 |
 |
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Research Areas - Civic Values and Institutions
The municipal reformers of the early twentieth century had developed the council-manager plan as a major part of their prescription to address the evils of bossism, corruption, and machine politics. To accomplish these ends they wanted to eliminate politics or at least restrict it to the arena of council deliberations. The notable reformers such as Richard Childs were successful in the creation and development of a new profession of appointed, administrative experts -- the city manager. These chief executives would lend their knowledge and experience in helping solve the city's problems, while running the city on a day-to-day basis. However, it soon became known to academics and practitioners alike that the pure separation of policy and administration, the former to be practiced by elected officials and the latter restricted to the appointed managers, was an ideal of the council-manager plan's founders and by the post-World War II period was largely accepted as myth. Clearly, some form of politics will emerge, whether in Boston, Chicago, or Portland, but it would not necessarily have to be "partisan politics" with Democrats and Republicans. Ironically, some of the dirtiest politics still occurred in communities that were technically "non-partisan." A number of studies appeared that challenged the early untested assumption, the dichotomy of politics and administration, and thereby debunked the theory that city managers are divorced from policy matters. Kammerer and De Grove even found that the manager was a political figure of major importance (Kammerer, 1961). Moreover, in his 1969 classic study of 45 managers in all cities over 100,000 in population, Deil Wright reported that managers viewed themselves mainly as administrators and categorized their actual duties as "managerial, policy-related and political." The management role entailed such functions as staffing, directing, evaluating, coordinating, preparing budgets and executing policy; the policy role included the development of proposals for future city policy, contacts and individual meetings with the mayor or members of the city council, and council meetings. The political role included dimensions with non-governmental individuals and with officials at other levels of government. Wright claimed that managers desired to expand their policy and political roles (Rowe, 1987, p. 13). An extensive study by Ronald Loveridge of city council members and city managers in 58 communities in the San Francisco Bay area revealed major gaps in the perceived roles of each group. Managers viewed themselves as policy activists who exhibited policy leadership in most key areas. However, council members tended to view the manager as a staff assistant or advisor. Loveridge warned of the strong likelihood of continuous conflict between councils and managers on numerous issues because of these divergent views (Loveridge 1971). Another study of Pacific Northwest managers reported on the growth of attitudes that support more involvement by managers in policy initiation. The authors document these increases in a longitudinal study, first in 1966 and later in 1974. (Lyden and Miller, 1977). By 1975 it came as little surprise when Huntley and Macdonald confirmed that an ICMA survey of managers reported that 90 percent of the managers responding either always or nearly always participated in the formulation of municipal policy and 63 percent of the managers revealed that they "always" or "nearly always" played a "leading role in policy-making" (Huntley and Macdonald, 1975, p.153). Collectively these studies helped prove that managers ranged widely from active policy-makers to weak administrators, with typically half or more classified as policy-oriented types (Wirth and Vasu, 1987, p.455). Building upon Wright's earlier work, Newell and Ammons survey of 839 chief executives (managers and mayors) and assistants in the 418 cities of 50,000 or more in population delves further into the issues of managerial time and allocation. Earlier studies had expanded on the narrow technician role, which was devoid of policy and political ingredients, but said little about the priorities of these roles. Newell and Ammons concluded that, "The job of the city manager has evolved over time, with fewer managers perceiving community leadership as their key role and more according policy initiation and council relations that priority. One may speculate that these differences have been propelled, at least in part, by the trend beginning in the 1970s for council manager cities to amend their charters to provide for direct election of the mayor and council elections by districts" (Newell and Ammons, 1987, p.251). For these authors, "the most striking contrast between Wright's 1965 findings and their 1985 responses was the dramatic increase in the proportion of city managers perceiving the policy role to be the most important and a correspondingly dramatic drop in the percentage perceiving the political role as most important. While 22 percent of Wright's respondents deemed the policy role most important and 33 percent the political role, 55.8 percent of the 1985 survey of city managers regarded the policy role as most important and only 5.8 percent so designated the political role" (1987, p. 248-50). It should be pointed out, however, that the framework categories used by each set of authors were slightly different, so as to make pure comparisons somewhat problematic. James Svara proposes a new "Dichotomy and Duality" model, which was based in part on his in-depth observations of five cities in North Carolina. Policy and administration are now placed between mission and management and thus the shared responsibility of both elected officials and managers (Svara, 1985 and 1988). In 1987-88 Svara surveyed 189 city and county managers in North Carolina to better gauge