Scrow Down to see full text for the the following articles.
1) Government Reforms: Its Quasi Names and Implications on Leadership
1) The Nature of Leadership & Policy Problems in Tanzania
Reform: Its Meaning, Quasi Names and Implications on Leadership
By Kilian Kamota
One aspect of contemporary organizations that both scholars and practitioners agree on is the presence, the need and the importance of change; by organization I am referring to a group of people with defined mission and objectives that came together for the purpose of achieving certain goals. Alvin Toffler, in the book Order Out of Chaos, argues that during the last decade several scholastic analysis have emphasized both the accelerating pace of change in the world and the increasing complexity generated by the process of change. Dwight Waldo, in the book Public Administration toward Year 2000, pointed out that the only thing that can be predicted with certainty in our social life is that complexity will increase and change will quicken. Modern organizations and institutions are said to be non linear dynamics filled with rhythms, cycles, chaos and change. In the book Managing Chaos & Complexity in Government, Douglas Kiel, argue that non linear dynamic and change is the new paradigm that public leaders and managers need if they are to build organizations with the internal capacity for transformational change. But change tends to come in many faces ranging from reform, to revolution, reorganization, restructuring, reinvention and reengineering. The challenge facing scholars and practitioners is to figure out the most effective kind of change that can produce social change that will satisfy follower’s authentic needs
Reform is one of the most popular and the widely used kind of change in contemporary organizations. This paper examines what has been done on the concept of reform in organizations. It will explore the meaning of reform and the many labels attributed to it – such as restructuring, reinvention, reengineering, revolution and reorganization– and whether they have differences, where they are overlap, and their implications on organizational leadership. The purpose is to help the reader understand what has been done on the topic to date. What is the current understanding? What do studies show? How do organizations reform? When do they reform? It should also be mentioned that two aspects of reforms that will not be explored in this review are: what to do when reform fails; and why and what to do when reform face resistance.
The concept of reform has gained profound reputation over the last few years. Hardly a day goes by without a news story about an organization, a corporation, a government entity, or a national government undergoing reforms. We have witnessed executives being hired specifically for the goal of reforming organizations; mayors, governors and presidents winning elections on the platform of change and reforms; nearly every sector, agency and department – in the U.S. government and organizations – is thinking off, planning or implementing reforms; federal, state and local governments are implementing reforms in many of their sectors and departments. Inside “the Beltway” as some calls Washington United States
To top it off, dictator’s and the few remaining authoritarian leaders across the globe are aging, starting to retire, or being thrown out of power every year, each one of those changes requiring at least some kind of reforms in the structure of government and the ways of governing. At the same time, people across the globe, as we have seen in the Middle East, wants more reforms in different aspects of organizations or institutions that touches their lives in one way or another, with or without a clear understanding of the exact type of reform or the outcomes to be achieved. All these are reasons that prompted me to explore the literature in this subject.
However, not all these changes that have been labeled reforms are actual reforms – if we are to examine the actual meaning of the concept. Some of them are actually simple restructuring or reorganizations while others are complex reengineering or revolutions and vice versa. Public leaders have sometimes – consciously or unconsciously – promised revolution while they intend to reform. They sometimes do so intentionally in order to dramatize the event and the moment or unintentionally due to lack of understanding of the concept. It is thus, not clear that all these so called reforms are true reforms or mere reorganizations or restructuring. It is further, not clear whether some of organization reengineering or revolutions are what they are said to be, or whether they are mere reforms. Nevertheless, the obsession with reform, the many names and faces it come with and the confusion about the concept calls for a need to conceptualize and distinguish it from its quasi names. When it comes to reforms, scholars and practitioners are not questioning the need for reform, but whether the so called reforms are what they are or they are just other changes labeled as reforms.
It is easy to discount the distinction between the different kinds of change as mere artifacts of different literatures or scholarly writings. Yet, hard as it might be to accept, it is entirely possible that the way changes are defined and approached might lead to a significant difference in the outcomes they produce. Asked whether their organizations needs change, many organizations stakeholders will say yes, but how to bring about effective change – whether in form of reform or restructuring – is a whole different and complex phenomenon that needs a careful analysis. Thus instead of asking whether the obsession with reform is valid scholars and practitioners would be better off asking how to change: whether to reform or to use other methods that are commonly labeled as reforms.
This topic is important because both scholars and practitioners are troubled by the question of how to and what kind of change to employ in different situations – ranging from reform, restructuring, reinvention, reengineering, revolution and reorganization. It is also important because almost every country in the world has – at a certain point – implemented reforms in certain institutions or certain aspects of its institutions. Whenever an organization or a nation is facing a crisis or failures, the way out – most of the time – has been to reform the sector or aspect that caused or that has been mostly affected by the crisis. And most of the time, those reforms came in terms of economic, electoral, constitutional, trade, education, or healthcare, to name the few. Reforms have been the tool of choice for many governments and institutions to dig themselves out of ditches; it has been the most popular tool in change movements or rescue missions of many struggling institutions; and has been behind majority of major social and institutional success stories around the world. The end of slave trade, the introduction of public education and the introduction of secret ballot system in the United Kingdom were results of Parliamentary Reforms of 1870’s (Cole, 1948); the end of the Spoils System and the introduction of the Merit Based Hiring System in the US was a result of Civil Service Reform Act of 1883; the 1933 New Deal policy was an economic reform program following the Great Depression; the 1947 Marshall Plan was in essence a reform program aimed at restoring and recovering of the European countries economies that was devastated by the WWII.
To me personally, the topic is of outmost importance because I am very unhappy with the way my native country – Tanzania – is governed and have made a conscious decision that I will do something about the situation in the near future – by proposing and stimulating a comprehensive reform to the country leadership system. The current Tanzanian government is very inefficient which give rise to the demand for expert advice on incremental reforms. I am planning to take on that role. I was also impressed by the rise of the so called “Tiger Economy” countries of South East Asia as well as the economic success in China and India, which are all attributed to the 1980’s and 1990’s economic reforms around that region. The rise of china and India out of the 3rd world country category, in the last twenty years, is one of the most celebrated economic reform miracles of this century. In short, the past decade has been the age of reforms that have touched almost every kind of organizations and institutions. There are great lessons that Tanzania can draw from the Tiger Econo0mic countries and the rise of China & India.
There is a growing body of research showing the meaning and different names of reforms in organizations. Moreover, several studies have long established, in the literature on reform, that there is no single best way to implement reform in organizations. Effective reform is task or time-relevant and that the most successful reforms are those that adapt to time and contemporary organizational needs (Hersey & Blanchard, 1972). All these arguments highlight the need for a clear understanding of the concept.
CONCEPTULIZATION & DINSTINCTIONS
In his Article Reinventing Government, Robert Hillman defined reform as to put or change into an improved form or conditions; to amend or improve by change or removal of faults; to change beneficially, reverse to a pure original state, repair, restore or correct. For the most part, reform seeks to gradually improve the existing system or institution by adjusting, or at most rectify serious errors without altering the fundamentals of the system. Reform comes in many faces also. It could come as political, or organizational, or institutional reform; it might come from above – leadership – or from below – followers or in a participatory form; it could be a large scale reform – example an entire government department or an entire corporation – or small scale – like policies or regulations that change how things are being done in a corporation, it could take shorter or long period of time to be implemented, and it can be initiated from within or from outside. Reform can also aim to improve by innovating or restoring to the original state.
Perhaps the best and easiest way to understand the type of change that is commonly referred to as reform is to distinguish it from other types of change. That distinction is multifold: we can distinguish it conceptually from its quasi names – mainly revolution, reengineering, reinvention, restructuring and reorganization; or distinguish it based on the characteristics of change which includes the scope of change (scale and speed), the timing of change (when), the content (what and where), the reasons for change (why), the participants (who & for whom) as well as the outcomes. For the sake of this literature review we will distinguish it conceptually.
