transformational stewardship

32
TRANSFORMATIONAL STEWARDSHIP: LEADING PUBLIC SECTOR CHANGE Working Paper #3 April 2006 James Edwin Kee Kathryn Newcomer Mike Davis A Publication of The Center for Innovation in Public Service, A Collaborative Research Partnership of The George Washington University School of Public Policy and Public Administration, and BearingPoint, Inc.

Upload: cahyani-windarto

Post on 15-May-2015

846 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Tambahan Materi Kuliah Layanan Elektronis Pertemuan 7 Transformational stewardship

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Transformational stewardship

TRANSFORMATIONAL STEWARDSHIP:

LEADING PUBLIC SECTOR CHANGE

Working Paper #3

April 2006

James Edwin Kee Kathryn Newcomer

Mike Davis

A Publication of The Center for Innovation in Public Service, A Collaborative Research Partnership of The George Washington University School of

Public Policy and Public Administration, and BearingPoint, Inc.

Page 2: Transformational stewardship

2

Transformational Stewardship: Leading Public Sector Change

James Edwin Kee, Kathryn Newcomer and Mike Davis The George Washington University

Final Draft April 11, 2006

Public sector leadership in the 21st Century is challenging and change-oriented.

Rapidly evolving global conditions and shifting political and economic influences are changing our ideas of “what” government should do. Advancements in operational technologies and methodologies, and rising expectations of leadership, require a similar evolution in “how” government accomplishes its mission. Unfortunately, the tragedy of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the multiple NASA disasters, and the failed FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina, highlight the necessity for public leaders to adapt quickly to various types of events. Public leaders face rapidly changing circumstances that require them to transform their organizations.

Public sector change is a risky business. Organizational change is inherently

unsettling, demanding new approaches to traditional structures, and sometimes new paradigms altogether. Pay-for-performance, competitive sourcing, public-private-partnerships, performance-based budgeting, and other initiatives often create an unsettling environment in which the public leader must satisfy a variety of constituencies while shaping new organizational norms and values.

To meet the challenge of change, public leaders in the 21st Century must be

transformational stewards. We contend that transformation and stewardship are reciprocal and mutually-reinforcing aspects of public service, and are two vital responsibilities for tomorrow’s government leaders. As “transformational stewards,” public leaders must pursue organizational transformation, while serving as stewards of their organization and core public administration values. We posit that public leaders of the future require heightened creativity and initiative, concern for the larger public community, and careful management and leadership of change. Transformational stewardship is a dynamic equilibrium reflecting dedication to service and strategy, and agility and accountability.

While on the surface this observation may seem obvious, the implications of

public leaders as transformational stewards are more significant than they may appear. For public leaders and managers to fulfill their role as leaders of change, many of our traditional assumptions about the nature of public service must be reconsidered and reconciled. This reconciliation must occur at several levels – from the conceptualization and rationale behind the public leader’s place in government, to the roles, practices and skills that characterize transformational stewards and their organizations.

In this chapter, we seek to establish the foundation for this vision of public

leadership by presenting three important aspects of transformational stewardship. First, we explore the concept of transformational stewardship as a new way to define public

Page 3: Transformational stewardship

3

leadership, building on traditional thinking about leadership and public administration, while extending this thinking to address the transformational challenges of modern public service. Second, we present a specific tool to enable public leaders to better manage the risk of change, thus fulfilling their transformational stewardship responsibilities. Here, we draw on our previous work modeling change-related risk in order to provide a comprehensive backdrop for considering the transformational steward’s responsibilities. Finally, we consider the specific roles and responsibilities of transformational stewards in relation to the different aspects of a particular change. Before describing the concept of transformational leadership, however, we want to briefly consider some of the major demands for change on public sector leaders. The Landscape for Public Sector Leaders

The need for transformational leadership in the public sector is most evident when

we examine the pressures for change felt by today’s public managers. These change pressures come from many sources: an aging public sector workforce, resource constraints, new horizontal relationships with nonprofit and private sector organizations, globalization, technology breakthroughs, and increasingly complex public problems. In many cases, these demands for change conflict with one another, and constantly compete for the public manager’s time and resources. The following are a few high visibility change drivers in the federal government (state and local governments face similar pressures):

• The change to be more performance oriented – managers must meet evolving performance management demands presented by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), pay-for-performance, the application of OMB’s Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART), and demands for performance measurement in a variety of other laws.

• The change to become a younger and more diverse workforce - managers must prepare for a major changeover in staff (half of all top civil service executives are over 50), while ensuring that the institutional knowledge that resides in these existing staff members is not lost.

• The change to become more competitive and entrepreneurial – managers must compete with the private sector to continue doing the public’s business (e.g., competitive sourcing), or must engage in new, unfamiliar public-private partnerships.

• The change to restructure to meet evolving mission requirements and stakeholder expectations – managers must create and evolve new organizations to meet new national threats or needs (Homeland Security, FEMA) or increasing expectations of constituents and Congress to be more consumer friendly (IRS).

The one common element in all of the above forces for change is the need for

agencies to adapt and transform themselves. Yet, change is not easy. While potential rewards may be great, change carries risks for the agency, the manager, and other stakeholders. This is true in the private sector as well as the public sector; but there is reason to believe that change in the public sector is more “risky” than the private sector.

Page 4: Transformational stewardship

4

A private-sector CEO has to satisfy his or her Board of Directors and ultimately the stockholders, but can often proceed in relative secrecy, without a great deal of collaboration. In contrast, public sector leaders have significantly more stakeholders. They include those within the organization, such as unions and senior political appointees, and those outside the organization, such as political leadership (both elected and appointed), suppliers, citizens/consumers and others. Generally speaking, organizational change in the public sector must be transparent, requires extensive consultation, and is usually conducted in a highly visible arena. Additionally, the nature of political leadership results in a short-term horizon for many of the stakeholders, making long-term change initiatives more problematic.

While we refer to “organizational change,” the reality is that change is not

organizational unless it is first individual change, and then team change. At these levels, several change stakeholders emerge – including employees, peers, and agency leadership. For each of these stakeholders, there are distinct and often very different perceptions, expectations, and “stakes” in whatever change is being proposed. In addition, the perceptions, expectations and stakes of the manager also influence the course of change. While local stakeholders are more prominent in the manager’s daily environment, the increasing complexity and scope of the managerial role in government—with its increased emphasis on public-private partnerships, globalization, and intergovernmental arrangements—means that all stakeholders, to some degree, must be on the manager’s radar. Collectively, these relationships and their influences on the change process constitute the manager’s “change landscape.” Becoming aware of and thinking critically about this landscape is a critical first step toward deliberately negotiating it with proficiency and skill. Transformational Stewardship

Given the strong change influences that have emerged in the contemporary public

leadership landscape, how does the concept of transformational stewardship provide a viable path for fulfilling the responsibilities of public service? In order to answer this question, we first address the seeming paradox of public sector leaders as both change agents and stewards of the public trust as they seek to accomplish their organizational roles and responsibilities. At the heart of this discussion is an ongoing debate about managerial discretion and the role of public managers that harkens back to the Finer (1940)- Friederich (1940) debate—arguments that have recently been rejoined in the discussion between advocates of “New Public Management” (NPM) and those that see the role of public managers as conservators within a tightly controlled system of democratic accountability.

