Conflict, Turnover, and Frustrations
This document is reprinted with permission from "The Manager Plan in Maine" published by the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy. Copies of the complete book may be obtained by calling the Center at (207) 581-1646.
Whereas roles and relationships between managers and councils have received much scholarly attention, the literature about conflict that leads to turnover has been at a minimum. Conflict in itself does not have to be considered bad; indeed, it is part of a necessary and constructive process where different views are aired. Within the city management profession it has been said that there is nothing necessarily wrong about a manager being fired or a contract not renewed. As a true professional, he or she has acquired a knowledge base and experience that can facilitate transition to another position. But what is really known about these changes that can be rather traumatic for all parties? Any seasoned manager can provide a collection of "war stories" that contribute to the profession's culture, but what have the academic studies told about this phenomenon?
Daniel Barber's study of 183 managers reports that most of those appointed in 1986 left previous city management positions due to "personal challenge,"..."normal career advancement, "..."monetary considerations" or "family considerations" (Barber, 1988, p.697). In addition, an ICMA study of its members in 1984 concluded that "all but approximately 15 percent " of managerial changes were for "career advancement,...salary advancement,...desire to manage a larger government, or desire for a new experience" (Green, 1987, p.9). These larger, self-administered studies may be rather impersonal and indirectly encourage respondents to avoid addressing the salient issues that explain their departure.
However, an earlier landmark study (1962) reported by Gladys Kammerer and associates suggested that conflict may be a major reason for managerial departure. This conclusion will surprise few managers, but it does suggest the major uncertainties that administrators must struggle with on a daily basis. Conflict among political factions for control of the city council and conflict between the manager and a united council emerged as two major conflict scenarios that can result in managerial exit. Stillman also reported on the unsettling nature of a manager's tenure, when the results of a 1980 ICMA membership survey revealed the following major reasons for their termination:
1) poor working relationships with the council (39 percent)
2) politics (21 percent)
3) changes in the council (15 percent)
Therefore, about three-fourths were politically-related reasons, which in many cases would be beyond their immediate control (Stillman, 1980, p. 7).
Gordon Whitaker and Ruth DeHoog first surveyed 133 Florida managers in 1986 and then closely followed their careers over a two-year period. Thirty-three managers who were not in office by 1988 were the subjects of follow-up interviews and represented a cohort that had a 25 percent turnover rate. Mayors were also interviewed in each community to help assess the reasons for these departures. Managers who departed during this period experienced considerable conflict. Indeed, only three of the 33 managers involved in the study experienced little or no conflict preceding their departure (Whitaker and DeHoog, 1991, p. 158).
Conflict between the council and the managers occurred when the behavior of the manager or the council became a major issue. Council conflict with the manager could include disagreement over policy or the manager's style of leadership. Whitaker and DeHoog conclude that,
No type of managerial role orientation was particularly associated with conflict between a council and a manager. Rather, this type of conflict appeared to be related to a lack of congruence between the council's and the manager's expectations (1991, p. 160).
In fact all types of managers with various styles of leadership encountered conflict that led to dismissal. The council "holds the last card" in the council-manager plan and can use it to dismiss the manager. When "push comes to shove," the council wins. The council, acting as a board of directors within the context of the municipal reformers' private sector, business corporation model, is clearly the manager's legal superior. Thus, unresolved conflict between the council and the manager can and will lead to forced turnover. It happens at Ford and General Motors and in Portland and Bangor. However, other trends such as changes in the composition of councils and the opposition of an elected mayor were seen as meaningful factors that could contribute to management instability.
Throughout Whitaker and DeHoogs' article, there is an interesting mixture of quantitative data and qualitative, individual case detail. For example, "Managerial style was of little consequence when the manager was identified with a losing faction. Five of the managers were advocates while one was a misfit..."[the authors' category]. And in one city..." the mayor supported the manager until the manager 'became the issue' between the two factions on the council. The mayor described this manager as outspoken and uncompromising, as airing 'dirty linen in public,' and as a 'numbers person' who could not relate well to people. We classified this manager as a misfit" (1991, p. 160). "Altogether, 61 percent of the managers in our study [N=33] were pushed from office: they were fired, pressured to resign to avoid being fired, or fled from an intolerable situation. These latter managers resigned without pressure, but without any job to go to. The four who fled were out of work an average of eight months. Only 18 percent left for advancement, and 21 percent left for retirement or family reasons" (1991, p. 158). Thus conflict in Florida proved to be a frequent reason for turnover during the two-year period of this recent study. Perhaps Bill Hansell, executive director of ICMA, puts it best:
From a political standpoint, a very difficult aspect for all of us and for ICMA is the issue of responsiveness--that is, that the manager can be fired at any time, for any reason. The manager must be responsive in exercising leadership and providing day-to-day public services to the citizens of the community. This is another critical difference. We make up a vulnerable profession and, when you look at the statistics, managers are fired with far greater frequency than mayors are recalled in mayor-council governments. (Hansell, 1987, p. 3).
Traditionally, managers have considered themselves to be very results-oriented professionals, but have often found it difficult to be successful at achieving results because of the complexity of their environment. Richard Stillman argues that the devolution of authority away from the manager -- both upward to higher governmental levels and outward to various interest groups -- is surely a recipe for frustration within a profession so devoted to seeing things get done in the name of the public interest (Stillman, 1982, p. 5).
Doug Harmon, former city manager of Alexandria, Virginia, calls his colleagues "25 hour a day workaholics" in his book, On the Joys of Being Manager (1973). While his above comment is somewhat overstated for effect, a 1980 ICMA survey did report that local public managers average 53 hours per week, with an average of 7.13 hours of their time being spent at evening meetings and with weekend work (Stillman, 1980, pp. 4-5). In the same survey it was found that their three greatest sources of frustration were in the general job pressures, lack of time for self and family, and dealing with citizens' feelings about local government. Interestingly, when managers were asked in a more recent ICMA survey (International City Management Association, 1988) to identify "the two most important factors in your decision to remain in local government management profession," they chose "commitment to public service" (77 percent) and "desire to be in charge" (26 percent).
In the mid-1980s Schellinger also reported on the results of an ICMA membership survey that the average length of time that managers were spending in their current position was 5.4 years and that their average number of years spent as local government managers was 9.3 years. Moreover, 91 percent of the managers surveyed reported to have served only 1.9 governments. Two-thirds of the respondents who held 4-6 manager positions with different governments were 51 or older, while 90 percent of the managers who have held more than six positions were at least 51 years old (Schellinger, 1985, pp. 184-87).
Another interesting finding of this study was that 59 percent of the respondents were not working as local government managers immediately prior to their current position. Clearly the largest communities over 100,000 in population and the smallest communities under 5,000 have the greatest proportion of managers who did not come directly from another local government management appointment. One can speculate that the occupational stress and tales of forced turnover have served as a catalyst for career exploration. In short, managers may be leaving the profession for other challenging careers in the private sector, state government, and non-profit organizations. Still, evidence suggests that some of them did return to city and town management after their alternative work experiences. Most frequently, managers served as assistant managers and deputy managers just before accepting their current position. In fact, 48 percent of respondents who were promoted to manager from within were already located within the manager's office (Schellinger, 1985, pp. 187-88).