Beginning with conceptual distinction, let us first, distinguish reform from revolution. These two types of change call for a close scrutiny, as they tend to overlap to a much greater extent in theory and in practice. First, let us take a look at the definition of the two terms: while reform has been defined as a gradual change, amendment, or improvement of an existing system or establishment, revolution, on the other hand, is famously defined as a complete overhaul or overthrow of an existing system or establishment (Gladstone, 2001). Note, while reform is an evolutionary and gradual change revolution is an abrupt overnight change. While reform seeks to improve the existing system or establishment, revolution seeks to uproot, overthrow and replace the existing system or establishment. In a 2001 article by John Gladstone, Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory, the author says that in its broadest meaning revolution is a complete and pervasive transformation of an entire social system. Its means the birth of a new radical ideology; overthrow of the established government; creation of a new political system; reconstruction of the economy, education, communications, law; and the confirmation and perhaps establishment of a new leadership (Kroeber, 1996).
A second distinguish character of reform and revolution can be found in the book, Leadership by James Macgregor Burns. In his book, Burns (1978) argues that while the reformer operates in parts, the revolutionist operates on whole. Government reforms will serve us better in understanding this point. Government reforms, normally, consist of partial changes in parts of the governments. That can be reform in certain policies like the most recent Health Care reform which transformed the National Health Care policies, or the Campaign Finance Reform which transformed campaign finance rules and regulations. It can be reform in the structure of the government agency or department or reform in the constitution, to mention the few. It is usually a modification harmonious with existing trends and consistent with prevailing principles and movements (Burns, 1978). Revolution, on the other hand, consists of a complete change of an entire government or regime or “a fundamental change in power or organization structure that happens in a relatively short period of time (Hillman, 1995).” This type of change within the government is sometimes referred to as a coup d’état. It happens when one group inside or outside the central government revolt, overthrow and replace the existing government or regime. Good examples of government or political revolution includes the 1776 American Revolution which saw the removal of the British rule in the United States and the 1789 French Revolution which led to the removal of the absolute monarchy that ruled France.
In the context of private entities, revolution is commonly referred to as a hostile takeover. Hostile takeover occurs when one company (the acquirer) takes over another company (the target) against its will. What follows after that is the removal of the existing ownership and management. This normally happens during buyouts, merger or acquisitions procedures. In the United States, this phenomenon became a prominent feature of the business landscape during the seventies and eighties.
A third distinction lies in the core of the two concepts. According to Repcheck (2007) at the center of reform is a crisis, failure or dissatisfaction; while at the center of revolution is conflict or oppression. It is normal for individuals to launch reform at times of peace just for the sake of improving or making things better. But revolution stems from deep frustration by oppression or inequality, wide popular discontent and sometimes failures of reformism.
A forth distinction is on the leadership of the two movements. According to Burns (1978) reform leadership usually implies moral leadership. He argues that reformers must not follow improper mean in trying to achieve moral ends, on the ground that means can taint and pervert the ends. Revolutionary leadership, although passionate and dedicated, is said to be single-minded, ruthless, self assured, usually humorless and often cruel. This is because revolutionary leadership stems from and is committed to conflicts. It is leadership that is frustrated by oppression and wide popular discontent.
Another aspect of leadership that is distinct between reform and revolution is the fact that reform leaders tends to come from within and normally live to see and produce social changes that satisfy people social and economic needs. Revolution, on the other hand, seems to produce first generation of leaders – from outside of the establishment – who represent and embody the higher ends of the cause, but never lasts to see or produce social changes that satisfy people social and economic needs (Kroeber, 1996). With the exception of Mao and Castrol, according to Burns (1978), many revolutionary leaders never last through the whole revolutionary cycle of struggle, victory, consolidation of power, and directing the process of social transformation.
Before partying ways with revolution I would like to mention some of the similarities and the overlap between these two kinds of change: both of them tends to bring changes that addresses wants, needs and aspirations of the people motives; for the most part they tend to be implemented as a prescription to some kind of failure or dissatisfactions; both reform and revolutionary leaders tends to be dedicated to the cause and able to demonstrate that commitment by giving time and effort to it (Burns, 1978); in both kind of change there must be a powerful sense of mission, of end-value and of transcending purpose; the most successful change – in both reform and revolution – are often launched from the top leadership, with single cause and one class of people involved.
Now let’s consider the concept of reengineering. Reengineering is another term that is sometimes used interchangeably with reform; however the two concepts have clear distinctions. Like revolution, reengineering is a complete transformation of an existing system. Kiel (1994) argues that reengineering is a wholesale transformation of the work processes or the way work is performed. It deals with the process used to accomplish work. In their 1993 book, Reengineering the Corporation, Michael Hammer and James Champy defined reengineering as fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business process to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measures of performance such as cost, service and speed. It is said to be a systematic starting over and reinventing the way an organization or a business process gets its work done. So unlike reform which is a gradual or evolutionary change of parts of a system or process, reengineering is a radical and revolutionary change. In an article for Governing Magazine, Jerry Mechling, a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government listed following three characteristics of reengineering: fundamental change where all work process is subject to redesign – it is not reengineering if only a few steps are changed; rapid progress toward radical goals that reengineering intends to reach rapidly; selective use of appropriate information technology – to reengineer means to use computers and other information technologies to achieve radical goals.
Reinvention is a change movement based on innovation and creativity. It is sometimes used interchangeably with reengineering due to overlaps and similarities between the two. Hillman (2005) says that the concept has been in practice in the private sector since the mid 1980's where it is more commonly referred to as business process reengineering or simply reengineering. Mechling (1994) refers to reinventing government as Public- Sector Reengineering. In essence reinvention refers to attempts to introduce successful private sector’s techniques into the public sector for the purpose of managing and improving performance. It is widely used in governments. Reinventing government is a brainchild of the entrepreneurial management paradigm. Osborne and Gaebler (1992) say that the real aim of government reinvention is to renew and reform public institutions from timid bureaucratic into innovative, flexible, and responsive organizations. It aims at transforming bureaucratic governments into entrepreneurial governments.
Reorganization and restructuring are synonyms of reform; however, technically speaking these three terms do have several distinctions. Reorganization means reassignment of parts in a whole sum. It is somehow, a reshuffling of departments inside an organization, or reshuffling of agencies inside a department. A good example of reorganization was the 1936 Brownlow Committee which reshuffled and reassigned agencies in the U.S government leading to a comprehensive reorganization of different departments, the Executive Branch and the creation of the Executive Office of the President (Fesler, 1987). The creation of the Homeland Security Department, following the 9/11 terrorist Attacks, is another example of reorganization where different agencies from multiple departments were reassigned and put together to create a new department. Creation of the Homeland Security is said to be the largest government reorganization in the past 50 years (www.usimmigrationsupport.org).
Restructuring is a cooperate management term for the act of reorganizing the legal, ownership, operational, or other structures of an organization for a purpose of making it more profitable, or better organized for its present needs (Norley, Swanson & Marshall, 2008). This could be a change of leadership structure or reporting authority; it could be a restructuring of a corporate financing system or debt structure; or a demerger when multiple companies in a conglomerate part ways. It mostly deals with reorganization of non physical aspects of corporations like leadership, financing, debt, ownership, operations and the like. An online Encyclopedia of investments, called Investopedia, defined it as a significant modification made to the debt, operations or structure of a company. This type of corporate action is usually made when there are significant problems in a company, which are causing some form of financial harm and putting the overall business in jeopardy (Investopedia, 2011). One good example of restructuring is the separation of accounting and consulting functions that major accounting firms were forced to do following the introduction of Sarbanes Oxley Act. The Sarbanes Oxley Act required Accounting firms to choose between accounting or consulting firms, they could no longer do both.
