear of making a mistake is the greatest single cause of mediocrity in the work place.  The drive for perfection, when it delays or prevents action out of fear of erring or misjudging, robs a person or team of success rather than ensuring it.  When we fail to act in order to avoid embarrassment and the judgment of others if we make a mistake, we reveal fear and weakness.  We are saying that we prefer to be passive and mediocre rather than risk success.

Courage recognizes that mistakes and mis-steps are not failures; they represent the opportunity to learn and grow for ourselves and others. Michael Eisner, Disney CEO, is reported to have said “To punish failure is yet another way to encourage mediocrity.”  When we recognize that mistakes are an essential part of achieving success and withhold harsh judgments, we empower ourselves and others.

Privilege Principle over Expediency. In the public sector administrators and managers operate by a different set of incentives and motivations than our counterparts in the private sector.  Rather than being motivated and incentivized by profits, losses and bonuses, public administrators and elected officials are often motivated by pleasing others and by not causing any waves.  Elected officials place great value on the views and desires of their constituents which they weigh heavily when setting policy and making decisions.  Administrators tend to be risk averse and generally seek to please as many people as possible- the public, peers, and subordinates.

Perhaps more often than we think, pleasing others and doing the right thing come in conflict, creating a situation in which a choice must be made between expediency (pleasing others) and principle (doing the right thing). Expediency considers each decision in a vacuum with the criterion being the optimal outcome for that specific situation. The criteria for decisions based on expediency are expressed in terms of “Who will benefit?”; “Who will get hurt?”; “Who will be angry?”; “Who will know?”; “How will this affect me?”, etc.  The aggregation of decisions based upon expediency result in inequities, inconsistencies, inefficiency, unpredictability, and chaos while maximizing the benefit to the decision maker personally.

On the other hand, decisions based upon principle place self interest in a subordinate position to “doing the right thing.” “Doing the right thing” is another way of describing decisions that treat everyone equally; that enforce or apply rules, policies, ordinances, and laws rather than ignore them. Doing the right thing is consistent over time and across similar cases.  Doing the right thing does not always win friends or bring personal rewards.  It takes courage to make decisions on principle over expediency when the two are in conflict.  It takes a certain courage to even acknowledge that the two are often in conflict.

Have the Courage to Let Go. There is a paradox that the more an administrator wants to touch everything, the more limited and less effective the administrator becomes.  There are things that are so important to us, things that are so threatening, and things that are such a source of insecurity that we will not yield control even over them even when clinging to them is counter-productive.  For example, when we are jealous of our power and authority we insist on being the final word on everything under our control in order to protect our egos and reputations.  We fail to see that this insistence on control actually limits us and increases the probability of some kind of damage to our reputation and standing.

How is that the case? First, it is an inefficient use of an administrator’s time.  The administrator can easily become overwhelmed by minutiae and delay important actions and decisions.  Insisting on having everything one’s way cuts off the introduction of new ideas and approaches from subordinates.  Such control communicates a lack of trust in the judgment and abilities of others and leads to discouragement and the stifling of initiative in the organization.  At best, this level of control maintains the status quo.  At worst it produces untimely and less than optimal decisions.  It leads to staff morale issues and turnover.

Expressing this paradox in terms of its positive rather than negative outcomes, consider the results of giving up some of the things we cling to:

  • More authority and control given to subordinates increases the span of control of the administrator.
  • More trust in the judgment of subordinates increases the timeliness, quality and quantity of decisions.
  • More credit for success given to others reflects more credibility upon the administrator.
  • Fewer secrets and proactive, top-down sharing of information results in more timely, accurate and complete information being reported to the administrator.
  • Greater transparency in decision making leads to greater confidence and trust in the administrator.
  • More kindness and consideration expressed and demonstrated for others leads to more respect being shown to the administrator.

