the political dimension of effective nonprofit executive leadership

The Political Dimension of Effective Nonprofit Executive Leadership

Richard D. Heimovics, Robert D. Heman,

Carole L. Jurkiewicz Recent research by the authors adds to their evolving mode2 of the leadership provided by effective chief executive officers of nonprofit organizations. Effective chief executives understand the centrality ojtheir leadership role and accept responsibility as initiators of action-with their boards-to find resources and revitalize the missions of their organizations. These actions are camed out as part of the political dimension of eflective executives. The importance of this criterion of leadership practice is examined in light of the hesitance of chief executives to espouse or advocate political action. Implications for chief executive training and development are discussed.

ONVENTIONAL wisdom presents the leader as a charismatic individual (for example, Bass, 1985) who ”empowers” oth- C ers (Block, 1987) and kreates trust relationships through

positioning” (Bennis and Nanus, 1985), and as someone who under- stands leadership *as a performing art” (Vaill, 1989). A question looming over the field of nonprofit management and leadership is to what extent these exhortations are sufficient to inform the practice of effective executive leadership of nonprofit organizations.

Note: This article is a revision of a paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Toronto, Ontario. Canada, Oct. 28-29, 1993. Grants from the Beistle Memor- ial Fund of the L. P. Cookingham Institute of Public Affairs, from the Weldon Springs Endowment Fund, and from the Bloch School of Business and Public Administration of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, supported the research reported here.

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP. vol. 5. no. 3. Spring 1995 0 JosKy-Bass Publishers

234 HEIMOVICS, HERMAN, J U R K I E W I C Z

The role ofpower and political

action is often downplay ed

in conventional wisdom about

effective leadership in general and nonprofit

executive leadership in particular

We hope chief executives of nonprofit organizations can be art- ful performers, uusting visionaries, and inspirational leaders and do not deny the importance of these insights about their leadership. Yet, we are convinced that there are more specific and thus more useful ways to describe effective nonprofit chief executive leadership. Our focus has been to determine empirically if there are particular actions that characterize the behaviors of effective nonprofit executives.

For example, the role of power and political action is often downplayed in conventional wisdom about effective leadership in general and nonprofit executive leadership in particular. Yet influ- encing the funding decision process, finding and allocating resources, and harnessing varying interests toward organizational goals are activities that define executive leadership behavior-in part-as political action. While certainly the scope of effective executive leadership extends beyond the political arena, we believe the role of a leader by its very nature is that of political actor. Recent research suggests that this neglect of the political dimension of executive leadership is a critical oversight. We now have empirical evidence to suggest that the political dimension of the executive is an important criterion for understanding nonprofit executive effectiveness (Heimovics, Herman, and Jurkiewicz Coughlin, 1993). Under- standing this political dimension illuminates the central role nonprofit executives play in positioning their organizations in the larger environment, revealing how effective executives work with their boards and operate beyond the boundaries of their organizations to gather information, establish support networks, acquire resources, and influence policy and funding decisions. In this article, we, first, summarize our prior research and then show how our new line of inquiry about the political dimension of the effective chief executive corroborates the idea of a board-centered, boundary-spanning effective executive.

Our Prior Research Elsewhere, two of us have provided empirically derived descriptions of effective nonprofit executives (Heimovics and Herman, 1990; Her- man and Heimovics, l989,1990b, 1991). Effective chief executives understand the centrality of their leadership role and accept responsibility as initiators of action-with their boards-to find resources and revitalize the missions of their organizations.

Our prior research asked chief executives to recount successful and unsuccessful critical events. They and other major actorrstaff and board members-in nonprofit organizations were asked who was responsible for the outcomes of these events. The executives’ descriptions of these critical incidents were transcribed and carefully coded to determine the presence or absence of certain management behaviors. One group of executives was determined to be especially effective on the basis of nomination by informed observers. A sec-

T H E P O L I T I C A L DlMENSION OF E F F E C T I V E L E A D E R 5 H l P 235

ond group was randomly selected from rolls of chief executives not deemed to be especially effective. The chief executives in the study were from a large metropolitan community. (See Herman and Heimovics [1990bl and Heimovics and Herman [1990] for detailed explanations of the research methodology.)