New Public Management is one of the current change drivers—an embodiment of

a “tidal wave of government sector reform” that has swept the world since the 1980s (Kettl, 1999). The widespread adoption of NPM ideas reflects its advocacy by a number of international organizations, including the World Bank. This reform movement largely is a reaction to a perception that government agencies have become too large and ineffective, and therefore must transform themselves. The leadership literature and

Page 5: Transformational stewardship

5

adherents of NPM place a great deal of emphasis on the role of leaders in organizational change. They are the entrepreneurs (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), change agents (Kotter 1996), and creators of “new mental maps” (Black & Gregersen 2002). The term “transformational” best fits this type of leader. Burns (1978) defined transformational leadership as a process where the leader and follower engage each other in creating a shared vision that raises the level of motivation for both leader and follower, transforming the organization.

A chorus of public administration scholars, however, has raised some serious

concerns about transformational leaders in the public sector who are seen as potentially unaccountable “wild-eyed entrepreneurs” (Terry 1995, 1998; Moe 1994). To this group, public managers must first and foremost be “conservators,” politically and legally accountable within a vertical hierarchy. NPM processes, it is argued, with their emphases on efficiency and entrepreneurial activity of government managers, interfere with democratic governance and with other values that are highly prized—such as fairness, justice, and democratic participation.

Upon initial analysis, the concept of stewardship would seem to align with critics

of NPM. A steward is “a person who manages another’s property or financial affairs, or who administers anything as an agent of another” (Random House 1968). A common stewardship definition is “to hold something in trust for others” (Block 1993, xv). Like Block, we view stewardship in a broad sense, which entails wisely using the resources available in a creative process that aggressively pursues the mission of the organization. This broad view envisions the leader creating a balance of power in the organization with a primary commitment to the larger community, wherein each person joins in defining purpose. Stewardship is a governance strategy designed to create a strong sense of ownership and responsibility for outcomes—including change—at all levels of the organization. It also means giving more control to citizens, and creating self-reliance and partnerships among the organization’s stakeholders (Block 1993; Kee 2003). Thus, the concept of transformational stewardship is a vision of the public sector leader and manager that fully embraces the necessities of change that define contemporary public leadership. This concept envisions an active public leader, facilitating change through building organizational capacity, developing partnerships, and thoroughly analyzing the risks of change, in order to maximize potential gains while minimizing—to the extent possible—potential losses associated with change. Attributes of Transformational Stewardship

Transformational stewardship, in the broadest sense, can be thought of as a leadership function in which those exercising leadership (those with “legitimate” authority as well as others throughout the organization) have developed certain attributes that guide their actions. These attributes reflect leaders’ personal outlook or beliefs (their inner-personal beliefs or traits), how they approach a situation (their operational mindset), how they involve others in the function (their inter-personal actions/interactions with others), and their commitment to change and innovation (their change-centric approach). While there are many leadership attributes, Table 1displays a list of the 15

Page 6: Transformational stewardship

6

attributes that we believe are most important for transformational stewardship, followed by a discussion of each attribute.

<<TABLE ONE HERE>>

Inner-personal Leadership Beliefs/Traits

The “trait” theory of leadership is one of the most persistent concepts about what

makes a good leader. Some argue that individuals are either born with leadership traits (such as intelligence) or not. Others argue that the most important leadership traits are those that can be learned (such as understanding the job or task at hand). Trait theories of leadership attempt to develop a list of defined characteristics of leadership; common ones include intelligence, self-confidence, decisiveness, courage, empathy, determination, integrity and sociability. Among the recent proponents of the trait theory of leadership are the “emotional IQ” or maturity approach of Goleman, Mckee and Boyatzis (2002) who believe that leadership traits can be learned through self-evaluation and mentoring.

We believe the most important personal leadership beliefs/traits are not ones that

we are born with, but those that develop throughout our lives and provide us continuing guidance on how to act in a particular situation—they become inner-personal guides to our actions. We believe that the most vital traits for transformational stewards are ethical conduct, a reflective, continuous learning attitude, empathy toward others, and the foresight or vision to lead an organization toward a preferred future.

Ethical: An overriding inner-personal trait, commonly cited, is integrity or ethical

values and standards. Transformational stewards must maintain a high level of standards for themselves and their organizations that allows leaders and followers to elevate the organization to a higher plane. Leadership scholar James MacGregor Burns (1978) posits that moral values lie at the heart of transformational leadership, and allow the leader to seek “fundamental changes in organizations and society” (in Ciulla 2004, p. x).

Similarly, those arguing for a servant leadership approach (often aligned with the

concept of stewardship) argue for the importance of “core ethical values, including integrity, independence, freedom, justice, family and caring” (Fairholm 1998, 133). Ethics and moral standards have their roots in principles we learn throughout our lives, either from parents or mentors, or from our own inquiries into what constitutes just action.

Reflective/Continuous Learning: Margaret Wheatley suggests that: “Thinking is

the place where intelligent actions begin. We pause long enough to look more carefully at a situation, to see more of its character, to think about why it is happening, and to notice how it is affecting us and others” (2005, 215). Transformational stewards are willing to step back and reflect before taking action. They take the time to understand and to learn before acting. A Chinese proverb asks, “Can you remain still, while the water is turbid and cloudy, until in time it is perfectly clear again?” (Thompson 2000, 175).

Page 7: Transformational stewardship

7

Thompson argues that “Beyond a certain point, there can probably be no personal growth, no individualization, without the capacity for self-reflection” (2000, 152). Just as continuous learning is critical for an organization (Senge 1990), it must start with the organizational leader. Self reflection, including personal awareness and continuous learning, is not always easy or calming—just the opposite—“It is a disturber and an awakener” (Greenleaf 1977). Transformational stewards must be awake to new approaches to problems, new understandings of relationships, and potential consequences of actions and impacts on others. In this manner they can lead with confidence.

Empathetic: A transformational steward demonstrates concern for others, both

within and outside of the organization. Organizational change involves potential winners and losers. If leader are seen as primarily acting in their self-interest, transformation of the organization could be derailed. However, if leaders have a genuine concern for others and address potential losses, they may find the path easier. Empathy is a trait that is a product of both our nature and how we are nurtured; but understanding its importance can provide us with an incentive to pay more attention to the needs, views, and concerns of others.

Empathy is more than just being a “good listener:” though that is an important

skill, leaders must both hear and understand. Thompson explains: “if by that we mean only that we have learned certain skills and techniques that make the other person feel heard, we have still largely missed the point. To empathize is to both hear and understand, and to grasp both the thoughts the other person is trying to convey and the feelings he or she has about them (2000, 181)”. Transformational stewards participate in other persons’ feelings or ideas, leading to a broader understanding of the situation and potential courses of action.

Foresight/Vision: A transformational steward is able to look beyond the current

situation and see the big picture and potential for the organization. This is true throughout the organization, although as a leader progresses in an organization and has more responsibility, the vision and foresight required are greater (Follett in Graham 2003).

Mary Parker Follett refers to the need for leaders to “grasp the total

situation….Out of a welter of facts, experience, desires, aims, the leader must find the unifying thread…the higher up you go the more ability you have to have of this kind. When leadership rises to genius it has the power of transforming, transforming experience into power.” (Follett in Graham 2003, 168-9). While vision is necessary to transform an organization, it is equally necessary for a good steward. Failure to fully assess potential gains and risks for an organization will lead to a waste of resources and an inability to achieve the full potential of the organization. Follett continues:

I have said that the leader must understand the situation, must see it as a

whole, must see the inter-relation of all the parts. He must do more than this. He must see the evolving situation, the developing situation. His wisdom, his judgment, is used, not on a situation that is stationary, but on one that is changing all the time. The ablest administrators do not merely draw logical conclusions

Page 8: Transformational stewardship

8

from the array of facts of the past which their expert assistants bring to them, they have a vision for the future. (Ibid. 169, emphasis added).