Reward Courage in Others. Our society is quick and willing to recognize and reward heroism but workplace courage is personal and exhibited without fanfare.  It is seldom heroic and it is often non-conforming in character.  Our culture and bureaucratic environment values and rewards conformity and it is uncomfortable with and often punishes non-conformity.  As administrators, one of our obligations as courageous leaders is to foster an environment where the exercise of personal courage by members of our organization is positively recognized and rewarded.  This might mean having the courage oneself to intervene and re-characterize the organization’s view of the behavior from disruptive and “boat rocking” to admirable and positive.

The value and need for courageous words, ideas, and actions in the workplace has been unrecognized and undervalued. It appears certain to me than courage begets courage.  As leaders, we can foster courage in our organizations by developing and exhibiting greater personal courage to act, to risk, to be principled, to “let go” and to reward courage in others.  We can encourage and inspire others to be courageous.  We can choose courage to be great or we can choose mediocrity, conformity and expediency.

Stay Tuned

(Author’s Note: A version of this article was written and published to an audience of public administrators almost exactly four years ago while ramping up for the 2012 Presidential Election. The observations that triggered the article were drawn primarily from the field of election administration but are also representative of conditions in the public sector generally. As election administrators gear up for another, and potentially raucous, presidential election, the moral and practical value of courageous leadership is even more important.)

The ElectionGuru Reviews 2013

Guru?  Really?

Guru? Really?

This is the time of the year that many look back over the past year and assess the significance of recent history.  These retrospectives can be helpful in situating ourselves as we enter a new year and can serve as a basis of future improvement.  I thought I would offer my own review of the last year in the field of elections.

Beginning on personal notes—it was nearly a year ago that I launched this blog.  My posts have been read by thousands of people around the world (nearly 20% are readers outside the US) and have occasionally triggered interesting conversations about the administration of elections.  Through this blog I have met many new colleagues and have renewed relationships with others.  My posts have been personally cathartic and have hopefully added to the knowledge base and conversations about election administration in both “theory and praxis.”

Further the year has brought a personal “return to the trenches” of election administration from the halls and towers of academia.  Ironically this change has confirmed to me the uneasy (maybe even incompatible) relationship between administration and academia on practical, cultural and professional levels.   Practitioners seem to lose standing with academic colleagues while fellow election officials grant little credibility to theoretical and scientific approaches to public/election administration.  Nonetheless, I and this blog, have a firmly planted foot in each camp and will continue to attempt to frame issues and topics in a way to foster common understanding and collaboration.

I hoped to trigger many conversations with this blog.  While the exchanges and discussions we have had have been thoughtful and interesting, I hope for more meaningful discussions in 2014.  Please share your ideas and responses to the ideas in this blog with all the readers.  Many readers have shared or retweeted this blog.  Please pass on the ideas, posts and links to those who study, administer, report on or have an interest in elections.

We lost a giant in the field of elections administration with the passing of Dick Smolka in 2013.  Dick and his ”Election Administration Report” were not only icons, Dick was a friend, mentor and role model for generations of us in the field of elections.

2013 saw the end of more than a decade of Doug Chapin’s Electionline and ElectionWeekly which has left a huge void in the daily routine, socialization and education election geeks around the country.  Doug’s Election Academy Blog, Brian Newby’s Election Diary, Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog, NCSL’s Canvass newsletter and this Election Guru blog are the new on-line gathering places.

The President appointed another commission to examine the administration of elections and make recommendations.  The Commission has completed its hearings and information collection and we are awaiting its report.  The Election Assistance Commission’s future is uncertain and the organization is still rudderless without Commissioners or an Executive Director.

There has been no significant change in federally certified voting technologies or products.  Aging HAVA era voting systems remain the most viable systems going into the 2016 Presidential election cycle.  California passed SB 360 which changes the requirement for federal certification, streamlines the state process for certifying voting systems and offers the possibility of new development and business models to get system to the market and in use.  Time will tell.

