Collaborative Teaching Cases and Simulations

The Maxwell School of Syracuse University
Collaborative Governance Initiative
Rosemary O’Leary and Catherine Gerard, Co-Directors

Congratulates the winners of our competition for cases and simulations to be used in teaching collaborative public management, collaborative governance and collaborative problem solving:

Best Teaching Case:

Winner ($5,000) – Jodi Sandfort and Timothy Dykstal, University of Minnesota

• Honorable mention ($1,000) – Kathryn S. Quick and Martha Feldman, University of California, Irvine
• Honorable mention ($1,000) – Rob Alexander, Maxwell School, PARC
• Honorable mention ($1,000) – Jay Kiedrowski and Allison Rojas, University of Minnesota

Best Simulation:

Winner ($5,000) – Tom Bryer, University of Central Florida

• Honorable mention ($1,000) – Noam Ebner and Yael Efron, Tachlit Mediation and Negotiation Training, Israel
• Honorable mention ($1,000) – Keith Provan and Brint Milward, University of Arizona
• Honorable mention ($1,000) – Jeff Loux, University of California-Davis
• Honorable mention ($1,000) – Linda Blessing and Bette F. DeGraw, Arizona Board of Regents

These cases and simulations may be downloaded free of charge for teaching use at

www.e-parc.org or www.maxwell.syr.edu/parc

To submit teaching materials on collaboration for review for consideration for the website, email them to parc@maxwell.syr.edu. All teaching materials are double-blind peer reviewed by a committee of academics and practitioners.

Fall 2007 Roundtable on Leadership and Administration

On Saturday, November 3rd, CPAP hosted its annual Praxis weekend. The Fall Roundtable on Leadership and Administration is a key part of this event. CPAP's own Dr. Anne Khademian interviewed Captain Suzanne E. Engelbert, USCG (right) about her inclusive management practices as part
of the Captain's efforts to develop an international port security network.

Following the Roundtable, Captain Englebert was introduced as the first Coast-to-Coast Inclusive Management Fellow, a joint program sponsored by Virginia Tech and the University of California at Irvine.

Listen to a podcast of the interview with Captain Englebert.

The Improving Government Accountability Act

by Matthew Worner

The Inspector General Act of 1978 created independent audit and investigation units in the executive branch and independent federal government agencies. Today, there are 64 statutory inspectors general (IGs).[1] The mandate of the IGs is to:

• Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations;
• Promote economy, effectiveness and efficiency within the agency;
• Prevent and detect crime, fraud, waste and abuse in agency programs and operations;
• Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and Regulations relating to agency programs and operations;
• Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in agency programs and operations. [2]

According to the Act, the individuals are to be “appointed on the basis of their personal integrity and expertise in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.”[3] IGs serving at the Cabinet-level departments and major sub-Cabinet agencies are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. IGs at independent agencies, corporations, and other designated Federal entities are appointed by the heads of those entities.[4]

Due to scandals at a number of federal agency IGs, including the Departments of State (where investigation cover-ups are alleged)[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and Commerce[12], the General Services Administration[13] [14] [15] [16], NASA[17], and many other IGs[18] (I sound like an auctioneer), the Improving Government Accountability Act has been approved 404 to 11 by the House of Representatives to protect IGs from political retribution.. Under the legislation, IGs, who now serve at the pleasure of their appointing authorities (the President or the head of the Agency), could be fired before the end of the terms only for cause, based on such factors as malfeasance, permanent disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty, or conviction of a felony. The bill would also grant IGs fixed seven year terms and authorize IGs to send their budget requests directly to Congress to deter officials in their respective agencies from slashing their funding in retaliation for unfavorable audits. Finally, the bill would create an independent Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency in the executive branch. [19]

The Bush Administration, however, has opposed the legislation on the basis of “grave constitutional grounds.” Administration officials also disagree with the legislation because they feel it would allow IGs to circumvent the president’s control over determining the annual federal budget request to Congress. Finally, the Administration also disagrees with provisions that would establish the independent Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency because a similar council already exists. The Administration reported that “statutory codification of such a council would impede the President’s ability to react swiftly and effectively to problems with IGs or with the Council itself.” [20]

