NASA Collaborative Transformation

COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS:

EXPLORING COMPETENCIES AND PROGRAM

IMPACT

HEATHER GETHA-TAYLOR The University of Kansas

RICARDO S. MORSE

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

ABSTRACT

The increased emphasis on collaborative governance across the field of

public administration necessitates a rethinking of what the core

competencies of public managers are and how they might be developed.

The traditional model of leadership development, focusing on leading

within bounded hierarchy and via command-and-control must be

moderated with an additional focus on collaborative problem-solving,

working in flattened structures, and incentivizing behavior in new ways.

This article reviews relevant literature along with the experience of two

local government leadership programs to explore content and training

approaches needed to prepare local government leaders for collaborative

governance. Qualitative and quantitative survey findings indicate that

program content should specifically address collaboration competency

development. Further, training evaluation strategy should allow for

processing and reflection: immediate reaction surveys should be

supplemented with a long-term evaluation strategy. Finally, while

scholarly literature recommends non-traditional, peer-learning activities

for collaborative leadership development, this research offers mixed

support. The program examples and associated research findings

highlight the importance of a strategic approach to training that reflects

emerging leadership needs.

PAQ SPRING 2013 73

INTRODUCTION

One hundred years after Frederick Taylor’s seminal work, The

Principles of Scientific Management (1911), it is worthwhile to

observe how much the concept of leadership has evolved. Core

themes of motivation, performance, and human interaction have

developed and become more sophisticated (Yukl, 2010). “Great

man” or “trait” theories have been replaced by more complex,

interactive theories of leadership. However, the traditional notion

of leadership focusing on hierarchical leaders and followers

remains dominant in popular conceptions of leadership and in

programs that seek to develop leaders.

What characterized leadership in 20th-century

organizations shaped by Taylor’s scientific management paradigm

contrasts with emerging, contemporary organizational priorities of

the 21st century. Today’s leadership context, particularly in the

public sector, is interorganizational. In public administration in

particular, this shift corresponds with an emerging collaborative

governance paradigm that is reorienting the field away from a

focus on hierarchy, toward a focus on networks and partnerships

that cross traditional boundaries (Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh,

2012). This new focus highlights the need to develop leadership

competencies that extend beyond traditional, hierarchical,

managerial functions (Morse, 2008; Sullivan, Williams & Jeffares,

2012).

While it is important to understand how the definition of

leadership has transformed over time, it is equally important to

consider the connected task of developing leaders. Iles and Preece

(2006) highlighted this need by noting that public leadership

development programs must expand their efforts to build the

competencies that create value both within organizations and

beyond. Considering how these competencies align with

leadership training components is necessary to assess training gaps

and opportunities for improvement. The transition from leading

within organizations to leading beyond them places new demands

on leadership development programs. Drawing upon the growing

body of literature on collaborative competencies, as well as the

literature on leadership development, along with experiences and

data from two local government leadership development

programs, this article addresses the call to develop leaders who

74 PAQ SPRING 2013

can achieve results both within traditional organizational

structures and also across organizational and sectoral boundaries.

This article utilizes program-specific information to offer

insights and respond to the question presented in Getha-Taylor,

Holmes, Jacobson, Morse and Sowa (2011, p. i92): “Which

programs, strategies, and curricula are most appropriate to build

and nurture leadership skills for public leadership ‘across

boundaries’?” To this end, three related questions of interest are

explored: 1) What additional leadership competencies are required

of local government managers for collaborative governance? 2)

Which programmatic components are best suited to develop

collaborative competencies? 3) What are the most appropriate

methods to evaluate the expected outcomes of collaborative

leadership development programs?

The article is organized accordingly. First, we review

literature on collaborative leadership and collaborative

competencies and examine arguments calling for the development

of those competencies in public leaders. Next, we consider how

training curricula should adapt to develop collaborative

competency development. We present insights from local

government executive development programs in North Carolina

and Kansas and examine data collected from program participants

to consider which programmatic components are best suited to

develop collaborative leadership competencies. We then turn to

the question of how to evaluate program impact on collaborative

competency, again utilizing data from the two programs being

studied. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the implications

of this research and offer advice for others engaged in training

public sector executives.

COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP AND

COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES

The transformation of government-centered problem solving to

boundary-spanning collaborative governance illustrates both the

promise and the challenge of 21st century public leadership.

