Beyond Max Weber: Emotional Intelligence and Public Leadership

Robert Kramer, PhD

Assistant Professor of Public Administration
School of Public Affairs
American University
Washington, DC, USA
[email protected]

Were always talking about efficiency, productivity, restructuring and accountability. And to the ordinary
citizen this means little. What the citizens want to hear is honesty, service You have to communicate with
people at an emotion level -- the issues that are confronting them as ordinary citizens (Delegate to OECD
Symposium, cited in Lau, 2000, p.59).

All governance is people governance. All public service is people service. Its all people.
Relationships are the DNA of governance. Without people who can develop trusting
relationships with other people there is no governance. Governance is more than the
machinery of public administration and more than impartial cost-benefit analysis. At the
1996 OECD Ministerial Symposium on the Future of Public Services, governance was
defined entirely in terms of relationships. Governance, concluded the OECD ministers,
encompasses the set of relationships between governments and citizens, acting as both
individuals and as part of or through institutions, e.g., political parties, productive
enterprises, special interest groups and the media (Lau, 2000, p. 112). Relationships are
at the heart of governance. To the extent that public administration mirrors the hearts and
minds of people, it is governance. To the extent that public administration is disconnected
from people, it is not governance. Public administrators are much more simply human
than otherwise. Like the rest of us, public administrators are people, too.
1.0. Relationships are the DNA of Governance
If relationships are the DNA of governance, I want to pose a question that is rarely asked
in schools of public administration in Central and Eastern Europe: what, exactly, would
be the value for governance of public administrators who can build relationships of
mutual understanding and trust with:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

people who are peers in their own ministries?

people who are peers in other ministries?
people who are political superiors?
people who are lower-level civil servants?
people who are heads of parliamentary committees?
people in business firms?
people in special interest groups?
people in media?
people who are academicians?
people who are NATO and European Union officials?
people in the civic sector, non-profits and NGOs?
people who are ordinary citizens?

Trust is a precious commodity. It is virtually impossible for any human being to build
trusting relationships with so many people at once. So, lets pose a more modest question:
What, I wonder, would be the value of public administrators who can build relationships
of mutual understanding and trust merely with people who are peers in their own
ministries?
Public administrators all over the world hold on, with amazing rigidity, to turf,
stovepipes or silos. In my 25 years of experience in the U.S. government, including a

stint on vice-president Al Gores task force to reinvent government, I often saw the
harmful effects on American governance of this problem. Even after September 11,
Governor Tom Ridge, who was appointed by President Bush to coordinate homeland
security for the United States, cannot gain the cooperation of people in the two dozen
Federal agencies whose mission is connected to homeland security. There are many
reasons for the insidious durability of silos, one of which I will touch upon later in this
paper, when I explore the unexamined assumptions of Max Webers theory of
bureaucracy. But, in the simplest sense, what a metaphor like silo signifies in CEE and
NIS governments is that -- even in the same ministry, even in the same department of the
same ministry, even on the same floor of the same department of the same ministry -public administrators do not see a need to build relationships with each other. If they do
not see a need to cooperate with each other in the same ministry, if they do not see a need
to build relationships of trust with the people they work with on a daily basis, why on
earth would they see any need to cooperate with people in other ministries? Or with
political superiors? Or with EU officials? Or with media? Or with citizens? Or with
anyone?
I suspect that these questions are so rarely asked in schools of public administration
because of the tendency toward isolation and silos in academic departments
themselves. Few professors see any need to cooperate with colleagues. But, even with
their devotion to individualism, professors usually respect the intellectual merit of the
major disciplines of the field of public administration. The discipline of economics, for
example, is highly valued for its intellectual rigor. So, if you have not yet fully
understood the implications of my original question, let me now rephrase it, but this time
strictly in economic terms: What would be the value for governance of public
administrators who see the need for building stocks of social capital in administrative
space? Mutual respect is a prerequisite for building understanding and trust in the space
between people. In the public sphere, administrative space is merely the name that
political scientists give to the space between people -- the space that economists have
shown can be filled with social capital.
2.0. Social Capital
What, exactly is social capital? For CEE states, especially those about to enter the EU,
building social capital may be even more valuable that investing merely in physical,
financial and human capital. Physical capital comprises the machinery, tools and
technology of production. Financial capital refers to money. The people who produce
goods and services are human capital. Social capital refers to the bonds of mutual respect
and care among members of a collective. Social capital allows for reducing the
transaction costs of economic exchange (Wiegel, 1997).
Human capital is invested in people. Social capital is invested in relationships among
people. When public administrators invest in social capital, government earns a big return
on investment. Public administrators earns currency in the form of increased trust in
governance:

We can think of it as money in the relationship bank. As we work with people

over time, deposits are made. We learn when someone gives us their word that we
can count on it or that when they make commitment, these commitments are kept.
We learn through working with them that we can count on them for straight talk
and reliable action. When we have worked with someone over time and they have
built up a trust account with us, if they are suddenly less than candid or they do not
meet a commitment, we are likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. However,
there is a point at which the balance in the relationship bank becomes depleted and
trust changes to mistrust. That is the point at which people begin to disengage from
the relationship (Axelrod, 2000, p. 168).
When public administrators fail to invest in social capital, they lose legitimacy, add to
cynicism, and reduce the willingness of citizens, businesses and interest groups to bear
the costs of painful reforms.
Without large investments in social capital, the tens of billions of dollars of World Bank
and other local taxpayer monies allocated to modernize the economies of CEE and NIS
states are liable to be wasted, deepening the chasm of mistrust and cynicism, fostering
more corruption and increasing citizen apathy. The currency of social capital is trust
(Rose, 1996; Fukuyama, 1995). The cash value of this currency is real. As trust in
government continues to plummet, CEE and NIS states will need a new Marshall Plan to
increase investment in social capital even more than they need infusions of World Bank
and other financial capital.
Economists have compiled 30 years of multivariate statistical analysis to demonstrate that
earnings from social capital help lift trust in governance (Putnam, 1999). Likewise,
psychologists have compiled 30 years of multivariate statistical analysis to demonstrate
that the level of social capital in any human system is dependent on its collective level of
emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1997). The higher the level of group emotional
intelligence, the higher the level of social capital. Would it be too far-fetched, therefore,
to conclude that social capital is nothing more than an abstract name that the discipline
of economics gives to what neuroscientists call emotional intelligence?
3.0. The Intelligence of Emotions
What, exactly, is emotional intelligence? Doesnt IQ cover all we acknowledge and mean
by the word intelligence? According to Douglas Hofstadter (1980, p. 26), Pulitzer-prize
winning author of the brilliant book Godel, Escher, Bach, intelligence can be defined in
terms of the following eight abilities:
1. To respond to situations very flexibly.
2. To take advantage of the right time and right place.
3. To make sense of ambiguous or contradictory messages.
4. To recognize the importance of different elements of a situation.
5. To find similarities between situations despite differences that may separate them.
6. To draw distinctions between situations despite similarities that may link them.

7. To synthesize new concepts by taking old concepts and combining them in new ways.
8. To develop ideas that are novel.
Are emotions intelligent? Evidence from evolutionary biology and nueroscience is
overwhelming that emotions are, in fact, highly intelligent, and that they have primacy
over IQ for building group intelligence and social capital:
In meetings and other group settings where people come together to collaborate,
there is a strong sense of group IQ, the sum total of intellectual knowledge and
skills in the room. However it turns out that the single most important element in
group intelligence is not the average, or highest, IQ, but emotional intelligence. A
single participant who is low in emotional intelligence can lower the collective IQ
of the entire group. Chris Argyris, from Harvard, asks. How can a group where
everyone has an individual IQ of 130 together and collectively end up with an IQ of
60? (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997, p. xxxiv)
IQ alone cannot build group intelligence. IQ has no heartbeat. Emotional intelligence, on
the other hand, focuses like a laser beam what is important to us. Without the signals
communicated by emotions, life would be drab, colorless and meaningless. I would care
no more what happens to me or to you than does a machine. I would be interested in
nothing. Without emotions we could not attach meaning to the word interest in the term
public interest. Organized society could not function without emotional intelligence.
Without emotions we could not attach meaning to the word organized in the term
organized society. Emotions can certainly be harmful to governance, especially the
emotions of hatred, greed, vengeance and lust. There has never been any doubt that,
under certain circumstances, emotion can disrupt reason, says Antonio Damasio,
professor of neurology at the Medical School of the University of Iowa. yet research
shows that reduction in emotion may constitute an equally important source of irrational
behavior (ibid., p. xxxiii).
Without the intelligent guidance of emotions, human beings cannot respond to situations
very flexibly, take advantage of the right time and right place, make sense of ambiguous
or contradictory messages, recognize the importance of different elements of a situation,
find similarities between situations despite differences that may separate them, draw
distinctions between situations despite similarities that may link them, synthesize new
concepts by taking old concepts and combining in new ways, or develop ideas that are
novel. Without the guidance of emotions we cannot be intelligent. Without the guidance
of emotions we cannot be rational.
Emotional intelligence is registered through deep listening -- listening to oneself and
listening to others (Kramer 1995, 1999). People who are high in emotional intelligence
know how to listen to their emotions and regulate their intensity so they are not hijacked
by them. Emotionally intelligent people know how to keep disruptive emotions in check.
Emotionally intelligent people sense the effect their emotions have on others.
Emotionally intelligent people can laugh at themselves. Emotionally intelligence people
know how to deploy their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. Emotionally

intelligence people listen to other peoples emotions and can empathize with them.
Emotionally intelligent people act ethically and build trust through integrity and
reliability. Emotionally intelligent people admit their own mistakes and learn from them.
Emotionally intelligent people are comfortable with new ideas and new information.
Emotionally intelligent people are skilled at listening to a groups emotional currents and
discerning the power relationships. Emotionally intelligent people can negotiate and
resolve disagreements. Emotionally intelligent people listen to other people and know
how to communicate effectively (Goleman 1997).
Emotionally intelligent behavior is a prerequisite for building bridges of mutual
understanding and trust in the space between people -- in administrative space. To
promote effective and efficient governance, large stocks of social capital are needed to
fill the gaps of mistrust in every ministry, in every department, in every office, and in
every nook and cranny in administrative space.
4.0. Leading by Listening
To build stocks of social capital, one of the most important skills a public administrator
needs is the ability to listen -- to self and others. The Chinese characters that make up the
verb to listen tell us something significant about this skill. Chinese characters are really
picturegrams. When in stillness, reads this picturegram, a king listens with the heart.
The ear is worth ten eyes. In order to be a good king,
one must listen with ears, eyes, and heart, giving
undivided attention to the people. In the philosophy of
Taoism, a king is defined as a servant-leader who is a
mindful listener. In a sense, the Chinese pictogram
suggests an ancient wisdom: leadership is a
metaphor for being integrated, focused, and centered,
a metaphor for emotional and intellectual balance in
all aspects of life. Leadership is connecting mindfully
and feelingly to what moves in ones soul -- and makes one come alive -- and to what
moves in the souls of others and makes them come alive. Public service leadership is
soulwork.
Traditionally, leadership has been seen as a mysterious, lofty quality granted only to a
few privileged people, and if one is not born with that quality, one cannot acquire it. Not
so. Leadership is a composite of listening and speaking skills that can be learned,
developed, and exercised by anyone in working with others to carry out a task. An
outstanding public servant, according to the Chinese pictogram, is a leader who:
!

