Public and Private Sector Leadership Theories

Montgomery Van Wort Texas Tech University Public-Sector Leadership Theory:

An Assessment This article reviews the mainstream leadership literature and its perennial debates and compares it to the public-sector (administrative) leadership literature. The mainstream leadership literature fully articulated the transformational models in the 1980s and began the serious v/ork of integrat- ing transactional and transformational types of leadership into comprehensive models in the 1990s.

Many have considered this to be a maior advance over the field's previous fragmentation and excessively narrow focus. This integration has not been reflected in ihe public-sector literature, in which the normative debates about what leaders should do has received most of the attention in the last decade. Although many types of leadership in the public sector have been discussed extensively, such as leadership by those in policy positions and working in community settings, administrative leadership within organizations has received scant attention and would benefit from a research agenda linking explicit and well-articulated models with concrete data in public- sector settings.

In 1995, Larry Terry noted the neglect of adtninistrative or "bureaucratic leadership" in the public-sector literature.

This article assesses the state of the administrative leader- ship literature. It examines the following questions:

• Is the study of administrative (that is, bureaucratic) leadership important?

• What are the reasons for the neglect of administrative leadership, including the difficulties associated with this type of research?

• Has the administrative leadership literature made significant strides since Terry's observation in 1995? If not, why?

• What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of the literature, whatever its overall robustness? In particular, how does it compare with the mainstream (that is, largely private-sector-focused) literature?

• What areas are ripe for research?

To address these questions, a relatively exhaustive re- view of public-sector leadership was conducted, as well as a thorough review of the major schools in the mainstream literature. Because of the many weaknesses in the litera- ture (in scope, in numerous gaps, and in theory building), it is hoped this article can make a major contribution in defining the terrain of this complex and difficult area so that more rapid and coherent progress can be made.

214 Public Administration Review • March/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2 The Importance and Challenges of Leadership Research The Importance of Leadership To most people, the importance of leadership is self- evident no matter what the setting. In organizations, effec- tive leadership provides higher-quality and more efficient goods and services; it provides a sense of cohesiveness, personal development, and higher levels of satisfaction among those conducting the work; and it provides an overarching sense of direction and vision, an alignment with the environment, a healthy mechanism for innova- tion and creativity, and a resource for invigorating the or- ganizational culture. This is no small order, especially in contemporary times.

Leadership is difficult in all eras, to be sure, but it seems that today's leaders face additional challenges. While the shared-power environment created in the second half of the twentieth century enhanced many aspects of democ- racy, "it also makes leadership more difficult" (Henton, Montgomery Van Wart is the director of the Center for Public Service and an associate professor at Texas Tech University.

His research interests include administrative eriiics, public management, human resources management, and leadership.

He is currently completing a bool( on administrative leader- ship forM.E.

Sharpe.

Email:

[email protected]. Melville, and Walesh 1997, 14). The public has greater access to view leaders today—especially public-sector lead- ers—through the media focus, the Internet, and greater lev- els of public awareness. Yet the public shows less toler- ance for leaders' mistakes, foibles, and structural challenges as its skepticism has grown (Yankelovich 1991). Further, there is evidence that as competition in the organizational universe has intensified in the new global economy, even among public-sector organizations, the range of skills nec- essary for leaders has grown (Bass 1985).

Reasons for Neglect and Difficulties in Administrative Leadership Research If we accept—as most people do—that leadership is important and that leaders have a tough job in the best of times, it stands to reason that leadership research would be both prolific and valuable. Although the first part of this statement is documentably true in the mainstream lit- erature—more than 7,500 empirical and quasi-empirical references were cited in the major handbook for the litera- ture in 1990 (Bass 1990)—the latter is disputed among leadership experts. The most prominent researcher of his day, Ralph Stogdill urged his colleagues to largely aban- don 40 years of work as utterly inconclusive in 1948 (which, as a whole, they did). In his landmark 1978 study on lead- ership 30 years later, James MacGregor Bums acidly stated, "Leadership is one of the most observed and least under- stood phenomena on earth" (1). Another particularly emi- nent scholar—Warren Bennis—came to the same conclu- sion in the mid-1980s: "Never have so many labored so long to say so little," and "leadership is the most studied and least understood topic of any in the social sciences" (Bennis and Nanus 1985,4,20). Although I will argue the situation improved dramatically in the mainstream in the 1990s, it is easier to understand the incredibly slow progress of leadership research, for all the attention, when one ex- amines the challenges leadership research faces in gener- alizing beyond relatively small subsets.

One set of difficulties has to do with what Brunner calls "contextual complexity" (1997, 219). While there are sig- nificant similarities among leaders that are generally agreed upon (for instance, they have followers and affect the di- rection of the group), from a research perspective, the dif- ferences among leaders are far greater and more challeng- ing. For example, the leader of paid employees and the leader of volunteers have very different jobs.

Issues of con- textual complexity apply to mission, organizational and environmental culture, structure, types of problems, types of opportunities, levels of discretion (Baliga and Hunt 1988, 130), and a host of other critically important areas. These types of issues led one of the earliest commentators on public-sector administrative leadership to conclude that "the differences in individuals who find themselves in ex- ecutive positions and the variations in the life cycles of organizations produce practically limitless permutations and combinations" (Stone 1945, 210). As if these contex- tual, complex challenges were not enough, however, a re- searcher has other problems that inhibit generalizations in social science research when highly complex human phe- nomena are studied. An additional confounding factor in our list is the issue of proper definition, which is ultimately a normative problem. Because science cannot solve nor- mative issues (Dahl 1947), this problem is central to the ability to build a body of work that is coherent as research and applied use. The final technical problem is the effect of observation and the observer. Even the "hardest" of the sciences has rediscovered this problem (Kiel 1994), yet it is a particularly pesky dilemma in amorphous areas such as leadership. One version of the predicament, simply stated, is that observed phenomena change through the act of observation. A second version of the problem is that because the observer determines the conceptual framework of the issue, the methods to be used, and the context to be studied, the results are affected far more by the investiga- tors' biases than might be supposed.

For all of these challenges and all of the seemingly non- additive (but certainly not nonproductive) leadership re- search done until the 1980s, efforts at more sophisticated, multifaceted approaches for comprehensive models have made a substantial improvement (Chemers 1997,170; Hunt 1996).

However, administrative leadership research (litera- ture that is most interested in leadership in public-sector bureaucratic settings) has experienced neither the volume nor the integration of the mainstream. Why? Building on the ideas of Doig and Hargrove (1987), Terry (1995, 2-3) speculates on some reasons beyond the technical issues raised above, which certainly have not slowed down main- stream interest in leadership research. He offers three types of reasons.

First, there may be some belief that administrative lead- ership does not (or should not) exist to an appreciable de- gree because of a belief in a highly instrumental approach to leadership in the public sector. This is a legacy of both scientific management, with its technocratic focus, and beliefs in a strong model of overhead democracy (Redford 1969).

The stronger these beliefs, the less likely adminis- trative leadership would receive attention. Second, bureau- cracies may be guided by powerful forces that are largely beyond the control of administrative leaders, making their contributions relatively insignificant. Both arguments tend to delimit the role and contribution of public administra- tion. Finally, there may be a problem with attention being diverted from leadership research by related topics. Given the relatively small size of the pool of researchers com- pared to the number of possible topics in the field, this is a significant possibility. Researchers who are more empiri- Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment 215 cally inclined may find bureaucratic routines (frontline and mid-level management) more accessible. Many of those interested in executive leadership may find political lead- ership more attractive, with its dramatic and accessible policy debates and discussions, rather than administrative leadership, with its more subtle and nuanced decision- making routines.

Finally, those interested in the philosophi- cal nature of leadership may be pulled into the normative debates about the amount of and manner in which discre- tion should be exercised by administrative leaders, rather than the changing and unchanging characteristics of ad- ministrative leadership. Although it is not conclusive, my assessment of the causal weights will be offered in the conclusion.

Operationally, "administrative leadership" in this article refers to leadership from the frontline supervisor (or even lead worker) to the nonpolitical head of the organization.

