Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Administrative Leadership in the Context of Governance
Paper for the XVI Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public
Management Panel on Leadership in the public sector: back to the future?
Rome, Italy
11-13/04/2012
Prof. Dr. Montgomery VAN WART
California State University San Bernardino - Department of Public Administration
Prof. Dr. Annie HONDEGHEM
KU Leuven - Public Management Institute
Prof. Dr. Geert BOUCKAERT
KU Leuven - Public Management Institute
Silke RUEBENS
KU Leuven - Public Management Institute
2
Administrative Leadership in the Context of Governance
In this article we seek to explore the relationship between administrative leadership and applied
theories of governance. The framework used in this paper integrates three models of governance:
hierarchical, market, and network governance. These models have different implications for roles
and competencies of administrative leaders. Our assumption is that just as there are significant
differences in the average leadership profiles between private and public leaders (that result from
differences between the sectors in philosophy, purpose, and structures) (Allison 1884; Perry and
Rainey 1988; Rainey 1989; Rainey, Backoff, and Levine 1976; Ring and Perry 1985), there will be
subtle yet significant differences as worldwide models of applied governance evolve over time. For
example, starting in the 1990s there was an increased interest in the use of market-based methods
(Hood 1991; Barzaley 1992) and in the 2000s there was an increased interest in networking as an
approach in governance (Kettl 2000). Further, we argue that these global changes in the ideal
governance framework will vary across individual countries too, because (a) underlying trends
causing governance evolution will not be identical, (b) all countries will have different historical paths
and problems to deal with, and (c) national cultural preferences will also have an effect on the ideal
administrative leadership profile. Thus, while one can learn much by looking at global trends
affecting governance, country-specific analysis is also necessary for nuanced recommendations about
ideal administrative profiles in terms of pragmatic matters such as leadership development,
recruitment, promotion, organizational change activities, and so on (Pollitt and Op de Beeck 2010;
Bouckaert 2010) .
We go about making our argument by asking three questions:
What macro-level theory of administrative governance can be used to understand the
evolution of applied governance trends at the global level, and that can be used for
pragmatic purposes to provide a context for mid-level roles and micro-level competencies?
What are the specific global environmental shifts that have affected governance frameworks
in the last 20 Years and what impact do they have on the roles and competencies of
administrative leaders?
Given both worldwide trends as well as regional and local pasts, needs, and preferences, how
can we provide more nuanced country-specific recommendations for the achieving preferred
administrative leadership profiles for the future?
A Macro-Level Theory of Applied Administrative Governance
Applied administrative theories of governance operate within overall political frameworks and will be
affected by them, but will nonetheless have similarities across political systems. While political
frameworks focus on the type of political system based on legal systems, elected bodies, voting
structures, and the like, applied administrative governance focuses on the differences in public
organizations in terms of their structures, mechanisms, philosophies and styles.
3
A Framework to Integrate Three Models of Governance
There are many governance models that have been used in the past to express paradigm governance
changes. An increasingly useful framework is one which emphasizes sources of input and
accountability in terms of hierarchy, the market, and networks (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). These
governance models and their implication for administrative leadership are defined below.
The hierarchical governance model emphasizes laws and rules, compliance, and a regulatory mindset
(Weber 1947; Mintzberg 1973). Ethics is about following the laws and rules, wherever they may
lead. This philosophy treats those receiving complying with legal mandates as subjects of regulation,
those receiving services as authorized recipients, and those paying for services as taxpayers. Chain of
command leadership styles tend to be directive, and then delegative within firm parameters. When
the system works well, it is highly effective in terms of doing exactly what its legislative masters
want, and the technical accountability is very high because it is well-defined. When it is not
functioning well, hierarchical governance may result in rigidity, rule mongering, impersonalism, lack
of commitment by employees, and a technocratic emphasis on inputs over outputs and outcomes,
among other bureaupathologies. To the degree that this model of governance is driving leadership
purpose and action, we will call it hierarchical leadership.
Market governance is typified by the New Public Management which seeks to integrate market
forces into government where possible (Savas 1987; Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Cost and
competition become critical considerations to enhance. The “least government possible” argument
gets more attention. This philosophy treats those affected by policies as customers and those paying
for services as shareholders. The style of leaders in market governance tends to be more strategic
and they tend to use a more achievement-oriented approach with subordinates. Accountability is to
the market which means that technical accountability may be loosened. Organizational learning is
more important than a philosophy of blind compliance. Some degree of creativity and
entrepreneurialism hopefully result from the capitalist-friendly philosophy. Yet when it does not
work well, market governance can result in increased corruption, a decrease in public sector values
and public spirit, a tilting toward the better connected groups in society, and a lessening of processes
emphasizing democratic values and “common-man” egalitarianism. To the degree that this model of
governance is driving leadership purpose and action, we will call it market leadership.
Network governance emphasizes what many scholars and practitioners feel is a shared-power world
(Kanter 1994; Svara 1994;.Luke 1998; Bryson and Crosby 2005) and more collaborative environment.
At a governance level, it stresses inclusion and at an administrative level it focuses on a whole-of-
government perspective. This philosophy admonishes that non-elected officials should have an active
role in government as socially and ethically conscious administrators, concerned and involved
citizens, and collegially-coordinated public organizations. In this philosophy, society is about
relationships, learning directly from those receiving and doing the public good and responsive to all
those participating in the governance process, and thus, when network governance is operating well,
organic organizational learning from all stakeholders is optimized. When this type of governance is
not working well, it tends to lead to a loss of focus, and chaotic and dysfunctional bickering by
competing groups claiming legitimacy. When dysfunctional, it also results in an over-emphasis on
due process and responsiveness over decisive action. To the degree that this model of governance is
4
driving leadership purpose and action, we will call it network leadership. These models of governance
and the concomitant leadership types are summarized in table 1.
