Leadership Challenge 2: Synchronization
Synchronize government jurisdictions and other structures of authority with problems to be solved, valuing networks, collaborative
relationships, and skills.
Other Information:
A widening gap signifies the inability, reluctance, or lack of authority of government institutions to effectively deal with
public problems (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011; U.S. House of Representatives 2011). At the local level, the scope of the problems
faced often extends beyond the jurisdiction's authority (Frederickson 2007; Rosenau 2003). Classic cases involve policy issues
such as economic development, transportation, the environment, and land use in metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, the desire for
local identity, one of our dominant trends, and community branding may actually work against the integrated responses needed
to solve problems that cross jurisdictions (Tschirhart, Christensen, and Perry 2005)... Summarizing the second challenge,
the increasing emphasis on third-party governance raises issues of accountability to public values, government institutions,
and processes and increases the challenge of coordinating and managing multiple independent initiatives in the absence of
formal community-wide coordinating mechanisms. This brings us to the third leadership challenge.
Stakeholder(s):
- Authority Structures
- Networks
- Regional Public Authorities: A classic response to challenges in which formal jurisdictional authority and problem dimensions are incongruent is the creation
of regional public authorities (Dodge 2010). In these cases, the authority is legitimized in the law. Yet even here, the issue
may be much more complex and go well beyond organizations that have legal authority.
- Homeless People: For example, dealing with issues of homelessness locally may involve not only government action that is grounded in the law
but also the work of churches, nonprofits, and foundations -- each of which has its own claim to legitimacy. Rosenau (2003)
employs the concept of "structure of authority" to explain that any party may claim legitimacy, with some being able to elicit
more compliant responses and engagement than others. He observes that beyond the law, authority may reside in expertise, tradition,
and moral claims. The structure of authority concept is helpful in crafting the second challenge. Because no single entity,
regardless of its source of legitimacy, can solve perplexing problems that extend beyond its boundary of legitimacy, the leadership
challenge is how to assemble and coordinate various structures of authority into effective networks of responsibility and
sources of service delivery (Feldman 2010; Frederickson 2007).
- Churches
- Third Parties: Meanwhile, the space between what is politically acceptable and administratively sustainable becomes a source of significant
power. That is, as the gap widens, both established and emergent third parties can seize an opportunity to exercise influence
previously reserved for those operating only within formal governing structures and processes.
- National Center for Charitable Statistics: Data from the Urban Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics show that from 1999 to 2009, the number of nonprofit
organizations grew from 1,202,573 to 1,581,111, a 31.5 percent increase (Urban Institute n.d.).
- Urban Institute
- Foundations: The proliferation of third parties such as foundations, nonprofits, private sector conveyors of services, and ad hoc advocacy
groups has become commonplace, as have terms such as "governance," "the hollow state," "the extended state," "shared services,"
and "cross-sector partnerships" (Dubnick and Frederickson 2011; Kettl 2000; Mathur and Skelcher 2007; Milward and Provan 2000;
Soni 2011).
- Nonprofits
- Private Sector Service Conveyors
- Ad Hoc Advocacy Groups
- Networks of Groups: Under these circumstances, bridging the gap requires an ability to manage networks of groups and actors. Thus, a corollary
challenge within the second leadership challenge is an understanding that network management is different from managing within
hierarchy (Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Bozeman 2007; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Getha-Taylor 2008; Goerdel 2006; Romzek,
LeRoux, and Blackmar 2012; Silvia and McGuire 2010; Thomson and Perry 2006). Collaboration, with its attendant issues, is
key to network management: What is the network's source of authority? Who should be involved? How will responsibility be assigned?
How should participants deal with delegates who come to the table with different levels of discretion, as well as sector-based
incentives that drive each structure of authority? The answers to these questions vary with the type of collaboration.
- Networks of Actors
- Charlotte, NC: For example, looking beyond the creation of a legal public authority, an alternative response may resemble the creation of
a shared services agreement like the one that the "Business Support Services" unit in Charlotte has consummated with surrounding
county, municipal, state, and even federal agencies.
- County Agencies
- Municipal Agencies
- State Agencies
- Federal Agencies
- Faith-Based Institutions: However, it is not uncommon for these leadership attempts to be rejected. For example, if networks include faith-based institutions,
questions of freedom of religion and church and state may be raised. These types of entities and agreements connect to Figone's
advice that we need to be clear about which structure is truly accountable even in networked worlds. In order to maintain
public accountability in complex networks, Figone believes that stronger and more sophisticated leadership from elected and
professional staff is needed (e-mail correspondence, February 20, 2012).
- Nongovernmental Authority Structures: Also embedded in the second challenge is a crucial consideration focusing on the way nongovernmental structures of authority
deal with public values such as representation, social equity, and individual rights, as well as efficiency (Andrews and Entwistle
2010; Warner 2011).
- Kresge Foundation: An example can be seen in the Kresge Foundation's urban renewal initiative in Detroit. The Kresge Foundation has expended
considerable sums of money to assist in renewal and redevelopment of Detroit. However, the fundamental question raised by
some in Detroit is "who is running our city?" (Dolan 2011), with the implied question, "whose values will prevail?"
- Detroit
Objective(s):
|