Psychological Centrality of the Leadership Role of the Chief Executive Based on this research, we argued that the traditional perspective of the board as hierarchically responsible for the nonprofit organization may underestimate the importance of the role and actions of the chief executive (see Heimovics and Herman, 1990; Herman and Heimovics, 1989). We found that it is the chief executive, without regard to the chief executive’s effectiveness, who is expected to influence, and even control, the events that determine the success or failure of the nonprofit organization. Despite the principal leadership role traditionally assigned to boards (Herman, 1989), when things do not go well, everyone blames the chief executive; when things go right, the executive gets the credit. All fingers, including the executive’s own, point to the chief executive as the one accountable for critical outcomes of both success and failure.

This important finding confirms a belief in what we call the “psychological centrality” of the chief executive role in a hierarchy of responsibility for organizational outcomes. In short, this psychological centrality tells us that nonprofit chief executives are expected (by others and themselves) to take substantial responsibility for organizational outcomes.

Internal Versus External Critical Events We found it helpful in our research to distinguish between internal and external critical events. Internal events are those that occur within the boundaries of the organization over which the executive may have direct influence and legitimate authority. External events are those that occur in the environment of the organization where the actions or skills necessary to be effective are much different and the responsibility less certain. Examples of environmental events are legislative lobbying, collaboration with other agencies, relations with government officials, and perhaps market or funding actions that lead to program development or decline. We distinguished these external events from internal critical events such as personnel actions, problems with implementing an administrative system or procedure, installation of a new personnel system, and decisions about which new computer systems to buy.

It was not particularly surprising to us that the lion’s share (70 percent) of events chosen as critical by executives in our sample (regardless of executive effectiveness) occurred in the external environments of their organizations. Changes in funding and the challenges of developing financially feasible programs have been the foci

All fingers, including the

executive’s own, point to the chief executive as the one accountable

fur critical outcomes of both success and failure

236 H E I M O V I C S , H E R M A N , J U R K I E W I C Z

of nonprofit organizations for the past decade. Nonprofit organizations are becoming increasingly vulnerable to external events and must adapt to these external events to remain viable, to find resources, and to revitalize missions. However, we were surprised to find that the chief executives in our study were held accountable even for those events for which they could have had little responsibility; for example, public policy and political and charitable funding decisions that were far from their lines of influence (Heimovics and Herman, 1990).

These findings led us to speculate about the external actions of the nonprofit executive, across the boundaries of the organization. If the chief executive is held responsible for actions taken for external events in the unpredictable environment of the nonprofit organization, how do executives respond to this responsibility? How are boundary-spanning actions carried out in relationship to the board, particularly in light of the leadership centrality of the chief executive? Answers to these questions were provided by the second major finding of our prior research.

Board-Centered Leadership of the Effective Chief Executive We found that effective nonprofit executives do understand that effective leadership is largely an external activity engaged in with and through boards of directors. The effective chief executives in our study responded to the psychological centrality of their leadership role by carrying out their responsibility with and through their boards in a manner different from that of the executives not deemed especially effective (Herman and Heimovics, 1990b, 1991). A major effectiveness criterion suggests that the locus of attention of the effective chief executives (in contrast to the comparison group) was largely board directed. Effective executives ensured that their boards fulfilled their legal and moral responsibilities by engaging in board-centered leadership (see Herman and Heimovics, 1990a, 1990b, 1991, for discussion of the specific board-centered behaviors engaged in by effective executives). In our prior research we argued that board-centered executives are likely to be effective because they grasp the notion that the work of a well-functioning board is critical in adapting to and affecting the constraints and opportunities in an organization’s environment. Our most recent research strengthens this argument.