Table 1: Three “Ideal” Models of Applied Administrative Governance
Hierarchically-oriented
governance
Market-oriented
Governance
Network-oriented
Governance
Theoretical basis Weberian or neo-weberian model
New Public Management
Whole-of-Government
Organizing principle Laws and rules taylorism
Market forces Open system
Functional networks and shared power
Guiding purpose Compliance Cost Inclusion
Mindset Regulatory Competitive Collaboration and coordination
Ethical thrust based on Following the law and rules
Providing least-cost and least government alternatives
Using social values and norms, and thereby allowing personal interpretation of “the good”
Relationship of government to citizens
Subjects of regulation Authorized recipients Taxpaying citizens
Customers of services and policies Citizens as shareholders
Stakeholders Involved citizens
Related leadership
model
Hierarchical leadership Market leadership Network leadership
Common leadership
styles
Directive and delegative styles
Strategic and achievement oriented styles
Collaborative and participative styles
Some features when
working at its best
Technical effectiveness (does exactly what it is supposed to); technical accountability (clear lines of authority); clear and well-defined roles
Efficiency (cost); market accountability; organizational learning from the private sector; focus on creativity and entrepreneurism
Inclusiveness; social accountability; organizational learning from the policy stakeholders; strong relationships and social bonds
Some features when
not working well
Rigidity, rule mongering, impersonalism, lack of commitment; focus on inputs over outputs
Loss of public values, corruption, disenfranchisement of less well-connected groups, focus on outcomes over due process and democratic values
Loss of focus, chaotic and dysfunctional bickering, lack of results, focus on inclusion and responsiveness over results
While it is generally accepted that the hierarchical governance model held sway until the advent of
New Public Management in the early 1990s and the collaborative craze starting in the late 1990s, it is
an exaggeration to deny the existence of substantial elements of the market and network
philosophies in the past. Public good entities such as civically owned or subsidized sports stadiums,
5
museums and public universities are examples of public entities that have long had to pay close
attention to marketing, competition, comparative standing, earlier versions of performance
budgeting (e.g., zero-based) and ultimately bottom-line success. Similarly, network administration
has long been a hallmark of good government in democratic systems trying to ensure that goods and
services are shaped by direct input as much as through the ballot box. One enormously important
and long-used method to encourage network administration is the extensive standing citizen
advisory board systems at all levels of government since the latter part of the Progressive era (1880
to 1920) and much expanded after WW II.
The point, then, is not that hierarchical leadership is being replaced, because it is not, any more than
market and network were recently invented. However, the relative emphasis on these three
philosophical and organizing principles has shifted dramatically in the last 20 years. The overall
governance framework or paradigm at any given time, then, can be described essentially as a moving
object, with strong indications applied governance with market and network aspects will continue to
expand, and will also become a larger part of the evolving philosophical and, therefore, leadership
gestalt.
How Do These Overarching Purposes Translate into Concrete Administrative Functions?
The discussion thus far has been at a rather lofty or macro level. While heuristically useful, how do
these broad philosophies and concepts translate into the “what and how” of the concrete functional
responsibilities and actions of administrators? This can involve either shifting the concepts from a
governance perspective to an administrative one, or simply articulating a more detailed approach to
administrative functionality. A variety of conceptual frameworks are used to disaggregate what
administrators do and why they do it the way they do. We will discuss two common frameworks:
roles and competencies. Roles are generally functions within a meso-level conceptual framework
that underscore administrative activities and purposes. We will identify six common roles from the
literature. Competencies include a much more micro-level perspective. Sometimes they are
conceptualized as leadership styles. Here we articulate 10. At other times they are conceptualized as
traits/skills and behaviors of which we enumerate 37 here (see figure 1 on page 9).
ROLES. Administrative roles have been variously described by scholars. Steen and Van der Meer
(2009) emphasize the difference between managers as hierarchical bureaucrats emphasizing rules
and professionals as policy advisors emphasizing collegial self-regulation. Van Dorpe et al. (2011)
break administrative functions into five roles: professionals with a good deal of autonomy, managers
whose legitimacy is based on their positions, bureaucrats whose role is based on their place in the
hierarchy, leaders whose focus on their followers and their motivation and development, and policy
advisors who advise political superiors. Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) sort roles into
administrative leadership with the formal and hierarchical functions, adaptive leadership which is
meant to facilitate change in complex environments, and enabling leadership which produces the
conditions for change and balances the needs of administration and adaptation. Fernandez, Cho and
Perry (2010) divide roles into task-oriented leadership with a managerial focus, relations oriented
leadership with a people focus, change oriented leadership focused on innovation, diversity oriented
leadership which understands cultural and ethnic differences, and integrity oriented leadership
which focuses on legality, fairness and equity. Selden, Brewer, and Brudney (1999) differentiate
6
resigned custodians who do what they are instructed to do and know their boundaries, practical
idealists who advocate for the public policy positions and see themselves as highly professional and
responsible, businesslike utilitarians who emphasize efficiency, adapted realists who try to balance
good management and equity, and stewards who place the most importance on the public interest
and the disadvantaged. Frederickson and Matkin (2007) sharpen differences between the market
and network roles by using the categories of change agent on one hand, and gardener (a type of
leader that can adapt to each unique organization and its environment and use it as a source for
innovation) on the other. Similarly, Denis, Langley and Rouleau (2007) distinguish between the
entrepreneurial/transformational role and the stewardship role.
Summarizing these roles in light of our selected governance framework (often called a cross-walk),
we can see approximately six roles emerging from the literature: the bureaucrat and the steward for
hierarchical leadership, the manager and the entrepreneur for market leadership and finally the
leader and the professional for network leadership. Though there is considerable overlap, and some
conceptual confusion, we use these six roles to provide a midlevel analysis of administrative
functionality from a governance perspective. As we described the overall governance framework as a
moving object, the relative focus on these roles also have to be seen as evolving. The
bureaucrat/steward roles in hierarchical leadership will be moderated by market and network
leadership. As market and network aspects will grow more important, the focus on a certain
leadership role will also shift. Table 2 provides a summary of the terms used by different
commentators in light of the roles described below.
7
Table 2: Leadership Roles Emphasized by Different Scholars (using the single best category where multiple categories apply)
Hierarchical leadership Market leadership Network leadership
Bureaucrat Steward Manager Entrepreneur Leader Professional
(Steen & Van der Meer, 2009)
Manager Professional and policy advisor
(Van Dorpe, Randour, Hondeghem, & de Visscher, 2011)
bureaucrat Manager Leader Professional; Policy advisor
(Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007)
Administrative leadership
Adaptive leadership
Enabling leadership
(Fernandez, Cho, & Perry, 2010)
Diversity-oriented leadership
Task-oriented leadership
Change-oriented leadership
Relations-oriented leadership
Integrity-oriented leadership
(Selden, Brewer, & Brudney, 1999)
Resigned custodians
The stewards of the public interest
Business-like utilitarians
Adapted realists Practical idealists
(Frederickson & Matkin, 2007)
Change agent Gardener
(Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007)
Stewardship Entrepreneurial (transformational)
8
The position of the classical bureaucrat is based on authority but his main prerogative is to follow the
rules and procedures effectively as required (Van Dorpe, Randour, Hondeghem, & de Visscher, 2011).
The bureaucrat has a neutral role to play and will only do what he is instructed to do. They are
limited in their actions by the rules that are set out by elected officials and their political appointees
(Selden, Brewer, & Brudney, 1999).
The stewards of the public interest put the public interest above all (Selden, Brewer, & Brudney,
1999). These leaders see themselves as the guardians of public goods and value. While they establish
democratic accountability by following the law, they are highly concerned with all citizens, including
disadvantaged groups. That gives this role a more diversity-oriented perspective (Fernandez, Cho, &
Perry, 2010). While all roles properly implemented promote ethical practices, the role of steward
embraces the most complex notion of ethics as multi-dimensional that balances and has respect for
the legal, managerial, and societal functions that administrators must fulfill.