In summarizing the conceptual distinction, I would like to say that extra care is necessary when analyzing these kinds of change because, most of the time, their distinctions are fuzzy and tends to overlap. To that end let me briefly recoup what the literature say about their distinctions and applications. When there is a need for gradual change, adjustments, adaptation, improvement, corrections or restoration in certain aspects of organizations or society – like policies, rules, regulation, norms, culture, etc – reform is needed. A reform that can bring the Butterfly Effect, that is, small changes that can drastically alter outcomes overtime (Briggs and Peat, 1989). Reform is the best and most widely used kind of change in gradual transformation of organizations or certain aspects of organizations. What about revolution? The age of political and government revolution is over; the age of buyouts and hostile takeovers has long passed; the only type of revolution that is useful in modern organization is the revolution in management and leadership thinking. When the aim is to improve performance by altering the way managers thinks, revolution is the prescription. Through a revolution in mindset public managers will acquires a new world view, a new intellectual framework, and a new paradigm from which to see both the current requirements for leading organizations and the challenges of creating institutions capable of qualitative and transformational change in performance and service deliver (Kiel, 1994; Daneke, 1990; Baker et el, 1993). When you want to change employee’s behavior or decision making, it is best to change the structure of the organization through reorganization. That is because structure, according to Kiel, affects behavior. Flatter organization tends to be more effective in decision making than vertical organizations.
What if the intention is to change organization culture? Culture includes assumptions, long held beliefs, behaviors, perceptions, values and conventional ways of doing things. You can change organization culture by either changing the structure through reorganization, since structure affect behaviors, or by changing the way work gets done through reengineering. When the goal is to change an organization from a timid bureaucratic to entrepreneurial one, reinvention is the best choice. If the goal is to improve performance and service delivery by transforming work processes or the way work gets done, reengineering is the best prescription. The pressure for improved performance and quality in service delivery always brings the demand for fundamental and qualitative changes in work process and the way work is performed (Carr and Littman, 1990; Cohen and Brand; 1993). Champy and Hammer (1990) argues that instead of being adjusted, the existing order of work processes needs to be obliterated and replaced with new, improved methods. Kiel (1994) argues that work should be defined around outcomes and results instead of tasks and functions. When there is a need to change systems – Kiel (1994) defined systems as a grouping of component parts that individually establish relationships with each other and that interact with their environment both s individuals and as a collective (Cavaleri and obloj, 1993) – a combination of multiple kinds of change might be needed.
IMPLICATION ON LEADERSHIP
It was Burns who posed the question on whether the quality of leadership makes much difference in reform movements. Other questions which are equally important and have direct implication on leadership include questions on reform strategies. Some of those questions which were also posed by Burns include: how should reformers mobilize persons of reform instinct but of diverse and volatile predispositions behind a considered reform effort; how should they connect one reform cause with related but seemingly separates ones; how above all to deal as reformers with politicians and parties and governments that reflect more mixed and general needs and attitudes. There is a large and growing literature that addresses those questions.
These questions are cardinal when planning and implementing reforms as failure to consider them may negatively impact the outcomes. Franklin Roosevelt failed in his attempt to reform the Democratic Party in 1938 because he misjudged questions such as those posed above. The questions are also important in explaining why other managers/leaders succeed to implement reform while others – sometimes brilliant – fail. The questions will be addresses briefly by exploring the literature on factors affecting the effectiveness of reforms – leadership, steadiness and definition of purpose, timing, plan and implementation.
(1) The quality of leadership – when it comes to reforms – is as important as the knowledge of the nature of change and reform. That is because a good leader, equipped with in-depth knowledge about reforms will have a major positive impact on the outcomes by showing major reform stakeholders how to use old and new instruments to reach their reform goals more effectively (Eggertsson, 1998). The importance of leadership in reforms stems from dual factors: the characteristics, nature and structure of contemporary organizations and the characteristics of today’s turbulent environment in organizations. Contemporary organizations are said to be complex systems filled with “rhythms, cycles, chaos and change that requires constant transformation or reforms (Kiel, 1994). The world is not the way it used to be; it is a turbulent world which calls for new approaches to leadership. All those changes inside & outside organizations call for new approaches to leadership, new ways of doing work, new work processes, as well as reforming organization structure, culture and systems. And the heavy burden in fulfilling those goals lays in the quality of leadership to initiate, plan, steer and implement effective reforms.
(2) The scope of reform, that is, size and jurisdiction, tends to also affect its outcomes also; the larger the reform jurisdiction, the larger the scope and complexity of implementation (Fesler, 1987). Large scale reforms are normally nationwide reforms that constitute major shifts in government policies (Eggertsson, 1998). Large scale reforms that affects many different classes of people in large areas tends to face difficulty in rallying the support of everyone involved especially people with different party ideology and affiliation. Good examples are the cycles of privatization and nationalization in developing nations and the current Health Care Reform in the U.S. The only thing that tends to make a difference in large scale reform support is crisis. In the presence of conflicts or crisis that are threatening people security and welfare reforms aimed at correcting, improving or restoring peace and stability will easily get unanimous support.
(3) Steadiness and definition of purpose, goals and objectives of reforms tend to also affect the outcomes of reforms. Reforms will arouse opposition if they are viewed as applying the wrong solution or if they are viewed as being primarily redistributive. Positive perception and clarity of goals and objectives build followers faith in the desirability and efficacy of the reform (Burns, 1978). It helps to unity a vast majority of followers to support and rally behind the reform (Rodrick, 1996). However, Rodrick (1996) argues that stakeholders in the reform are normally torn between two conflicting perspectives: on the one hand, good reform policies should produce favorable outcomes and therefore should prove also to be good; on the other hand, the implementation of good reforms policies is often viewed as requiring “strong” and “autonomous” (not to say authoritarian) leadership.
(4) The structure of reform – whether vertical or horizontal – is another factor that has a profound impact on the outcomes. Reform can be initiated from above (top-down) or as a participatory reform; it could also be a reform from within or from outside the center of the institution. These differences tend to produce different outcomes. A perfect situation for success in reform is a participatory reform where both leaders and followers work together to initiate, set the agenda, plan and implement reforms. A reform initiated by top leaders may lack support from followers and vice versa leading to weakness or failure (Pereira, Maravall, and Przewoski, 1993). Those who supports the top-down approach to reform claims that where the institution is in crisis “there is no choice but to move quickly, and public debate and deliberation will waste valuable time (Rodrik, 1996).” They claim that the establishment of social pact will take too much time at a crucial period (Williamson, 1994). Those who supports the participatory approach, on the other hand, argue that it may be inevitable to be somewhat autocratic in the initiation stage of reform (the early stage), but that in later – consolidation – stages one needs to generate support and consensus (Williamson, 1994; Haggard, 1991)
(5) The reasons for the initiation and implementation of reforms tend to affect outcomes as well. Reforms that are implemented after a major crisis tends to produce clear and mostly successful reform considering anything better than crisis is good. Rodrik (1996) argues that the confluence of economic crisis with reform has led to the natural supposition that crisis is the instigator of reform, a hypothesis that keeps reappearing in the literature and yet is inadequately analyzed.
