Due 10/3 4 p.m EST500 words not including min 3 ref APAOnce again, this PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERSHIP"For this Discussion, review the article by Fernandez, Cho (ATTACHED). Consider some of the strengths

Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public

sector performance

Sergio Fernandez a,⁎, Yoon Jik Cho b, James L. Perry a

aIndiana University, Bloomington, United StatesbGeorgia State University, United States

article info abstract

This study develops the concept of integrated leadership in the public sector. Integrated

leadership is conceived as the combination ofﬁve leadership roles that are performed

collectively by employees and managers at different levels of the hierarchy. The leadership

roles are task-, relations-, change-, diversity-, and integrity-oriented leadership. Using data

from the Federal Human Capital Survey and Program Assessment Rating Tool, we analyze the

relationship between integrated leadership and federal program performance. Theﬁndings

from the empirical analysis indicate that integrated leadership has a positive and sizeable effect

on the performance of federal sub-agencies. The study concludes with a discussion of the

implications of theﬁndings and limitations of the study.

Public sector leadership

Integrated leadership

Shared leadership

Performance

For nearly a century, scholars have labored to understand leadership and its inﬂuence on subordinates and organizations.

Despite the proliferation of leadership theories and empirical studies, scholars continue to lament our weak understanding of

leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Van Wart, 2005; Yukl, 2002). The need for rigorous empirical research on leadership is

particularly acute in public administration, where little research on the topic is reported in the journals (Van Wart, 2003; notable

exceptions includeFernandez, 2005, 2008; Moynihan & Ingraham, 2004; Trottier, Van Wart, & Wang, 2008). The dearth of research

is more startling given the investments public organizations make in leadership development and the emphasis placed on

performance management and improvement, including the federal Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

Throughout most of its history, the study of leadership has been characterized by disparate clusters of theories, approaches and

models, each focusing on different pieces of the leadership puzzle, with few efforts at synthesis and integration. More recently,

however, leadership scholars have begun to develop and test integrated leadership models that synthesize existing knowledge

regarding leadership effectiveness (e.g.,Fernandez, 2005; Hunt, 1991; Van Wart, 2005; Yukl, 2002). These models incorporate

leadership skills, traits, behaviors and styles along with situational and moderating variables in uniﬁed theoretical models to

explain leadership effectiveness.

The recent emergence of shared leadership theory represents another effort by leadership scholars to seek integration, but one

of a different kind. Challenging the traditional paradigm in leadership theory that favors top-down inﬂuence and views leadership

as a role performed by an individual, these scholars have argued for the need to treat leadership as a shared endeavor broadly

distributed among members of organizations, networks or communities (Crosby & Bryson, 2005; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce,

2006; Hiller, Day, & Vance, 2006; Meindl, 1990; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2000, 2002). AsFletcher and Kaüfer (2003)

explain,“New models conceptualize leadership as a more relational process, a shared or distributed phenomenon occurring at

different levels and dependent on social interactions and networks of inﬂuence”(p. 21).

The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323

⁎Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 812 325 0981; fax: +1 812 855 7802.

E-mail address:[email protected](S. Fernandez).

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.009

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua This study makes two contributions to the emerging research on integrated and shared leadership. First, the concept of integrated

leadership in the public sector is developed inductively from the leadership, generic management and public administration

literatures. Integrated leadership in the public sector, as conceived in this study, involves the integration ofﬁve leadership roles

performed collectively by team leaders, supervisors, managers, and senior executives in public organizations. Second, the

relationship between integrated leadership and performance in the public sector is explored by capitalizing on two recent

initiatives in the U.S. federal government—the Federal Human Capital Surveys and the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART,

scores—to understand and improve the management and performance of federal agencies. Theﬁndings from the empirical

analysis indicate that integrated leadership has a positive and sizeable effect on the performance of federal agencies. The study

concludes with a discussion of the implications of theﬁndings and limitations of the study.

1. Management and leadership

Much has been written about the distinction between management and leadership.Mintzberg's (1972)well-known

classiﬁcation of managerial roles lists“leading”employees as one of only ten roles played by managers.Bennis and Nanus (1985)

stated,“Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing”(p. 21). Writing in a similar vein,

Kotter (1982)asserted that management is about coping with complexity, particularly by setting goals and plans, organizing and

stafﬁng, and solving problems and monitoring results, while leadership involves coping with organizational change by developing

a vision and strategy for change, communicating the vision, and motivating employees to attain it. Notwithstanding these

conceptual distinctions, we oftenﬁnd in practice that the distinction between management and leadership becomes blurred. Not

all managers are leaders, but many of them are. Mintzberg's other managerial roles such as the spokesperson and entrepreneur are

often played by leaders performing the boundary spanning role. Additionally, the Ohio State University and University of Michigan

leadership studies indicated that leadership in part entails the task-oriented behavior ascribed to managers by Kotter.

The distinction between leadership and management is blurred even further when we examine and compare the leadership

and management literatures. Much like the former, the latter focuses on how the behavior and strategies of top managers and

leaders enable employees to achieve goals at the individual, group, and/or organizational level (seeBoyne, 2003).Meier and

O'Toole (2001, 2002), for example, found that managerial quality and networking efforts of public school superintendents

improved performance. Recent research on managerial strategy in the public sector (e.g.,Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2006; Meier

et al., 2007) has found that aggressive strategies aimed at exploiting opportunities in the external environment can be as effective

as change-oriented leadership behavior when it comes to improving organizational effectiveness (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991;

Fernandez, 2008). Various other aspects of management that have been linked to organizational effectiveness in the public sector—

including goal setting, motivating employees, and shaping organizational culture (seeBrewer & Selden, 2000; Rainey & Steinbauer,

1999)—also have their counterparts in leadership behavior research (seeBass, 1990). In short, the distinction between

management and leadership remains a conceptual knot that is difﬁcult to untangle.

2. Trends in leadership research

Several trends in the evolution of leadership research are discussed as a way to illuminate key ideas shaping our analysis of

integrated leadership in the public sector. The three trends are simultaneous growth and balkanization of leadership research;

efforts to integrate independent strands of leadership theory; and re-conceptualizing leadership as a shared or collective process.

2.1. Growth and balkanization

The earliest attempt to systematically study leadership focused on the search for personal attributes and traits of successful

leaders (seeBoyatzis, 1982; McClelland, 1965, 1985; Stogdill, 1948). Failure to identify a common set of attributes and traits linked

to leadership effectiveness led researchers at Ohio State University (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons,

1957) and the University of Michigan (Katz, Macoby, & Morse, 1950; Katz & Katz, 1960) during the 1950s and 1960s to shift the

focus of research from leadership traits to the behavior of effective leaders. These efforts resulted in the identiﬁcation of two broad

categories of leadership behavior: task-oriented and relations-oriented behavior. Numerous empirical studies produced weak and

inconsistentﬁndings (Bass, 1990; Fisher & Edwards, 1988; Yukl, 2002), the most consistent ones being that relations-oriented and

task-oriented behavior are positively correlated with job satisfaction and performance, respectively.

Leadership research branched off in many directions during the latter part of the twentieth century. Among the most

prominent approaches emerging during that period were contingency theories of leadership, dyadic theories of leadership, and

charismatic and transformational leadership. Various situational and contingency theories were developed to explain how

situational variables moderate the inﬂuence of leadership attributes and behavior on performance. These contingency theories,

which have often received mixed or weak empirical support (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002), includeFiedler's (1967)least preferred co-

worker (LPC) contingency model; the path–goal theory of leadership (House, 1971); cognitive resources theory (Fiedler, 1986;

Fiedler & Garcia, 1987); the multiple linkage model (Yukl, 1989); leadership substitute theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), and Hersey

and Blanchard's situational leadership theory (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2000).

