Crosby B.C., Bryson J.M. - Leadership for the Common Good (2005)(en)

is a system embracing many groups, organizations, and one or more institutions (when an institution is defined as a persistent pattern of social interaction).

Just as Krasner found the concept of the regime critical to understanding stability, change, and creation of desirable outcomes in international relations, we find it helpful in understanding how interorganizational networks can tackle complex public problems. A policy regime embodies ways of appreciating these problems and implementing strategies for remedying them. The most useful policy regime is likely to be a regime of mutual gain, which will tap and serve people’s deepest interests in, and desire for, a better world for themselves and those they care about. A regime of this kind achieves widespread, lasting benefit at reasonable cost (Ostrom, 1990; Bellah and others, 1991; Cleveland, 1993). It is also vital to attend to those who aren’t benefited by a regime of mutual gain, if it is to be truly sustainable, and to consider that differing regimes may be in destabilizing conflict with each other. Thomas Friedman describes the emergence of a “globalization” regime that has produced benefits for a large number of people of diverse backgrounds (Friedman, 2000); yet for many others, the disruption caused by this regime has been painful, even deadly (Klein, 2002; Roy, 2001). Samuel Huntington, meanwhile, describes other contemporary expansive regimes, which he calls civilizations, constituting opposing blocs that define themselves through differing cultural and political traditions (Huntington, 1996).

Let’s consider how a Minnesota leader helped create a sharedpower arrangement that she hopes can foster a regime of mutual

20 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

gain. In 1998 Jan Hively, who has a lengthy record of public service in Minnesota, became concerned about the “graying” of her state’s rural communities. Young people were migrating away from small towns, just as so-called baby boomers were nearing retirement age. Hively was working in rural Minnesota as part of her outreach job in the University of Minnesota’s College of Education and Human Development. She soon joined a project sponsored by the Minnesota Board on Aging that was studying how to help older adults lead productive and satisfying lives. She was especially interested in how new technologies might be used to connect older adults with employment and service opportunities. With encouragement from an assistant commissioner in the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Hively joined Hal Freshley, from the Minnesota Board on Aging, and Darlene Schroeder, from the Elder Advocacy Network in rural Minnesota, in launching the Vital Aging Initiative, an effort to gather information about older adults’ activities and interest in further education. Hively also worked with educators in the University of Minnesota Extension Service on a proposal to bolster the Vital Aging Initiative with a program that would “connect older adults across the state with education programs that support their employability, self-sufficiency, community participation, and personal enrichment” (Hively, 2002, p. 3). The university provost approved funding for the program, which sponsored forums around the state, issued publications, and started several collaborative education programs.

These efforts were the impetus for founding the Vital Aging Network (VAN), which grew out of a meeting convened by Freshley in fall 2000. The network was a shared-power arrangement; participants came from several parts of the University of Minnesota (Extension Service, Continuing Education, and other departments), the Minnesota Board on Aging, the Department of Human Services, and nonprofit senior organizations and networks. The participants began meeting regularly to share information and plan specific projects, such as a Vital Aging Summit and a VAN Website. The university supplied funds, staffing, and technical support for starting the Website; other organizations provided planning assistance and convened meetings. Following the summit, the VAN organizers developed an ambitious plan to promote a “strengths-based perspective” on aging instead of “the traditional

WHEN NO ONE IS IN CHARGE 21

needs-based perspective” (Hively, 2002, p. 7). Hively, Freshley, and Schroeder clearly envisioned a new regime of mutual gain, which Hively described as a “grassroots liberation movement” breaking down stereotypes and linking older adults with resources that help them be productive citizens (Hively, 2002).

You may now want to analyze a public problem that concerns you in light of the shared-power model. Exercise 1.1 poses some questions that should help. You may also want to consult Exhibit 1.1, which defines the main concepts introduced so far in this chapter. The next section continues the discussion of a sharedpower world by considering why shared-power regimes are increasingly necessary.

Causes and Consequences of a Shared-Power World

Today’s shared-power world arises from a number of interconnected causes and produces many interconnected consequences. At the outset of the twenty-first century, many wise observers have described the growing interdependence, complexity, and diversity of human societies, which is due to the information revolution, the

Exercise 1.1. Understanding

Public Problems in a Shared-Power World.

1.Identify a need or problem in your organization, community, nation, or beyond that requires cooperation or collaboration among diverse individuals, groups, or organizations.

2.Who are the main stakeholders (those affected by the problem; those with responsibility for resolving it; those with resources, including knowledge, that relate to the problem)?

3.Describe the existing connections among these stakeholders:

•Which networks and coalitions exist?

•Which policy regimes are important?

4.In what ways is this an emergent, programming, or operational problem?

5.Which individuals and groups might have a passion for remedying the problem?

22 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Exhibit 1.1. Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World: Some Definitions.