The SCOTUS gave us two major election related decisions in 2013, both of which leave doors open for new issues and legal challenges.  In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down Section V of the Voting Rights Act but left Section IV intact.  The decision did not remove the authority of the DOJ to enforce provisions of the VRA but merely removed the requirement for pre-clearance.  In Arizona et al. v. Intertribal Council of Arizona, the decision to strike down the Arizona requirement for proof of citizenship at the time of registration was less a decision than a punt.  The Court found that as the proof of citizenship provisions were not on the prescribed federal registration form, the state could not require the information if the registration was to be used for the voter rolls in a federal election.  The decision offered no opinion on the constitutionality of the proof of citizenship requirement and opened the door to dual (federal and state) registration rolls.

Several states, Florida, North Carolina and Kansas and others, continued to pass restrictive election laws on the pretext of preventing fraud even though there is no evidence of the type of fraud the measures could detect and prevent.

Internet voting in the US is still stuck in 1999 (and is likely to stay there for another generation) despite the efforts of FVAP to facilitate electronic delivery (and return) of ballots and election information to service members deployed abroad.

On a positive note- a generation of young, smart and action-oriented election officials is entering the field.  This generation is well exemplified by Kammi Foote, the Clerk, Recorder, Registrar of Inyo County, CA, who recently organized an international panel of scholars, administrators, technologist, vendors and activists to discuss the future of voting technologies.  It will take a generational change led by people like Kammi to find solutions for today’s most insoluble issues in the field of elections.

While much has happened in 2013, in the end, little if anything has really changed.  That shouldn’t be hard to improve upon.

Stay tuned

“Managership” or Leadership– The State of Election Administration

Public property keep outA 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?

 

Plus ça change….

Election Administration_Harris“There is probably no other phase of public administration in the United States which is so badly managed as the conduct of elections.”

What a harsh and critical statement of the state of affairs in election administration.  This bold assertion, however, is not regarding the current state of elections although it may be true enough.  This is the opening  sentence of the 1934 book by Joseph Harris on election administration.  Like many scholars and administrators, I was aware of the book and recall seeing this quote appear occasionally in journal articles but had not taken the time to read the book.  I am guessing that may be the case as well for the readers of this blog so I thought I would share some more nuggets from the book that resound just as sharply in today’s administration and study of elections.  Even though I just picked up and read the book this week as part of the research for my dissertation, many of Harris’ critiques and themes have interestingly appeared in my previous blogs and writings.  I guess this is evidence of the French proverb, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

What is a “good” election?

“The ideal election administration is one which uniformly and regularly produces honest and accurate results.  There should never be the slightest question about the integrity of the ballot box or doubt cast upon the honesty of the elections.” (Harris, p. 1)

On management:

“The conduct of elections is marked throughout by obsolete procedures and methods…The personnel of the election office is usually concerned only with carrying out the provisions of state law, never giving thought to any matter concerned with improving the administration.” (Harris, p. 5)

“The attempt is made now to secure uniform and satisfactory election administration throughout the state by statutes, without any effective administrative supervision, and without using rules, regulations, and instructions issued by an administrative office. In no other phase of public administration do the statutes bulk so large and administrative control and supervision so little.” (Harris, p. 7)

On complexity and efficiency:

“It is very common for useless forms and records to be made out, many signatures required, and other forms of red tape, which are not only unnecessary, but actually defeat their own ends.” (Harris, p. 5)

On discretion and decision making:

“The election statutes are so detailed that the precinct officers cannot know the law.  Often the procedure set forth in state law is so cumbersome and unsound that the election officers make no pretense in complying with it.” (Harris, p. 6)

“The remedy lies not so much in putting pressure upon the precinct officer to comply with the law, but rather in a revision of the election statutes so that the temptation to take short cuts will be largely eliminated. The procedure at the polls should be simplified and regularized. When a sound procedure has been established, the office in charge of elections should take greater pains to instruct the precinct officers and to inspect and supervise their work.” (Harris, pp. 6-7)