Political Frame of the Effective Chief Executive The board-centered, boundary-spanning role of effective chief executives enables them to deal directly in the funding arena. Here, actions surrounding the allocation of scarce resources often trigger coalitions composed of vaned individuals and groups (for example, professional, lobbying, and interest groups; funding panels; and other grant-making bodies). Conflict is central to the resolution of

T H E P O L ~ T I C A L D I M E N S I O N O F E F F E C T I V E LEADERSHIP 237

differences in this arena. Before we began our new research, we assumed that effective chief executives are skillful in persuasion, negotiation, bargaining, and jockeying for position in the interests of their organizations. Our new research tested these assumptions about the political skills of the effective chief executive and helped us to develop a more complete model of the effective executive. Our frame analysis of nonprofit executives was the first to indicate clearly that effective leaders do indeed engage in political actions significantly more often than do executives who are less effective (Heimovics, Herman, and Jurkiewicz Coughlin, 1993). The balance of this article carries forward this new line of research.

Frame Analysis A multiple-frame orientation for understanding leadership, devel- oped by Bolman and Deal (1991a, 1991b), formed the basis for our additional tests of the unique external orientation of the effective executive. Bolman and Deal's framework defines four distinct organizational perspectives that leaders may adopt to understand the many realities of organizational life: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. Knowledge of these frames and their various strengths, according to Bolman and Deal, can help leaders understand and intervene in their organizations more effectively They suggest that those who use situationally appropriate or multiple frames will be more successful than others who address organizational problems from an inappropriate or single perspective.

Bolman and Deal described how their four frames characterize the way managers think about and act on leadership problems. The following discussion describes these frames as they operate in nonprofit organizations.

Structural Frame Clarity of goals and role expectations provide order and continuity in the organization according to the structural frame. The emphasis here is on job descriptions, clear procedures and policies, and a view of the organization as a rational and hierarchial system. Adherence to accepted standards and the creation of administrative systems confer on the organization its form and logic. The practice of allow- ing procedures (for example, personnel systems and board performance standards) to define individual and organizational effectiveness is also characteristic of this frame, as is the emphasis on establishing certainty in mission and clarity of direction.

Human Resources Frame According to the human resources frame, people are the most valuable resource of any organization. The effective leader, as defined by this frame, recognizes the importance of balancing the goals of the organization and the hopes and aspirations of its members by attend- ing to individual hopes, feelings, and preferences, valuing relationships

Effective executives

ensured that their boards

fuZfilled their legal and moral responsibilities by engaging in board-centered

Zeadership

238 H E ~ M O V I C S . H E R M A N , \ U R K ~ E W ~ C Z

DeZegation is important

because it not only empowers others to take initiative but also provides

opportunities for personal growth and development

and feelings, and advocating effective delegation. Nonprofit leaders who use this frame believe in sharing and helping. Delegation is important because it not only empowers others to take initiative but also provides opportunities for personal growth and development. This frame defines problems and issues in interpersonal terms and encourages open communication, team building, and collaboration.

Political Frame The political frame assumes ongoing conflict or tension over the allocation of scarce resources or the resolution of differences, most often triggered by the need to bargain or negotiate in order to acquire or allocate resources. As viewed within this frame, conflict resolution skills are necessary to build alliances and networks with prominent actors or stakeholders in order to influence decisions about the allocation of resources. The informal realities of organizational life include the influence of coalitions and interest groups. Not only do politically oriented leaders understand how interest groups and coalitions evolve, but they can also influence the impact of these groups on the organization. Those who use the political frame exercise their personal and organizational power and are se’nsitive to external factors that can influence internal decisions and policies.

Symbolic Frame According to this frame, realities of organizational life are socially construed. Organizations are cultural and historical systems of shared meanings where group membership determines individual interpre- tations of organizational phenomena. Organizational structure, politics, and human relations are inventions of the cultural and historical system. Leaders utilize ceremonies, rituals, or artifacts to create a uni- fying system of beliefs. This frame calls for charismatic leaders to arouse “visions of a preferred organizational future” and evoke emo- tional responses to enhance an organization’s identity, transforming it to a higher plane of performance and value (Bass, 1985).

Methods of Our Current Research We began our research on the use of frames by chief executives by revisiting the critical incident interviews that were analyzed in our prior research on the psychological centrality and board-centered leadership of effective executives.

