Opinion Of Top Officials About Leadership In Public Organizations

Abstract

The public sector has been influenced by different management paradigms. Over time, however, administrative work and the exercise of leadership based on values introduced from other sectors have apparently come to occupy separate cultural spheres. This leads us to question imported leadership models that clash with the management of public organizations, and to ask if these entities need to be understood according to their own views of leadership. This work explores the image that exists in the public sector regarding leadership roles, the main problems faced by upper management and solutions that should be applied in public organizations to reinforce competencies when designing leadership development programs. A qualitative study was done to discover the opinions of high-ranking officials at different administrative levels on diverse aspects of leadership in their organizations. The topics were opened for virtual debate on the Moodle^™ learning platform of the National Institute of Public Administration in Spain. The results describe how the civil servants who participated perceive the role of leader in the public sector, the main problems involved in exercising leadership and areas they think should be strengthened in any public employee who aspires to a leadership role. While respecting the differences in administrative systems and the conditions under which the public sector functions in each State, this paper offers new information about the competencies that should be promoted in leadership development programs.

Keywords: Leadership, public sector, training, top officials, qualitative approach

Introduction

There is already an extensive research trajectory describing how management focuses affect public organizations seeking to move away from what is considered the real of public entities, which is based on the bureaucratic paradigm (de Vries, 2016; Henry, 2016). For more than a century, successive and overlapping interpretations of the most adequate way to manage public administrations have sought, aggressively or otherwise, to counteract the initial bureaucratic paradigm. A vast bibliography can be accessed concerning origins, assumptions, aims and transformational tools in the public sector, as well as the consequences of alternative, post-bureaucratic focuses (Barzelay, 2019; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011; Van Der Wal, 2017).

All these focuses, whether they seek to increase production, improve the participation of the actors involved, diversify and intensify deliberation or maximize inter-organizational relations, share the common ground of promoting ideal concepts, structures and ideal processes to achieve greater management efficiency (Bourgon, 2017).

Embedded in the objectives of each management focus is an interest in stimulating its own kind of leadership that is distinctive but coherent with the values pursued (Mendez, 2020). While interest in leadership may not be explicit in the objectives – though there are exceptions – the epistemic communities that sustain the diverse management focuses assume that there will be a role for someone who is responsible for ensuring higher quality, more effective and more efficient functioning of the administrative apparatus. Improving internal cohesion, commitment, drive and innovation capacity are only a very few of the demands imposed on directors or those who exercise leadership (Virtanen & Tammeaid, 2020).

Some of the most prestigious literature on developments in leadership studies (Bass & Bass, 2008), particularly in the public sector (Crosby, & Bryson, 2018; Fernandez et al., 2010; Van Wart, 2003, 2017), describe an enormous increase in leadership studies that nonetheless convey little useful knowledge on the subject. Hypotheses to explain the lack of results (Mendez, 2020) or even interest in designing rigorous studies (Van Wart, 2003, p. 215) include denial that true public leadership exists, due to the overwhelmingly instrumental nature of the directive role in this sector; the insignificance of exercising public leadership that is subjected to forces outside the leader’s control; or the distraction of scientific interest in related, more appealing topics (bureaucratic routines, political leadership, normative studies).

In a modest attempt to adopt a traditional vision of the study of public leadership, and thereby acknowledge its existence, this work offers new information about the environment in which an administrative leader operates. For the purposes of this study, we will identify such a person as one who exercises a top position linked to a professional career and who is directly – not politically – responsible for administrative areas that manage human, material and economic resources in the public sector.

Problem Statement

Most of the abundant literature on the development of director capacities concerns leadership and performance in the private sector. Much less attention has been given to other spheres.

The public sector continues to suffer from the lack of research on administrative leadership. However, the deficit has not prevented guidelines being formulated over the decades to prescribe areas of competence for those who direct public organizations. This can lead to serious issues that jeopardize the validity of many leadership training programs in the public sector.

We consider knowledge of the contextual factors that affect what public leaders can and cannot do to be essential for conceptualizing future training programs. It is impossible to think about designing appropriate and useful director development initiatives without an understanding of the environment in which public leaders must function.

Research Questions

In the frame of studies on leadership in public organizations, this work sought to answer the following questions:

• What motivates or demotivates individuals in leadership positions in the public sector?What principles guide the leadership culture?
• What are the main problems facing public organizations that should be addressed from leadership positions?
• What solutions might be applied to these challenges?
• What are the main competencies that those who lead public organizations should acquire?

