Globalization is (not) God: Leadership Challenges for Civil Society Sectors

Running head: GLOBALIZATION IS (NOT) GOD 1
Globalization is (not) God:
Leadership Challenges for Civil Society Sectors
GOVN 500
Charmaine Barton
Dr. Angela Specht
April 13, 2015

GLOBALIZATION IS (NOT) GOD 2
Globalization is (not) God:
Leadership Challenges for Civil Society Sectors
Friedrich Nietzsche is famous for having declared “God is dead.” Notwithstanding this
bold declaration, humans, being human, appear to need something to believe in. According to
John Ralston Saul (2004), the latest, dying’ religious’ craze is that of “globalization.” With a
belief rivaling those of extremists, leaders of the three civil society sectors (public, private, and
voluntary) have believed in globalization with their hearts, breath/voice, and mind. While
globalization was originally an economic theory (Saul, 2004), it has come to represent the
relationships between the three sectors with others across traditional national borders, formerly
known as the “internationalization” of relationships.
The purpose of this essay is to look at the leadership challenges faced within the three
sectors when confronted with the globalization mantra. Secondly, to look at what role
governments should fulfill in the public worship of globalization. Thirdly, to discuss what new
leadership skills have developed in the three sectors, while addressing their capability to kneel at
the altar of globalization. Finally, a discussion of whether or not Canadian democratic values
should be used in decision-making by sectorial leaders. In the end, the question is: What has
globalization taught leaders about their strengths, weaknesses and capabilities to deal with a new
détente in the twenty-first century?
Leadership Challenges
Leadership challenges are those issues that leaders should take into account when making
‘business’ decisions. However, many people feel that the three sectors of civil society (private,
public and voluntary) do not face the same challenges. Nonetheless, through the era of
globalization the sectors have learnt many “best practices” and have come to the realization that

they must work together for society to function well. In the beginning, the god “globalization”
was an economic theory proposed by the private sector.
It was felt that “global economic forces, if left unfettered by willful man, would protect
us against the errors of local self-pride, while allowing individual self-interest to lead each
individual to a better life. (Saul, 2004, p. 34)” Private sector leaders felt that a liberal/free
market, unrestrained by government rules and regulations, would fix all the evils in the world,
lift up the poor, tear down tyrannies (Communism and dictatorships), and provide the death knell
to the nation-state (Saul, 2004). However, it has become clear that the great god “globalization,”
that was to set humanity free from the bondage of government regulations and “evil” tyrannies,
has fallen flat on its face. “Globalization” was unable to stop massacres/genocides in the former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the Congo. The prophet, World Trade Organization (WTO), is unable
to give accurate statistics on the number of lives lost in these conflicts; even though it can give
accurate numbers on wages, production, health care and currency (Saul, 2004).
In the new civil society of the twenty-first century the three sectors realize that they must
provide checks and balances not only for their own sector, but for the other sectors as well. Many
of the day-to-day challenges are answerable by “best practices”; however there remain some
cross-sectorial challenges. These issues have no easy answers and require thoughtful work by all
individuals engaged in these sectors and civil society at large. The defining challenges of
leadership in a post-“globalization” globalized world are accountability, values and ethics, and
public interest/social good.
Accountability. Accountability is the obligation that a leader, has to explain, justify, answer
and/or report on decision-making to some-one or –thing. In Canada, most people are familiar
with the Parliamentary Opposition calling for a Minister’s resignation because the Minister is

accountable for the decisions made by the department in the Minister’s name (Bourgon, 2007;
Good, 2003). Yet, accountability is also a function in both the private and voluntary sectors. A
corporate CEO (Chief Executive Officer) is accountable to the board and to the stockholders
(Saul, 2004). A Board of Directors in a voluntary organization, like a food bank, are accountable
to their donors, corporate partners, volunteers and clients (Panel on Accountability and
Governance in the Voluntary Sector, 1999). This responsibility does not relate just to financial
matters, but also for the method or procedure of decision-making, standards, training of staff and
real-property decisions (PAGVS 1999).
In a globalized world, accountability is becoming even more important for the three
sectors as the public is more educated and wants to ensure that things are done “right.” Political
leaders are becoming more accountable to audiences outside of national borders; for example,
the United Nations, Arctic Council, and International Joint Commission (for shared waters with
the United States). Public administrators are becoming more accountable to other levels of
government, their employees and the public at large (Bourgon, 2007; Charih & Daniels, 1997;
Tait, 2000)
Corporate CEOs, and their companies, are being re-regulated (becoming accountable) by
national governments due to corporate in-action during the post-911 crisis of 2001 (Saul, 2004).
Graduate student John Thornton (MBA) says in a newspaper article that “[a]ccountability will be
huge [for the private sector] going forward. It’s going to be a requirement. (Ryval, 2008)” As
well, with huge transnational companies the audience for accountability has widened. For
example, Coca-Cola’s decision to remain in South Africa during Apartheid; it faced
accountability challenges throughout its global market (Spivey, 2009).

