What Right Do Public Managers Have to Lead?

Abstract

Leadership is not just a right of public managers.(1) It is an obligation. The American system of governance is certainly not perfect, and, by exercising leadership, public managers can help correct some of the imperfections. Leadership from public managers is necessary because without leadership public organizations will never mobilize themselves to accomplish their mandated purposes, let alone figure out how best to do that. Leadership from public managers is necessary because the elected chief executive can provide that leadership for only a few of the many agencies and programs for which he or she is responsible. Leadership from public managers is necessary because the legislative branch of government gives public agencies missions that are vague and conflicting and often fails to provide enough resources to pursue seriously all of these missions. Leadership from public managers is necessary because a narrow interest can easily capture a public agency and redirect government programs for its own gain. Leadership from public managers is necessary because the citizenry often lacks the knowledge and information (or will) necessary to perform its responsibilities. Finally, leadership from public managers is necessary because the judiciary, which is charged with overseeing the constitutionality and legality of the activities of public agencies and public managers, often focuses on narrow issues of process rather than the broader concerns of achieving public purposes. Neither the legislative, the judicial, nor the executive branches of government function perfectly. Nor will they ever do so. That is why the founders created a constitutional system with a network of checks and balances. Public managers can contribute to the working of that system by compensating for some of the failures of the legislature, the judiciary, and their elected chief executive. By leading, public managers can help to improve American governance. Failures of Governance Markets do not work perfectly. An economic system with theoretical markets (each possessing all the characteristics of a perfect market) functions wonderfully and produces all sorts of wonderful benefits. But actual markets, lacking one or several of these characteristics, function less well and generate fewer benefits for society. Only under unusual circumstances do real markets function exactly as predicted for a theoretical market or produce all the benefits as estimated for a theoretical market. Moreover, there are many kinds of market failures. If all those participating in a market lack perfect knowledge of, for example, the relative quality of competing products, some sellers will be able to take advantage of buyers. If capital or labor cannot move freely to its most productive uses, producers will be unable to generate all their potential benefits. If one producer can monopolize the production or distribution of a product, it will be able to charge above-market prices denying some consumers the opportunity to purchase the product and shifting benefits from those consumers who do buy it to the producer. The list of potential market failures is long. In response, we, as a society, devise and experiment with a variety of mechanisms to correct such market failures and thus to capture more (if not all) of the benefits that can be obtained from a perfect market economy. Similarly, governance systems do not work perfectly. Just as it is possible to describe a perfect market system, so it might be possible to conceive of a perfect governance system. When such a system is put into practice, however, the realities of human behavior and the limitations of human judgment will also create failures. For any system of governance to work as the Greeks, the founders, and political theorists suggest and to produce all of its predicted benefits, that system must possess a number of ideal characteristics: The citizenry needs to be informed about the important issues and actively engaged in the policy debate; the legislature needs to give clear instructions to the executive branch; the elected chief executive needs to be effectual in the oversight of all the agencies and programs created by the legislature. …