Operational Mindset The “Style” approach or theory of leadership focuses on how leaders interact with

followers, and stresses the need for leaders to balance a “concern for people” with “concern for production or results.” The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid is one of the most well known tools reflecting this approach (1985). We believe that the operational mindset of a transformational leader is important but goes beyond balancing people with results, to include a number of attributes of both transformational leader and steward.

Trustee/Caretaker: Transformational stewards recognize that they hold their

position and use organizational resources for others, not for their own self-aggrandizement. They take responsibility for the public in general, both current and future generations, and future members of the organization. Thus the broad concept of “public interest,” while not always easy to define, must be a constant touchstone for the leader. Public servants, whether elected, appointed, or part of the large civil service system, are only temporarily in charge of their resources and responsibilities. They hold them in trust for the public—hence they serve the public and must act in the public interest, not for personal self-interest. “Public managers are, after all, public servants,” argues Colin Diver (1982, cited in Moe [1994]). “Their acts must derive from the legitimacy, from the consent of the governed, as expressed through the Constitution and laws, not from any personal system of values, no matter how noble” (404). In NPM’s rush to “steer” rather than “row,” the Denhardt and Denhardt note that we have to remember “who owns the boat” (2003, 23).

Kass (1990) defines public stewardship as “the administrator’s willingness and

ability to earn the public trust by being an effective and ethical agent in carrying out the republic’s business” (113). Because ethical considerations may conflict with efficiency criteria, Kass believes that stewardship requires that efficiency and effectiveness (the traditional measures of administrative success) be “informed by and subordinated to the ethical norms of justice and beneficence” (114).

Mission Driven: Transformational stewards fiercely and courageously pursue the

mission of their organization. In most cases, they act as agents of those who established that mission—the legislature, the chief executive, or the courts. Sometimes, conflicting goals and agendas require the public servant to arbitrate. To the question “What should public managers do in the face of legislative ambiguity: ask for clarification, or provide it?” Behn says that public managers must courageously define their responsibilities (1998, 215). It may be in the legislature’s interest to be ambiguous; in addition, “the political process itself creates a diffusion of power and responsibility that makes articulation of central values difficult” (Kee and Black 1989, 28). Thus, the transformational steward must seek to find the common purpose, values, and aims that drive the organization.

Page 9: Transformational stewardship

9

Public managers can find this common purpose by engaging the people in their agencies, citizens, and other stakeholders who will assist the leader in defining the agency's mission or core values—in effect, determining the public interest. Follett notes that the “invisible leader” becomes the “common purpose” and that “loyalty to the invisible leader gives us the strongest possible bond of union” (Follett in Graham 2003, 172).

At other times, the organizational mission is clear, but the organization may have

multiple means of achieving the mission, and its leaders must weigh how those means will affect the agency, its mission, and the larger public interest. “Legislation, public scrutiny, and constitutional checks and balances all create legitimate legal and political limitations on the freedom of public managers to act. Yet within the constraints, there is considerable room for experimentation and action” (Kee and Black 1989, 31). Unless proscribed or prescribed to act in a certain fashion, the agency leader (with the people in the agency) has considerable latitude as to how to pursue the mission.

Accountable: Transformational stewards measure their performance in a

transparent fashion and share those results with those who can affect the organization and its success. This is consistent with efforts at the federal level to get agencies to articulate and measure progress toward their performance goals (for example, the Government Performance Results Act). Transformational stewards support processes such as performance-based budgeting, balanced scorecards, and other efforts to measure program results in an open fashion and subject them to periodic review and evaluation. What is important is not measurement for the sake of measurement or the creation of short-term output measures, but measurement for the sake of legitimate feedback and program revision aimed at achieving the agency mission. “Stewardship asks us to be deeply accountable for the outcomes of an institution…” (Block 1993, 18).

An open process ensures accountability and allows others to see how the agency

and its stewards are defining and fulfilling the public interest. This, by necessity, must be a multi-faceted process, as Vail (1989) suggests, that considers a variety of important values, not simply economic ones that might drive a single bottom-line mentality. An open process provides a natural check on how transformational stewards define and lead progress toward achievement of the organization’s mission. Finally, transformational stewards, throughout the organization, take responsibility (legal, professional, and personal) for the results (Harmon 1990, 1995).

Attention to Detail: Transformational stewards know that details do matter

(Addington and Graves 2002). Details are often the way in which government programs ensure important democratic values, such as equitable distribution of public benefits or access to public programs. Process “red tape” is often the means by which we ensure adherence to procedural imperatives; however, it should not be used as cover or excuse for lack of performance. Rather, transformational stewards need to distinguish between those processes designed to achieve certain public purposes and those designed primarily to impose excess control. With the latter, transformational stewards might seek waivers, exceptions, etc. to enable the agency to better organize itself to accomplish its mission.

Page 10: Transformational stewardship

10

Inter-personal/Interactions with Others

Leadership theories increasingly stress the importance of the leader’s interaction

with others. For example, the “Situational” approach characterizes the leader’s role along a “supportive” and “directive” matrix, based on the development level of the followers (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993). Leaders delegate, support, coach, or direct, depending upon the capacity of the followers—specifically as to the job (competence) and psychological maturity (commitment) of the followers. We see transformational stewards approaching their interactions with others differently than many other leadership theories prescribe. The chief goals for transformational stewards are empowerment and engendering trust in employees throughout the organization.

Trust Builder: Transformational stewards build program success through

developing and maintaining trust—with the members of their agencies, their constituents, and their principals. Leadership is principally about developing trust, wherein leaders and agency members accomplish mutually valued goals using agreed-upon processes. “Leaders build trust or tear it down by the cumulative actions they take and the word they speak—by the culture they create for themselves and their organization members.” (Fairholm 2000, 91--check).

Developing trust is about building community, “the creation of harmony from,

often diverse, sometimes opposing, organizational, human, system and program functions” (Id at 140--check). Public stewards also must build trust with the citizens they serve and the principals (executives and legislatures) to whom they report.

Mitchell and Scott (1987) insist that stewardship “is based on the notion that

administrators must display the virtue of trust and honorableness in order to be legitimate leaders” (448). Trust is an ephemeral thing, hard to gain, easy to lose. Trust leads to involvement of citizens and grants of discretion from principals.

Empowering: Closely related to trust is the concept of empowerment. Trust

demands empowerment of agency employees and, where possible, decentralization of authority—real decision-making—throughout the organization. Follett, writing in the 1920s, put it this way: “Many are coming to think that the job of a man higher up is not to make decisions for his subordinates but to teach them how to handle their problems themselves, teach them how to make their own decisions. The best leader does not persuade men to follow his will. He shows them what is necessary for them to do in order to meet their responsibilities…the best leaders try to train their followers themselves to become leaders (Follett in Graham, 173).

Developing leaders for a common purpose is a key function of transformational

stewardship. Stone (1997) makes a useful distinction between the market and the “polis.” In the market, economic principles and incentives are the norm. In the polis, the “development of shared values and a collective sense of the public interest is the primary aim” (quoted in Denhardt and Denhardt, 2003, 73). To the extent that leaders empower

Page 11: Transformational stewardship

11

others (employees and citizens), they become co-leaders and stewards in fulfillment of the public interest. This is a fundamental role, and opportunity, for transformational stewards throughout the organization.

Power Sharing: Transformational stewards rely less on positional authority for

their power and more on personal power sources, persuasion and moral leadership to affect change (Hill 1994). Beyond personal power, transformational stewards rely on “group power.” Follett claims that “it is possible to develop the conception of power-with, a jointly developed power, a co-active, not a coercive power.” And “the great leader tries…to develop power wherever he can among those who work with him, and then gathers all this power and uses it as the energizing force of a progressing enterprise” (Follett in Graham, 103, 173).