!
!

Listens to the whole message -- not only the words, but the music: the tone of
voice, the facial expressions, the gestures, the emotions and the silences between
the words.
Allows the speaker to feel fully valued and deeply respected.
Is able to sustain concentration, focus intently and recall the speakers message -the words, emotions and the music -- many days later.

Listens to ones own thoughts and emotions as he or she speaks -- carefully

choosing words and non-verbal ways of expression (the music) that match
ones intended meaning.

As the last point suggests, leading is about speaking persuasively just as much as it is
about listening deeply. By tapping emotional energies, leaders move themselves and
others to committed action. Leaders know how to draw out enthusiasm in others not
merely compliance. Authenticity -- listening to oneself -- is the most important
prerequisite for public service.
Public service leaders know their deepest convictions, are true to them, and act with
empathic understanding and positive regard for others differences, without demanding
that everyone else feel, think or act the same way that they do (Kramer, 1995). Public
service leaders listen deeply as a way to find common ground for action and results.
Public service leaders hold their ground and stay connected. Public service leaders are
ethical. Public service leaders who have the capacity to listen deeply to themselves and
others know five things. They:
!
!
!
!
!

Know, deep down, what their values are and what other peoples values are;
Know how to communicate what they need in order to get cooperation from peers,
political superiors and others;
Know how to build coalitions to support the needs of peers, political superiors and
others;
Know how to say no to illegal or unethical acts of government;
Know how to build social capital.

5.0. Do Public Administrators Have a Right to Lead?

Public administrators are accountable to political superiors. Doesnt this imply that they
are responsible solely for following mandates granted from those who are elected to
represent the will of the people? Public administrators are followers not leaders.
Public administrators follow laws and regulations. Public administrators follow the will
of elected chief executives and elected legislators. Public administrators follow the
election returns. Public administrators are cogs in the machinery of government. Public
administrators are mechanical transmission belts. Public administrators merely transmit
the emotional energy imparted to them from above, making no additional contribution to
the total effort. What they see, hear and feel is irrelevant to implementing the will of the
people. Only elected political officials have the right to lead. Public administrators are
not the equivalent of Chinese kings. What right, you might ask, do unelected public
administrators have to lead? Wouldnt this open the door to administrative tyranny and
arbitrariness? Is it ethical for public administrators to see themselves as leaders in
governance? According to Harvard professor Robert Behn (1998), leadership is not
merely a right of public administrators. It is a necessity:
Leadership from [public administrators] is necessary because without leadership
public organizations will never mobilize themselves to accomplish their mandated

purposes. Leadership from [public administrators] is necessary because the elected

chief executive can provide leadership for only a few of the many agencies and
programs for which he or she is responsible. Leadership from [public
administrators] is necessary because the legislative branch of government gives
public agencies missions that are vague and conflicting and often fails to provide
enough resources to pursue seriously all of these missions. Leadership from [public
administrators] is necessary because a narrow interest can easily capture a public
agency and redirect government programs for their own gain. Leadership from
[public administrators] is necessary because the citizenry often lacks the knowledge
and information (or will) necessary to perform its responsibilities. (p. 209)
Because neither chief executives nor legislators are perfect, governance cannot exist
without public administrators who are also leaders. Because chief executives and
legislators are fallible humans, who often give inconsistent or incomplete directions,
public administrators must help them lead. Elected officials represent the will of the
people. But public administrators in democracies may be even more representative of
ordinary citizens than elected officials (Krislov and Rosenbloom, 1981). When elected
officials attempt illegal or unethical acts only public administrators can block the
implementation of these acts. All governance is people governance. Elected chief
executives and legislators are much more simply human than otherwise. Like the rest of
us, they are people, too. If leadership is manifested in relations between people, then, in
economic terms, the most important contribution of public administrators to governance
may be to work purposefully and ethically with elected officials to increase stocks of
social capital in administrative space. Only leaders who know how to listen deeply -- to
themselves and others -- have the capacity to increase social capital.
6.0. Leadership is a Relationship Not a Position in a Hierarchy
Leadership is more than a formal position in a hierarchy. It often starts as a formal
position, but it is always more, much more, than merely a position. Leadership is an
encounter -- a listening relationship -- between human beings. Leadership is a
relationship not an individual (Kramer, 1995).
While traditional conceptions of leadership tend to be dominated by images of a single
person such as a president, prime minister, Member of Parliament, or business CEO
speaking to the masses and directing them from on high, leadership has little to do with
domination. Although people can be threatened or rewarded to do what others want them
to do, that is not leadership. Leadership does not occur when people obey commands or
comply based primarily on threats or promises of reward. Leadership does not occur
when people respond to a situation based primarily on direction by someone else.
Leadership does not occur merely when you get other people to do what you want them
to do.
Today leadership in democracies is no longer seen as a single person who occupies a
position at the top of a hierarchy and issues commands. Leadership is not an attribute of
a position. Leadership is not an attribute of status, either in business or government. We

