By Gerald Andrews Emison, Department of Political Science, Mississippi State University

Academic Citation: Gerald Andrews Emison, "Thematic Leadership and National Environmental Protection Resources," Kravis Leadership Institute Leadership Review, Fall 2003.

About the Author: Gerald Andrews Emison, is Associate Professor of Political Science at Mississippi State University. He served for over twenty years in the Senior Executive Service of the US Environmental Protection Agency prior to his current position. His research interests concern effectiveness of public organizations, professionalism in planning and engineering, and environmental consequences of growth management. He is a member of the American Political Science Association, the Society for the Policy Sciences, the American Institute of Certified Planners and is a Diplomate of the American Academy of Environmental Engineers.

ABSTRACT

Executive leadership of organizations emphasizes communication and implementation of leadership themes that implement a strategic vision for the organization. Two schools of thought exist concerning the nature of such leadership. The first emphasizes employing general management principles while the other depends upon context-specific themes. Research into the effect of management themes for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the period 1980-2000 suggests that a combination of both predicted higher success in obtaining resources from Congress than reliance on either theme alone, and emphasis on general management themes to the exclusion of environmental themes resulted in less success in resource acquisition than an environment-alone theme. Thematic leadership increased the likelihood for success when context-specific themes were employed. Reliance upon general management themes alone appeared to provide diminished prospects for success in resource acquisition.

INTRODUCTION

The crucial task of selecting cabinet-level leaders for U.S. federal agencies faces an on-going dilemma. Some individuals have shown themselves to be highly proficient in general leadership skills, ranging from managing large organizations to inspiring new visions of an organization's goals and standards. They may have experience in different agencies, or in the private sector, giving them a broad perspective, highly valuable connections, and exposure to how other organizations have addressed their challenges. Yet there is also a countervailing need to select individuals who are deeply immersed in the matters of the agency. Such individuals may be able to engage in the substantive issues of the agency without the delays of a start-up period. Their selection may signal the administration's respect for the field, and they may command more respect among agency personnel. The nomination, confirmation and, often, the success of these federal officials focuses on the individual's values and priorities for the organization to be led. These individuals are important not only to an administration's political success. Their leadership concerns the performance effectiveness of the bureaucracies that lie at the core of American government. They deal with the entire spectrum of modern government's interaction with its citizens. They concern topics as diverse as public assistance, environmental protection, public safety, national defense, education and disease prevention. Effectively carrying out these and other activities of public enterprise is of vital public importance because the impacts are widespread in our society. These organizations provide the goods and services that directly affect the lives of most Americans. Put simply, the decisions that are the focus of these bureaucracies have the potential to substantially improve people's lives if done well or harm these same lives if done poorly. Presidents can exert symbolic leadership, legislators can enact statutes, but it is the large government bureaucracies that deliver many of the public goods and services to the American public and which are led by cabinet-level executives.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's leadership reflects the tension of generalist vs. specialist in a high-stakes environment. Environmental matters engage both expertise and the symbolism of long-standing commitment to conservation and pollution control. Choosing an EPA administrator who is not a well-known figure in the environmental field might be interpreted as a signal of the administration's indifference to environmentalism, or, alternatively, that the administration believes that EPA is an agency that has lost its way. Yet the EPA is also an agency that faces serious managerial and policy challenges. It has to interact with a host of other departments and agencies, the private sector, and Congress. Perhaps an individual with strong prior experience in other agencies, experience in an elected position, or with a strong private-sector background, would be able to overcome the liabilities of being an "outsider."

LEADERSHIP OF EPA

This article examines administrative leadership of EPA. In doing so it seeks to explore the relationship between thematic leadership of the agency and the acquisition of resources employed to achieve its mission. Thematic leadership is one of the most important ways political executives lead bureaucracies. Resources concern the capacity of such bureaucracies to deliver products. Connecting these two can relate leadership inputs to leadership results and enhance our understanding of government leadership.

The EPA oversees the nation's pollution control efforts. Its portfolio is immense. From disbursing grants and loans to help cities treat their sewage to prescribing how farmers should apply pesticides, the agency influences economic and governmental units across the scope and scale of American society. With a budget in fiscal year 2000 approaching $8 billion and over 18,000 employees, EPA's efforts to protect the environment represent substantial federal expenditures. These resources direct how industries, governments and individuals should diminish humans' impact on the physical environment. As a consequence of such an extensive portfolio, the agency usually cannot do everything Congress, citizens or the administration wishes. Such shortfalls constitute major leadership challenges (NAPA 1995). Acquiring and allocating resources are vital to the agency's success, so budget composition is a principal feature of an executive's responsibility (Wildavsky 1964). And when EPA does something, there is so much typically at stake that controversy attends almost every meaningful choice and its resulting actions (Rosenbaum 2002). In short, complex and controversial choices are a routine part of political leadership at EPA.