Voluntary sector accountability is evolving as the sector continues to grow (Panel on
Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector, 1999). The Panel on Accountability and
Governance in the Voluntary Sector (PAGVS) (1999) acknowledges that there is no one true
way. It states that the recommendations are “best practices” that can provide a starting point for
voluntary organizations as they attempt to become more accountable to their “community.” The
accountability audience for the voluntary sector is diverse; their own boards, their volunteers,
their donors (corporate and private), and the government (Phillips & Graham, 2000). Not all
voluntary organizations are local, but are international thus increasing and changing the
accountability requirements. For example, Oxfam Canada is accountable to Canadians but is also
accountable to Oxfam International, which may or may not accept “Canadian” accountability
practices.
Values and Ethics. Values and ethics are those intangibles that pervade an organizational
culture and gives guidance to employees throughout the organization. It is not a mission
statement, but rather a belief statement based on ‘ideals’ that should influence how decisions are
made in the organization: integrity, respect for law, honesty, etc. Every individual has his/her
own values and ethics code (Appiah, 2005; Appiah, 2010) and prefers to work in an organization
that reflects those ideals (Bourgon, 2007; PAGVS 1999; Tait, 2000). In a globalized world the
values and ethics of an organization have taken on new meaning as the three sectors work to
build a civil society that functions well.
The public sector, despite the current debate over Senators (Payton, 2015a; Payton,
2015b), has a tradition of values and ethics in day-to-day actions and decision-making (Bourgon,
2007; Tait, 2000). During the 1980s and 1990s, with the rise of New Public Management
(NPM), came the call to “modernize” the values and ethics lexicon of the public sector

(Bourgon, 2007; Kernaghan, Marson, & Borins, 2000; Tait, 2000). New values and ethics codes
have been devised by the various departments and agencies, and many have dedicated advisors,
like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO, 2012). Of note, is the fact that no matter
what upheavals have happened at senior levels (theology/ideology or academic learnings), front
line employees continue to do their jobs, to the best of their abilities, and serve the departmental
and national interests (Bourgon, 2007; Tait, 2000).
The private sector has long been the butt of jokes about the callous, uncaring organization
that believes in profit before anything else (Achbar & Abbot, 2003). In the documentary The
Corporation (Achbar & Abbot, 2003) there is a marketing director who does not know if it is
ethical to intentionally manipulate toddlers’ minds, but appears willing to engage in the practice.
However, business schools have started to teach/discuss ethics in every class, every day to
influence the leaders of tomorrow (Ryval, 2008). Like their public sector counterparts, private
sector employees carry on doing their jobs, to the best of their abilities, despite any turmoil
(theology/ideology or enlightenment) in the upper echelons of the corporation (Saul, 2004).
Though values and ethics are not specifically addressed in the available literature
(PAGVS 1999; Phillips & Graham, 2000; Phillips, 2006), it pervades the discussion of voluntary
organizations. PAGVS noted that one “complaint” was that Boards of Governors “do not have a
shared understanding of the role of the board. (PAGVS 1999, p. 26)” As well, the changing
nature of volunteers (non-voluntary volunteers; Ontario Works) adds to the need for values and
ethics (PAGVS 1999; Phillips, 2006). Whether it is a “Code of Conduct” or a values and ethics
document, voluntary organizations are creating shared value documents (Phillips & Graham,
2000). Furthermore, the voluntary sector is becoming more accepting of the public- and private-
sector insight that values can and will conflict at times.