must not confuse leadership with the top-ranking person in a hierarchy. Many a No. 1
in politics or public administration could not lead a squad of ducks across the street.
Likewise, we should not confuse leadership with power. Military dictators like Saddam
Hussein wield power. The al-Quaida terrorist who lays a knife on the neck of an airline
pilot has power. Leadership is more than power. Leadership is also more than legitimate
authority. The police officer who issues you a speeding ticket has legitimate authority, as
does the Motor Vehicles Bureau clerk who tests your vision before granting you a license
to drive. Corporations and government agencies everywhere have executives who
imagine that their place on the organization chart has given them a body of followers,
writes John Gardner (1990), a former U.S. cabinet secretary. And of course it has not.
They have been given subordinates. Whether the subordinates become followers depends
on whether the executives act like leaders (p. 3).
7. 0. Followers Can Be Leaders and Leaders Can Be Followers
The only definition of a leader, according to Peter Drucker (1999), is someone who
has followers (p. xii). In other words, without willing, active, and committed followers,
there are no leaders. Since leadership is a relationship of deep listening, any person in the
administrative space of governance can take the lead and any person can follow the
lead. These roles are not fixed. They can alternate. We shift frequently in ordinary
group relationships from one role to the other without even thinking about it. In my
Sunday morning prayer circle I can be a leader. In my Sunday night bowling club I can
be a follower. A new view of followers, first articulated by Joseph Rost (1991, p. 109),
is now emerging in the context of governance relationships:
!

One person does not make a relationship. If leadership is a relationship, then it is

not possible for leadership to equal a single person.

Only active people are followers. Only people who engage with others in the
leadership relationship should be called followers. Passive people have chosen not
to participate in a relationship. Passive people are not followers. Passive people
are non-players. Passive people have chosen to withdraw their social capital from
public life and invest it in their private life.

Followers can be transformed into leaders and leaders into followers. Sometimes
we choose to lead and other times we choose to follow. People are not stuck in the
same role all the time. In one meeting on Monday morning I can be a leader, and
in another meeting on Monday afternoon I can be a follower. Few people have
interest in leading 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In public life, some people
choose to be followers much of the time and some people choose never to
participate in any leadership relationships.

Followers are not doing followership, they are doing leadership. Both leaders and
followers co-create one relationship that is leadership. If a leaders influence is
based more on persuasion than on authority, position or status, then followers
actively and deliberately choose when, where, why and how they allow

10

themselves to be influenced. Followers and leaders continually influence each

other. If they did not influence each other, they would not be in leadership
relationship.
Public leadership, therefore, is a relationship between leaders and followers who develop
mutual understanding and trust by repeated experiences of deep listening. People who
participate in this relationship are the stakeholders in governance.
Stakeholders are the DNA of governance. These stakeholders have different names.
Depending on the situation, time and place, we may call these stakeholders leaders,
followers, elected officials, public administrators, government employees,
constituents, citizens, customers, interest groups, NGOs, academicians,
media or any other name for a human being that designates an active and willing
partner in governance.
8.0. 360-degree Leadership
By definition leadership is about leading change. To maintain the status quo there is no
need for leadership. There can be no reform of CEE governance without the emergence
of many people who are willing to be leaders. A handful of officials at the top of a
hierarchy in the Prime Ministers office or the Parliament is not enough. To implement
reform of governance, elected political leaders are necessary but not sufficient. Career
public administrators must also lead. In a report entitled Developing Public Service
Leaders for the Future, the July 2000 HRM Working Party Meeting in Paris concluded
that:
leadership plays an important role in the implementation of reform because it
involves two of the most important aspects of reform: change and people.
Leadership is manifested in relations between people. Good leaders inspire people.
Changing organizations is really about changing peoples behavior, so
organizations undergoing reform need leadership. Leaders, spread throughout an
organization, can help diffuse and maintain the new values necessary for public
sector reform. (OECD, 2000, p. 3)
Just as governance is a relationship, so, too, is leadership. Leadership is not a single
person. In CEE states, The relationship between citizens and their public administration
is a central issue of strategic importance to improving governance, writes Joanne Caddy,
administrator of SIGMAs Public Administration Development Strategies Unit. Better
channels of communication and greater citizen engagement increase both the
effectiveness and legitimacy of public administration -- and hence its capacity to deliver
results (Caddy, 1999, p. 1). All public service is people service. Its all people and
relationships. For governance to mean anything, it must mirror the souls of people.
Actions such as constructing better channels of communication and inspiring greater
citizen engagement call for more than just public administrators. They call for public
leaders. More precisely, they call for public administrators who know how to lead by

