United States Is the Diversity

¶ … United States is the diversity of its landscape, its biomes, and the incredible amount of natural resources available. Because it was resettled by Europeans relatively late in the historical span of human culture, much of those resources remained fresh and pristine much later. However, with the advent of western expansion in the 1800s, the building of a transcontinental railway, and increased mining, large scale farming and ranching, and industrialization, those pristine areas have often been at risk. Since 1872, the United State National Park System has grown from a small, single-park managerial service to one of the less political visible, but nevertheless important, trustees of American natural resources. From Yellowstone National Park to over 450 natural, historical, recreational, and cultural treasures, the National Parks System manages over 21,000 people through the Department of Interior and dedicates its energy and resources towards education and preservation (Lee, 1972).

Any program designed for the public good is by its nature inextricably linked to politics, not only through motive but in many instances through more practical elements as well. The political system provides the directives and often the financial support for these programs, and thus the programs themselves are prone to many of the same strength and weakness as the political system. Thus, the quality of a public service organization will be deeply and directly contingent upon the quality of its political structure. In particular, the processes and policies of the organization will bear a reciprocal relationship with the manner in which resources are allocated. This is not to argue that a company's success begins with its organizational structure, and design. Therefore, it is essential for an organization to have constructed an explicit and standardized mode by which policies are carried out, skills qualifications and personal attributes are illuminated and used in attending the macro-organizational factors of creating and managing organizational culture. The quality of efforts with respect to organizational culture, in some contexts, will impact not just the internal orientation of an organization but also the image which it project to the mainstream marketplace (McDonell and MacKintosh, 2006; Davis, 2001). This makes the National Park Service (NPS), a particular interesting case for our examination of Organizational theory, Design, and changes. This is true given its remarkable success as a management organization and yet it's continued struggles with funding and the impact which these struggles have on its operative goals. The discussion takes a direct interest in the "National Park Service" history, challenges, funding, politics, future, along with an analysis of the NPS.

Description of the Agency- Historically, the public embraced the idea of a national parks service that would both protect the environment and offer the public natural recreation. The basic idea originated from the desire to protect special areas so they could be part of the national heritage for generations to come. However, political and social sensibilities of the 19th century were quite different than those of the 21st century, and the definition of what constitutes conservation has significantly evolved. Originally, the focus was on natural wonders, but that rather limited scope has evolved to include a historical chronicle of the natural world, to educate, conserve, and enhance the quality of life for the visitors to the park. It was the breathtaking gradeur of the area around what we now know as Yellowstone National Park that first caught the attention of naturalist, who in turn became advocates for protecting a significant area from mining and deforestation (Schullery and Whittlesey, 2003).

The idea for a federally managed National Park System came from George Catlin, and artist. Catlin traveled to the northern Great Plains in 1832. Even at this early date, he was worried about the destruction of Amerindian civilization, wildlife, and wilderness as more and more people headed west. He wrote, "by some great protecting policy of government… in a magnificent park… a nation's park, containing man and beast, in all the wildness and freshness of their nature's beauty (McDonell and MacKintosh, 2006). While there was no immediate effect from Catlin's view, the era between 1864 and 1891 witnessed an act to protect Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Redwood Trees -- this was signed into law in 1864 by President Abraham Lincoln. Popular myth said that the area near Yellowstone country was part of a campfire chat by explorers Folsom, Washburn and Hayden between 1869=71. The myth was successfully used by National Park supporters but eventually found to be false -- instead, an early ally in promoting a public reservation was actually the Northern Pacific Railroad as they were seeking a more northern route from the East Coast to Northern California and the Pacific Northwest (Schullery and Whittlesey).

Concurrent with this movement towards protecting the natural environment was a desire to protect the archaeologica heritage of the country from plunder -- and suprisingly led by local ranchers and farmers in the southwest. Their lobby resulted in the Antiquites Act of 1906, enthusiastically authorized by President Theodore Roosevelt, himself an avid naturalist. Based on Roosevelt's recommendation, Dr. Edgar Hewett made reviewed a number of Indian ruins in Arizxona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah, recommended many for protection. Between 1906 and 1916, the Department of the Interior worked with various administrations to proclaim 20 new National Monuments that would add to the sense of a burgeoning National Park System (Rothman, 1994).