WHEN NO ONE IS IN CHARGE 23

Exhibit 1.1. Tackling Public Problems

in a Shared-Power World: Some Definitions, Cont’d.

burgeoning global arms trade and terrorist threats, the dominance of the global market economy, the scale of environmental problems, massive refugee flows within continents and across oceans, rising demands for human rights, and a declining capacity to govern. The result is a world in which rapid, often unpredictable, change is ubiquitous and not always beneficent.

The Wired and Wireless World

In April 2002, the one billionth personal computer was shipped from a manufacturer. About half of the first billion are actually installed, and most are connected to the Internet. Another billion are expected to be shipped by 2007 (Blasko, 2002).

The explosion in computing power, the spread of personal computers, and the advance of wired and wireless telecommunications technologies have produced a massive and rapid flow of information around the world. Because the Internet can permit

24 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

access to a host of networks and because centralized authorities have difficulty controlling it, in some ways it allows individuals or small groups to become more powerful political and economic actors. This marriage of computers and communications technology (Cleveland, 2002) has led to what some observers call the knowledge economy, which is increasingly supplanting the manufacturing economy and which requires a labor force of knowledge workers. In this wired world, “virtual teams” and “virtual organizations” are not only possible but often required.

The explosion of computing and communications technology has a host of benefits, but it also brings new difficulties. For example, many of us are burdened by the expectation that we will be constantly hooked up and available. We can see danger in the assumption that because information is more quickly obtainable, decisions will be made and implemented more quickly. We also find it difficult to assess the reliability of some of the information that is so accessible. We struggle to manage relationships, teams, and organizations without much face-to-face interaction. Our tendency toward short-term thinking and a desire for instant gratification may be reinforced (Hutton, 2003).

Social critics highlight the division between those who have access to the new technologies and those who don’t. If the new dominant theme is “I am connected, therefore I exist” (Rifkin, 2000, p. 208), then to be disconnected is to not exist. Of those billion computers, 63.4 percent went to buyers in the United States; Japan received 9 percent of the shipments. Only 4.1 percent went to buyers in all of Latin America. “In a society built around access relations,” Jeremy Rifkin says, “whoever owns the channels of communication and controls the passageways into the networks determines who is a player and who sits out” (2000, p. 178). Additionally, those who have knowledge skills are far more attractive employees in a wired world than those without such skills.

Global Arms Trade and the Threat of Terrorism

Scientific advances of the twentieth century gave human beings tremendous collective power to make the world better (through, for example, vaccines against terrible diseases such as smallpox, or systems for delivering safe drinking water) as well as frightening

WHEN NO ONE IS IN CHARGE 25

power to destroy it (through, for example, nuclear warfare). As we noted in our earlier version of this book, over the last several decades supposedly advanced nations have used technological breakthroughs to build enough nuclear and chemical weaponry to destroy virtually every living thing. Now people worry that a relatively small group of terrorists affiliated with political or religious factions will also gain access to some of these weapons. Meanwhile, vast numbers of “conventional” arms are produced (mainly by U.S., European, and Russian companies) and help to fuel ongoing conflict in some of the world’s poorest nations. (For extensive information on global arms production and trade, see the Website of the Stockholm International Peace Research Initiative, http://www.sipri.se.)

Global Economy

The global market economy has risen to ascendance in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Thomas Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree (2000) offers statistics and stories to demonstrate the tremendous recent growth in the flow of capital, goods, services, and information in the global marketplace. The growth of transportation systems and advanced telecommunications and computing facilitates this flow. In The Age of Access, Rifkin argues that networks are in a sense replacing markets in this economy; he identifies a shift away from actual exchange of tangible property to “short-term access between servers and clients operating in a network relationship” (2000, p. 4).

The global economy brings both expanded opportunities and threats. New communications technology, for example, makes it possible for a technical adviser in India to efficiently serve computer users in the United States; improved transportation contributes to the global spread of AIDS. Workers in one country may lose their jobs when a factory relocates halfway round the world, bringing jobs to another group of people; meanwhile, international mechanisms for preventing worker exploitation and destruction of natural resources are weak. Local cultures may be threatened by the influx of multinational food chains and entertainment media.

Several observers worry about the effect global economic forces have on social cohesion. Rifkin describes the emerging world as a

26 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

place in which “virtually every activity outside the confines of family relations is a paid-for experience, a world in which traditional reciprocal obligations and expectations—mediated by feelings of faith, empathy, and solidarity—are replaced by contractual relations in the form of paid memberships, subscriptions, admission charges, retainers, and fees” (Rifkin, 2000, p. 9).

