The choice of organizational form requires an assessment of the costs and benefits. There are times when centralization is essential, and other times when dispersion offers the highest returns. (See a modified version of Fukuyama and Shulsky’s briefing slide on centralization versus decentralization.)
of information technology over the past decide or two have involved highly centralized data systems that are successful because all their parts conform to a single architecture dictated from the top.”
Given the need to choose between centralization and decentralization, the winnowing process suggests that high performance is built around rela- tively porous organizational structures. RAND researchers appear to be con- vinced, for example, that high-performing organizations should push authority down to the lowest level and across all units. This does not mean that the RAND researchers believe in organizational anarchy—indeed, the RAND knowledge base contains ample support for strengthening command and con- trol. Yet, I believe the RAND researchers also understand that wars get fought by the troops, patients get treated by the nurses and paraprofessionals, kids get taught by the teachers and teacher’s aides, and mines are drilled by the miners.
They also appear to believe that reducing the barriers between units improves the odds of high performance, whether in combat units, emergency rooms, nuclear submarines, or high-tech companies. Removing barriers does more than improve the flow of information, as discussed immediately below, however. It also produces better problem solving and service.
Collaboration certainly had a salutary effect in Ventura County’s effort to reduce juvenile delinquency, for example. According to a RAND evaluation of the South Oxnard Challenge Project, collaboration among probation officers, the county health department, police and juvenile courts, the city recreation division, local nonprofit organizations, and private providers was the key to a one-stop solution to the problem of increasing juvenile crime.
As the RAND evaluators note, the program was designed to create an entirely different environment for diverting juvenile offenders from a life of crime:
The environment was much different from that of a typical pro- bation office—there were no metal detectors, bulletproof glass, interview rooms, or probation officers wearing “gear” as part of their daily attire. Although police officers wore their guns, they were not in uniform, and probation officers only wore their bulletproof vests when they were conducting searches. . . . Some youth were so attracted to the program that they “hung out”
there daily.
This environment also permitted maximum collaboration among providers. Instead of referring youths to outside providers, all interventions
were handled on-site. Not only did staff gain faster access to information, but families had a greater opportunity to engage. Although the program was expensive, which ultimately led to its untimely demise in 2001, the team approach gave juveniles greater access to services and the opportunity to succeed. As a result, the collaboration created a sum that was greater than the parts.
Lesson 5: High Performance Does Not Require Charisma
Given the unrelenting pressure to find gifted leaders today, charismatic leadership may have been the most significant characteristic to leave the pool in the first round. Charismatic leaders were only slightly more likely to show up in exemplary and very good organizations than in the rest of the field, and were just as likely to be found in very poor organizations as in some- what good organizations. Ultimately, it was the lack of variation across most of the ratings that produced the defeat—simply put, having a charismatic leader did not increase an organization’s likelihood of high performance by enough for that characteristic to advance beyond the first round of winnowing.
Simply put, charismatic leaders are nice to have around but are not essential to success. “There are too many examples where a program or intervention is successful when a dynamic, charismatic leader is involved, and the exact same program fails in another setting without the same kind of leadership,” says Susan Everingham. “And the only difference that you can see between them is one of them had somebody standing at the podium with that special quality. . . . I’ve personally come to believe that charisma can be a very important ingredient for organizational success.”
When pressed on just what that special quality might be, however, Everingham says, “Charisma alone isn’t going to do it. I think you can be influential in this world without having an appealing personality, but it’s easier if people automatically want to listen to you because you’re charis- matic. If you’re the opposite of charismatic, if you’re abrasive in some way, then people just won’t listen. Even if you are right, even if you are clear, they’re not going to want to hear you.”
However, other RAND researchers saw charisma as a negative. “I’ve never seen charisma playing a role in these things,” Robbins says of logis- tics reform. “Maybe Jack Welch is a charismatic leader or Lee Iaccoca.
They’re the kind of people who can pick up an organization and carry it, but I’ve never seen that work in logistics. Maybe it would work in a combat unit or a division where you really have to lead people into combat. With
logistics, it’s more of a collaborative enterprise. No one can really throw his weight around, even four-star generals.”
Camm agrees. “What you need to lead these efforts is not people who lead people, but people who know how to do strategic thinking. You don’t even want the same people any more. When you go in and talk to officers that way, they say, ‘Well, I don’t want to do strategic thinking. I’m a leader, I lead people.’ ” As Camm concludes, charisma and decisiveness have their place in organizational life. “They are important once the proper direction has been set, but they can be quite damaging if the leaders pursue the wrong goals, which happens too often.”
Albert Robert offers a variation of the point: “It’s not essential, but it certainly makes it easier to influence people and get them to pursue common objectives. Then the question becomes whether the leader is smart enough or disciplined enough to determine the right set of objectives and lead the organization in the right direction.” John Birkler echoes the point: “I don’t believe the leadership has to be charismatic. I think it just has to be com- petent. In many cases, you will find a charismatic leader can also be very shallow and not have much substance. That can get you by for a little bit, but not very long.”