DPMN Bulletin: Special Issue, Volume X, Number 5, November 2003

Public Sector Leadership Development Moving beyond 'More of the Same'  

Salim Latib * and Kgothatso M. Semela **

INTRODUCTION

Whilst definitions, description of leadership and leadership development interventions abound, there remains within African, a consistent concern with the quality of public policies generated and the ability of institutions to implement and give effect to public policies. This concern with policy and institutional effectiveness often results in the generation of additional capacity development responses that focus attention on the contested notions that leadership can be learned or developed. Whilst local and external leadership development interventions continue to be generated, there is a general absence of analysis and evaluation of the efficacy of these interventions, particularly within the African context.

With variations, the architecture of many public sector leadership development interventions has centred on the simplistic application of a set of generic leadership values and attributes that evolve from reflection of private sector leadership, onto public sector organisations. Whilst a generic orientation towards public sector leadership development is not problematic in itself, there is little to suggest that such an orientation is built upon substantive analysis and reflections on the relevance of the notion of leadership, on the practices that suggest effective leadership and perhaps most importantly, on the efficacy of different leadership development interventions.

In recognising the general absence of critical analysis of `public service leadership development', it is becoming increasingly imperative for practitioners to provide reflective thought on the public service leadership complex in the African context and to begin articulating some perspective on what may be the most appropriate development interventions. As a response to this necessity, this article seeks to encourage greater practitioner reflection and dialogue on leadership development. This is done through critical engagement with the content of leadership development interventions and an analysis of different leadership capacity development interventions. The analysis is preceded by a broad overview of the evolution of leadership discourse in Public Administration and a brief characterisation of the challenges that necessitate a focus on `leadership development'. The article is deliberately normative, as it seeks to provoke and encourage practitioner input into existing and evolving leadership development interventions. In so doing, it must be emphasised that this analysis and the resultant conclusions cannot compensate for the absence of quality research into African public sector leadership.

Whilst the terrain of leadership and leadership development for public administration practice remains open for further interrogation and reflection, at this stage, the best that can be done is to articulate a perspective that is relevant for our own contexts and challenges. Through this, it is hoped that as we articulate a perspective, other practitioners will be encouraged to challenge this perspective and help build a collective understanding and perspective on the content of leadership and leadership development interventions.

PUBLIC SECTOR LEADERSHIP DISCOURSE

The evolution of the leadership discourse in Public Administration may be divided into three overlapping phases or paradigmatic traditions. Each of these can best be characterised by the change in discourse and term(s) that best describe the implied content of public administration. The terms that best characterise each of the phases or discourse terrains are: `administration' in the first phase; `management' in the second phase; and `governance' in the third phase. The periodisation of the phases is difficult, as experiences vary substantively across the continent. In some cases all three traditions may coexist in a single administration while in other cases changes may be experienced over a few years, rather than a few decades. Nonetheless, to enhance the analysis, some broad periodisation is necessary, as it provides a base for assessing the leadership development interventions that are necessary at this conjuncture of Africa's development.

The `administrative phase' typified colonial and immediate post-colonial experiences in many countries. Not withstanding major transformation in the composition of many post-colonial administrations, many of these administrations still retained a strong internal focus on systems modernisation,increased bureaucratisation and the entrenchment of administrative regulations to remove discretion. The second, `management phase,' typified reforms that permeated many public sector organisations in the 1980s and 1990s. In many respects, this phase was characterised by a strong focus on practices directed at instilling private sector management practices into public sector organisations and on enhancing procedural and implementation discretion. The third and more recent phase is focused on the overall shape of governance practices. That is, on the relationship between public administration and other societal and economic sectors and on the complex interplay between policy and delivery.

In the initial `administration phase,' the tendency was to relegate the notion of leadership to politicians and seldom was the leadership construct used to describe public sector officials or the practices they are engaged in. The basic orientation was that public sector officials are essentially involved in the administration of state regulations and state services, as per prescribed procedures. If the notion of leadership had any relevance, it was within the ambits of the procedural practices of the system. In such a situation, the exercise of leadership would not embody the varied skills and attributes conventionally associated with ` leadership'. As the overall propensity was to reduce discretion through an emphasis on `administration' the very notion that public officials were leaders was misleading.