Environmental Degradation

Such environmental problems as global warming, acid rain, and pollution of waterways and seas know no national boundaries. The pollutants spewed from a factory’s smokestack in one country may destroy forests in another country. CO2 emissions from cars in an urban center contribute to climate change for the entire world. (Meanwhile, the oxygen produced by rainforests in Brazil benefits people in other countries as well.) In November 2002 a crippled oil tanker spilled thousands of tons of fuel oil near Spain’s Galician coast, damaging one of Europe’s richest coastal habitats and devastating the local fishing industry. The boat, on its way from Latvia, had been built in Japan, was flagged in the Bahamas, was piloted by a Greek captain and owned by a Greek company, and was insured by a British company. A Dutch company tried to salvage oil from the wreckage.

The need to reduce environmental damage also causes tension between the industrialized nations and poor nations. Representatives of poor nations question the fairness of international efforts to control pollution from their developing industries, when the nations that are already industrialized did not face such restrictions as their economies developed, and when some of those nations are still unwilling to do their part to cut pollution.

Population Shifts

The number of refugees fleeing their home country because of war, famine, or oppression has grown tremendously in recent years. The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that about twenty million of the world’s people are refugees and another thirty million have been displaced within their own country (http://www.unhcr.ch/un&ref/numbers/numbers.htm). Ad-

WHEN NO ONE IS IN CHARGE 27

ditionally, immigrants seeking better economic opportunity continue flowing across national borders. The receiving countries gain workers and increased ethnic diversity, but they also experience tension between old and new cultures, and social services may be overtaxed. Our own state of Minnesota is a prime example. The aftermath of the Vietnam War brought an influx of refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; according to 2000 census data, the state is home to 42,000 Hmong Americans, 18,500 Vietnamese Americans, and 5,500 to 6,500 Cambodian Americans. Recently, Somalian refugees have settled in the state, along with smaller groups from Sierra Leone, Zaire, and Sudan. The state also continues to attract a sizeable number of immigrants from Central and South America.

Another important population shift is migration within a country from rural to urban areas, a movement that in many cases overwhelms the urban infrastructure. City residents thus find they have an interest in improving business opportunities in rural areas in order to decrease the exodus from the countryside.

Growth in the Demand for Human Rights and Democratic Governance

An international human rights regime has taken hold in the last three decades. Comprising most of the world’s nations, a series of U.N. treaties, U.N. conferences, a host of civil society organizations, and various (often weak) enforcement mechanisms, this regime in a sense makes the citizens of every country responsible for all the other citizens of the world. The regime is also a force for democratization and thus for the spread of power to many more of the world’s people, since it supports everyone’s right to participate in the decisions that affect his or her life.

Other forces contributing to democratization are the downfall of the Soviet Union, the information revolution, the demands of a market economy, and the spread of education (Cleveland, 2002). New and emerging democracies (South Africa, Nigeria, Poland, the Czech Republic, and others) still are struggling to build sustainable democratic systems, but they have made tremendous progress. Even in China, the last remaining major Communist power, the state has considerably loosened control over citizens’ lives.

28 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Decline in Capacity to Govern, Blurred Boundaries

Interconnectedness, speed, and complexity have reduced the capacity of any single organization, especially a government, to manage and to govern (Peters, 1996b; Kettl, 2000). Management professor Peter Vaill expresses this state vividly when he describes today’s organizations as operating in “permanent whitewater” (Vaill, 1996). The shared-power, no-one-in-charge world is one of shifting currents, impermanent coalitions, seemingly chaotic decision making, and what Janowitz (1978) calls “weak regimes.” Moreover, the distinctions between domestic and global affairs are eroding. The same is true for distinctions among the responsibilities of local, state, or provincial governments and national governments; among business, government, and civil society; and between policy areas (Kellerman, 1999; Kettl, 2000, 2002). The United States may have emerged as the world’s sole superpower, but this does not mean that unilateral action by the United States is well received or even effective (Sarder and Davies, 2002). The United States will continue to need allies in pursuing its goals. Meanwhile, China and regional groupings, notably the European Union, continue to gather strength.

Charles Handy, another well-known management professor, predicts more federalist structures will be developed to cope with this turbulent world: “Societies will break down into smaller units but will also regroup into even larger ones than now for particular purposes. Federalism, an old doctrine, will become fashionable once again, in spite of its inherent contradictions” (1996, p. 7). He believes that businesses too need to be more federalist. Jean LipmanBlumen, a professor of organizational behavior and management, echoes his view as she heralds “the connective era” characterized by “loosely structured global networks of global organizations and nations tied to multiple subnetworks, living in a clumsy federated world (and sharing space in the archetype of interdependence, the natural environment). These networks link all kinds of groups, with long chains of leaders and supporters who communicate, debate, negotiate, and collaborate to accomplish their objectives” (LipmanBlumen, 1996, p. 9).

In such a world, governance is increasingly shared among governments, civil society organizations, and businesses (Peters, 1996b;