EPA is an independent agency that is directed by an administrator. The administrator is appointed by the president, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. While not formally a cabinet appointment, recent presidents have chosen to include the administrator in cabinet deliberations. The administrator of EPA holds the key executive leadership post for the agency. With latitude on regulations that affect not only EPA's actions but those of many economic and governmental units in the U.S., the administrator's priorities are a matter of more than operational importance. These priorities matter symbolically, politically, and economically as well as operationally. As a consequence of this situation, much attention by the press, the White House, the Congress as well as interest groups attends to an administrator's priorities. Confirmation hearings for a new administrator can focus heavily upon the nominee's priorities and, once an administrator assumes the office, oversight by all stakeholders concerns what is emphasized and de-emphasized by the administrator.

While much of this is true for any cabinet level position, the EPA administrator faces a unique situation that heightens the attention on priorities. Environmental results are very difficult to connect to government intervention. The lag between government action and pollution abatement is typically years, if not decades. For example, a new national ambient air quality standard for ozone is widely expected to take around a decade to implement and longer to achieve the pollution reductions necessary to attain the standard (Anderson 1997). This lag situation is further complicated by the fact that government action is only one of many influences on pollution generation. Levels of industrial production, pollution control technologies, national economic conditions and competitive forces all play a role in pollution reduction. This adds up to a tough task when it comes to assessing an administrator's effectiveness in protecting the environment. Consequently, this situation heightens the scrutiny of the priorities an administrator expresses and implements. In the absence of ability to measure outcomes, people measure inputs. And a convenient measure of environmental inputs is the level and character of EPA expenditures obtained by the administrator through the budget process.

There are two underlying reasons for judging administrative leadership through level of resources. First, and most obviously, this level can be a measure of capacity to carry out environmental protection activities by the federal bureaucracy. Second, level of resources can serve as a barometer of importance and clout. It is a measure of keeping score quite independent of capacity characteristics.

As a result of these factors, it is worth asking if and how the aggregate level of resources employed by EPA can be viewed as a window into the leadership effectiveness of the administrator. Using resources as a window into the strategic direction of a public bureaucracy can be exceptionally challenging. There are a large number of actors and influences that can affect an appropriations level. The political priorities of an administration, the competition among Congressional priorities during a particular budget cycle as well as the performance of the economy all matter. Yet across all these influences, the ability of an administrator to formulate, communicate and persuade these influential actors of the level and character of the resources needs of EPA retains substantial interest. All stakeholders, whether they are interest groups, Congress, EPA bureaucrats or the White House's Office of Management and Budget, consider EPA resources a key way to judge an administrator (NAPA 2000). To be sure, these stakeholders do not see changes in resources in the same positive or negative light. State air pollution directors might exult when grant resources to them from EPA rise, but OMB could see such a situation as contrary to sound fiscal behavior. Regardless of policy preference, level of resources can provide an index for insight into an administrator's leadership effectiveness. In such a complex setting, the administrator is one of many important players. The president proposes a budget and Congress appropriates the funds, so each is vitally important, as are all the staffs associated with these players. Everyone recognizes that a final appropriation level is a political as well as an operational statement. Nevertheless, in the appropriations decision process the administrator represents the intersection of both political interests and professional skill that make his or her views of substantial influence.

Leadership under these circumstances is not a vague activity when it is gauged by resource acquisition success. It typically has been associated with themes the administrator expresses. The ability to lead a large organization, whether it is public or private, is often associated with advocating a handful of themes the CEO communicates to the organization's members and external stakeholders (Peters and Waterman 1982). In order to succeed, effective CEOs, and included in this group are government executives with general management responsibilities, must mobilize their staff and supporters with messages that allow them to make day-to-day decisions that align with their leader's priorities. Table 1 presents leadership themes expressed by EPA administrators over the 1981-2000 period. (Tables and charts are available for viewing in PDF format.) These themes reflect the bases from which the administrators were drawn. Anne Gorsuch came to the position from the Colorado state legislature, with a professional background as an attorney. Her skills drew from the political and managerial domain rather than a deep, substantive environmental background. William Ruckelshaus was selected for his political skills and reputation for integrity in order to restore the Reagan administration's environmental credibility after the scandals of the Gorsuch administration. It is noteworthy, however, that having served as EPA's first administrator, Ruckelshaus also had a substantial knowledge of environmental issues. Lee Thomas became the administrator after serving as an assistant administrator for hazardous waste within EPA. Prior to that position, Thomas had made a reputation as an effective manager in the Federal Emergency Management Agency and at the state level in managing corrections programs. William Reilly was the first career environmentalist to become administrator of EPA. His professional career had been in public interest groups such as the Conservation Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund, where he had led nongovernmental organizations concerned with a wide range of environmental issues. Carol Browner presented credentials as a Senate staffer with substantial experience on environmental legislative issues and operating management experience as a director of a state environmental agency.

