Leadership in Public Administration: Three Perspectives Ryan Wenzel University of Alaska Southeast  Leadership in Public Administration: Three Perspectives In any nonprofit, leadership can make the difference between success and failure. Good leaders guide their organizations to growth and expansion, while leaderless nonprofits flounder and lose ground, to eventually diminish and lose resources. The leaders make all the difference. "Without these individuals directing and leading the organization in the proper direction, it is unlikely that non-profits will grow and expand" (English, 2015, p. 1). However, the nature of leadership, especially in the nonprofit world, has evolved substantially, especially over the past few decades. As the needs of the populace, the business environment, and the nature of stakeholders and funders changed, leadership in public administration has evolved to meet these changing needs. It was not until recently, however, that there was much formal research into the changing perspectives of public administration. “For a long time, non-profit leadership and management were not considered a priority because the organizations were doing good work” (English, 2015, p. 1). This research has led to three primary perspectives on public administration in general, and leadership in public administration in particular: Old Public Administration (OPA), New Public Management (NPM), and New Public Service (NPS). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of nonprofit leadership from all these perspectives, and to provide a research-based, industry-benchmarked best practice leadership perspective for nonprofits in the present business environment. Leadership in Old Public Administration (OPA) The phrase “old public administration” embraces a tradition stretching back thousands of years, to the Code of Hammurabi, one of the oldest translated documents in the world, which spelled out the duties of a ruler to his subjects and vice-versa (Yale Law School Avalon Project, 2008). This tradition has continued down through thousands of years of civilization, ever-evolving, ever-changing, being molded to suit the needs of the time. The most recent iteration of OPA (a phrase that simply designates past perspectives of public administration) was largely articulated by Max Weber, who described it as, “…a system of control in which policy is set at the top and carried out through a series of offices, with each manager and worker reporting to one superior and held to account by that person” (Pfiffner, 2004, p. 443). This model was further developed by President Woodrow Wilson, who further separated public administration and politics, and codified, to some extent, by Frederick Taylor, whose theories largely dominated the field in the early 1900s, leading to the rapid development and spread of OPA (Pfiffner, 2004). OPA focuses upon hierarchy, rules, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, principles which, to a large extent, guide the development of leadership from the standard of OPA. Leadership from the perspective of OPA is largely autocratic, operates within a fairly rigid hierarchy, rests at the top of a vertical organization, and communicates through narrow, controlled channels of communication, and is largely comparable to for-profit corporations (Zia & Khan, 2015). A leader in OPA approaches leadership from a rational standpoint, with an impersonal view of individuals, with his or her employees largely acting as cogs in a machine, and with clients and services largely considered products (Denhardt & Catlaw, 2014). A good metaphor for this type of leadership is a pyramid, with the leader at the tip, issuing instructions through subordinates (whose importance lies in their office, rather than in themselves), who break down these instructions and pass them further down, until the front-line employees use those instructions to deal with clients and perform actionables created by the instructions. In this model, the further down the pyramid you are, the less importance you hold, and communication flows back up the pyramid through multiple layers before reaching the leader at the tip. Decision- and policy-making are reserved for the leader or leaders, with subordinates having little input and clients having even less. The goal of a leader in OPA is to achieve the most organizational goals for the least amount of money, which, while fiscally sound, sometimes ignores the human element of the equation. Leadership in New Public Administration (NPA) The NPA perspective has arisen as a direct result of what many see as some of the shortcomings of the OPA perspective. The NPA perspective, was, to a large extent, developed during the late 1960s and the 1970s (Getha-Taylor, 2009), a turbulent time in the United States and the world, and the changing philosophies and worldviews of the time left their indelible mark upon NPA, making it humanistic, client-centered, based upon ideas of social equity and social equality, and has, at its heart, a focus firstly upon public interest and the community, and secondly upon efficiency and maximization of resources (Denhardt, Denhardt, & Blanc, 2014). The changes in the philosophical foundation of public administration necessitated a change in organizational structure and internal orientation. Under NPA, organizational structure is more horizontal, more adaptive to change in both the operating environment and to client needs, and