The manager has authority based on his position within the organization. He tries to maximize the
efficiency of the organization. He is responsible for directing, coordinating, and controlling. He is
mainly task-oriented because he is primarily concerned with the activities of his subordinates and the
goals of the organization. He sets out clear agreements about results, resources, and responsibilities
(Steen & Van der Meer, 2009; Van Dorpe, Randour, Hondeghem, & de Visscher, 2011; Selden,
Brewer, & Brudney, 1999). Managers use strategy in a planning capacity.
Administrators acting as entrepreneurs are change agents within organizational contexts. They seek
to minimize rules and maximize outcomes, so there is often a preference for market mechanisms,
performance indicators, and an achievement oriented style. Entrepreneurs use strategy as a means
of competition. Entrepreneurs are also responsible for creating or identifying new ideas as well as
championing and implementing them.
The role of the leader is mostly focused on people rather than on the task. Internally, the important
needs of coaching, motivating and developing are emphasized (Van Dorpe, Randour, Hondeghem, &
de Visscher, 2011). It is the internal part of relations-oriented management that focuses on a
supportive leadership style (Fernandez, Cho, & Perry, 2010). People oriented behaviors are critical for
leaders, such as consulting, team-building, and conflict resolution. Leaders understand that the work
of the organization is done by subordinates who are a critical resource for the success of the agency
and must be nurtured as much as possible. Externally, the role of leader is about good relations with
outside groups and cooperative partnerships. This leads to a collaborative style.
The main characteristic of the professional is his/her autonomy and externally-based legitimacy
based on education, expertise, and strongly-instilled disciplinary high standards. They tend to be as
connected to their peer group as to their organizations. Professionals tend to be identified by a
systematic body of knowledge, a professional culture, restrictions on the use of their title, a self-
imposed code of ethics, and substantial authority over clients (Van Wart 1998). Because of their
professional autonomy they also have an important role to play as policy advisor (Steen & Van der
Meer, 2009; Van Dorpe, Randour, Hondeghem, & de Visscher, 2011). This is common for senior
administrators who may be assisting either politically appointed executives or elected officials
themselves. In this role the administrator recommends ideas for policy stemming from fixing
systemic problems or utilizing best-practices knowledge. The administrator also drafts language for
9
rules and laws, promotes policy discussions where empowered to do so on behalf of elected officials,
and crafts implementation guidelines and rules when policies are adopted.
The utility of roles is their broad applicability and for overarching discussions; on the other hand,
roles are still at a relatively high level of abstraction. The next conceptual framework, competencies,
provides a more detailed perspective on leadership actions that can be used in pragmatic and applied
contexts, and for detailed scholarly analysis.
COMPETENCIES. The finite aspects of leadership are normally called competencies (Winter 1979;
Boyatzis 1982; Quinn et al. 1996; U.S. OPM 1999; Hollenbeck, McCall, and Silzer 2006). Leadership
involves, among other things, a series of characteristics (traits and skills) which the leader brings to a
leadership setting, and a wide variety of behavioral competencies (Van Wart 2004). As study after
study has indicated, standard management in which systems changes are minimal still requires a
tremendous repertoire of skills, typically ranging from ingrained personal attributes to behaviors that
contribute to the effectiveness of task, people, and organizational functions (Katz 1955; Bass 2008).
Managing change dramatically compounds these requirements (Kanter 1983; Kanter, Stein, and Jick
1992; Van Wart and Berman 1999). Being sensitive to ideas, norms, and preferences outside the
organization further complicates leadership. For our discussion, we can define administrators as
those bureaucrats, stewards, managers, entrepreneurs, leaders, and professionals who work in
government settings. Having to fulfill these roles sets up a daunting task for leaders because of the
variety of challenges faced over relatively short periods of time. Thus, while leaders do not need all
significant competencies all of the time, it is amazing how many they do need on occasion, and how
important even rarely used competencies can be in specific situations. The study of major leadership
competencies, then, provides not only a useful tool in translating different situational needs (e.g.,
hierarchical, market, and network), but acts as a developmental tool given the inevitable need for
nearly all competencies over time. Here the Leadership Action Cycle (see Table 3) is used to identify
the traditional leader competencies, in terms of traits, skills and styles, as well as three types of
leader behaviors (Van Wart, 2012)
10
Tabel 3: The General Management and Leadership Competencies Associated with Administrative Activities (Leadership Action Cycle) (Van Wart, 2012, p.166)
11
The elements of the leadership action cycle reviewed here are three: leader characteristics, leader
behaviors, and leader styles. Leaders come to various situations in different stages of readiness.
Leader characteristics are a large part of that readiness. While no absolute set of characteristics is
necessary in all leadership situations, certain traits and skills tend to be significantly more important
than others. Traits are those characteristics that are primarily inherent and become a part of one’s
personality, while skills are characteristics that are primarily learned. This is not to say that traits
cannot be enhanced, especially through training and/or indoctrination; nor is it to say that some
people do not have a natural gift for some skills. For example, some leaders tend to be perceived as
self-confident and this tends to be an innate personality characteristic; nonetheless, those with
excellent technical training and substantial experience become far more self-confident. The traits
that are commonly held to be most useful to leaders in a variety of situations include: self-
confidence, decisiveness, resilience, energy, need for achievement, willingness to assume
responsibility, flexibility, service motivation, personal integrity, and emotional maturity. Skills that
researchers have found are of the highest utility for leaders are communication skills, social skills,
influence and negation skills, analytic skills, technical skills, and the skill of continual learning.
Leaders act. These actions or behaviors can be thought of as occurring in three domains. First,
leaders have tasks to accomplish. Their organization, division, or unit has work that it must produce,
no matter whether that is an actual physical product or a relatively nebulous service. Some of the
standard tasks of leaders include: monitoring and assessing work, operations planning, clarifying
roles, informing, delegating, problem solving, and managing innovation. Second, leaders have
followers and it is the followers who actually accomplish the mission of the organization. Thus, good
leaders never lose sight of the fact that they accomplish their goals through and, as importantly, with
others. Common people-oriented behaviors include consulting, organizing personnel, developing
staff, motivating, managing teams and team building, managing personnel conflicts, and managing
personnel change. Finally, leaders are expected to know more than how to design and coordinate
work processes; they are expected to know how the product of these efforts will integrate and
compare with other organizations and external entities. If production and people constitute the
mission of leadership, then organizational alignment and adaptability constitute the vision of
leadership. Today more than ever, good leaders must not only be competent in their profession and
skillful with people, they must have well-articulated visions that are compelling to a wide variety of
constituencies. Commonly accepted organizational behaviors include scanning the environment,
strategic planning, articulating the mission and vision, networking, performing general management
functions, decision making, and managing organizational change.