(6) Plan and implementation are also key ingredients in the reform success rate. A well crafted and structure reform coupled with strong leadership will have a clear shot at success. In order to produce needed outcomes a reform must be well crafted and designed from agenda setting, to planning and implementation. According to Rodrick (1996) reformer must put in place adequate social protection to guard against any inevitable that might happen in the process. If it is a reform following a crisis, it is best if it involve three steps: relief for the most stricken by the crisis, recovery of the condition to normal, and reforms aimed at improving the condition/situation.
Finally, in the article, Understanding Economic Policy Reform, Danni Rodrik presented a list – from Williamson (1994) – of hypothesis about what makes reform feasible and successful. The list will help us to summarize factors affecting the success of reform discussed above.
HYPOTHESES ABOUT REFORM
|
1. Policy reforms emerge in response to crisis
|
2. Strong external support (aid) is an important condition for successful reform
|
3. Authoritarian regimes are best at carrying out reform
|
4. Policy reform is a right-wing-program
|
5. Reformers enjoy a "honeymoon period" of support before opposition builds up
|
6. Reforms are difficult to sustain unless the government has a solid base of legislative support
|
7. A government may compensate for the lack of a strong base of support if the opposition is weak and
|
fragmented
|
8. Social consensus is a powerful factor impelling reform
|
9. Visionary leadership is important
|
10. A coherent and united economic team is important
|
11. Successful reform requires economists in positions of political responsibility
|
12. Successful reform requires a comprehensive program capable of rapid implementation
|
13. Reformers should mask their intentions to the general public
|
14. Reformers should make good use of the media
|
15. Reform becomes easier if the losers are compensated
|
16. Sustainability can be enhanced by accelerating the emergence of winners
|
Source: Williamson (1994)
|
A caveat must be mentioned, however, in the article Williamson is said to admit that there are no fully robust empirical generalization about reform success and that none of the 15 hypotheses listed above is either necessary or in itself sufficient for a successful reform (Rodrik, 1996). Just like leadership, reforms are situational.
CONCLUSION
Organizational changes are very complex phenomenon, which we only partly understand (Eggertsson, 1998). However, they have profound effects in explaining and producing needed social outcomes and are very important phenomenon’s that warrants a deeper understanding. One aspect of organizational change that has a profound impact on success in leadership is change in terms of reform. A leader that will fail to embrace reforms in organizations is orchestrating his own and his organization demise. It is important for leaders to embrace reforms and view contemporary organizations as nonlinear dynamics. By using nonlinear dynamics as a new perspective on leadership, leaders will realize that changes and reform that come with leadership and organizational evolutions are not problems or threats, but actually represent opportunities (Kiel, 1995).
Bibliography
Bresser, Pereira, Luiz Carlos; Maravall, Jose Maria & Przeworski, Adam.
Economic reforms in new democracies: A social democratic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1993.
Briggs, J and Peat, F.D. 1989. Turbulent Mirror. New York: HarperCollins
Burns, James Macgregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
Carr, D. K., and Littman, I. D. 1990. Excellence in Government. Arlington, VA:
Coopers & Lybrand.
Cavaleri, S., and Obloj, K. 1993. Management Systems: A Global Perspective. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth
Cole, G.D.H. 1948. Short History of the British Working Class Movement, 1787-1947. London, George
Allen & Unwin pp. 63-69. "The Reform Movement"
Collins, Jim. 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and other Don’t. New York:
Harper Business Press.
Daneke, G. A. 1990. “A Science of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review,
May-June 1990, 50, 383-392
Deming, W. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.
Eggertsson, T. 1998. Limits to Institutional Reforms. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 100: 335–357.
Fesler, J. 1987. The Brownlow Committee Fifty Years Later. Public Administration Review,
Vol 47 (Jun – Aug., 1987)
Goldstone, Jack. 2001. "Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory",
Annual Review of Political Science 4, 2001:139-87
Haggard, Stephan and Webb, eds. 1994. Voting for reform: Democracy,
Political liberalization and economic adjustment. New York: Oxford U. Press
Hammer, M and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution (Harper Business, 1993), pp. v, 1-2
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. 1972. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources (2nd ed.) New Jersey/Prentice Hall
Hillman, R. 2005. Reinventing Government. Creating a Government that Works Better and
Costs Less. Public Administration Review, vol. 52 (November/December), 604-610.
Investopedia Financial Dictionary: Restructuring. Online, available:
Jarrell, G. 2010. Takeovers and Leverage Buyouts: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
Kiel, L. Douglas. 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for
Managing Change, Innovation, and Organizational Renewal. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Kravchuk, R. S. “The ‘New Connecticut’: Lowell Wicker and the Process of Administrative
Reform.” Public Administration Review, 1993, 53(4), 329-339
Mechling et al. 1994. "Customer Service Excellence" p.19 / Mechling, Governing
February 1994 p.51.
Milbrath, L. 1965. Political Participation. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company
Norley, Lyndon; Swanson, Joseph; Marshall, Peter. 2008. A Practitioner's Guide to Corporate
Restructuring. City Financial Publishing. pp. pages xix, 24, and 63
Osborne, David E. & Gaebler, Ted. 1993. Reinventing Government - How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin
Rodrik, Danni. 1996. Understanding Economic Policy Reform. Columbia University: Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIV (March 1996)
Repcheck, Jack (2007) Copernicus' Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began. New York:
Simon Schuster.
Schein, E. 1985. Organizational Culture & Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey~Bass
Toffler, A. 1984. “Foreword: Science & Change.” In I. Prigogine and I. Stengers, Order Out of Chaos.
New York: Bantam
Waldo, D. 1980. “Public Administration Toward Year 2000: The Framing Phenomena.” In D Waldo
(ed.), The Enterprise of Public Administration. New York: Chandler and Sharp
Williamson, John, e d. 1994. The political economy of policy reform. Washington, DC:
Institute for International Economics.
The Nature of Leadership and Policy Problems in Tanzania
By Kilian M. Kamota
There are noises and confusion everywhere across the country concerning leadership and public policy issues in Tanzania. The fact that there are leadership inadequacy and policy problems across the Nation seems to become a nationwide consensus today. The call for and the eventual agreement to reevaluate the constitution is a vivid evidence of the matter. The evidence can also be seen all across the Nation as citizen’s outcry regarding socio-economic problems is spreading like a wild fire. Over the last six months alone [from September 2012 to March 2013] we have witnessed intense citizen outcry over the issues of gas exploration in Mtwara, the form four national examination results fiasco, the everyday clashes between police and citizens, the continue electricity and water supply woes as well as the issue of religion conflicts – to mention the few. All these issues bring us to a realization that how leaders formulate and implement socio-economic policies in Tanzania is more than a puzzle. It is a perplexity that requires a shift in mindset and a recognition that the current socio-economic landscape is changing, and as it changes, the role of everyone involved [in formulating and implementing policies] from citizens to leaders and all stakeholders must evolve. Who decides how the country’s future will look, in terms of policies, politics, governance and the economy, that affects people well being is an important question that requires a paradigm shift (or at least a semi-paradigm shift). It is the million dollar question, the challenge and the opportunity for all Tanzanians that stimulate a rich dialogue as Tanzanians consider their varying needs and the types of leadership that is required to lead them to reach their new objectives.
there is an immediate need to reform, reinvent, redesign, restructure and reorganize the nation’s bureaucratic machine i.e. systems of governance, the constitution, its leadership and the policy process. There is a need for a new system and new ways of doing things [a new paradigm]. As former president Mkapa once said, in his April 2007 editorial in Thisday Newspaper entitled Leadership: An African Viewpoint & Experience, Africa must not forget its history, but African resolve and African spirits must not be imprisoned by it. Fifty years after Ghana’s [and Tanzania] independence, Africa can and should now seek to conquer the negative legacies of its history, and engender a new trajectory of its development towards a more prosperous era. Tanzania is approaching a defining moment in the Nation's history. The decisions that will be made in the near future will determine whether the country will gloriously evolve to greatness or stumble closer to crumble.