Coalition Builder: Transformational stewards recognize that they cannot fully

meet their mission with their given resources (people, dollars, etc.) without involving others. They know that horizontal relationships and coalition building with other organizations, within government, in the nonprofit sector, and the for-profit sector are essential for the success of their organization. Such coalitions might be critical for the organization’s successful transformation or vital when the organization is faced with a crisis (such as Hurricane Katrina). Coast Guard Admiral Joel Whitehead refers to the necessity of developing “pre-need” relationships, noting that this is one of the Coast Guard’s fundamental principles—a recognition that they can not do everything and must rely on others as partners in achieving their organizational mission (Whitehead 2005). Change-Centric Approach

Building upon trust, empowerment and power sharing, transformational stewards

are able to be change-centric, focusing on the needed change itself, rather than the source of the call for change (from the leader, top down, or from the followers, bottom-up). What matters is finding the proper balance of top-down and bottom-up management that leads to a successful change effort (Kee and Setzer 2006). Achieving positive change should be the focus, not assigning inflexible leadership roles. The focus of change-centric leadership is on the successful change effort itself, which is not to say leadership has no important role to play. On the contrary, the leader or leaders of an organization serve as facilitators of change. They should strive to be cognizant of when change efforts require more initiative from the top, and when the success of change efforts may hinge upon allowing more employee participation in formulation of the change vision. Dialogue amongst all levels of leadership is encouraged, but not to the extent of damaging the decision-making process. Sometimes the top leaders in an organization will need to make change decisions, especially when time and resource constraints do not allow for more employee involvement. However, change efforts in the public sector are often completed over a longer time frame, and thus, more participation from lower ranks can be cultivated. The concept of change-centric leadership is very consistent with Follett’s “law of the situation” (Fox and Urwick 1973). In order to be change-centric, transformational stewards need to be creative, innovative, and comfortable with ambiguity and with navigating complex systems.

Page 12: Transformational stewardship

12

Creative/Innovative: Transformational stewards do not wait for a crisis to

innovate and create, they attempt to build an environment that values continuous learning and in which workers constantly draw on current and past experiences to frame a new future for the organization. Peter Vaill (1996) acknowledges that “creative learning” is seemingly a contradiction in a world of institutional learning where people who “know” transfer knowledge to people who do not know. However, in a change environment there often is no “body of knowledge” to transfer; thus it is up to the transformational steward to create the knowledge. This requires an inquiring mind willing to explore options. Just as an artist might not always know what the final product will look like, transformational stewards must be open to the unknown, willing to surprise themselves, and to recognize “in that surprise is the learning” (Vaill 1996, 61).

Comfortable with Ambiguity: Transformational stewards recognize that

conflicting organizational objectives and priorities often require a careful balancing act: continuity and change; efficiency and equity; etc. Public managers, like their private counterparts, live in an era of “permanent white water,” bombarded by pressures both from within and without the organization (Vaill 1998). Transformational stewards recognize that their “solutions” are among many plausible alternatives and must be continually reassessed and adjusted as conditions change.

Integrative/Systems Thinker: Thanks largely to Peter Senge’s pathbreaking book

The Fifth Discipline (1990), systems thinking has become one of the most important concepts in the field of leadership. But systems thinking is not an easy concept to grasp or apply. Vaill notes continuing evidence that demonstrates an absence of systems thinking: our tendency to think in black and white; to believe in simple linear cause-effect relationships; to ignore feedback; to ignore relationships between a phenomenon and its environment; and to ignore how our own biases frame our perceptions (Vaill 1996). Vaill sees the core idea of systems thinking in the balancing and interrelating of three levels of phenomenon: first, the “whole,” or phenomenon of interest itself; second, the inner workings of the whole—the combining and interacting of the internal elements to product the whole; and third, the world outside the whole that places the phenomenon in its context—all moving dynamically in time (Ibid at 108-09). Vaill argues that the key to learning systems thinking—and we believe it can be learned—is “understanding oneself in interactions with the surrounding world” (110).

A prime example of systems thinking is presented by Steven Kelman, former

director of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy within the Office of Management and Budget. In his book Unleashing Change, Kelman recounts his first-hand experience leading procurement reform efforts during the first Clinton Administration (2005). Although Kelman saw a need for reform, he did not push a change agenda down through the ranks. Instead, he sought information, attempting to understand the procurement system as a whole and its many parts that made up the whole. He found that many of the frontline procurement officers were also calling for change in the system. Kelman refers to these individuals as the “change vanguard,” allowing their innovations and creativity to take the lead. Kelman utilized the power of his position to unleash the change effort

Page 13: Transformational stewardship

13

that was formulating at the lowest levels. In this instance, he served as a facilitator of the change effort; he was both a leader pushing for change while simultaneously helping those in the change vanguard to see their initiatives succeed. Building the attributes for transformational leadership

Transformational stewards are special leaders, combining personal traits, specific

mindsets, relations to others, and a change centric approach that enables them to succeed in meeting the changing needs of public managers. Table 2 summarizes the key attributes we envision for transformational stewards and it grounds this model in existing literature.

<<TABLE TWO HERE>>

An example of an organization that supports transformational stewardship is in

the U.S. Coast Guard, where leaders emphasize pushing leadership down throughout the organization, and encourage a flexible approach to collaboration and decision making. According to Donald Phillips and Adm. James M. Loy (USCG, ret.) in their book Character in Action (2003), leadership in the Coast Guard exhibits a number of ideals that are very consistent with transformational stewardship: a decentralized decision-making structure, a stress on individual initiative along with promoting team over self, cultivating caring relationships and strong alliances, effective communications, making change the norm, encouraging decisiveness, and empowering the young. Furthermore, although graduates of the Coast Guard Academy receive a heavy dose of the sciences, those subjects are complemented by several specific courses in leadership—more than typically exist in professional “management” degrees. A Change Appraisal Tool for Transformational Stewards Through our study of the mechanics and dynamics of change in individuals and organizations, we have come to believe that transformational stewardship encompasses a set of competencies that can be understood as tangible, articulable skills and abilities—especially well suited to of which is managing the risks of both public and private leaders. Awareness of the sources and nature of operational risk is rapidly becoming essential for change leaders. While the concept of “risk management” was initially only applicable to financial analysts and insurance providers, risk analysis can inject a dose of reality and anticipation into any change planning process. Transformational stewards have a critical strategic advantage. They are skilled in assessing of the factors that are preconditions to change success and in assessing risks involved in change efforts in understanding where managers or leaders can most appropriately shape the change process.

We offer a conceptual tool to assist public leaders to assess and mitigate change-

related risks. It is a function of three sets of factors: 1) The complexity of the change being undertaken, 2) The intensity of stakeholder perceptions of their stake (their potential gain or loss) in the change outcome, and 3) The change capability of the organization. Analyzing the interrelationship among these sets of factors can help leaders

Page 14: Transformational stewardship

14

comprehend the level of risk involved in any given change. They can then employ appropriate strategies to empower and involve internal and external stakeholders to reduce risks.

We provide a framework for assessing the level of risk presented by change

efforts in Figure1. The three sets of factors represent the nature of the change, the stakes real or imagined in the outcome of the change, and organizational capability.

The magnitude and scope of the change affects the risk involved (Path A), as do

perceptions of both internal and external stakeholders regarding how much they gain or lose through change processes (Path B). The intensity in the feelings held by either internal or external stakeholders about how they will be affected will affect every risk (Path C), but may be mitigated by the organizational capability (Path D). Leaders require organizational resources to reduce anxiety among stakeholders and to reduce the overall risk to the ongoing organizational performance (Path E).