One can assume that the Administration feels that IGs are officials that serve at the pleasure of the President (this Administration, in particular, cherishes its executive power). While the Administration does not define their “grave constitutional concerns” in their statement of administration policy, one can assume that it feels that the Congress is trying “to snatch some of its executive power.” Congress, on the other hand, does have the right to legislate and take other appropriate actions when it sees that government operations, including the IG function, need improvement (considering the number of IG-related scandals, the word “improvement” might be an understatement). To them, it looks good if “they are doing something about the problem.” Where do I stand on this legislation? Implementation of this legislation could cause the IGs to become very, very partisan political tools government. If the IGs, for example, do not do the “right” or enough of the right investigations or audits, they could be fired. How is an IG’s inefficiency or neglect of duty defined? Vague, indeed!! The President does, however, have a right to trusted group of advisors. The Comptroller General, for example, reports directly to Congress and the President (and agency heads) deserves the same relationship with its IGs. Former IG of the Departments of Commerce and State, Sherman Funk, has referred to the OIGs dual reporting relationships to Congress and the executive branch as that of “straddling a barbed wire fence”.[21] John Rohr, distinguished Virginia Tech public administration and policy professor and ethics scholar, stated that, “The tension is at once personal and institutional. Personal because you feel the discomfort of the barded wire; institutional because the law of the land has put you there.”[22] I think the fence may become very bloody if this legislation is passed by the Senate and signed by the President. Hopefully the Senate can improve on some of the vague areas of the legislation; however, I predict a veto by the President if the Senate does not pass the legislation by two-thirds majority. Where do you stand? Give me your thoughts!!

AND GO VIRGINIA TECH HOKIES… BEAT THE GEORGIA TECH YELLOW JACKETS!!! November 1, 2007 at 7:30 PM on ESPN

http://www.hokiesports.com/football/notes/11012007.pdf

---

[1] http://www.ignet.gov/index.html (Accessed October 29, 2007) [2]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sec_05a_01000002----000-.html (Accessed October 29, 2007) [3]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sec_05a_01000003----000-.html October 29, 2007) (Accessed
[4] http://www.ignet.gov/pande/mission1.html (Accessed October 29, 2007) [5] http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070928101631.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[6] http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070918105806.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[7] http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38345&ref=rellink (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[8] http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38196&ref=rellink (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[9] http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38161&ref=rellink (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[10] http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/1007/102907cdam1.htm (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[11] http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38443&sid=61 (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[12] http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0507/050407m1.htm (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[13] http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/Grassley102006.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[14] http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=35599&ref=rellink (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[15] http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=35650&ref=rellink (Accessed October 31, 2007) [16]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101645_pf.html (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[17] http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/060807m1.htm (October 31, 2007)
[18]The Committee on Government Oversight and Reform has presented an accompanying report in support of the legislation, which also addresses the various IG scandals. The report is at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr354.110.pdf (Accessed October 29, 2007), pages 9-10.
[19]http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h928rfs.txt.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2007)
[20] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr928sap-r.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2007)
21] Light, Paul C. 1993. Monitoring government: inspectors general and the search for accountability. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
[22] Rohr, John A. 1998. Public service, ethics, and constitutional practice. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas Press.

Ethics and the Public Manager in the Information Age

by John L. O'Brien

“Ethics in government…isn’t that an oxymoron?” The triteness of that old chestnut aside, ethics in government should be ingrained in public management in the information age. Every public manager should be committed to the importance of ethics to the overall public sector. Every manager should care about the ethical dimensions of discretionary judgments made by our agencies’ leadership. Finally, public managers should make ethics an integral of their daily routine.” Here’s another one I’ve been hearing lately: “You’re teaching Ethics in Government?...it’ll be a short class!”

Public managers create value for citizens through the execution of public policy. This policy execution can be seen literally in the hundreds of decisions made daily by agency leaders and managers. But how are decisions made in your agency?

Does any of this sound familiar to you?:

• “What have we done before?” [an institutional approach]…
• “What can we afford to do now?” [a resource dependency model]...
• “What do our stakeholders/customers want us to do?” [the scorecard methodology]…

Now ask yourself where is the discussion of ethics in any of this? I suggest that ethical considerations are often not a conscious part of an Information Age leader’s decision-making.