Background:
Tanzania is a third world country located on the south eastern part of the African continent. It is one of the poorest countries in the world with an economy that is heavily dependent on agriculture. CIA World Fact Book (2010) says that Tanzania is in the bottom ten percent of the world's economies in terms of per capita income. The country economy is heavily dependent on agriculture, which accounts for more than 40% of GDP, provides 85% of exports, and employs 80% of the work force (CIA World Fact Book, 2010). Although majority of African countries are in the same economic state but there are clear leadership and policy failures that led Tanzania to this position. In many third world countries the country leadership, mainly the presidential institution and the executive branch, has an excessive control of resources and thus the economy. As seen in the book Speaking Truth to Power by Wildavsky (1987), power is always in the hands of leaders/politicians who controls resources and budget. No wonder, Kenneth Blanchard in his book The Secret, said that ultimately everything rises and falls on leadership.
Harold Lasswell (1958) once said that politics is about “who gets what, when, and how”. It is leaders [mainly politicians] who sets priorities and decides how National resources and allocated and utilized. It is leaders/politicians who decide what type of development initiatives to pursue, how to attack poverty, how to create more jobs and bring about economic developments etc. In the book Public Policy: Politics, Analysis and Alternatives, Kraft and Furlong (2010) says politics concerns the exercise of power in society and the way conflicts are expressed and resolved in favor of one set of interest or social values over another. That is why it is impossible to separate public policy from leadership. Leadership and the policies they formulate are critical elements of a Nations economic development.
Since the attainment of independence the government of Tanzania has been working diligently to eliminate poverty and bring sustainable development to its people. The most important government agenda has always been the attainment of sustainable development and elimination of poverty. Majority of major policies, agenda’s, initiatives, movements, decisions, and actions taken have been geared towards attaining those two goals in one way or another. Whether it’s a campaign against literacy, diseases, education, health care, agriculture, good governance, work ethics etc they are all aimed at increasing efficiency and effectiveness with the intention of bringing economic development and eradicating poverty. However, as we will see, there have always been flaws on the way major policy decisions are made at the top leadership level (presidential institution and the executive branch). Most socio-economic policies have failed due to flaws in either the initial stage (formulation) or the final stage (implementation) of policy formation.
The nature of leadership and policy problems in Tanzania has dual origins. There are causes that are a result of the colonial rule and causes that originate from the modern Tanzanian government itself. In his April 2007 newspaper editorial, Leadership: An African Viewpoint & Experience, former president Mkapa said that he believe that a discussion of leadership and governance in Africa will be seriously deficient if it fails to put previous and current leadership, and the developmental challenges they faced and continue to face, in their proper historical, cultural and sociological context.
Problems Rooted from Colonialism & Its Aftermath:
Whether it was intended or unintended, the Tanzanian system of governance was solely inherited from the British colonial rule government and by far it has remained the same over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, that colonial form of government was not intended to lead a free country in pursuit of true socio-economic freedom. Not only that, when you do the math you will realize that the country was under the colonial form of government longer [from 1885 to 1961] than it have been free [1961 to 20130]. No wonder, the legacy of colonialism can still be felt in the country’s pursuit of development. And as president Mkapa mentioned in his paper, “the democratic values, which were maturing in Europe in the 19th century, were not spread to Africa; and any efforts by Africans to demand democratic rule and civil rights were ruthlessly suppressed (Mkapa, 2007).”
It is also true that the colonial rulers did not make any efforts to prepare the newly independent country’s to rule themselves and grow socially and economically. They did not prepare their new leaders to lead the young nations neither. In other words, colonial rulers did not prepare African countries to rule themselves; they actually prepared them for failure. In his paper, Leadership: An African Viewpoint & Experience, former president Mkapa pointed out the following context in which most African countries were left after independence:
-Very low levels of education, and hardly any preparation for leadership, whether political or economic.
-Very low governance resources, financial and human; and weak, if any, institutions of independent governance and economic development.
-A hostile external environment, as clearly the colonial powers were not happy to leave their possessions.
-The domestic environment, especially with regard to the settler and colonial commercial interests, were equally obstructive, if not outright hostile.
As far as colonialism and its effects to the nature of leadership and policy problems in Tanzania, I could not agree more with Mr. Mkapa’s excellent conclusion that Africa’s colonial legacy is not the only reason for Africa’s poor economic performance, but it is an important one.
Few minor government reforms have been made since independence, in an attempt to improve performance and create a government that produce better results, but by far they do not seem to fulfill their intended needs or cope with the pace of change that is sweeping the nation. It is an understatement to say that major and immediate changes are long overdue in Tanzania. In order to bring a positive change in Tanzania, following institutions needs immediate change:
- The System of Government i.e.
- The structure of government and government institutions
- Culture inside the government and government institution
- Work processes inside the government and government institutions
- The Constitution
- System of checks and balance
- Establishment of the rule of law
It is important for the reader to understand that not everything can be changed overnight i.e. revolutionized, some things needs only simple reorganization while other sectors requires reengineering i.e. fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of work process to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measure of performance. As such, the following types of changes needs to be employed to different aspects of the government:
- Reforms
- Restructuring
- Reorganization
- Reengineering
- Reinvention
- Revolution
Problems Rooted from the Modern Tanzania Leadership:
Ken Blanchard, in his book The Secret, once said that ultimately, everything rises and falls under leadership. It is an undeniable truth that for the most part the blame for majority of leadership maladies and policy failure in Tanzania rests on its modern leaders i.e. policy makers. The CIA World Fact Book had put this point in an excellent context when it said that:
Tanzania became fully independent on December 1961 and Nyerere was elected president. The political history of Tanzania has been largely shaped by the political stature of Tanzania's first president, Julius Nyerere. Considered the father of the country, Nyerere was president of Tanzania from 1961 to 1985. Nyerere implemented a sweeping economic reorganization known as ujaama, a system intended to produce a uniquely African form of socialism. State control of everything from agricultural collectivization to transportation and utility services was initiated.
That is why it was stated in the beginning of the paper that due to nature of the country leadership, majority of problems facing Tanzania can be attributed or traced back to its leadership. Those key problems can be grouped into the following categories:
1) Nature of Tanzania’s Constitution
The Tanzania constitution was inherited from Great Britain after independence. The country never formulated its own constitutional from scratch – by the people for the people – and thus the structure and system of government is modeled from Great Britain. Since the attainment of independence Tanzanians are still using the inherited constitution which has been amended several times to suit the needs of the ruling class. That means Tanzanians never had a chance to formally formulate their own system and structure of government that is based on their demands and needs. That is why the country does not have a relevant structure and system of government. The current structure and system of government is very irrelevant, inefficient and ineffective. Because of that, the Tanzanian public policy system has been swallowed by the irrationalities and indignities of politics. All social and economic policies in Tanzania are done politically by politicians. The American constitution, as an example, was purposely designed to make policy formation difficult in order to protect government policy from the self-interested motives of tyrannous majority or minority. Tanzanian constitution is the opposite. For example, Tanzania is one of few countries that have both presidential system (the U.S. system) where the president is the head of the government and the parliamentary system (British system) where the country has a primer minister. There is a need for a new constitution that will make the policy process complex and efficient, change the system and structure of government, put in place a system of checks and balance, establish the rule of law, give citizens larger participation in government affairs, make it harder for leaders or one branch of government to make major decisions alone and most importantly remove policy making authority from elected officials alone and involve expert regulatory commissions and professional policy makers.