The shift from a procedural orientation has been marked by the utilisation of the leadership construct as an instrument in the overall `managerial' arsenal for managing complex public service organisations. That is, leadership became an element of the dominant `managerialist' discourse. The shift embodied a sense that public servants were leaders within institutions and had to lead processes for transforming these institutions to better serve the policy direction provided by the political leaders. The focus in this context was on encouraging public sector officials to exercise some form of autonomy and discretion in shaping institutional processes and implementation practices. Whilst a departure from the procedural orientation, the tendency was to relegate `leadership' to the act of managing complex internal organisational and operational practices of public institutions. The implied assumption of this paradigm was that if one demonstrated the sound managerial qualities, one was a `good' leader.

The more recent and emerging shift (1990 and 2000) is reflected in the use of the term `governance' to describe the facilitative delivery role of public sector officials and to emphasise the policy role of senior public servants. This shift is rooted in the understanding that effective `leadership' requires ongoing engagement with policy imperatives and essential governance and delivery engagements between institutions across different sectors of society. The shift demonstrates a recognition and response to the complex and dynamic interchanges that occur between societies' institutions and sectors. Within this tradition, the role of senior public sector officials cannot be relegated to `procedures' and `management' without a substantive engagement with policy and governance. In practice, this implies a commitment to engage responsibly with substantive policy issues and provide active leadership on the strategic value, location, partnerships and operations of state institutions. By implication, the shift reflects some level of congruence with the implied content of the `leadership' development exercises in the private sector. The central difference, however, is that the level and intensity of external stakeholder and governance interactions in the public domain remains much more complex and dynamic than in the private sector. There is a growing contestation that the operational management of public sector organisations is different from private organisations. However, even in those instances where private sector models have been imported to public sector institutions, these have produced limited capabilities in understanding and committing to core public service values.

THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE

The development context and the often-articulated challenges that necessitate a focus on leadership are, in many respects, captured in existing and unfolding social and economic processes underlying the process of globalisation. Within public administration practice, globalisation is a dynamic and complex process that, on one level, entails a combination of increased participation in the global and local economy through information and service flows. At another level it gives rise to increased marginalisation and exclusion from the benefits of the global economy and a local economy. The challenges that confront public sector officials are typified by, amongst others, global financial turbulence with concomitant economic hardships that emanate from financial collapse; increased social exclusion resulting in instability; civil war and new patterns of migration; and the decline in health with real threats to life in parts of the world because of HIV/AIDS, new and unknown diseases and difficult social conditions.

Collectively, these trends and the more conventional contextual problems that confront public sector officials call for public administration leadership and `interventions of a different order'. Yehezkel Dror (1997) has captured the different order of leadership required to engage with these problems in his seminal article on the civil service in the 21st century. Dror's article, entitled the "Delta-type senior service for the 21st Century," (see International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 63, No. 1: 7 _ 23) contains the most persuasive argument on the importance of public sector leadership and the type of leadership required for the future. Dror's link between the context and the leadership interventions required may be summarised as follows:

Taken together, the challenges posed by globalisation and the immediate transformation challenges that confront public officials call for, what Dror describes as, a `different order of leadership'. As with other commentators, Dror recognises that there is correlation between individual action and social transformation. The emphasis in many capacity development interventions has, in the main, focused on the development of appropriate institutional capability, with a limited focus on individuals and the extent to which they can effect change outside the realities and limits of specific institutional configurations and the suggestive limits that emanate from history and specific contexts. Notwithstanding the postulation that institutions are important, it has increasingly been recognised that good institutions, with the best configuration and the most efficient systems, may prove to be very ineffective in the absence of individual leadership actions. These actions are typically reflected in articulated visions, policies and strategies, and in specific operational interventions that link strategies to resources and collective actions. The relationship between individual action and social transformation suggests that today's public sector officials must respond to the challenges they face with the insight that public problems are interconnected with multiple issues and most likely, the involvement of multiple institutions. Their actions must therefore contribute positively to creating the necessary conditions for real change to and when possible, creative solutions even within the expected institutional constraints.

CONTENT OF LEADERSHIP AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

There are broadly two discernable approaches to articulating the content of leadership and leadership development. The first approach is reflected in a growing propensity to focus on identifying critical leadership attributes and skills and articulating these as attributes and skills that, if present, would demonstrate good leadership. The preoccupation here is to develop a range of attributes and to provide arguments as to why each attribute or skill is important for the exercise of leadership. Such exercises often take place outside of any substantive discussion or engagement with the contextual realities and institutional location of the leadership exercise.