Dyadic theories of leadership, including leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, have focused on the vertical relationship that

develops between a leader and a follower (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987;

Gerstner & Day, 1997; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Researchers have found that high-exchange relationships

309 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 characterized by high levels of mutual trust and reciprocity between superior and subordinate are related to higher levels of

support for the leader, enhanced mutual communication, and higher subordinate commitment and performance (Gerstner & Day,

1997; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Scholars focusing on charismatic and transformational leadership have explored the use of

charisma, emotional appeals, and symbols and culture by leaders to motivate their followers (Bass, 1985;Bass & Avolio, 1990;

Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Burns, 1978; House, 1977; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Inﬂuenced by Weber's original work on

charismatic leaders transformational leadership research has produced promising empiricalﬁndings, although progress has been

slowed by difﬁculty establishing causal relationships and lack of clarity about its impact in different situations (Bryman, 1993;

Yukl, 1999).

2.2. Integrated leadership theories

Advancements in leadership research have been hindered by balkanization into the clusters of theories discussed above and,

until recently, scholars made few attempts to integrate the theories. During the last decade, however, scholars have begun to

develop and test leadership models and frameworks that integrate elements from earlier approaches.Van Wart (2003)asserted

that to advance understanding of public sector leadership, scholars should begin to develop and test comprehensive leadership

models that integrate transactional and transformational elements and that account for various situational variables inherent in

the public context (p. 225). In his leadership action cycle model, leadership is treated as a linear chain of causally-related factors,

with the choice of optimal leadership style contingent on various internal and external organizational conditions (Van Wart,

2005). In addition, the effect of a particular leadership style on performance is moderated by the personal attributes and skills of a

leader.Yukl's (2002)integrative leadership framework incorporates leadership skills, traits, behaviors and styles, and situational

variables in a single theoretical model to explain the effectiveness of a leader (see alsoFernandez, 2005; Hunt, 1991).Doig and

Hargrove (1990)assert that a public sector leader's skills, abilities, personality, and style interact with situational variables to

determine success. Speciﬁcally, skills and abilities have to match the task at hand and must be complemented by favorable

conditions (i.e., favorable public opinion, political support and public demand). Similarly,Ricucci (1995)found that political,

managerial and leadership skills, experience, technical expertise, managerial style and personality all contribute to leadership

effectiveness; however, to be most effective, leaders have to receive strong political support and ample resources, in addition to

being assigned to tasks that match their skills and abilities (see alsoSvara, 1994).

Many of the works just mentioned are important contributions to our understanding of public sector leadership, inasmuch as

they represent theﬁrst serious efforts by scholars to integrate elements of different leadership theories and approaches into a

single theoretical framework. Most of the empirical tests of these integrated models have been limited, however, by small sample

sizes and concerns about their generalizability (Fernandez, 2005). There remains the need for additional theoretical development

and empirical validation of integrated leadership models in the public sector.

2.3. Shared leadership

The emergence of the concept variously labeled shared, distributed, or dispersed leadership represents another approach by which

leadership scholars have sought integration (Crosby & Bryson, 2005; Ensley et al., 2006; Ensley, Pearson, & Pearce, 2003; Gronn, 2002;

Hiller et al., 2006; O'Toole, Galbraith, & Lawler, 2002; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2000,2002; Seers, Keller, & Wilkerson,

2003). Rather than integrating variables or disparate strands of leadership theory, these scholars propose a more radical change to the

unit of analysis in leadership research (Gronn, 2002). They propose re-conceptualizing leadership as a role performed by various

organizational members operating at multiple levels of the hierarchy.Fletcher and Kaüfer (2003)argue that in contrast to the

traditional individual-level perspective on leadership,“shared leadership offers a concept of leadership practice as a group-level

phenomenon”(p. 22). They include among the key characteristics of new models of shared leadership a set of practices“enacted”by

people at all levels of the organization; an emphasis on leadership as a social process that is dynamic, collective, and multidirectional;

and a focus on relational interactions that promote mutual learning.Pearce and Conger (2003)conceive shared leadership as“broadly

distributed among a set of individuals instead of centralized in the hands of a single individual who acts in the role of a superior”(p. 1).

They note that while leadership scholarsﬂirted with the notion of shared leadership and laid the theoretical foundation for it over the

course of several decades, it was not until the late 1990s that the concept of shared leadership came to be viewed as a legitimate

approach to understanding leadership and its consequences for organizations.

Studies point to shared leadership in teams as having a positive inﬂuence on team performance (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007;

Ensley et al., 2003).Ensley et al. (2006) and Pearce and Sims (2002)compared vertical with shared leadership in top-management

teams and found both approaches to be effective, although the effect of shared leadership outweighed that of vertical leadership.

Shared leadership also appears to be an important antecedent of group cohesion and collective vision (Ensley et al., 2003).

3. Integrated leadership in the public sector

From the leadership and public administration literatures, we develop the concept of integrated leadership, which incorporates

ﬁve leadership roles essential for the success of leaders in the public sector: task-oriented leadership; relations-oriented

leadership; change-oriented leadership; diversity-oriented leadership; and integrity-oriented leadership. The selection of theﬁrst

three leadership roles is inﬂuenced by the Ohio State University and University of Michigan leadership studies,Yukl, Gordon, and

Taber's (2002)integrated framework, and by the work ofEkvall and Arvonen (1991) and Lindell and Rosenqvist (1992a,b), who

310S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 expanded upon the Ohio State leadership studies by identifying a third category of effective leadership behavior—development- or

change-oriented behavior. The other two roles are derived from contemporary public management research that attests to their

importance as theoretical constructs and as patterns of behavior associated with effective leadership. In addition to integrating

across streams of leadership theory, our integrated approach conceives the unit of analysis as thecollectiveefforts and behaviors of

public managers operating at multiple levels of the organization and in positions granting some degree of formal authority over

subordinates. Speciﬁcally, theﬁve roles are shared by team leaders, supervisors, managers, and senior executives in federal

agencies; they are not consolidated in the hands of a single person at the top of the hierarchy.

Task-oriented leadershipinvolves the kinds of leadership behavior that express a concern for accomplishing the goals of the

group and that are aimed at deﬁning and organizing the group's activities. Task-oriented behaviors include setting and

communicating goals and performance standards; planning, directing and coordinating the activities of subordinates; maintaining

clear channels of communication; monitoring compliance with procedures and goal achievement; and providing feedback. As one

expert explains,“Successful task-oriented leaders are instrumental in contributing to their groups' effectiveness by setting goals,

allocating labor, and enforcing sanctions. They initiate structure for their followers, deﬁne the roles of others, explain what to do

and why, establish well-deﬁned patterns of organization and channels of communication, and determine the ways to accomplish

assignments”(Bass, 1990, p. 472).

Relations-oriented leadershipinvolves leadership behavior that reﬂects concern for the welfare of subordinates and a desire to

foster good interpersonal relations among organizational members. Among the many relations-oriented behaviors identiﬁed by

leadership researchers are treating subordinates as equals, showing concern for their well-being, appreciating and recognizing

their work, providing them with opportunities for personal growth, and involving them in the decision-making process. Relations-

oriented behavior overlaps with participative leadership to the extent that both aim to give subordinates inﬂuence over important

decisions made in the organization (Likert, 1967; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Participative leadership, however, appears to be only

one component—namely, the employee empowerment component—of a broader set of relations-oriented behaviors aimed at

promoting the well-being of workers. Relations-oriented behavior fosters a harmonious and emotionally supportive work

environment that contributes to higher levels of employee job satisfaction and motivation, two variables that have been linked to

higher performance. Relations-oriented leadership also contributes to performance by creating open channels of communication,

increasing personal responsibility among subordinates, and contributing to subordinate commitment to the leader and the

organization.

The third leadership role,change-oriented leadership, represents leadership behavior that“is primarily concerned with

improving strategic decisions; adapting to change in the environment; increasingﬂexibility and innovation; making major

changes in processes, products, or services; and gaining commitment to the changes”(Yukl, 2002, p. 65). The literature suggests

that change-oriented behavior affects organizational performance in at least three fundamental ways. Leaders who engage in

change-oriented behavior can increase performance by making their organizations more adaptive and responsive to the external

environment (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991). Change-oriented leaders may be more effective at identifying the most promising strategic

initiatives for their organizations. Finally, change-oriented behavior can encourage employees to search for creative solutions to

problems facing the organization. Change-oriented leadership appears to have much in common with transformational leadership

(Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990), both with their emphasis on fostering change in the lives of employees and their organizations.

