Symposium
Bureaucracy and the Bard
Symposium Introduction
Aaron Wachhaus
Public administration demands facility in the skills of organizational management. Public organizations have a set organizational structure, mission, and relationship to other units of government that define the limits and aims of the organization. Effective management of these characteristics is essential to providing efficient service. Concurrently, public administrators must be
proficient in skills of human management. An organization functions only as well as the people
of which it is composed. So public administrators are expected to master skills of leadership in
order to harness any number of individuals into a coherent organization directed towards a clear
public goal. The articles in this symposium address the difficulties of pursuing both organizational and human management simultaneously through the examination of selected works of
Shakespeare.
Shakespeare’s work continues to appeal due to his masterful exploration of the human element at
work in complex settings. Of particular relevance to public administration, and emphasized in
these articles, are the following themes:
First, the acknowledgement that the human element deeply impacts the operation of the machinery of government. Lear was an apparently successful king. He had been a competent administrator of the machinery of his state. However, his need to be loved, not for his technical accomplishments but for his own sake, led to the downfall of his reign, the destruction of his family,
and chaos in the land. Similarly, Henry V is compelling not because of his accomplishments on
the battlefield or as a ruler, but because of his refusal to quietly give up his individualism and
assume totally the functionalism of a working monarch. For Henry, to become the state is to lose
part of his humanity. As Shakespeare shows us, it is precisely his individuality that informs his
rule.
Second, the recognition that multiple perspectives are necessary to obtain a full view. Shakespeare presents vivid characters with strong drives and goals operating in complex social webs.
They face complicated problems. We, the audience, benefit from seeing the action at a remove
that allows us to take in the unintended consequences of individual action, as well as from hearPublic Voices Vol. XIV No. 2 6
Bureaucracy and the Bard—Symposium Introduction
ing and seeing multiple perspectives from a variety of characters. Our distance from the stage
allows us to see Kate Minola as both empowered woman as well as titular Shrew. Frequently,
Shakespearean plays turn on the inability of characters to step outside their own, often selfimposed, constraints and speak openly and broadly. Hamlet would be a much shorter and less
bloody affair were the prince of Denmark able to talk openly about the problems in his family
and country. Over and over again, Shakespeare shows us the consequences of initially simple or
small deceptions, inversions or omissions. Surely, there must have been some moment when
Othello and Desdemona could simply have confronted one another honestly and openly. Shakespearean comedies rely on our ability to see past deceptions that, while quite transparent to us,
envelop the characters. Too often in public administration, we lack the ability to gain sufficient
distance to step outside ourselves, take in our situation from a range of viewpoints and increase
transparency.
Finally, the development of narrative across several levels at once. For Shakespeare, sub-text
drives the play as much as does the overt level of dialogue and action. As Farmer notes, “Important lessons from Shakespeare …come not so much from the surface but from the subterranean, not so much from the main story as the incidental”. We, as readers and audience members,
benefit from being able to take in the larger play, making connections that are not apparent from
the stage and gaining a broader and deeper understanding of the play as a whole. As administrators, we cannot effectively understand complex problems while immersed in them. A single perspective is, by its nature, limiting. Responsible management calls for adopting multiple perspectives in an effort to better understand the entirety of complex public issues.
David Farmer opens the symposium with an analysis of Henry V and Richard III. As Farmer
notes, Shakespeare looks both outwards – to setting of the play, the structure of the play itself,
and its larger social context – as well as inwards – to the motivations of and lessons learned by
each character. Accordingly, Farmer’s analysis operates on both levels. He looks inward, considering Henry and Richard’s qualities as individuals and the leadership lessons that have been
drawn from their examples. He also looks outward, exploring how the structure and poetry of
Henry V communicates an understanding of the subtext and often hidden underpinnings of policy
leadership.
Second, Catherine Horiuchi gives a powerful critique of the planning and implementation of the
new eastern span of San Francisco’s Bay Bridge. Her central point is that actions must speak
louder than words – that the bridge itself must be stronger than the rhetoric surrounding it. The
test of the new span will be its ability to deliver drivers safely and quickly across San Francisco
Bay. However, words spread more widely than can a bridge roadbed. Press releases, news stories, opinion pieces and social media posts reach around the globe, vastly outstripping the bridge
itself, which only reaches from Oakland to Yerba Buena island. Critically, words spoken by policymakers, planners and budget appropriations committees overpower the silent and passive action of the bridge itself. Using King Lear as her lens on the project allows Horiuchi to contrast
the rational and quantifiable action of the span against the qualitative and emotionally laden political discourse surrounding its planning and construction. Lear chooses to value proclamations
of familial love more highly than the loving actions of Cordelia, with disastrous consequences.
Having linked real-world power to a display of language, Lear is surprised when competition
moves from the rhetorical to the physical realm. So, too, Horiuchi contrasts the quantifiable bePublic Voices Vol. XIV No. 2
7
Aaron Wachhaus
havior of a bridge with the value-laden and politically charged language that framed its planning
and construction, giving a cautionary tale of the power of language to lead to unexpected consequences.
The final piece continues the exploration of language, power and the limitations of projecting
idealized visions onto the real world. Wachhaus reads The Tempest as a laboratory for experimenting with sovereignty and the exercise of power. The island lies outside of the bounds of civilization, allowing the characters shipwrecked there to re-imagine social order. Lacking resources
and practical knowledge of the island, their only tools (and base of power) are words. In this respect, The Tempest is the obverse of King Lear. Lear moves from demonstrated applied power
and engaged governance (a successful reign) to the less fixed realm of language. The Tempest
meditates on the limitations of words and the difficulties of translating ideas into action. For
Wachhaus, one of the central lessons of The Tempest is that social structure is inescapable. Even
in the isolated and amorphous setting of the shipwreck island, we need to impose a social structure in order to make sense of the world around us. Wachhaus suggests that pursuing a collaborative approach, rather than attempting to impose a personal vision, may be more productive.
Shakespeare continues to hold appeal because of his ability to portray our inner workings – our
passions, foibles, and dreams – as well as the complexity and depths of our social relations.
Much as with public managers, Shakespeare’s characters occupy complex worlds made up of
competing agendas and deep social ties, and constrained by limitations on time, knowledge and
resources. His characters endure not because complexity reduces them to functionaries but because constraints allow us to see more clearly the richness of their humanity. For public administration to remain meaningful, it must likewise adopt means of embracing its passions, foibles
and dreams. Critically, it must also retain the ability to step back from the stage and view itself at
a distance, to transcend the individual perception and take in the entirety of the play.
Aaron Wachhaus is assistant professor in the School of Public and International Affairs, University of Baltimore. He is interested in better understanding how organizations and communities
develop relationships and collaborate in environments of uncertainty and resource scarcity, and
advocates for effective intersectoral governance. He is the editor of Public Administration Quarterly.
Public Voices Vol. XIV No. 2
8