Purpose of the Study

The guiding purpose of this research was to obtain information from the perspective of administrative leaders on contextual aspects (main problems, guiding values, challenges) that affect directors in the public sector. The aim was to uncover developmental areas that can inform the design of future leadership training programs for the public sector.

Research Methods

This qualitative study was based on focus groups in the Spanish central administration sphere. Nine debate forums were held – three per year, three years – in March of 2016, 2017, and 2019. The debates lasted seven days. Around 23 directors participated each year, for a total of 68 (38 women and 30 men). The participants were high-ranking civil servants working in diverse ministries and public sector entities of Spanish public administration.

The focus groups were organized according to the most widely accepted administrative criteria (Robinson, 2020). Participants attended online using the Moodle^™ learning platform of the Spanish National Institute of Public Administration. The groups were guided by a moderator with ample experience in leadership development and group facilitation. The participants responded individually in writing to several questions and sent them to the monitor, who made all responses available to all participants, so that any point of view expressed by the participants could be discussed. The focus groups generated a total of 130 interventions.

The main measurements corresponded to factors that motivate or demotivate directors in their work; the principles and values that guide their leadership culture; the main challenges their entities face; the solutions their entities should apply; and the range of capacities required for the director’s role.

The focus groups were analyzed in three phases (during the forums, analysis of each individual interview or group session after the forums, overall), by selecting relevant fragments for study and looking for similarities, contrasts and informant categorization.

Findings

The main findings are summarized below, organized according to the topics addressed.

Conclusion

In this work, we have described the main findings of a qualitative study on administrative leaders in the public sector. The sphere of study was the Spanish central administration and our informants were high-ranking civil servants directing government organs and public sector entities.

The findings indicate that the main motivating factors for administrative leaders were related to the perception that their work is demanding and challenging, with high levels of responsibility and high social impact. The learning that they acquire in their post and their margin for action are also stimulating factors.

The ethical values that drive their work as directors were primarily related to an appreciation of the importance of continuous learning, the determination to adopt the appropriate attitude towards work, an awareness of the social value of their work and maintaining productive relationships with co-workers.

The main problems they encounter were derived from the bureaucratic nature of the organizations they serve – elements traditionally described in the literature as pathologies of bureaucratic organizations – and a perceived misalignment between organizational capacity and social demand.

To overcome the obstacles they encounter in their work, the participants suggested structural measures – mainly aimed at simplifying procedures, improving coordination mechanisms, expanding digitalization and acting according to transparency criteria – and singular measures within the leader’s sphere of action, which include simplifying management and reinforcing commitment and ethical values.

From the opinions gathered, explicitly or implicitly, we have identified some areas that could be reinforced to better equip those who serve as directors or exercise leadership.

The information extracted from this study increases understanding of the contextual factors that affect the action of public leaders. It has theoretical potential for research that seeks to discover meaningful patterns in the actions of public leaders. Similarly, it also has practical potential for designing new empirical research on administrative leadership or complementing work to detect training needs, as a starting point for developing actions to equip leadership.

Acknowledgments

The team that developed this work would like to thank the discussion group participants for their collaboration and express appreciation to the Spanish National Institute of Public Administration for its support.

References

• Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). Simon & Schuster.

• Barzelay, M. (2019). Public management as a design-oriented professional discipline. Edward Elgar Publishing.

• Bourgon, J. (2017). The new synthesis of public administration. Fieldbook. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.

• Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2018).Why leadership of public leadership research matters: and what to do about it. Public Management Review, 20(9), 1265-1286. https://doi:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• De Vries, M. S. (2016).Understanding public administration. Palgrave.

• Fernandez, S., Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2010). Exploring the Link between Integrated Leadership and Public Sector Performance. Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 308-23.

• Henry, N. (2016). Public administration and public affairs. Routledge.

• Larat, F. (2016). Developing an integrated and comprehensive training strategy for public sector leaders. The French experience. Teach Public Adm., 35(1), 88-104.

• Mendez, J. (2020). Leadership and change in the public sector. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• OECD. (2017). National schools of government. Building civil service capacity. OECD Publishing.

• OECD. (2018). Embracing innovation in government. Global trends 2018. OECD Publishing.

• Pollitt, C. H., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform, a comparative analysis: new public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state (3rd ed.). Oxford Press.

• Robinson, J. (2020).Using focus groups. In R.M. Michael, & S. Delamont (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 338-348). Edward Elgar.

• Van Der Wal, Z. (2017).The 21st century public manager. Palgrave.

• Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 214-28.

• Van Wart, M. (2017). Leadership in public organizations. Routledge.

• Virtanen, P., & Tammeaid, M. (2020). Leadership Development Fundamentals. In Developing Public Sector Leadership. Springer.