Behavioral Enactments Versus Espoused Statements Two sets of two graduate students in management, each of whom was unaware of the differences in the two samples and the hypothe- ses of our current and prior studies, read and coded independently- from each other and from the other group-the transcribed interviews. The objective was to determine which frames were evoked by the chief executives, by successful and unsuccessful

T H E P O L I T I C A L D I M E N S I O N O F E F F E C T I V E L E A D E R S H I P 239

event. Argyris’s (1982) distinctions between espoused theories and theories-in-use were introduced to our coders to‘create an important coding criterion. For Argyris, espoused theories are those values and actions about which individuals are conscious and aware and might use to describe or advocate as effective leadership. We explained to our coders that one might call an espoused theory a personal philosophy or a statement of leadership belief, but it is not a description of a particular action taken. If an executive said, “Good leaders should empower others,” that statement is part of the executive’s espoused theory. By contrast, theories-in-use constitute the actual set of actions observed and experienced by others. Argyris noted that commonly there are incongruities between what people espouse as their leadership beliefs and how they actually behave.

One set of coders took particular care to code only theories-in- use, or what we label “discrete behavioral enactments” as opposed to espoused statements. These behavioral enactments were specific actions undertaken by the chief executives. An enactment was defined as a behavioral description of how a critical event was handled or acted on by the executive. We asked our coders to code only descriptions of actions that were probably observable to others. For example, if an executive had reported, “I met with the board president and the chair of the finance committee to help pound out our differences about the budget,” the action would have been coded as an “observable” enactment in the political frame (a resolution of a conflict over resources).

The second independent pair of coders coded only espoused or advocated statements of leadership by our executives, not the behavior enactments, as was the case with the first pair of coders. For example, the statement, “I believe board members must know what is expected of them” was coded as an espoused statement in the structural frame (a role clarification). If the executive had stated, “I told board member X that her committee had done excellent work on the report,” the comment would have been coded by the first pair of coders as an enactment in the human resources frame (an affirm- ing statement of support).

Bolman and Deal (1991a) list criteria for coding frame-related actions, which guided our coders. These criteria are presented in Exhibit 1.

Intercoder Reliability Tests were conducted to determine if each member of a pair of independent coders scored frames similarly. Unless these reliabilities were established, we would have been uncertain about whether the measures were credible. Substantial statistical interrater reliability was established for coders for the full set of interviews.

Initially, the two coders in each set independently coded ten successful and ten unsuccessful events to determine interrater agree- ment on the number of times the chief executives both used and

Commonly there are incongruities

between what people espouse as their leadership beliefs and how

they actually behave

240 H E J M O V J C S , H E R M A N , J U R K J E W J C Z

Exhibit 1. Criteria for Coding Frame-Related Actions

STRUCTURAL Reorganizing internal staff functions Implementing or clarifying policies or procedures with staff or board Developing new information, budgeting, or control systems Designing personnel systems Developing planning processes Emphasizing objectives, goals, and/or mission

HUMAN RESOURCES Processes of participation and involvement Listening, helping, or engaging others in participation Dealing with interpersonal issues Emphases on collaboration, consensus, and team building Quality-of-work life efforts

POLITICAL Bargaining Negotiating Building alliances and networking with key players in the environment Dealing with conflicts among different constituencies, interest groups,

Dealing with disputes about the allocation or acquisition of scarce resources

SYMBOLIC Working on vision or agency identity Attempts to influence the culture of the organization Using seff as a symbol Discussion of the symbolic importance of practices, rituals, or artifacts,

or competing interests

for example, “attachment to the way we’ve always done it”

Source: Based on Bolman and Deal, 1991a.

espoused each of the frames. These preliminary tests of reliability were encouraging. As a result, each rater (in each pair) continued to read all of the remaining initial incident interviews. The coding of frequencies of each frame was truly independent-no discussion and resolution of differences was necessary. We computed Pearson’s r correlation coefficients for each pair of coders. The results appear in Table 1. With acceptable interrater reliabilities, statistical analyses were conducted to determine if there were frame differences between our two samples of executives. In all subsequent tests, the counts of frame use (both in behavior and in espousals) were the averages of the coders’ counts.

