Date: 17 January 2008
It seems that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are having a difference of opinion about what it means to govern. Ms. Clinton is quoted as seeing the role of Commander in Chief as running the country, setting the goals, and then steering towards them. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, wants to occupy the Oval Office as a visionary, who sets the broad goals, and lets others participate in how the good ship America achieves them.
The two agree on the responsibility in setting goals, providing a vision, and, hopefully, surrounding the Office with competent people who provide the information and advice necessary to get the job done properly. In implementation, however, Ms. Clinton would, it seems, be the direct supervisor of those who are fulfilling her commands. Mr. Obama prefers, according to his statements, to be the facilitator of those interpreting his commands.
Both candidates recognize that they remain accountable for the outcome, both want good outcomes, and they differ over how tightly the journey towards those outcomes needs to be managed by the President. For discussion purposes, let’s assume Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama are equally qualified for the position, equally understand what vision and leadership mean, and equally grasp what it means to develop public policy. Does it matter then that they disagree on how tightly to grasp the reins of their public employees, the Foreign Service, and other ‘incidentals’ of government?
If you have been supervised by or lived with a control freak, you know how unrewarding an experience that can be. If you have ever worked for or been in a relationship with someone who operates without structure, you know how unsatisfying it is to try to get a decision made, or a project finished. Employees and citizens alike tend not to enjoy being micro-managed, or being left to figure rules out entirely on their own. Out of those feelings about management style comes conflict in all forms. Our politicians, our supervisors, and our significant others’ implementation styles can become a large potential source of conflict, whether in our lives, in our communities, or in our workplace. In other words, we can have the same goals, same values, same interpretation of the available data, and still have conflict about how to implement the plan.
Good governance distinguishes managing from leading, and lets the people who excel at each do the job they are given to do. Governance models that work strike a balance between the control freak and the control avoider. The irritating sources of negative conflict from implementation style can be made more productive. The conflict that remains is the positive kind of disagreement that is required for good policymaking.
0 Responses to “Put Good Governance in Government”