The synergy about preservation and conservation was not lost on the political enviornment and the National Park Service was created on August 25, 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. This was the result of a number of political debates that pushed for various agencies to oversee the nation's parks. The period 1916 to 1933 was one of tremendous growth for this agency, most designed not only to consolidate and understand what resources it had, but to establish just what its overall mission would be. Through the 1920s, the National Park System focused mainly on areas west of the Mississippi -- there was more federally owned land in that area and it was far easier to establish authority. However, the 1920s also saw a more mobile population and it became very apparent that to really serve the appropriate mission the service would need to expand eastward as well. In 1926, Congress authroized Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave and the Great Smoky Mountains as National Parks within the Appalachian region. The system also included a number of historic parks near the eastern seaboard, many of which were either Revolutionay or Civil War battlefields (Miles, 1995, 77-9).

One of the more pragmatic issues surrounding the NPS was that however popular they might be, most politicans were unlikely to press for funding during difficult economic times unless the public interest was high. It was this attitude that President Franklin Roosevelt inherited when he took offic. Additionally, we must remember that not only was the country in an economic crisis (tax revenues down, banks had gone under), but many Americans were now looking to the Parks for inexpensive, yet enriching entertainment. Thus, during the 1930s, the Park Service become focused on areas intended primarily for mass recreation -- parkways, waterways, and the like (Daynes and Sussman, 2010).

Roosevelt also looked at the Park System with a new eye -- one that could accomplish both the goal of increasing public recreation -- and employment. The changes that swept the nation during the Great Depression affected the NPS as well. Many of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs focused on conservation-in particular, the civilian Conservation Corps. Among their many contributions, the Corps upgraded and expanded visitor facilities at national parks throughout the nation. In 1933, the Reorganizational Act was passed, giving the president the authority to transfer national monuments from one government department to another. The War Department's parks and monuments were transferred to the NPS that same year. Also transferred to the NPS were the national monuments administrated by the Agriculture Department and the sites included in the national capital parks in Washington, DC these orders gave the NPS 57 new areas. In addition to overseeing its newly transferred sites, the NPS took on a still larger role in the 1930s, when Congress created new categories of parklands. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 confirmed and expanded the role of NPS in preserving and restoring park resources and engaging in educational activities related to historic sites. The Park, Parkway, and Recreational Area Study Act of 1936 led to the purchase of land for parkways and recreational areas. Still another significant change that took place during the 1930s involved the creation of a program designed to evaluate the status of each park's wildlife, identify species that were in danger, and generate ideas for restoration (Ibid).

Between the 1930s and 1964, the NPS needed to assimilate over seventy diverse areas into its system. New budgetary concerns were constant with the agency -- Congress wanted a National Parks System but also had to fund the great American War Machine. In the 1950s, for instance there was a new push towards outdoor recreation, resulting in more people being aware of their options when it came to new National Parks. Because of the newer mobility of a significant amount of suburban America, driving to national parks was even more an option. The more people visited the Parks, it seemed, the more of a synergistic effect upon their funding and use (Jensen and Guthrie, 2006).

By the Johnson Administration in the 1960s, coupled with more media attention, there was increased public awareness of America's natural treasures. This was now that "Parks for People" Campaign. During this period there was also a fairly significant new awareness about ecology and the natural environment. The mission of the National Parks Service was called into question. Reacting to this, Congress passed the General Authorities Acts of 1970, which became known as the "Redwood Amendment," since a large part of the Act was devoted to conserving Redwood National Park. Based on political pressure from citizens, Congress was also forced to provide a rather significant funding increase not only to expand National Park areas, but to provide more services (educational, lodging areas, hiking trails, etc.). The environmental community seemed particularly strong during these times, calling attention to oil spills, pollution, and extinction issues resulting in much greater attention towards the maintenance and expansion of the NPS (O'Brien, 1999).

