Changing values in the modern public sector: the need for value‐based leadership

Abstract

Purpose -The past 30 years have been a period marked by extensive modernisation programmes in the public sector. Principles taken from the New Public Management agenda have been adopted, and market solutions have been implemented across a broad range of service areas. These reforms have challenged the existing organisational culture of many public sector institutions. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether there has been a detectable change in the dominant values found in professional organisations within the public sector over the past decade, and if so, what challenges the leaders are faced with as a result of these changes. Design/methodology/approach -The empirical data are based on a quantitative survey of leaders in a large Norwegian municipality with a total population of 189 such leaders. Of these, 155 returned the questionnaires, giving a response rate of 82 per cent. Findings -The results of the study show that two central values connected to the New Public Management agenda have gained increased importance over recent years -namely "meeting the needs of individual users", and "renewal/innovation". Of the listed values perceived as having become more important, these were ranked as the top two. At the same time, values traditionally associated with the public ethos continue to enjoy a strong position, whereas purely economic values remain relatively insignificant. Research limitations/implications -All in all, this study shows that the landscape of values in the public sector is changing, and there are strong indications that traditional values have come under pressure from new values embedded in the on-going institutional reforms. Originality/value -The paper shows that in a situation where values are changing, leaders may need to put greater emphasis on value-based leadership.

Redefining public values: data use and value dilemmas in education

“…In this article, we use analytical perspectives on values and value levels in the public sector. A value is often defined simply as an ideal, a quality of something or something that should be pursued in an activity, influencing individual and organisational behaviour (Beck-Jørgensen, 2003;Busch & Wennes, 2012). An often-used definition of a value in the literature on values in the public sector is that it is "a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action" (Kluckhohn, 1951, p. 395 in Beck-Jørgensen, 2003.…”

“…Values can be viewed as being situated in a public value universe with three layers (Beck-Jørgensen, 2003;Busch & Wennes, 2012). The inner layer consists of stable values that he describes as "the public ethos", such as societal responsibility, security under the law, transparency and independent professional standards.…”

“…The three layers of values can support each other, or they can create tension and conflict. It is also probable that leaders, who typically will find values in the different layers, experience greater coherence between the levels than professionals would (Beck-Jørgensen, 2003;Busch & Wennes, 2012). For example, leaders would typically be more socialised into the current dominant ideas about governance and leadership, while the profession-specific ethos would be more prominent and stable among professionals.…”

Apposition, contradiction, conflict and domination

“…Kriittisesti diskurssien kohtaamista tarkasteltaessa havaitaan, että yksityissektorin johtamisdiskurssi dominoi myös kuntajohtamisen diskurssia. Tällöin myös ne arvot ja arvovalinnat, jotka toimintaa ja johtamista ohjaavat, ovat yksityissektorin liiketaloudellisia arvoja (Busch & Wennes 2012, Virtanen 2000. Demokraattisuuteen, tasavertaisuuteen ja osallistumismahdollisuuksiin perustuvalla kunta-alalla syntyy siten toisentyyppistä -jopa huonoajohtamista suhteessa toimintakontekstin arvoihin ja odotuksiin (vrt.…”

Leadership Styles at Syrian Universities and the Differences Caused by Sector and Follower Characteristics

“…. (Baldwin, 1987;Busch & Wennes, 2012;Rainey & Bozeman, 2000;Rainey et al, 1995;Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995;Solomon, 1986 (Nutt, 2006 (Andersen, 2010;Arvonen, 2001;Arvonen & Ekvall, 1999) . (Gill, 2009;Rainey, 1989;Rosenau & Linder, 2003) .…”