Complex problems and resource interdependence highlight the

inadequacies of traditional organizational structures and also the

PAQ SPRING 2013 75

need for new forms of leadership. Leadership has been identified

as a critical element in collaborative effectiveness and an element

of capacity for joint action (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006;

Emerson & Smutko, 2011). Working effectively across boundaries

requires new paradigms, transformed cultures and supportive

training. As noted by Marsh (2010), “the number one challenge for

public, not-for-profit and for-profit organizations is leading

beyond boundaries” (p. 546, emphasis added).

Understanding the ways in which public organizations

cultivate leaders who can successfully address the complex

challenges of the 21st century is a priority across all levels of

government (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006).

Regrettably, as Light (2011) points out, leadership is still mostly

taught using the “great-man theory” although the reality of public

leadership today rests on a foundation of “collective” leadership.

While traditional models of leadership development help clarify

the challenges of leading within organizational boundaries, the

demands associated with working across organizational and sector

boundaries to address shared challenges requires new leadership

paradigms (Linden, 2010; Sullivan, Williams, & Jeffares, 2012).

Connected to this, the ways in which we define public leadership

and associated competencies requires innovative training

techniques that also reflect the transformation of governance

(Morse & Buss, 2008).

However, particularly at the local level, governments

across the nation are faced with severely limited resources and

increased demand for services (Okubo, 2010). Rising demand for

critical local services such as public safety and health services will

require job growth, a priority that will undoubtedly be challenged

by budgetary constraints (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Given

these conflicting forces of increased demand and decreased

capacity, public employees are stressed while resources for

training and development are constrained. Thus, understanding

how best to stretch limited resources for improved impact is a

priority.

Scholarship and practice illustrate the ways in which

leadership must adapt to changing mandates, expectations and

climates. So too should leadership development adapt accordingly.

The traditional model of leadership development, focusing on

76 PAQ SPRING 2013

leading within bounded hierarchy and via command-and-control

must be moderated with an additional focus on collaborative

problem-solving, working in flattened structures, and incentivizing

behavior in new ways. As public managers work across

boundaries to solve complex public problems, the ways in which

they lead will be influenced by this changing context. Conflict

resolution, engaging the public, and balancing ethical priorities

will all be influenced by the new landscape of public leadership

(O’Leary, Bingham, & Choi, 2009).

The study of leadership and leadership development is

often considered generically and broadly to span organizations and

sectors (Yukl, 2010). Notably absent from such treatments is a

focus on leadership development at the local government level.

Yet, it is at this level where the exercise of public leadership (or

the lack thereof) is perhaps most evident to citizens. Further, it is

at this level, where leadership is needed most acutely given the

service demands and prevailing negative perceptions of

government (Saad, 2011). This article addresses this challenge by

examining two separate efforts designed to cultivate leadership

skills in local government managers by integrating traditional

leadership development models with contemporary content

delivery approaches and specific inclusions of collaborative

content. We first turn to the question of what leadership

competencies are associated with this emerging collaborative

governance paradigm.

CONSIDERING EMERGING LEADERSHIP

COMPETENCIES AND COLLABORATIVE SKILLS

Understanding of competencies for public leadership is beginning

to catch up with our knowledge of collaborative management and

governance. For instance, Getha-Taylor’s (2008) federal study of

high performers found that the most significant competencies for

collaborative effectiveness are (a) interpersonal understanding, (b)

teamwork and cooperation, and (c) team leadership. These results

are significant and contrast with the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management (OPM)’s Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs).

OPM identifies (a) political savvy, (b) negotiating/influencing, and

(c) partnering as critical competencies for building coalitions.

Comparing competency dimensions reveals a shared emphasis on

PAQ SPRING 2013 77

team leadership in both Getha-Taylor’s (2008) findings and in

OPM’s list. However, OPM’s emphasis on organizational

awareness and partnering do not emerge as significant in the study

findings. Instead, interpersonal understanding and

teamwork/cooperation were identified as keys to collaborative

effectiveness (Getha-Taylor, 2008).

Morse (2008) examined the question of collaborative

competencies by comparing what the literature on collaborative

leadership identifies as competencies to an exhaustive list of

competencies for “public service leadership” (meaning,

administrative leadership or leadership in public organizations)

identified by Van Wart (2005). The competencies associated with

collaborative leadership were presented in terms of “attributes,

skills, and behaviors,” similar to how Van Wart organizes

competencies in his work. Attributes include systems thinking and

a sense of mutuality. Skills include strategic thinking and

facilitation. Behaviors include stakeholder identification, issue

framing and facilitating mutual learning processes.

