Reference no: EM132173123

Based on the define terms and ideas written about the Relationship between public performance and public leadership, along with the summary about Egon Guba on " Going to war in Iraq" please state if you agree or disagree with the conclusion drawn in a minimum of 150 words?

There is definitely a relationship between good performance and leadership, chapter 7 revolved around public performance and within that concept lies knowledge and a performance measurement system. A strong leader is a knowledgeable one. When people are turning to you for answers (and consistent ones at that), you must be well-versed not only in your given field but others that are related as well, as most systems are not solitary ones. Continually, a great leader is objective and analyzes how well an organization is functioning. Change occurs very quickly and by whether it is by laziness, lack of knowledge, or being spread too thin performance indicators are a great way to determine an organization’s overall health and where improvements can be made. By engaging in these reflective practices, concerns can be addressed in a timely manner. If there is weak leadership, issues may not be addressed or addressed improperly.

Chapter 10 focuses more on the humanistic side of leadership. The Holzer text sums this concept up by saying, “The essence of leadership is getting people to follow”. Whether leadership is situational or based on skill, a strong leader is what is going to either motivate subordinates to achieve workplace goals or to identify changes that need to be made.

In terms of Egon Guba’s depictions of public policy and the case study in chapter 7 of the Stillman text, the decision to go to war in Iraq was clouded by public and cabinet perceptions and values. Guba says that we don’t evaluate policy, but rather the effects of it and that so-called evaluation is a “value-based process”. This concept is seen by the neocons perception of the United States and how it eventually influenced President George W. Bush’s decisions, even though at the beginning of his term he favored disengagement, as well as the public campaign after 9-11 and the claims that government professionals were pressured to match their analysis to mirror the Bush’s administration goals. After the fact, it is easier to “evaluate” the USA’s decision to engage in the War with Iraq, because we can see the effects, from our own viewpoints of course. From this, we can determine that strong leadership including a variety of political backgrounds in the president’s cabinet, strong objective analysis who did not have the fear of non-conformity, and confidence and power that was derived from intergovernmental support may have led to a different outcome.