Findings Our examples include data from fifty-two executives. We had usable data for twenty-six successful events and twenty-five unsuccessful events from effective executives, and for twenty-four successful

T H E P O L l T l C A L DIMENSION OF E F F E C T I V E LEADERSHJP 241

Table 1. Tests of Coder Interrater Reliabilities: Pearson r Correlation Coefficients

Frame ~ ~~ -

Behavioral Enactments Espousals

Structural Successful events Unsuccessful events

Human Resources Successful events Unsuccessful events

Political Successfuul events Unsuccessful events

Symbolic Successful events Unsuccessful events

.56

.77 .83 .84

.81 .76

.66 .84

.65 .62

.77 .65

.39 .52

.29 .88 ~

Note: All correlations were significant at the level of .01 or less, except for symbolic successful events for behavioral enactments, where the level of significance was less than .05. (See Heimovics. Herman, and Jurkiewicz Coughlin [19931 for details about interrater reliability for behavioral enactments and for a discussion of the somewhat lower reliabilities of the symbolic frame.)

events and twenty-three unsuccessful events from comparison executives. Tables 2 and 3 show the average counts of the two sets of coders, by frame, by kind of event, and by type of chief executive for enacted and espoused statements, respectively The t scores in Tables 2 and 3 measure statistical differences in means between the effective chief executives and those not deemed effective, for both espousals and enactments, and successful and unsuccessful events, in the use of each frame.

Behavioral Enactments Analysis of the average count of the two coders of discrete behavioral enactments by frame, by kind of event, and by type of chief executive revealed statistically significant differences only for the political frame. We conclude that effective executives employed the political frame significantly more often for both kinds of events. Effective executives were twice as likely as the comparison executives to engage in actions defined as the political frame for both kinds of events. Comparison executives not only used the political frame far less than the effective executives but also differentiated little in their use of the political frame in either unsuccessful or successful events. (Note the 3.4 and 3.5 values in Table 2 for comparison executive enactments in the political frame.) By contrast, effective executives were almost 30 percent more likely to use the political frame in successful events than in unsuccessful ones. The

242 HEIMOVICS, HERMAN, J U R K l E W I C Z

Table 2. Mean Counts of Frame Enactments (Theories-in-Use) by Types of CEOs for Successful and Unsuccessful Events

Frame Effective CEOs Comparison CEOs

Structural Unsuccessful events Successful events

Human Resources Unsuccessful events Successful events

Political Unsuccessful events’ Successful eventsh

Symbolic Unsuccessful events Successful events

6.9 10.4

4.9 8.2

6.7 8.5

1.0 2.0

4.7 7.9

3.7 6.0

3.4 3.5

.7 1 .o

~ ~~

Note: For effective CEUs, N = 25 for unsuccessful events and N = 26 for successfut events; for comparison CEOs. N = 23 for unsuccessful events and N = 24 for successful events. ’Significant difference less than .05. t = 2.25. “Significant difference less than .01, t = 2.60.

comparison executives were almost twice as likely to employ the structural frame and 70 percent more likely to use the human resources frame than the political in either kind of event (see Heimovics, Herman, and Jurkiewicz Coughlin, 1993, for details about our methodology and our discussion of this finding).

When we analyzed our data by location of events-extemal versus internal-to determine if this variable explained differences in frame use, again we found statistically significant differences between our two groups of executives only in the political frame. In fact, comparison executives were most likely to employ the structural frame when dealing with events in the external environment of the organization, where the political frame could be assumed to be more important. By contrast, the effective executives were most likely to, use the political frame (Heimovics, Herman, and Jurkiewicz Coughlin, 1993).

Espoused Statements We found statistically significant differences for both the political and structural frames in the test of differences between our two groups of executives in espoused statements. Effective executives espoused the political and structural frames more often for both kinds of events.

