Public Administration and Society

Despite their different roles, politics, administration and society are intertwined concepts as they all participate in the implementation of policy and the exercise of political power and accountability within society with the help of civil society and public administration.

There is a complex triangular relationship between politics, administration and society. Politics and administration are both critical components of democratic governance as well as elements of the process of policy formulation and implementation. However, they do not both relate to society in the same way (Peters & Pierre, 2012). Society, along with its varying components from citizens and organizations to private businesses, interacts with politics and administration for the better implementation of laws that seek to realize the common good and interests of the people.

The civil society and public administration often cooperate with each other to deliver better public services to other citizens; such is the case in continental Europe. The civil society is the sum of non-governmental institutes and organizations which manifest the will and interests of the citizens. It has a significant impact on the mobilization of resources and the democratic path. It provides the government with different sources of ideas, legitimization and feedback (Peters & Pierre, 2000). It also participates in the stimulation of the different members of society and helps them have a hand in determining their futures, lives and fate.

The public administration has an ever-changing role (Bouckaert & Pollitt, 2003). The level of centralization of the bureaucracy and the government policy making now vary from one country to another. However, all in all, following the introduction of the concept of decentralization, less power is granted in the center in comparison to the past. Another concept that is being introduced and developed is that of leadership expertise and how essential it is to provide better services to the public in order to attain the economic self-sufficiency it needs for more independence in their future operations.

The less centralized and less hierarchical system of the public administration has helped in the development of the latter especially after the participation of the civil society in influencing the government during the policy implementation.  

References:

Bouckaert, G. & Pollitt, C. (2003). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peters, B.G. & Pierre, J. (2000). ‘Citizens Versus the New Public Manager: The Problem of Mutual Empowerment’, Administration and Society, pp. 9–28.

Peters, B.G. & Pierre, J. (2012). Introduction : The Role of  Public Administration in Governing. The Sage Book of Public Administration. 

Leadership Challenges in the Public Sector of the 21st Century

Leaders of the Past 

Today’s leaders of the public sector are facing a number of challenges which are keeping them from establishing their goals in the friendly environment they first expected to be working in. However, some of these challenges are the cause of the people who are being mistaken for leaders. Other challenges exist due to the fact that the public sector is not yet ready for leadership.

The public sector needs to improve its services in order to attain the economic self-sufficiency it needs for more independence in their future operations. Hence, there is a growing demand for the implementation of the concept of leadership in the system of ideologies of the public organizations. Leaders- and not managers- are said to be the only ones who are capable of carrying out the task of delivering better services to the public. However, the leaders of the public organizations “are often selected for their technical expertise, and they lack preparation for leadership” Morse & Buss (2009). The same public organizations often end up with having managers leading their teams instead of leaders. That is why, according to Kotter, organizations failed to create the needed change because they were “trying to manage change instead of leading it” (cited in Suganya, 2012). Furthermore, according to a research study aiming to identify the “Best leadership practices in Public sector organizations in Western Europe”, public organizations are being challenged to boost their performance and competence, and amend their attitudes towards leadership.

Leadership expertise and technical expertise are two different things. However, they are both fundamental in order to create competent and high-performing public-sector organizations. An effective leader needs to have both. Beside the technical knowledge that a person receives from formal education, one needs practice and experience to have what it takes to become a leader. An effective leader needs to “create positive organizational cultures, strengthen motivation, clarify mission and organizational objectives, and steer organizations to more productive and high performing outcomes” (Suganya, 2012). Thereupon, government leadership concerns about evolving take into account “creative thinking, collaboration, cross-organizational team building and leading for results” (Suganya, 2012).

For a leader to accomplish his/her goals and objectives, s/he needs to be in control of the entourage and environment. The environmental and cultural structures of the public sector does not often promote for the concept of leadership. On the contrary, it constrains leaders and prevents them from developing true and effective leadership and eventually meeting the ultimate goals of improving the services provided by the public sector. It is a challenging quest to “cultivate a performance management culture” and to know how to manage a situation where the environment is “hostile” and “ever-changing”. It is also necessary to be knowledgeable of and keep oneself up-to-date with the latest advances in information technology and make use of the latter in order to keep up with the “increased demands for quality service” and “sustainable development”. What is even more challenging, especially in developing countries, is the fact that leaders need to deal with “increased poverty, low performing employees, corruption and an acute shortage of financial, material and human resources” (Suganya, 2012). That is why an effective leader needs to anticipate both the benefits and downsides which the team will encounter during the execution of a task, project or operation. S/he needs to cope him/herself with the market demands and global economic shifts and be ready for all types of sudden events.

The leader of the 21^st century is being challenged to work in a tricky environment, which is the public sector, where the managers and employees are not yet fully ready to completely embrace the concept of leadership. In order to reach their goals, leaders are yet to leapfrog a number of challenges to prove themselves worthy of the title. 

References:

Bozeman, B., & Rainey, H. (2000). Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of a Priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART. Vol. 10, No. 2, Tenth Anniversary Issue, pp. 447-469.

Morse, Ricardo S. and Terry E. Buss, Eds. Innovations in Public Sector Leadership.

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2009.

Suganya. G., (2012). Strategies and Challenges in Quality Leadership in the Public Sector. International Journal of Business Intelligence. Vol 01, Issue 02. P 57-60. 

On Leadership

KAIROUAN, Tunisia- Association Tunisienne des Femmes Démocrates (ATFD) hosted a one day and a half training course about leadership. It took place on Saturday 15th and Sunday 16th at Kasba Hotel. 

On the first day of the session, we discussed the concept of leadership. Then, we were divided into groups to do an exercise that aims to define a "leader" (characteristics, qualities, etc). The following exercise aimed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of "team work". 

When we say "leader", people like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Coco Chanel, Che Guevara,     Steve Jobs, Chokri Belaid.. come to mind. These are said to be natural born leaders. 

Still, there are certain qualities that one can work on in order to develop oneself and become the leader s/he always wished to become. 

A leader is someone who is brave enough to take the first step, takes the initiative, believes in oneself, creates the change, who detects the problems, finds creative solutions and acts upon them. 

Being a leader is about thinking outside the box. It's about dreaming and making those dreams come true. It's about putting the common interest upon everything else. It's about being capable of becoming a better version of yourself and changing the lives and thoughts of those around you. 

On the second day of the training session, we've done excessive exercises of how to properly criticize other people's works without getting them all defensive, and how to meet officials without ending up having a quarrel with them. We've also learned about the difference between a "boss" and a "leader". 

A boss is someone who depends on authority, inspires fear, says "I", takes credit, commands and says "go!". 

A leader is someone who depends on goodwill, generates enthusiasm, says "we", gives credit, asks and says "let's go".