the time they devoted to the categories of his framework, when compared with the activities of council members. His findings reveal that managers rate themselves as more involved in all four areas of his model (missions, policy, administration and management) than the council members (1988, pp. 22-33). Thus, there is some overlap in the council-manager plan's "gray area." His study also documents an apparent ambivalence in the managers' own assessment of policy-making issues. Eighty percent of the respondents agree that the manager should "assume leadership in shaping municipal policies," while 52 percent also agreed that, "A manager should act as an administrator and leave policy matters to the council" (Svara, 1988 and Nalbandian, 1989, p. 265). Separation of politics and administration may not be as dominant a concept for city government as was once assumed. As Rowe suggests: certainly some early supporters of the Council Manager Plan saw the two not as separate, but as inextricably intertwined components of a larger American political process (Rowe, 1987, p. 14). In another study of 213 California city managers, former city manager Schilling asked the respondents to rank order 18 values (i.e., rationality, idealism, accountability and practicality) and "administrative leadership" was scored the highest value (Schilling, 1989, p. 145). Return to Manager Plan Table of Contents Conflict, Turnover, and Frustrations Whereas roles and relationships between managers and councils have received much scholarly attention, the literature about conflict that leads to turnover has been at a minimum. Conflict in itself does not have to be considered bad; indeed, it is part of a necessary and constructive process where different views are aired. Within the city management profession it has been said that there is nothing necessarily wrong about a manager being fired or a contract not renewed. As a true professional, he or she has acquired a knowledge base and experience that can facilitate transition to another position. But what is really known about these changes that can be rather traumatic for all parties? Any seasoned manager can provide a collection of "war stories" that contribute to the profession's culture, but what have the academic studies told about this phenomenon? Daniel Barber's study of 183 managers reports that most of those appointed in 1986 left previous city management positions due to "personal challenge,"..."normal career advancement, "..."monetary considerations" or "family considerations" (Barber, 1988, p.697). In addition, an ICMA study of its members in 1984 concluded that "all but approximately 15 percent " of managerial changes were for "career advancement,...salary advancement,...desire to manage a larger government, or desire for a new experience" (Green, 1987, p.9). These larger, self-administered studies may be rather impersonal and indirectly encourage respondents to avoid addressing the salient issues that explain their departure. However, an earlier landmark study (1962) reported by Gladys Kammerer and associates suggested that conflict may be a major reason for managerial departure. This conclusion will surprise few managers, but it does suggest the major uncertainties that administrators must struggle with on a daily basis. Conflict among political factions for control of the city council and conflict between the manager and a united council emerged as two major conflict scenarios that can result in managerial exit. Stillman also reported on the unsettling nature of a manager's tenure, when the results of a 1980 ICMA membership survey revealed the following major reasons for their termination:
Therefore, about three-fourths were politically-related reasons, which in many cases would be beyond their immediate control (Stillman, 1980, p. 7). Gordon Whitaker and Ruth DeHoog first surveyed 133 Florida managers in 1986 and then closely followed their careers over a two-year period. Thirty-three managers who were not in office by 1988 were the subjects of follow-up interviews and represented a cohort that had a 25 percent turnover rate. Mayors were also interviewed in each community to help assess the reasons for these departures. Managers who departed during this period experienced considerable conflict. Indeed, only three of the 33 managers involved in the study experienced little or no conflict preceding their departure (Whitaker and DeHoog, 1991, p. 158). Conflict between the council and the managers occurred when the behavior of the manager or the council became a major issue. Council conflict with the manager could include disagreement over policy or the manager's style of leadership. Whitaker and DeHoog conclude that,
In fact all types of managers with various styles of leadership encountered conflict that led to dismissal. The council "holds the last card" in the council-manager plan and can use it to dismiss the manager. When "push comes to shove," the council wins. The council, acting as a board of directors within the context of the municipal reformers' private sector, business corporation model, is clearly the manager's legal superior. Thus, unresolved conflict between the council and the manager can and will lead to forced turnover. It happens at Ford and General Motors and in Portland and Bangor. However, other trends such as changes in the composition of councils and the opposition of an elected mayor were seen as meaningful factors that could contribute to management instability. Throughout Whitaker and DeHoogs' article, there is an interesting mixture of quantitative data and qualitative, individual case detail. For example, "Managerial style was of little consequence when the manager was identified with a losing faction. Five of the managers were advocates while one was a misfit..."[the authors' category]. And in one city..." the mayor supported the manager until the manager 'became the issue' between the two factions on the council. The mayor described this manager as outspoken and uncompromising, as airing 'dirty linen in public,' and as a 'numbers person' who could not relate well to people. We classified this manager as a misfit" (1991, p. 160). "Altogether, 61 percent of the managers in our study [N=33] were pushed from office: they were fired, pressured to resign to avoid being fired, or fled from an intolerable situation. These latter managers resigned without pressure, but without any job to go to. The four who fled were out of work an average of eight months. Only 18 percent left for advancement, and 21 percent left for retirement or family reasons" (1991, p. 158). Thus conflict in Florida proved to be a frequent reason for turnover during the two-year period of this recent study. Perhaps Bill Hansell, executive director of ICMA, puts it best:
