[This was published in Dhaka Courier
on 28 August 2014]
Matter of good governance is nowadays a centre of discussions, debates and interpellations from
developed to developing countries and areas involving think-tanks, academics,
institutions, universities, policy-makers, both from government and
non-government levels. Interests and interference of aid-giving agencies
and donor countries are also noticeable markedly. Above all, the standing and
moral fiber of the party/alliance in power should, fist of all, be taken into
note in a pragmatic mood and mode. Good governance is not measly a bundle of
sweet words. Its theotrical and practical make-up are necessarily colored,
enlightened and anointed with a variety of pre-conditions and essentials. Any
major missing link is likely to cause havoc to its smooth subsistence and
functioning. I should rather say that good governance is like a music where
each and every chord is tuned and played rightly and befittingly.
There
prevails a plenty of theories on leadership such
as Great Man Theories, Trait Theories, Contingency Theories, Situational
Theories, Behavioral Theories, Participative Theories, Management Theories and Relationship
Theories but my understanding is: “The only
test of leadership is that somebody follows voluntarily or involuntarily o
recklessly or indifferently under the circumstances, approving or not”. . A
leader in this sense might be an organizer in a political party, a boss in a
typical workplace hierarchy, a leader within an organization of volunteers, a
teacher at a university, a speaker or an author who has influenced people
through his/her ideas and so forth.
This write-up is in the light of the address
before BCS officers by me at the National Academy for Planning and Development
(NAPD), Ministry of Planning, on 21 August 2014. From these standpoints, let us
make it plain at the outset that leadership
in good governance implies two things, one is political leadership and other is
leadership other than political. Former is leadership of the government by
party/alliance in power while the latter is leadership under the command of the
very government/ party/alliance in power, which is called leadership by the
members of the civil service. Since participants here are BCS officers,
therefore, it’s clear that leadership in governance denotes leadership by the
members of civil service.
There
is no denying the fact that natural and/or born leadership has no appeal and
bearing in the domain of governance. Rather, strictly speaking, administrative leadership
grows, develops and proliferates through various nets, hierarchical and/or
otherwise, where each and every stage is faced with challenges, opportunities
and limitations. Intrinsic worth, knowledge and experience get sharpened and
radiated and he/she reaches at the zenith by virtue of his/her sincerity,
honesty, dedication and so on. All these together constitute his/her
‘commitment in totality’ with a rhombus touch of patriotism in full.
Administrative leadership gives birth to administrative personality that acts
as life-boat in the administration. Lot of failures in governance grow and
develop causing havoc because of lack of administrative personality of the
holders of chairs at the various layers in the administration. More a person is
in a position to exhibit, develop and strengthen such administrative
personality, more he/she has possibilities to lead his/her zone successfully.
Through a study in
the early 1960’s John French and Bertram Raven identified five
bases of power, which they again put under formal and personal power and made
an attempt to show how different types of power affect one’s leadership ability
and success in a leadership role. These include------------
Formal
Power
Coercive: Coercive power is
conveyed through fear of losing one’s job, being demoted, receiving a poor
performance review, having prime projects taken away, etc. This power is gotten
through threatening others. For example, the VP of Sales who threatens
sales folks to meet their goals or get replaced.
Reward: Reward power is
conveyed through rewarding individuals for compliance with one’s wishes. This
may be done through giving bonuses, raises, a promotion, extra time off from
work, etc. For example, the supervisor who provides employees comp time
when they meet an objective she sets for a project.
Legitimate: Legitimate power
comes from having a position of power in an organization, such as being the
boss or a key member of a leadership team. This power comes when employees in
the organization recognize the authority of the individual. For example,
the CEO who determines the overall direction of the company and the resource
needs of the company.
Personal
Power
Expert: Expert power comes
from one’s experiences, skills or knowledge. As we gain experience in particular
areas, and become thought leaders in those areas, we begin to gather expert
power that can be utilized to get others to help us meet our goals. For
example, the Project Manager who is an expert at solving particularly
challenging problems to ensure a project stays on track.