With all due respect to my legislator friends and colleagues, you have been and still are (co)responsible for the state of affairs in election administration.  It is clear that the “Shrek Effect” has quite a history when it comes to elections:

“Patchwork upon patchwork will not remedy the situation.  The deluge of election laws, with constant revisions, has produced in many states an election code not only of voluminous size, but also with many conflicting and uncertain provisions.  Wholly aside from fundamental improvements which are necessary, most states are greatly in need of a revision of the election laws in order to clarify and codify the existing statutes.” (Harris, p. 7)

“Election statutes are greatly overworked at the present time. No sound, efficient, economical, and satisfactory administration can be secured so long as it is the practice to prescribe in minute detail every operation in the conduct of elections.” (Harris, p. 7)

“The constant revision of election laws which is taking place in most states is designed in practically every case to rectify some abuse which has sprung up. These alterations deal with minor details of administration and do not involve any fundamental changes. They have led to more and more cumbersome procedures and records. Most of the election records and methods are antiquated, expensive in operation, and require a thorough revision.“ (Harris, p. 20)

“The constant flood of election bills which is introduced in practically every state indicates the present unsatisfactory condition of election administration. Every bill is designed to correct an evil, to prevent a sharp practice which has sprang up. The election laws are being constantly changed, but without any fundamental revision or improvement. Many of the principles which now govern the conduct of elections and guide the framing of election statutes are unwise, and must be discarded before a sound system can be established.” (Harris, p. 7)

There have been radical social, political and technological changes in the 80 years since this book’s publication but the problems and challenges to American election administration are remarkably unchanged.  Are the problems of election administration so intractable?  Are the politics of election administration so strong that the system cannot evolve? Are election administrators too resistant to learning and practicing effective public administration? 

I think it is a little of “all the above.”  Harris proposes a remedy that is still appropriate to us today:

“There is needed for the administration of elections: (1) a revision of the state election laws similar to the revision which has already take place in many states in the administration of the registration of voters, (2) a reorganization of the election machinery, and (3) many improvements in election management. “ (Harris, p. 20)

What do you think?  I am interested in your reaction to the realization that election administrators (and legislators) might be just like gerbils running endlessly inside the wheel–maybe picking up speed but still not making progress.

Stay Tuned.

Work Cited:

Harris, Joseph. Election Administration in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1934.

Adaptation and the “Shrek Effect” in Elections

Shrek

As is usually the case, the period of calm that follows a Presidential election is more an illusion than a reality.  This year, the peace is probably more illusory than most off-years:

    • Legislatures are in session passing laws to fix last year’s problems, real and perceived.  This is the time-honored ritual of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
    • The President is forming a new commission to study and propose new election reforms and has pledged to fix the problem of voters waiting in line to vote on Election day.
    • The President has also proposed increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour (Brian Newby explains why this is an election issue).
    • The Post Office, a long-time partner with election administrators, is reducing service and forcing administrators to examine its impact on postmark and ballot receipt requirements.
    • Administrators, both state and local, have received their “report card” in the form of the recently published PEW Election Performance Index and are in the process of deciding how to or if they should respond to this and future studies.

The reflection and discussion that these activities bring to the profession are essential and are part of a healthy post-action, post-election review that characterizes effective management practices.  Unfortunately, much of the value of these exercises escapes our grasp.  Over the period of nearly 20 years in elections I have observed a pattern among administrators, legislatures, scholars and activists that accumulates “best” practices, new policies, laws, regulations, studies and reforms and overlays them onto their existing counterparts every year.

This practice is like a dripping faucet that keeps accreting minerals onto surfaces that eventually become lime and scale deposits which constrict and shut off the flow of water (at worst) or deface and mar the visible appearance of the sink (at best).   While this is an apt visual metaphor, I prefer to call this the “Shrek Effect.”

In the original Shrek movie while the talking Donkey and Shrek, the Ogre, were getting to know each other, the Ogre claimed a complex personality and character.  Donkey, in a flash of understanding, exclaimed “like a parfait!!  You have multiple layers!!”  Shrek agreed, but not willing to accept such a sweet comparison, said “…more like an onion.  I have layers like an onion.”