Leaders also bring a set of leadership “styles” to situations. A style can be thought of as the
dominant pattern of behavior for a leader in a particular position. Rather than referring to all aspects
of leadership, style normally refers to a pattern of behaviors to deal with followers and the external
environment in different situations. Like leadership characteristics, styles are antecedent to
leadership in that they are prior aspects of the leader’s repertoire and to some degree are an explicit
method of accomplishing specific goals. Yet styles, like leadership characteristics, are expressed
through specific actions that leaders take in doing their jobs. Some leaders have only a few styles in
their repertoire, while others have many that they can use in various situations. Of course, just
because one uses a particular style does not mean that the leader uses the style effectively or in the
correct situations. Common mid-level style patterns identified by researchers include laissez-faire,
12
directive, supportive, participative, delegative, achievement-oriented, inspirational, strategic,
collaborative, and combinations of these styles executed simultaneously.
Generally, all competencies have utility in each of the three governance frameworks, but some have
more utility than others. For example, it is hard to be a hierarchical leader without being directive
and task oriented a good deal of the time, to practice market leadership without an achievement-
oriented style and good people-oriented behaviors, or be a network leader without a collaborative
style and environmental scanning and partnering skills. This will be reflected below in an analysis of
environmental changes vis-à-vis specific competency clusters. It is vitally important to provide
customized leadership profiles, just as leadership researchers should provide carefully articulated
analyses for leaders in and among organizations (Yammarino et al. 2005; Yammarino and Dansereau
2008). Few leaders need, much less have, great skill in all these competencies. However, because the
work of leadership is as much a group process as the activity of a single person, it is not necessary for
a single leader to fulfill all styles and have all competencies (Uhl-Bien and McKelvey 2007).
What Are the Specific Global Environmental Shifts that Have Affected
Governance Frameworks in the Last 20 Years?
So far we discussed a macro-level framework of administrative governance, the related models in
administrative leadership, and how these models of leadership can be translated into concrete
administrative functions. Now we look more closely at the current causes of governance shifts and
how that affects changes in ideal leadership profiles. Reviewing the data which has looked at the
seemingly unabated or accelerating trends that have evolved over the last 20 years (at least in the
advanced democracies), seven key trends stand out: fiscal stress, internationalization, speed of
change, lack of public trust, challenges of cultural cohesion, mission evolution and confusion, and the
need for faster individual and organizational learning. Because organizations and their leaders must
confront these challenges, these trends will help shape the competency profiles of future leaders.
Fiscal Stress: Because of a growing rise in fiscal stress and the perceived limits of the state, the public
sector is faced with the challenge to do more with less (Raffel, Leisink, & Middlebrooks, 2009; OECD,
2000; Osborne & Brown, 2006). A budget crisis may not be a reason to simply cut spending. It can
also be an opportunity to increase internal efficiency through innovative solutions (OECD, 2000). This
means that leaders have to manage change and innovation (Raffel, Leisink, & Middlebrooks, 2009)
and be willing to work within frameworks in which performance pressures and performance-on-
demand become the norm (Bouckaert 2011) rather than the exception.
All-in-all, being a leader in the public sector is very challenging in times of fiscal stress. Employees
may be suffering pay and benefits freezes or cuts, may be worried about their jobs, or may be
concerned about maintaining service levels with fewer staff. Support staff may be reduced as
managers need time to think about creative solutions and calm others. External clients’ needs go up
and their patience is less. But what does this mean in terms of competencies?
Massive financial stress will necessitate leaders to “rally the troops” (inspirational style), be results-
oriented (achievement-oriented style), think in terms of combining and making bold or tough
decisions (strategic style), find ways to work with others to do more with less (collaborative style),
and, when all else fails, give orders to cut and reduce expenses (directive style). Because leaders will
13
have much to accomplish, they will need to assume a lot of responsibility, have enormous energy,
and have resilience when painful decisions are made. New ideas, innovative solutions, and different
ways of organizing will take both environmental scanning to see what is on the horizon and glean
ideas from others tackling similar problems, as well as first-rate analytic skills to ensure customized
solutions and implementation plans. Productivity demands also require efficient and effective task-
oriented behaviors such as monitoring work flows and doing accurate operations planning with a
special emphasis on outsourcing and privatization skills.
Internationalization: Public sector leaders increasingly need to learn how to work from a global
perspective and work together (Bouckaert 2010). Further they must adapt to the world-wide
challenges, threats and deal with international implications (Allen, Stelzner, & Wielkiewicz, 1999;
OECD, 2001) (Van Wart 2011). Examples of international problems include financial contagion,
environmental spillover effects, loss of powers to international organizations, trade issues, and
tourism among many others.
There was a time when the effects of globalization were generally distant and only indirectly felt by
the public sector. This is not true today, where international trends have both a more powerful effect
as well as a faster one. This means that what were formerly primarily senior executive competencies
related to organizational behavior now hold more importance at relatively junior management ranks,
and responses to trends must be faster. For example, instances of financial contagion from select
markets or countries in the world cause tax revenues to fall, public portfolios to shift, and domestic
services to be impacted requiring leaders to be more vigilant in financial scanning, strategic planning,
and executing any requisite organizational change. Even among free trade areas such as NAFTA there
are treaty requirements to ensure multilateral adjustments of domestic law to carry out provisions.
Most affected are many public agencies such as trade representatives, departments of commerce,
small business administrations, etc., whose primary mission has an international component.
However, so too are unrelated agencies who increasingly must follow international standards of
service, speed, and responsiveness. Interpolicy alignment has become common, especially within
economic and customs unions such as the European Union and European Monetary Union.
Interagency policy alignment is just one example of the need for better networking and partnering
across national boundaries. An increasingly global human resource market means that where
countries once were relatively impervious to the effects of general management practices (HR, IT,
budget and finance practices), now such effects have become commonplace and often dramatic. For
example, wage and benefit variations became an enormously contentious issue in the southern and
northern European countries in the Euro crisis that began in 2011. Decision making is commonly
affected by global trends, and nowhere is that more applicable than in the arena of tourism in which
public agencies must contend with issues related to signage, foreign advertising, trade missions,
entertaining trade delegations, coordinating with trade associations and chambers locally, facilitating
the induction of honorary consuls and other ombudsman functions, and so on.
Challenges of cultural cohesion: Just as internationalization is challenging at the global level,
increased diversity in the population and organizational cultures is demanding on administrative
leaders. Countries in the EU must deal with flows of workers and products as never before;
Americans must deal with a surging Hispanic population; Muslim integration in the West has become
more problematic, and splinter minorities are increasingly vocal. A different type of challenge comes
14
from managing issues of cultural cohesion inside public sector agencies. Administrative leaders will
have to embed this diversity and values heterogeneity in their organizations, while providing a
degree of autonomy leading hybrid cultures (Ingraham & Slyke, 2006). The challenges of bringing
coherence to the human resources of public agencies will not only be based on racial and ethnic
lines, but will also be tested by age cohorts issues (Vanmullen & Hondeghem, 2009; Op de Beeck &
Hondeghem, 2010), gender, religious, and other factors.