The difficulty with the skills and attributes approach is that it often entails a fruitless and continuous dialogue on leadership attributes and skills, and hence, the additional skills and attributes need to be included in the leadership complex. Such dialogues are often frustrating, as they often become engagements of `more of the same'. In other words, they lead to an accumulated [and often `known' list] of attributes and skills whose practical application is often, at best, difficult to integrate in individuals' daily institutional environment. The resultant outcomes of this approach are leadership development interventions that seek to build super-individuals who embody an ever expanding `shopping list' of essential leadership attributes and skills but whose ability to excel in their performance, even with the bag of `essential leadership attributes', remains constrained.

The second approach is reflected by a deep and engaging academic focus on the contextual realities and challenges, and the strategies that can be implemented to respond to these challenges. This often entails engagements and dialogues that focus on building individuals' understanding of the context and environment that they confront and on developing strategies to respond to the challenges that emerge from the environment. Consequently, good leadership implies being good at economics, politics,
philosophy, anthropology and whatever else is relevant to specific policy and strategic interventions.

The academic or contextually focused leadership development interventions tend to focus on demonstrating good knowledge in specific academic areas and on strengthening the quality of arguments and decisions. In practice, this approach is also characterised by deep contestation on the frameworks that are used to interpret the environmental challenges and the ideological bases of the strategies suggested. The frustration with such an approach is that it often remains at the academic and philosophical level and takes place outside of a recognition that, as complex as reality, tends to be `something needs to be done.' The approach ignores the fact that uncertainty and the lack of absolute precision is a reality that practitioners cannot avoid. In other words, there is very little engagement with the skills and attributes that could assist in translating the rich contextual and policy understanding into practical and measurable action, in a context of uncertainty and complexity.

The focus on `skills and attributes' on the one hand, and `context and strategy' on the other, represents polar ends in the continuum of approaches directed at articulating the content of leadership and the architecture of leadership development interventions. Many leadership development interventions often claim to fall between these two polar orientations. There is much to suggest that very few succeed and that most leadership development interventions can be relegated to either one of the approaches. There are, it seems, no easy answers on how a balance can be struck between a more instrumental orientation versus a higher policy orientation towards the content of leadership and leadership development interventions.
The reality and challenges confronted do, however, suggest that we need to move beyond the `more of the same' orientation and begin to grapple with the substantive and complex realities that shape the kind of leadership required.

Whilst it is difficult to generalise for such a complex and dynamic continent, it can be argued that the leadership complex in Africa is characterised by a dominance of at one level, `policy leadership' and, at another level, `procedural leadership'. In practice, the focus on `policy leadership' by some and a focus on `procedural' leadership by others, gave rise to a situation where public sector institutions attracted individuals who were either overtly reflective and philosophical or overtly parochial and instrumentalist in their orientation and approach to public administration. Developmental challenges suggest, however, that we need a balance between the `philosophical' and `instrumentalist' forms of leadership.

A broad and superficial overview of the continent suggests that whilst many of our governments may have the best policies in place, the inability to implement these policies has had negative consequences for public administration and the confidence of societies in the institutions that are essential for collective coexistence and development. This realisation, however, needs to be coupled with an equally valid understanding that the alternative `instrumentalist' orientation has equally negative consequences. That is, whilst we could have the best operational practices, our institutions can fail, if there is an absence of substantive engagements with the challenges of globalisation and other contextual and strategic challenges. As such, perhaps in practice, we require a balance between the instrumental and the strategic or a `middle way' between the `skills and attributes' approach and the `context and strategy' approach. This balance is best reflected in the notion that leadership is about demonstrating `strategic practicality'. Often this conclusion appears and is accepted as being obvious. Unfortunately though, in most instances, this `obvious' or `common-sense' approach does not reflect itself in the actual practice of leadership or in the architecture of leadership development interventions.

This need for a balance in the content of leadership and leadership development is best illustrated with reference to the challenge that confronts the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). Through NEPAD, African governments have articulated a new and broad vision for Africa and a set of partnership-oriented principles to guide implementation. It is, noticeable taking some time to give practical effect to the vision and the numerous broad policy pronouncements. When coupled with global partner concerns that NEPAD lacks detail and that African institutions have limited resource absorption capabilities, it can only be concluded that the relevant public officials are failing to demonstrate `strategic practicality' and in many instances, tend to want to emulate the political policy dialogues that characterise the engagements of the political leadership in the continent.

