leadership for public administrations

Understanding Contemporary Leadership Principles for Public Administration

Abstract

There has been an increasing focus on leadership for the past three to four decades. A number of literature have emerged, focusing primarily on empirical studies to sustain the theory of leadership. This paper has focused on the understanding of leadership principles underpinning modern public sector management. The researcher focuses on three key areas: the effectiveness of contemporary public administration leadership principles in solving public sector crises, the perception of leadership in public administration and the emerging tenets in public administration leadership, and their impact on effectiveness.

Introduction

Indisputably, leadership in the public sector constitutes a fundamental element of good public governance. There has been an exponential growth of literature on leadership for the past three to four decades, focusing primarily on empirical studies to sustain the theory of leadership. Nevertheless, the studies have been concerned mostly with business organizations. The emergent of the Public Administration literature, informed by private practice and neo-classical economics, brought the importance of public administration leadership into focus, accelerating the development of studies in the areas. As such, leadership in public administration has focused on researchers’ and scholars’ attention, leading to several imperial studies in the area. Public administration leadership theory and literature/empirical work related to the notion are comparatively new.[1] This literature review aimed at contributing to the growing literature on public administration leadership, focusing primarily on the effective modern leadership principles for public administration while suggesting potential areas for future research on the topic.

Research Questions

• How effective is the contemporary public administration leadership principles in responding to the current crisis in the public sector?
• How is leadership perceived in public sector management?
• What are the emerging tenets in public administration leadership and their impact on public sector management effectiveness?

Literature Review

The current literature on public administration leadership reveals an intermittent crisis in the public sphere, making it challenging to define, find and support sufficient leadership. A study by Morariu noted that the current global and domestic recession, coupled with global environmental and natural disasters, sovereign debt crisis, and several armed conflicts, each challenge public administrators’ potential to respond adequately[2]. Inadequate public leadership displayed in many of these crises highlights the significance of understanding effective public leadership’s fundamental facets[3]. For instance, insufficient public leadership was cited as the key contributing factor to inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina that significantly impacted the New Orleans City in Louisiana, leaving 1800 people dead and properties worth over US$120 billion destroyed.[4] The same applied to Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttle Disasters, where inadequate public leadership played a significant role in the poor response. The shortcomings of public leadership also featured instrumentally in the Federal Home Loan Bureau’s role in the latest housing crisis[5].

According to Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing, the primary onslaught of the covid-19 pandemic revealed a crisis in the contemporary public leadership approach. Most political leaders worldwide were in denial of the pandemic’s severity, despite equating it to biological warfare. Public leaders’ rhetoric was not accompanied by immediate and adequate public policy actions, leading several scholars and researchers in various fields, from economic, political science, health, and religion, to observe a deficiency in leadership within a global health crisis. However, some public leaders responded effectively to the pandemic.[6] They were modest and pragmatic and perceived the pandemic’s severity with the seriousness it deserved, acted promptly, and communicated sufficiently with the public. Accordingly, they succeeded to some extent in containing the spread of the covid-19 virus, attaining a rare synergy with followers and agents, which is somehow an exact opposite in the pattern of public leadership in many geographies today.[7]

Some literature notes that despite the record demonstration of the consequences and risks of insufficient public organizations’ leadership capacity, the field of public administration has not copiously incorporated leadership as an essential facet of successful public organization management practice. Historically, the field of public administration has struggled to establish apposite roles of managers and leaders in conducting government affairs. The debate entails the difference between politics, administration, and values as enshrined in the constitutional democracy, which has progressed to the question of accountability and privatization.[8] Nabatchi, observe that there are two contradicting schools of thought concerning public administration scholars’ view on public sector leadership. Those advocating for market-based approach and public interest advocates. Scholars advocating for market-based philosophy argue that the approach will foster accountability and effective delivery of services.[9]

On the one hand, PA scholars advocating for public interest point out the disadvantages of economic individualization, arguing that public administrators should be guided in their actions by the politicians, legislatures, and courts. Irrespective of their philosophical underpinnings, Morariu cautioned that strong public administration leadership poses a hazard to the fundamentals of the democratic process. The author worries that empowered public organization leaders would be vulnerable to moral dangers, including opportunism, shirking, self-promotion, or self-aggrandizement.[10]

Studies on public administration and leadership have also asserted the reluctance to develop and embrace robust leadership models in the field of public administration is mirrored by a wide gap in the development and advancement of public leadership literature and theories.[11]

 In spite of the substantial proof effective leadership is paramount for the success of public sector undertakings, new approaches to public administration leadership literature, cutting across shared, value-based, authentic, and transformational leadership principles and philosophies, are less investigated or applied in the public sector settings.[12] There is less effort in the literature to define better the processes, structures, functions, fundamental tools for effective public administration endeavors, and new public sector leadership approaches.[13]