As the issues confronting governments become more complex because of industrialization and urbanization the need to get expert-driven rather than political input becomes more relevant in Tanzania. There is indeed, a need for new a constitution that will reflect the true political, policy, societal, governmental and legislative needs of the modern Tanzania.
2) Nature of Tanzania’s Democracy
Tanzania is one of few countries in Africa that has semi-functioning democracy. Over the last 50 years since independence the country has enjoyed semi-functional democracy, peace and tranquility. Every five years the country goes through free and semi-fair national elections where people gets a chance to choose their leaders from national to the local level. However, if you have noticed, I have repeatedly used the word semi-functioning democracy and semi-fair elections and that is because the countries elections and democracy are not perfect. It is known to many that our elections and democracy have defiance’s.
Soon after independence Tanzania was a multi-party democracy. However, due to the timing issue [a country being infant and fragile] it was deemed necessary to abolish multi-party system and concentrate on unifying the young Nation. “The one-party political system was an important unifying factor for newly independent African countries [Tanzania being one of them] (Mkapa, 2007).” That decision turned out to be very beneficial at the time as the country became more united, democratic and peaceful compared to other African nations that took the other route. In 1992, after enjoying more than 30 years of maturity and unity, it was once again deemed necessary to reintroduce multi-party democracy. However, the new multi-part system in Tanzania is ailing from the syndrome of Partisanship. Partisanship, in politics, means rational or irrational commitment to a political party. “In a multiparty system, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation (Oxford Dictionary, 2010).” Because of that phenomenon, although Tanzania is democratic but the effectiveness and responsiveness of its government comes into question when you analyze their actions and the policy outcomes. Majority of policy and law makers from the ruling party CCM [in the parliament] tends to support any policy that originates from their side and oppose any policy from opposition parties even if it is beneficial to the welfare of the nation. This partisanship obscurity is truly hurting the development of the nation. There is a need for law makers and politician to understand the importance and essence of bipartisanship when it comes to issues that a crucial to the wellbeing of the nation especially those public policies that are about communities trying to achieve something. There is a need for a paradigm shift in the field politics & public policy in Tanzania.
3) Nature of the Presidential Institution
The Tanzanian Presidential institution is what some scholars calls “Imperial Presidency”. In essence, the president of Tanzania retains all the formal and informal power, authority, influence. He is also said to be, technically, above the law. The President of Tanzania chooses and selects (or influence election/selection) all important, and key leaders of the executive branch, the judicial, and the legislative branch – is including all other key heads of the government bureaucracies and institutions etc. And unfortunately, the Tanzanian constitution does not have a requirement for any formal or informal hearing or approval for any selected government official. In other words all key figures in the Tanzanian branches of government serves [in one way or another] at the pleasure of the president. This condition, in Tanzania, is a step child of the country outdated constitution. That type of presidency tends to be a conducive breeding ground for inefficiency in government
The Tanzanian government has, a supposedly, system of separation of power without actual separation of any power. It also has, a purportedly, system of check and balance that does not check or balance anything. Power is concentrated at the president and the executive branch. And we all know of the saying that goes ‘power corrupt but absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The structure and system of government in Tanzania needs restructuring that will put in place true separation of power and thus a true system of checks and balance. As James Madison, one the United States founding father, once said – in the Federalist Paper No. 51:
In framing the government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficult lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself (quote in Janda, Berry and Goldman 1995, p.A20. Adopted from Rushefsy, 2008)
4) Nature of Policy Making System in Tanzania
It has been a common phenomenon for politicians in Tanzania to turn campaign slogans into public policies without following the proper policy making steps. The two major economic policies that Tanzania has unsuccessful enacted in the last 50 years [the Nyerere’s Ujamaa & Mwinyi/Mkapa Mixed Economy] did not follow proper policy making process. Proper policy making tends to have the following steps: policy formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation and redesign phases. Evidence seems to suggest that Tanzania leaders are allergic to those steps. Stone (1997) listed four generic goals of public policies as, security (internal and external protection of society), efficiency (how well do government programs work), equity (fair distribution of goods and services in society by both public and private sector), and liberty (freedom to do what we want). Any time a country enact a public policy, according to Stone, the policy should attempt to achieve at least three of those goals. Looking at the four goals you can easily conclude that majority of public policies in Tanzania tends to fail.
Ø Another key observation is the fact that both policies were implemented using the Top-Down policy implementation model. Top-down models see implementation as concerned with the degree to which the actions of implementing officials and target groups coincide with the goals embodied in an authoritative decision (Matland, 1995). Many scholars tend to criticize the top down models pointing out that the model is best for simple policies and tend to fail when applied to big, complex or ambiguous policies.
For national wide policies like the Tanzania Ujamaa & Mixed Economy, a customized implementation model or a combination of both top down and bottom up would have worked better. There is a need for a paradigm shift in the field of public policy in Tanzania.
Other Key Problems:
TimingAbsence of leadership succession plan
Lack of charismatic & transformational leaders
Corruption and a culture of discipline
One aspect of contemporary organizations that both scholars and practitioners agree on is the presence, the need and the importance of change. Alvin Toffler, in the book Order Out of Chaos, argues that during the last decade several scholastic analysis have emphasized both the accelerating pace of change in the world and the increasing complexity generated by the process of change. Dwight Waldo, in the book Public Administration toward Year 2000, pointed out that the only thing that can be predicted with certainty in our social life is that complexity will increase and change will quicken. Modern organizations and institutions are said to be non linear dynamics filled with rhythms, cycles, chaos and change. In the book Managing Chaos & Complexity in Government, Douglas Kiel, argue that non linear dynamic and change is the new paradigm that public leaders and managers need if they are to build organizations with the internal capacity for transformational change. But change tends to come in many faces ranging from reform, to revolution, reorganization, restructuring, reinvention and reengineering. The challenge facing scholars and practitioners is to figure out the most effective kind of change that can produce the needed socio-economic results.
The concept of reform has gained profound reputation over the last few years. Hardly a day goes by without a news story about an organization, a corporation, a government entity, or a national government undergoing reforms. However, not all the changes that are called reforms are actual reforms – if we are to examine the actual meaning of the concept. Some of them are actually simple restructuring or reorganizations while others are complex reengineering or revolutions and vice versa. Public leaders have sometimes – consciously or unconsciously – promised revolution while they intend to reform. They sometimes do so intentionally in order to dramatize the event and the moment or unintentionally due to lack of understanding of the concept. It is easy to discount the distinction between the different kinds of change as mere artifacts of different literatures or scholarly writings. Yet, hard as it might be to accept, it is entirely possible that the way changes are defined and approached might lead to a significant difference in the outcomes they produce. Thus instead of asking whether the obsession with change is valid, scholars and practitioners would be better off asking how to change: whether to reform or to use other methods that are commonly labeled as reforms.
For Tanzania, the topic of change in government and leadership is of outmost importance because the current Tanzanian government is inefficient which give rise to the demand for expert advice on incremental changes. It is my intention to do my part in assisting my nation on figuring that the best way to bring about effective changes that will produce the needed results. I am also impressed by the rise of the so called “Tiger Economy” countries of South East Asia as well as the economic success in China and India, which are all attributed to the 1980’s and 1990’s economic reforms around that region. The rise of china and India out of the 3rd world country category, in the last twenty years, is one of the most celebrated economic reform miracles of this century. There are great lessons that Tanzania can draw from the Tiger Economic countries and the rise of China & India. To that end I will review the conceptual distinctions between reform and its quasi names for the sake of starting a conversation on how to bring about the needed changes in Tanzania.