The National Park Service recognized that working with partners' organizations greatly enhances its ability to protect park resources and provide educational and other visitor services. This includes opportunities with in the parks and beyond park boundaries. There are many kinds of partners. Some provide funding for NPs programs, while others technical expertise for NPS projects. Some are the national level, while others are at the park of office level. While these partners are not actually a part of the NPS, they all share the Service's interest in the management of the national parks. Partnering also helped the NPS add more Alaskan areas duing the 1980s to now include more than 380 parks covering more than 83 million acres in every state of the Union. Its mission remains true to its founding, and despite criticism and the ebb and flow of emphasis and funding based on the administration in power, it supports the preservation of natural and historic places, as well as outdoor recreational areas outside the system through grants and partners (The National Park Service, 2002).

Hierarchy & Structure: The NPS has a chain-of-command structure that begins with the NPS director, extends down to the regional directors, and continues to each park or office. In general, the highest ranking position at a park is a Superintendent. Similarly, the NPS Training Centers have a Superintendent, and in Regional Offices the highest ranking position is the Regional Director. Each park of office organized its employees into different functional divisions, such as maintenance, resource management, and visitor and resource protection. Each division is lead by a Division Chief. The size and function of a park or office will determine which divisions it has and how the divisions are organized (McClelland, 1998)

Agency problems -Funding has been and continues to be a challenge for NPS. World War II had presented challenges for the NPS. Director Newton Drury had been faced with the task of protecting the nation's parks from those who wanted to use their resources for the war efforts he was besieged by many committee who wanted to use historic cannons for scrap metal, he managed to keep the parks intact. Even so the war years took their toll on the parks. Tight budgets left the NPS unable to adequately maintain facilities; and with the return on peace and the subsequent increase of travel, the parks' problems became painfully evident. The affordability of automobiles allowed the middle class a newfound mobility, visitation to national parks swelled, overwhelming run-down facilities. On June 26, 1956, in the midst of the Cold War, Congress passed the Federal Aid Highway Act, approving the creation of a 41,000-mile highway system to improve military mobility. These new roads meant that travel and, consequently, park visitation were sure to increase even more (Lee).

The challenges that Director Newton Drury faced during WWII are the same challenges many of the NPS Directors faces today. On March 17th 2010, NPS Director Jarvis told members of a House Subcommittee that "difficult economic times call for creativity, Director Jarvis told members of a House subcommittee when he presented the bureau's 2011 budget request." (inside.nps.gov). The $2.73 billion budget proposal for the National Park Service is $22 million less than the 2010 appropriations, "a fact of these economic times," Jarvis said. "we will be creative to meet the needs of Park visitors, protect resources, and continue our partnerships that help revitalize communities through local recreation and historic preservation projects. "This budget supports our mission," Jarvis said in his testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies (Ibid).

Agency funding. The primary source of revenue used to fund the NPS is the general population- taxes, make donations, and pay fees to visit the various parks. In fact, fees collected from park visitors under FLREA have increased NPS annual revenue by tens of millions of dollars. Another important source of funding for the NPS is its partners. Partner organizations-such as the congressionally mandated National Park Foundation and any number of other independent national, state, and local organizations-conduct fundraising activities designed to support individual parks and the Service as a whole.

The development of a budget is multi-staged. It starts at the park, then moves through several levels of review and approval before finally being passed into law. As the budget request moves through the various levels of development, it "snowballs." That is, the park unit budget becomes part of the regional budget, which in turn becomes part of the total NPS budget, and so forth. At each level, the budget is also subject to modification, as politicians, partners, and special interest groups lobby for how federal money should be allocated or used. It can take more than 20 months to prepare a budget for any given fiscal year. Thus, at any given time the NPS is working on three separate budgets: two in the proposal stages, and one that is being enacted. "As a consequence of the blurred authority, heads of federal agencies, unlike their counterparts in industry, cannot set the level of their agencies' budgets. Rather, budgets must be submitted to department heads, who submitted them in turn to the Office of Management and Budget, which submits them in turn to the president, who in turn submits them to Congress (Grover, 2008, 13).

