A MODEL OF DELEGATION OF LEADERSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AUTHORITY AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32689/2617-2224-2018-15-5-173-194Keywords:
leadership, state authority, civil society, system, environment, equilibrium, coefficient, thinking, effectivenessAbstract
This article introduces the model of delegation of leadership between the state authority (SA) and the civil society (CS) in order to make state governance effective in conditions of the complex and dynamic environment. The model has to help to identify the degree of involvement of the SA and the CS in leadership of the state according to complexity, uncertainty and dynamics of changes of the environment and the state (system).
Participation of the SA and the CS in state leadership is critical to make the system smart and effective. It requires proper applying of leadership power, changing of leadership styles, and, eventually, the organizational structure based on the situation. The changeable environment requires adaptation of the system and/or shaping of the environment in order to establish equilibrium between the system and the environment. It is possible to do through proper participation of the SA and the CS in the decision-making process (DMP). Together they have to identify roots of the problem, analyze it and make decisions to adapt the system and/ or influence the environment by various synchronized and coordinated activities based on synergy effect.
In the changeable environment, a level of participation of the SA and the CS in the state leadership should be flexible. Complete decentralization or centralization with identified rules and regulations may not allow delegating leadership properly between the SA and the CS in order to make the system effective. Moreover, even right combination of the SA and the CS may not provide success because of lack of readiness for their cooperation. It can depend on national culture, a government system, willingness of people to be involved in the leadership process, and other features. Also often only a smaller part of population is active and ready for innovations and change. To collect and educate these people require efforts based on devotion to national values, beliefs, and altruism. However, in a transition period these notions are also changeable and may not present a real “national fundament”. All reasons above force finding a practical approach when, where and how to divide leadership power between the SA and the CS in the changeable environment.
References
Naplyokov Y. V. (2011). “Increasing unit effectiveness in a dynamic environment by implementing a leadership mathematical model”. Master’s Thesis, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, CARL, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2301, USA.
Pollitt Cristopher, Bouckaert Geert. (2011). Public management reform. A Comparative Analysis — New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, third edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoos J., Jenei G., Vass L. (2003). Public Administration and Public Management: Approaches and Reforms, In: Public Policy in Central and Eastern Europe: Theories, Methods, Practices, (eds.) M. Potucek, L. T. Leloup, G. Jenei, L. Varadi, NISPAcee.
Milward H. B., Provan K. G. (2000). Governing the Hollow State. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (2): 359–379.
Attila Agh. (2013). Europeanization of Public Administration in Eastern and Central Europe. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, p. 739–762.
Tainter Joseph A. (1988). The nature of complex societies, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Utomo Tri, Widodo W. (2009). Balancing decentralization and deconcentration: emerging need for asymmetric decentralization in the unitary states. Graduate School of International Development Nagoya University. Jahan. Discussion Paper № 174.
Korzhenko V. V. (2016). “The phenomenon of philosophy as “Practical wisdom” of state governance”, Theory and Practice of Public Administration, vol. 2 (53), p. 1–7.
Geert Bouckaert, Mzia Mikeladze. (2009). The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, vol. I, № 2, winter 2008/2009.
Maslow A. H. (1943). “A theory of human motivation.” Psychological Review. 50 (4), p. 370–396.
Lenski G. E. (1966). Power and Privilege. A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Childe Gordon V. (1951). Social evolution. Publisher: Henry Schuman. Tianer Joseph, A. 2003. The nature of complex societies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Haas Jonathon (1982). The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. Columbia University Press, New York.
Strange J. (2005). Center of Gravity and Critical Vulnerabilities. Quantico, VA., USA, Marine Corps University, Defense automated printing service center [E-Reader Version]. Retrieved from: http://jfsc.ndu.edu/Portals/72/Documents/JC2IOS/Additional_Reading/3B_COG_and_Critical_Vulnerabilities.pdf
Bielska T. V., Naplyokov Y. V. (2017). Maximum allowable risk in decision-making process. // Public Management. № 7 (2). p. 76–88. Retrieved from http://vadnd.org.ua/app/uploads/2017/07/Англ.pdf
Ashby Ross W. (1957). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Second Impression. London: Chapman & Hall LTD.
Solovyov V. S. (1873–1877). Kryza zakhidnoi filosofii [The crisis of Western philosophy], 2nd ed, Book Society Prosvita. St. Petersburg, Russian Empire.
Sidoruk O. (2016). Detsentralizatsiia: rezul’taty, vyklyk i perspektyvy [Decentralization: Results, Challenges and Prospects], Analytical report. Democratic Initiative Foundation named after Ilk Kucheriv. Kyiv, Ukraine.
Senge P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Gerras Stephen J. (2008). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: A Fundamental Guide for Strategic Leaders, Planner’s Handbook for Operational Design.
Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. (2016). Decentralization and local self-government reform: results of the second wave of sociological research, Analytical report. December 2016.
Laboratory of legitimate initiatives. (2018). Shadow Report on Reforms of state service and PA in Ukraine in 2017. U.S. Aid. Kyiv.
Katrenko A. V., Parsternak O. V. (2015). “The problem of optimality in the theory and practice of decision-making”, Visnyk Natsional’noho universytetu “L’vivs’ka politekhnika”, vol. № 829, p. 359–373.
Naplyokov Y. V. (2018). “Changing of mental models for effective decisionmaking” // Public Management № 1 (11). p. 189–206. Retrieved from: http://vadnd.org.ua/ua/collection/ 25. Naplyokov Y. V. (2014). “An Algorithm for Maintaining Dynamic Equilibrium to Achieve Strategic Goals.” Master’s Thesis, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania 17013, USA.
Naplyokov Y. V. (2018). The archetypal foundations of value choice in the process of adaptation to the modern society // Public Management. № 4 (14). p. 171–183. Retrieved from: http://pub-management.com/index.php/about/article/view/109/94
Allen C. D. (2012). “Creative Thinking for Individuals and Teams.” An essay on creative thinking for military professionals. U.S. Army War College. Retrieved from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/allen_creative_thkg_sr_ldrs.pdf
Headquarters, Department of the Army (2015), FM 6-0, Commander and Staff Organization and Operations. Washington, DC, USA, DOI: 104216- 001.
Bernhard I. (2013). E-government and E-governance — Swedish Case Studies with Focus on the Local Level. Stockholm, Sweden: KTH, Royal Institute of Technology. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663249/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Heeks R. (2001). Building e-Governance for Development: A Framework for National and Donor Action. E-Government Working Paper Series, № 12. Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ NISPAcee/UNPAN015485.pdf