The leadership themes of Table 1 are general, but review of analytic materials concerning this period indicates these as predominant management themes emphasized by administrators during their terms (Kraft and Vig 2003, Rosenbaum 2002, Ward 1994). It is their simplicity that makes them useful as a leadership tool. Memorable and simple themes are often identified as most effective in reaching leadership communication targets (Drucker 1967).

The question that concerns us is one of the relationships between administrative leadership themes and the resource outcomes often viewed as a surrogate for success for a particular administrator. To what degree and under what conditions do leadership themes and resource levels relate? Understanding this may enhance overall public leadership effectiveness.

THEORETICAL CONFLICTS

Conventional management as taught and as practiced has a strong theme of interchangeability. Good management practice is often viewed as independent of the substance upon which the management activity is focused (Hickman and Silva 1984). Whether considering private or public management, we can find reliance on general management principles rather than the teaching of sectoral management.

American business schools teach the principles of management through MBA programs that stress the behavior, structure and processes common to effective business practices. Particular emphasis often is placed on training generalist managers who are equally able to operate across a broad spectrum of substantive topics such as the food service industry to the banking industry to the computer software industry. By concentrating on core activities such as strategy, technology, control systems, or personnel management, programs seek to produce executives able to function well in settings diverse in subject matter. As graduate business schools prepare future business leaders, they approach their tasks with confidence that derives from imparting stable and general approaches, values and techniques. It matters less the field in which the leadership is exercised than the adherence to general business principles. A quick review of the most popular business leadership texts shows a focus upon leadership as a general activity separate from the substance of the field in which the leadership is exercised (Maccoby 1981).

This posture prevails on the public management side as well. A review of the curricula of MPA or MPP graduate programs reveals an emphasis on broad fundamentals. Little emphasis on specific arenas of public affairs is evident in leadership courses beyond a distinction between international and domestic affairs. While the Master of Environmental Management degree and similar degrees oriented to technology exist, most graduate education targeted to the public sector focuses on training leaders independent of the unique subject matter being managed (NASPAA 2003).

Part of this bias in graduate education in public and private management is practical. In a two year graduate professional program, it may not be feasible to train for a specific subject matter. Further, given the ambiguity of future job markets and career trajectories, such specialty emphasis could reasonably be viewed as unwise.

The concept of leader-as-generalist in business and public management carries through into actual practice. When Atari needed dynamic leadership to turn around the company, its parent company turned to Raymond Kasser, whose entire business experience was outside the computer hardware field (Hickman and Silva 1984). Similar situations can be identified across American business. Finding individuals with strong, transportable leadership skills can trump a selection based on industry-specific expertise.

Similarly, in public management, cabinet secretaries are often selected more for demonstrated political skills rather than for specific subject knowledge. In the case of EPA, no administrator has ever been an engineer or a scientist, fields that lie at the core of EPA's work. At the same time, every administrator of EPA has held previous leadership positions in a legislature, an executive department or an interest group prior to appointment.

While the prevailing view may be that leadership general principles are the pathway to management success, there exist countervailing views. The policy sciences field developed with a specific intention to approach in a rigorous manner the need to tailor policy responses to the unique nature of the problem at hand, the decision process of the situation and the context of the problem and the process (Lasswell and McDougal 1992).

Clark, Ascher, and Brewer have argued that unique situations demand responses tailored to the extant conditions (Clark 2002, Ascher 1986, Brewer 1978). Brunner suggests that unless the detailed specifics of a situation are engaged in a disciplined manner, the policy formulated to remedy the problem can make the problem worse instead (1982). In short, the policy sciences view accepts that, while there may be valuable generic leadership activities, it is the concrete engagement of unique circumstances that demand to be taken into account in order to formulate effective policy responses.

Such reliance on concrete specifics looks to the philosophy of pragmatism as an intellectual basis for its emphasis on particulars. Dewey, Peirce and others acknowledged the value of general concepts as a starting point, but firmly believed that without the specifics and concrete knowledge that emerges from engaging a distinct situation, vagueness that is harmful would creep into action. Further, without reliance on the concrete, accurate improvement of theory would be impossible (Menand 2001).