Leadership and Management - Within the context of organizational behavior, leadership is one of the most crucial aspects of the entire rubric of the organization. Scholars and philosophers alike have been trying to define leadership for centuries, albeit without much success. True, leadership is, in part, decision making at the nth level. Decision-making, of course, is one of the fundamental keys to the survival of an organization, more so now that economic boundaries between countries crumble, business becomes more complex, and the results of decisions often have global impact. Decisions are made constantly in business; it is the part and parcel of being effective in one's job. Innovation and improvement on a regular basis are required to maintain and improve the ability to make rational decisions, and some psychologists even believe that the ability to make effective decisions is at the core of the individual's success of failure within their organization (Porter, 1998; Drucker, 2001).

That being said, leaders and managers are not the same, just as leadership theory and managerial theory are similar but not synonymous. In general, a manager is someone who conducts and organizes affairs, projects, or people. Managers are given the authority by their organization to lead employees, therefore, they have subordinates. So even though managers are in charge, they are not leaders in terms of the definition. Managers do as they are directed, and in turn direct their subordinates. Management requires planning, schedules, production, and time constraints; basically management is task oriented (Brown & Pozner, 2001). The task orientation is quite critical -- management is often tactical, while leadership is strategic. Leaders do not have subordinates, they have followers. Leadership inspires, motivates and sets the direction to achieve goals; leaders focus on people. Both people and organizations want leaders. People want leaders to assist them in accomplishing their goals. Organizations want leaders to not only motivate, but to provide organizational direction for employees to follow. According to Kouzes and Posner (1994), five key behaviors for what is wanted of leaders from both people and organizations are: "(a) challenge the process, (b) inspire a shared vision, (c) enable others to act, (d) model the way, and (e) encourage the heart" (p. 960).

Leadership takes on less formal, more psychological roles, than management- even though it is possible to combine them. Leaders challenge the process. Effective leaders challenge the normal process. That is not to say that they are always controversial. Leaders challenge current beliefs and practices and take the initiative to propose and establish better ways of doing things. Leaders do not wait for things to be done, they do them. Leaders inspire a shared vision. Using authority does not appeal to leaders or their followers. Effective leaders inspire and motivate others by appealing to their shared beliefs. Leaders enable others to act. They make information readily available and empower people to their full potential. Leaders help others achieve their goals. Leaders model the way. Leaders demonstrate their beliefs in their actions. They speak honestly about their vision and do what they believe is right. Leaders encourage the heart. Showing appreciation and providing rewards are ways leaders show encouragement and motivate others (Vecchio, 2007). Leaders create change, focus on leading people, have followers, have long-term goals and are proactive. They create a vision, approach the vision by setting the direction, facilitate in decision-making, and use personal charisma (Shea, 1999). Leaders appeal to the heart, are persuasive by selling their vision, want achievement, take risks, and break rules. They also have a transformational style, exchange excitement for work, use conflict to resolve issues, and make new roads. Most of all, leaders are concerned about what is right, give credit to others, and take the responsibility for what may go wrong (Finklestein, et.al., 2009).Because there are no strict definitions for leadership, but rather a series, as we have noted, of traits, attributes, and behaviors, possibly the most inclusive way to describe leadership is "ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen" (Kouzes, 2008).

Servant leadership is a rather modern philosophy and practice of leadership, first defined by Robert Greenleaf, but supported by numerous others. Due to the complexity of individuals, the continual multiple horizontal priority structure, and the vast Washington DC bureaucracy, this external guerilla style seems most apropos for the NPS. The concept is a change in management style from the authoritarian to the qualities of listening, empathy, healing, persuasion, stewardship, and growth. Essentially, this gives the individual leader authority rather than power (Greenleaf, 2002, 2003). The idea of servant leadership, although not necessarily defined in that manner, is not new, but was espoused as earth as the 4th and 5th centuries in China with comments like: "the leader shall consider as good, not what pleases himself but what pleases his subjects…" "the highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware. Next comes one whom they love and praise. Next comes one whom they fear. Next comes one whom they despise and defy. When you are lacking in faith, Others will be unfaithful to you. The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words. When his task is accomplished and things have been completed, All the people say, 'We ourselves have achieved it" ( Lao Tzu, 2006, 35). Too, in Plato's Republic, the ideal leader was not one who would satisfy their own ambitions and avarice, but rather one who would actively engage in what was best for the state at that time (Blackburn, 2007, intro). Greenleaf echoes these sentiments in believing that the servant-leader is someone who serves first, "beginning with the natural feeling that one wants to serve…. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first…" (Greenleaf, 2002).