They seem to depart to some degree, however, in the extent to which they rely on instrumental means for achieving change, with

transformational leadership placing greater emphasis on emotional appeals and manipulation of symbols and culture to motivate

subordinates and less emphasis on extrinsic rewards.

In the public sector, managing organizational change has become a critical contingency (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Light,

1998). Public managers have come under increasing pressure toﬁnd more efﬁcient and effective methods of delivering

services and implementing managerial reforms adopted by elected ofﬁcials.Ekvall and Arvonen (1991)found that change-

oriented leadership was positively correlated with the leader's level of competence or effectiveness (see alsoLindell &

Rosenqvist, 1992a,b

). This type of leadership behavior has also been linked to improved performance in public organizations

(Fernandez, 2008).

Diversity-oriented leadershipis the fourth role that makes up integrated leadership. As research about the diversity-

performance linkage suggests, the relationships between diversity and performance are complex and cannot be conceived simply

as“diversity equals better performance”(Richard, Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick, 2004). Diversity-performance research, which is

focused primarily on business settings, has been hard pressed to identify positive relationships, particularly related to racial and

demographic diversity (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Kochan et al., 2003; Webber & Donahue, 2001). In one of the few public sector

studies,Pitts (2005)found signiﬁcant but inconsistent relationships for managers and teachers between diversity and

representation across different performance indicators in Texas public schools. Despite the dearth of public sector research,

leaders in public settings who appreciate and understand diversity are likely to reap several advantages from it. One way in which

leadership sensitive to diversity can generate performance beneﬁts is by increasing the quality of decisions. Organizations and

groups that can tap diverse workforces and constituencies are likely to reap dividends in terms of ideas generated, quality of the

assessment of options, and decision acceptance.McLeod, Lobel, and Cox (1996)found in a controlled experimental brainstorming

study, for instance, that the ideas produced by ethnically diverse groups were judged to be of higher quality than the ideas

produced by homogeneous groups. Integrative leaders who are attentive to diversity also create potential for enhancing value for

the organization through the human capital represented by the skills, experience and knowledge of diverse stakeholders (Barney

& Wright, 1998). The centrality of diversity inRichard Florida's (2002)analysis of competitive advantages of communities reﬂects

the logic of the value creation dimension of diversity.

311 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 Theﬁnal leadership role isintegrity-oriented leadership. The institutionalized and politicized environments in which public

managers operate impose strong demands for legality, fairness, and equitable treatment of employees and service recipients

(Rainey, 2003). The U.S. Ofﬁce of Personnel Management (OPM) has identiﬁed integrity as one of theﬁve fundamental

competencies prerequisite for entry to the Senior Executive Service (SES) (OPM, 2006). Federal managers also identiﬁed integrity

as the most important competence among the 26 speciﬁc competences required for the SES (National Academy of Public

Administration, 2003). Research on organizational justice provides theoretical support for the positive effect of integrity on

performance. SinceAdams' (1965)equity theory, many scholars have emphasized the importance of fairness within organizations

as a factor enhancing employee motivation. A meta-analysis reveals that fair practices within organizations determine the quality

of individuals' life within organizations as well as organizational performance (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).

There has been virtually no research, however, on the effect of integrity-oriented leadership on performance in the public sector.

4. Methodology

This study tests the hypothesis that integrated leadership has a positive effect on organizational performance in the public

sector. Below are descriptions of the variables, data and methods used to test this hypothesis. The unit of analysis is the U.S. federal

sub-agency.

4.1. Dependent variable

The dependent variable,PART results, is the federal sub-agency's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) score on the“Results”

component of the overall PART score for 2006–2007.

1PART was established by the Bush Administration in 2002, with

responsibility for its implementation assigned to the U.S. Ofﬁce of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB assigns PART scores at

the program level, a different unit of analysis than the federal sub-agency.

2In any given year, multiple programs within a single

sub-agency may be evaluated and rated by OMB. This required us to develop a methodology for aggregating program PART results

scores to calculate a sub-agency's score. Because programs vary greatly in terms of their budgets and social impact, simply

averaging the scores of the programs belonging to a sub-agency to derive its PART results score does not seemﬁtting. Instead, for

each sub-agency, we weighed its various programs' PART scores by the corresponding program budget and then summed the

weighted program scores to come up with the sub-agency score.

Although some scholars have raised concerns about whether PART scores are sufﬁciently accurate, consistent, and objective

(Radin, 2006), this measure of organizational performance offers several advantages to researchers. First, PART scores can be used

to compare performance across the entire range of federal agencies. Second, as external measures of performance based at least in

part on observable behavior and information gathered from archival data, PART scores should be less subjective than perceptual

measures based on survey responses from internal participants. Even external and“objective”measures of performance like these,

however, introduce some degree of subjectivity and should be interpreted with care (seeWalker & Boyne, 2006). Finally, the use of

PART scores helps minimize common source bias, since the independent variable is measured using a different source of data.

4.2. Independent variable

The independent variable isintegrated leadership. To construct a measure of this construct, survey items from the 2006 Federal

Human Capital Survey (FHCS) were used that asked employees and managers to report on the behavior of and attitudes towards

superiors at multiple levels of the organizational hierarchy, including low level supervisors and team leaders, managers, and senior

executives. These survey items represent organizational members' perceptions of leadership distributed across their organizations

without reference to a solo or focused leader (Gronn, 2002).

Multiple ordinal survey items were used to measure theﬁve leadership roles described above as making up the construct of

integrated leadership (seeAppendix A). A higher-order conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the

discriminant and convergent validity of thisﬁve-dimensional deﬁnition of integrated leadership. As seen inFig. 1, each of the

survey items loaded strongly and in the anticipated direction on the corresponding factor (i.e., leadership role) (p< 0.001). Those

ﬁve factors, in turn, have strong positive correlations with a higher-order factor representing the underlying construct of

integrated leadership (p< 0.001). These results suggest that there areﬁve distinct dimensions to integrated leadership, thus

demonstrating discriminant validity.

3Additionally, the strong correlations between each of theﬁve dimensions and the higher-

order factor offer evidence of convergent validity.

1The overall PART score for a federal program is made up of four weighted components:“Program Purpose and Design”(20%);“Planning”(10%);

“Management”(20%); and“Results”(50%) (OMB, 2007). OMB ofﬁcials evaluate each component of the PART and assign a rating ranging from 0 to 100. Only the

“Results”component of PART is used in this study since it directly pertains to performance, while the other components capture aspects of management or

leadership, the main predictor in the multivariate analysis.

2The term sub-agency refers to two kinds of organizations: a bureau, embedded in a cabinet-level department or large independent agency, or a smaller

independent agency.

3Scales to measure theﬁve leadership roles were created from theﬁve groupings of survey items shown in Appendix A. The Cronbach's alphas for these scales

range from 0.76 (change-oriented leadership) to 0.86 (task- and relations-oriented leadership), indicating moderate to strong levels of internalreliability. 312S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 The statistics for several goodness-of-ﬁt indices support aﬁve-dimensional model of integrated leadership. The statistics for

the comparativeﬁt index (CFI), which is minimally affected by sample size, was 0.91, indicating a goodﬁt for theﬁve factor model

(Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999). The normedﬁt index (NFI) statistic of 0.91 and the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) of 0.09 both point to an acceptableﬁt for theﬁve-factor model (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Complex models are more

likely to generate betterﬁt statistics than parsimonious ones. It is recommended, therefore, that models be subjected to goodness-

of-ﬁt measures that penalize for lack of parsimony. The model with aﬁve-dimensional structure has parsimony ratio (PRATIO) and

parsimony normedﬁt index (PNFI) statistics of 0.71 and 0.66, both of which are indicative of a reasonably parsimoniousﬁt.

