Different Perspectives on the Practice of Leadership

Abstract

Public administrators need not only practical and intellectual permission to exercise leadership, but also a practical and intellectual understanding of what leadership actually is. Much has emerged in the public administration literature and practice about the need for and legitimacy of public managers exerting leadership in their work, complementing the traditional functions of organizational management and policy implementation. Calling on the experiences and ideas of practitioners, this article offers an empirical understanding—both descriptive and prescriptive—of what leadership actually looks like as it is practiced by public managers. It uncovers five leadership perspectives (ranging from leadership as equivalent to scientific management, to leadership being a whole‐soul or spiritual endeavor) held by public managers and discusses their implications for public administration. It legitimizes the notion that leadership is a crucial part of public administration and offers public managers the chance to improve or enhance those legitimate leadership activities.

Leadership and the Limitations of Language

“…In fact, it has been observed that there are as many definitions of leadership as there are people trying to define it (Bass, 1990). Thus, in the absence of agreement about what leadership is and who a leader is understood to be, those who practice leadership may do so from very different mindsets (Fairholm, 2004).…”

The impact of Puritan ideology on aspects of project management

“…A possible mutation of it is the efficiency meme which was heavily drawn on by the scientific management movement of the early part of the 20 th century, and still has relevance for many managers today [38]. A version of the efficiency meme could be Gulick's [39] POSDCORB (planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting) meme that adhered to Fayol's [40] tenets or principles of organisation and management (forecast and plan -prevoyance, organise, command, co-ordinate, control), and Taylor's [41] framework for organisation (clear delineation of authority, responsibility, separation of planning from operations, incentive schemes for workers, management by exception and task based specialisation).…”

Leadership and institutional change in the public sector: The case of secondary schools in England

“…Given this private sector focus, it is surprising, therefore, that a critical examination of government leadership policies has been slow to follow. Several scholars have called for an assessment of the influence of public sector context on the efficacy of different leadership approaches (Fairholm, 2004;Javidan & Waldman, 2003;Van Wart, 2003).…”