<<FIGURE ONE HERE>>

Viewing change risk as a function of the three sets of contributing risk factors

simplifies the often ambiguous responsibility to lead change by reducing it to a more tangible charge – to act to influence change by identifying and addressing the sources of risk that stand to impede the change process. By anticipating and strategically managing relationships between complexity, stakes and organizational capabilities, a transformational steward can control the level of risk to the organization and its network. Managing change efforts without the knowledge of change risk factors are much more unpredictable and potentially counterproductive: pushing for too much change, too fast, could be risky for both the leader and the organization; pushing too slowly may also be dangerous—organizations may miss major opportunities or be viewed as recalcitrant and inefficient. In either case, leading change is “risky business,” and understanding just how risky it is can give transformational stewards much needed leverage. Transformational stewards have an advantage in leading change because their inner-personal traits, their operational mindset, and the way they relate to others help them facilitate change.

Coast Guard Admiral Patrick Stillman stated the challenge:

What we want to achieve is a realistic sense of simplification of change so

the leaders can do their jobs. Similar to cost schedules and performance and project management, the utility of risk management, from both an internal and external perspective, is to identify what leaders must be aware of. They must be aware of the change landscape and find methods of reducing the complexity of change. There is a need to maintain the altitude of focus in order to achieve the change outcomes. Also, we must ruthlessly measure outputs and inputs in order to achieve the desired outcomes and put accountability at the top of the priority list, or change will fail. That is the challenge and opportunity (2005).

Roles and Responsibilities of the Transformational Steward

Page 15: Transformational stewardship

15

Although public leaders continually deal with change, the responsibilities

associated with transformation and stewardship need further articulation. Without a clear understanding of transformation and stewardship roles, leaders and managers may lack the skills necessary to facilitate successful change processes and to deploy necessary resources to affect successful transformation. Being technically proficient and managerially inclined is necessary but insufficient for leading effective organizational transformation. In agencies whose very mission and future depends on significant change (which we would argue is the majority), the failure of leaders to recognize and understand their transformational responsibilities means that – at best – the performance of these roles will be ad hoc, making organizational success unpredictable. Compelling examples of this occur in agencies that experienced a major institutional failure, subsequently attempted to realign their capabilities, and then experienced a second major breakdown that exposed the insufficient system change.

Two very public examples come to mind from recent history: The Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In the case of FEMA, the agency’s response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 was viewed by many to have fallen well below expectations. Agency reorganization and realignment to ensure more effective responses to disasters was undertaken in the mid 1990’s. In 2005, following a decade of publicly touted improvement at FEMA, and its reorganization into the new Department of Homeland Security, Hurricane Katrina exposed the fact that the reforms had not sufficiently addressed basic management deficiencies. While Hurricane Katrina presented a disaster of epic proportions and many of the conditions were simply unanticipated, many of FEMA’s failures were no different than those mistakes identified in previous reviews. In the case of NASA, the safety-focused reforms from one catastrophic shuttle disaster were insufficient to address management conditions that led to a second catastrophic disaster.

In both FEMA and NASA, certain technical advancements and alignments were

necessary and may have been only indirectly related to subsequent breakdowns. But without a doubt, the management conditions that persisted through the episodes mentioned were critical factors in the public failures. Why? There were certainly skilled and committed managers and leaders in both organizations who were very capable public servants. We would argue though, that when the complexity of change, stakes, and required organizational capabilities are not understood, it is unlikely that leaders and managers will act with awareness of what to do and how to do it. Most public leaders and managers receive little or no progressive training and development related to the challenge of leading and managing major organizational change. When we consider the prevalence of organizational transformation, the consequences of leaders’ transformational ignorance make it clear that defining and understanding transformational stewards’ roles and responsibilities is an indispensable part of building organizational change capability.

Page 16: Transformational stewardship

16

We have organized the leaders’ roles and responsibilities in analyzing the major risk factors in a change or transformation (complexity, stakeholder perceptions, and organizational capability) in Table 3.

<<TABLE 3 HERE>>

Complexity While the complexity of a change may seem a given—uncontrollable and

unalterable by the leader—in actuality, the transformational steward has various responsibilities that can influence how the complexity of the change interacts with stakeholders and the organization itself. Perhaps the most important leadership role is the development of strategies, processes, policies and procedures, and structures to deal with the complexity. For example, a leader should undertake an analysis of the complexity of a proposed change or transformation prior to initiating the change itself.

The existence and utilization of formal strategies aimed at identifying and

measuring the scope and magnitude of a change will provide the leader with the information necessary to move forward or to alter change strategies to accommodate the degree of change complexity, and the type of change (for example voluntary vs. involuntary change). If the scope of change exceeds the current organizational ability to accommodate it, the leader might consider scaling down the scope or developing a pilot project to allow the organization to gain experience in dealing with the change.

A transformational steward will need to adjust organizational processes, policies,

and procedures (the three “Ps”) and the organization’s structures depending upon the complexity of the change. This might involve restructuring team roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships to accommodate the scope and magnitude of the change. Finally, a transformational steward must be aware of the impact on the organization’s culture of the change. Complex changes may stretch the fabric of the organization’s culture. Transformational steward’s must overcome or mitigate the difficulty of cultural change in relation to the change complexity. While each case is unique, Kelman’s approach of using a “change vanguard” to pilot procurement reform was an effective method of obtaining the support of key actors that helped initiate a cultural change (2005).

Stakeholder Perceptions

Awareness and identification of those who have a stake in the change event is a

critical task for the transformational steward. The leader must understand the possible influences stakeholders can exercise on a proposed change event, and the strength and likelihood that those influences will impact the change. Learning from past change efforts and how they were impacted by various stakeholders can provide important information to the change leader. To enhance the success of a change, the transformational steward may need to tailor change strategies in order to mitigate negative stakeholder perceptions and magnify positive influences of stakeholders.

Page 17: Transformational stewardship

17

Transformational stewards should develop a formal process for identifying those who have a stake in the change and develop a method to measure their perceived gains or losses due to the change—this is similar to a “stakeholder analysis,” or “social network analysis.” This identification should include the types and degree of importance of various stakes (e.g., resources.) that stakeholders perceive to be affected by the change. Finally, leaders should develop processes to help stakeholders understand and be prepared for likely gains or losses due to the change, correcting any misperceptions of stakeholders regarding the magnitude of the gain or loss.

Proactive action can reduce resistance to change. This may require the

modification of organizational structures to enhance communication with and help to involve external and internal stakeholders in the change process. Transformational stewards must be aware of the extent to which the organization's culture supports and encourages the identification and involvement of internal and external stakeholders in the change process. Leaders also must overcome or mitigate problems arising from a culture that doesn't support or encourage stakeholder involvement in the change process. Organizational Capability

In general, the more “change-centric” the organization, the more capable the

organization is to handle major change and transformation efforts. As with change complexity and stakeholders, the transformational steward’s role (in the short run) is one of diagnosing organizational strengths and weaknesses and developing strategies to overcome weaknesses. In the long-run, the transformational steward should seek to enhance the change capability of the organization.

An organization’s capacity to deal with change is limited. However, a

transformational leader can enhance that capacity through effective use of organizational resources—time, money, human capital, and infrastructure. This will only happen if the organization already has in place good structures, processes, policies, and procedures that support effective and efficient resource utilization. If not in place, a transformational steward should build that capacity in the long-run, including promoting an organizational culture to use resources in an innovative, flexible and efficient fashion. In the short run, the leader should focus on those areas most important to implement the change—addressing those areas that might inhibit the change effort. For example, if budgetary flexibility is crucial for a successful change, that may need to be the leader’s priority. Further, the transformational steward may want to alter stakeholder roles and responsibilities and reporting relationships in order to maximize the efficient use of resources. This might include developing internal and external partnerships in the change process.

