Procurement leadership: from means to ends
| Date | 01 March 2006 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-06-03-2006-B004 |
| Pages | 274-294 |
| Published date | 01 March 2006 |
| Author | Keith F. Snider |
| Subject Matter | Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management,Government,Economics,Public Finance/economics,Texation/public revenue |
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT, VOLUME 6, ISSUE 3, 274-294 2006
PROCUREMENT LEADERSHIP: FROM MEANS TO ENDS
Keith F. Snider*
ABSTRACT. Procurement is often perceived as a tactical rather than a
strategic function. Such perceptions result from the way procurement is
usually defined as beginning after a need has been identified. Procurement
thus focuses on tactical decisions involving means rather than on strategic
decisions involving ends. For procurement to become strategic,
procurement professionals must be recognized as having legitimate
leadership roles in determining organizational ends. The paper presents two
conceptual frameworks to move procurement in this direction. The first—
pragmatism—resolves the dichotomy between ends and means. The
second—a conservator model of agency leadership—highlights the
importance of promoting and maintaining public procurement’s institutional
integrity. Together, these may equip procurement professionals to adopt
leadership roles in strategic organizational decision making.
INTRODUCTION
At a recent symposium on defense acquisition1, several speakers’
remarks expressed a common theme: that the requirements
identification process for defense procurement was dysfunctional,
and that this was the most important problem currently facing the
defense acquisition community. Yet none of these speakers, many of
whom were senior procurement officials, proposed a remedy. Upon
reflection, the reason for their silence on how to fix the requirements
process is obvious: none of these speakers were participants in that
process. As procurement professionals, they were not responsible for
---------------------
* Keith F. Snider, Ph.D, is Associate Professor of Public Administration and
Management in the Graduate School of Business & Public Policy at the
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. His research interests
lie in the areas of pragmatism, public administration history, and defense
acquisition.
Copyright © 2006 by PrAcademics Press
PROCUREMENT LEADERSHIP: FROM MEANS TO ENDS 275
requirements; rather, they were responsible mainly for executing
procurement actions in response to requirements. One would expect
that these expert and capable officials should have had much to
contribute to improving the requirements process. Why were they not
actively involved in doing so?
This question is related to the major questions addressed in this
paper: why does procurement continue to be perceived as a tactical
and routine function rather than a strategic one, and what can be
done about such perceptions? Most see procurement as dealing
mainly with questions of means (how to do something) rather than
with questions of ends (what to do). The paper discusses the reasons
for this circumstance and the difficulties in moving away from it. It
argues that, in order for procurement to be recognized as a strategic
function, its professionals must be recognized as leaders in terms of
their participation in strategic decisions involving ends. They must
embrace ends through involvement in organizational needs
determination activities, while at the same time continue to carry out
the means of procurement.
To accomplish a break from this means-centric mode,
procurement professionals will need an understanding of how to
resolve the separation between ends and means. Further, they will
need a model for strategic action or leadership that is appropriate for
their situation. The paper presents two frameworks that address
these needs: philosophical pragmatism to bridge the ends-means
dichotomy, and the “conservator” model of public agency leadership.
The method of this paper is exploratory (pre-empirical) conceptual
analysis, and it is generally critical in nature. It attempts to illuminate
and call into question certain assumptions and tacit beliefs about
procurement’s proper orientation as a field of study and practice. Its
intent is to contribute to the conception of new or revised boundaries
for the field of procurement and for its ideas on leadership.
BACKGROUND OF THE LITERATURE
A significant amount of procurement literature reflects concern
over perceptions of the field as a merely clerical or tactical function.
This literature is generally introspective in that it is produced by
members of the procurement community in procurement-related
publications, the principal audience of which are members of that
To continue reading
Request your trial