Traditionally, managers have considered themselves to be very results-oriented professionals, but have often found it difficult to be successful at achieving results because of the complexity of their environment. Richard Stillman argues that the devolution of authority away from the manager -- both upward to higher governmental levels and outward to various interest groups -- is surely a recipe for frustration within a profession so devoted to seeing things get done in the name of the public interest (Stillman, 1982, p. 5). Doug Harmon, former city manager of Alexandria, Virginia, calls his colleagues "25 hour a day workaholics" in his book, On the Joys of Being Manager (1973). While his above comment is somewhat overstated for effect, a 1980 ICMA survey did report that local public managers average 53 hours per week, with an average of 7.13 hours of their time being spent at evening meetings and with weekend work (Stillman, 1980, pp. 4-5). In the same survey it was found that their three greatest sources of frustration were in the general job pressures, lack of time for self and family, and dealing with citizens' feelings about local government. Interestingly, when managers were asked in a more recent ICMA survey (International City Management Association, 1988) to identify "the two most important factors in your decision to remain in local government management profession," they chose "commitment to public service" (77 percent) and "desire to be in charge" (26 percent). In the mid-1980s Schellinger also reported on the results of an ICMA membership survey that the average length of time that managers were spending in their current position was 5.4 years and that their average number of years spent as local government managers was 9.3 years. Moreover, 91 percent of the managers surveyed reported to have served only 1.9 governments. Two-thirds of the respondents who held 4-6 manager positions with different governments were 51 or older, while 90 percent of the managers who have held more than six positions were at least 51 years old (Schellinger, 1985, pp. 184-87). Another interesting finding of this study was that 59 percent of the respondents were not working as local government managers immediately prior to their current position. Clearly the largest communities over 100,000 in population and the smallest communities under 5,000 have the greatest proportion of managers who did not come directly from another local government management appointment. One can speculate that the occupational stress and tales of forced turnover have served as a catalyst for career exploration. In short, managers may be leaving the profession for other challenging careers in the private sector, state government, and non-profit organizations. Still, evidence suggests that some of them did return to city and town management after their alternative work experiences. Most frequently, managers served as assistant managers and deputy managers just before accepting their current position. In fact, 48 percent of respondents who were promoted to manager from within were already located within the manager's office (Schellinger, 1985, pp. 187-88). Return to Manager Plan Table of Contents Crystal ball-gazing and making predictions in social science are very hazardous undertakings. However, it is necessary to assess the future of the council-manager plan and the city management profession. The manager's job of the 21st century should continue to be as rewarding and challenging an occupation as it has been in this century. But some change seems inevitable. As John Parr, executive director of the National Municipal League warns:
Governments will have to do more with less and thereby develop new and different ways of conducting their affairs. Experimentation and frequent testing of concepts include: partnership arrangements among government, business and the nonprofits; new intergovernment agreements; alternative service delivery arrangements, including both contacts for volunteer and self-help; initiating new forums and other avenues for policy and problem-solving discussions; and working to increase joint leadership among elected officials and professional managers. Dan Blubaugh, an experienced San Francisco area city manager, warns of the limits of the manager's authority and characterizes the manager today as more of a negotiator and facilitator of public interests rather than the "central problem solver, decision-maker and doer" (Blubaugh, 1987, p. 8). While small community managers may have more to do and less resource persons to delegate to, the complexities of urban areas demand this reassessment and experimentation. The management profession needs to cope with change by exploring future trends and projections --demographic, economic, social and political -- and how these factors impact community affairs and governance. Moreover, in the past the council-manager plan itself has proved flexible enough to change and not remain carved in stone. Its evolution during the twentieth century in both theory and practice has been a major development of American governance.
|
|||||||||||||
