Change, Complexity, and Leadership Challenges

• Author: Robert J. O'Neill,John Nalbandian
• Date: 01 March 2018
• Published date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12917

Change, Complexity, and Leadership Challenges 311

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 2, pp. 311–314. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12917.

We better stop now, what ’ s that sound? Everybody look—

what ’ s going down?

—Buffalo Springfield, 1967

W e look now, and what do we see? A rate

of change and complexity we have never

experienced. Maybe it is not unexpected

that amid this environment we see a reaction—a

foundational desire to connect to our identity, an

anchor in our lives. We can find this complexity

and an accelerated pace of change in the disciplines

of the administrative or operational world (think

“smart cities,” for example). On the other hand, in

the political arena, we find the challenge of grounding

our lives in a seemingly stable, simplistic world

that often produces “us and them.” It comes to a

head in the contemporary version of that enduring

theme—politics and administration—producing new

leadership challenges.

In this column, we chart with a broad brush what we

see happening in contemporary local government—

centered on what we are calling the gap between political

acceptability (politics) and administrative or operational

sustainability (administration). Then, we identify and

describe associated leadership challenges and the mind-

set and skills/talents needed to “bridge the gap.”

Bridging the gap is the essential prerequisite for

effective governance. Political acceptability focuses

on what it is we want to accomplish and the

dynamics around building support among competing

political initiatives. But can we do what we want

to accomplish, and can we do it over time? An

assumption is that this process of connecting politics

and administration begins with the political (vision,

mission, policy initiative). But in our experience,

that is not always the case. Frequently, the process

of improving a water treatment plant or virtually

any other infrastructure investment is initiated by a

need—an element of administrative sustainability—

and then the question of political will is engaged.

There is nothing new in setting out this dynamic

back-and-forth relationship. We understand that

without effective bridges between political and

administrative arenas, little is accomplished, and trust

in public servants—both political and professional—

erodes and the value of government itself can be

questioned. Acknowledging the tension surrounding

the need to maintain integrity in political and

administrative arenas, something is happening that is

making the gap between these two arenas—these two

mind-sets—more difficult to bridge, fostering new

leadership challenges.

To better understand the challenges faced in

connecting political acceptability and administrative

sustainability, we propose the metaphor of the

bridge, stimulating several observations. For example,

there is not one bridge; each policy initiative or

administrative/operational need may have its own

bridge, which may or may not be constructed on

a sound foundation and connect political and

administrative worlds. Some bridges will be longer

than others, suggesting a longer time span to make

connections. Some will be wider, suggesting more

parties on the bridge and maybe more potential for

“accidents.” Some bridges will be both long and wide.

And some may lead to nowhere!

Traditionally in council-manager government, we

expect the city manager to work the bridge. This

expectation is captured in the familiar graphic of a

governing body and administrative staff separated

by a city manager. But as the bridges multiply

and become longer and wider and invite more

engagement, the work often leads to dead ends. The

bridging task becomes more challenging (Nalbandian

et al. 2013 ).

Leadership Challenges

The first challenge focuses on roles and responsibilities,

particularly of department heads or the equivalent.

We used to describe the city manager and department

heads collectively as a “management team.”

Robert J. O ’ Neill , Jr.

John Nalbandian

John Nalbandian is emeritus professor,

School of Public Affairs and Administration,

University of Kansas. He was a longtime

faculty member in the public administration

program at the University of Kansas, which

focuses on educating students for careers

in local government. He served for 12 years

as chair of the public administration

department and was elected to two terms

on the city council in Lawrence, Kansas,

where he also served as mayor. He has been

widely recognized for his teaching, research,

and service. Presently, he works with local

governments throughout the country

sharing his learning.

Robert J. O ’ Neill, Jr. is past executive

director of the International City/County

Management Association. He retired

from the organization in December 2016.

Previously, he served as county executive

in Fairfax County, Virginia (1997–2000),

where he was credited with developing a

series of strategies aimed at revitalizing

older residential communities and

commercial areas as well as launching a

series of initiatives focused on performance

and results management. His “reinvention”

of the government of Hampton, Virginia,

as city manager (1984–97) was widely

recognized; his many accomplishments

included downtown and waterfront

revitalization initiatives as well as the

development of a nationally recognized

youth-at-risk program.

E-mail: roneill8192@gmail.com

Change, Complexity, and Leadership Challenges

Viewpoint

Stephen E. Condrey,

Associate Editor