The focus is not on elected legislative leaders and only on elected executives and their political designees, such as agency secretaries and directors, commissioners, or legis- latively approved directors, to the degree that they include nonpolicy functions as a significant component of their responsibilities. There are many instances in which the line is hard to draw. The article first will review the mainstream leadership research as well as the administrative (public- sector) research. Next, the perennial debates (and research questions) of mainstream leadership theory will be com- pared to administrative leadership theory. This will culmi- nate in a discussion of the state-of-the-art in administra- tive leadership research and a conclusion suggesting areas that may be productively mined in the future by scholars and pursued by practitioners.

Background on Leadership Research Dominant Themes in the Mainstream Leadership Literature It is certainly impossible to pigeonhole all of the main- stream leadership literature' into tight eras with sharp de- marcations; however, it is possible to capture the domi- nant themes and interests for a heuristic overview. For those interested in a detailed history and more complex analy- sis, an excellent, exhaustive review can be found in Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (Bass 1990). How- ever, figure 1 provides a simple, contemporary, practitio- ner-oriented model as a mental framework for the devel- opment of the leadership literature. Such practitioner models emphasize leader assessment, leader characteris- tics, and leader styles, all of which affect actual leader be- haviors. As leaders evaluate their own and their organiza- tions' effectiveness, they begin the cycle again. Scientific models tend to de-emphasize the leader-assessment phase Figure 1 A Generic Practitioner Model of Organizational Leadership Leader assesses organization, environment, leader constraints; then sets personal and organizational goals Leader uses traits and skills Leader uses style range Leoder acts in three oreas related to tosk, people, and organization Leader evaluates personal and orqonizational effectiveness (as difficult to observe) and emphasize intervening orga- nizational variables that affect leader success.

The nineteenth century was dominated by the notion of the "great man" thesis. Particular great men (women in- variably were overlooked despite great personages in his- tory such as Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, or Clara Barton) some- how move history forward because of their exceptional characteristics as leaders. The stronger version of this theory holds that history is a handmaiden to men; great men actually change the shape and direction of history.

Philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and William James firmly asserted that history would be different if a great man suddenly were incapacitated. Thomas Carlyle's 1841 essay on heroes and hero worship is an early popular version of this, as is Galton's 1869 study of hereditary ge- nius (cited in Bass 1990). Such theories generally have an explicit class bias.

A milder version of the theory is that as history proceeds on its irrevocable course, a few men will move history forward substantially and dramatically be- cause of their greatness, especially in moments of crisis or great social need. Although these lines of thinking have more sophisticated echoes in the later trait and situational leadership periods, "hero worship" is certainly alive and well in popular culture and in biographies and autobiogra- phies.

Its core belief is that there are only a few, very rare, individuals in any society at any time with the unique char- acteristics to shape or express history. Although this thesis may serve sufficiently for case studies (essentially biogra- phies), it is effectively irrefutable and therefore unusable as a scientific theory.

The scientific mood of the early twentieth century fos- tered the development of a more focused search for the basis of leaders.

What traits and characteristics do leaders seem to share? Researchers developed personality tests and compared the results against those perceived to be leaders.

By the 1940s, researchers had amassed very long lists of traits from numerous psychologically oriented studies (Bird 1940; Jenkins 1947). This tactic had two problems: First, the lists became longer and longer as research continued.

Second—and more importantly—the traits and character- istics identified were not powerful predictors across situa- tions.

For example, leaders must be decisive, but they also must be flexible and inclusive. Without situational speci- ficity, the endless list of traits offers little prescriptive as- 216 Public Administration Review • March/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2 sistance and descriptively becomes little more than a laun- dry list. In 1948, Ralph Stogdill published a devastating critique of pure trait theory, and it fell into disfavor as be- ing too one-dimensional to account for the complexity of leadership (Stogdill 1948).

The next major thrust was to look at the situational con- texts that affect leaders in order to find meaningful pat- terns for theory building and useful advice. One early ex- ample was the work that came out of the Ohio State Leadership Studies (Hempill 1950; Hempill and Coons 1957), which started by tesfing 1,800 statements related to leadership behavior. By continually distilling the be- haviors, researchers arrived at two underlying factors: con- sideration and initiation of structure. Consideration de- scribes a variety of behaviors related to the development, inclusion, and the good feelings of subordinates. Initiat- ing structure describes a variety of behaviors related to defining roles, control mechanisms, task focus, and work coordination, both inside and outside the unit. Coupled with the humanist or human relations revolution that was occurring in the 1950s and 1960s, these (and similar stud- ies) spawned a series of useful—if often simplistic and largely bimodal—theories (Arygris 1957; Likert 1959; McGregor 1960; Maslow 1965; Fiedler 1967; Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar 1976; Blake and Mouton 1964,1965; Hersey and Blanchard 1969, 1972).

These early implicit and explicit situational theories were certainly useful, for several reasons. First, they were use- ful as an antidote to the excessively hierarchical, authori- tarian styles that had developed in the first half of the twen- tieth century with the rise and dominance of large organi- zations in both the private and public sectors. Second, they were useful as teaching tools for incipient and practicing managers, who appreciated the elegant constructs even though they were descriptively simplistic. As a class, how- ever, these theories generally failed to meet scientific stan- dards because they tried to explain too much with too few variables. Among the major theories, only Vroom's nor- mative decision model broke out of this pattern because it self-consciously focused on a single dimension of leader- ship style—the role of participation—and identified seven problem attributes and two classes of cases (group and in- dividual) (Vroom and Yetton 1973; Vroom and Jago 1988).

Although the situational perspective still forms the basis of most leadership theories today, it has done so either in a strictly managerial context (that is, a narrow level of analy- sis) on a factor-by-factor basis, or it has been subsumed by more comprehensive approaches to leadership at the macro level.

While ethical dimensions were mentioned occasionally in the mainstream literature, the coverage was invariably peripheral because it avoided normative issues. The first major text devoted to ethical issues was Robert Greenleaf's book. Servant Leadership (1977), but it did not receive mainstream attention. In contrast, James Macgregor Bums' book on leadership burst on the scene in 1978 and had unusually heavy ethical overtones.^ However, it was not the ethical dimension that catapulted it to prominence, but its transformational theme. Both Greenleaf (a former busi- ness executive) and Bums (a political scientist) were out- side the normal academic circles in leadership, which pri- marily came from business and psychology. A number of contemporary mainstream leadership theorists, both popu- lar and academic, continue in this tradition to one degree or another, such as DePree (1989), Rost (1990), Block (1993), Gardner (1989), Bennis, Parikh, and Lessem (1994, in contrast with Bennis' other work), and Zand (1997), among others. This theme was covered earlier and more frequently (at least in terms of ethical uses of dis- cretion) in the public-sector literature, but that was not part of the mainstream literature and will be discussed separately.

Until 1978, the focus of the mainstream literature was leadership at lower levels, which was amenable to small group and experimental methods and simplified variable models, while executive leadership (and its extemal de- mands) and the more amorphous abilities to induce dra- matic change were largely ignored.' Bums' book on lead- ership dramatically changed that interest by introducing the notion that transactional leadership was what was largely being studied, and that the other highly important arena—transformational leadership—was largely being ignored.'' This hit an especially responsive cord in the nonexperimental camp, which had already been explicitly stating that, nationally, there was a surfeit of managers (who use a "transactional" mode) and a terrible deficit of lead- ers (who use a "transformational" mode) (Zaleznik 1977).

Overall, this school agreed that leaders have a special re- sponsibility for understanding a changing environment, that they facilitate more dramatic changes, and that they can energize followers far beyond what traditional exchange theory would suggest.

Overstating for clarity, three subschools emerged that emphasized different aspects of these "larger-than-life" leaders.^ The transformational school emphasized vision and overarching organizational change (Bums 1978; Bass 1985; Bennis and Nanus 1985; Tichy and Devanna 1986).

The charismatic school focused on the influence processes of individuals and the specific behaviors used to arouse inspiration and higher levels of action in followers (House 1977; Conger and Kanungo 1998; Meindl 1990). Less ar- ticulated in terms of leadership theory was an entrepre- neurial school that urged leaders to make practical process and cultural changes that would dramatically improve qual- ity or productivity; it shared a change emphasis with the transformational school and an intemal focus with the char- Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment 217 ismatic school (Peters and Austin 1985; Hammer and Champy 1993; Champy 1995).

