A
Conceptual Strategy for Leading an Interagency Group
Leadership is about dealing with people. Leadership in
the interagency is about dealing with people, and the institutions behind the
people. Interagency leaders should arm themselves with a strategy to handle the
people and their parent organizations. When agencies combine to form a group,
the resulting admixture grows complicated. Managing this complexity does not
occur by happenstance. Leading in the
interagency requires a strategy to assess, guide, evaluate, and adjust the
group toward a common objective. This process is continual. Each step
comprises various elements. Applied together, they provide a framework for
managing the complex nature of the interagency.
Assess the Organization
The first strategy step is to understand the multifaceted
organization of which one will lead. This includes the culture, accountability
demands, and the value of inputs. The Joint Interagency Task Force - West (JIATF-W)
is a useful example for reference. It contains the U.S. military, U.S. Customs,
the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
and police from Australia and New Zealand.[1] Each
organization represents unique sets of beliefs. Interagency leadership tries to
gain consensus on shared beliefs. Doing so creates a culture of cultures within
the interagency group.[2] This
sets the stage for dealing with challenges as a group. It also exposes what
Edgar Schein refers to as those issues requiring external adaptation and
internal integration.[3]
The interagency also includes layers of accountability
that must be negotiated. On the one hand, a leader will face expectations much
like what Beryl Radin identifies: policy demands, political responsibilities,
and variant processes.[4]
One must determine to whom each independent agency is accountable, and what
interests parent agencies seek. On the other hand, an interagency leader faces
additional internal and external accountability expectations. Debra Romzek and Melvin
Dubnick illustrate a quadrant of those expectations as formal accountability
areas.[5] Parent
agencies juggle those expectations separately. An interagency leader needs to
juggle a compounded set of expectations calculated by the following: P3n + A4n = C. P is the policy, politics, process
expectation. A is the internal and
external expectation; n is the total
number of organizations. C is the
measure of competing interests.[6] The greater C is, the more complicated leading the
interagency will be. An example of this relationship is depicted in Figure 1 below.
Consequently the value of C is
directly proportional to the output potential, i.e. success.
Figure 1
The complexity of an interagency organization seems
daunting, but there is great value in the inputs that come from the diversity
of contributing members. A leader should understand what individual agencies
contribute. Jim Collins uses the analogy of a hedgehog to suggest that an
organization can be great by doing one thing and doing it well.[7] The
interagency is really a collaboration of agency experts. The leader, therefore,
must herd hedgehogs finding value in their collective contributions. The
reverse is also true. A leader should understand what agencies cannot
contribute based on cultural, external, and parent agency rules.
The organization's value is further intensified by the
diversity of the group. By design the interagency is organizationally diversified.
One should expect to find diversity of people too. This may present potential
friction points especially as the group incorporates newcomers.[8]
The group's culture will indicate a level of maturity based on its ability to
integrate new members from diverse backgrounds.[9] This
friction may present some challenges later on when fundamental assumptions need
to adjust. These cultural factors define the nature of the organization. By
assessing the nature of the interagency, a leader can understanding what
internal dynamics and external demands will impact decisions. The point is to
know how best to lead.
Guide the group
The next step is to determine a leadership approach that
will best stimulate productivity. An interagency leader is a relative peer
among equals. Each member contributes as an expert from their particular agency.
The collective efforts of the group lead to accomplishing objectives. Therefore,
to lead an interagency is to lead indirectly within a domain of similarly-minded
individuals. Howard Gardner identifies a continuum of leadership whereby the
extent to which a domain is influenced suits either indirect or direct
leadership.[10]
Within the interagency, the domain is contained. Influence comes from the indirect
exchange of ideas. However, the leader also needs to go beyond the interagency
domain into respective parent agencies and those areas of external demands
depicted in Figure 1. Along Howard's continuum this means applying a more
direct approach outside the interagency to communicate messages.
With regard to indirect leadership, the question becomes
one of approach. Indirect leadership will work best by modeling discipline among
relative equals. This means modeling a certain amount of disciplined thought.[11] The
intended effect is an informal accountability system that relies more on the
strength of relationships than on one's position. Gardner says that, "When
an individual provides leadership for a group of experts in his chosen domain,
he typically does so by virtue of the work that he executes - thereby
exemplifying indirect leadership."[12] Given
the extent to which competing interests challenge the interagency, a leader modeling
disciplined thought will position him or herself to confront challenges. The
goal is to assimilate with authority. The leader should foster collaboration in
this setting so as to steer the cumulative efforts of individual hedgehogs.