In contrast to this evidence favoring aﬁve-dimensional model of integrated leadership, the CFA results reject a model with a

one-factor structure (i.e., a one-dimensional model). The CFI and NFI statistics for a one-dimensional model fail to reach the 0.90

cutoff point; both are 0.85. And the RMSEA statistic (0.11) is above the conventional cutoff for an adequate modelﬁt (Schumacker

& Lomax, 2004). In addition, a comparison of theﬁve-dimensional and one-dimensional models based on their Akaike information

criterion (AIC) statistics favors the former over the latter. The AIC statistic for theﬁve-dimensional model (211,170.558) is

considerably lower than the AIC statistic for the one-factor model (422,210.921), indicating a signiﬁcantly better modelﬁt

(Burnham & Anderson, 2004).

Since the focus of the analysis is on the effect of integrated leadership on performance (and not on the effects of the separate

leadership roles), a summated rating scale was created for each survey respondent based on all the survey items used to measure

the leadership roles. The unweighted sub-agency average on this respondent-level scale serves as the measure ofintegrated

leadership(Cronbach's alpha = 0.95). The scale was standardized to make interpretation of the results straightforward.

4.3. Control variables

The analysis includes control variables for politicization, organizational complexity, and sub-agency type and budget. To

control for the level of politicization in the sub-agency, the model includes the variable percentage of political appointees in a sub-

agency.

5A more politicized environment can place conﬂicting demands on an organization's members, compelling them to

perform effectively, but also remaining politically responsive to the President, Congress, and other political institutions. Trade-offs

between effectiveness and political responsiveness in order to balance these competing expectations may result in lower

performance (Moe, 1985).Lewis's (2008)recent analysis, based on the same sources of data used in this study, provides

compelling evidence of the negative effect of politicization on federal agency performance.

A common approach to measuring organizational complexity involves the amount of heterogeneity among occupational

categories in organizations. To measure such heterogeneity, a Blau index used in research on ethnic diversity (Pitts, 2005)in

4The chi square test results reject theﬁve-factor model (p< 0.01). Large sample sizes like the one used in this CFA (n= 221,479) are much more likely to result

in Type II errors.Garson (2009)suggests, therefore, discounting the chi square results if otherﬁt statistics support the model.

5Five types of political appointments were considered: permanent non-career senior executive service (SES); non-permanent non-career SES; non-permanent

Schedule C; permanent executive; and non-permanent executive. Data on these different types of political appointments were gathered from OPM's FedScope

database.

Fig. 1.Higher-order conﬁrmatory factor analysis.313 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 organizations was constructed using OPM data on the number of sub-agency employees in the following six categories:

professional, administrative, technical, clerical, other white collar, and blue collar. Because six categories are used, the range of the

index is from zero (perfect homogeneity) to 0.833 (same number of employees for all six categories). Higher values are indicative

of greater organizational complexity. A dummy variable for whether the sub-agency is an independent agency versus a bureau in a

cabinet agency (independent agency coded“1”) is also included in the model. Finally, the model controls for the amount of

resources available to these agencies, measured as the sub-agency's budget in 2006, in millions of dollars. Financial, human, and

informational resources are expected to have a positive effect on organizational performance (O'Toole & Meier, 1999; Rainey,

2003; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). The budget variable is, therefore, expected to be positively correlated with the dependent

variable.

4.4. Data and statistical methods

The primary sources of data were the Ofﬁce of Personnel Management's 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) andOfﬁce

of Management and Budget's (OMB) 2006 and 2007PART results scores. The 2006 FHCS was administered to 390,657 federal

employees in sixty major federal agencies, with 221,479 completing the survey (57% response rate). The construct of integrated

leadership represents the sharing of the leadership role among organizational members working at all levels of the hierarchy.

Theory compels us, therefore, to use data from all respondents to the 2006 FHCS, including—from lowest to highest on the

hierarchy—non-supervisors, team leaders, supervisors, managers, and executives. Aggregating multiple informant surveys in this

way raises questions regarding the representativeness and comparability of the data (Enticott, Boyne, & Walker, 2009). The

methodology used by OPM to collect the 2006 FHCS should, however, assuage such concerns. OPM drew statistically valid samples

for agencies and sub-agencies in order to generate results representative ofbothindividual sub-agencies and the overall federal

workforce. These samples were typically larger than 1500 employees,

6and they were stratiﬁed by theﬁve hierarchical levels listed

above. Supervisors, managers, and executives are somewhat over-represented due to the stratiﬁed sampling technique used.

However, this should help to correct for the bias that often occurs from having a disproportionate share of lower level respondents

to such surveys (seeEnticott et al., 2009, p. 233).

Sub-agency employment and budget data were obtained from OPM and OMB, respectively. Merging the different data sources

results in a sample of 97 federal government sub-agencies. Ordinal least squares (OLS) regression is used to test the model. The

descriptive statistics for all the variables are shown inTable 1. The dependent variablePART resultshas a roughly normal

distribution, with a mean slightly above 54 and a standard deviation of about 22.Integrated leadership, measured using a

standardized summated rating scale, exhibits an adequate amount of variance for undertaking the statistical analysis. The mean

percent of political appointees was around 1%, aﬁgure in line with the overall percent for the federal bureaucracy, although a

handful of sub-agencies had around 10% or more political appointees in the workforce. Also noteworthy is that the sample of sub-

agencies used in the study consists mostly of sub-agencies within cabinet-level departments; only 25% of the sub-agencies belong

to independent federal agencies.

5. Results

We begin by examining sub-agency scores on theintegrated leadershipandPART resultsvariables (seeTables 2 and 3). The

ordering of sub-agencies by their scores on the variableintegrated leadershipreveals some interesting patterns. Among the

observations with higher leadership scores are a sizeable number of sub-agencies within the Department of Defense, Department

of Justice, and the Environmental Protection Agency. All eight Department of Defense sub-agencies in the sample have scores

above the medianintegrated leadershipscore, and three of the topﬁfteen leadership scores belong to Department of Justice sub-

agencies. Five out of the six Environmental Protection Agency's sub-agencies in the sample are at or above the medianintegrated

leadershipscore. Interestingly, the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration, two agencies that have undergone

signiﬁcant organizational change in response to harsh public criticism, rank among the top ten sub-agencies in leadership. A

concentration of sub-agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health

6Many of the smallest sub-agencies had all employees surveyed.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics.

Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

PART results 97 54.16 21.83 5.50 94.70

Integrated leadership 97 0.04 0.21 0.59 0.43

Percent political appointees 97 0.78 1.95 0 16.36

Organizational complexity 97 0.54 0.16 0.04 0.79

Independent agency (coded 1) 97 0.25 0.43 0 1

Budget 97 10,917 54,594 4 499,457 314S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 Table 2

Federal sub-agency rankings by standardized integrated leadership scores.

Source: 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, U.S. Ofﬁce of Personnel Management.