Internal and External Communication and Collaboration

We believe that effective communication and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders are critical to successful organizational change. This would include their involvement in strategic planning of the change, instituting routine processes and

Page 18: Transformational stewardship

18

procedures that promote two-way communication between all stakeholders and senior management, and instituting processes to measure stakeholders' perceptions of existing communication and collaboration systems. The transformational steward must break down structural barriers to authentic communication and collaboration, and attempt to encourage perceptions among all stakeholders that that their ideas will be heard and taken seriously, and that their involvement is vital to the change effort. Processes and procedures might include advisory committees, membership on change teams, town hall type meetings, and even suggestion boxes (that are acknowledged and responded to). Implementation Good strategies and policies will not alone ensure success. Transformational stewards should learn from the past, recognizing the causes of implementation successes and failures. Some common implementation strategies include: creating a designated change team, rotating staff into and out of a change team, promoting processes that ensure transparent and accurate two-way communication between the change team and leaders external to the team, and ensuring that HR personnel have the authority to effectively manage the change teams. Transformation, however, cannot be accomplished by a change team alone. A key to implementation is the degree to which transformational stewards can develop effective collaborations with stakeholders within and without the organization—creating true partnerships for change.

Perhaps the most important role of a transformational steward is in helping create

an organizational culture that supports change. This includes creating an openness to new ideas, creating mechanisms for authentic two-way communication, quickly addressing false perceptions and rumors, and, in general, creating “learning organizations” (Senge 1990) that encourage systems thinking, self-reflection, and periodic reviews of what is working and what can be improved.

Common Ingredients

Transformational stewards require three common ingredients in order to be

successful. Effective leaders require sufficient information to understand and enact the change, clear and consistent intent that provides the purpose to change, and enables willingness and commitment, and the necessary influence to accomplish the change or transformation. If any of these critical ingredients are missing, then the transformational steward may not be able to fully achieve his or her responsibilities. The combination of these three ingredients can ensure transformational stewards are successful in leveraging organizational capability to facilitate effective change. Varying Roles of Transformational Stewards: Politician, Career Servant, Supervisor

The common elements and responsibilities for successful transformational

stewardship noted above establish a foundation for discussing the specific roles of the unique public sector leaders who guide transformation in government. These include three basic actors: 1) political appointees serving in an executive leadership role, 2)

Page 19: Transformational stewardship

19

career civil servants in executive leadership roles, and 3) first-level supervisors and mid-managers assuming responsibilities for change implementation. While there are always a diverse range of actors and influences in any transformation effort, we will focus on the distinct responsibilities of these actors. An important starting point for understanding these differences is the consideration of where each actor’s influence is greatest and most useful. Once this is defined, it is possible to more clearly frame the specific roles that each transformational steward plays. Political Appointees

For political appointees, their primary influence is with higher political leadership

and outwardly with external groups and organizations involved in the transformation process. Due to the external relationships and expectations inherent in the political leadership role, these transformational stewards are generally most valuable in their ability to understand and influence the external stakeholders in the executive branch, as well as outside interest groups and interested members of the legislature. The core transformational role of the political leader is that of the “Advocate”. In this capacity, political leaders are vital to establishing an integrated and compelling case for change that blends the policy and management priorities of the organization. They are also most likely to be knowledgeable about their agency’s operational capacity, limitations, strengths and obstacles. This connection hinges directly on the relationship between the political leader and the next level of career leadership in the agency. One of the frequent risks of politically-driven transformation is that there is no real appreciation of what the agency is doing well, and what the actual priorities are in order to improve performance. When this is coupled with rapid turnover of political leaders, the transformational landscape can quickly become an amalgam of fractured, disconnected initiatives and confused, paralyzed processes.

Career Executives

The second major type of transformational steward is the career executive, who is

essential for the success and legitimacy of any change effort. While the political transformational steward is chiefly an “Advocate,” the career leader must be both Advocate and “Architect”. In this capacity, the career leader is the linchpin, responsible for assessing and synthesizing the transformational capacity of the organization and translating it upward to enable clear prioritization and realistic transformational expectations. Similarly, the career transformational steward must effectively support and engage political leaders to develop the change vision and priorities, and then translate that downward and laterally to ensure alignment of action at each level. It is in this middle ground that the career leader must craft the transformation plan, including scope, approach, objectives and measures.

For career leaders who are peripherally involved and who are not charged with

specifically acting as the transformational architect, their career role is that of “owning” the transformational agenda as a process or functional sponsor. A key to transformational stewardship is the pushing down of responsibility for the transformation to a wide

Page 20: Transformational stewardship

20

spectrum of career managers. For example, in the area of e-government transformations, career executives steward the transformation process as primary “owners” of business processes or organizational functions, “architecting” the shape and nature of the transformation. The career leader must fulfill the transformational responsibility to anticipate and address change impacts, while simultaneously working to articulate and resolve issues and remove transformational obstacles. This role places the career leader in the dual capacity of both architect and broker, as he/she stewards to the various interests represented by teams, units, functions and higher political leadership. During implementation, the career leader’s focus turns toward establishing integrated, sustained capabilities resulting from the transformation effort. Because the career leader’s tenure with the organization is the stabilizing influence across rotating political leadership, his/her stewardship role is critical and is the safeguard of the organizations longer term transformational interests. But the stewardship role should not take a backseat to the need for career executives to be visibly and strongly in support of transformation; otherwise, the change effort is likely to be problematic.

Mid-level Manager/Supervisor

The third and final transformational steward that we have identified is that of the

first-level supervisor and mid-level manager. There are approximately 125,000 first-level supervisors in the federal government alone (and perhaps another half million at the state and local level), and they are the most critical link that connects the larger idea of transformation within an organization to the existing structures and processes of the organization (NAPA, 2003). These transformational stewards are likely to have predominantly technical skills—unless they have been involved in a leadership development program that specifically addresses change and transformation. Successful first-level supervisors develop and apply transformational awareness and skills, rather than merely relying exclusively on technical knowledge to achieve transformation objectives.

Unlike more senior transformational stewards, first-level supervisors play a much

more tactical role in the transformational process. It must be noted, though, that this tactical responsibility requires that supervisors understand and articulate the more strategic aspects of transformation. These leaders and managers are the connection between the action of the transformation in the people and processes of the organization, and the overarching plan and vision that is stewarded primarily by career leaders. In this way, first-level supervisors’ and managers’ primary influence is interpersonal—all transformation success or failure begins and ends with the people in the organization.

The first-level supervisor’s role involves bilateral communication – feeding

information forward to employees in order to clarify and strengthen the nature and purpose of the change, while inquiring, listening, and feeding information back to higher career leaders about the organization’s capacity for change at the level where the work is done. Interpersonal interaction is clearly critical to strengthening this link.

Page 21: Transformational stewardship

21

When working with teams, supervisory transformational stewards are the primary touch-point with the source of resistance and angst related to the change effort. Here, the dynamic balance of “transformation” and “stewardship” is extremely important, as it is important for the transformation to move forward in implementation, but it is equally important that it be a collective, owned process. For this to occur, supervisors act as the “vent” for releasing the pressure of resistance, capturing valuable insights about what works and what doesn’t, and which employee needs are most important, and then transferring that energy into useful feedback and dialogue about the change process. The balance in this activity is to allow for open dialogue, yet keep it constructive. To the degree that the supervisory steward can accomplish this with awareness and deliberateness, the transformation process can be led and managed effectively. Still, it should be noted that this balance involves an acute awareness of when the risks of displaced anger and/or unproductive cynicism are occurring. As one example, junior military leaders are often taught that an important tool for accomplishing this “keep it constructive and deal with it now” kind of climate is for the leader to explicitly communicate to team members that they take ultimate responsibility for acting to resolve the issues or enforce the final decisions. Even if this may not always be completely possible in practice, the ethic of immediacy and responsibility permits transformational stewards at this level to prevent the “infection” of displaced criticism and helplessness from taking hold and growing within the team.