with a far more humanistic approach, NPA approaches the ideas of leadership and the importance of front-line employees from an entirely different perspective. In comparison to the autocratic style of leadership largely practiced under OPA, leadership from the NPA perspective is about supporting and serving, within the organization, with clients, and within the community (Zia & Khan, 2015). In terms of clients, the leader’s job is to not only provide the best services possible with the available resources, but also to listen to the clients, to understand them, and to help them beyond their possible immediate needs. The leader of a public organization in NPA should also be an advocate for these clients, attempting to make positive change and build relationships, rather than simply attempting to deliver exactly equal services at the minimum expenditure of resources. As Denhardt et al. state, “Public servants should not simply respond to the demands of 'customers' but instead should focus on building relationships of trust and collaboration with and among citizens” (2014, p. 400). This helps define, to some extent, the leader’s responsibility to the community as well; however, a leader’s responsibility to the community goes further. “The primary role of the public servant is to help citizens articulate their shared interests, rather than to attempt to control or steer society in new directions...The public interest is better advanced by public servants and citizens committed to making meaningful contributions to society than by entrepreneurial managers acting as if public money were their own” (Denhardt et al., 2014, p. 400). The area of leadership under the NPA perspective that has likely changed the most is internally, where the focus of leadership has shifted drastically, the goals and ideals of the organization and society have evolved, and as a result, the changing business environment has forced a change in organization structure as well. Old public administration used a vertical model, much like other businesses. Information and instructions flowed up and down through levels of employees, bosses were on top, lowest employees were at the bottom of the ladder, and there was a strict hierarchy in place. New public administration uses a horizontal model, in which information and instructions flow rapidly across the same level, and the upper levels are supportive of the lower level, rather than the opposite. Administration exists to support front-line staff, who, in turn, achieve actionables in support of organizational goals. In addition, NPA, with its humanistic-centered approach, strongly supports the idea of servant leadership. The basis of servant-leadership is the idea that a leader exists to support the front-line employees in their turning of organizational goals into actionables. The evidence strongly supports this type of leadership, as, “…serving culture was positively related both to…performance and employee job performance, creativity, and customer service behaviors, and negatively related to turnover intentions, both directly and through employee identification” (Liden, Wayne, Chenwei, & Meuser, 2014, p. 1). This backs up the assertion that under the NPA perspective, a leader must be a servant to the community, the clients, and the staff. Leadership in New Public Management (NPM) The basis of new public management and the NPM perspective is relatively simple, especially in comparison to the evolution and growth of NPA. “The focus of the NPM movement was to mirror what were seen as critical aspects of private sector modes of organizing and managing, assuming the superiority of the private sector and private sector management techniques to those of the public sector and public administration. Government is urged to adopt both the ‘techniques’ of business administration and business ‘values’, which include the values of competition, a preference for market mechanisms as a means of social choice, and respect for the entrepreneurial spirit” (Zia & Khan, 2015, p. 433). By attempting to benchmark best practices in private industry, NPM attempts to harness the strength and growth of the private sector to most impact the public sector. Because of this particular focus, the NPM perspective is especially focused upon the most efficient methods, with little leavening in the way of humanism or a client-centered approach. Leadership in the NPM perspective is much like leadership in the private sector; in contrast to OPA, under NPM, there are incentives for achieving goals on time and under budget. The focus is upon delivery of services and actionables, and upon achieving specific goals and meeting targets, rather than upon building relationships, serving the community, or serving clients, in contrast to NPA. While the use of incentives and rewards is more staff-supportive than the simple regulation that existed under OPA, NPM still lacks the humanistic, people-centered approach of NPA. Leaders exist to motivate followers to achieve goals, rather than to serve the needs of their staff. With incentives to those that best meet targets, the focus is upon goals rather than clients, and those that do choose a different focus are not incentivized, and so suffer in comparison to their goal-oriented comrades. This competition keeps the organization lean and communication swift, and does focus upon being a good steward of societal funds and resources, but the pursuit of efficiency