The implication for the leader is to understand how to
communicate messages. Gardner offers a good measure of audience sophistication
in his categorization of the five-year old, ten-year old, and adolescent mind.[13] The
leader can package messages for different audiences by assessing the nature of
the interagency group. The content of one's message should match the level of
the audience, thereby relating to them.[14]
Relating to the various audiences is key to conveying a
message. Within the interagency there are the members themselves. Initially one
should communicate to them collectively through the "five-year old mind."[15]
The point here is not that the group lacks sophistication but that messages
should be uniform across the group at the simplest level. As the leader
evaluates the group, they may find that various sub-groups exist and warrant
different levels of communication. Schein speaks about sub-cultures evolving
within the organization's overall culture.[16]
Within the JIATF-W example we recognize the possibility for a defense
sub-culture versus a law enforcement sub-culture. And even within those
possible sub-cultures we see varying degrees of difference, for instance
between Department of Justice agencies (FBI & DEA) and Department of
Homeland Security agencies (Customs). Communicating to these various entities
requires an understanding of both individual schools of mind and the collective
school of mind.
One needs to apply a similar analysis when communicating
outside the interagency group. Here the sophistication level does matter
because external organizations only have a certain level of familiarity with the interagency objectives.
In the case of JIATF-W, one would communicate differently about resourcing
needs to the U.S. Customs than they would to the New Zealand police. The idea
behind understanding the audience and communicating at the appropriate level is
to effectively promote the interagency objectives and to set conditions for
encouraging positive change.
Evaluate
The third step is to evaluate the organization. This
includes evaluating the leader's own role, the development of the group's
culture and potential areas for change. Doing so is a process much like what
Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky describe as "getting to the balcony."[17]
The interagency leader will be involved in the work by virtue of representing
their own parent agency's interests. However, the leader must also step back
periodically to observe the bigger picture of all the agencies working
together. He or she should observe the progress toward objectives, and the
level of cooperation between agencies. And, they should observe the impact of
leader decisions on the organization.
Heifetz and Linsky point out that leaders faces inherent
dangers to their position. Although Collins would argue that leading in the
level-five realm involves a high level of humility, there is a certain
self-preservation that a leader should consider.[18] From
the balcony one should be alert to potential leadership challenges. This also
means paying attention to where a leader's efforts have been focused.
Considering Romzek and Dubnick's accountability expectations, leaders must
shift weight toward expectation areas based on the value of their demand.
Figure 1 attempts to capture this uneven gravitational pull. During evaluation,
a leader ought to recalculate the competing interests using the complexity
formula, measuring the variables based on demand priorities associated with
individual agencies and external factors.
The leader identifies areas that need adjustment during
this step. This should be done with careful consideration of the group's
overall culture and emerging sub-cultures. Change areas can fall within what Schein
refers to as cultural levels: visible artifacts, underlying values, and
fundamental assumptions.[19] Leaders
need to carefully pick the battles worth waging based on the impact to the
cultural level. Heifetz and Linsky say that, "Most problems come bundled
with both technical and adaptive aspects."[20] How
a leader assesses the technical or adaptive change required will determine how
the message should be communicated. Technical fixes for instance speak to the
five-year old mind, whereas adaptive fixes speak to a higher level.[21] Therefore,
technical fixes require less effort and only temporarily solve artifact problems.
Adaptive fixes take considerably more effort because they address fundamental
assumptions. This evaluation step helps isolate those critical areas worth
changing which in turn should be addressed with an appropriate change strategy.
Adjust and Fine Tune
The final step is to make changes. While there are
numerous strategies for implementing change, an interagency leader needs to
orchestrate them through a methodology while remaining patient. Changes may not come easily, and reactions
may be severe. Heifetz and Linsky characterize the orchestration as controlling
a thermostat, raising and lowering the temperature as needed.[22] Adaptive
changes will require more heat because basic assumptions will be threatened. This
implies constantly taking the temperature of the group to measure the
tolerance. As the temperature rises, members will become uncomfortable. Schein's
concept of psychological safety helps members protect against the heat, by
reducing anxiety.[23]
This four step leadership strategy is continual, so a leader should measure the
change by again assessing, guiding, evaluating, then fine-tuning the change
requirements.
The entire process of change takes time. Managing this
evolution requires patience, and that patience needs to be communicated within
the context of the aforementioned relevant audiences. The recent repeal of the
U.S. military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy is an example of
patient temperature gauging. After
almost twenty years of fluctuation, the social temperature was finally right for
the military to repeal it and more importantly transition smoothly away from
the DADT policy.[24]
The DADT Implementation Plan notes that leadership was and will be the driving
force behind this major change in the military's cultural assumptions.[25]
Change within the interagency will be the most challenging aspect of leadership.
This is especially true when accounting for the value of C, the complexity of competing interests.
Conclusion
An interagency group is complex, and competing
interests place significant demands on leaders of these groups. A comprehensive
strategy for leadership provides a framework for managing the complexity. By
continually assessing, guiding, evaluating, and adjusting the group, an
interagency leader will better manage the members of the interagency, their
parent organizations' expectations, and other external factors affecting the
group.
References
Chetkovich, Carol. Real Heat Gender and Race in the
Urban Fire Service. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997.