Public Interest/Social Good. The “public interest” has long been the purview of the public
sector. However, as lines blur between the sectors (Phillips & Graham, 2000) all three sectors are
initiating, or reviving, awareness of public interest/social good. Public interest is at the heart of
most “values and ethics” documents in the public sector (DFO, 2012). Providing services and/or
advocacy is the heart of most voluntary organizations (PAGVS1999). However, “corporate
responsibility” has developed in the dying days of the god “globalization,” as the private sector
realizes that a strong civil society has better economic performance (PAGVS1999).
The public interest/social good challenge cannot be discussed in sectorial paragraphs; as
the “new” challenge is addressed by all with all. The National Shipbuilding Procurement
Strategy (NSPS) (PWGSC, 2014) is an example of this cross-sectorial challenge. Under the
government contract, the shipbuilders must invest an amount equal to 100% of the profits into
“social goods.” Both Irving Shipyards (http://www.irvingshipbuilding.com/ irving-shipbuilding-
home.aspx) and Seaspan (Vancouver) (http://www.seaspan.com/) have numerous press releases
on their “social good” commitments under the NSPS and the Industrial and Regional Benefits
Policy (Industry Canada, 2013). The Aids Committee of Toronto (ACT) has relationships with
several corporate partners (Glaxo-Wellcome, Molsons Brewery, etc) (Phillips & Graham, 2000).
However, instead of giving money directly to ACT, the partners sponsor community events;
which enhance their corporate advertising campaigns (Phillips & Graham, 2000). Corporate
responsibility for “social good” may be “just” an advertising ploy (Proctor & Gamble and The
Water Project); however, it is resulting in tangible benefits for the social good.
Government Responsibilities
As stated above, the public interest has long been the purview of the public sector
(political and public administration) (Bourgon, 2007). But with dying days of NPM and

“globalization,” a new way of defining public interest must emerge, according to Bourgon
(2007). In her concept of “democratic citizenship,” to meet the new awareness of “public
interest,” the nation-state public administration must commit to four principles: building
collaborative relationships with citizens and groups of citizens [including corporations];
encouraging shared responsibilities; providing information to elevate public discourse and foster
a shared understanding of public issues; and, seek opportunities to involve citizens in
government activities (Bourgon, 2007, p. 22).
Saul (2004) reports that as the god “globalization” falters and is no longer “global,”
Western/liberal finance ministers are starting to re-regulate the economic markets (p. 40). The
post-911financial crisis of 2001 (clearly) shows that government leadership is still required, for
stable economic markets (Saul, 2004). While corporate CEOs were “hunkered down” and
watched the world economy collapse, government Finance Ministers and Chairs of national
reserves/banks “rolled into action. (Saul, 2004, p. 42)” But the death knell of the great god
“globalization” was sounded when Enron “fil[ed] for government protection from its private
debts. (emphasis added Saul, 2004, p. 42)”
Government leadership (political and public administration) is, thus, still needed and
required to ensure that civil society is strong and well performing. Through collaborative efforts
with all levels of society and with other governments (international, national, regional, etc.),
government leadership must ensure that all sectors have the ability, capacity and understanding
to meet the challenges of accountability, values and ethics in the service of public interest for all
citizens.

Leadership Capability
The leadership challenges listed above may seem daunting. However, they are
manageable. The main concern is the ability, or capacity, of the sectors to meet these challenges
and become adaptable and flexible to new, emerging challenges. Whether it is the Prime
Minister, Clerk of the Privy Council, CEO of Imperial Oil, or the CEO of the World Wildlife
Fund Canada, the challenges of accountability, values and ethics and public interest/social good
must be met in the reality of civil society of Canada in the twenty-first century.
Capacity building, in the voluntary sector specifically, goes beyond knowing what the
government or private sector can do for the organization (legal frameworks and funding)
(PAGVS 1999). Capacity development must be directed by the leadership, but is created, in large
part, by the employees or volunteers. Capacity is not just funding, technology and human
resources management, but also includes knowledge and understanding of the other sectors as
well as their own (PAGVS 1999, p. 14). The private sector, in order to build leadership
capability to meet the challenges, must look at both the public and voluntary sectors with fresh
eyes and realize how and why decisions are made in a certain way; thus, the private sector can
modify and/or change its best-practices when dealing with that sector. The public sector must be
more collaborative with the private and voluntary sectors allowing them to have a voice in policy
issues (Agranoff, 2006; Bourgon, 2007). The voluntary sector, in general, needs to become more
than a service provider and move back into the policy advocate arena to ensure that the voices of
Canadian are heard (Phillips & Graham, 2000).
No one sector can build capacity on its own to meet the leadership challenges of the
twenty-first century. Instead there must be a concordance of all three sectors on the broad
outlines of the civil society they wish to support. PAGVS has stated: “The intent is to capture, in