Crosby and Bryson, in their study, observed that the common thread in modern public administration research concerns the inability of leaders to operate meritoriously in complex environments characterizing the current public service, particularly when confronted with organizational challenges or crises.[14] Nabatchi termed the contemporary complex public sector service environments as “new normalcy,” denoting the modern challenges public leaders are confronted with in their bid to balance the operational primacies with unforeseen emergent needs in settings characterized by an increased emphasis on performance but constrained resources.[15] The traditional approaches to public leadership are ineffective in such environments. Scholars predict that lower-level leadership abilities and a straightforward management approach lack space in the modern public sector setting that demand leaders to establish and support public interests effectively.[16]

Several leadership innovations and ideals have emerged in general management and administrative leadership literature to address emerging demands for effective leadership, which can fit well in public administration leadership.[17] In their study, Kellis and Ran identified three of the emerging leadership innovations and ideas whose application can help address the new challenges faced by contemporary public managers and warrant incorporation into the public administration leadership theory. Such include the fundamental self-governing values of contemporary public leaders; the transformational emphasis on empowering, developing, and retaining top skills; and distributed style of public leadership positions as seen with most of the modern public service sector.[18] Emerging literature in public administration leadership supported by these three doctrines recognizes the progressively more complex interrelationship and structures between and within public organizations, the growing level of complexities, and the increased constraints of democratic systems occasioned by ambiguous goals, which public sector leaders by grapple with every day.[19] Merging the doctrines into one leadership theory can offer a solid footing upon which public administrators can be trained, exercise their leadership, and where the expectations performance standards required for public servants can be based.[20]

            Other leadership literature has continued to dip deeper into the three doctrines mentioned above and their public administration leadership application. Sendjaya et al., in a study, explored the fundamental self-governing values for the contemporary public leaders, which authors simplified as authentic values of public leaders.[21] The authors argued that authentic values constitute the most critical components of public sector leadership.[22] It forms the connection between discretion minus which effective public sector leadership is questionable and accountability is paramount for democracy becomes unlikely.[23] Because leaders operate in a complex and dynamic leadership setting, maintaining the democratic principles of public administration settings requires a negotiation between the Charybdis and the Scylla of accountability and discretion.[24] Discretion is the essence of leadership. However, as the public sector complexity and bureaucracy increases, so is the probability of public leaders abusing their discretionary latitude when confronted with an opportunity to formulate or implement organizational policies that contravene or disregard public interest.[25] However, some researchers argue that leadership discretion in the public sphere may still be harmonious with democratic philosophies where accountability prevails. Passable accountability legitimizes public service, protecting it from destructive behaviors such as corruption and improving overall performance through continuous learning.[26] Nevertheless, access accountability hinders performance as leaders may become so rigid and over-focus on performance for fear of being held accountable.[27]

            Asencio focused on the transformational emphasis on empowering and developing the workforce, which the authors described as the dyadic correlation between organizational leaders and subjects. The principle emphasizes workforce development and enforcing values as described by transformational leadership principles.[28] Transformational leadership is an essential facet of public administration and significantly influences how employees perceive their work and their participation in change efforts and are linked to enhanced performance in private and public sector contexts.[29] Transformational leadership theory combines the tenets of the benefits charisma, traditional-trait leadership with relational leadership often observed ineffective public and private organizations.[30]

            Diamond and Spillane, in their research, explored the distributed and network-style of leadership, predominant with the new public sector organizations. Public sector organizations continue to become complex, incorporating multiple networks, partnerships, different levels of government and departments at any particular time.[31] With such ambiguity and complexity, modern public organizations necessitate new leadership approaches, exceeding traditional hierarchy-based approval of more interactive and collaborative methods.[32] Public administrators increasingly engage in relational and partnership contracts with nonprofit and private organizations, and between and within different government levels, which have equivocal lines of power and accountability.[33] The dynamic networks, partnerships, and contracts surpass political authorities and necessitate leadership beyond which elected leaders may not possess. Leadership in such an environment is distributed and shared between different components’ leaders, ensuring that every leader cooperates within the network to produce organizational change.[34]

Methods

The study entailed a critical assessment of published research work on contemporary public management principles and overall public administration papers. The researcher began by formulating research questions, which identifies the review’s primary objectives. In this regard, the researcher concurred with Paré and Kitsiou, who stated in their study that articulating research questions is an essential ingredient that guides the whole review methodology. Research questions underscore the nature of information required for the study, inform the search and selection of literature, and orient or guide the successive analysis.[35] The second step entailed searching for relevant literature and assessing the relevance of the materials in relation to the research topic area. The third step involved screening both primary and secondary studies for inclusion. As for the primary research materials, the inclusion criteria required the data source to be a reputable organization such as government institutions. Likewise, the inclusion of secondary data required the material to reflect the study topic, meet the scholarly paper’s standards, and is published by a reputable organization. The fourth step entails extracting and analyzing information from the selected study materials.

