Leadership Impact on Forest Service Operations: Intriguing Ideas from Public Administration Theories

W hat happened to the USDA Forest Service? This well-worn topic seems to be gaining a dismal, cynical edge. “Once heralded as among the most respected and effective government agencies, the Forest Service has become a case study of bureaucratic red tape and low morale” (Hull 2011). Employees give it low marks for leadership, ranking it 198th out of 229 agencies in a recent survey (Partnership for Public Service 2011), and describe a stressful and demoralizing work environment (Brown et al. 2010). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) decries its endless reorganizations, ill-planned and ineffective new technologies (Nazarro 2009), and poor budget stewardship (GAO 2011). Line officers surveyed thought the Forest Service most rewards agency loyalty and least rewards innovation and independence (Kennedy et al. 2005)—values seemingly at odds with leadership criteria such as Leading Change and Leading People (Office of Personnel Management 2012). Forest Service founder Gifford Pinchot could lead change and people. He combined cutting-edge science of his day with savvy understanding of the political environment. He shaped a system of national forests, a profession, and an organization devoted to their care—and was fired for insubordination. By the 1950s, the Forest Service was described as an effective organization in the classic study, The Forest Ranger (Kaufman 1960). This tidy and insular organization focused on timber, range, and mining. It balanced national goals with decentralization and local autonomy by developing “voluntary conformity” in its field leadership—district rangers—through practices such as hiring only foresters, frequent transfers, and reviews. Fifty years later, more public interest and mandates for the environment, workforce diversification, balanced budgets, performance, and security have reshaped the Forest Service. But old leader norms may operate today—producing leaders ineffective for a complex environment. Theories from the field of public administration on complex organizations hint that the Forest Service organization may still operate as it was initially designed, despite external forces and internal shifts in demographics and policies. The design is maintained by a resilient, selfreinforcing leadership, itself an artifact of earlier times. I explore this leadership design using (1) my observations as a former employee, (2) Kaufman (1960) and recent work for insights on organization impact on leaders, and (3) four ideas drawn from complex organization theory. Finally, I suggest more empirical research on this topic and offer some broader implications for federal government.