Leadership in Public
Organizations
Chapter 1, Introduction
Although the serious study of leadership is only about a hundred years old, interest in leaders and
leadership dates back thousands of years. A ‘leader’ is a very broad term: there are political leaders,
religious leaders, financial leaders, etc. Given the tremendous impact and divergent personalities of
leaders around the world, it is nearly impossible to read, watch, or listen to any news source and not
be inundated with issues related to leadership, just as the topic is enormously common in the stories
and topics relayed in entertainment.
Ultimately, then, there are two major reasons for the enduring human interest in the topic of
leadership:
1) The effect of leaders on our lives is omnipresent. Leaders affect us on a grand scale in that
they determine the success or failure of our societies, countries, and localities.
2) We are compulsively fascinated by people in leadership positions, or those who assume the
roles of leaders.
Since leaders affect us so profoundly on a grand as well as a personal scale, it’s important to
understand how leadership functions. We should be able to recognize the types of leaders we have
in terms of their strengths and deficiencies, and also assess the types of leaders we need and the
particular competencies they should possess. Another important reason for studying leadership is
that all of us function as leaders from time to time.
Because leadership is such a large subject, we next distinguish among the major types of leadership
and identify the type of leadership on which this book focuses.
Major Types of Leadership
Leadership is such a broadly used concept that it can be ambiguous if not defined more narrowly.
One way to define types of leadership is by the kind of ‘followers’ being led, and another is by the
nature of the work that is the primary focus of the leader. In mature organizations and systems,
these roles are often quite distinct, but in some special cases, such as new entrepreneurial
organizations, the roles are merged.
The main focus of this book is organizational leaders who have a primary or sole focus on employees.
Leadership also occurs outside organizational settings, relying primarily on paid employees. Many
leaders hold their formal or informal positions by satisfying constituents. The ability to reward and
punish is usually negligible, but they do rely on their position, expertise, and personal popularity.
Such leaders who are interested in getting things done generally have volunteers rather than
employees.
Finally, some leaders have neither much formal power stemming from a formal position nor the
ability to reward or punish; nonetheless, they have a powerful influence on others. Such leaders rely
primarily on their expertise or force of personality alone.
,Of course, leaders often cross these conceptual distinctions because they carry out several types of
leadership simultaneously or change their leadership roles of time.
The reason for making these distinctions, despite the fact that the lines can get blurred and some
leaders practice multiple types, is that different competencies are involved. Good legislators do not
necessarily make good managers, and good managers frequently do not have the skills necessary to
become elected officials. Our focus on organizational leaders allows us to be more specific in our
analysis and leadership guidelines than if the text were focused on all types of leaders.
Variations in Organizational Leadership
Even though this book focuses on all organizational leaders with an emphasis on those in public and
nonprofit settings, many important distinctions can be made that affect the situations in which
organizational leaders must operate. These distinctions can make a difference in what framework
one uses in theoretical terms as well as in practical competencies accentuated.
For the purpose of this book, all those who lead others, no matter whether they are frontline
supervisors or the heads of organizations, have leadership roles. Of course they will need different
competencies.
Another important distinction is between the types of leadership exhibited in different fields or even
in different parts of a large organization.
Another important difference affecting leadership competencies is the amount of change in the
environmental context. With a more turbulent public-sector environment, as well as enormous
growth in the nonprofit sector, change management skills have become far more important since the
1990s.
Other useful distinctions to keep in mind when analyzing the situations of leaders are the maturity of
the organization, the differences among line and staff, the differences in resource levels, and the size
of the organization.
In summary, organizational leaders as a class have a great deal more in common than, say, legislators
or community leaders do. Nonetheless, organizational leaders work in different situations, and those
differences are important in analyzing their specific leadership roles and thus the competencies they
need to emphasize.
,History of the Study of Organizational Leadership
Eras of orthodox leadership theory and research
Era Major time frame Characteristics
Great man Pre-19000; continues to be - Emphasis on emergence of a great
popular in biographies figure (such as Napoleon) who has
substantial effect on society.
- Era influenced by notions of
rational social change by uniquely
talented and insightful individuals
Trait 1900 – 1948; resurgence of - Emphasis on the individual traits
recognition of importance of (physical, personal, motivational,
natural talents aptitudinal) and skills
(communication and ability to
influence) that leaders bring to all
leadership tasks
- Era influenced by scientific
methodologies in general
(especially industrial
measurement) and scientific
management in particular (e.g.,
the definition of roles and
assignment of competencies to
those roles)
Contingency 1940 to the 1980s; continues as - Emphasis on the situational
basis of most rigorous models variables with which leaders must
but with vastly expanded deal, especially performance and
situational repertoire follower variables. Shift from traits
and skills to behaviours (e.g.
informing and delegating vs
consulting and motivating).
Dominated by bimodal models in
its heyday.
- Era influenced by the rise of
human relations theory,
behavioural sciences (in areas such
as motivation theory), and the use
of small-group experimental
designs in psychology.
Transformational 1978 to present - Emphasis on leaders who create
change in deep structures, major
processes, or overall culture.
Leader mechanisms may be
compelling vision, brilliant
technical insight, and/or
charismatic quality.
- Era influenced by the loss of
American dominance in business,
finance, and science, and the need
to reenergize various industries
that had slipped into complacency.
Servant 1979 to present - Emphasis on ethical
, responsibilities to followers,
stakeholders, and society. Business
theorists tend to emphasize
service to followers; political
theorists emphasize citizens;
public administration analysts tend
to emphasize legal compliance
and/or citizens
Multifacted 1990s to present - Emphasis on (a) integrating the
major schools, (b) distributed and
horizontal leadership, and (c)
postmodern perspectives
emphasizing process and groups
- Era effected by the need to
provide a more sophisticated and
holistic framework for leadership,
more democratic models, and
theories relevant to contemporary
notions of a diverse and rapidly
evolving society.
Perennial Debates in Leadership Theory
Another way to analyze the leadership literature is to examine major debates that have shaped both
leadership paradigms and research agendas. For simplicity, only four of the broadest are discussed
here.
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 production, and to coordinate functional operations. These and other more technical
aspects of production are one level of leadership focus. It’s particularly relevant for leadership at the
lower levels of the organization, closest to production.
Another perspective is that leaders do not do the work; they depend on followers to do it. Therefore,
the followers’ training, motivation, maturation and continued development, and overall satisfaction
are critical to production and organizational effectiveness.
The emergence of the transformational leadership paradigm in the 1980s brought the idea that ‘the
essential function of leadership is to produce adaptive or useful change’.
Certainly not a major theme in the mainstream, if not altogether absent, was the additional notion
that leadership is service to the people, end consumers, society, and the public interest (rather than
to followers per se). This notion does not displace technical performance, follower development, or
organizational alignment, but often largely downplays these dimensions as ‘givens’.
Lastly and logically, leadership can be seen as a composite of several or all of these notions. When we
think of great leaders, we typically think of people who contribute in all domains. Such a composite
perspective has both logical and emotional appeal. Leaders typically are called upon to do and be all
these things – perform, develop followers, align their organizations, and foster the common good.
Yet this perspective also sidesteps the problem to some degree. Most leaders must make difficult
choices about what to focus on and what they themselves should glean from the act of leadership.
This composite perspective therefore begs the question: how do leaders make the correct choice of
definition and emphasis?