Leadership Interviews- Effective leaders are a great resource for a company. The ability to leader, supervisor, and manage human resources has a measurable impact on the company's bottom line. Proper leadership skills of human resources can create considerable value for the company. Leadership skills are an investment, and like any other investment; they must be managed so that their value can be maintained. In order to manage human resources effectively, leadership must be established and benchmarking practices must be established. The two interviewees that I chose for this assignment are individuals from my organization. The following discusses the belief of these two individuals. Even though, their definitions of leadership maybe different, their beliefs are similar. Thus, the interviewees are leaders in their own right; each brings important assets to their organization.

My first interviewee is an Occupational Health and Safety Manager, and doesn't supervisor any one. Yet her role to the organization is imperative in nature, and her definition of leadership takes on a more personal note she believes that empowering employees is an important element of a successful leader. The second individual is a District Ranger who supervisors over a hundred employees at any given time, whose leadership skills are also imperative to her organizations success, her definition of leadership is also based on past experiences, she strongly believes that personal development is an important attribute to successful leadership.

Leadership interviewee 1: Occupational Health and Safety Manager

1. What is your definition of leadership? A leader or manger being able to steer their employees in the right direction. Sometimes leaders think they have to dictate to lead, which is untrue. Empower your employees.

2. What are the positive aspects of being in a leadership position? A leader needs to know that they can make a difference in the organization through understanding both management and employee issues.

3. What are the negative / difficult aspects of being in a leadership position? Sometimes employees think you went over to the "dark" side. It is difficult to relay to an employee and have them understand that as a leader you can be an asset to them in understanding organizational issues.

4. What recommendations would you make for a person to prepare for leadership? Be patient. All employees are not alike; for example, you may have an employee that comes to work with no complaints; then you will have others that have issues with something as simple as moving their chair. Knowing how to deal with both types of employees are key to successful leadership.

5. How do you deal with the politics in your organization? First off you need to know the issues and any background information before you speak. Listen and Learn (as we have been taught in first grade) is a key to dealing with delicate issues.

6. What ethical standards do you hold dear? Truth and honesty! I can't say more than that.

7. How do you effectively get groups to work together to reach the goal of the organization? Employees need to know that all of them from the lowest grade on up is important to the mission of the organization. When employees feel nobody listens to them, they shut down. It is imperative that employees never get to the point that they think they are not a key element of the mix.

8. What strategies do you use to motivate your staff? Empower employees to step outside of their comfort zone to try new tasks. By allowing employees to lead groups, head up projects, and make some decisions goes a long way in building up confidence in employees and motivating them to do a good job.

9. What are your beliefs on developing other leaders within your organization? One step would be a formal mentoring program. Organizations need to ensure employees have a written program, progress needs to be monitored along the way, and employees need to be given feedback. Another step would be a shadowing program. Have an employee shadow another employee so they would get a better feel of what the job really entails.

10. What methods have you found successful? Trusting employees to make the right decisions; being calm; articulate what you really want from an employee; and follow-up to ensure the employee is on the right track.

11. What methods have you found effective for resolving conflicts in your organization? There are several methods and each one would depend on the situation. For example, talking with the employee to find out what the real issues are; if that doesn't work then the next step may be a formal mediation.

12. What books, training, or professional organizations, would you recommend for further professional development in leadership? I think no matter what your field, that all employees should have to take a course (not just a couple hours) in the human relations field. Some examples of that training are, employee relations, labor relations, resolving conflict, etc. Sometimes organizations try to put too much into one course and the focuses of the issues are diluted.

13. Any additional experience, learning, or advice that you might share? As a leader you need to know what your personal strengths and weaknesses are. If a leader does not know this, they will either fail or have discontention in the organization. Not all people can be a leader and a person needs to look inside themselves to determine if they have what it takes to lead and be success.