Why did the effective executives espouse the structural frame more than those not deemed especially effective, even though they were no more likely to enact the structural frame? Bolman and Deal

THE POLITICAL D I M E N S I O N O F E F F E C T I V E LEADERSHIP 243

Table 3. Mean Counts of Frame Espousals by Types of CEOs for Successful and Unsuccessful Events

Frame Effective CEOs Comparison CEOs

Structural Unsuccessful events' Successful events'

Human Resources Unsuccessful events Successful events

Political Unsuccessful eventsh Successful events'

Symbolic Unsuccessful events Successful events

10.2 15.1

7.8 12.0

4.8 5.8

1.8 2.8

7.7 10.4

6.7 9.1

2.8 2.3

.9 1.8

Note: For effective CEOs. N = 25 for unsuccessful events and N = 26 for successful events; for comparison CEOs, N = 23 for unsuccessful events and N = 24 for successful events. "Significant difference less than .05, t = 2.45 in unsuccessful events and t = 2.60 in successful events. hSignificant difference less than .06, t = 1.99. 'Significant difference less than .01, t = 3.30.

(1991a, 1991b) suggest that behind every effort to improve organizations lies a set of assumptions, or theories, about how organizations work or should work. By "theory" they refer broadly to the set of ideas that managers use in their attempts to perform the basic functions of theory in science: explanation, prediction, and control. Chief executives draw on a variety of theories in their efforts to change, improve, or explain their organizations to others (Bolman and Deal, 1991b, p. 9).

Effective executives in our samples were inclined to present or espouse their "theories of organizational leadership" from the dom- inant structural frame significantly more often than were those not deemed effective. The espoused structural frame argues for the importance of rationality and the value of structures that best fit Organizational purposes and environmental demands. Apparently, the effective executives preferred to present themselves as structured and ordered in the face of complex environments although they were no more likely (statistically) to enact the structural frame than the executives not deemed effective. Perhaps to be effective, it is important to appear as if one is ordered and rational regardless of whether one behaves that way This finding is especially intriguing in light of the findings about the political frame, where order and rationality were forsaken for a different set of assumptions and skills.

A comparison of the counts of enactments in Table 2 and

Eflective executives were twice as likely as the comparison executives to

engage in actions defined as the political frame

244 H E I M O V I C S , H E R M A N , ~ U R K I E W I C Z

Both effective executives and

those not deemed especially effec-

tive enacted more political behavior

than they espoused

espousals in Table 3 shows that for every frame except the political frame, the espoused counts (regardless of type of event or type of executive) are greater than the enacted counts. Both effective executives and those not deemed especially effective enacted more political behavior than they espoused. In short, the political frame was not advocated as a theory of leadership nearly as much as were the structural and the human resources frames. Executives, regardless of effectiveness, were much more apt to advocate the importance of the human resources and, especially, the structural frames than they were the political even though in practice the use of the political frame was the distinguishing and important criterion of executive effectiveness.

Discussion Nonprofit organizations operate with permeable boundaries, open to influence and inputs of information, resources, and people (Brown, 1983). They are fundamentally resource-dependent organizations (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Saidel, 1991) where effective leadership actions are largely determined by the constraints and opportunities presented by the external environment.

A view that nonprofit organizations are political entities, not unlike governments where power is often diffuse (Long, 19621, necessitates two things: (1) that to understand them one needs an understanding of organizational politics and (2) that to lead them successfully one needs political will and expertise (Pfeffer, 1992). We showed in our prior research that effective executives are expected to, and must, operate successfully in the external arena of their organizations. Our recent finding that effective executives were much more likely to think and act in accordance with a political frame confirms our earlier findings. We believe that effective chief executives operate from the political frame because it enables them to focus more skillfully on conflicts and tensions, on competing interests and agendas, and on disputes over the allocation and acquisition of scarce resources in their funding and political environments. The finding that those executives not deemed effective were significantly less likely to think or act in accordance with the political frame establishes the use of the political frame as a criterion of executive effectiveness.