a broad sense, the rights and responsibilities of both governments and voluntary sector
organizations [and the private sector] in their dealings with each other. (PAGVS 1999, p. 16)”
Only through open, honest dialogue between leaderships can this concordance happen and assist
in the capacity building needed by all three sectors.
New Leadership Skills
As mentioned by Bourgon (2007), “nothing is really ‘new.’ (p. 21)” The PAGVS (1999)
mentions the main “theology”/idea that must be remembered moving forward: there is no one
true way. Each organization, each situation, and each person is different. Thus, there can be no
one correct skill to be learned to face the leadership challenges of the future.
Kernaghan and Charih (1997) mention there is a need to go from vertical stovepipes to
horizontal pipelines, within the government; but these pipelines need to go outwards to the other
sectors and inwards from them. Notwithstanding the “no one true way,” if one skill were to be
defined as necessary, it would be that of listening, with an open mind, and the attendant activity
of understanding. A corporate CEO must understand, or have access to an employee who does
understand, how the public or voluntary sectors work. A (Deputy) Minister must understand how
the private and voluntary sectors may be impacted by policy; or have access to an employee who
does. A voluntary Board of Governors, or an employee/volunteer must understand how both
private and public sectors can enhance their capability in meeting their constituencies
need/desire.
Democratic Values
The final area for discussion is whether or not Canadian democratic values should be
used in decision making by sectorial leaders. Like the varied and numerous definitions of
“globalization,” there are many ideas as to what Canadian democratic values are. However, the

most common listing is: equality, respect for cultural differences, freedom, peace, and law &
order. This listing is used by numerous local immigration groups who cite Citizenship and
Immigration Canada for the information (Durham Region, 2010). So the question under
discussion now becomes: Should sectorial leaders take equality, respect for cultural differences,
freedom, peace, and law & order, into account when making decisions? In one word: Yes.
Notwithstanding Canadian democratic values, it would be just as fair to ask if the Rotary
International (RI) Four Way Test (2015) should be used by sectorial leaders: 1) Is it the truth; 2)
Is it fair to all concerned; 3) Will it build goodwill and better friendships (i.e. collaborative
partners); and, 4) Will it be beneficial to all concerned? The answer would be the same: Yes.
Whether it is Canadian democratic values or the RI four way test, sectorial leaders must
firmly keep in mind the “values and ethics” documents or codes of conduct that are to be used by
the leadership in making decisions. Leaders must also keep in mind that it is normal for there to
be conflict between values; one day one value takes precedence over another, but the next the
reverse may be true (DFO, 2012).
Canadian democratic values are important guiding principles (values and ethics) for
decision makers throughout the sectors. With the various laws, regulations and rules that must be
followed in Canada, it is hard to believe that any sectorial leadership decision could be made
without taking these values into consideration. No legal or valid entity (public, private or
voluntary) can disregard the democratic values and hope to maintain the publics’ goodwill or
trust.
The building up of, and maintenance of, trust is important for all three sectors. Without
trust in government, anarchy will direct civil society (Bourgon, 2007). Without trust in a
corporation, its market share (and profits) will fall (Spivey, 2009). Without trust a voluntary

organization will not flourish and assist its community. Thus, Canadian democratic values aid in
the creation of trust between the sectors and civil society. Therefore, Canadian democratic values
must be taken into consideration when sectorial leaders are making decisions.
Conclusion
This paper has shown that the leadership challenges, of the twenty-first century, have
arisen from a dying era of economic “globalization.” The challenges of accountability, values &
ethics, and public interest/social good are the ‘new’ challenges for the sectorial leaderships; but
the frameworks are in place. The nation-state government still has a role to play in regulating
certain portions of civil society and promoting dialogue between sectors and civil society. The
capacity for the sectors to engage in the challenges needs work; but the capability to build that
capacity is firmly established. The ‘new’ leadership skills of listening, with an open mind, and
understanding are paramount. The rising ‘theology’ is that there is no one true way of decision
making. Finally, this paper has discussed how Canadian democratic values should be kept in
mind during sectorial decision making.
What has globalization taught leaders about their strengths, weaknesses and capabilities
to deal with a new détente in the twenty-first century? Globalization has taught leaders that there
is still work to do to build a well-functioning civil society; but the foundation is strong and ready
to build upon. There is strength within each sector that can be of benefit to the other sectors.
Weaknesses can be overcome through cross-sectorial capacity building. The new détente in the
twenty-first century can lead Canadian civil society, through sectorial leadership, to become an
example of a well-functioning liberal, democratic civil society where all peoples have a voice.