Collins, Jim.
"Good to Great and the Social Sectors." A Monograph to Accompany
Good to Great. 2005.
Gardner, Howard. Leading
Minds An Anatomy of Leadership. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
Heifetz, Ronald A., and
Marty Linsky. Leadership on the Line. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Press, 2002.
Radin, Beryl A. The
Accountable Juggler. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2002.
Romzek, Barbara S., and
Melvin J. Dubnick. "Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the
Challenger Tragedy." Public Administration Review 47, no. 3
(May-June 1987): 227-238.
Schein, Edgar H. Organizational
Culture and Leadership. Fourth Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
United States
Department of Defense. Support Plan for Implementation: Report of the
Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell". Washington D.C.: United States Department of Defense,
2010.
United States Pacific
Command: Joint Interagency Task Force West. 2011. http://www.pacom.mil/web/site_pages/staff%20directory/jiatfwest/jiatfwest.shtml
(accessed October 2, 2011).
Notes
[1] JIATF-W is an interagency task
force within Pacific Command (PACOM) that combats drug-related crime
organizations throughout the Asian-Pacific region. For more information about
the command structure, mission and interagency and intergovernmental partnership
of JIATF-W see, United States Pacific Command:Joint Interagency Task Force West. 2011.
http://www.pacom.mil/web/site_pages/staff%20directory/jiatfwest/jiatfwest.shtml
(accessed October 2, 2011).
[2] Culture here is defined by Edgar
Schein as, "a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has
worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems." See Schein, p. 18.
[3] See Schein, chapters 5 & 6
for detailed explanations of external adaptation in internal integration.
[4] See Radin, pp. 5-6. Radin
characterizes the difficulty of managing these three dimensions analogous to
juggling them simultaneously.
[5] Romzek and Dubnick depict an
accountability quadrant of hierarchical,
professional, legal, and political expectations. A leader must be able to
negotiate the four simultaneously and understand when to weigh one more than
another. See Romzek and Dubnick, pp. 228-229.
[6] This sum represents the nature
of complexity the leader will need to understand in order to apply guidance and
direct policies. This formula is primarily illustrative; however adjusting the
variable for P, A, and n illustrate to degree to which the organization
changes. It's also helpful to identify potential priorities regarding areas of
expectation.
[7] See Collins, pp. 17-19.
[8] For further research on the
experience of newcomers from diverse backgrounds, see Chetkovich's case study
of female firefighters in the Oakland Fire Department.
[9] See Schein, pp. 289-291 for an
explanation of how organizations become mature making them more resistant to
external changes.
[11] See Collins, pp. 34-35 for an
explanation of how organizations transition from good to great through four
stages: discipline people, disciplined though, disciplined action, building
greatness to last. In this interagency model, greatness is not necessarily the
end goal.
[13] See Gardner, ch. 3 for a
detailed explanation of the stages of developmental sophistication, the 5, 10,
adolescent, and adult minds. These schools of mind represent a certain ability
to comprehend simple to sophisticated issues. Gardner refers to this as the
"unschooled mind" in a matter of fact sense rather than a pejorative
sense.
[14] This theme of speaking to the
5/10/15 year old mind is consistent throughout Gardner's book. The main idea is
to simplify the message to the level that will be best received and understood.
[15] See Gardner for more on the
five-year old mind.
[16] See Schein, ch. 4 for the
various macro, sub, and micro cultures.
[17] See Heifetz and Linksy, Ch 3 for
a full explanation of the concept of getting to the balcony. It entails going
back and forth from the balcony to the dance floor as a leader is involved with
yet apart from their organization.
[18] Collins refers to five levels of
leadeship. Level five is the highest and is a "blend of personal humility
and professional will." For more see Collins p. 12.
[19] See Schein, ch. 2 for details on
the three levels of culture.
[20] Technical fixes provide
immediate visible results but may never solve fundamental challenges. Adaptive
fixes require greater effort in changing behavior and therefore are much harder
to do. For more see Heifetz and Linsky, pp. 55-62.
[21] Again refer to Howard Gardner's
five, ten, adolescent, and adult minds for varying degrees of sophistication
and capacity to handle issues.
[22] See Heifetz and Linsky, ch. 5
for further explanation of raising and lowering the temperature.
[23] See Schein, pp. 305-307 for an
eight activities that help assuage the anxiety associated with change.
[24] See Support Plan for
Implementation for details on how DoD postured itself to transition away from
DADT. On September 20, 2011 the repeal occurred with generally mild
reverberations.
[25] The DADT Support Plan repeatedly
places the responsibility for change on professional leadership. This policy
repeal directly targets what Schein would refer to as a fundamental assumption.
That assumption was that in order to serve one's country, one's sexual
orientation mattered. This change effectively says sexual orientation does not
matter. See also Schein's definition of assumptions on pp. 27-32.