Any discussion of ethics in the workplace tends to gravitate to one of two approaches. The first approach (let’s call it the “high road”) starts with a scholarly discussion of political philosophy with a dash of social equity theory and quotes from Aristotle. Ten minutes of this gets people yawning. The second (the “low road”) equates to our annual “Ethics Training” with a negative emphasis on strict adherence to formal rules.

It doesn’t take long for this to revert quickly to a debate about how to avoid the slammer. I propose a middle ground in which ethics are tied to public values. Information Age leadership in our democratic society must be exercised in the name of the people in accordance with the values on which our country was founded.

Where do we find our American public values? Two sources are the writings and speeches of our political leaders and Supreme Court decisions. But I suggest the best place to begin any discussion of ethics is the U. S. Constitution, the strongest source of our fundamental values. The seven original articles and 27 amendments have stood the test of time and continue to be our ethical core.

Every public sector leader and manager in the executive branch takes the following oath to uphold the Constitution and the values that it represents:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. 5 U.S.C. §3331

The Oath has its origins in the document itself. Article VI requires an oath by “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States.” The exact wording is specified in chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code. Taking an oath is an important moral event in the personal history of an individual yet, unfortunately, many public managers don’t even remember doing it. Public sector leaders and managers swear an oath to a document and not to an individual. That's a powerful statement compared to other nations where citizens swear allegiance to an individual (e.g. a monarch or potentate).

The Constitution is the preeminent symbol of our public values, and the oath to uphold the Constitution is our commitment to uphold those values. If every public sector leader in the Information Age accepted this statement and made it a part of their professional life, “ethics in government” wouldn’t be a stale barb.

John L. O’Brien, a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force, teaches classes on performance management, process improvement, leadership, and ethics at the National Defense University’s Information Resources Management College.

CCL Resources on Leadership Available

The nonprofit Center for Creative Leadership has a vast array of articles, research reports and white papers on the subject of leadership available on their website. You may also want to subscribe to CCL's feed to have the latest reports and information on leadership delivered directly to your desktop.

Are Good Decision Makers Born or Made?

"We all have decision making thrust upon us, but many people seem born to be good decision makers: They stay out of jail and stay in relationships, don't drive while intoxicated, and are generally healthier.

This isn't just good luck or good upbringing, according to researchers studying life choices and outcomes. Decision making is a teachable skill that may help people improve their lives, regardless of socioeconomic background or IQ, report Carnegie Mellon decision scientist Wändi Briune de Bruin and colleagues. For example, a good decision maker would be able to make choices independently of how information is presented, such as whether a medication is described as "99% effective" or "1% ineffective."

The researchers call for additional studies to determine whether people's life experiences improve after they have received decision-making training." (Source: World Future Society e-newsletter)

DETAILS: Carnegie Mellon University,
http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2007/May/may17_decision.shtm

November 2007 Roundtable on Leadership and Administration

Join us on Saturday, November 3 at 10:30am at CPAP for the Fall 2007 Roundtable on Leadership and Administration, during the annual Praxis weekend. The subject of this Roundtable session is "Crisis to Credibility Through Inclusion: Developing an International Port Security Network."

CPAP's own Dr. Anne Khademian will interview Captain Suzanne Englebert, USCG, Seventh Coast Guard District. During the Roundtable, Captain Englebert will also be introduced as the first Coast-to-Coast Inclusive Management Fellow, part of the Coast-to-Coast Inclusive Management Initiative, a joint effort between Virginia Tech's Center for Public Administration and Policy and the University of California-Irvine.

Lunch will be provided. Please RSVP no later than November 1 to Irene Jung at ijung@vt.edu if you plan to attend. We hope to see you on November 3rd!

Leadership Study Considers Executive Functions in the Brain

From the FUTURIST UPDATE -- News & Previews from the World Future Society
October 2007 (Vol. 8, No. 10)

Brain-based executive-intelligence testing could potentially help recruiters identify the leadership candidates most likely to succeed, according to a study by Canadian and U.S. psychologists. The result could be a significant boost in an organization's productivity, they report in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Neuroscientists have long believed that good function in the prefrontal cortex enhances people's ability to plan for the future, manipulate many ideas simultaneously, avoid impulsive action, and react thoughtfully in novel situations--skills described as "executive functions."