The theoretical tension between general principles and specific concepts motivates this research. What is the relationship between leadership whose themes stress sound general management and leadership that looks to specific substance as well as general management practice? Is one type of thematic leadership more effective? The following section explores the differences in effective resource acquisition between these two types of thematic leadership.

INVESTIGATION AND IMPLICATIONS

The period 1981 to 2000 was selected for examination. It represents a substantial and varied period of time in EPA's history, and appropriation data for this period were readily available (US EPA 2000). The methodology employed examination of graphical time series to target in-depth modeling. Based on this first stage of analysis, ordinary least squares regression was employed to model decision-making during the period.

There are two predominant impacts we can employ to examine thematic leadership's relationship to resource levels. The first and most straightforward way is to examine EPA's levels of appropriations or staffing levels (expressed as full-time equivalents or FTEs) for the fiscal year budget for which the theme was employed. Charts 1 and 2 show the terms of the administrators along with the agency's appropriations and staffing levels. Charts 3 and 4 relate the themes administrators emphasized during the period and the agency's resource levels.

Inspection of these time series suggests that those themes for periods that focused solely on general management without being accompanied by an environmental component frequently saw declines in both levels of appropriations and FTEs. Resources often rose when both themes were employed. These trends suggest the importance of a substantive environmental theme.

Models were constructed to examine the relationship between leadership themes and resource levels that followed such themes. Three models of appropriations levels were constructed. Levels of appropriation were employed as the dependent variable. In all models, political party was controlled for using a dummy variable. The three models were specified using management themes, environmental themes and a combination of both as predictor variables. Table 2 suggests that appropriation levels were best predicted by a combination of environment and management themes after controlling for political party. When presence alone of environmental themes or presence alone of general management themes was modeled, the environmental model did not perform as well as a multiple themed model, however the general management model trailed all models in performance. It is noteworthy that between environmental theme and general management theme models, the environmental theme appears more successful in influencing appropriations.

Levels of staffing in Full Time Equivalents(FTEs) were modeled using the same approach, and the results appear in Table 3. The strongest effect for FTEs derived from a model combining both environmental and general management themes. Models that omitted one or the other theme performed less well in overall predictability. For FTEs, in contrast to the results seen for appropriations, general management themes slightly out-performed environmental themes when each alone was modeled.

Rather than examine aggregate levels of appropriations and FTEs, a second approach considers annual changes in these measures associated with leadership themes. Charts 5 and 6 show the annual change for these variables. These annual changes were modeled as the dependent variable using the same specification of independent variables as employed with levels of appropriations. Tables 4 and 5 show that only those models with environmental themes appear statistically significant and that the models with both environmental and management themes best predict changes in levels.

When these results are considered together, we see problem and context emerging as important for effective environmental regulatory leadership at the national level. Administrators employing themes emphasizing general management and excluding environmental components typically saw resources decline. When an environmental theme and general management theme were paired, higher resource levels usually resulted. Bringing specific, context related themes into the leadership message appeared to strengthen resource acquisition success.

If an administrator's success and effectiveness is gauged by enhancing the capacity of the bureaucracy he or she leads, these findings suggest that context specific thematic leadership is essential to improving leadership effectiveness. Managing the environment appears to have an important and distinct component that requires taking into account its unique context. While sound general management principles may be important, they alone did not appear to match the more complex and nuanced leadership associated with thematic emphasis on environmental management. Lasswell and other policy scientists may have been right. Suiting the leadership theme to the problem and the context appeared to be associated with resource increases in national environmental regulatory management.

CONCLUSION

EPA administrators employed both general management and substantive environmental themes to lead the agency during the period 1981-2000. The preceding analysis suggests that such leadership increased resources when thematic leadership coupled environmental themes with management themes. When management themes were employed alone, resource declines could be associated with such thematic leadership. This suggests that abstract management themes alone do not result in resource increases; they must be accompanied by a substantive environmental leadership agenda. This appears to indicate the importance of placing leadership themes soundly in a particular context in order to enhance leadership effectiveness.

Context-specific leadership appears to be important to leading EPA. Emphasis on themes that resonate with specific environmental topics appeared to enhance leadership effectiveness as judged by resource acquisition. Further exploration of the environmental area as well as other sectors should be undertaken to explore the more precise dimensions of these findings. In particular, it would be useful to examine the specific thematic leadership messages employed by political appointees who managed the individual pollution programs in EPA. This would enable a more precise examination of the use of leadership themes to influence resource acquisition. Nevertheless, the evidence from this analysis suggests the importance of grounding leadership in particular context as a means of enhancing environmental leadership effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Ascher, William (1986) The evolution of the policy sciences: Understanding the rise and avoiding the fall, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5:367-73.