Increasing cultural complexity will require a participative style internally and a collaborative style
externally. In general, in order to deal with issues of cultural cohesion, leaders will need to
demonstrate higher levels of flexibility, adept social skills, willingness to consult extensively, and the
ability to plan and organize personnel. Especially important talents will be the competencies of
managing teams and team building, as well as managing personnel conflict when cultural and value
issues divide group interests.
Lack of public trust: This problem is closely related to problems with cultural cohesion, and stems
from many sources, but is nonetheless an important one with which administrative leaders must
cope. One challenge causing public cynicism is not just the diversity in lifestyles and inclusionary
policies stated above, but the diversity of fundamental values existing in society. Responsiveness
becomes more problematic when there are more constituencies, especially when the agreement
among constituencies declines. While the rise in partisan politics is more pronounced in the U.S. than
most advanced countries, it is a powerful example of the challenges it brings to leading at all levels
(OECD, 2000) (Allen, Stelzner, & Wielkiewicz, 1999). The European counterpart is the rise in
popularity and influence of radical parties in Europe. On the right—advocating a variety of reforms
of social conservativism with nationalistic tendencies indicating social purity and separation by ethnic
lines to market strictness—there has been a powerful surge in groups such as the Freedom Party in
Austria, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the Danish People’s Party, and the National Front
in France. Extreme left parties, in contrast, have historically stemmed from the national communist
and socialist parties. While the radical left in Europe has not necessarily grown, it has become more
mainstream with its emphasis on hostility to liberal democracy, criticism of the bourgeois political
centrists, and frequently anti-capitalist rhetoric (March 2008). Examples of EU countries with strong
leftist parties include Cyprus, Latvia, Czech Republic, and Iceland (March 2008). A second aspect of
cynicism is the rise of educational levels which makes the public more demanding. A third reason is
the rise of information technology that allows problems, scandals, and failures to be disseminated
more quickly and efficiently, and the constant focus of the media viewing the public sector as sport,
entertainment, and comedy. Fulfilling the needs of society becomes more complex because there
seems to be much less tolerance for mistakes. This makes the public more skeptical about public
sector leaders. Given high levels of cynicism by the public, more transparency, citizen engagement,
and higher ethical standards are needed by leaders (Raffel, Leisink, & Middlebrooks, 2009; Van Wart,
2003; Ingraham & Slyke, 2006).
Lack of public trust on one hand requires administrative leaders themselves to be considered highly
trustworthy. Thus personal integrity, emotional maturity, and a visible service ethic are
indispensable for credibility. On the other hand, building trust also requires going out to various
groups and helping pull them together. Thus a collaborative leadership style is critical, strong
communication and social skills are essential (including the finite skill of informing, especially the
metrics of performance), and it is vital to be able to articulate a mission and vision of cohesion.
15
The speed of change affects leaders because they have less time to digest problems and come to
thoughtful resolutions and adaptations (Bouckaert 2010; Allen, Stelzner, & Wielkiewicz, 1999).
Indeed, just as change increases, clients and customers are demanding increased customization and
flexibility. Technology changes have helped by increasing productivity for those able to keep up with
them. Yet nowhere is the challenge more noticeable for leaders than in the speed and quantity of
communication which can often be overwhelming (Dunleavy et al. 2005). Leaders have less time to
make decisions because of the speed of modern communications (Raffel, Leisink, & Middlebrooks,
2009).
The speed of change affects leaders, their subordinates, and their organizations in different ways,
emphasizing different competencies. To deal with change well, analytic ability is important, as is the
ability to be decisive when it is time to act, and the ability to manage the complex organizational
change process through execution and refinement. Of course, most change affects subordinates who
can sometimes feel they are the “victims” of change if the leader is not patient, empowering, and
yet, at the same time, firm. So leaders need to be supportive and demonstrate flexibility as workers
cope with change. Because change is complex and cascading, often much of the work must be
delegated. Managing personnel change is quite different from worrying about organizational goals.
Finally, change is enhanced by a mindset that encourages continual learning, innovation, and
creativity, and that takes problem solving in stride and as a managerial priority. It is also encouraged
by a broader group culture characterized as a learning organization where challenging old ideas,
creating knowledge, and systematic dissemination of that knowledge are strongly fostered.
Rapid Mission Evolution and Policy Coherence: There is the important challenge of rapid mission
evolution and policy coherence because of increasing decentralization, new agencies, and changing
mandates (OECD, 2001). Internal coordination is necessary for the public sector to function efficiently
and leaders will have to become more and more engaged in networks and partnerships (Bouckaert,
Peeters, & Verhoest, 2010). Leaders must be responsible and accountable for the performance of
specialized entities. Despite this push for alacrity, leaders must be able to resist change for change’s
sake and superficial responses; leaders must take a long-term perspective appropriate to the public
sector and its reverence for the future (Allen, Stelzner and Wielkiewicz 1999).
Rapid mission evolution and confusion will require an inspirational and participative style for
inclusion and transcendence of personal interests, a strategic style to make sure that agency
mandates are accomplished, and collaborative style to ensure the agency is working cooperatively
with other stakeholders. In times of confusion, leader self-confidence is important for morale, and
personal integrity and emotional maturity for a sense of trust. Of course, nearly all organizational
behaviors—environmental scanning, strategic planning, mission articulation, networking and
partnering, decision making, managing organizational change—are vital.
The challenge of faster individual and organizational learning: Policy needs to be increasingly
knowledge-based due to our knowledge-intensive economy (OECD, 2001). Increasing data and
information today implies that leaders must have the ability to digest and utilize it quickly (Allen,
Stelzner, & Wielkiewicz, 1999). Further, organizations must also be able to learn effectively,
especially in crises, by consciously creating and utilizing knowledge, and ensuring a learning culture
(Ingraham and van Slyke 2006). Leadership becomes more demanding as leaders must master more,
if not all, competencies (Van Wart and Berman 1999).
16
Faster individual and organizational learning necessary requires individuals who exhibit flexibility,
influencing and negotiating skills, analytic skills for problem solving, evolving technical skills, and a
knack for continual learning. Behaviors such as developing staff, motivating, managing personnel
change, and performing general management functions are important to advance this trend (Trottier,
Van Wart and Wang 2008).
What Impact Do These Shifts Have on the Competencies and Roles of Administrative Leaders?
Not all global trends will affect all countries equally, and in some cases there may be minor counter
trends (especially in the area of finances). Yet to the degree that the seven global trends affect the
administrative cultures and leaders themselves, we think the above trends will be predictive in terms
of roles and competency profiles of leaders.
