Leadership and meaning alignment at the Department of Housing and Urban Development

¶ … Change

Leading Effective Public Policy Implementation

How can I increase my own sense of meaning and task alignment?

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I am always acutely aware of the fact that the decisions leaders make will have a material impact upon ordinary people's lives. However, it is very easy to let bureaucracy stymie even the best of intentions. When frustrated, leaders must remember the long and short-term goals of the Department: to improve the lives of individuals and communities through the provision of safe and affordable housing and other forms of development. Every task must be connected to the higher mission and purpose of the Department. Intensive soul-searching is required, given the vital role of HUD. As said by leadership guru David Quinn in his book Deep Change, "figuring out where you are and where you need to go and then launching an effort to get there" is required for an organization to move forward with mindfulness and purpose (Quinn 1996: 166). This requires continual reevaluation of HUD's core processes, since the housing needs of the population served are likewise always changing.

A strong sense of meaning and task alignment required to summon up the powerful motivation demanded to fight against the natural, unfortunate tendencies to resist change. Both organizations and human beings have an innate desire to 'not rock the boat.' Change is scary. However, change is also fundamentally necessary for improvement. When approaching the leadership of a new project, I must remember this: it will require change (on my part and the part of others) and it may make me uncomfortable. But a clear sense of how the project should finish and its intended purpose will enable me to weather the change and also to alter the tasks needed to reach my final goal without fundamentally losing sight of the endpoint.

In general, there are two approaches to creating meaning and task alignment by management: to give clear top-down directives to employees to inspire workers to meet goals or to inspire employees to set their own goals and to have personal, creative responses to organizational needs (Quinn 19996: 222). I do believe that there needs to be a holistic vision for an organization, particularly one as large and sprawling as a government agency. But having employees provide input about how to meet those goals can be an important source of creative ferment. Employees often have more knowledge of the real needs of the population the organization is serving. Excessive rigidity on the part of a leader can cause task misalignment. A good leader listens to others and engages in constant environmental scanning to be able to change when needed.

As a leader, I believe I have a responsibility to listen to my fellow workers -- subordinates included -- and use their ideas and experiences to shape how I delegate my authority. Task alignment also requires knowledge of the human dimension of how the organization functions, not just its physical demands. Simply being right is not enough. A leader must motivate others to believe he or she is right and make them want to do what they need to do.

For an organization to fulfill critical tasks it must be able to engage in effective planning and have a clear timetable about how to meet its goals. Time is money and unexpected delays and a poor understanding of how the different components of the projects fit together increase the chance a project will go over-budget and over-time. However, within a structured environment of clearly-delineated tasks there must also be freedom to change with circumstances, particularly when a shift in plans can lead to better value and improved service. Thus, fundamentally I believe self-scrutiny and scrutiny of others are both necessary to achieve desired objectives and achieve the goal of task alignment. The leader must be critical of him or herself as well as critical of others to make this happen.

Q2. How can I increase my own sense of impact, influence, and power?

The greatest danger in any organization is a sense of powerlessness: the feeling that an employee is powerless to generate change for him or herself and others. Rather than feeling buffeted by events, a good leader views him or herself as capable of enacting change. This does not mean that the leader ignores external circumstances -- far from it, a good leader is acutely aware of the fact that 'no man is an island' and that he or she does not have autocratic sway over the views of others and externalities. But through constant environmental scanning and an openness to seeing different possibilities within existing constraints, a leader may gain a sense of mastery and view his or her position of power in a more positive light.

One example cited by Quinn of an executive who initially did not have a sense of his ability to have a personal impact was a man who was ordered to lay off a number of workers as a requirement of his position. The man was not given the discretion to decide whether to fire or to retain the workers: he was forced to act in what he considered an unfair and arbitrary manner, causing him internal tremendous stress, even more so than the political pressures he may have felt by other employees in the organization (Quinn 1996: 7). This action threatened his own sense of self and his own view of his marketability as a worker. In from my perspective of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I have witnessed similar stresses amongst workers. HUD experienced tremendous turmoil during the housing boom and the 'burst' of the bubble. The hard work of many employees to help find homes for people in need seemed circumvented by external political and financial events beyond the agency's control yet HUD was still blamed for not being able to meet all of these challenges or to have anticipated the crisis.