In his Article Reinventing Government, Robert Hillman defined reform as to change into an improved form or conditions; to amend or improve by change or removal of faults; to change beneficially, reverse to a pure original state, repair, restore or correct. For the most part, reform seeks to gradually improve the existing system or institution by adjusting, or at most rectify serious errors without altering the fundamentals of the system. Those changes could come as political, organizational, or institutional reform; they could come from above – leadership – or from below – followers or in a participatory form; they could be a large scale reform or small scale; they could take shorter or long period of time to be implemented; and they could be initiated from within or from outside.
Revolution, on the other hand, is famously defined as a complete overhaul or overthrow of an existing system or establishment (Gladstone, 2001). Note, while reform is an evolutionary and gradual change revolution is an abrupt overnight change. While reform seeks to improve the existing system or establishment, revolution seeks to uproot, overthrow and replace the existing system or establishment. In a 2001 article by John Gladstone, Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory, the author says that in its broadest meaning revolution is a complete and pervasive transformation of an entire social system. Its means the birth of a new radical ideology; creation of a new political system; reconstruction of the economy, education, communications, law; and the confirmation and perhaps establishment of a new leadership (Kroeber, 1996).
A second distinguish character of revolution can be found in the book, Leadership by James Macgregor Burns. In his book, Burns (1978) argues that while the reformer operates in parts, the revolutionist operates on whole. Government reforms will serve us better in understanding this point. Government reforms, normally, consist of partial changes in parts of the governments. That can be reform in certain policies like the 2012 Health Care reform, or the Campaign Finance Reform in the United States. It can be reform in the structure of the government agency or department or reform in the constitution, to mention the few. It is usually a modification harmonious with existing trends and consistent with prevailing principles and movements (Burns, 1978). Revolution, on the other hand, consists of a complete change of an entire government or regime or “a fundamental change in power or organization structure that happens in a relatively short period of time (Hillman, 1995).” A third distinction lies in the core of the two concepts. According to Repcheck (2007) at the center of reform is a crisis, failure or dissatisfaction; while at the center of revolution is conflict or oppression. It is normal for individuals to launch reform at times of peace just for the sake of improving or making things better. But revolution stems from deep frustration by oppression or inequality, wide popular discontent and sometimes failures of reformism.
Reengineering is another term that is sometimes used interchangeably with reform. Like revolution, reengineering is a complete transformation of an existing system. Kiel (1994) argues that reengineering is a wholesale transformation of the work processes or the way work is performed. It deals with the process used to accomplish work. In their 1993 book, Reengineering the Corporation, Michael Hammer and James Champy defined reengineering as fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business process to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measures of performance such as cost, service and speed. In an article for Governing Magazine, Jerry Mechling, a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government listed following three characteristics of reengineering: fundamental change where all work process is subject to redesign – it is not reengineering if only a few steps are changed; rapid progress toward radical goals that reengineering intends to reach rapidly; selective use of appropriate information technology – to reengineer means to use computers and other information technologies to achieve radical goals.
Reinvention is a change movement based on innovation and creativity. It is sometimes used interchangeably with reengineering due to overlaps and similarities between the two. Hillman (2005) says that the concept has been in practice in the private sector since the mid 1980's where it is more commonly referred to as business process reengineering or simply reengineering. Mechling (1994) refers to reinventing government as public- sector reengineering. In essence reinvention refers to attempts to introduce successful private sector’s techniques into the public sector for the purpose of managing and improving performance. It is widely used in governments. Reinventing government is a brainchild of the entrepreneurial management paradigm. Osborne and Gaebler (1992) say that the real aim of government reinvention is to renew and reform public institutions from timid bureaucratic into innovative, flexible, and responsive organizations. It aims at transforming bureaucratic governments into entrepreneurial governments.
Reorganization means reassignment of parts in a whole sum. It is somehow, a reshuffling of departments inside an organization, or reshuffling of agencies inside a department. A good example of reorganization was the 1936 Brownlow Committee which reshuffled and reassigned agencies in the U.S government leading to a comprehensive reorganization of different departments, the Executive Branch and the creation of the Executive Office of the President (Fesler, 1987).
Restructuring is a cooperate management term for the act of reorganizing the legal, ownership, operational, or other structures of an organization for a purpose of making it more profitable, or better organized for its present needs (Norley, Swanson & Marshall, 2008). This could be a change of leadership structure or reporting authority; it could be a restructuring of a corporate financing system or debt structure; or a demerger when multiple companies in a conglomerate part ways. It mostly deals with reorganization of non physical aspects of corporations like leadership, financing, debt, ownership, operations and the like.
All in all, it is important to understand that “effective changes in the government are task or time-relevant and the most successful changes are those that adapt to time and contemporary organizational needs (Hersey & Blanchard, 1972).” When there is a need for gradual change, adjustments, adaptation, improvement, corrections or restoration in certain aspects of organizations – like policies, rules, regulation, norms, culture, etc – reform is the best prescription. As for revolution, the age of political and government revolution is over; the age of buyouts and hostile takeovers has long passed; the only type of revolution that is useful in modern organizations is the revolution in management and leadership thinking. When the aim is to improve performance by altering the way managers thinks, revolution is the best prescription. Through a revolution in mindset public managers will acquires a new world view, a new intellectual framework, and a new paradigm from which to see both the current requirements for leading organizations and the challenges of creating institutions capable of qualitative and transformational change in performance and service deliver (Kiel, 1994; Daneke, 1990). When you want to change employee’s behavior or decision making, it is best to change the structure of the organization through reorganization. That is because structure, according to Kiel (1994), affects behavior. Flatter organization tends to be more effective in decision making than vertical organizations
What if the intention is to change organization culture? Culture includes assumptions, long held beliefs, behaviors, perceptions, values and conventional ways of doing things. You can change organization culture by either changing the structure through reorganization, or by changing the way work gets done through reengineering. When the goal is to change an organization from a timid bureaucratic to entrepreneurial one, reinvention is the best choice.
Change & Leadership:
It was Burns who posed the question on whether the quality of leadership makes much difference in reform movements. Other questions which are equally important and have direct implication on leadership include questions on reform strategies. Some of those questions which were also posed by Burns include: how should reformers mobilize persons of reform instinct but of diverse and volatile predispositions behind a considered reform effort; how should they connect one reform cause with related but seemingly separates ones; how above all to deal as reformers with politicians and parties and governments that reflect more mixed and general needs and attitudes. There is a large and growing literature that addresses those questions.
These questions are cardinal when planning and implementing reforms as failure to consider them may negatively impact the outcomes. The questions are also important in explaining why other managers/leaders succeed to implement reform while others – sometimes brilliant – fail. The questions will be addresses briefly by exploring the literature on factors affecting the effectiveness of reforms – leadership, steadiness and definition of purpose, timing, plan and implementation.
The importance of leadership in reforms stems from dual factors: the characteristics, nature and structure of contemporary organizations and the characteristics of today’s turbulent environment. Contemporary organizations are said to be complex systems filled with “rhythms, cycles, chaos and change that requires constant transformation or reforms (Kiel, 1994). The world – external environment – is not the way it used to be; it is a turbulent world which calls for new approaches to leadership. All those changes inside and outside of organizations call for new approaches to leadership, new ways of doing work, new work processes, as well as reforming organization structure, culture and systems. And the heavy burden in fulfilling those goals lays in the quality of leadership to initiate, plan, steer and implement effective reforms.
The scope of reform, that is, size and jurisdiction, tends to also affect its outcomes; the larger the reform jurisdiction, the larger the scope and complexity of implementation (Fesler, 1987). Large scale reforms are normally nationwide reforms that constitute major shifts in government policies (Eggertsson, 1998). Large scale reforms that affects many different classes of people in large areas tends to face difficulty in rallying the support of everyone involved especially people with different party ideology and affiliation. The only thing that tends to make a difference in large scale reform support is crisis. In the presence of conflicts or crisis that are threatening people security and welfare reforms aimed at correcting, improving or restoring peace and stability will easily get unanimous support.