The finding about leadership espousals is particularly interest- ing. Executives in our study (without respect to effectiveness) were much more likely to describe behaviors rooted in the political frame than to espouse the political frame as part of their leadership orientation. These executives clearly acted in political ways and at the same time advocated a less politicized philosophy. We know from Pfeffer (1981) that power is most effectively exercised unobtrusively, and that overt political pronouncements are divisive and likely to be met with challenges. Wrong (1988) distinguished between those

THE POLITICAL D I M E N S I O N OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP 245

political operatives who say and those who do, the later being the most effective. Even Machiavelli ([1513] 1992) recognized that long- term leader effectiveness depends on eschewal of a highly politicized philosophy. It may well be important and effective to act in accordance with the political frame, as our research suggests and as Pfef- fer (1992) contends, but i t may not be as acceptable to espouse this frame as part of a leadership philosophy

We conclude that nonprofit executive leadership effectiveness must encompass the ability to operate within a political framework, regardless of the proclivity to espouse a political dimension. Our finding would not surprise Zaleznik and Kets de Vries (1985), who maintained that the ability to control and influence others is the basis for directing organizations and attaining social goals, and that leadership in its essential form is the exercise of power.

Scholars and practitioners alike decry the dearth of effective leaders in organizations today The “leadership crisis,” as it has been widely diagnosed, notably by Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Gard- ner (1990), along with many others, is often rooted in an unwill- ingness and inability of those who would lead effectively to place as much emphasis on the skills of getting things done (power) as on the skills of figuring out what to do (Pfeffer, 1992). The “something missing” in leadership today, these scholars purport, is a political orientation. We agree. The conspicuousness of political action in the boundary-spanning role of effective nonprofit chief executives vividly contrasts with the powerlessness of the less effective in the face of challenge and complexities. Such powerlessness abounds in other organizational settings (Bennis and Nanus, 1985) and must be expected to occur in the leadership of nonprofit organizations.

In short, we provide a convincing empirical basis for describing the boundary-spanning role of especially effective nonprofit chief executives. Both our prior research and our new line of inquiry using frame analysis have demonstrated that how chief executives deal with external events is a major criterion of leadership effectiveness. Since we began to report our work over five years ago, it has been our intent to provide concrete and empirically supported answers to the question “What do effective executives actually do?” We think we have some of the answers to this question. We also know that what leaders do is much more important than what they say So, certainly, if we are to learn about effectiveness, we must differentiate, as Argyris (1982) contends, between what executives espouse as their leadership philosophy and the actions they take.

Conclusion

The “something missing” in

leadership today is a political orientation

The following four points characterize our model of the effective executive. The first two are empirically derived generalizations that flow from our prior research. The third point is obtained from our recent frame analysis of enactments (Heimovics, Herman, and Jurkiewicz

246 H E I M O V I C S , H E R M A N , JURKIEWICZ

It is time to bring the use of the

political frame out of the closet in our teaching and discussion

of the leadership effectiveness of chief executives

Coughlin, 1993) and the analysis of espousals presented in this article. The fourth point is deduced from the other three and appears in the form of a challenge to those interested in becoming or in helping other executives to become more effective.

Because of their central position in information flow and expertise, nonprofit chief executives occupy a leadership position of psychological centrality. They and others hold the executive centrally responsible for critical organizational outcomes. Boards of directors in nonprofit organizations are potentially bodies that may be used to mediate environmental relationships. Especially effective nonprofit chief executives accept the attributions of central responsibility by engaging in board-centered leadership. This leadership is directed at and through their boards to find resources for and to revitalize missions of their organizations. Effective nonprofit chief executives recognize that their organizations are part of a complex political system and behave accordingly. Effective executives use their political skill to understand and act on factors in their environment so as to advance the interests of their organizations (although both the effective executives and those not deemed effective are much less willing to advocate the political frame than to enact it). Rather than treat political actions as either inappropriate or cor- rupting forces, we believe that it is valuable to recognize nonprofit organiza tions-and particularly their environments-as arenas abounding in conflicting and complex political processes. Given the importance of the political frame as a criterion for determining chief executive effectiveness, and given the general reluctance of managers to espouse the political frame, it is time to bring the use of the political frame out of the closet in our teaching and discussion of the leadership effectiveness of chief executives.