Results

This literature review found evidence of an intermittent crisis in the current public administration leadership, making it challenging to define, find and support sufficient leadership required for effective public sector management. This study also established that there is an overall reluctance to develop and embrace robust leadership models in the field of public administration. On the positive side, this literature review established developments in general management and public administration developments whose applications could address the currents crises in modern public sector leadership. Three tenants have predominantly emerged in management and public administration literature that can help to address the leadership challenge. Such include authentic values in public leadership, empowering, developing, retaining top talents, and distributed and network-style leadership.

Discussion

The crisis in public administration leadership is predominantly revealed by governments’ inability to respond promptly to crises such as the current covid-19 pandemic, which posed a challenge to nations at its onset. The public sector leadership’s inability to respond to and manage crises is exacerbated by the increased complexity of the public service and failure to draw a line between public sector management’s administrative and political components. There is increasing complexity in contemporary organizations, with repercussions for both private, nonprofit, and public sectors globally. Public organizations are becoming more complex and hybrid in an attempt to address numerous and often conflicting structures, ideas, considerations, demands, and cultural components simultaneously.[36]

One reason for this complexity is the accelerated pace of institutionalizing administrative guidelines and implementing various contemporary public service sector reforms in modern democratic institutions.[37] The reform waves are a reaction to traditional public administration problems and challenges, while the post-reform waves are partly reactions to adverse effects of some of these changes, creating complex sedimentation in the public sector that sometimes makes it challenging for leaders to respond effectively. The complexity in the public sector is also exacerbated by incorporating multiple networks, partnerships, different levels of government and departments at any particular time.[38] The dynamic networks, partnerships, and contracts common in the modern public sector surpass political authorities and necessitate leadership and expertise beyond which elected leaders do not possess. However, there is a thin line between administration and politics in the public sector. Most of the public sector decisions are made by politicians who may not have the necessary expertise needed, hence causing the leadership crisis.[39] More development in public administration leadership alongside emerging doctrines such as authentic values in public leadership, empowering, developing, retaining top talents, and distributed and network leadership styles can help address some of the challenges in modern public sector leadership.

Conclusion

This literature review has focused primarily on the effective modern leadership principles for public administration. The study establishes a leadership crisis in the public sector management exacerbated by the increasing complexity of public administrations and the thin line between administration and politics. The public administration profession has also failed to perceive and incorporate leadership as an essential facet of successful public organization management practice despite the crises. However, researchers are beginning to develop innovative ideas to address the leadership crisis in the public sector. These include incorporating authentic values in public leadership, empowering, developing, retaining top talents, and distributing and network-style leadership.

Future Research

Future research should focus on the relationship between politics and administration in the public sector and how the two facets can be integrated to enhance effectiveness.

References

Ansell, Christopher, Eva Sørensen, and Jacob Torfing. “The COVID-19 pandemic as a game-changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems.” Public Management Review (2020): 1-12.

Asencio, Hugo. “Leadership, trust, and job satisfaction in the public sector: A study of US federal employees.” International Review of Public Administration 21, no. 3 (2016): 250-267.

Boin, Arjen, PAUL’ T. HART, Allan McConnell, and Thomas Preston. “Leadership style, crisis response, and blame management: The case of Hurricane Katrina.” Public Administration 88, no. 3 (2010): 706-723.

Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. “Why leadership of public leadership research matters: and what to do about it.” Public Management Review 20, no. 9 (2018): 1265-1286.

Diamond, John B., and James P. Spillane. “School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective.” Management in Education 30, no. 4 (2016): 147-154.

Hovik, Sissel, and Gro Sandkjaer Hanssen. “The impact of network management and complexity on multi‐level coordination.” Public Administration 93, no. 2 (2015): 506-523.

Kellis, Dana S., and Bing Ran. “Modern leadership principles for public administration: Time to move forward.” Journal of Public Affairs 13, no. 1 (2013): 130-141.

Lægreid, Per, Külli Sarapuu, Lise H. Rykkja, and Tiina Randma-Liiv. “New coordination challenges in the welfare state.” (2015): 927-939.

Morariu, Alunica. “The Substantiation of the Public Administrative Systems Configuration on the Principles of Modern Management.” In 2nd International Conference on Economics, Business and Management, IPEDR. Singapore: IACSIT Press, vol. 22, pp. 148-153. 2011.

