Public Sector Leadership Quotes

Leadership must come from all of us -- the private, public, and civil sectors.

The key questions and challenges that we must all continue to pose and remind this key sector (the media) should be, 'Do you realize the power you have, to build and to destroy; to promote success or failure; to bring life or death to a cause or talent; to give a platform or take it away?

The Atlanta International Airport, power outage of 2017, its economic impact in terms of losses and inconveniences to the travelling public with more than 1,000 flights grounded just days before the start of the Christmas travel rush, was a good lesson. Not, to mention a reminder of the importance of Business Continuity Planning-BCP to aviation as an industry. What is surprising is, nobody seems to have learned anything from it. BCP is still where it was before the debacle, largely unheard off since the international sectoral leadership, as well as airports continue to feign selective amnesia, the regulators- CAA’s are even worse off, as many pretend to have never, heard of it, since the industrial gospel is yet to begin propagating for it !

The important thing to remember is that in any public or private sector organization, whether it has three million employees or three, having a clearly defined and achievable vision—or set of goals—and getting the priorities right in moving forward are the preconditions for successfully leading change. After all, as Yogi Berra said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you will wind up somewhere else.

A leader, or those who aspire to that role, regardless of whether in the public or the private sector, must have integrity.

Many black politicians do not hold political power. They're just Public Sector Managers

Conservative elites first turned to populism as a political strategy thanks to Richard Nixon. His festering resentment of the Establishment’s clubby exclusivity prepared him emotionally to reach out to the “silent majority,” with whom he shared that hostility. Nixon excoriated “our leadership class, the ministers, the college professors, and other teachers… the business leadership class… they have all really let down and become soft.” He looked forward to a new party of independent conservatism resting on a defense of traditional cultural and social norms governing race and religion and the family. It would include elements of blue-collar America estranged from their customary home in the Democratic Party. Proceeding in fits and starts, this strategic experiment proved its viability during the Reagan era, just when the businessman as populist hero was first flexing his spiritual muscles. Claiming common ground with the folkways of the “good ole boy” working class fell within the comfort zone of a rising milieu of movers and shakers and their political enablers. It was a “politics of recognition”—a rediscovery of the “forgotten man”—or what might be termed identity politics from above. Soon enough, Bill Clinton perfected the art of the faux Bubba. By that time we were living in the age of the Bubba wannabe—Ross Perot as the “simple country billionaire.” The most improbable members of the “new tycoonery” by then had mastered the art of pandering to populist sentiment. Citibank’s chairman Walter Wriston, who did yeoman work to eviscerate public oversight of the financial sector, proclaimed, “Markets are voting machines; they function by taking referenda” and gave “power to the people.” His bank plastered New York City with clever broadsides linking finance to every material craving, while simultaneously implying that such seductions were unworthy of the people and that the bank knew it. Its $1 billion “Live Richly” ad campaign included folksy homilies: what was then the world’s largest bank invited us to “open a craving account” and pointed out that “money can’t buy you happiness. But it can buy you marshmallows, which are kinda the same thing.” Cuter still and brimming with down-home family values, Citibank’s ads also reminded everybody, “He who dies with the most toys is still dead,” and that “the best table in the city is still the one with your family around it.” Yale preppie George W. Bush, in real life a man with distinctly subpar instincts for the life of the daredevil businessman, was “eating pork rinds and playing horseshoes.” His friends, maverick capitalists all, drove Range Rovers and pickup trucks, donning bib overalls as a kind of political camouflage.

The twin threats of deforestation and fire prompted the private and public sectors to act. Large firms like Weyerhaeuser began fire prevention programs and invested in sustainable yield research. The federal government instituted measures to conserve the nation's forests in 1891 with passage of the Forest Reserves Act. Under the leadership of President Grover Cleveland and later President Theodore Roosevelt, the federal government set aside 12.5 million acres in forest reserves in Washington, more than 25% of its total land mass.

Like all best supporting actors, the state may also step centre stage, taking entrepreneurial risks where the market and commons can’t or won’t reach. The extraordinary success of tech companies such as Apple is sometimes held up as evidence of the market’s dynamism. But Mariana Mazzucato, an expert in the economics of government-led innovation, points out that the basic research behind every innovation that makes a smart phone ‘smart’—GPS, microchips, touchscreens and the Internet itself—was funded by the US government. The state, not the market, turns out to have been the innovating, risk-taking partner, not ‘crowding out’ but ‘dynamising in’ private enterprise—and this trend holds across other high-tech industries too, such as pharmaceuticals and biotech.42 In the words of Ha-Joon Chang, ‘If we remain blinded by the free market ideology that tells us only winner-picking by the private sector can succeed, we will end up ignoring a huge range of possibilities for economic development through public leadership or public-private joint efforts.

Public sector leaders, with the counsel and cooperation of private sector experts, can and must choose a game to invest in and then let the evolutionary pressures of market competition determine who wins within that game...effective government entities pick games. They issue grand challenges. They catalyse the formation of markets, and use public capital to leverage private capital. A nation can't "drift" to leadership. Some strong public hand is needed to point the market's hidden hand in a particular direction.

Fostering a culture of bold decision-making within institutions, however, demands both structural and cultural transformations. A key starting point is redefining the perception of failure. In many African organizations, failure is stigmatized and viewed as something to be avoided at all costs, which often stifles innovation and promotes cautious, low-risk behaviors. To counter this, institutions should treat failure as a vital learning opportunity. Leading global organizations like Google and Amazon have embraced this philosophy by encouraging calculated experimentation and ensuring employees are not penalized for unsuccessful attempts. While public sector entities cannot operate exactly like tech companies, governments can adopt this mindset by implementing pilot programs to test new ideas on a small scale. This allows space for innovation while minimizing widespread disruptions.

The adoption of Western leadership frameworks, particularly in government and corporate settings, has sometimes led to a disconnect. For example, many leadership programs in Africa's public sector are modeled after European bureaucratic systems, which emphasize strict protocols and rigid hierarchies. These approaches often overlook the significance of relational leadership; how authority and influence operate within African societies. As a result, the rigidity of these models has, in some instances, caused institutional stagnation, with decision-making becoming slow, accountability unclear, and leaders growing detached from the communities they are meant to serve. However, it's important to note that indigenous leadership models are not inherently better. Many traditional governance systems were created for smaller, agrarian communities, not the complex realities of modern economies, which demand large-scale coordination, swift decision-making, and detailed policy frameworks. The real challenge lies in blending the strengths of both approaches—combining the structured efficiency and accountability of Western models with the relational, community-centered principles found in indigenous leadership traditions.

Not all reformers have encountered straightforward paths to success. In Tanzania, the late President John Magufuli left behind a legacy that earned both acclaim and criticism for his bold and often unconventional approach to governance. After assuming office in 2015, he spearheaded an ambitious anti-corruption campaign, dismissed underperforming civil servants, and curbed government waste by slashing unnecessary spending. His hands-on methods, which included unannounced visits to government offices and hospitals, resonated with the public but also stirred tension within the political establishment. While his policies advanced infrastructure development and enhanced efficiency in the public sector, restrictions on media and political freedoms sparked debate over the trade-offs inherent in governance. His leadership underscores the delicate balance reformers must maintain between driving effectiveness and safeguarding democratic principles.