Referent: Referent power
comes from being trusted and respected. We can gain referent power when
others trust what we do and respect us for how we handle situations. For
example, the Human Resource Associate who is known for ensuring employees are
treated fairly and coming to the rescue of those who are not
In fact, the most respect is
garnered on those who have personal sources of power. There is more respect for
these individuals than for those who have power simply because they are the
boss in the business. It has been shown that when employees in an organization
associate the leadership’s power with expert or referent power, they are more
engaged, more devoted to the organization and their role within it. Employees
are also more willing to go the extra mile to reach organizational goals.
Vision
and mission
are two diamond components of leadership and, hence, obviously, a leader should
cherish, nurse and transform his/her vision and mission into reality to the
best of his/her capability and capacity. For a civil servant such vision and
mission come from the leadership of the party/alliance in power. Therefore, to
take and bear the load of the agenda of the party/alliance in power and put all
these into practice from the respective seat of governance should be considered
his/her vision and mission. Origination of the concept of committed bureaucracy
takes place at/from this point. For good governance, committed bureaucracy is a
fundamental condition. Needless to utter
twice that good governance with radiating leadership cannot find expected
or optimum results if there grows, develops, runs and escalates unbridled corruption, philistinism, cronyism and
sycophancy.
A
bureaucracy
with all these vices, under whatever form of government it is, can hardly serve
a nation upholding the interests of the people and the country and continue for
a long. For a bureaucracy committed to
good governance with deserving administrative personalities at various spots
again essentially needs good political leadership. The term ‘Change of a government’
is a misnomer in politics, government and political science. In fact,
government never changes; rather it is the leadership(s) of government that
changes either democratically or not.
Civil servants mostly remain and continue within the fold of bureaucracy
under the new political leaderships. If political leaderships breed, foster,
nurse and encourage corruption, philistinism, cronyism and sycophancy
then the subsequent blasts of all these on civil servants in bureaucracy are
undeniably serious. Too much politicization
of administration is definitely a hurdle of the first water to good
governance. Besides, foreign aid through foreign interference also play a role
in a negative mood and mode. To speak the truth, countries in the fold of Third
World are now victims of such catastrophes.
Finally
a focus on statesmanship is also important relevantly as statesmanship is the end
point/climax of leadership. Statesmanship in a broader connotation implies art
of administration going above a fear or favor, self or not, aimed at the
well-being of the organization concerned. A political leader becomes a
statesman when she/he prefers the interests of the nation and the country to
self or group or vested interests and acts accordingly in the face of
challenges from inside and outside his/her party or government, when he/she
sets example as a symbol of sacrifice, honesty and integrity and when he/she is
in a position to rise beyond parochial standing of the party/government
concerned. For any sort of consensus, national, regional or international, statesmanship
is a very big factor. Vision and mission of a leader result in perfection by a
journey to the kingdom of statesmanship.
Being a
leader a civil servant is too well privileged by the same token to convert
himself/herself into a statesman in his/her respective jurisdiction provided
he/she aspires to do so under the circumstances, approving or not. A member of
civil service should bear in mind that ‘chair makes a
man is not befitting for an exigent civil servant. Rather more
attention-grabbing is when a chair is illuminated, and starts sparkling because
of the holder of the chair’. Practice of religion from individual point
of view may surely be a guide for overhauling one’s inner spirit and soul since
no religion asks to be dishonest, corrupt, philistine, non-sacrificing etc. Today
we need those who follow and apply the credence of religion in thought and
actions to set themselves as models each and every stage of life. Yes, they are
highly demanded in the field of good governance as well.
That’s
why,
it is better and safer to stick to the belief that all the concepts and terms
such as good governance, leadership in good governance and political leadership
are highly inter-twined and inseparable. One cannot succeed without another.
It’s like a chord where sense and jingle of harmony, symphony and symmetry are
the first and last words.
No comments:
Post a Comment