The infusion of the transformational leadership school(s) led to both a reinvigoration of academic and nonacademic studies of leadership and a good deal of confusion initially.

Was the transactional leadership that the situationalists had studied so assiduously really just mundane management?

Or was the new transformational leadership just an exten- sion of basic skills that its adherents were poorly equipped to explain with more conventional scientific methodolo- gies? Even before the 1980s, some work had been done to create holistic models that tried to explain more aspects of leadership (Yukl 1971; Winter 1979). Yet it was not until the 1980s that work began in earnest and that conventional models routinely incorporated transactional and transfor- mational elements.

Bass' work is a good example in this regard. Even his original work on transformational leadership (1985) has strong transactional elements (transformational leaders being those who not only master transactional skills, but capitalize on transformational skills as well),* which were strengthened in later work (Bass and Avolio 1990; Bass 1996).

In the authoritative Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership, Bass asserted that the field "has broken out of its normal confinement to the study of [small group and supervisory] behaviors" to more studies on executives, more inclusion of perspectives from political science, and more cross-fertilization among schools of thought (Bass 1990, xi). Not surprisingly, fresh efforts to find integrative models were common in the 1990s (Hunt 1996; Chemers 1997; Yukl 1998) (see table 1 for a summary of the eras of mainstream leadership theory and research). To be sure, this cursory review does not do justice to the wealth of perspectives on specific leadership topics, but space and purpose preclude a more in-depth treatment.' The Public-Sector Literature on Leadership Theory and Research Although the literature on leadership with a public-sec- tor focus is a fraction of that in the private sector, it is has been substantial albeit relatively unfocused. One way to begin a brief review is to look at the track record of PAR.

In doing an informal content analysis of the joumal since its inception—using a rather loose definition of leadership that includes the broader management topics, most execu- tive topics, much of the explicit discretion literature, and that part of the organizational change literature that has a strong leadership component—the author found 110 ar- ticles relating to the topic in 61 years. However, using a stricter criterion—that leadership was an explicit focus of the article—only about 25 articles qualified, or about four per decade on average.

In the 1940s, articles by Finer (1940) and Leys (1943) defined the administrative discretion debate—how much discretion should public administrators have, and under what conditions—that was taken up so vigorously again Table 1 Eras of Mainstream Leadership Theory and Research Era Major time frame Great Man Pre-1900; continues to be popular in biogrophies.

Trait 1900-48; current resurgence of recognition of importance of natural talents.

Contingency 1948-80s; continues as the basis of most rigorous models but with vastly expanded situational repertoire.

Transformational 1978-present.

Servant 1977-present.

Multifaceted 1990s-present.

Major characteristics/examples of proponents • Emphasis on emergence of a greot figure such as a Napoleon, George Woshington, or Martin Luther, who has substantial affect on society.

• Era influenced by notions of rational social change by uniquely talented and insightful individuals.

Emphasis on the individual traits (physical, personal, motivational, aptitudes) and skills (communi- cation and ability to influence) that leaders oring to all leadership tasks.

Ero influenced by scientific methodologies in general (especially industrial measurement) and scientific management in particular (for instance, the definition of roles and assignment of competencies to those roles).

Emphasis on the situational variables leaders must deal with, especially performance and lollower variables. Shift from traits and skills to behaviors (for example, energy levels and communication skills to role clarification and staff motivation). Dominated by bimodal models in its heyday.

Era influenced bv the rise of human relations theory, behavioral science (in areas such as motiva- tion theory), and the use of small group experimental designs in psychology.

Emphasis on leaders who create change in deep structures, major processes, or overall culture.

Leoder mechanisms may be compelling vision, brilliant technical insight, and/or chorismatic quality.

Era influenced by the loss of American dominance in business, finance, and science, and the need to re-energize various industries which had slipped into complacency.

Emphasis on the ethical responsibilities to followers, stakeholders, and society. Business theorists tend to emphasize service to followers; political theorists emphasize citizens; public administration analysts tend emphasize legal compliance ond/or citizens.

Era influenced by social sensitivities raised in the 1960s and 1970s.

Emphosis on integrating the major schools, especially the transactional schools (trait and behavior issues largely representing management interests) and transformational schools (visionary, entrepreneurial, and charismatic).

Era offected by a highly competitive global economy and the need to provide a more sophisticated and holistic approach to leadership.

218 Public Administration Review • March/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2 in the 1990s. Donald Stone wrote "Notes on the Govem- ment Executive:

His Role and His Method" in 1945, which is as good an equivalent to Follett's "The Essentials of Lead- ership" ([1933] 1996) or Barnard's Functions of the Ex- ecutive ([1938] 1987) as ever appeared in the joumal.

The trickle of high-quality pieces continued in which Lawton (1954) followed in Stone's footsteps, and Dimock (1958) provided a well-grounded assessment of leadership development. The first piece based exclusively on empiri- cal evidence was by Golembiewski (1959), in which he brought together the literature on small groups in public- sector settings.

Guyot (1962) presented the only empirical study in the 1960s to study variation in the motivation of public and private leaders. Fisher (1962) complained that federal man- agers do not have management training, and James Fesler (1960) provided a superb editorial comment on the impor- tance of studying leadership and its many contexts. Other topics addressed were influence and social power (Altshular 1965; Lundstedt 1965).

No important articles appeared in the 1970s, which mir- rors the low profile of leadership publication in the popu- lar literature. Yet the lacuna is made up by the resurgence of interest in leadership topics in the 1980s. Dilulio (1989) reasserted the importance of both leadership and the man- agement component. Probably the three best articles on the training and development of leaders were written dur- ing this time (Likert 1981; Flanders and Utterback 1985; Faerman, Quinn, and Thompson 1987). Stone (1981) and Dimock (1986) wrote essays on the importance and nur- turing of innovation and creativity in organizations by lead- ers.

Empirical pieces also appeared on followership (Gil- bert and Hyde 1988) and leader action planning (Young and Norris 1988).

Because leadership is so highly related to reform, and because of the volume and debate over the proper type of reforms to make that occurred throughout the decade, lead- ership is at least indirectly discussed in nearly every issue after 1992. This is particularly true for the debate about administrative discretion, which largely pitted an "entre- preneurial" camp against a "stewardship" camp. Although they cannot do justice to the full range of topics in these two idealized perspectives, good examples are provided in Bellone and Goerl's "Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy" (1992) and Terry's "Administrative Lead- ership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement" (1998). Some of the best and most focused empirically based studies in PAR appeared in the 1990s (Hennessey 1998; Moon 1999; Considine and Lewis 1999; Borins 2000).

Generalizing about the leadership literature in PAR as one barometer of the field, the following observations can be made:

First, until the last decade, leadership was largely considered an executive phenomenon, and thus when small group and lower-level leadership was the focus of the mainstream leadership literature in the 1960s and 1970s, leadership topics were lightly covered. Second, there were only a handful of empirical pieces on leader- ship in the first 50 years of the joumal. Finally, in terms of the "thoughtful essay" tradition, many of the best ex- amples occur in book reviews, with Donald Stone, John Corson, and Paul Appleby being frequent contributors.

Though important, PAR is but one source—what other contributions were being made to a distinctively public- sector leadership literature?

In the first half of the century during the trait period, public-sector sites were frequently examined, although no distinctive perspective emerged (Jenkins 1947). The first in an important genre of executive studies was done by Macmahon and Millett (1939), in this case regarding fed- eral administrators. The tradition of biographies and auto- biographies of important administrative leaders was also established (Pinchot 1947). In the 1950s, a series of good leadership studies in the administrative realm was pro- duced, most notably by Bernstein (1958). However, Selznick's classic. Leadership in Administration (1957), is probably the single best overall treatment of the subject in terms of timelessness. In the 1960s, Corson (with Shale) wrote his second book on senior administrative leaders (1966), and Graubard and Holton edited a series of essays on political and administrative leadership (1962). Downs' (1967) well-known book on bureaucracy is notable for its popular, if negative, typology of leaders.

Again, the 1970s produced little of special note, with the exception of the administrative role in iron-triangle politics (Heclo 1977) and several good studies of military and quasi-military lead- ership (Winter 1979; Jermier and Berkes 1979).