11

listening which means they know how to touch the souls of people, their own souls and
those of others. They know how to listen to their own heartbeat and to the heartbeat of
others.
Few public administrators in CEE states possess the leadership skills necessary to serve
in senior civil service positions. In almost all CEE states, mid-level communist
bureaucrats have been retained because there are no readily available alternatives. Many
of the best public administrators have left government for the private sector. Under
communism, civil servants listened to the Party but not to the broader population of
stakeholders they were supposed to serve. As a result, since 1989, citizens of CEE states
have become increasingly disillusioned with the rhetoric of democracy and free
markets. Both elected and career officials often appear to be deaf to the everyday
concerns of ordinary citizens. This is a failure in leadership and a failure in listening. As
a result, many CEE states are creating a massive deficit in social capital.
This has untold economic consequences. A deficit in social capital means that the
allocation of financial capital will be inefficient, wasteful and unproductive. A recent
survey of more than 3,000 CEE companies by the World Bank and the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) reveals that bribery and corruption are
widespread in the region. A small group of firms exercises influence over state policies
that affect the activities of many firms across the economy, according to the EBRD
survey (The Wall Street Journal Europe, November 9, 1999, p. 2). In many CEE and
NIS states, trust in government has plummeted to pre-1989 levels (Rose, 1996). As
former U.S. vice-president Al Gore observed in Washington, DC, at the January 1999
International Conference on Reinventing Government, Ensuring the integrity and
efficiency of government will strengthen democracy and help it accelerate, instead of
suffocate, the entrepreneurial initiative of its private sector (U.S. Department of State
web site). Investing in social capital is good business -- it is an investment in good
governance and, even more, a prerequisite for efficient allocation of financial capital.
If social unrest in CEE states is to be forestalled, participation in policy-making,
especially as it relates to meeting the requirements of EU accession, needs to be
expanded to the widest possible spectrum of public administrators, citizens, business
firms, professional associations, NGOs and interest groups.
In the long run, ensuring widespread collaboration by all stakeholders in the EU
accession process will allow for big savings in the regulatory apparatus of government,
given that successful implementation of the acquis laws and regulations across Central
and Eastern Europe relies heavily on voluntary compliance by citizens and businesses.
Even in the short run, coercion is neither practical nor effective.
Promoting democratic governance in CEE states demands developing a cadre of public
administrators who can lead by listening to stakeholders. This involves what can only
be described as 360 degree leadership -- public administrators with high enough levels
of emotional intelligence to:

12

!
!
!
!

Lead up -- build social capital with political superiors and elected officials;
Lead down -- build social capital with lower-level staff;
Lead across -- build social capital with peers;
Lead out -- build social capital with stakeholders outside their ministry -MPs, interest groups, NGOs, EU officials, academics, media, citizens etc.

9.0. Max Weber and Beyond

Currently, the vast majority of public administrators in CEE states lack the understanding
and behavioral skills necessary to build social capital. Even those public administrators
who are excellent administrators of laws and regulations lack the leadership skills to
bring their citizens into a more mutually beneficial partnership with government officials.
Why, one wonders, is it so hard for public administrators to know when to administer and
when to lead? Why is it so hard for public administrators to know when -- in the daily
process of working with their political superiors, staff, peers, interest groups, MPs,
media, NGOs, EU officials or ordinary citizens -- it is necessary for them to behave as
leaders and when to behave as administrators? Why is it so hard for high-level civil
servants to see that, to administer laws and regulations, to implement public policy, to
build trust in governance, they must learn how to blend, on a day-to-day basis, the lawbased knowledge of an administrator with the equally vital listening skills of a leader?
Why is it so hard for high-level civil servants to see that they must, in fact, combine both
the skills of an administrator and the skills of a leader in one and the same person?
Neither the responsibilities of administration nor those of leadership can be ignored, yet
most public administrators, in CEE states and elsewhere, focus narrowly only on their
administrative roles. Why? To be honest, Im not sure but I have a hunch.
A major reason may be the continuing acceptance, by scholars and public administrators
alike, of certain unexamined assumptions of Max Webers model of bureaucracy. Based
on my long experience in the U.S. Government, where I met few senior public
administrators who were genuinely interested in or capable of taking the lead in
governance, I have come to suspect that the unexamined assumptions of the Weberian
model of man as machine contributes, to a large extent, to the absence of a leadership
mindset in career civil servants.
According to Weber (1922), bureaucracy compares with other organizations exactly as
does a machine: The more perfectly the bureaucracy is dehumanized, the more
completely it succeed in eliminating from official business love, hatred, and purely
personal, irrational and emotional elements which escape calculation (p. 15). Webers
model of human nature assumes that efficiency and effectiveness are harmed if human
emotions influence the rational actions of public administrators. Emotions are not
intelligent. Emotions are opposed to reason. Emotions are irrational. Emotions are
unproductive. Emotions are subjective. Emotions should never guide administrative
actions. The purpose of bureaucratic hierarchies, division of labor, classification of
positions, standard operating procedures and pay grades is to legislate against intrusive
and irrational emotions. To end nepotism, prevent capricious or subjective

13

administration, and promote equal justice under law emotions must be eradicated. For
reason to rule, public administrators are to become souls on ice.
10.0. Souls on Ice
In the classic formulation of Max Weber (1922), public administrators must be without
affection or enthusiasm ohne Zorn und Eingenommenheit:
Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the
basis of knowledge. This is the feature of it which makes it specifically rational
The dominance of a spirit of formalistic impersonality, Sine ira et studio, without
hatred or passion, and hence without affection or enthusiasm .. This is the spirit in
which an official conducts his office ... Otherwise the door would be open to
arbitrariness. (pp. 15-16).
Webers lifelong project was to conquer the world of administration for rationality
(Diggins, 1996). Excellent administration is control on the basis of knowledge.
Administration, therefore, is about control. Excellent administration is about limiting
discretion. Excellent administration is about preventing arbitrariness and tyranny. For this
reason, public officials do not establish relationships to persons. Governance is
impersonal. Relationships are positively harmful for excellent administration. Once the
boxes on the organizational chart are drawn, once the responsibilities of positions are
delineated, once the irrationality of human emotion is eliminated, the organization will be
a smooth running, lean and efficient machine, easily able to follow orders and implement
public policy. Public organizations must be cool arenas for dispassionate reason, clearheaded analysis. Administration without people is the most efficient and effective
governance. Administration without people, by definition, is excellent administration.
Unless public administrators eradicate emotions that interfere with decision-making:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

They cannot respond to situations very flexibly.

