Essay Sample on Dirty Hands Dilemma and Statesmanship

The term, as well as the elements of statesmanship, has its origins from ancient times and, has been passed down throughout modern times. However, over time, the concept has created a paradoxical relationship with the modern state. For instance, the term posits that statesmanship presupposes the state but does not concur with the modern aspect which relies on constitutional aspects, democracy as well as bureaucracy element of statehood. Nevertheless, the concept continues to generate new understanding such as proposed judicial and administrative statesmanship. Moreover, there is a shift in which statesmanship becomes more realistic as it is transferred from the state government to devolved systems. However, this poses a challenge in understanding the concept in its traditional meaning or its modern meaning under the new multileveled system of governance (Overeema & Bakker, 2019). Therefore, the definition of statesmanship should be interpreted from the elements that make a person a statesman. As such, this paper focuses on two statesman one being Abraham Lincoln representing historical figure and Lugar as a modern statesman. Therefore, the focus herein is to examine the concept of statesmanship, group behaviours as well as formal and informal channels in public administration by examining the two American leaders while integrating and applying biblical thoughts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Meaning of Statesmanship

The definition of statesmanship concept revolves around the art of leadership. Overeema & Bakker (2019) defines this concept as an ethically excellent leadership at the level of policy. Historians, as well as journalists, have associated statesmanship with individuals such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, De Gaulle as well as females such as Margaret Thatcher and San SuuKyl. There is a tendency to link politicians with the idea that they are all statesmen. However, scholars who have dwelt on this concept argue that there is a difference between a statesman and a politician. To them, a politician is simply a person who thinks about the next election while a statesman focuses on the next generation. Moreover, politicians are more concerned with the success of their party while statesmen think about the good of their country. In this respect, a politician is portrayed as a self-centered individual whose actions are directed not by what could be better for the country but rather by what might lead them to success in the next election (Jones, 2019).

Additionally, a simplified definition of statesmanship implies that it depends on the successful manner in which a political handles government matters. Therefore, statesmanship is equated to good leadership (Torres & Sable, 2018). Nevertheless, there is a contradiction whether the state is the best habitat for statesmanship. The meaning of state connotates a specific type of polity such as the usual modern regime at national level created through a combination of democracy, constitutional as well as bureaucratic mechanisms. As such, the idea of statesmanship is normative thus laudatory. In as much as the state is a familiar institution in the current times, the idea f statesmanship elicits negative gender-biased term. In this regard, there is a need for both practical ad intellectual reasons to review statesmanship and its link to the modern state while analyzing the possibilities off statesmanship under the modern conditions (Overeema & Bakker, 2019).

Corruption and Dirty hands dilemma

Public administration often involves all kinds of people but statesmanship allows those in a leadership position to act on the interests of the people. However, proponents of dirty hands dilemma argue that it takes place when a political figure realizes that he/she has to go against a moral principle to complete what he/she sees as right political action (Litvin, 2011). In this regard, the dirty hands' dilemma breeds corruption that erodes the concept and values of statesmanship among the political actors. Moreover, the argument from proponents of the dirty hands model posits that it is not necessarily a problem given that there must be an already established solution in every moral dilemma or conflict (Blattberg, 2015).

Moreover, in any government-initiated policy, there is an established process irrespective of whether the policy is legislative, judicial or bureaucratic. Such a process is put in place to allow a smooth implementation of the program with limited corruption. For example, a program or process that follows due process and eliminate the possibility of dirty hands dilemma must incorporate some elements of accountability. Such policies or programs must carry an element of administrative and financial accountability, the involvement of beneficiaries, proper clearance from regulatory agencies or public leaders. It must also state a clearer source of funds as well as have political support for it to succeed (Bardach, 1977). In this respect, statesmanship eliminates the possibility of dirty hands dilemma from breeding during the implantation process of such a policy or program. Corruption and dirty hands dilemma form part of a major facet of administrative evil. Administrative evil creates a major hindrance to ethical foundations of public life. In human history, it has appeared as though people are so focused on finding ways to destroy each other or rather they find ways to continue being worse (Adams & Balfour, 1998). Such acts and behaviors are inherent in human life and thus breeds administrative evils supported by corruption and dirty hands dilemma.