Sub-agencyCabinet department or independent agency Leadership

U.S. Visit OfﬁceDepartment of Homeland Security 0.43

Internal Revenue Service Department of Treasury 0.35

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Independent Agency 0.31

Social Security Administration Independent Agency 0.30

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 0.29

Executive Ofﬁce U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys' Ofﬁce Department of Justice 0.28

Department of StateDepartment of State 0.27

National Science Foundation Independent Agency 0.26

Public Buildings Service General Service Administration 0.26

Millennium Challenge Corporation Independent Agency 0.24

United States Secret Service Department of Homeland Security 0.23

Federal Trade Commission Independent Agency 0.20

Civil DivisionDepartment of Justice 0.20

National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce 0.17

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Department of Justice 0.17

U.S. Air ForceDepartment of Defense 0.15

Defense Contract Audit Agency Department of Defense 0.15

Financial Management Service Department of Treasury 0.14

Corporation for National and Community Service Independent Agency 0.13

United States Coast Guard Department of Homeland Security 0.13

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Department of Agriculture 0.13

U.S. ArmyDepartment of Defense 0.11

National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services 0.11

Natural Resources Conservation Service Department of Agriculture 0.11

Federal Bureau of Investigations Department of Justice 0.09

Agricultural Research Service Department of Agriculture 0.08

Defense Commissary Agency Department of Defense 0.08

U.S. NavyDepartment of Defense 0.08

Army Corps of Engineers Independent Agency 0.08

Ofﬁce of the SecretaryDepartment of Health and Human Services 0.07

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Water Independent Agency 0.07

U.S. Marine CorpsDepartment of Defense 0.07

Bureau of the CensusDepartment of Commerce 0.07

Federal Acquisition Service General Service Administration 0.06

Securities and Exchange Commission Independent Agency 0.05

National Credit Union Administration Independent Agency 0.05

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Department of Labor 0.05

Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation 0.04

National Aeronautical Space Administration—Headquarters Independent Agency 0.04

Administration on Aging Department of Health and Human Services 0.04

Defense Contract Management Agency Department of Defense 0.04

Federal Housing Finance Board Independent Agency 0.04

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Independent Agency 0.03

Employment Standards Administration Department of Labor 0.03

Forest ServiceDepartment of Agriculture 0.02

Pension Beneﬁt Guaranty Corporation Independent Agency 0.02

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Research and Development Independent Agency 0.02

Environmental Protection Agency—Region 3 Independent Agency 0.01

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Independent Agency 0.01 a

Ofﬁce of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement Department of Interior 0.01

Combined Research, Education, and Economic Services Department of Agriculture 0.02

Departmental OfﬁcesDepartment of Treasury 0.02

Veterans Beneﬁts Administration Department of Veterans Affairs 0.02

U.S. Geological SurveyDepartment of Interior 0.02

Ofﬁce of Personnel Management Independent Agency 0.03

Health Resources and Services Administration Department of Health and Human Services 0.05

Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison System Department of Justice 0.07

Minerals Management Service Department of Interior 0.07

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Interior 0.08

Railroad Retirement Board Independent Agency 0.09

National Nuclear Security Administration Department of Energy 0.09

Employment and Training Administration Department of Labor 0.09

Headquarters and FieldDepartment of Energy 0.09

Executive Ofﬁce for Immigration Review Department of Justice 0.10

Food and Nutrition Service Department of Agriculture 0.11

U.S. Marshals ServiceDepartment of Justice 0.11

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Air and Radiation Independent Agency 0.13

(continued on next page)315 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 and Human Services score low on leadership. Three Department of Homeland Security sub-agencies are among the ten lowest

integrated leadershipscores (although three others are among the top twentyintegrated leadershipscores). Eight out of eleven

Department of Agriculture sub-agencies and six of nine Department of Health and Human Services sub-agencies in the sample

have scores below the medianintegrated leadershipscore.

Telling patterns can also be discerned from the ordering of sub-agencies in the sample byPART resultsscores. Some of the sub-

agencies that scored low on leadership also have lowPART resultsscores. For instance, six out of eight Department of Homeland

Security sub-agencies havePART resultsscores below the median for that variable. Six of eleven Department of Agriculture sub-

agencies havePART resultsscores below the median, with three of these sub-agencies among the bottom tenPART resultsscores.

Among sub-agencies scoring high on performance, four out of six Environmental Protection Agency sub-agencies andﬁve out of

eight Department of Defense sub-agencies havePART resultsscores at or above the median. Surprisingly, seven out of nine

Department of Health and Human Services sub-agencies have scores above the medianPART resultsscore, even though most sub-

agencies in this department scored below the median on leadership. Also, although Department of Justice sub-agencies in the

sample tend to score high on leadership, sub-agencies in this department are more evenly distributed on theirPART resultsscores.

The discussion now turns to the OLS regression analysis. TheR-square for the model is 0.15 (F-value = 3.24). This indicates a

moderate level of predictive power for the model, given that the model is based in part on individual-level survey data that tends

to yield lowR-squares. The low VIF statistics fail to indicate high levels of multicollinearity in the model. A scatterplot of the

relationship between the dependent and independent variable (not shown) reveals an approximate linear relationship with only

one extreme outlier. Since excluding this observation fails to alter the results in a meaningful way, it was included in theﬁnal

analysis.

The coefﬁcient for the variableintegrated leadershipis 20.68 (p< 0.05 level) (seeTable 4). As expected, leadership involving the

sharing ofﬁve leadership roles within and across levels of the hierarchy is positively correlated withPART results. Theintegrative

leadershipvariable has the second highest standardized coefﬁcient in the model, making it one of the strongest predictors of

performance.

Moving beyond the issue of statistical signiﬁcance, how much of a substantive effect does integrated leadership have on

organizational performance? Scholars have engaged in a lively debate over how much management and leadership really matters

when it comes to predicting and improving organizational performance. Some contend that the impact of leadership on

performance is close to nil (Lieberson & O'Connor, 1972; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). Population ecologists, in particular, have

downplayed the role of management and leadership, arguing that organizations have a limited capacity to change, due to

structural inertia, and therefore are generally unable to adapt to their environment (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). Organizations

either“ﬁt”their environment and survive or are“selected against”and die.Kaufman (1981)concluded that federal executives

have minimal effect on policies and programs because of the multitude of pressures and controls placed on them by political

Table 2(continued)

Sub-agencyCabinet department or independent agency Leadership

International Trade Administration Department of Commerce 0.13

Consumer Product Safety Commission Independent Agency 0.14

Agricultural Marketing Service Department of Agriculture 0.14

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Independent Agency 0.14

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services 0.15

Administration for Children and Families Department of Health and Human Services 0.15

Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Housing and Urban Development 0.15

Foreign Agricultural Service Department of Agriculture 0.19

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Department of Health and Human Services 0.20

Ofﬁce of Justice Programs Department of Justice 0.21

Bureau of ReclamationDepartment of Interior 0.21

Bureau of Land Management Department of Interior 0.22

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security 0.22

Farm Service AgencyDepartment of Agriculture 0.22

Combined Rural Development Services Department of Agriculture 0.22

National Park ServiceDepartment of Interior 0.23

Small Business Administration Independent Agency 0.28

Indian Health ServiceDepartment of Health and Human Services 0.29

Ofﬁce of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Department of Education 0.30

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security 0.32

Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 0.36

Bureau of Indian Affairs Department of Interior 0.38

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Department of Agriculture 0.40

Bureau of Engraving and Printing Department of Treasury 0.41

Transportation Security Administration Department of Homeland Security 0.43

Ofﬁce of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology Department of Homeland Security 0.49

Broadcasting Board of Governors Independent Agency 0.51

Ofﬁce of Postsecondary Education Department of Education

0.52

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Department of Health and Human Services 0.54

Commission on Civil Rights Independent Agency 0.59

aSigniﬁes median score. 316S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 Table 3

Federal sub-agency rankings by PART results scores.

Sources: 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, OPM, and Program Assessment Rating Tool, OMB.