"In the past, psychologists have used IQ and personality tests to predict managerial and academic performance, with real success," says senior author Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto. "However, this is the first demonstration of the unique potential of prefrontal or executive function tests to more accurately determine who will and who will not excel."

The authors calculate that adding executive-function tests to employee interviews could result in as much as a 33% gain in productivity per hired employee. "Neuroscience has revolutionized our understanding of the brain in recent years," says Peterson. "Perhaps this is the beginning of the neuroscience revolution in management."

SOURCE: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (August 2007),

Inclusive Management Fellows Program

Launched in Fall 2007, the Inclusive Management Fellows program is intended to build a community of practitioners and scholars engaged in continuous learning about inclusion that fosters democratic practices. Learn more about this new program of the Coast-to-Coast Inclusive Management Initiative.

Coast-to-Coast Inclusive Management Initiative

In 2005, Virginia Tech’s Center for Public Administration and Policy and the University of California at Irvine launched its Initiative for the Study and Practice of Inclusive Management (IM), which is built around the study and practice of participation, collaboration, and the renewal of democratic capacity by individuals in public, private and nonprofit organizations when addressing public problems. Read more about the IM Initiative here.

Roundtable on Leadership & Administration - Sat Nov 1

Save the date! The Fall 2007 Roundtable on Leadership and Administration will be held on Saturday, November 1 at CPAP. The guest speaker will be Captain Suzanne Engelbert, United States Coast Guard.

The Changing Face of Leadership and Administration

This January 2004 Roundtable session featured a conversation with Robert J. Lamb, Senior Advisor for Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior, and David Lewis, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.

In the public management literature and in seminars and classrooms across the United States, the terms leadership and management are increasingly used interchangeably. This initial Roundtable explored the overall question of whether leadership and management are the same, or whether there are important distinctions in language and practice that must be understood.

Leadership in the Information Age

This October 2006 Roundtable featured Walter F. Ulmer, Jr., Leiutenant General, U.S. Army, Retired and former President and CEO, Center for Creative Leadership, and Dr. T. Owen Jacobs, Co-Founder and Partner, Executive Development Associates, LLC and formerly the Leo Cherne Distinguished Visiting Professor of Behavioral Science Chair, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University.

This Roundtable focused on the challenges of leading in the information age, which suggest a new paradigm for leadership theory and practice. We live and work in a fascinating era. Change is increasing exponentially while many of our management and leadership structures and skills are out of step with the pressures and needs of today’s work environment. The mix of generations in today’s workplace, coupled with advancements in technology and information systems, further complicate how we lead and manage today.

Leadership and Accountability

This July 2006 Roundtable featured a conversation with John Rohr, Professor, Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and Bradford Huther, President and CEO of the International Intellectual Property Institute and Retired Member, Senior Executive Service.

In a linear, bureaucratic world, accountability in the public service should be readily defined—assigned to public actors with one level reporting to, and accountable to, the next higher level. In reality, in a constitutional republic of shared and fragmented power with both government and non-governmental actors, the question of accountability is more complex. Public administrators working in a bureaucratic framework clearly answer directly to their managers/executives and the political agency heads. But does that answer the question of accountability? This Roundtable explored the question of whom leaders in the public service are accountable to and how they acquire their normative foundation for ethics and accountability.

Podcast of the July 18 Roundtable on Leadership and Administration

Here is the podcast (in two parts) of the July 18 CPAP Roundtable on Leadership and Administration. This Roundtable was devoted to a CPAP community effort to strategize and guide our future forums on developing and understanding leadership and administration. Stepping outside the scholar/practitioner format we have followed for the Roundtable, we asked three CPAP doctoral students to lead this Roundtable discussion with specific audience engagement.

In Part 1, CPAP’s very own Susan Maybaumwisniewski framed and moderated a discussion with CPAP PhD students Maria DiPasquantonio and Jeff Stern, followed by breakout discussions with CPAP students. Part 2 is the reporting out from the breakout groups.

Part 1
Part 2