Group Behavior and Working Teams

The concept of statesmanship is individually based but administrative evil and the dirty hands' dilemma brings on board others factors including key players in the administration process. In this respect, groups and teams can be used to mitigate the effects of administrative evils propagated by dirty hands dilemma while building on individual statesmanship. A group involves individuals coming together to accomplish common objectives. The formation of a group goes through four states including forming stage. This is the first phase of group development and acts as the introductory point among team members. The second stage is norming which the group seeks to establish normalcy among individual group members. Furthermore, the group goes through the third stage of development called performing in which the group gains momentum as the begin accomplishing some of its objectives. This is followed by a final stage adjourning which involves ending the group but this is only applicable in groups that have short term objectives. The essence of group development is that it provides avenues for creative decision making. Group decisionmaking leads to complete information as opposed to an individual decision due to diversity involved. Additionally, it helps in eliciting greater acceptance of the decisions made given the consensus process involved in decision making (Fischer, 2010).

Teamwork remains a key pivot of human achievements across the millennia and was mainly a concern of social psychology inquiry on small group behavior for over half a century (Kozlowski, 2017). Nevertheless, there is a difference between teams and groups. A working group involves individuals coming together purposely to share information, come up with decisions and complete tasks. A work team, on the other hand, develop synergy through coordination of energy. There are four types of teams including problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional and virtual teams. Irrespective of the type of teams involved, there are common factors that lead to their success. One of the leading factors that determine the success of failure of a team is the availability of resources. It is also influenced by effective leadership and structure, a climate of trust as well as the level of performance evaluation and reward structures (Fischer, 2010). Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a team can be achieved through proper training. Training teams aids in preparations, execution, and reflection as well as effective management of team maintenance through the understanding of interpersonal dynamics (McEwan, Ruissen, Eys, & Zumbo, 2017).

Moreover, the process of turning an individual into a team begins with hiring team players. Organizations must seek to recruit individuals who are team players. Secondly, training is a necessary process to transform individuals into teams. The effectiveness of an individual in a team can be achieved through proper training. Training teams aids in preparations, execution, and reflection as well as effective management of team maintenance through an understanding of interpersonal dynamics (McEwan, Ruissen, Eys, & Zumbo, 2017). Furthermore, developing an effective reward system facilitate the transition of an individual into a team. In this case, individuals should be motivated for engaging in team activities such as proving assistance in resolving conflicts as well as for their contribution to decision making. Teams are necessary when tasks cannot be accomplished by an individual when work objective is greater than an individual goal and where there is interdependence among members (Fischer, 2010).

Formal and Informal channels

Communication is an essential part of any organization and forms the basis of effective decision making. There are two forms of communication, formal channels, and informal channels. Formal channels detail official communication through established official channels. Moreover, formal channels include written policies or plans, established the mission and vision statements in an organization, rules, and regulations as well as memos. These four channels are developed by an organization and it is also expected from the workforce. Informal channels, on the other hand, entails unofficial ways of organizational communication. These channels can either work for or against the formal organizational channels. A good example of informal communication in an organizational set up is the grapevine. Channels of communication have shifted over the years due to dynamic shifts in communication technology (Smith, Patmos, & Pitts, 2015). This can have a negative or positive impact on the organization depending on the way it is managed.

Communication in an organization can take two directions either downward or upward communication. With respect to downward communication, leadership seeks to explain to employees why some decisions are being made. They should also seek feedback for the decisions made (Fischer, 2010). The main objectives of downward communication are that it seeks to inform subordinates. This includes communication on matters such as organizational goals, plans, policies or procedures expected of employees. Moreover, downward communication serves as the means by which subordinates receive tasks directives from their leaders. Additionally, it aids in delegating authority from senior leaders down to junior employees. Furthermore, downward communication is a channel through which performance appraisal is undertaken. Nevertheless, it also serves as a channel of motivation to the subordinates (The Business Communication, 2014). Upward communication, on the other hand, is a means by which the senior management in an organization obtain feedback based on directives and decisions made.