They cannot take advantage of the right time and right place.
They cannot make sense of ambiguous or contradictory messages.
They cannot recognize the importance of different elements of a situation.
They cannot find similarities between situations despite differences that may separate
them.
6. They cannot draw distinctions between situations despite similarities that may link
them.
7. They cannot synthesize new concepts by taking old concepts and combining them in
new ways.
8. They cannot develop ideas that are novel.
Under the guidance of emotions public administrators cannot be intelligent. Under the
guidance of emotions public administrators cannot be rational.
This is a prescription, of course, for transforming people into machines. But machines
cannot build the trusting relationships needed to govern. Only people can govern. Yet, for

14

those immersed in the culture of bureaucracy, the prescription against relationship

virtually mandates that the daily actions of public administrators -- namely, encounters
with political superiors, staff, peers, interest groups, media, members of parliaments,
NGOs, or ordinary citizens -- all relationships with all stakeholders be conducted Without
Sympathy or Enthusiasm as Victor Thomson once suggested in the title of a 1975 book.
At the time impersonal public administration was proposed, it was a necessary and
essential corrective for nepotism. Standardized rules and procedures were revolutionary
breakthroughs in administrative thinking and retain value as a safeguard against
corruption even today. We must never let down our guard against administrative or
political tyranny. The separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, with each
power being able to check and balance the others, is the best antidote to tyranny.
However, I do not think that an assumption of man as machine is compatible with late
20th century discoveries in evolutionary biology and neuroscience. The classical
bureaucratic assumption of man as a machine is, on the contrary, perhaps the single
biggest contributor to the occupational psychosis, (John Dewey), professional
deformation(Thorsein Veblen) and bureaupathology (Robert Merton) so often
observed in the behavior of high-level civil servants, not just in CEE states, but all over
the world, including the U.S. Government.
The assumption of man as machine has induced in public administrators a state of
unconscious incompetence and trained incapacity for leadership, according to the
sociologist Phillip Selznick (1976):
Mechanical metaphors the organization as a smooth running machine suggest
an overemphasis on neat organization and on efficient techniques of administration.
It is probable that these emphases induce in the administrator a trained incapacity to
observe the inter-relationship of policy and administration, with the result that the
really critical experience of organizational leadership is largely overlooked. (p. 3)
In his famous 1937 Brownlow Commission Report, Luther Gulick argued that efficiency
must be built into the structure of government just as it is built into a piece of
machinery. Following Webers assumption about the harmful effect of emotion, public
administrators, asserted Gulick, are supposed to be smooth running machines
transmission belts -- for carrying out the will of the people as expressed by elected
officials. In 1976 Gulick, one of the most influential framers of orthodox American
public administration, examined and, for the first time, regretted his assumptions four
decades earlier about the merits of a mechanistic, de-humanized and emotionless model
of administration:
There is good reason for dropping the idea that government is a machine. We
should never have abandoned the notion that any team of people working together
for a purpose is an organism not a machine If we think of government as an
organism, a living organism, we have a totally different and more accurate and
constructive understanding of a government organization. [Public administrators]
are no longer cogs, they are suborgans They do not merely transmit the energy

15

imparted to them from above, they each make an added contribution to the total
effort, influenced by what they see, feel and are doing (cited in Gawthorp, 2002, p.
85).
So why does it remain so hard for high-level civil servants to see that that they must
blend, on a day-to-day basis, the essential skills of an efficient administrator with the
equally vital skills of a leader? I cant be certain, but I suspect that it is a problem of
unexamined assumptions. It is extremely painful and anxiety-provoking to examine
deeply ingrained tried-and-true assumptions. But isnt examining assumptions the very
definition of learning? The unexamined life, as Aristotle said somewhere, is not worth
living.
11.0. Excellent Management is Not Leadership
Let me now turn to a related problem. We have just learned how extraordinarily difficult
it is to see the difference between administration and leadership. The question I want
now to explore is what, exactly, is the difference between management and leadership?
While related, management and leadership are not the same -- even in the private sector -and must be sharply distinguished. I believe that excellent managerial skills are necessary
but not sufficient for CEE public administrators. For good governance, leadership skills
are also required. Only leading by listening, in my experience, can increase social
capital. We know that excellent administration alone is not capable of increasing social
capital. I want now to show that excellent management also is not capable of increasing
social capital. But why? Why is management a misleading path if we are concerned about
developing the governance skills of public administrators?
Is excellent management necessary for public administration? absolutely yes. Is
excellent management sufficient for building social capital? absolutely not.
The word manage derives from the Italian word, manegiare -- which means the
handling of horses. In American sign language, the sign for manage is to hold the
reins of a horse. Like administration, management is essentially about control.
Management is about restraining energies. Management is about limiting discretion. In
public administration, control and restraint -- especially in the expenditure of taxes
collected from citizens and businesses -- is a prerequisite to demonstrate accountability to
elected officials, Parliaments and citizens. In a democracy, law-based public
administration is essential. Therefore, control of financial resources is absolutely
necessary for public managers. All public administrators must also be good managers.
All public servants -- whether they are elected politicians, appointed political executives
or career civil servants -- must take an oath to protect monies in the public treasury from
being spent illegally, imprudently or unethically. The behavior of all public managers -elected, appointed or otherwise -- must be monitored and controlled. It is impossible to
argue this truth away even by the strenuous advocates of the entrepreneurial philosophy
of New Public Management.