Sub-agencyCabinet department or independent agency PART score

Public Buildings Service General Service Administration 94.69

Health Resources and Services Administration Department of Health and Human Services 92.60

United States Secret Service Department of Homeland Security 86.80

Bureau of Engraving and Printing Department of Treasury 86.80

Railroad Retirement Board Independent Agency 86.80

Federal Trade Commission Independent Agency 86.60

Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison System Department of Justice 86.60

Securities and Exchange Commission Independent Agency 85.69

National Science Foundation Independent Agency 82.39

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Independent Agency 81.33

Broadcasting Board of Governors Independent Agency 80.28

National Credit Union Administration Independent Agency 80.20

Combined Research, Education, and Economic Services Department of Agriculture 80.01

National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services 80.00

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Independent Agency 80.00

Indian Health ServiceDepartment of Health and Human Services 78.16

Ofﬁce of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement Department of Interior 78.04

Consumer Product Safety Commission Independent Agency 77.79

Administration On Aging Department of Health and Human Services 75.00

Social Security Administration Social Security Administration 74.33

Defense Contract Audit Agency Department of Defense 73.60

Defense Contract Management Agency Department of Defense 73.60

Administration for Children and Families Department of Health and Human Services 72.29

National Nuclear Security Administration Department of Energy 68.20

Agricultural Research Service Department of Agriculture 68.11

U.S. Geological SurveyDepartment of Interior 66.80

Environmental Protection Agency—Region 3 Independent Agency 66.80

Financial Management Service Department of Treasury 66.80

Bureau of the CensusDepartment of Commerce 66.75

Executive Ofﬁce for Immigration Review Department of Justice 66.75

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Department of Health and Human Services 66.75

Defense Commissary Agency Department of Defense 66.60

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Air and Radiation Independent Agency 66.50

Food and Nutrition Service Department of Agriculture 64.64

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Department of Health and Human Services 64.52

Combined Rural Development Services Department of Agriculture 64.17

U.S. Marshals ServiceDepartment of Justice 63.59

Minerals Management Service Department of Interior 61.70

Pension Beneﬁt Guaranty Corporation Independent Agency 60.20

Executive Ofﬁce U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys' Ofﬁce Department of Justice 60.00

U.S. NavyDepartment of Defense 60.00

Civil DivisionDepartment of Justice 60.00

Small Business Administration Small Business Administration 59.79

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Independent Agency 59.11

NASA—HeadquartersIndependent Agency 58.69

Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation 58.50

Natural Resources Conservation Service Department of Agriculture 57.75

U.S. ArmyDepartment of Defense 56.99

Departmental OfﬁcesDepartment of Treasury 56.88

Department of StateDepartment of State 55.37

National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce 55.30

U.S. Marine CorpsDepartment of Defense 53.66

Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 53.42

U.S. VisitDepartment of Homeland Security 53.40

National Park ServiceDepartment of Interior 53.40

Employment Standards Administration Department of Labor 53.23

Ofﬁce of Justice Programs Department of Justice 53.20

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Department of Justice 53.20

Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Housing and Urban Development 52.71

Federal Bureau of Investigations Department of Justice 49.47

United States Coast Guard Department of Homeland Security 49.17

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security 48.26

Bureau of ReclamationDepartment of Interior 47.40

DOE Headquarters and Field Department of Energy 47.16

Farm Service AgencyDepartment of Agriculture 46.48

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Department of Agriculture 44.59

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Water Independent Agency 43.30

(continued on next page)317 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 overseers (see alsoLynn, 1981; Warwick, 1975). Scholars on the other side of the debate point to a substantial body of research

showing that leadership behavior has a positive inﬂuence on organizational and subordinate performance (seeBass, 1990; Van

Wart, 2005; Yukl, 2002). In short, the moreﬁtting question seems to be not whether leadership matters, but rather, to what extent

does it matter?

Sinceintegrated leadershipis measured using a standardized summated rating scale, its coefﬁcient indicates that an increase of

one standard deviation results in approximately a 21 point increase in the sub-agencyPART resultsscore, which ranges from 0 to

100. Compared to recent public sector studies, this appears to be a sizeable substantive effect. For example,Meier and O'Toole

(2002)found that the maximum effect of managerial quality on educational performance, measured in terms of student

performance on standardized tests, was about a 5 point increase on a 0–100 point indicator.Fernandez (2005), using the same 0–

100 point indicator, estimated that the combined effects of leadership behavior (including managing the internal operations and

the external environment and promoting change and innovation) was less than a 5 point increase in performance.

To further explore the size effect of leadership on performance, we also used an approach frequently used by leadership

scholars. This approach involves estimating the percent of the variance in organizational performance (measured typically in

terms ofﬁnancial performance) that is accounted for by measures of leadership. Empirical studies adopting this approach have

provided a wide range of size effects, from nearly no portion of the variance in performance accounted for by leadership (Lieberson

& O'Connor, 1972) to anywhere from 5 to 20% of the variance in performance (Thomas, 1988; Waldman, Ramirez, House, &

Puranam, 2001; see alsoFernandez, 2008; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). We used hierarchical regression to estimate the percent of the

Table 3(continued)

Sub-agencyCabinet department or independent agency PART score

Environmental Protection Agency—Ofﬁce of Research and Development Independent Agency 43.14

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Interior 42.54

U.S. Air ForceDepartment of the Air Force 41.71

Forest ServiceDepartment of Agriculture 41.67

Transportation Security Administration Department of Homeland Security 40.72

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Independent Agency 40.20

Veterans Beneﬁts Administration Department of Veterans Affairs 40.00

Federal Acquisition Service General Service Administration 39.94

Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 37.10

International Trade Administration Department of Commerce 36.58

Millennium Challenge Corporation Independent Agency 33.20

Bureau of Land Management Department of Interior 33.20

Internal Revenue Service Department of Treasury 33.09

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services 33.00

Employment and Training Administration Department of Labor 29.26

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Department of Labor 26.40

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security 26.40

Bureau of Indian Affairs Department of Interior 24.06

Corporation for National and Community Service Independent Agency 23.63

Ofﬁce of Postsecondary Education Department of Education 22.98

Ofﬁce of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Department of Education 21.08

Ofﬁce of Personnel Management Independent Agency 20.07

Foreign Agricultural Service Department of Agriculture 20.00

Army Corps of Engineers Army Corps of Engineers 16.69

Ofﬁce of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology Department of Homeland Security 16.13

Agricultural Marketing Service Department of Agriculture 14.19

Ofﬁce of the SecretaryDepartment of Health and Human Services 11.53

Federal Housing Finance Board Independent Agency 8.25

Commission on Civil Rights Independent Agency 8.25

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Department of Agriculture 5.50

aSigniﬁes median score.

Table 4

OLS regression results (Dependent variable = PART results).

Variable Coef. Stand. Coef. VIF

Integrated leadership 20.68** 0.20 1.12

Percent political appointees 2.98*** 0.27 1.15

Organizational complexity 2.41 0.02 1.03

Independent agency 8.26 0.16 1.13

Budget 0.00 0.03 1.07

F-value 3.24

R-square 0.15

N97

*p< 0.10, **p< 0.05, ***p< 0.01. 318S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 variance inPART resultsaccounted for by theintegrated leadershipvariable. TheR-square for a regression model with all of the

control variables minusintegrated leadershipis 0.11. Adding theintegrated leadershipvariable to the model raises theR-square to

0.15. The sharing of theﬁve leadership roles among organizational members throughout the hierarchy accounts, therefore, for

about 4% (0.15–0.11) of the variance inPART results. Using this second approach, integrated leadership appears to have a much

more modest effect on performance.

The results for the control variables also appear inTable 4. The variablepercent of political appointees, a measure of

politicization, has a coefﬁcient of 2.98 (p< 0.01). This variable has the largest standardized coefﬁcient in the model. Higher

levels of politicization in a sub-agency appear to raise the demand for political responsiveness, an expectation of public

organizations that often conﬂicts with competence criteria such as efﬁciency and effectiveness. Also, asLewis (2008)discovered,

political appointees in senior executive positions have less experience in working for their bureaus and shorter tenures in their

current leadership positions compared to careerists in similar positions, two factors that appear to explain the negative impact of

politicization on performance.

The dummy variableindependent agencyhas a coefﬁcient with a value of 8.26 that fails to achieve statistical signiﬁcance.

Independent sub-agencies have slightly higher numbers of political appointees than their counterparts in cabinet-level

departments. However, this does not appear to inﬂuence their performance. The coefﬁcient forstructural complexityfails to

achieve statistical signiﬁcance. The challenges of having to coordinate the work of a more heterogeneous workforce appear to have

no inﬂuence on performance. The variablebudgetalso fails to achieve statistical signiﬁcance, indicating that sub-agencies with

greater budgetary resources perform about as well as those with smaller budgets, controlling for other variables.