Table 4: The impact of the seven shifts on Leadership roles and competencies
Shifts Impact on Leadership Roles Impact on Leadership competencies
Fiscal stress In times of fiscal stress the role of the entrepreneur becomes more important because of the increased need for internal efficiency through innovative solutions. But the entrepreneur cannot achieve this on his own. Therefore the role of the leader becomes necessary to inspire and motivate others to gather their strengths and take responsibility for the innovative solutions needed. To ensure the productivity of these solutions a manager role is also needed.
The competencies that are needed in this kind of situation are first of all organizational behaviors like scanning the environment, strategic planning and decision making. But innovative and productive solutions also need task-oriented behaviors such as monitoring and assessing work, managing innovation and creativity, problem solving, operations planning, clarifying roles, informing and delegating. This means that leaders need to adopt directive, inspirational, achievement-oriented, strategic, and collaborative styles. Finally they will need certain traits like resilience, energy, willingness to assume responsibility and analytical skills
Internationalization Internationalization increases the need for network leadership that can cope with the challenges of the environment. The professional can use his expertise to adjust the organization to these new needs. But again innovation is an important strategy to cope with external demands. Therefore the role of the entrepreneur is also important here.
Competencies that are needed to cope with internationalization are mostly organizational behaviors like scanning the environment, strategic planning, articulating the mission and vision, networking and partnering, performing general management functions, decision making and managing organizational change.
Cultural cohesion Coping with diversity without neglecting disadvantaged groups is an important aspect of the steward role. Another role that is necessary when facing this challenge is that of the leader to steer organizations where different cultures are brought
This shift has an important impact on people-oriented behaviors like consulting, planning and organizing personnel, managing teams and team building and managing personnel conflict. This means they need to adopt a participative and
17
together. collaborative style and therefor need social skills. An important trait for leaders facing this challenge is flexibility to cope with the hybrid cultures.
Lack of public trust High levels of cynicism can only be counteracted by a great amount of personal integrity as displayed by the professional. The role of the steward can also contribute to establishing renewed trust in the democratic accountability of administrative leaders.
Competencies these leaders need are organizational and task-oriented behaviors like articulating the mission and vision, networking and partnering but most of all the ability to inform. To ensure the trust of the public, they need to be able to communicate and have the necessary social skills as well as certain traits like service motivation, personal integrity and emotional maturity
Speed of change Managing change on the organizational level as well as on the personal level can be accomplished by the role of the leader and that of the entrepreneur.
People-oriented and organizational behaviors like managing personnel change and organizational change are the most important competencies needed when facing this challenges. The competencies need to be strengthened task-oriented behaviors such as managing innovation and creativity and problem solving. Traits that are needed here are decisiveness, flexibility and continual learning. While demonstrating a supportive and delegative style.
Rapid mission evolution and policy coherence
To avoid fragmentation a more collaborative governance is needed and therefore network leadership needs to be stressed here. Leaders have the strength to inspire people to follow the mission that has been set out. The professional can use his integrity in times of confusion to steer the organization in the right direction.
This challenge impacts mainly organizational behaviors such as scanning the environment, strategic planning, articulating the mission and vision, networking and partnering, decision making and managing organizational change. The styles needed here are collaborative, participative, inspirational and strategic. The integrity of the professional is shown through self-confidence, personal integrity and emotional maturity
Faster individual and organizational learning
A knowledge-based society needs an administrative leader with a professional role that can create and utilize knowledge by learning. To inspire others to learn the role of the leader is needed.
First of all people-oriented behaviors like developing staff, motivating and managing personnel change are needed. Therefore they need to be flexible and have analytical and technical skills, the ability to influence and negotiate and continual learning. This occurs while still performing general management functions.
18
Variations in Governance Models among Countries
Leaders have different challenges, and therefore need different competencies because they have
experienced different levels of success in the past. They also face different challenges in the future,
even if global trends provide a good deal of similarity among clusters of countries. It is important to
understand why there will be significant variations. Knowing global trends is not enough to
recommend the types of leaders countries will need in the future with sufficient specificity. We also
need to look at the historical challenges that countries have inherited but not resolved. But even that
is not enough because there is also needs to be a great sensitivity to a country’s social and cultural
traditions. To make detailed and nuanced recommendations, all of these factors must be considered
and integrated. The next section reiterates these three factors in more detail. In the final section we
make five general recommendations for arriving at nuanced country-level leadership profiles.
Given Worldwide Trends But also Regional and Local Pasts, Needs, and Preferences,
How Can We Provide Better Recommendations for the Administrative Leaders of the Future?
Leadership Profiles for the Future Depend on Three Factors
First, countries must be appreciative of what they have done well and what has failed in terms of
historical implementation, no matter what the model. All countries use hierarchical, market, and
network elements in their governance structure. Shifting the blend of these models but ignoring past
performance may aggravate problems rather than fix them. For example, if administrative corruption
was a problem under a strong hierarchical system, then it is likely that a shift to a model with more
market and network elements, without fixing the problems in the hierarchical system, will result in
contamination of the market and network elements. Indeed, market and network systems are more
susceptible to corruption, so countries not addressing this problem head-on in a “traditional” system
are likely only to see the problem become more rife. Ultimately, while changing systems is not only
about fixing the past but moving to the future, it is dangerous to think that the problem is necessarily
the form of governance. Indeed, changing the form of governance may simply lead to an expansion
of problems.
Second, countries must be aware of global patterns and how they fit into them. Nearly all countries
will want to bow to global trends to some degree, but the patterns among northern continental
Europe, southern Europe, the advanced U.S.-Westminister countries, east Asian countries, China and
India respectively will not be identical. Almost all countries will want to follow global governance
trends because they are affected by the seven trends identified: fiscal stress, internationalization,
cultural cohesion, lack of public trust, speed of change, rapid mission evolution and policy coherence,
and the challenge of faster individual and organizational learning. Yet each of these trends plays out
differently in various country clusters. Fiscal stress in the U.S., British and southern European
contexts is playing out as a quantity of services debate, as a quality of services debate in northern
Europe, and yet is not a significant factor in the Chinese context at this time because of the continued
growth of their economy. Lack of public trust in public administration, as opposed to the partisan
political system, is relatively modest in the American, British, and northern European contexts, when
compared to the staggering problem in the southern European and Chinese contexts. For example,
the Tea Party and Occupy protests are largely about governance models and the political priorities in
the U.S. context; they have relatively little to do with public administration per se. However, the
19
90,000 protests that occur in China each year are largely aimed at administrative problems due to
local government corruption, not governance issues. That is to say, the protests are not so much
about the move from a command economy to a market economy which has been transforming the
country for the last quarter century, but rather quality of implementation problems which have
disenfranchised millions of peasants as their shared and informal property rights have been
abrogated by local administrative leaders.