may sometimes require a sacrifice in terms of humanity, which is counter to the purpose of a public service organization in the present operating environment. For example, “…NPM has been criticized as eroding the traditionally respected values and ethics of civil servants, such as fairness, equality, probity, and impartiality, on which public administration has been based” (Zia & Khan, 2015, p. 436). However, some of the principles of leadership under NPM do support societal goals in terms of public service organizations, such as efficiency, stewardship, and financial probity. The New Paradigm of Leadership in Public Administration If we are looking for one single, one-size-fits-all model of leadership for all public service administrations, it is best to remember the words of one of America’s great bards; “Is there, is there balm in Gilead?...tell me, tell me, I implore! Quoth the Raven ‘Nevermore’” (Poe, 1912, p. 84). There is no balm in Gilead, there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution, and no single model will fit every organization, every type of organization, and, to some extent, no simple model will fit any single organization. The foundation for leadership in public administration should be based in OPA. The foundations of OPA stretch back, successfully, since the beginning of recorded history. A leader in a public service organization should be aware and be proud of this heritage, and should learn the lessons that the centuries of experience and the occasional giant in the field have taught us. From Hammurabi through Woodrow Wilson, the leaders in the field of public administration have built a strong foundation upon which future leaders can stand. However, while OPA is as firm a foundation as bedrock, it is not a suitable model in the present environment, at least by itself. Modern best-practice research indicates the NPA, in many ways, is the best paradigm for leaders in the field of public administration. NPA is in line with modern societal goals and ideals, although there is no guarantee this will be true in the future. However, as NPA has adaptation and change built in at an integral level, it is likely to remain suitable, though ever-changing, for some time to come. Even with these advantages, however, there are aspects of NPM that should be interwoven with NPA in the perspective of a leader in public administration. A leader should be a good steward, as he or she will be entrusted with public funds and resources. The insistence upon efficiency in NPM should be a thread, though possibly not a primary motivator. In addition, NPM does include citizen participation and feedback, “…since the NPM principle of ‘customer responsiveness’ requires that the degree of user satisfaction with public services be measured” (Zia & Khan, 2015, p. 437). It cannot be ignored however, that the public and private sectors differ, have differing goals and purposes, and should, therefore, operate differently. As a result, while NPM should be a part of a leader’s perspective, it should not dominate. In the end, no single perspective will fit every time. Each leader and each organization will require a different mixture of all three perspectives, and this mixture will change over time to adapt to the needs of the organization, the clients, the community, and the environment in which they operate. This organic, ever-evolving model requires a leader who understands the foundations of public administration, is prepared to serve, and knows that service also means good stewardship. Public administration is changing, and leaders need to be adaptable and ready to change as well, or they, and possibly their organizations, may go the way of the dinosaurs. The only real constant is change, and leaders who cannot adapt the necessary portions of all three perspectives to meet the needs of his or her organization will soon fall by the wayside, to rise as leaders…Nevermore. References Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Blanc, T. A. (2014). Public Administration: An Action Orientation (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Denhardt, R., & Catlaw, T. (2014). Theories of Public Organization (7th ed.). Retrieved from http://books.google.com English, M. (2015, Jan 1). Nonprofit Leadership & Management. Nonprofit Leadership & Management -- Research Starters Business. , 1-1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. Getha-Taylor, H. (2009, June). Where’s (Dwight) Waldo? Public Performance and Management Review, 4(32), 574-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PRM1530-9576320406 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Chenwei, L., & Meuser, J. D. (2014, Oct). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. Pfiffner, J. P. (2004). Institutionenbildung in Regierung und Verwaltung: Festschrift fur Klaus Konig. A. Benz, H. Siedentopf, & K. P. Sommermann (Eds.). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humbolt. Poe, E. A. (1912). Yale Book of American Verse. T. R. Lounsbury (Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Yale Law School Avalon Project. (2008). http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ Zia, Y. A., & Khan, M. Z. (2015, 12/31). A Comparative Review of Traditional and New Public Administration and Critique of New Public Management. Dialogue, 9(4), 428-442. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. Running head: LEADERSHIP 1 LEADERSHIP 9 LEADERSHIP 2