6. Conclusion

The present study sought to synthesize leadership and public administration research to develop and measure the concept of

integrated leadership in the public sector. Integrated leadership is conceived of as the combined efforts of organizational members

across multiple levels of the hierarchy to performﬁve leadership roles: task-, relations-, change-, diversity-, and integrity-oriented

leadership. Theﬁndings show that integrated leadership in the public sector matters when it comes to improving organizational

performance. Integrated leadership is positively correlated with performance in the federal government as measured using PART

results scores. Moreover, the size of leadership's effect on performance is meaningful, but the estimate of size is sensitive to the

method used to compute it.

In terms of substantive effect on the PART results score, a one standard deviation increase in integrated leadership results in

almost a 21 point increase in the dependent variable. This would appear to be a sizeable effect and one that far exceeds previous

estimates reported in the public management literature (Fernandez, 2005; Meier & O'Toole, 2002) using the same estimation

method. Adopting another approach more commonly used by leadership researchers, weﬁnd that integrated leadership accounts

for about 4% of the variance in performance, an impact of smaller size. Although modest, a leadership effect of this latter size is not

trivial, especially in light of the scale of federal operations. Public management scholars should be mindful of how using different

approaches to estimating size effects can produce divergent results. The approach taken by leadership scholars that involves

estimating the percent of the variance in performance accounted for by leadership variables offers the advantage of allowing

researchers to compare size effects across studies using different measures of performance. This advantage might prove to be a

critical one in the public sector, where weﬁnd a dearth of performance measures available for comparing different types of public

organizations.

While the advent of shared leadership as a legitimate approach to the study of leadership is a recent phenomenon, organization

theorists for several decades have demonstrated the salient role played by leaders at multiple organizational levels. Small groups

research has shown that leadership at low levels of the hierarchy is a key determinant of work team effectiveness (Guzzo &

Dickson, 1996; Kerr & Tindale, 2004). Other researchers have found that middle managers serve a critical role in organizations as

architects and champions for organizational change (Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, & Lawrence, 2001). This study of shared leadership

in the federal bureaucracy should encourage public management scholars to adopt a broader view of leadership, one that

recognizes the contributions to organizational effectiveness made by leaders at multiple levels. The continued treatment of

leadership as a role played by a top executive runs the risk of failing to capture the full range of leadership behavior and efforts

underway in public organizations. With this point in mind, we caution the reader about the study's limited ability to accurately

capture leadership behavior at all levels of the federal sub-agencies in our sample. The majority of survey items used to measure

integrated leadership referred to the behavior of team leaders, supervisors and managers; only a few asked directly about

employees' perceptions of the agency's senior leadership. Theﬁndings might very well underestimate the contributions of senior

executives to organizational performance.

Other limitations to this study warrant discussion. While there areﬁve leadership roles embedded in the concept of integrated

leadership, it is important to note that the data prevented direct measurement and analysis of collaborative leadership, a

leadership role that is becoming increasingly important in the governance arena. Collaborative management and leadership

entails a variety of inter-organizational activities, including shaping policy issues and public priorities; mobilizing resources;

facilitating coordination and mutual adjustment; resolving conﬂict; building trust; and measuring performance (Agranoff &

McGuire, 2003; Bingham & O'Leary, 2008; Thomson & Perry, 2006). Networked arrangements in which multiple actors are

involved in co-producing a public service without any one of them being in charge places a premium on this type of leadership

(Crosby & Bryson, 2005). Although the integrated leadership construct taps into dimensions such as diversity- and integrity-

319 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 oriented leadership that are relevant for collaborative leadership, additional data gathering and analysis is needed to explore the

relationship between collaborative leadership and theﬁve leadership roles examined in this study.

The approach taken to deﬁning and measuring integrated leadership might also raise questions regarding convergent and

discriminant validity. As the results of the higher-order conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicate, theﬁve-dimensional model of

integrated leadership exhibits a betterﬁt with the data than a one-dimensional model. Allﬁve leadership roles are positively

correlated with one underlying construct, which we label integrated leadership, and yet, they are sufﬁciently different to suggest

they capture distinct dimensions of leadership. However, most of the goodness-of-ﬁt measures in the higher-order CFA are near

the borderline between good and poor modelﬁt, indicating room for improvement. In particular, there is reason to believe that a

six-dimensional model of integrative leadership that includes a leadership style aimed at managing collaboratively across

organizational boundaries would offer a better modelﬁt than ourﬁve-dimensional model of integrated leadership. Moreover, the

ﬁve dimensions representing different leadership roles exhibit fairly high bivariate correlations, ranging fromr= 0.61 (change-

and diversity-oriented leadership) tor= 0.77 (task- and relations-oriented leadership). These correlations suggest the need for

additional research on the discriminant validity of the integrated leadership construct and more general issues of appropriate

model speciﬁcations for the construct (Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003). In fact, we believe future research about integrated

and shared leadership should place a high priority on measurement issues because of the centrality of measurement for further

development of shared and integrated leadership research.

Theﬁndings are strengthened by the fact that the dependent and independent variables are measured using different data

sources, helping to minimize common source bias. Another thorny methodological issue that arises in this study is simultaneity

bias. Attribution theory of leadership posits that followers make positive attributions of leaders for a variety of reasons, including

when the organization performs well (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Lord & Maher, 1991). This raises the specter of a simultaneous

relationship between leadership and performance when using employee attitudes to measure leadership behavior and traits: good

leadership improves performance, but higher levels of performance cause followers to make positive attributions of leaders. We

tried to minimize simultaneity bias by using independent and dependent variables measured at different points in time. That is,

roughly half of the PART results scores were assigned by OMB in 2007, while the data used to measure integrated leadership was

collected by OPM in 2006. Had the data been available to derive all the PART results scores in 2007, we would have concluded more

conﬁdently that the relationship between integrated leadership and PART results was a causal one rather than a mere statistical

correlation. As such, the results should be interpreted with some caution.

Finally, the data sources and the sample of organizations on which the empirical analysis is based suggest that theﬁndings are

generalizable across the federal bureaucracy. Whether or not a leadership style that incorporates the sameﬁve roles has a positive

inﬂuence on performance in smaller state and local agencies, and what the size of such an effect might be, are empirical questions

that remain to be answered.

Appendix A. 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey items used to construct integrated leadership measure

Source: 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, U.S. Ofﬁce of Personnel Management.

Task-oriented leadership role

I1. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.

I2. I know how my work relates to the agency's goals and priorities.

I3. Managers promote communication among different work units (for example, about projects, goals, and needed resources).

I4. Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.

I5. Supervisors/team leaders provide employees with constructive suggestions to improve their job performance.

Relations-oriented leadership role

I6. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization.

I7. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit provide employees with the opportunities to demonstrate their leadership skills.

I8. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes.

I9. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development.

Change-oriented leadership role

I10. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.

I11. Creativity and innovation are rewarded.

Diversity-oriented leadership role

I12. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit are committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society.

I13. Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds.

Integrity-oriented leadership role

I14. My organization's leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity.

I15. Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example, illegally discriminating for or against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person's right to compete for

employment, knowingly violating veterans' preference requirements) are not tolerated.

I16. I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.

Response Categories: All survey items have responses ranging either from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree or 1 = Very Dissatisﬁed to 5 = Very Satisﬁed 320S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology,Vol. 2. (pp. 267 299). New York, NY: Academic

Press.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1965).Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2006). Strategy content and organizational performance: An empirical analysis.Public Administration Review,66,

52 56.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizationalperformance.

Leadership Quarterly,10, 345 373.

Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage.Human Resource Management,

37,31 46.

Bass, B. M. (1985).Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990).Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications, Third Edition. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transformational and transactional leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In R.

Woodman & W. Passmore (Eds.),Research in organizational change and development(pp. 231 272). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985).Leaders: The strategies for taking charge.New York: Harper and Row.