Third, countries have to pay attention to the cultural preferences that have paved their past and must
be integrated into their futures. The Anglophone countries (e.g., Great Britain, the U.S. Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, etc.) have a strong penchant for individualism economically,
expansive contractualism legally, and minimalism governmentally. Relatively speaking, northern
Europeans have a much stronger penchant for egalitarianism economically, minimal contractualism
legally, and moderate governmental corporatism. To ignore these long-term cultural and sociological
preferences would be foolish.
In sum, the governance and intertwined leadership patterns of countries will be affected by historical
issues, global trends and cultural preferences.
Achieving Nuanced Country Profiles for Administrative Leadership Will Require Moving from Ad Hoc
Management to Competency Management up to Talent Management
Overall Assessment of the Administrative Context: Countries wanting to have administrative
leadership profiles for recruiting, hiring, promoting and training will need to be conscious of the
context, and not simply accept global and regional trends, or consultants’ advice. First, what is the
current governance framework? That is, what is the balance of the three different models? How well
have the various models worked in the past, and to what degree do there need to be reforms to
improve the implementation of these models. What are the ramifications of this framework, and the
improvements in it, for leadership in terms of the competencies emphasized? Second, what are the
global and regional pressures that are affecting governance frameworks and therefore an evolving
administrative leadership profile? Third, what are the cultural and social factors that will continue to
have strong shaping influences on the governance framework, and thus administrative leadership
profile (Van Wart 1995).
Clear Sense of the Public’s Interests and How This Will Require Administrative Change (Mission
Alignment): From an overall assessment, country experts, leaders and human resource professionals
need to make determinations about what the public’s interest is. By integrating (a) historic trends
and issues, (b) contemporary environmental trends, and (c) ongoing cultural preferences, what
improvements in the administrative leadership models need to occur, and what will changes in the
overall governance framework have on administrative leadership profiles (Van Wart 1998)?
Strategic Plan: Once an overall sense of the new governance framework and administrative profile
have been conceived in global terms, a strategic plan to decide how to get there must be planned.
Such a plan will have an administrative base in terms of discussing the new leadership profile, but
may also have legislative elements as well. Just as importantly as the elements of the plan are a
realistic sense of timing, which should be sensitive to both sequencing of steps for change, and not
overly ambitious given the level of resources and support.
20
Competency Management as an HR Function: While the strategic plan should spell out the new
overall leadership profile, it will not normally provide the level of detail necessary to make concrete
adjustments to ensure change. The types of leaders needed given the new governance paradigm and
new administrative profile will need to be converted into concrete role and competency emphases
(Van Wart 1993).
Talent Management as a Strategic and Learning Organization Function: Knowing the new
administrative leadership profile is likely to provide competency management, but not necessarily
talent management. Competency management is an organizational perspective that ensures
articulation of the skills, abilities and styles preferred. Talent management integrates the needs of
the organization (competency management) and individuals (management of people through
motivation, development, coaching, etc.). Organizations with good talent management decide how
to groom leaders through recruitment (perhaps changing the interview process, seeking high
potential interns, or instituting lateral hiring at senior levels), training (such as more training or more
management training and less emphasis on law), incentives (e.g., changes in performance rewards
and disincentives), and organizational structures (for example, cutting outdated units, redeploying
human resources, and enhancing management audit for assistance).
Conclusion In this paper a framework was used that integrates three models of governance: hierarchical, market,
and network governance. These models help us to determine the roles and competencies of
administrative leaders that are needed in the future. Although understanding global trends is useful
in determining future leadership profiles that are appropriate for countries, it is hardly sufficient.
Countries have specific histories that must be understood and reckoned with, so that problems do
not simply resurface in new ways of doing business. Countries must be sure to customize their
governance framework and administrative leadership profiles with a keen eye to cultural
preferences. To provide a nuanced administrative leadership profile, one must start with a clear
assessment of the current and desired governance framework. Strategic planning is required to
ensure that a broad plan of attack with appropriate timing is clearly articulated. Finally, this plan
must be supported by detailed role and competency analyses that not only take into account
organizational needs, but realistically include the interests of employees thus assuring their buy-in
and cooperation no matter how challenging the change agenda may be.
K.U.Leuven –Instituut voor de Overheid – Public Management Institute Parkstraat 45 bus 3609 - B-3000 Leuven - Belgium
Tel: 0032 16 32 32 70 - Fax: 0032 16 32 32 67 [email protected] - www.instituutvoordeoverheid.be – www.publicmanagementinstitute.be
References
Allen, K. E., Stelzner, S. P., & Wielkiewicz, R. M. (1999). The Ecology of Leadership: Adapting to the
Challenges of a Changing World. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 5, 62-82.
Allison, G. T. 1984. Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all important
aspects. In New directions in public administration, ed. B. Bozeman and J. Straussman, 31–45.
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bacon, K. (2000). Beyond training: Developing and nurturing leaders for public sector. In OECD,
Goverment for the future (pp. 243-251). Paris.
Barzelay, Michael (1992). Breaking through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in
Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
———. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications. New
York: Free Press.
Bouckaert, G. (2010) New public leadership for public service reform, pp. 51-67 in J.Pierre and
P.Ingraham (eds.) Comparative administrative change and reform: lessons learned, Montreal
and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.
Bouckaert, G., Peeters, B. G., & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boyatzis, R.E. 1982. The Competent Manager. New York: Wiley.
Brewer, G. A., & Maranto, R. A. (2000). Comparing the roles of political appointees and career
executives in the U.S. Federal executive branch. American review of public administration, 30
(1), 69-86.
Brosnahan, J. (2000). Public sector reform requires leadership. In OECD, Government of the future
(pp. 211-242). Paris.
K.U.Leuven – Instituut voor de Overheid
22
Bryson, J.M., and Crosby, B.C. (1992). Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Problems in a
Shared-Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chi, Keon S. (1993). "Privatization." State Trends &- Forecasts (The Council of State Governments)
2(2)
Christensen, T. (2001). Administrative reform: changing leadership roles? An international journal of
policy and administration, 14 (4), 457-480.
Denis, J. J., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2007). Rethinking leadership in public organizations. In E.
Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management (pp. 446-467).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downs, A. (1964). Inside Bureaucracy. Real Estate Research Corporation: Chicago.
Dries, N. (?). how to identify leadership potential: development and testing of a consensus model.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow S, & Tinkler J. (2005). New Public Management Is Dead—Long Live
Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467–494.
Fernandez, S., Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2010). Exploring the link between integrated leadership and
public sector performance. The leadership Quarterly, 21, 308-323.
Frederickson, H. G., & Matkin, D. S. (2007). Public Leadership as Gardening. In S. R. Morse, T. F. Buss,
& C. M. Kinghorn, Transforming public leadership for the 21st century (pp. 34-46). New York:
M.E. Sharpe.
Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W., and Silzer, R.F. 2006. “Leadership Competency Models.” Leadership
Quarterly 17: 398-413.
