GUEST COLUMN.

The typical government leader, like a cabinet secretary or department head, is principally focused on managing their own agency. In contrast, oversight leaders, like a city auditor or inspector general, need to manage their own oversight office plus a complex relationship with the separate entity they are tasked with holding accountable.

The nature of this relationship substantially impacts the ability of the oversight leader to get results. For example, it influences the separate entity’s willingness to cooperate with the oversight leader’s requests for information. The quality of the relationship also impacts the likelihood of the separate entity implementing the oversight leader’s recommended changes or reforms.

I’ve detected a clear pattern in oversight leaders based on studying government oversight starting in 2011 and then working in the field as a practitioner.

Specifically, there are three distinct leadership archetypes dominant among government oversight leaders and they sit on a spectrum:

• Conflict-avoidant

• Consultative

• Confrontational.

The purpose of calling attention to these “3 Cs” is to provide oversight practitioners with a framework for conceptualizing their own approach so they can best harness it to get results. This framework is also helpful for individuals tasked with hiring oversight leaders when considering what style of leadership is most appropriate for the oversight office.

The conflict-avoidant oversight leader is reluctant to challenge the separate entity. The lack of conflict helps the leader foster a close relationship with the separate entity. While this type of leader tends to be able to make incremental changes at the separate entity, they rarely advocate for big changes because fostering the relationship is of paramount importance to them.

To the casual onlooker, it may seem that the oversight practitioner is part of the separate entity. Supporters of the status quo at the entity (both internal and external) will likely be pleased with this approach, but detractors will feel accountability is lacking.

By contrast, the consultative oversight leader is willing to challenge the entity when it is falling short of standards or expectations but will also affirm the entity’s actions when standards or expectations are met or exceeded.

Leaders who fall in this group have a balanced relationship with the separate entity and can be valued as trusted advisers. They recognize the relationship is important, but concern for it is not the main driver of their decision making. To the outsider, they are viewed as fair, impartial and independent. This approach may frustrate both supporters and detractors of the separate entity—sometimes the oversight leader will take a stance that appears to be supportive of the entity while sometimes it will be at odds. As a result, this leader’s objectivity may be confused for inconsistency.

Finally, the confrontational oversight leader tends to criticize the separate entity with little reluctance and is willing to champion big issues. This type of leader readily applies pressure, even making strong public statements, but that often comes at the cost of a collaborative working relationship.

They do not emphasize cultivating relationships. From the observer’s perspective, it seems that the oversight practitioner and the separate entity are always at odds. Supporters of the entity will generally have a negative view of the oversight leader’s approach while reformers will feel they have a fighter on their side.

The most sophisticated oversight leaders (whether they are conflict-avoidant, consultative, or confrontational) are not only in tune with their default leadership approach, but they 1) understand when they need to throttle across the spectrum to another leadership archetype based on the situation and 2) are able to do so with ease.

For example, the conflict-avoidant leader may have such excellent access to the entity that they encounter an egregious case of fraud, which may require them to challenge the entity in a manner that is more aggressive than normal. Likewise, an oversight leader can move the other way across the spectrum. Imagine an oversight leader who is hired amid a major corruption scandal. They may take a confrontational approach from the outset until policies and procedures are revamped. The leader may shift to a more consultative or conflict-avoidant approach after the big issues are addressed.

Of course, there are other factors that impact the nature of the relationship between the oversight leader and the separate entity aside from the 3 Cs. These commonly relate to the separate entity’s existing attitude toward oversight, the resources available to the oversight office, and the legal authority of the oversight office.  

The separate entity may have a culture or leaders of their own that makes the organization highly resistant to oversight. This could shut out even the conflict-avoidant leader.  In terms of resources, an oversight leader may want to conduct thorough analyses yet is understaffed with a small budget, which results in them not being able to provide as much constructive guidance as they would like. Finally, an example of legal authority in question occurs when an oversight office is in its infancy and the level of access to the separate entity has not been fleshed out in policy.

Naturally, watchdogs are going to have different temperaments. The most astute ones recognize their own, tame it when necessary, and understand how to wield it to effectuate results in accordance with their oversight office’s mission.

#StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceAudit #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #CityGovernmentManagement #CityPerformanceAudit #CountyPerformanceAudit #StateandLocalGovernmentAccountability #StateandLocalGovernmentOversight #CityGovernmentAccountability #StateGovernmentAccountability #CountyGovernmentAccountability #CityGovernmentOversight #StateGovernmentOversight #CountyGovernmentOversight #AuditorRelationships #AuditorPersonalityStyle #OversightRelationship #PolicePerformanceAudit #PoliceOversight #StateandLocalPerformanceAuditCulture #DepartmentOversightResistance #StateandLocalAuditorAccess #ConflictResistantOversight #StateandLocalOversightLegalAuthority #ConsultativeOversight #ConfrontationalOversight #LosAngelesPoliceOversight #PublicSectorAuditorDepartmentRelationship #BenGoldblatt #BandGGuestColumn #BarrettandGreeneInc