Recognising the NEPAD leadership development challenges also brings to the fore the level and nature of public sector leadership development interventions. Whilst these interventions vary from country to country, there is a noticeable gap in collective continental leadership. This is evidenced by the absence of a leadership cadre that enjoys a similar understanding of the context and challenges of the continent and the varied and differing development intervention options and possibilities. Neither do we have a leadership cadre with a congruent set of skills and attributes that facilitate the operationalisation of common and, where appropriate, contextually different strategies and policies. Whilst uniformity would not be wise, we are at this point confronted with public sector officials that operate in vastly differing ways and that often have very different notions of the most optimal interventions. The consequences are often reflected in weak collective processes and the failure to give effect to politically agreed upon policy pronouncements. The absence of a collective African public sector leadership cadre is also typified by difficult and politically charged relationships between officials in different continental and regional institutional entities. In the absence of a common leadership ethos and leadership architecture, official cooperation cannot be expected to mirror, through demonstrable collective action, the deep commitment to work collectively at the political level.

With the existing and noticeably deep variation in the leadership architecture of public sector officials, it is impossible to conceive of a future within which African countries are able to implement policies and strategies that enhance development and that serve to further integrate sub-regions and the continent. A response to this particular leadership challenge would be different to responses that would be relevant at the country level. However, it can be argued that one critical step in enhancing the overall developmental prospects of the continent is developing similarly architectured national leadership development interventions. Such an approach would assist in building congruence and commonalities in policies and operational strategies across the continent and, hence, mirror the stated
political commitment of cooperation as reflected through the NEPAD programme.

Whilst national level public sector leadership development interventions will remain high on our agenda, reflection on building a collective continental cadre and focus on building some commonalities amongst public sector leaders across the continent seems crucial at this stage. Clearly though, this process requires substantive further dialogue on the content of leadership and the architecture of specific leadership development interventions.

THE METHODOLOGY CHALLENGE IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

The content of leadership and the overall architecture of the leadership development intervention are critical to any endeavour that seeks to enhance public sector leadership capacity in Africa. However, a brief sketch of the terrain suggests that whilst there is room for further work and much has been achieved in defining the content and architecture, little time has been focused on the leadership development methodologies that should accompany the constructed content. As with the content of leadership development interventions, there are two broad methodological orientations. The first is to enhance leadership skills and attributes through an interactive process that can be best described as a set of `feel-good' exercises. The second is typified by seminar-type engagements that are focused on discussions that are preceded by expert presentation on the skills and attributes and/or the strategies that characterise good leadership.

In instances where the feel-good methodological orientation is dominant, the overall leadership development intervention centres on building the confidence of potential and existing public sector officials. Whilst much of this is done through self-assessment activities that enhance the individuals' understanding of his or her attributes and weaknesses, other times it is achieved by simulations that demonstrate the efficacy of particular management or leadership tools. Without exaggeration and crudefication, the results of such interventions are often individuals who embody a very positive `gung-ho' ethos. That is, individuals walk out of the interventions, with a `renewed' confidence in their capacities and walk around with a suitcase full of generic management tools. The problem is that it often creates officials who confidently attempt to fit complex realities into preconceived templates and who remain ever willing to use the latest leadership tools that rarely fit the situations confronted. It is easy to recognise such individuals, as they remain unusually optimistic and overtly macho in the face of deep crisis, often have the best suits and shiny shoes, believe that they have the answers and are the central instruments for `fixing' the world. As recipients of the `feel-good' exercises are often confident and tend towards actions, they often rise up in institutions and are prone to a blind absorption of the latest private sector management or leadership fad.

A deeper appreciation of the `feel-good' approach is possible when it is counter-posed with the more academic and philosophical orientation. It appears that the thrust of the seminar-type engagements is that if a person reads, thinks and talks about the content of leadership, she or he would become a more effective leader. Whilst a macho orientation is the product of the feel-good approach, a macho-orientation defines the overall delivery methodology of the seminar oriented leadership development intervention. That is, those who are involved in this process spend much of their time demonstrating that they are custodians of the latest knowledge and information and that, thus, their analysis is superior. Although there might be some truth to this, as there is value in imparting the latest information and knowledge about leadership and its content, the reality is that such seminar-based exposure does not result in nor does it necessarily enhance the practitioner's ability to act. The recipients of such interventions often leave with deep admiration for those involved in the leadership development exercise, but in practice fail to see the connection between analytical reflection and action.