16

Leadership, however, is not about control. For decades, many scholars have assumed that
leadership is excellent management (Rost, 1991). This is wrong. Leadership is not about
restraining energies. Just the opposite. Leaders move themselves and others to
committed action. The word lead derives from Old English, leden, which means to go
before as a guide; to take a journey. The word motivate derives from the Latin,
motere, which means to move. The word emotion also derives from motere, to move.
By drawing on emotional energies, leaders take us on a journey. Leadership = emotion.
Leaders begin initiatives. Leaders challenge the process. Leaders inspire a shared vision.
Leaders enable others to act. Leaders model the way. Leaders encourage the heart
(Kouzes and Posner, 1997). Leadership is not about control. Leadership is about
releasing human energies. Leaders lead by tapping their emotional intelligence and the
emotional intelligence of others (Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee, 2002). Leadership is
about influencing stakeholders in society to work together to achieve higher, more ethical
goals.
According the Pulitzer-prize winning political scientist James McGregor Burns, who
founded the field of leadership studies, the leaders fundamental act is to lead people to
be aware or conscious of what they feel to be their true needs so strongly, to define their
values so meaningfully, that they can move to purposeful action (1978, p. 44). In other
words, leaders listen so deeply to the emotional messages of their constituents that,
sometimes, they have the capacity to register needs not even fully conscious to their
constituents.
Leadership is the major contributor to social capital. Leadership, says Burns, raises the
level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus has a
transforming effect on both (p. 20). Building social capital, therefore, depends on
leaders not managers.
To be an excellent manager or administrator, one does not need to tap the emotional
energies and creative will of subordinates, citizens, business firms, interest groups and
other stakeholders in society. Moving others to committed action is not a necessary skill
for managers. Building social capital is not in the position description of any manager.
Listening to others is not what they do best. Highly motivated or inspired behavior may
even be counter-productive. According to Harvard professor John Kotter (cited in Behn,
1998, p. 212):
For some of the same reasons that control is so central to management, highly
motivated or inspired behavior is almost irrelevant. Managerial processes must be
as close as possible to fail-safe and risk-free. That means they cannot be dependent
on the unusual or hard to obtain. The whole purpose of systems and structures is to
help normal people who behave in normal ways complete routine jobs successfully,
day after day.
Completing routine jobs successfully delivering social security payments on time;
implementing computer systems for E-government, filling potholes; keeping nuclear
power plants safe -- is a worthy task. Excellent management is the exercise of control.

17

The focus is to strengthen or correct what already exists in the organization. Excellent
managers look for exceptions and fix them. Building social capital, or raising people to
higher ethical standards of behavior, plays no role in excellent management. Managing
budgets means controlling public monies to prevent financial waste. Managing
information technology means controlling what kinds of information computers
release. Managing nuclear power plants means controlling accidents. People,
however, cannot be managed. They can only be led.
12.0. A Cure for Occupational Psychosis
While we still appreciate Webers genius as the premier sociologist of his generation, his
model of man as a machine has had unintentionally perverse effects on modern, postindustrial public administration and in navigating the permanent white water of change.
Man as machine continues to serve as a major barrier to building trust in 21st century
government. The fall of communism, if nothing else, demonstrates that rigid, inhumane
Kafkaesque bureaucracy is not superior to other forms of organization. Moreover, it is
not even true that impersonality is the best guide to rational decision-making. Charles
Darwin showed as early as the 19th century that emotions were adaptive in the evolution
of human beings, but there is no evidence in Webers writings that he understood the
implications of Darwins revolution in biological science (Weber 1978). Many emotions
are products of evolutionary wisdom, which probably has more intelligence that all
human minds together, according to Joseph Ledoux (1996, p. 36), professor of science
in the Center for Neural Science at New York University. Neuroscientific discoveries in
the last decade show that rationality and emotions are not separate compartments in the
brain. Rather they are inextricably woven into all cognition.
Recent work in psychology by scholars such as Martin Seligman, Richard Lazarus,
Anthony Ortony, and Keith Oatley, and research in neuroscience by Joseph Ledoux and
Anthony Damasio show conclusively that emotions are a form of intelligent awareness.
Emotions are intelligent. Emotions are what make us human. Emotions tell us what is
valuable and important to us and to others. They signal the meaning of events. Emotions
are just as cognitive as other perceptions. They serve as essential guides for humans to
make rational choices. Emotions are a form of thinking as well as a form of feeling. All
thinking is infused with the intelligence of emotions. Without the guidance of emotions,
one becomes irrational, detached from reality. Is not this detachment from reality the
very definition of occupational psychosis (John Dewey), professional
deformation(Thorsein Veblen), trained incapacity (Philip Selznick), and
bureaupathology (Robert Merton)?
We now have conclusive biological evidence that decision-making is neurologically
impossible without being informed by emotions. Contrary to the classical model,
decision-making is arbitrary when it is not infused with the intelligence of emotions.
Empirical research by organizational scholars on three continents shows that emotional
intelligence is the very marker that distinguishes routine management from outstanding
leadership and the marker that distinguishes dead organizations from living organizations
(Ashkanansy, Hartel, Zerbe, 2000).