References
Achbar, M., & Simpson, B. (Producers), & Achbar, M. and Abbot, J. (Directors). (2003, Sep 10).
The corporation. [Motion Picture] Toronto: Big Picture Media Corporation, Zeitgeist Films.
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public
Administration Review, 66, 56-65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x
Appiah, A. (2005). The ethics of identity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Appiah, A. (2010). The honor code: How moral revolutions happen (1st ed.). New York: W.W.
Norton.
Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a new public
administration theory. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 7-26.
doi:10.1177/0020852307075686
Charih, M., & Daniels, A. (Eds.). (1997). New public management and public administration in
canada. Toronto: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
DFO. (2012). Fisheries and oceans canada values and ethics code. Retrieved Feb 23, 2015, from
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/vicr-virc/vicr-virc2012-eng.htm
Durham Region. (2010). What are canadian values? Retrieved Jul 05, 2014, from
http://www.durhamimmigration.ca/creating%20community/Pages/WhatareCanadianValues.
aspx

Good, D. A. (2003). The politics of public management: The HRDC audit of grants and
contributions. Toronto ; Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.
Industry Canada. (2013). Industrial and regional benefits policy. Retrieved June 01, 2014, from
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/home
Kernaghan, K., & Charih, M. (1997). The challenges of change: Emerging issues in
contemporary public administration. Canadian Public Administration, 40(2), 218-233.
Kernaghan, K., Marson, B., & Borins, S. F. (2000). The new public organization (3rd ed.).
Toronto: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector. (1999). Chapter 1 - 3. Building
on strength: Improving governance and accountability in canada's voluntary sector : Final
report (pp. 1-35). Ottawa: The Panel.
Payton, L. (2015a). Mike duffy trial: Your senate expenses primer. Retrieved April 06, 2015,
from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-your-senate-expenses-primer-
1.3016647
Payton, L. (2015b). Pamela wallin's expense claims sough from 3 more organizations. Retrieved
April 06, 2015, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pamela-wallin-s-expense-claims-
sought-from-3-more-organizations-1.3016760
Phillips, S. D. (2006). Intersection of governance and citizenship in canada: Not quite the third
way. Responsibilities of Citizenship and Public Service: Crisis Or Callenge? Glendon
College, York University, Toronto. , 7(4) 1-30.

Phillips, S. D., & Graham, K. A. (2000). Hand-in-hand: When accountability meets collaboration
in the voluntary sector. In K. G. Banting (Ed.), The nonprofit sector in canada: Roles and
relationships (pp. 149-190). Kingston: School of Policy Studies.
PWGSC. (2014). National shipbuilding procurement strategy (NSPS). Retrieved June 15, 2014,
from http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html
Rotary International. (2015). Guiding principles: The four way test. Retrieved Mar 28, 2015,
from https://www.rotary.org/myrotary/en/learning-reference/about-rotary/guiding-principles
Ryval, M. (2008, Nov 18, 2008). Lessons of the meltdown. The Globe and Mail, pp. E 2.
Saul, J. R. (2004, March 2004). The collapse of globalism: And the rebirth of nationalism.
Harper'S, , 33-43.
Spivey, J. K. (2009). Coke vs. pepsi: The cola wars in south africa during the anti-apartheid era.
(Unpublished Masters). Georgia State University, Atlanta. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=history_theses (7-8-
2009)
Tait, J. C. (2000). A strong foundation: Report of the task force on public service values and
ethics. Ottawa: The Task Force.

Globalization is (not) God: Leadership Challenges for Civil Society Sectors

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Globalization is (not) God: Leadership Challenges for Civil Society Sectors (20)

More from Charmaine Barton (8)

Recently uploaded (20)

Globalization is (not) God: Leadership Challenges for Civil Society Sectors