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration 69: 3-19.
Ingraham, P. W. (2006). Introduction. The American Review of Public Administration, 36 (4), 361-362.
Ingraham, P. W., & Slyke, D. M. (2006). The Path Ahead for Public Service Leadership. The American
Review of Public Administration, 36 (4), 392-394.
K.U.Leuven – Instituut voor de Overheid
23
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R.M. (1994). Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances. Harvard Business Review 72(4):
96–108.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A., and Jick, T.D. (1992). The Challenges of Organizational Change: How
Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York: Free Press.
Katz, R.L. (1955). Skills of an Effective Administrator. Harvard Business Review 33: 33–42.
Kettl, D. (2000). The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution, and the Role of
Government, Public Administration Review 60(6), 488-497.
Light, P.C. (1997). The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work: 1945-1995. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Luke, J.S. (1998). Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Lynn, D. B. (2008). Succesion management strategies in public sector organizations. In M. Van Wart,
& L. A. Dicke, Administrative leadership in the public sector (pp. 375-389). New York: M.E.
Sharpe.
March, L. (2008). Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe. International Policy Analysis From
Marxism to the Mainstream? Division for International Dialogue, D-10785 Berlin
www.fes.de/ipa
Marsh, M. (2006). Leadership and leading: Leadership challenges. The American Review of Public
Administration, 36 (4), 382-383.
Mau, T. A. (2009). Is public sector leadership distinct? A comparative analysis of core competencies in
the senior executive service. In J. A. Raffel, P. Leisink, & A. E. Middlebrooks, Public sector
leadership: International challenges and perspectives (pp. 313-339). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper and Row.
K.U.Leuven – Instituut voor de Overheid
24
OECD. (2000). Government of the future. Paris.
OECD. (2001). Public sector leadership for the 21st century. Paris.
OECD. (2010) Modernising the Public Administration: A Study on Italy. Paris.
Ongaro, E. and Valotti, G. (2008). Public Management Reform in Italy: Explaining the Implementation
Gap, International Journal of Public Sector Management 21, no. 2): 174—204.
Op de Beeck, S., & Hondeghem, A. (2010). Managing competencies in government: state of the art
practices and issues at stake for the future. Public Employement and Management Working
Paper.
Osborne, & Brown. (2005). Managing Change and Innovation in Public Service Organisations .
London: Routledge.
Osborne, D. and Ted G. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is
Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books
Pastori, G. (2009). Recent Trends in Italian Public Administration, Italian Journal of Public Law 1(1): 1-
27.
Perry, J. L., and H. G. Rainey. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: Critique
and research strategy. Academy of Management Review 13 (2): 182–201.
Pollitt, C., & Op de Beeck, L. (2010). Training top civil servants: a comparative analysis. Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven: Instituut voor de overheid.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. 3rd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quinn, R.E., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.P., and McGrath, M.R. 1996. Becoming a Master Manager:
A Competency Framework. New York: Wiley. Ragins, B.R.; Townsend, B.; and Mattis, M. 1998.
“Perceptions of Mentoring Roles in Cross-Gender Mentoring Relationships.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 37: 321–39.
K.U.Leuven – Instituut voor de Overheid
25
Raffel, J. A., Leisink, P., & Middlebrooks, A. E. (2009). Introduction. In J. A. Raffel, P. Leisink, & A. E.
Middlebrooks, Public sector leadership: International challenges and perspectives (pp. 1-11).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Rainey, H. G. (1989). Public management: Some recent research on the political context and the
management roles, structures, and behaviors. Journal of Management 15 (2): 229–50.
Rainey, H. G., R. W. Backoff, and C. H. Levine. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations.
Public Administration Review 36 (March/April): 233–44.
Ring, P., and J. Perry. (1985). Strategic management in public and private contexts. Academy of
Management Review 10 (2): 276–86.
Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The Key to Better Government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Svara, J.H., ed. (1994). Facilitative Leadership in Local Government: Lessons from Successful Mayors
and Chairpersons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A., & Brudney, J. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public
administration: understanding the administrative role concept. Administration & Society, 31
(2), 171-204.
Steen, T., & Van der Meer, F. (2009). Dutch civil service leadership: torn between managerial and
policy-oriented leadership roles. In J. A. Raffel, P. Leisink, & A. E. Middlebrooks, Public sector
leadership: international challenges and perspectives (pp. 91-106). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership
from industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 298-318.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). (1999). High Performance Leaders—A Competency
Model. Report no. PRDC-99-02. Drafted by L.D. Eyde, D.J. Gregory, T.W. Muldrow, and P.K.
Mergen. Washington, DC: Employment Service—Personnel Resources and Development Center.
Van Dorpe, K., Randour, F., Hondeghem, A., & de Visscher, C. (2011). Het mandaatsysteem in de
Belgische federale overheid in een internationaal perspectief. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven:
Instituut voor de overheid.
K.U.Leuven – Instituut voor de Overheid
26
Van Wart, M.; Cayer, N.J.; and Cook, S. (1993). Handbook of Training and Development in the Public
Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van Wart, M. (1995). The First Step in the Reinvention Process: Assessment. Public Administration
Review 55(5): 429–38.
Van Wart, Montgomery. Changing Public Sector Values. New York: Garland Publishing, 1998.
Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: an assessment. Public administration review,
63 (2), 214-228.
———. (2004). A Comprehensive Model of Organizational Leadership: The Leadership Action Cycle.
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 6(4): 173–208.
———. (2011). Dynamics of Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Van Wart, M. (2012). Leadership in public organizations : an introduction. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Van Wart, M. Leadership Competencies and their Relevance to Italian Government Reform. Chapter
in press for a Brookings Institution publication on Italian government. In press.
Van Wart, M., and Berman, E. (1999). Contemporary Public Sector Productivity Values: Narrower
Scope, Tougher Standards, and New Rules of the Game. Public Productivity & Management Review
22(3): 326–47.
Vanmullen, K., & Hondeghem, A. (2009). Leadership diversity in an ageing workforce. In J. A. Raffel, P.
Leisink, & A. E. Middlebrooks, Public sector leadership: international challenges and
perspectives (pp. 257-275). Cheltenham: Edward Elgare.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. Trans. T. Parsons. New York:
Free Press.
Winter, D.G. (1979). Navy Leadership and Management Competencies: Convergence Among Tests,
Interviews and Performance Ratings. Boston: McBer.
Yammarino,, F.J., and Dansereau, F. 2008. “Multi-level Nature of and Multi-Level Approaches to
K.U.Leuven – Instituut voor de Overheid
27
Leadership,” Leadership Quarterly 19: 135-141.
Yammarino, F.J., Dionne, S.D., Chun, J.U., and Dansereau, F. 2005. “Leadership and Levels of Analysis:
A State-of-the-Art Review.” Leadership Quarterly 16: 879-919.