With the introduction of the transformational and char- ismatic literatures in the 1980s, the resurgence of more general interest in leadership was mirrored in the adminis- trative leadership literature. The administrative leader as entrepreneur was introduced by Eugene Lewis (1980) and expanded upon by Doig and Hargrove (1987). Kaufman provided a definitive executive study (1981); Cleveland (1985) and Gardner (1989) provided masterfully well- rounded essays in the Selznick tradition. The more spe- cialized studies on public-sector leadership continued to be primarily for the military (Van Fleet and Yukl 1986; Taylor and Rosenback 1984).

The volume of materials produced in the 1990s requires more selectivity for the present purpose.

Many public-sec- tor leadership books have elements that are applicable for administrative leaders but really focus on local and national policy makers (such as councils, mayors, state legislators, etc.) and civic leaders (Chrislip and Larson 1994; Heifetz 1994; Svara 1994; Henton, Melville, and Walesh 1997; Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment 219 Luke 1998). Some emphasize specific elements of leader- ship such as planning (Bryson and Crosby 1992), com- plexity (Kiel 1994), problem focus (R. Terry 1993), pub- lic-service values (Rost 1990; Fairholm 1991; Riccucci 1995), and frontline leaders (Vinzant and Crothers 1998).

Larry Terry (1995) provided a full-length argument sup- porting leadership as stewardship (which he calls conser- vatorship). Much of the more narrowly focused leadership literature continued to be for the military (Hunt, Dodge, and Wong 1999). The International Journal of Public Ad- ministration sponsored a symposium about transforma- tional leadership, edited by the distinguished leadership expert Bernard Bass in 1996. In 2001, Rusaw provided the first book designed as an overarching textbook with a re- view of the literature.

Previously, broad treatments had been available only in chapter formats in most of the standard generic textbooks in the field.

No review of the literature would be complete without some mention of leadership education and training—that is, the application of scholarly work and the genesis of applied research from training settings. Although some of the larger public administration programs with greater re- sources have substantial offerings in organizational lead- ership, few of the moderate and smaller programs nation- ally have the faculty resources to do so. Nonetheless, leadership books and articles are sprinkled throughout management classes in educational curricula, even if in an auxiliary capacity. There are numerous leadership training programs for leaders at all levels of govemment and at various levels in organizations. Many use leadership-feed- back instruments (often called 360-degree instruments) that provide anonymous feedback from subordinates, superi- ors, and sometimes colleagues. For example, the Center for Creative Leadership uses the proprietary assessment tool "Benchmarks" as the basis of one of its programs.

Some rely heavily on case studies, such as the State and Local Executive Program at Harvard's Kennedy School.

Many are eclectic or holistic, such as the Federal Execu- tive Institute. Nearly all major federal agencies have their own leadership programs, and the military and public safety areas are particularly keen on leadership training. Many fine state and local programs are located at universities, such as the University of Virginia (Center for Public Ser- vice), University of Texas-Austin (Governor's Center), and Arizona State University (Advanced Public Executive Pro- gram).

A number of the scholars who publish in this area are affiliated with such programs.

Finally, it should be noted that the Office of Personnel Management has done a good deal of applied research (OPM 1997,1999), which it shares with its partners in state governments.

Why do the literatures vary today? The mainstream was pushed into more integrative leadership models in the 1980s by the "new economy," which was triggered by the economic shocks of the 1970s. Substantially higher levels of productivity and customer focus required a much more encompassing model or set of models than the largely transactional approaches had achieved. Reforma- tion efforts in the public sector lagged by nearly a decade (despite the fanfare of 1992-94). Integrative models tai- lored to public-sector settings simply may be following traditional delayed development, but they also may have been stymied by the enormous normative debates that typified the field in the 1990s.

Perennial Debates in Mainstream Leadership Theory Another way to review the leadership literature is to examine the major debates that have shaped both leader- ship paradigms and research agendas. For simplicity, only four of the broadest are discussed here:

• The "proper" focus?

• Does it make a difference?

• Are leaders bom or made?

• The best style?

What Should Leaders Focus On: Technical Performance, Development of People, or Organizational Alignment?

We expect leaders to "get things done," to maintain good systems, to provide the resources and training for produc- tion, to maintain efficiency and effectiveness through vari- ous controls, to make sure that technical problems are handled correctly, and to coordinate functional operations.

These and other more technical aspects of production are one level of leadership focus. This focus is implicit in much of the management literature from scientific management, classical management (for example, POSDCORB), the productivity literature, and the contemporary measurement and benchmark literature. It is particularly relevant for leadership in the lower levels of the organization closest to production.

Another perspective is that leaders do not do the work:

They depend on followers to actually do the work. There- fore, followers' training, motivation, maturation and con- tinued development, and overall satisfaction are critical to production and organizational effectiveness. Indeed, some of the foremost researchers on the stumbling blocks for leaders state, "many studies of managerial performance have found that the most critical skill for beginning man- agers, and one most often lacking, is interpersonal compe- tence, or the ability to deal with 'people problems'" (McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison 1988, 19). This strain of thought blossomed during the humanist era, beginning with Maslow in the 1940s and peaking during the 1960s with writers like Argyris, McGregor, and Likert and the 220 Public Administration Review • March/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2 situationalists in the 1970s. In the situational leadership research, it was the other half of the task-people dualism.

It is still very popular today, especially in the team leader- ship literature (Katzenbach and Smith 1993), the excel- lence literature such as Tom Peters (1994), and the charis- matic elements of the transformational leadership literature.

The emergence of the transformational leadership para- digm in the 1980s brought the idea that "the essential func- tion of leadership is to produce adaptive or useful change" (Kotter 1990).

This notion was, in reality, resurrected from the great man theories in political science and Weberian charismatic theory in sociology. Similarly, Edgar Schein asserted that "the only thing of real importance that lead- ers do is to create and manage culture" (1985, 2, empha- sis in original).

Certainly not a major theme in the mainstream, if not altogether absent, was the notion that leadership is a ser- vice to the people, end consumers, society, and the public interest (rather than followers). It is common for biogra- phies of religious and social leaders to advance this most strongly, but exemplars in public service do so nearly as strongly (Cooper and Wright 1992; Riccucci 1995). This notion does not displace technical performance, follower development, or organizational alignment, but it often largely ignores these dimensions as "givens." Although relatively uncommon in the mainstream, it has been a prominent element of the scholarly discussion in the pub- lic administration literature.

Lastly—and logically—leadership can be seen as a com- posite of several or all of these notions. Such a composite perspective has both logical and emotional appeal. Lead- ers typically are called upon to do and be all of these things—perform, develop followers, align their organiza- tions, and foster the common good. Yet it also sidesteps the problem to some degree. Most leaders must make dif- ficult choices about what to focus on and what they should glean from the act of leadership. What is the appropriate balance, and who determines it? Such normative questions loom large when reckoning the merits of the checkered histories of administrative leaders such as Robert Moses (Caro 1974), J. Edgar Hoover (Powers 1987), and more recently, Robert Citrone. For an array of possible defini- tions related to administrative leadership, see table 2.

To What Degree Does Leadership Make a Difference?

Bums (1978, 265) tells the cynical story of a French- man sitting in a cafe who hears a disturbance, runs to the window, and cries:

"There goes the mob. I am their leader.

I must follow them!" Such a story suggests that, at a mini- mum, we place too great an emphasis on the effect that leaders have. At its loftiest level—do leaders make a dif- ference?—the question is essentially philosophical because of its inability to provide meaningful control groups and define what leadership means, other than in operational terms.

No matter whether it is the great man or transfor- mational theorists comparing Hitlers to Chamberlains, or situational theorists working with small groups compar- ing the results of finite solution problems, the answer is generally yes. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that leaders do not act in a vacuum—they are a part of the flow of history and set in a culture filled with crises, op- portunities, and even dumb luck. In practical terms, how- ever, the question of whether leaders make any difference gets translated into the questions of how much difference and when?

In its various permutations, the question of how much difference leaders make takes up the largest part of the literature, especially when the question relates to the ef- fect of specific behaviors, traits, and skills or their clus- ters.