In sum, effective transformation requires the collective, complementary action of

transformational stewards at all levels within the organization. By outlining the major transformational stewardship responsibilities for the political, career, and supervisory actors, we have presented a baseline for considering necessary characteristics and practices for successful change. Defining these aspects is a critical first step to developing more change-capable organizations. Conclusion: Public Leadership as Transformational Stewardship

21st Century organizations, private, public and non-profits, according to Block, face three principal challenges (1993): The challenge of doing more with less, controlling • costs and finding innovative ways to solve service demands; • The challenge of quality—providing higher levels of service to the consumer, client,

and/or citizen; and • The challenge of adaptability—the need to respond to changing demands and outside

forces. As the 21st Century gets underway, we would add the following to Block’s list: • The challenge of globalization—the need to examine the organization in a global

context and analyze possible opportunities and threats. • The challenge of horizontal relationships—while democratic accountability continues

to demand vertical reporting and performance monitoring, increasingly, public agencies are involved in a variety of horizontal relationships that will change the manner the agency does business: agency to agency; federal agency to state agency (or local); agency to nonprofit organization; agency to for profit organization.

Page 22: Transformational stewardship

22

• The challenge to understand the nature of change itself. There is a paucity of data and analysis on public sector change, which creates a vacuum for public managers and a potential research venue for public administration scholars. What leadership approach has the most potential to deal with these challenges? For

the public sector, we believe the answer is transformational stewardship. Leaders at all levels in organizations can contribute to facilitating small scale and large scale, voluntary and involuntary, change. Transformational stewardship provides a balance of competing interests, the need to change and the need to be constant to core public values.

Transformational stewardship is not just the responsibility of the person at the “top”

of the organization chart, or the person with formal authority. The “leader” cannot do it herself; but the leader can engage others in a dialogue about how they are contributing to the organization; how they are contributing to the organization; and how they are helping the organization deal with the modern challenges they face. In this fashion, public leaders can encourage transformational leadership throughout the organization, facilitating change and minimizing the risks of change.

Page 23: Transformational stewardship

23

Table 1

Key Attributes of Transformational Steward in the Public Sector

Inner-personal Beliefs or Traits

• Ethical • Empathetic • Visionary/Foresight • Reflective/Learning Oriented

Operational Mindset

• Trustee/Caretaker • Mission Driven • Accountable • Attention to Detail

Interpersonal/Interactions with Others

• Trust Builder • Empowering • Power Sharing • Coalition Builder

Change-Centric Approach

• Creative/Innovative • Comfortable with Ambiguity • Integrative/Systems Thinker

Page 24: Transformational stewardship

24

Table 2

Attributes of Transformational Stewardship

Attribute: Description: Selective Supporting Authors:

Inner-Personal Traits/Beliefs

Ethical Maintains high standards of integrity for themselves and their organization, elevating organization to a “higher plane.”

Burns 1978; Ciulla 2004; Fairholm 2000; Johnson 2001; Thompson 2000.

Reflective/Learning Oriented

Able to step back from the situation and consider alternative meanings and options; learns from success and failures; self-aware and tolerant.

Senge 1990; Thompson 2000; Greenleaf 1977; Wheatley 2005.

Empathy Demonstrates concern for others, both within and without the organization, over self-interest; takes others views and concerns into account; self-deprecating.

Autry 1992; Coles 2000; Goleman 1998; Thompson 2000.

Visionary/Foresight Able to look beyond the current situation and see big picture for the mission and the organization; constantly scanning the environment; strategically aware; creating vision for the future.

Bass and Avolio 1994; Bennis and Nanus 1995; Burns 1978; Fairholm 1998; Follett in Graham 2003.

Operational Mindset

Trustee/Caretaker

Holds position and organizational resources in trust for others—the public, in general, and future members of the organization.

Block 1993; Denhardts 2003; Diver 1982; Kass 1990; Kee 2003;

Mission Driven Fiercely and courageously pursue the mission of their organization; creating “common purpose.”

Block 1993: Kee and Black 1989; Follett in Graham 2003; Matheson and Kee 1986;

Accountable Measures results in multiple ways, in a transparent fashion, and shares with those that contribute or affect the organization’s success. Transformational stewards take responsibility (legal, professional, and personal) for the results.

Behn 2001; Block 1993; Demming 1986; Harmon 1990, 1998; Moe 2001; Romzek and Dubnick 1987. Vaill 1989a;

Attention to Detail Details often affect the manner in which Addington and

Page 25: Transformational stewardship

25

change is seen and felt by those within and without the organization; a Transformational Stewardship is able to sort out those that impact people from the “red tape” that slows change.

Graves. 2002; Block 1993; Moe 1994; Terry 1995

Interpersonal Abilities/Interac-tions with Others

Trust Builder Builds program success through developing community and maintaining trust—with the members of their agencies, their constituents, and their principals (Congress and political leadership).

Fairholm 1997, 2000; Greenleaf 1977; Mitchell and Scott 1987; Phillip and Loy 2000

Empowering Within the organization and for citizens that are served by the organization; TS is at the center of the motivation of both leaders and followers—everyone in the organization can do it.

Denhardts 2003; Follett in Graham 2003;

Power Sharing Relies less on positional authority and more on persuasion, moral leadership, and group power to achieve goals.

Autry and Mitchell 1998; Follett in Graham 2003; Hill 1994; Kee 2003;

Coalition Builder Recognizes the importance of building coalitions with other organizations, within government, in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors.

Kelman 2005; Phillips and Loy 2003.

Change-Centric Approach

Creative/Innovative Focus is on the change needs for the organization, rather than who leads the change; encourages others to find solutions to organizational problems; open to new ideas, intuition, inspiration; willing to take risks.

Bennis 2000; Dunphy 2005; Kee and Whitney 2006; Thompson 2000; Vaill 1996.

Comfortable with Ambiguity

Conflicting organizational objectives and priorities often require a careful balancing act: continuity and change; efficiency and equity, etc. Transformational Stewards recognize that their “solution” is only one of many plausible alternatives.

Depree 1989; Kee and Black 1989; Thompson 2000; Vaill 1989.

Integrative/Systems Thinking

Understanding forces for change and interrelationships; ability to find integrative, rather than polarizing, solutions

Atwood et. al 2003; Follett in Graham 2003; Senge 1990; Thompson 2000; Vaill 1996.

Page 26: Transformational stewardship

26

Table 3: Leadership Roles and Responsibilities

Roles and Responsibilities: Transformational

Steward

Strategy Process Structure Culture

Change Complexity (Magnitude & Scope of Change)

Formal strategies to identify, measure, and adjust to the scope and magnitude of a change.

Processes, policies, and procedures are developed and adjusted to address the complexity of the change.

Organizational and team roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships are restructured to accommodate the scope and magnitude of the change.

Awareness of how change complexity will impact organizational culture and efforts to mitigate adverse impacts.

Stakeholder Relations (Perceptions of gain or loss due to change)

Formal strategies to identify, measure, and adjust to perceptions of gain or loss of affected stakeholders.

Processes, policies and procedures to communicate with stakeholders, to receive formal feedback, and to mitigate perceptions of loss.