Bingham, L. B., & O’Leary, R. (Eds.). (2008).Big ideas in collaborative public management, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982).The competent manager.New York: John Wiley.

Boyne, G. A. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,13,

367 394.

Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2003). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies.Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory,10, 685 712.

Bryman, A. (1993). Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues.Leadership Quarterly,4, 289 304.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies.Sociological Methods and

Research,33, 261 304.

Burns, J. M. (1978).Leadership.New York: Harper and Row.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance.Academy of Management

Journal,5, 1217 1234.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of orga

nizational justice

research.Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 425 445.

Crosby, B., & Bryson, J. (2005).Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the

role making process.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,13,46 78.

Doig, J. W., & Hargrove, E. C. (Eds.). (1990).Leadership and innovation: Entrepreneurs in government, Abridged Edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change.Academy of Management Journal,44,

716 736.

Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two-dimensional model.Scandinavian Journal of Management,7,15 26.

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications

for the performance of startups.Leadership Quarterly,17(3), 217 231.

Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and

research agenda.Human Resource Management Review,13, 329 346.

Enticott, G., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2009). The use of multiple informants in public administration research: Data aggregation using organizational echelons.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,19, 229 253.

Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation method, and model speciﬁcation on structural equation modelingﬁt indexes.Structural

Equation Modeling,6,56 83.

Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of performance and job satisfaction.Public Performance and

Management Review,32, 175 205.

Fernandez, S. (2005). Developing and testing an integrative framework of public sector leadership: Evidence from the public education arena.Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory,15, 197 217.

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector: An agenda for research and practice.Public Administration

Review,66, 168 176.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967).

A theory of leadership effectiveness.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. E. (1986). The contribution of cognitive resources to leadership performance.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,16, 532 548.

Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987).New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance.New York: John Wiley.

Fisher, B. M., & Edwards, J. E. (1988, August). Consideration and initiating structure and their relationships with leader effectiveness: A meta-analysis.Proceedings

of the Academy of Management, 201 205.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology,37,1 6.

Fletcher, J. K., & Kaüfer, K. (2003). Shared Leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand

Oaks, California: Sage Publishers.

Florida, R. (2002).The rise of the creative class.New York: Basic Books.

Garson, G. D. (2009). Chi-square signiﬁcance tests. FromStatnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis. Retrieved 08/15/2009 fromhttp://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/

garson/pa765/statnote.htm

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues.Journal of Applied Psychology,82,

827 844.

Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership frontiers. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing.Research in Organizational Behavior,9, 175 208.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as s unit of analysis.Leadership Quarterly,13(4), 423 451.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness.Annual Review of Psychology,47, 307 338.

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.),Leader behavior: Its description and

measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change.American Sociological Review,49, 149 164.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.),Leader behavior: Its

description and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2000).Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources, Eight Edition Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: Aﬁeld study.Leadership Quarterly,17(4), 387

397.

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography.Journal of Management,33,

987 1015.321 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 House, R. J. (1971). A path–goal theory of leadership effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly,16, 321 339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Hunt, J. G. (1991).Leadership: A new synthesis.New Park, CA: Sage.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspeciﬁcation in marketing and

consumer research.Journal of Consumer Research,30(2), 199 218.

Katz, R., & Katz, D. (1960). Leadership practices in relations to productivity and morale. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.),Group dynamics: Research and theory,

Second Edition. Elmsford, NY: Row, Paterson.

Katz, D., Macoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950).Productivity, supervision, and morale in an ofﬁce situation.Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

Kaufman, H. (1981).The Administrative behavior of Federal bureau chiefs.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,22, 375 403.

Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making.Annual Review of Psychology,55, 623 655.

Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., et al. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research

network.Human Resource Management,42,3 21.

Kotter, J. P. (1982).The general managers.New York: Free Press.

Lewis, D. E. (2008).The politics of presidential appointments: Political control and bureaucratic performance.Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Lieberson, S., & O'Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations.American Sociological Review,37, 117 130.

Light, P. (1998).Sustaining innovation: Creating nonproﬁt and government organizations that innovate naturally.San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Likert, R. (1967).The human organization: Its management and value.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992). Is there a third management style?The Finnish Journal of Business Economics,3, 171 198.

Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992, Winter). Management behavior dimensions and development orientation.Leadership Quarterly, 355 377.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991).Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance.Boston, MA: Unwin-Hyman.

Lynn, L. E. (1981).Managing the public’s business.

New York: Basic Books.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). N-achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1, 389 392.

McClelland, D. C. (1985).Human motivation.Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups.Small Group Research,27, 246 264.

Meier, K. J., & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education.Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory,11, 271 295.

Meier, K. J., & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (2002). Public management and organizational performance: The impact of managerial quality.Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management,21, 629 643.

Meier, K. J., O’Toole, L. J., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. H. (2007). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against

recent theories.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,17, 357 377.

Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom.Research in Organizational Behavior,12, 159 203.

Mintzberg, H. (1972).The nature of managerial work.New York: HarperCollins.

Moe, T. M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.),The new direction in American politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance information use.Administration & Society,36,

427 453.

National Academy of Public Administration. (2003).Leadership for leaders: Senior executives and middle managers.Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.

O'Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2002).When two (or more) heads are better than one: The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership.Los Angeles, California:

Center for Effective Organizations, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California.

O'Toole, J., & Meier, K. J. (1999). Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural context.Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory,9, 505 526.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: Underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),Shared leadership: Reframing the

hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishers.

Pearce, C., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.),Advances in

interdisciplinary studies of work teams, Vol. 7(pp. 115 139). JAI Press: New York.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,

directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,6, 172 197.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978).The external control of organizations.

New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public organizations.Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory,15, 615 631.

Radin, B. A. (2006).Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values.Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Rainey, H. G. (2003).Understanding and managing public organizations.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations.Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory,9,1 32.

Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in management,ﬁrm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial

orientation dimensions.Academy of Management Journal,47, 255 266.

Ricucci, N. M. (Ed.). (1995).Unsung heroes: Federal execucrats making a difference. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Constraints on administrator discretion: The limited inﬂuence of mayors on city budgets.Urban Affairs Quarterly,12, 475 498.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic

procedures.Leadership Quarterly,10,63 113.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1978).A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling.Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. M. (2003). Can team members share leadership? Foundations in research and theory. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),Shared

leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership(pp. 77 102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.Organization Science,4,1 17.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership.Journal of Psychology,25,35 71.

Svara, J. H. (1994).Facilitative leadership in local government: Lessons from successful mayors and chairpersons.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance?Administrative Science Quarterly,33, 388 400.

Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box.Public Administration Review,66,20 32.

Trottier, A. M., Van Wart, M., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and signiﬁcance of leadership in government organizations.

Public Administration Review,

68, 319 333.

U.S. Ofﬁce of Management and Budget. (2007). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved April 10, 2007, fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/faq.html

U.S. Ofﬁce of Personnel Management. (2006). Guide to senior executive service qualiﬁcations.Retrieved March 1, 2008, fromhttp://www.opm.gov/ses/pdf/

SES_Quals_Guide_2006.pdf

U.S. Ofﬁce of Personnel Management. (2007). Results from the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey. Retrieved August 1, 2007, fromhttp://www.fhcs2006.opm.gov

Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment.Public Administration Review,23, 214 228.

Van Wart, M. (2005).Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practice.Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973).Leadership and decision making.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and proﬁtability under conditions of

perceived environmental uncertainty.Academy of Management Journal,44, 134 143. 322S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323 Walker, R. M., & Boyne, G. A. (2006). Public management reform and organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the U.K. labour government's public

service improvement strategy.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,25, 371 393.

Warwick, D. P. (1975).A theory of public bureaucracy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis.Journal of

Management,27, 141 162.

Yukl, D. P. (1989).Leadership in organizations,Second edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.Leadership Quarterly,10, 285 305.

Yukl, G. (2002).Leadership in organizations, Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research.Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies,9,15 32.323 S. Fernandez et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 308–323