At a global level, the transformational and great man devotees generally assert that great leaders can make a Table 2 Possible Definitions of Leadership in an Administrative Context Leadership can focus strictly on the ends (getting things done), the means by which things get done (the followers), or aligning the organization with external needs and opportunities (which can result in substantive change). A definition of leadership can also emphasize the spirit with which leadership is conducted: In the public sector, this is invariably a public service commitment. Of course, definitions are a blend of several of these elements but with different emptiases. One's definition tends to vary based on normative preferences and one's concrete situation and experience.

1.

AdministraHve leadership is the process of providing the results required by outhorized processes in an efficient, effecHve, and legol manner.

(This narrower definition might apply well to a frontline supervisor and would tend to be preferred by those endorsing strict political accountability.) 2.

Administrative leadership is the process of develaping/supporting followers who provide the results. (Since all leaders have followers, and since it is the followers who actually perform the work and provide its auality, it is better to focus on them than the direct service/product. This is a common view in service industries with mottoes such as Our Employees Are Our Number 1 Priority.) 3. Administrarive leadership is the process of aligning the organization with its environment, especially the necessary macro-level changes necessary, and realigning the culture as appropriate. (This definition tends to fit executive leadership better and emphasizes the "big picture." Many public sector analysts are concerned about the application of this definition because of a breakdown in democratic accountability.) 4. The key element to administrative leadership is its service focus.

(Although leadership functions and foci may vary, administrative leaders need to be responsive, open, aware of competing interests, dedicated to the common good, etc., so that they create a sense of public trust for their stewardship roles.) 5. Leodership is a composite of providing technical performance, internal direction to followers, external organizational direction—all with a public service orientation. (This definition implicitly recognizes the complex and demanding challenge for leaders; however, it eschews the tough decision about defining the proper emphasis or focus that leaders may need to—and operationally do—make.) Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment 221 great difference. Some of the best practical writers, how- ever, caution that leaders' effects are only modest because of the great constraints and the inertia they face (Barnard [1938] 1987; Gardner 1989). The stories about Truman pitying the incoming Eisenhower because his orders would not be followed as in the Army, and Kennedy or- dering the missiles out of Turkey only to find out during the Cuban missile crisis that they were still there, reflect this perspective. It is likely that this wisdom is directed at the excessive reliance on formal authority and insu- lated rationalistic thinking that some inexperienced or weaker leaders exhibit.

Another particularly important dimension of the effect of leadership relates to the levels at which leadership oc- curs.

At the extreme, some theorists emphasize leadership that is almost exclusively equivalent to grand change (Zaieznik 1977) and minimize and even denigrate the no- tion that leadership occurs throughout the organization. To the contrary, the small group research of the 1950s through the 1970s seemed to suggest that leadership is fundamen- tally similar at any level. A few, especially the customer service and excellence literatures, emphasize the impor- tance of frontline supervisors (Peters 1994; Buckingham and Coffman 1999). More comprehensive models of the current leadership literature tend to emphasize the idea that different types of leadership are required at different lev- els, especially because of the increasing levels of discre- tion allowed as one climbs higher in the organization (Hunt 1996).

Different styles simply require different types of skills (Katz 1955).

Are Leaders Born or Made?* An implicit assumption of the great man theory is that leaders (invariably the heads of state and major businesses such as banks and mercantile houses) are essentially bom, probably allowing for some significant early training as well. That is, you either have the "stuff' of leadership or you don't, and most do not. Of course, in an age when leadership generally required either membership in the privileged classes (that is, the "right stufF' included edu- cation, wealth, connections, and senior appointments) or, in rare instances, extraordinary brilliance in a time of cri- sis (such as a Napoleon),' this has more than a little truth to it. In a more democratic era, such factors have less force, especially because leadership is conceived so much more broadly in terms of position.

Today, the question is generally framed as one of de- gree rather than as a strict dichotomy. To what degree can leaders be "made," and how? The developmental portion actually has two major components according to most re- searchers and thoughtful practitioners. While part of lead- ership is the result of formal training, it actually may be the smaller component. Experience is likely the more im- portant teacher.

In the extreme, this position states that lead- ership cannot be taught, but it can be leamed.

More formal training is not without its virtues, too, pro- viding technical skills and credibility, management knowl- edge, extemal awareness, coaching, and encouragement for reflection. Leaders must have (or in some instances acquire) the basic technical knowledge of the organiza- tion, often more for credibility than the executive function itself; formal training can assist greatly here. Management is a different profession altogether from doing line work; again, training can greatly facilitate the leaming process, especially for new managers. Thus, while the black-and- white debate about leaders being made or bom is largely considered sophomoric, the more sophisticated debate about the relative importance of innate abilities, experi- ence (unplanned or rotational), and formal training is alive and well.

What Is the Best Style to Use?

Although leadership style is really just an aggregation of traits, skills, and behaviors, it has been an extremely popular topic of research and debate in its own right. One of the most significant issues has been definitional: What is leadership style? Although leadership style can be thought of as the cumulative effect of all traits, skills, and behaviors, it generally describes what is perceived as the key—or at least a prominent—aspect of the universal set of leadership characteristics. Examples include follower participation, such as Zand (1997, 143), who discusses command, consign, consult, and concur styles; change styles, such as risk averse or risk accepting; and personal- ity styles, such as those based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Other leadership style definitions involve com- munication, individual versus group approaches to leader- ship, value orientations—especially involving integrity, and power-and-influence typologies.

A slightly different approach to style looks at it re- lated to function. Much of the situational literature ad- dresses style in this light. Leaders have to get work done ("initiate structure") and work through people ("consid- eration"). How they are perceived to balance these fac- tors can be defined operationally as their style. A some- what different, but very useful, insight into functional style preference has to do with the type of situation the leader prefers or excels in: a maintenance situation, a project or task force situation, a line versus function situation, a start- up, or tuming a business around (McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison 1988).

Another important set of issues regarding style has to do with whether and to what degree style can be changed in adults.'" Not many have taken the hard line that chang- ing style is nearly impossible. Fiedler (1967; Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar 1976) is probably most prominent 222 Public Administration Review • March/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2 in this regard, largely advising that it is better to figure out the situation first and find the appropriate leader sec- ond. Yet, even assuming that change in style is possible, most serious researchers warn against excessive expec- tations of dramatic change, although radical style change anecdotes pepper the popular literature. If style can be changed, then the important issue that emerges is how (which largely becomes an applied training issue)? Hersey and Blanchard (1969, 1972) have been the most popular in this regard, teaching people to compare their style pref- erence (defined by worker participation in decision mak- ing) with the style needs of various situations. In addi- tion to style need (situational demands), style preference, and style range (a leader's repertoire of different styles) is the issue of style quality. Just because one practices a style extensively does not mean that one is proficient in its use.

Although these debates have strong echoes in the pub- lic-sector literature, the differences in the debate stmctures are as important as the similarities.

Debates and Discussions in Administrative Leadership Theory Of the four major questions, only the first (focus) is dis- cussed as robustly in the public-sector literature as it is in the mainstream; indeed, from a normative philosophical basis, the administrative leadership literature probably ar- gues this issue even more thoroughly. However, the ques- tion of proper focus is translated into the discretion de- bate, which has taken numerous forms affecting the proper role of administrative leaders. For the sake of simplicity, the first era (1883-1940s) can be conceptualized as a time when the dichotomy between the political world of policy decisions and the world of technical and neutral imple- mentation was the overarching ideal. It was argued that good administrative leaders made many technical decisions but referred policy decisions to their political superiors.

The role of discretion was largely ignored or downplayed.

The second era (1940-1980s) was a less idealistic model that recognized that the interplay of the political and ad- ministrative worlds is far more intertwined than a simple dichotomy would explain. The dominant model during this period was administrative responsibility, that is, the ap- propriate and modest use of significant discretion. The re- cent era (since the 1990s), driven by a worldwide govem- ment reform agenda, has interjected entrepreneurial uses of discretion for public administrators. The debate about what to reform in govemment (the size, the cost, the pro- cesses, the stmctures, the accountability mechanisms, etc.) and how to reform it has stirred huge controversies in the scholarly community. To the degree that it is embraced, the newest model encourages creative and robust uses of discretion and diffuses authority among more stakehold- ers and control mechanisms.

