There’s one fact that seems to stand out for anyone who has read Rama Gheerawo’s 2022 book, Creative leadership: born from design. It likely sticks with people because it seems so absurd as to border on very bleak comedy, but also because it reveals a fundamental truth about how unnervingly simple us humans can be.

In the very first chapter of the book, we learn that a study of Fortune 500 companies showed that (in America), something as arbitrary as height can be the key to the C-suite: 4% of adult men in the general US population are 6’2” or taller, but 30% in the CEO sample reached those heights. It feels pathetically caveman-like that even now, in the 21st century, we implicitly place power in the hands of those who are taller than us — or that those taller than us have a natural propensity to get that power for themselves.

For Gheerawo, issues around leadership really came to a head around 15 years ago, he says, when he found himself “really disillusioned” with the constant and innumerable ways the world excluded certain groups of people, and how much of that could be solved if there was far more willingness from decision-makers to involve design early on as a key tool for problem-solving.

<R>Emily Gosling.

Why the world needs a new type of leader. Internet: <www.creativereview.co.uk> (adapted).

There’s one fact that seems to stand out for anyone who has read Rama Gheerawo’s 2022 book, Creative leadership: born from design. It likely sticks with people because it seems so absurd as to border on very bleak comedy, but also because it reveals a fundamental truth about how unnervingly simple us humans can be.

In the very first chapter of the book, we learn that a study of Fortune 500 companies showed that (in America), something as arbitrary as height can be the key to the C-suite: 4% of adult men in the general US population are 6’2” or taller, but 30% in the CEO sample reached those heights. It feels pathetically caveman-like that even now, in the 21st century, we implicitly place power in the hands of those who are taller than us — or that those taller than us have a natural propensity to get that power for themselves.

For Gheerawo, issues around leadership really came to a head around 15 years ago, he says, when he found himself “really disillusioned” with the constant and innumerable ways the world excluded certain groups of people, and how much of that could be solved if there was far more willingness from decision-makers to involve design early on as a key tool for problem-solving.

<R>Emily Gosling.

Why the world needs a new type of leader. Internet: <www.creativereview.co.uk> (adapted).

There’s one fact that seems to stand out for anyone who has read Rama Gheerawo’s 2022 book, Creative leadership: born from design. It likely sticks with people because it seems so absurd as to border on very bleak comedy, but also because it reveals a fundamental truth about how unnervingly simple us humans can be.

In the very first chapter of the book, we learn that a study of Fortune 500 companies showed that (in America), something as arbitrary as height can be the key to the C-suite: 4% of adult men in the general US population are 6’2” or taller, but 30% in the CEO sample reached those heights. It feels pathetically caveman-like that even now, in the 21st century, we implicitly place power in the hands of those who are taller than us — or that those taller than us have a natural propensity to get that power for themselves.

For Gheerawo, issues around leadership really came to a head around 15 years ago, he says, when he found himself “really disillusioned” with the constant and innumerable ways the world excluded certain groups of people, and how much of that could be solved if there was far more willingness from decision-makers to involve design early on as a key tool for problem-solving.

<R>Emily Gosling.

Why the world needs a new type of leader. Internet: <www.creativereview.co.uk> (adapted).

The quest for universal administrative standards to promote the effective application of public laws and policies gave birth to the field of public administration. Woodrow Wilson argued for a distinction between politics and administration, arguing that the former was more concerned with democracy, justice, and equality, while the latter was more concerned with efficiency, as he postulated that “administration lies beyond theproper domain of politics; administrative questions are not political questions” (Wilson, 1887).

According to Waldo (1948), the means and measurements of efficiency were the same for all administrations: democracy, if it were to survive, could not afford to ignore the lessons of centralization, hierarchy and discipline. Bureaucracy as an organisational type has seen its heyday in the field of public administration, owing to Woodrow Wilson’s Transfer of Administrative Principles.

That notwithstanding, the field has gone through paradigmatic evolution over time by a quest for management paradigm derived from the discipline of business administration. The management approach is said to hold the promise of future public sector reform, replacing the administrative approach traditionally provided by public administration. A new concept arises when the management perspective is combined with an emphasis on the public sector: public management.

Courses and programmes, as well as whole academic institutions and colleges, are adapting by switching from the term “public administration” to “public management”. Considering the growing demands for efficiency in the public sector, the transition from a public administration to a public management framework seems to be the right step.

<R>M.O. Obimpeh and J.A. Dankwa. Public administration – public management interface: how different is the “management” from the “administration”? Internet: <www.rsisinternational.org > (adapted).

The quest for universal administrative standards to promote the effective application of public laws and policies gave birth to the field of public administration. Woodrow Wilson argued for a distinction between politics and administration, arguing that the former was more concerned with democracy, justice, and equality, while the latter was more concerned with efficiency, as he postulated that “administration lies beyond theproper domain of politics; administrative questions are not political questions” (Wilson, 1887).

According to Waldo (1948), the means and measurements of efficiency were the same for all administrations: democracy, if it were to survive, could not afford to ignore the lessons of centralization, hierarchy^c and discipline. Bureaucracy^b as an organisational type^a has seen its heyday in the field of public administration, owing to Woodrow Wilson’s Transfer of Administrative Principles.

That notwithstanding, the field^d has gone through paradigmatic evolution over time by a quest for management paradigm derived from the discipline of business administration. The management approach is said to hold the promise of future public sector reform, replacing the administrative approach traditionally provided by public administration. A new concept arises when the management perspective is combined with an emphasis on the public sector: public management.

Courses and programmes, as well as whole academic institutions and colleges, are adapting by switching from the term “public administration” to “public management”. Considering the growing demands for efficiency in the public sector, the transition from a public administration to a public management framework seems to be the right step.

<R>M.O. Obimpeh and J.A. Dankwa. Public administration – public management interface: how different is the “management” from the “administration”? Internet: <www.rsisinternational.org > (adapted).

The quest for universal administrative standards to promote the effective application of public laws and policies gave birth to the field of public administration. Woodrow Wilson argued for a distinction between politics and administration, arguing that the former was more concerned with democracy, justice, and equality, while the latter was more concerned with efficiency, as he postulated that “administration lies beyond theproper domain of politics; administrative questions are not political questions” (Wilson, 1887).

According to Waldo (1948), the means and measurements of efficiency were the same for all administrations: democracy, if it were to survive, could not afford to ignore the lessons of centralization, hierarchy and discipline. Bureaucracy as an organisational type has seen its heyday in the field of public administration, owing to Woodrow Wilson’s Transfer of Administrative Principles.

That notwithstanding, the field has gone through paradigmatic evolution over time by a quest for management paradigm derived from the discipline of business administration. The management approach is said to hold the promise of future public sector reform, replacing the administrative approach traditionally provided by public administration. A new concept arises when the management perspective is combined with an emphasis on the public sector: public management.

Courses and programmes, as well as whole academic institutions and colleges, are adapting by switching from the term “public administration” to “public management”. Considering the growing demands for efficiency in the public sector, the transition from a public administration to a public management framework seems to be the right step.

<R>M.O. Obimpeh and J.A. Dankwa. Public administration – public management interface: how different is the “management” from the “administration”? Internet: <www.rsisinternational.org > (adapted).