Organizational structures are modified to enhance communication with and help to involve external and internal stakeholders in the change process.

Awareness of the extent to which the organization's culture supports and encourages the identification and involvement of internal and external stakeholders in the change process. Efforts to strengthen cultural support and overcome cultural resistance.

Capacity

Strategic use of resources--time, money, human capital, and infrastructure--in an efficient and effective manner during the change process.

Processes, policies and procedures to ensure the effective and efficient use of resources.

Organizational structures that enhance the efficient use of resources during a change.

Promotion of a culture that seeks to use resources in an innovative, flexible, and efficient fashion.

Internal & External Communication & Collaboration

Genuine involvement of internal and external stakeholders in the strategic planning of any major change.

Processes, policies and procedures to promote communication and collaboration between all stakeholders and senior management.

Organizational structures that facilitate communication and collaboration between stakeholders and senior management.

Creating an environment under which stakeholders feel that their ideas will be heard and taken seriously during the change effort.

Org

aniz

atio

nal C

apab

ilitie

s

Implementation Development and use of a change implementation strategy.

Processes, policies and procedures to facilitate change and encourage innovation, such as transparency, rotational assignments, and feedback loops.

Organizational structures--such as a designated change team--that support and facilitate the implementation of the change.

Creating an implementation environment open to new ideas, that addresses false perceptions, and encourages authentic communication between the change team and management.

Page 27: Transformational stewardship

27

Figure 1 Risk Assessment Framework

Change Complexity (magnitude and scope)

Stakes (internal and external

stakeholders’ perceptions)

Organizational Capability (resources, internal and

external communication and collaboration)

Change Risk

A

E

C

D

B

Page 28: Transformational stewardship

28

References

Addington, Thomas and Stephen Graves. 2002. The Forgotten Role. Life@Work. 1(6):25-33. Attwood, M., Pedler, M., Pritchard, S., and Wilkinson, D. (2003), Leading Change: A Guide to Whole Systems Working, Oxon: Policy Press. Autry, James. 1992. Love and Profit: The Art of Caring Leadership. New York City: Avon Books. Autry, James and Stephen Mitchell. 1998. Real Power: Business Lessons from the Tao Te Ching. New York: Riverhead Books. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Bennis, Warren G. 2000. “Leadership of Change”, in Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds.), Breaking the Code of Change. HBS Press: Boston, pp. 113-121. Bennis, Warren G. and Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge, Harper & Row, New York. Behn, Robert. 1998. What Right do Public Managers have to Lead? Public Administration Review. 58 (3): 209-224. ___________ 2001. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington DC: Brookings. Black, J. S. and Gregersen, H. B. 2002. Leading Strategic Change: Breaking Through the Brain Barrier, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. 1985. The Managerial Grid III, Gulf, Houston, TX. Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership, Harper & Row, New York. Block, Peter. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Coles, Robert. 2000. Lives of Moral Leadership. New York: Random House. Demming, W. Edward. 1986. Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Denhardt, Janet V. and Robert B. Denhardt. 2003. The New Public Service. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp.

Page 29: Transformational stewardship

29

Depree, Max.1989. Leadership Is an Art. New York City: Doubleday. Diver, Colin. 1982. Engineers and Entrepreneurs: The Dilemma of Public Management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1(3): 402-406 Dunphy, D. 2000. “Embracing Paradox; Top-down versus Participative Management of Organizational Change; A Commentary on Conger and Bennis”, in Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds.), Breaking the Code of Change, HBS Press, Boston, pp. 123-135. Fairhom, Gilbert. 2000. Perspectives on Leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. ___________ 1997. Capturing the Heart of Leadership: Spirituality and Community in the New American Workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger. Finer, Herman. 1940. “Administrative Responsibility to Democratic Government.” Public Administration Review. 1: Spring, 335-350. Reprinted in Francis E. Rourke. 1965. Bureaucratic Power in National Politics. Boston: Little Brown and Company. Fox, E.M. and L.F. Urwick, eds. 1973. Dynamic Administration—The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Pitman. Friedrich, Carl J. 1940. Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility. Public Policy. 1: 1-20. Reprinted in Francis E. Rourke.1965. Bureaucratic Power in National Politics. Boston: Little Brown and Company Goleman, Daniel. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam, New York. Goleman, D. McKee A. and Boyatkzis R.E., (2002) Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, HBS Press, Boston. Graham, Pauline. 2003. Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management. Washington DC: Beard. Greenleaf, Robert K. 1977. Servant Leadership: A Journal into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York City: Paulist Press. Harmon, Michael M. 1990. The Responsible Actor as ‘Tortured Soul’: The Case of Horatio Hornblower. In Henry D. Kass and Bayard L. Catron, ed. Images and Identities in Public Administration. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. __________ 1995. Responsibility s Paradox: A Critique of Rational Discourse on Government. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. 1993. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Page 30: Transformational stewardship

30

Hill, Linda A. 1994. Exercising Influence. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business School Note 9-494-080. Johnson, Craig. 2001. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kass, Henry D. 1990. Stewardship as a Fundamental Image of Public Administration. In Henry D. Kass and Bayard L. Catron, eds. Images and Identities in Public Administration. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Kee, Jed and Roger Black. 1985. Is Excellence Possible in the Public Sector? Public Productivity Review Spring. Kee, James Edwin. 2003. “Leadership as Stewardship,” unpublished manuscript, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Kee, James Edwin and Whitney Setzer. 2006. Change-Centric Leadership. Working paper. Washington DC: Center for Innovation in the Public Service, George Washington University. Kelman, Steven. 2005. Unleashing Change: A Study of Organizational Renewal in Government, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. Kettl, Donald. 1997. The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 16 (3): 446-462. Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading Change, HBS Press, Boston. Light, Paul C. 1997. The Tides of Reform. Making Government Work 1945-1995. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lynn, Laurence E 2001. The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review. 61 (2): 144-160. Matheson, Scott M. with James Edwin Kee. 1986. Out of Balance, Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books. Moe, Ronald. 1994. The ‘Reinventing Government’ Exercise: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the Consequences. Public Administration Review. 54 (2): 446-462. __________ 2001. The emerging federal Quasi government: Issues of Management and Accountability. Public Administration Review. 61 (3): 290-312. Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison.

Page 31: Transformational stewardship

31

Peters, B. Guy 1996. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Phillips, J. T. and Loy, J. M. 2003. Leadership in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on Leadership, The Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD. Romzek, Barbara S. and Melvin J. Dubnick, 1987. Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review. 47 (3): 227-38. Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Dooubleday. Spears, Lawrence C., ed. 1998 Insights on Leadership. New York: John Wiley. _____________. 2002. Focus on Leadership. New York: John Wiley. Stillman, Patrick, Admiral. 2005. Remarks December 9. Expert Panel on Transformation and Change, Center for Innovation in the Public Sector, George Washington University. Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton. Terry, Larry D. 1995. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: The Administrator as Conservator. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. __________ 1998. Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the New Public Management Movement. Public Administration Review. 58 (3): 194-200. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition. 1968. New York: Random House. Thompson, C. Michael. 2000. The Congruent Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vail, Peter. 1989. Managing as a Performing Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. __________ 1989a.. Spirituality in the Age of the Leveraged Buyout. Keynote address to a conference on Spirituality in Life and Work, Georgetown University, Washington DC, July 21. ___________ 1996. Learning as a Way of Being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wheatley, Margaret J. 1984. Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organizations from an Orderly Process. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama Press ___________. 2005. Finding our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Times. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Page 32: Transformational stewardship

32

Whitehead, Joel. 2005. Remarks at George Washington University, October 22, to PAD 203 Class. Washington DC.