Based on these generalizations and our work as educators of nonprofit executives, we are trying to find ways to legitimize dis- cussions about the forms of power in the nonprofit sector, the politics of funding and resource allocation, and the nature of conflict resolution among organizations in the nonprofit community We are also experimenting with curricula and training modules designed to help executives learn the action skills of the political frame, including coalition building, bargaining, negotiation, colIaboration, the effective use of power, the interrelation of power and ethics, and self- insight into an executive’s personal orientation toward power. As researchers we are also paying much more attention to how executives do their work than to what they profess are the qualities of effective executive leadership.

THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF EFFECTIVE L E A D E R S H I P 247

RICHARD D. HEIMOVlCS is Levitt Professor of Human Relations and di- rector of executive programs at the Bloch School of Business and Pub- lic Administration, University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is a former president of the National Association of Schools of Public Af- fairs and Administration and afonner member of the National Coun- cil of the American Society for Public Administration.

ROBERT D. HERMAN is professor of organizational behavior at the L. l? Cookingham Institute of Public Affairs, Bloch School of Business and Public Administration. He is aformer president of the Association of Voluntary Action Scholars.

CAROLE L. JuruuEwrcz is research associate at the Bloch School of Busi- ness and Public Administration. She has an interdisciplinary Ph.D. in public administration and philosophy.

References

Argyris, C. Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organi- zational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.

Bass, B. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York Free Press, 1985.

Bennis, W., and Nanus, B. Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: HarperCollins, 1985.

Block, l? The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. “Reframing Leadership: The Effects of Leaders’ Images of Leadership.” Paper presented at the 2nd Re- search Conference on Leadership, Center for Creative Leader- ship, Colorado Springs, Colo., July 1991a.

Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 199 lb.

Brown, L. D. Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Read- ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1983.

Gardner, J. W. On Leadership. New York: Free Press, 1990. Heimovics, R. D., and Herman, R. D. “The Responsibility for Criti-

cal Incidents in Nonprofit Organizations.” Nonprofit and Volun- tary Sector Quarterly, 1990, 19 (1),59-72.

Heimovics, R. D., Herman, R. D., and Jurkiewicz Coughlin, C. L. “Executive Leadership and Resource Dependence in Nonprofit Organizations: A Frame Analysis.” Public Administration Review, 1993,53 (5). 419427.

Herman, R. D. “Concluding Thoughts on Closing the Board Gap.” In R. D. Herman and J. Van Ti1 (eds.), Nonprofit Boards of Directors: Analyses and Applications. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1989.

248 H E I M O V I C S , H E R M A N , J U R K I E W J C Z

Herman, R. D., and Heimovics, R. D. “Critical Events in the Man- agement of Nonprofit Organizations.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1989,18 (2). 119-132.

Herman, R. D., and Heimovics, R. D. “The Effective Nonprofit Ex- ecutive: Leader of the Board.” Nonprofit Management and Leader- ship, 1990a, 1 (2), 167-180.

Herman, R. D., and Heimovics, R. D. “An Investigation of Leader- ship Skill Differences in Chief Executives of Nonprofit Organiza- tions.” American Review of Public Administration, 1990b, 20 (2),

Herman, R. D., and Heimovics, R. D. Executive Leadership in Non- profit Organizations: New Strategies for Shaping Executive-Board Dynamics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 199 1.

Long, N. E. “The Administrative Organization as a Political System.” In S. Mailick and E. H. Van Ness (eds.), Concepts and Issues in Ad- ministrative Behavior Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1962.

Machiavelli, N. The Prince. (W. K. Marriott, trans.) New York: Knopf, 1992. (Originally published 1513.)

Pfeffer, J. Power in Organizations. New York Ballinger, 1981. Pfeffer, J. Managing with Powel: Boston: Harvard Business School

Press, 1992. Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. The External Control of Organizations:

A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: HarperCollins, 1978.

Saidel, J. R. “Resource Interdependence: The Relationship Between State Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations.” Public Adrninistra- tion Review, 1991,51 (61,543-553.

Vaill, E? B. Managing as a Performing Art: New ldeasfor a World of Chaotic Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.

Wrong, D. Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Zaleznik, A., and Kets de Vries, M.ER. Power and the Corporate Mind. Chicago: Bonus Books, 1985.

107-124.

the political dimension of effective nonprofit executive leadership

Documents