Management stability in municipalities


By Dr. Solmaz Rezaei
Head of research and consulting department


A detailed look at the history of the presence of different people at the municipality of the Tehran metropolitan area after the Islamic Revolution, it can be seen that over almost half of the past 40 years, managers were in charge of the city municipality for about one to two years and from another point of view, about 77 percent of the capital’s mayors have been in office for less than two years. This is a good illustration of the fact that in most cases the existence of stability in the head of urban management is not a concern for decision-makers in this area, or a precise and up-and-coming selection of this strategic management position that directly and indirectly affects the type and quality of citizens’ life, has not been done; The instability that has affected managerial strategic outcomes in many cases.
Management stability is a dual concept that can have positive or negative consequences in different circumstances. Obviously, as timely management changes can take an organization out of stagnation and inactivity, resulting in intellectual growth, innovation, and power circulation from another perspective, management instability especially in a major position, can lead to frustration, prioritization of short-term programs, neglecting the adoption of optimal mid-term and long-term strategies, and the lack of appropriate programs. Therefore, in the first place, the right choice and, at a later stage, attention to management stability at the municipality of a metropolitan such as Tehran, which is a symbol for planning many other cities in the country, is perhaps the most important task of the city council and the most important civilian demand of this civil institution. In many urban communities, with a process of selecting managers with merit-oriented leadership, management stability in an acceptable time frame is a prerequisite for achieving effectiveness in programs and projects.
In democratic political systems that use the electoral tool to apply popular sovereignty and power circulation in a variety of political contexts, widespread change in macroeconomic governance is a common practice that sometimes increases the cost of organizations, decisions with short-term political criteria and the impossibility of large-scale planning. Therefore, as the implementation of public policies can be achieved through management change, the instability of management in an important position, such as urban management, can prevent the city from achieving its sustainable development goals. Today, among factors such as labor, capital, raw materials and management, as a necessary element of success, management is of utmost importance to others, and is also time-consuming to make effective decision making. Because in each management period there is an ineffective time, after which the positive results of the activities and functions will emerge.
City administrations, in other words, local governments in different cities of the world follow certain patterns, the most common of which include council structure – poor mayor, commission structure, council management structure and council structure – strong municipality, each of which has its features and properties. According to a study, more than 43% of the countries in their city management use the council model – strong municipality, which has the highest rates compared to other structures. In this structure both the council and the mayor are elected by direct vote of the people. One of the outcomes of such a structure is the relative management stability that is appropriate for a metropolis with a demographic and cultural diversity such as Tehran. Although this structure does not fully comply with some of the rules and laws of the country, it is possible to use the benefits of localization of such a structure, because the relative management stability of this model can lead to sustainability in city development.