In filling the gap between the feel good approach and the seminar analysis, many institutions have responded by drafting and utilising case studies. Case Studies establish an excellent bridge between the individual confidence building focus of the games and the analytical confidence building of the seminar. Their strength lies in the fact that they provide a platform and terrain within which skills are developed and within which leadership analysis of contexts and strategies is enhanced. With the growth in leadership development programmes, there has been a consummate rise in the generation of case studies. Unfortunately, case studies have a potential of being abused and can become a useless instrument for those involved in the game-play/ feel-good approach and those involved in academic machismo. Many of the cases generated presently within leadership development programmes are often not particularly useful for the leadership development exercise.

The crafting of relevant cases remains a fairly complex and involved task and there are very few institutions that have been able to craft good teaching cases, let alone develop good case teachers. In many instances, substantive academics are being replaced with good game-players. Case teaching often requires substantive knowledge of the subject and issues that the case study raises. They also require strong facilitation skills to ensure that the case serves to develop good leadership skills and attributes. Although a good balance of knowledge and skills is necessary, the growing emphasis on good facilitation over substantive knowledge is unfortunate. This trend is establishing individuals who are blinded by false confidence and who are thus unable to recognise deep knowledge and analytical gaps in the actions that they are instrumental to. Such a situation has disastrous consequences not only for many public sector organisations, but also for many countries.

CONCLUSION

Without good leadership development interventions at the continental level, NEPAD is likely to end up being nothing more than an exercise in academic machismo or a set of actions that are parochial and that have no bearing on reality and continental development challenges. True to the normative orientation of this article, we cannot help but conclude that we need to move beyond `more of the same' when thinking of the architecture of leadership and leadership development interventions, that is, if we want to move beyond the `leadership crisis' that confronts many of our national, regional and continental institutions. Whether we are ready or not, the contextual challenges call for a new `order of leadership' for public sector institutions _ institutions that are fundamental to our collective coexistence and our desire to eradicate poverty and marginalisation.

Identifying the type of leadership required within a particular historical context is essential and must be coupled with a recognition that the balance between strategic and practical, between philosophical and instrumentalist, and between policy and implementation, will vary across the public administration institutional terrain. This balance is essential and the challenge remains finding ways of building this balance through appropriate leadership development interventions. Within the ambits of these interventions, it is often easier to build policy capability and enhance capacity for reflections on the state interventions in society, than it is to build practical capability. This requires moving beyond the fixation we have with identifying leadership attributes and skills and the `more of the same' exercise, shifting away from the application of standard leadership templates and the uncritical application of leadership models from other contexts. A key practical step in the effort should be demonstrating and celebrating successful leadership intervention and a focus on active documentation of local and contextually relevant leadership practices.

In responding to the leadership development challenge, we cannot afford to protect and hide behind poorly articulated perspectives that invariably and often unintentionally, protect existing institutional interests. Indeed, these perspectives serve to protect African institutions from competing leadership development interventions from local, regional or externally based leadership development institutions. Naturally, a shift from behind the protective curtain needs to strategically recognise that, if necessary, local and African-based leadership development institutions can be built on the basis of an honest analysis of the limits of these institutions and on the establishment of partnerships with stronger and more experienced institutions from the private and public sectors.

African leadership development institutions need to learn from the actions of practitioners, who when given the choice, would rather participate in `leadership development' programmes of external institutions rather than loyally attend the, perhaps equally good, programmes of local institutions. Forcing compliance through the control of leadership development resources and through the establishment of specific attendance rules cannot change lasting perceptions of the quality of locally developed interventions. This, we contend, will only change as our institutions become more honest and bold and move beyond the `more of the same' approach that has characterised many of the previously established leadership development interventions.

 

* Dr. Latib is Senior Manager, International & African Affairs, Dept. of Public Service and Administration, S/Africa.

**Ms. Semela is Senior Manager, Programme in Governance and Public Administration in Africa, Centre for Public Service and Innovation (CPSI), S/Africa.