Steadiness and definition of purpose, goals and objectives of reforms tend to also affect the outcomes of reforms. Reforms will arouse opposition if they are viewed as applying the wrong solution or if they are viewed as being primarily redistributive. Positive perception and clarity of goals and objectives build followers faith in the desirability and efficacy of the reform (Burns, 1978).
The structure of reform – whether vertical or horizontal – is another factor that has a profound impact on the outcomes. Reform can be initiated from above (top-down) or as a participatory reform; it could also be a reform from within or from outside the center of the institution. These differences tend to produce different outcomes. A perfect situation for success in reform is a participatory reform where both leaders and followers work together to initiate, set the agenda, plan and implement reforms. A reform initiated by top leaders may lack support from followers and vice versa leading to weakness or failure (Bresser, Pereira, Maravall, and Przewoski, 1993).
The reasons for the initiation and implementation of reforms tend to affect outcomes as well. Reforms that are implemented after a major crisis tends to produce clear and mostly successful c considering anything better than crisis is good. Rodrik (1996) argues that the confluence of economic crisis with reform has led to the natural supposition that crisis is the instigator of reform, a hypothesis that keeps reappearing in the literature and yet is inadequately analyzed.
Plan and implementation are also key ingredients in the reform success rate. A well crafted and structure reform coupled with strong leadership will have a clear shot at success. In order to produce needed outcomes a reform must be well crafted and designed from agenda setting, to planning and implementation. If it is a reform following a crisis, it is best if it involve three steps: relief for the most stricken by the crisis, recovery of the condition to normal, and reforms aimed at improving the condition/situation.
The leadership (& government) system in Tanzania and the field of public administration are in a dire need for a paradigm shift (or at least a semi-paradigm shift). For years those two sectors have been struggling with the gap between theory and practice. Public administrators, government’s officials and legislatures have been famous in formulating and adopting remarkable policies in theory soon to be realized impractical. Good policies, adopted with good intentions have turned into a disaster because of the gap between what is and what ought to be. The way policies are formulated and implemented now is an old paradigm.
In his 1983 book, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, Richard J. Bernstein says the idea of questioning, exposing, and banishing public policies is at the very core of what he identifies as the answer to moving beyond the objectivism-relativism dichotomy. Bernstein’s (1983) calls for scholars and intellectuals to talk and debate until a new and deeper understanding of human rationality is achieved. There is a need for Tanzania scholars and intellectuals to talk and debate until a new and deeper understanding of the leadership & public policy crisis is attained.
Policy makers needs to be educated on the importance of creating policies in a fairly orderly sequence – from defining the problem, placing an issue on the agenda, to proposing, analyzing, legitimizing, selecting and refining the alternative solution. Fays (1975) says policy science is intended to be a tool for organizing political thoughts in a rational way and sorting out consequences and procedures for making decisions that are impartial.
To bring a new paradigm in leadership & the field of public administration, Tanzania will have to change the way things are being done. That will include changing: the way policies are created and implemented, the way citizens are engaged in the policy process and the types of policy models utilized for implementation. There is also a need for a new process that will make the development and approval of new policies difficult in order limit government or one branch of government from bulldozing the other. There is a need to change the country constitution in order to make the policy making process more complex like the United States system. There is a need to restructure the government and the presidential authority in order to eliminate any elements of authoritarianism and transform the government into a stable, effective, and responsive organ. The new leadership & policy making paradigms in Tanzania should put in place mechanisms for bringing the creation of machinery which would produce efficient administration and coherent policies.
Bibliography
Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis.
Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1983.
Blanchard, K and Miller, M. (2004). The Secret: What Great Leaders Know -- And Do, 2nd Ed
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc
Bresser, Pereira, Luiz Carlos; Maravall, Jose Maria & Przeworski, Adam.
Economic reforms in new democracies: A social democratic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1993.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
Cobb, R. W and Elder C. D. (1983). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of
Agenda- Building 2nd (Ed.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Cox, Raymond W. (1994). Public Administration in Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Crenson, M. (1975). The Federal Machine: Beginnings of Bureaucracy in Jacksonian America
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Daneke, G. A. 1990. “A Science of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review,
May-June 1990, 50, 383-392
Eggertsson, T. 1998. Limits to Institutional Reforms. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 100: 335–357.
Fay, B. (1975). Controversies in Sociology: Social Theory and Political Practice. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Fesler, J. 1987. The Brownlow Committee Fifty Years Later. Public Administration Review,
Vol 47 (Jun – Aug., 1987)
Goldstone, Jack. 2001. "Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory",
Annual Review of Political Science 4, 2001:139-87
Hammer, M and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution (Harper Business, 1993), pp. v, 1-2
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. 1972. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources (2nd ed.) New Jersey/Prentice Hall
Hillman, R. 2005. Reinventing Government. Creating a Government that Works Better and
Costs Less. Public Administration Review, vol. 52 (November/December), 604-610.
Hodd, M. (1988). Tanzania after Nyerere. University of London. School of Oriental and African
Studies. London, pp. 26-27.
Janda K, Berry J and Goldman J. (1995). The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America. 4th Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Kiel, L. Douglas. 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for
Managing Change, Innovation, and Organizational Renewal. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Kraft, M. E and Furlong, S. R. (2010). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives
3rd ed. Washington DC CQ Press
Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who gets What, When How. With Postscripts. New York
Meridian Books.
Matland, Richard. (1995). Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: Synthesizing
the Implementation Literature
Mechling et al. 1994. "Customer Service Excellence" p.19 / Mechling, Governing
February 1994 p.51.
Milbrath, L. (1965). Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company
MKapa B. (2007). Leadership: An African viewpoint and experience: ThisDay
Dar es salaam, Tanzania
Norley, Lyndon; Swanson, Joseph; Marshall, Peter. 2008. A Practitioner's Guide to Corporate
Restructuring. City Financial Publishing. pp. pages xix, 24, and 63
Nyerere, J. K. (1969). Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism. Dar es salaam: Oxford University Press
Tanzania LTD
Osborne, David E. & Gaebler, Ted. 1993. Reinventing Government - How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin
Oxford Dictionary. (2010). Ujamaa: The Africa Socialism.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ujamaa?attempted=true (accessed August 2nd, 2010)
Rauch, C.F., & Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the study of
Leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hoskings, C. A Schriesheim, & R Stewart (Eds), Leaders And managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership.
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, pp 45-62
Richards, D., & Engle, S. (1986). After the vision: Suggestions to corporate visionaries and
vision Champions. In J. D Adams (Ed.), Transforming leadership. Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press, pp. 199-214
Repcheck, Jack (2007) Copernicus' Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began. New York:
Simon Schuster.
Rodrik, Danni. 1996. Understanding Economic Policy Reform. Columbia University: Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIV (March 1996)
Rushefsky, M. (2008). Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the Twenty First
Century 4th (Ed.).New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc
Sabatier, P and Mazmaiman, D . (1980). The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of
Analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(2): 538-560.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making 2nd ed. New York: W.W.
Norton
Toffler, A. 1984. “Foreword: Science & Change.” In I. Prigogine and I. Stengers, Order Out of Chaos.
New York: Bantam
U.S Government. CIA – The World Fact book (2010). History of Tanzania
Waldo, D. 1980. “Public Administration Toward Year 2000: The Framing Phenomena.” In D Waldo
(ed.), The Enterprise of Public Administration. New York: Chandler and Sharp
Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
No comments:
Post a Comment