The discretion debate has shaped the proper focus de- bate primarily in terms of a management orientation (trans- actional) versus a change orientation (transformational).

If leaders should not exercise significant discretion or be too activist, then they should not play a substantial change role but should focus more on management issues. In a contrary position, many in the New Public Management school echo the mainstream school of the 1980s in assert- ing that public administrators are uniquely qualified to play a large role, which otherwise would leave a critical leader- ship vacuum. Another element in the proper focus discus- sion that is robust in the public-sector literature adds—or sometimes substitutes altogether—^the inclusion of custom- ers/clients/citizens and the public good generally.

Although the different schools disagree rather caustically about the way to frame these notions and the proper terms to use, there tends to be rather impressive agreement that extemal constituencies and the common good are a fundamental focus of public-sector administrators that is not to be taken for granted.

The debate about the importance of leadership is much more muted and underdeveloped. Although some argue from the perspective of democratic theory that administra- tive leaders should not be important from a strictly politi- cal perspective, most public administration scholars and almost all practitioners simply assume or assert the impor- tance of public administrators. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to treat all situations in which leadership is im- portant as a single monolith, rather than exploring the rami- fications of different types of leadership in different con- texts with varying missions, organizational structures, accountability mechanisms, environmental constraints, and so on.

This means that the technology of leadership is much less articulated on the public-sector side than the private- sector side. Attempts at scholarly syntheses that reflect sophisticated multifunctional, multilevel, and multisitua- tional models that were in evidence in the mainstream by the 1990s are largely lacking in either monographs or the joumal literature in the public sector.

Part of the weakness of the literature resides in its non- integrated character, with the ironic exception of many surprisingly good chapter overviews on leadership in gen- eral public administration and public management text- books. The serious debate about the best style to use is cut into many parts and is rarely as explicitly or holistically discussed as in the mainstream leadership literature. Frag- ments of this literature are found in management topics such as total quality management, motivation, and routine problem solving in places such as Public Productivity and Management Review, and part of the literature is found in executive topics such as strategic planning and organiza- Public-Sector Leadership Theory:

An Assessment 223 tional change and development in joumals such as Public Administration Quarterly. The ethics-values literature, for all of its normative robustness, generally offers few con- crete recommendations on this score beyond general ad- monitions to be responsive, trustworthy, honest, coura- geous, and pmdent.

The final debate, about whether leaders are bom or made, is also not particularly well developed from a theoretical perspective. In the 1960s, the situational models presented relatively elementary task-people matrices. Both task and people skills could be taught, and a more humanistic ap- proach that was less reliant on directive styles was gener- ally encouraged. This was generally adopted in the public- sector literature. In the 1980s, when the mainstream field was searching for a more comprehensive and complex model, some good examples of sophisticated training mod- els did emerge on the public-sector side (Flanders and Utterback 1985; Faerman, Quinn, and Thompson 1987) but this part of the literature was largely dormant in the 1990s. The "bom" side of the argument recognizes the importance of recmitment and selection of exceptional in- dividuals. Such discussions have been relatively common in a human resources context, especially in reports recom- mending ways to strengthen the public sector (for instance, the Vblcker Commission in 1990 and the Winter Commis- sion in 1993), but have not been integrated into an explicit leadership discussion.

Conclusion The mainstream leadership literature, which is a multi- disciplinary field dominated by business administration and psychology, has been huge. Although the field has been active for a century, partial and simplistic approaches to this complex phenomenon did not really contribute much to the overall understanding of leadership until the 1980s, when transformational approaches were (re)introduced.

That is, many of the elements of leadership—select traits, skills, or behaviors—were better understood, but a more sophisticated model that could accommodate entirely dif- ferent missions and environments was lacking. A major effort in the 1990s was to provide syntheses that are so- phisticated enough for researchers and elegant enough for practitioners.

Although some have contributed or used pub- lic-sector examples in the mainstream literature, that has not been integrated into a distinctive public-sector leader- ship literature focusing on the significant constraints and unique environment of administrative leaders. The admin- istrative leadership literature is substantial if very broadly defined, especially in the last decade.

However, the broader, tangential literature about administrative leadership is dis- persed in topics such as reform, ethics, and management, and an explicit focus on the detailed dynamics of leader- ship is largely lacking.

Although it is hard to determine the exact reasons for neglect in this area, it is possible to assess the broad rea- sons.

The technical difficulties of leadership research, es- pecially the empirical elements, have not deterred those in the mainstream. Yet given the subtle nature of decision making by administrators in a system of democratically elected leaders with multiple branches of govemment, this seems to have been a significant detraction for public-sec- tor researchers. This has been compounded by a notice- able lack of administrative leadership theory development that has not been in the service of organizational, ethical, policy, or political studies. Beliefs that activist administra- tive leadership styles are not appropriate, or insignificant given the other powerful players, seem to have produced self-selection before the decision to research the area. That is, those with these beliefs have already largely gone into political science and policy areas rather than public ad- ministration and public management. If this has been a significant problem in the past, it seems the call for orga- nizational excellence, reform, entrepreneurialism, and ro- bust stewardship over the last 20 years has compensated for this tendency. The final problem—the diversion of at- tention—seems to be a major problem when examining much of the leadership-related materials. Most of the best empiricism, coupled with disciplined theory building and testing, is at the management level. The most problematic diversion (in terms of extending understanding of admin- istrative leadership), albeit a healthy discussion in its own right, has been the normative debate about administrative discretion in which schools use extreme cases to make ar- guments rather than more balanced assessments and rec- ommendations of realistic trends.

The strength of the administrative leadership literature, such as it is, has been its hearty normative discussions about the proper role of administrators in a democratic system.

Fntrepreneurial behavior cannot be blithely endorsed when public administrators are entmsted with the authority of the state.

Yet the increased size, cost, and regulatory inter- vention of the state means that new modes must also be considered—no matter whether they are explicitly entre- preneurial or more robust stewardship roles—as enormous pressures for reform escalate.

As a literature, the weaknesses are more pronounced than the strengths. The normative debate about the right amount and use of more activist leadership approaches for administrative leaders has long since stopped producing useful insights in terms of leadership studies. All schools of thought have tended to treat transformational elements of leadership either too simplistically or too universally.

After all, the leadership of a frontline supervisor and a chief executive officer, or the leadership of an auditor as op- posed to a state lottery executive, are likely to be remark- 224 Public Administration Review • Morch/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2 ably different. Good leadership theory, if it is at the macro level, must accommodate these substantial differences. The field has had remarkably few empirical studies that are not largely descriptive and has overly emphasized leadership as an executive function. Finally, contemporary syntheses of public-sector leadership models that define the actual relationships of the numerous leadership competencies in various environmental contexts are simply absent. Indeed, no matter where you look in or for this subfield, the needs are great and the research opportunities are manifold.

These needs can be crystallized into a dual leadership agenda. First, there is a striking need for a comprehensive leadership model that integrates transactional and trans- formational elements. While simplistic models such as fig- ure 1 are good for heuristic purposes, such a comprehen- sive model must be far more articulated to have the requisite explanatory power for the variety of situations and factors inherent in the vast world of public-sector leadership." Second, such comprehensive models must be subjected to empirical research to test the strength of relationships un- der various conditions and over time. This is particularly important in an age when change skills, vision articula- tion, and innovation are in greater demand. With well-ar- ticulated models, this is not as difficult as it might seem.

Such models should undergird leadership survey feedback programs (360-degree instmments used in leadership train- ing), which in tum provide excellent (and large) databases.

Another way to examine such models is through the types of surveys commissioned by the Intemational City/County Management Association.

Yet another way is to do a series of in-depth interviews with key organizational leaders. The key is to discipline ourselves to create models that are pow- erful enough to handle the complex leadership phenom- enon and then to hamess them in our research. Not only will it produce better science, it will be extremely useful in sharing our insights with the practitioner community.

Notes 1.

By "mainstream," I refer to literature that self-consciously labels itself as a part of the leadership literature and ad- dresses itself to broad audiences.

I exclude literatures that are meant for the consumption of a single discipline with specialized interests and terms. Thus, although many of the studies of public-sector administration are found in the main- stream, many of the issues and materials are not. Needless to say, as with all distinctions regarding large bodies of work, such differentiations are meant more for general insight and convenience than as rigorous taxonomies.