Retaining a sense of one's ability to impact events requires an awareness of what one can and cannot change. It is impossible for a single leader to completely change the housing market, for example, but a leader within HUD can do all he or she can to offer alternative solutions to the ones being proposed. For the highly stressed executive in the example, the solution came from working better with the workers whom the company had retained: asking his employees questions about improvement and creating a vital partnership between upper and lower-level echelons of the company that boosted morale and increased the man's perceived personal impact as a leader. Through a willingness to share power with others he was able to make a greater impact upon the company and gain a sense of power and competence.

Similarly, HUD's response to the housing crisis demanded a more sensitive and nuanced understanding of the environment: instead of feeling powerless about the inability to impact the wider external environment, developing proactive solutions regarding affordable housing and keeping people in their homes was promoted to the forefront of its agenda. Being able to exert influence requires dwelling in what is realistically possible, versus what one would like to be possible. It also means reaching out, both to colleagues and also for additional information that can help the leader make better decisions. With confidence borne of knowledge comes a more secure sense of power. Being able to justify one's decisions, having a pragmatic attitude, yet showing a willingness to take risks even when the outcome is uncertain, all make subordinates more willing to trust their leaders.

How can I increase my own sense of self-determination and choice?

When working for a government bureaucracy, it is very easy to be moved by events, the actions of other agencies, and the constraints of red tape rather than a mover in and of one's self. However, every action an employee makes is a choice -- whether for the good or ill. Even the decision to stay in the organization is a choice, and once that choice is made, there must be a commitment to align one's own processes and actions with that of the vision the organization serves "A visionary leader delves into the core of the organization" (Quinn 1996: 200). A leader understands his or her role in shaping the organization, even while admitting that the organization's mission is something bigger than his or her ego or personal desires.

Even when given directives by others, the manner in which a true leader executes those decisions can be influenced by the value of self-determination. A leader can seek out input from fellow employees and also the workers who are affected by the decision. He or she can seek out information beyond the immediate data available. The leader is able to engage in productive dialogue with higher-ups and subordinates, thus taking control of the evolution of how decisions are orchestrated.

Change is necessary but how that change evolves is always a choice. For example, in response to the housing crisis, HUD has considered opening "government-owned foreclosed properties to house the homeless" and "expanding rental home development include the adoption of regulatory strategies such as reduced impact fees for developers of affordable rental units, inclusionary zoning ordinances, lease-purchase agreements, and shared-equity homeownership" (Responding to the housing crisis, 2010, HUD). Expanding affordable housing to homeless and low-income populations remains a challenge, but rather than doing 'more of the same' it is vital to keep all options on the table.

Self-determination and personal choice is not mutually exclusive to working with others. In fact, Quinn encourages leaders to actively expand one's perceived choices through dialogue with others, both within and without of the organization. It is stasis that must be guarded against, or a sense that one can only respond to external pressures, not have an effect upon them. It may be necessary to seek out other change-friendly people to get things done. A general mindset that no 'sacred cows' (as Quinn calls them) can be questioned can hamper individual innovation, but once a few individuals band together to make the choice to change, then anything is possible. Groupthink is the enemy of change, because groupthink inevitably states that there are no new possibilities and doing things the same way is the 'safe' way.

But while change is collective, the easiest way to begin change is to begin with the individual level and then use the sense of radical self-examination and self-knowledge to propel organizational growth. It is ideal when the CEO or head of the department takes such a personal, self-examining approach but sometimes it is necessary for lower-level employees to do so from their relative positions of power. Every worker has the responsibility to make independent, positive choices as much as possible.