Nabatchi, Tina. “Public values frames in administration and governance.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1, no. 1 (2018): 59-72.

Paré, Guy, and Spyros Kitsiou. “Methods for literature reviews.” In Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. University of Victoria, 2017.

Schillemans, Thomas. “Managing public accountability: How public managers manage public accountability.” International journal of public administration 38, no. 6 (2015): 433-441.

Senate, U. S. “Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared. Special Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate Together with Additional Views.” In 109th Congress, 2nd Session, Report S. Rept. 109-322. 2006.

Sendjaya, Sen, Andre Pekerti, Charmine Härtel, Giles Hirst, and Ivan Butarbutar. “Are authentic leaders always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and morality.” Journal of Business Ethics 133, no. 1 (2016): 125-139.

Tuan, Luu Trong. “How servant leadership nurtures knowledge sharing: The mediating role of public service motivation.” International Journal of Public Sector Management (2016).

---

[1] Tuan, Luu Trong. “How servant leadership nurtures knowledge sharing: The mediating role of public service motivation.” International Journal of Public Sector Management (2016).

[2] Morariu, Alunica. “The Substantiation of the Public Administrative Systems Configuration on the Principles of Modern Management.” In 2nd International Conference on Economics, Business and Management, IPEDR. Singapore: IACSIT Press, vol. 22, pp. 148-153. 2011.

[3] Morariu, Alunica, p 151

[4] Senate, U. S. “Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared. Special Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate Together with Additional Views.” In 109th Congress, 2nd Session, Report S. Rept. 109-322. 2006.

[5] “Boin, Arjen, PAUL ‘T. HART, Allan McConnell, and Thomas Preston. ”Leadership style, crisis response and blame management: The case of Hurricane Katrina.” Public Administration 88, no. 3 (2010): 706-723.”

[6] “Ansell, Christopher, Eva Sørensen, and Jacob Torfing.”The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems.” Public Management Review (2020): 1-12.”

[7] Ansell, Sørensen and Torfing, p 9

[8] Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. “Why leadership of public leadership research matters: and what to do about it.” Public Management Review 20, no. 9 (2018): 1265-1286.

[9] Morariu, Alunica, p 148

[10] Morariu, Alunica, p 148

[11] Nabatchi, Tina, p 61

[12] Nabatchi, Tina, p 67

[13] Morariu, Alunica, p 150

[14] Crosby and Bryson p 1276.

[15] Nabatchi, Tina, p 71

[16] Crosby and Bryson, p 1267

[17] Crosby and Bryson, p 1271

[18] Kellis, Dana S., and Bing Ran. “Modern leadership principles for public administration: Time to move forward.” Journal of Public Affairs 13, no. 1 (2013): 130-141.

[19] Nabatchi, Tina, p 66

[20] Nabatchi, Tina, p 68

[21] Sendjaya, Sen, Andre Pekerti, Charmine Härtel, Giles Hirst, and Ivan Butarbutar. “Are authentic leaders always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and morality.” Journal of Business Ethics 133, no. 1 (2016): 125-139.

[22] Sendjaya et al., p 127

[23] Sendjaya et al., p128

[24] Sendjaya et al., p 129

[25] Sendjaya et al., p 126

[26] Schillemans, Thomas. “Managing public accountability: How public managers manage public accountability.” International journal of public administration 38, no. 6 (2015): 433-441.

[27] Sendjaya et al., 130

[28] Asencio, Hugo. “Leadership, trust, and job satisfaction in the public sector: A study of US federal employees.” International Review of Public Administration 21, no. 3 (2016): 250-267.

[29] Asencio, Hugo, p 257

[30] Asencio, Hugo, p 262

[31]Diamond, John B., and James P. Spillane. “School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective.” Management in Education 30, no. 4 (2016): 147-154.

[32] Diamond and Spillane, p 149

[33] Diamond and Spillane, p 151

[34] Diamond and Spillane, p 152

[35] Paré, Guy, and Spyros Kitsiou. “Methods for literature reviews.” In Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. University of Victoria, 2017.

[36] Lægreid, Per, Külli Sarapuu, Lise H. Rykkja, and Tiina Randma-Liiv. “New coordination challenges in the welfare state.” (2015): 927-939.

[37] Hovik, Sissel, and Gro Sandkjaer Hanssen. “The impact of network management and complexity on multi‐level coordination.” Public Administration 93, no. 2 (2015): 506-523.

[38] Fossestøl, Knut, Eric Breit, Tone Alm Andreassen, and Lars Klemsdal. “Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: Hybridization in front‐line service organizations.” Public administration 93, no. 2 (2015): 290-306.

[39] Diamond and Spillane, p 151