The “Shrek Effect” is illustrated by problem-solving processes which fail to diagnose the real issues creating the problem.  “Shrek Effect” solutions attack the visible symptoms of issues while leaving the root causes invisible and undisturbed.  The “Shrek Effect” demands immediate and urgent action in the form of visible technical solutions– “If we only did this…”

“Shrek Effect-ed” management relies on borrowing solutions from others– solutions which make some anonymous and dubious claim to being “best practices.”  The result of the “Shrek Effect-ed” processes is the continued layering of the parfait (policy on top of policy).  The result is new layers on the onion (new laws on top of unrepealled old laws).  The result is the relentless mineral accretion of the drip, drip, drip of the faucet (new reforms reforming prior reforms).

The alternative to the “Shrek Effect” is an adaptive approach which conceives of election laws and administration as a system.  It is a problem solving approach which insists on taking the time to diagnose the real problem(s) and which is willing to resist the temptation to act for the sake of action.

It is an approach which critically identifies and considers assumptions underlying both the existing practices and the proposed solutions.  It is an approach that develops and assesses multiple solutions before committing to a course of action.  It is an approach that is willing to get rid of unneeded clutter and noise –to perform housekeeping on the existing inventory of policies, practices and canons of law.  It is an iterative approach which is constantly evaluating effects and outcomes and which makes adjustments on an on-going basis.

Adaptive leadership and management techniques are proven to be effective but they are not part of our public/election administration education, training and culture.   Adaptive leadership and management requires more patience, more self-reflection, and more courage than the muddling style of so many administrators and scholars.

As the profession participates, navigates, and deliberates in the forums and venues of 2013, situations will arise in which administrators, scholars and politicians can mitigate the “Shrek Effect” and foster adaptive solutions.  To do otherwise invokes the plot of another well-known movie- Bill Murray’s “Groundhog Day.”

Note: For more information regarding Adaptive Leadership, see The Practice of Adaptive Leadership and the Kansas Leadership Center.

Stay Tuned.

“Muddling Through” Election Administration

For several years I have written periodic columns in a series called “Public Administration Insights” for a local news/politics website www.utahpolicy.com.  A particular column invokes the scientific term “muddling through” as a management and decision making style.

Effective management is probably the most important thing an election administrator can do to prevent or minimize situations that introduce ambiguity into an electon.  Rather than write something new specifically for election folks and this blog, I am posting a link to the original article.

Utah Policy logoUtah Policy – Smart Public Administration “Muddling Through” Reprised

Despite the highly visible nature of election administration, it is no more “special” than any other public sector management context and can be well managed using the same concepts as a Public Works Director, an HR manager, or a Human Services supervisor.

How does one know if they are a muddler or part of a muddling team?

“A muddling team may be earnest and hardworking but may not be effective if their  activities do not correlate to the services and functions they are expected to  provide.  Some manifestations of muddling include the inability to answer  the question “Why do you do ‘it’ that way?” without saying “We’ve always done ‘it’ that way.”  Muddling teams do not have documented procedures and often  solve routine problems differently each time they occur and/or team members each  solve the same problem differently.  Although technology, laws and  expectations change over time, muddling teams do not reassess and revise their  practices to account for the changes, preferring instead the security and  familiarity of outdated processes.  Muddling teams make decisions based  upon what people can agree on rather than on an objective analysis of ends and  means.”

No single administrator, manager or leader can change a “muddling through” culture.

“The commitment [to effective management] must be made by the entire management/leadership team of an  organization who must be willing to critically examine its business functions,  objectives, assumptions, processes and “way of doing business” for the purpose  of improving its performance and level of service to its customers while  increasing its effective use of human, capital and fiscal resources.”

Read more:  Utah Policy – Smart Public Administration

Stay Tuned