2.

For example. Bums states that "moral leadership emerges from and always returns to, the fundamental wants and needs of followers" (4), and later he adds that "transforming lead- ership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both the leader and the led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both" (20).

3.

Of course, Weber ([1922] 1963) introduced the notion of charismatic leadership quite clearly, and it had been used by those influenced by sociology and political science such as Willner (1968), Dow (1969) and Downton (1973). Even Freud made it clear that leadership involved more than simple exchange processes implicit in most situational theories.

4.

Although part of this avoidance may have been the result of a pro-experimental or positivist perspective, part of it may have been an eschewal of the great man school (which clearly has transformational trappings), which was disdained as antiscientific.

5.

Because the overlap is so extensive for the subschools, these distinctions are more for analytical insight than articulation of groups that would necessarily self-identify with these monikers.

6. For example, he notes, "we fmd that leaders will exhibit a variety of patterns of transformational and transactional leadership. Most leaders do both but in different amounts" (1985,22).

7.

Examples of these topics include the types of leaders, lead- ership styles, the types and effects of followers, the relevance of societal and organizational cultures on leadership, and the operation of power, or mid- and micro-level theory such as leader role theory, group development theory, path-goal theory, leader-member exchange theory, and attribution theory, among many others.

8. This is a variation of the nature-nurture debate found in some form in most of the social sciences.

9.

The time-of-crisis motif is prominent in the change litera- ture (Kanter, Stein, and Jick 1992) as well as the leadership literature. Transformationalists reminded us there are ex- ceptional leadership opportunities, which may or may not be filled, when there is a dramatic crisis, a leadership turn- over, or at select stages of the organizational life cycle (es- pecially the birth-to-growth and the maturity-to-decline phases).

10.

This debate is related to the made-bom argument, but with a critical difference. While the made-bom argument is about whether a leader can master any style, the style debate fo- cuses on whether a leader can leam styles other than their native or preferred style.

11.

For example, I am completing a book that uses an overarching framework somewhat more articulated than fig- ure 1 and that incorporates 62 subelements.

Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment 225 References Altshular, Alan. 1965. Rationality and Influence in Public Ser- vice.

Public Administration Review 25(3): 226-33.

Argyris, Chris. 1957. Personality and Organization.

New York:

Harper.

Baliga, B. Rajaram, and James G. Hunt. 1988. An Organiza- tional Life Cycle Approach to Leadership. In Emerging Lead- ership Vistas, edited by James G. Hunt, B. Rajaram Baliga, H. Peter Dachler, and Chester A.

Schriesheim, 129^9. Lex- ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Bamard, Chester I. [1938] 1987. The Functions of the Execu- tive. In Classics of Public Administration, edited by Jay M.

Shafritz and Albert C.

Hyde, 96-101.

Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Bass, Bemard M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

.

1990.

Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

. 1996. A New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bass, Bemard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1990. The Implications of Transactional and Transformational Leadership for Indi- vidual, Team, and Organizational Development. In Research in Organizational Change and Development, edited by Will- iam Pasmore and Richard W. Woodman, vol. 4, 231-72.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bellone, Carl J., and George F Goerl. 1992. Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy. Public Administration Re- view 52(12):

130-34.

Bennis, Warren, and Burt Nanus. 1985. Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York:

Harper and Row.

Bennis, Warren, Jagdish Parikh, and Ronnie Lessem. 1994. Be- yond Leadership: Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology.

Oxford, UK: Basil Publishing.

Bemstein, Marver H. 1958. The Job of the Federal Executive.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Bird, Charles. 1940. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton- Century.

Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid.

Houston, TX:

Gulf.

. 1965. A 9, 9 Approach for Increasing Organizational Productivity. In Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods, edited by Edgar H. Schein and Warren G.

Bennis, 169-83. New York:

Wiley.

Block, Peter. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self- Interest.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Borins, Sandford. 2000. Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers?

..

.Some Evidence about Innovative Public Managers. Public Administration Review 60(6): 498-507.

Brunner, Ronald D. 1997. Teaching the Policy Sciences: Re- flections on a Graduate Seminar. Policy Sciences 39(2):

217- 31.

Bryson, John M., and Barbara C. Crosby. 1992. Leadership for the Common Good:

Tackling Problems in a Shared-Power World.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Buckingham, Marcus, and Curt Coffman.

1999.

First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Dijfer- ently. New York:

Simon and Schuster.

Bums, James MacGregor.

1978.

Leadership. New York:

Harper and Row.

Caro, Robert A.

1974. The Power Broker:

Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.

New York: Vintage Books.

Champy, James. 1995. Reengineering Management: The Man- date for New Leadership. New York:

HarperBusiness.

Chemers, Martin M. 1997.

An Integrative Theory of Leadership.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

Chrislip, David D., and Carl E. Larson. 1994. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cleveland, Harlan. 1985.

The Knowledge Executive: Leadership in an Information Society. New York:

E.P. Dutton.

Conger, Jay A., and Rabindra N. Kanungo. 1998. Charismatic Leadership in Organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Pub- lications.

Considine, Mark, and Jenny M. Lewis. 1999. Govemance at Ground Level: The Frontline Bureaucrat in the Age of Mar- kets and Networks.

Public Administration Review 59(6):

467- 80.

Cooper, Terry L., and N. Dale Wright, eds. 1992. Exemplary Public Administrators: Character and Leadership in Gov- ernment.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Corson, John J., and Paul R. Shale. 1966. Men Near the Top:

Filling Key Posts in the Federal Service.

Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dahl, Robert A. 1947. The Science of Public Administration:

Three Problems. Public Administration Review 7(1): 1-11.

DePree, Max.

1989.

Leadership Is an Art.

New York: Doubleday.

Dilulio, John J., Jr. 1989. Recovering the Public Management Variable: Lessons from Schools, Prisons, and Armies.

Public Administration Review 49(2): 127-33.

Dimock, Marshall E. 1958. Executive Development after Ten Years.

Public Administration Review 18(2): 91-97.

. 1986. Creativity. Public Administration Review 46(1):

3-7.

Doig, Jameson W., and Erwin C. Hargrove. 1987. Leadership and Innovation:

A Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dow, Thomas. 1969. The Theory of Charisma. Sociological Quarterly 10(3): 306-18.

Downs, Anthony.

1967.

Inside Bureaucracy.

Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Downton, James V. 1973. Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process.

New York: Free Press.

Faerman, Sue R., Robert E. Quinn, and Michael P. Thompson.

1987.

Bridging Management Practice and Theory: New York State's Public Service Training Program. Public Administra- tion Review 47(4): 310-19.

226 Public Administration Review • March/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2 Fairholm, Gilbert. 1991.

Values Leadership:

Toward a New Phi- losophy of Leadership. New York:

Praeger.

Fesler, James W. 1960. Leadership and Its Context. Public Ad- ministration Review 20(2): 122.

Fiedler, Fred E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, Fred E., Martin M. Chemers, and L. Mahar. 1976. Im- proving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Con- cept.

New York: Wiley.

Finer, Herman. 1940. Administrative Responsibility in Demo- cratic Govemment.

Public Administration Review 1(4): 335- 50.

Fisher, John. 1962. Do Federal Managers Manage? Public Ad- ministration Review 22(2): 59-64.

Flanders, Lorretta R., and Dennis Utterback. 1985. The Man- agement Excellence Inventory: A Tool for Management De- velopment. Public Administration Review 45(3): 403-10.

Follett, Mary Parker. [1933] 1996. Mary Parker Follett:

Prophet of Management. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Gardner, John. W. 1989. On Leadership. New York:

Free Press.

Gilbert, G. Ronald, and Albert Hyde. 1988. Followership and the Federal Worker. Public Administration Review 48(6):

962- 68.

Golembiewski, Robert T. 1959. The Small Group and Public Administration. Public Administration Review 19(3): 149- 56.

Graubard, Stephen R., and Gerald Holton, eds.

1962. Excellence and Leadership in a Democracy. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press.

Greenleaf, Robert K. 1977. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York:

Paulist Press.

Guyot, James F. 1962. Govemment Bureaucrats Are Different.

Public Administration Review 22(4): 195-202.