18

Neuroscientific research shows some stunning differences between the classical

bureaucratic assessment of emotions and current scientific understanding (Cooper and
Sawaf, 1997, pp. xxxii-xxxiii):
Bureaucracy on emotions

Modern neuroscience on emotions

Make us inefficient
Sign of weakness
Interfere with good judgement
Distract us
Obstruct, or slow down, reasoning
Arbitrary and tyrannical
Weaken neutrality
Inhibit the flow of objective data
Complicate planning
Undermine management

Make us effective
Sign of strength
Essential to good judgement
Motivate us
Enhance, or speed up, reasoning
Build trust and connection
Activate ethical values
Provide vital information and feedback
Spark creativity and innovation
Enhance leadership

For public administrators, management and leadership skills are not mutually exclusive
(Kovriga, 1998). We should not make the mistake of stigmatizing management and
glorifying leadership. They are complementary. Managers lead and leaders manage;
however, the two functions reflect different -- at times overlapping -- sets of skills. Both
are essential. Public administrators need to expand their repertoire of skills to include
both functions, without minimizing one at the expense of the other. What is needed are
both managers and leaders (ideally, both in the same body), according to a recent panel
of the U.S. National Academy of Public Administration (1997) with the need for leaders
growing immensely as predictability and order give way to change and ambiguity(p. 5).
A genuinely democratic and ethical civil society in CEE and NIS states demands the
development of a cadre of public administrators skilled in leadership not just
administration and management. Civil servants at times administer laws, at times manage
budgets, and at other times lead people and change. Civil servants are not just
administrators and they are not just managers. They are also leaders who have a
responsibility to share democratic values, represent a broad range of social groups, and
view themselves as accountable to much broader constituencies than before.
We need a government, writes Peter Drucker, the father of modern management,
which knows how to govern and does so. Not a government which administers, but a
government which truly governs (cited in Potucek, 1999, p. 28). All governance is
people governance. All public service is people service. Its all people.

19

Bibliography
Ashkanansy, N. M., Hartel, C.E., Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotions in the Workplace:
Research, Theory and Practice. Westport: Quorum Books, 2000).
Axelrod, R. H. (2000). Terms of Engagement: Changing the Way We Change
Organizations. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers).
Behn, R. (1998). What Right Do Public Managers Have to Lead?, Public Administration
Review, May/June, Volume 58, No. 3, pp. 209-224.
Burns, J.M. (1977). Leadership (New York: Harper and Row).
Caddy, J. (1999). Public Management Forum, OECD, May/June.
Cooper, R. K. and Sawaf, S. (1997). Executive IQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership
and Organziations (New York: Perigee).
Diggins, J. (1996). Max Weber: Politics and the Spirit of Tragedy. New York: Basic
Boosk).
Drucker, P. (1996), Foreword, in Hesslebein, F, Goldsmith, M, Beckhard, R. The
Leader of the Future (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), pp. xi-xv.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New
York: The Free Press).
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On Leadership (New York: The Free Press)
Gawthrop. L. (2002). Public Service as the Parable of Democracy. In Jun, J. S., ed.,
Rethinking Administrative Theory: The Challenge of the New Century (Westporst:
Praeger), pp. 77-92).
Goleman, D. (1997). Working with Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam, 1997).
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power
of Emotional Intelligence (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Hofstadter, D. (1980). Godel, Escher, Bach (New York: Ballantine Books)

Kovriga, A. (1998), TheChallenge of Central and Eastern European Local Executive

Development: A Working Group Initiative, pp. 383-390. In Jabes, J., ed., Public
Administration and Social Policies in Central and Eastern Europe. Sixth Annual
Conference Held in Prague, Czech Republic (NISPAcee).

20

Krislov, S. and Rosenbloom, D. H. (1981). Representative Bureacracy and the American

Political System (New York: Praeger).
Kramer, R (1995) Carl Rogers Meets Otto Rank: The Discovery of Relationship. A
chapter in In Search of Meaning: Managing for the Health of Our Organizations,
Our Communities, and the Natural World. In Pauchant, T., ed. (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass), pp. 197-223.
Kramer, R. (1999). Weaving the Public into Public Administration, Public
Administration Review, January/February, Volume 59, No. 1, pp. 89-92.
LeDoux, J. (1998). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional
Life (New York: Touchstone).
Lau, E. (2000). Government of the Future. (Paris: Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development).
OECD (2000). Developing Public Service Leaders for the Future (HRM Working Party
Meeting, Paris, July 3-4, 2000).
Potucek, M. (1999). Not Only the Market: The Role of the Market, Government and Civic
Sector in the Development of Postcommunist Societies. Budapest: Central
European University Press).
Putnam, R. (1999). Bowling Alone (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Rose, R. (1996). Trust and Distrust in an Hour-Glass Society, pp. 19-32, in Jabes, J.,
ed., Developing Organizations and Changing Attitudes: Public Administration in
Central and Eastern Europe. Fourth Annual Conference Held in Tirana, Albania
(NISPAcee).
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. (Wesport: Praeger).
Selznick, P. (1976). Leadership in Administration (Berkley: University of California
Press).
U.S. National Academy of Public Administration (1997). Managing Succession and
Developing Leadership: Growing the Next Generation of Public Service Leaders
(Washington: NAPA).
Weber, M. (1922) Legitimate Authority and Bureacracy in Boone, L. E. and Bowen,
D. D., eds., (1987). The Great Writings in Management and Organizational
Behavior. Boston: Irwin), pp. 5-19.
Weber, M. (1978). Weber: Selections in Translation, Runciman, W. G., ed. (New York:
Cambridge University Press).

21

Wiegel, W. (1997) On the Improvement of the Relationship Between Citizens and

Government Authorities - The Reduction of Transaction Costs, pp. 129-143 in
Jabes, J., ed., Professionalism of Public Servants in Central and Eastern Europe,
Fifth Annual Conference Held in Talin, Estonia (NISPAcee)