Hammer, Michael, and James Champy.

19921.

Reengineering the Corporation:

A Manifesto for Business Revolution.

New York:

HarperCollins.

Heclo, Hugh. \ .A Government of Strangers: Executive Poli- tics in Washington. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Heifetz, Ronald A. 1994. Leadership without Easy Answers.

Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Hempill, John K. 1950. Leader Behavior Description. Colum- bus, OH: Ohio State University, Personnel Research Board.

Hempill, John K., and Alvin E. Coons. 1957. Development of the Leader Behavior Questionnaire. In Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, edited by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, 6-38. Columbus, OH: Ohio State Uni- versity, Bureau of Business Research.

Hennessey, J. Thomas. 1998. Reinventing Govemment: Does Leadership Make the Difference? Public Administration Re- view 58(6): 522-32.

Henton, Douglas, John Melville, and Kimberly Walesh. 1997.

Grassroots Leaders for a New Economy: How Civic Entre- preneurs Are Building Prosperous Communities. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hersey, Paul, and Kenneth H. Blanchard.

1969.

Life Cycle Theory of Leadership.

Training and Development Journal 23(1):

26- 34.

. 1972. The Management of Change. Training and De- velopment Journal 26{2):

20-24.

House, Robert J. 1977. A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leader- ship.

In Leadership: The Cutting Edge, edited by James G.

Hunt and Lars L. Larson, 189-207. Carbondale, IL: South- em Illinois Press.

Hunt, James G. 1996. Leadership: A New Synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hunt, James G., George E.

Dodge, and Leonard Wong, eds.

1999.

Out-of-the-Box Leadership: Transforming the Twenty-First- Century Army and Other Top-Performing Organizations.

Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Jenkins, William O.

1947.

A Review of Leadership Studies with Particular Reference to Military Problems. Psychological Bulletin 44(1): 54-19.

Jermier, John M., and L.J. Berkes. 1979. Leader Behavior in a Police Command Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi- Military Model. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(1): 1- 23.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, Barry A.

Stein, and Todd D. Jick. 1992.

The Challenges of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York:

Free Press.

Katz, Robert L. 1955. Skills of an Effective Administrator.

Harvard Business Review 33(1): 33—42.

Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams:

Creating the High Performance Organization.

Bos- ton, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaufman, Herbert. 1981. The Administrative Behavior of Fed- eral Bureau Chiefs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kiel, L. Douglas. 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kotter, John P.

1990. A Force for Change: How Leadership Dif- fers from Management. New York:

Free Press.

Lawton, Frederick J.

1954.

The Role of the Administrator in the Federal Govemment. Public Administration Review 14(2):

112-18.

Lewis, Eugene.

1980.

Public Entrepreneurship:

Toward a Theory of Bureaucratic Political Power.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Leys, Wayne A.R. 1943. Ethics and Administrative Discretion.

Public Administration Review 3(1):

10-23.

Likert, Rensis. 1959. Motivational Approach to Management Development. Harvard Business Review 37(4): 75-82.

. 1981. System 4: A Resource for Improving Public Ad- ministration. Public Administration Review 41(6):

674-78.

Luke, Jeffrey S. 1998. Catalytic Leadership:

Strategies for an Interconnected World.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lundstedt, Sven. 1965. Administrative Leadership and Use of Social Power. Public Administration Review 25(2): 156-^0.

Macmahon, Arthur W., and John D. Millett. 1939. Federal Ad- ministrators: A Biographical Approach to the Problem of Departmental Management. New York: Columbia University Press.

Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment 227 Maslow, Abraham.

1965.

Fupsychian Management.

Homewood, IL:

Dorsey.

McCall, Morgan W., Michael M. Lombardo, and Ann M.

Morrison. 1988.

The Lessons of Experience: How Successful Executives Develop on the Job.

New York:

Lexington Books.

McGregor, Douglas. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meindl, John R. 1990. On Leadership: An Altemative to the Conventional Wisdom. In Research in Organizational Behav- ior, edited by B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, vol. 12, 159- 203.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Moon, Myung Jae. 1999. The Pursuit of Managerial Fntrepre- neurship: Does Organization Matter? Public Administration Review 59{\):

31-43.

National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker Commis- sion).

1990. Leadership for America. Lexington, MA: Lex- ington Books.

National Commission on the State and Local Public Service (Winter Commission).

1992.

Hard Truths/Tough Choices:

An Agenda for State and Local Reform. Albany, NY: Nelson A.

Rockefeller Institute of Govemment.

Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 1997. MOSAIC: Oc- cupational Study of Federal Executives, Managers, and Su- pervisors. Washington, DC:

Office of Personnel Management.

.

1999.

High-Performing Leaders:

A Competency Model.

Washington, DC: Office of Personnel Management.

Peters, Thomas, and Nancy Austin. 1985. A Passion for Excel- lence:

The Leadership Difference.NewYork-.RandomUouse.

Peters, Tom. 1994. The Pursuit of WOW!

Every Person's Guide to Topsy-Turvy Times. New York:

Vintage Books.

Pinchot, Gifford. 1947. Breaking New Ground.

New York:

Harcourt, Brace.

Powers, Richard G. 1987. Secrecy and Power: The Life ofJ.

Edgar Hoover. New York:

Free Press.

Redford, Emmette.

1969.

Democracy in the Administrative State.

New York:

Oxford University Press.

Riccucci, Norma M. 1995. Unsung Heroes:

Federal Fxecucrats Making a Difference. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer- sity Press.

Rost, Joseph C. 1990. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rusaw, A. Carol.

2001.

Leading Public Organizations: An Inte- grative Approach.

Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Schein, Edgar H. 1985.

Organizational Culture and Leadership:

A Dynamic View.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Selznick, Philip.

1957.

Leadership in Administration.

New York:

Row, Peterson, and Company.

Stogdill, Ralph M. 1948.

Personal Factors Associated with Lead- ership: A Survey of the Literature. Journal of Psychology 25(1):

35-71.

Stone, Donald C. 1945. Notes on the Govemment Executive:

His Role and His Methods. Public Administration Review 5(3):

210-25.

. 1981. Innovative Organizations Require Innovative Managers. Public Administration Review 41(5):

507-13.

Svara, James H., ed.

1994.

Facilitative Leadership in Local Gov- ernment:

Lessons from Successful Mayors and Chairpersons.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, Robert L., and William E. Rosenback, eds. 1984. Mili- tary Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Terry, Larry D. 1995. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: The Administrator as Conservator. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

.

1998.

Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement. Public Administra- tion Review 5S{3y.

194-200.

Terry, Robert. 1993. Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tichy, Noel M., and Mary Anne Devanna. 1986. The Transfor- mational Leader. New York:

John Wiley and Sons.

Van Fleet, David D., and Gary Yukl. 1986. Military Leadership:

An Organizational Perspective. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Vinzant, Janet C, and Lane Crothers. 1998. Street-Level Lead- ership: Discretion and Legitimacy in Front-Line Public Ser- vice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Vroom, Victor H., and Arthur G. Jago. 1988. The New Leader- ship:

Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Vroom, Victor H., and Phillip W.

Yetton.

1973.

Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Weber, Max. [1922] 1963. The Sociology of Religion. Beacon, NY: Beacon Press.

Willner, Ann Ruth. 1968. Charismatic Political Leadership: A Theory. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University, Center for In- temational Studies.

Winter, David G. 1979.

Navy Leadership and Management Com- petencies: Convergence among Tests, Interviews and Perfor- mance Ratings. Boston, MA: McBer.

Yankelovich, Daniel. 1991. Coming to Public Judgment: Mak- ing Democracy Work in a Complex World.

Syracuse, NY:

Syracuse University Press.

Young, Frank, and John Norris.

1988.

Leadership Challenge and Action Planning: A Case Study. Public Administration Re- view 4^1): 564-10.

Yukl, Gary. 1971. Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

.

1998.

Leadership in Organizations. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zaieznik, Arthur. 1977. Managers and Leaders: Are They Dif- ferent? Harvard Business Review 55(5): 67-78.

Zand, Dale E. 1997. The Leadership Triad:

Knowledge, Trust, and Power.

New York:

Oxford University Press.

228 Public Administration Review • March/April 2003, Vol.

63, No.

2