Other scholars in public administration have given

attention to the identification of strategies and related

competencies for collaborative governance. One example is a

recent book on networked government, which is closely aligned

with conceptions of collaborative governance (Koliba, Meek, &,

Zia 2011). The authors’ strategies for network management are

similar to the other works of collaborative competencies. These

strategies include oversight; mandating; providing resources;

negotiation and bargaining; facilitation; participatory governance /

civic engagement; brokering; boundary-spanning and systems

thinking. Bingham, Sandfort and O’Leary (2008), similarly

outlined what they refer to as the “capabilities” of “collaborative

public managers.” Included in their list are items such as network

design, meeting facilitation, conflict management, and evaluating

outcomes.

Perhaps the most exhaustive work to date on collaborative

competencies is the result of a working group of the University

Network for Collaborative Governance 1 (UNCG), which created

the “UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies” (Emerson &

Smutko, 2011). In 2009, the working group conducted an

extensive review of numerous sources of competencies for

78 PAQ SPRING 2013

leadership and collaboration including the OPM Executive Core

Competencies, the International City/County Management

Association (ICMA), the Cooperative Extension System, and the

Centre for Innovative and Entrepreneurial Leadership in British

Columbia. This work is the most extensive and thorough

examination to-date on competencies specifically for collaborative

governance. Table 1 presents a summary of the competencies list.

Table 1

UNCG Collaborative Competencies (Emerson & Smutko, 2011)

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

(1) Strengthening Collaborative Leadership (e.g. collaborative

leadership styles, entrepreneurialism and risk-taking)

(2) Planning, Organizing and Managing for Collaboration (e.g.

process design, designing governance structures, engaging

stakeholders)

PROCESS

(3) Communicating Effectively

(4) Working in Teams and Facilitating Groups

(5) Negotiating Agreement and Managing Conflict

ANALYTICAL

(6) Applying Analytic Skills and Strategic Thinking (e.g. situation

assessment, understanding political and legal context of collaboration)

(7) Evaluating and Adapting Processes

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

(8) Integrating Technical and Scientific Information

(9) Using Information and Communication Technology

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

(10) Maintaining Personal Integrity and Professional Ethics

While the “leadership and management” category includes

much of what is unique about leadership in collaborative contexts,

and other categories may apply more broadly to generic leadership

(e.g. communications skills or integrity), we find that the UNCG

work is consistent with what the other research on leadership

competencies for collaborative governance. In addition to what we

might call traditional leadership attributes and skills we see a new

emphasis on situation assessment and what might be termed as

“process” and “design” skills.

PAQ SPRING 2013 79

Table 2

Collaborative Competences by Phases of Collaboration (Morse &

Stephens, 2012)

Assessment Initiation Deliberation Implementation

Issue analysis

Environmental

assessment

Stakeholder

identification

Strategic thinking

Stakeholder

engagement

Political/ community

organizing

Building social capital

Process design

Group facilitation

Team building and

group dynamics

Listening

Consensus-

building

Interest-based

negotiation

Developing action

plans

Designing governance

structures

Public engagement

Network

management

Conflict resolution

Performance

evaluation

Meta-Competencies

Collaborative mindset

Passion for creating public value

Systems thinking

Openness and risk-taking

Sense of mutuality and connectedness

Humility or measured ego

There is certainly nuance and ambiguity to be found in

any distillation of collaborative competencies versus traditional

competencies. Table 2 (above) offers a synthesis of the resources

mentioned here, along with many others, presented by Morse and

Stephens (2012), organizing the competencies along broad phases

of collaborative governance processes. At the core there is a set of

behaviors (and related attributes and skills, what Morse and

Stephens term “meta-competencies”) that revolves around

understanding and identifying stakeholders, convening them,

designing appropriate processes for them, facilitating agreements

amongst them, designing appropriate governance arrangements for

agreements reached, and keeping them together to implement what

is decided. Working with external stakeholders in this fashion is

clearly a different set of activities and requisite competencies than

goal-oriented organizational leadership. An important research

80 PAQ SPRING 2013

question emerges: how should training curriculum adapt to

emphasize these emerging collaborative competencies?

Table 3 PELA Participant’s (2007-2010) Baseline, Self-Reported

Competencies (n=92 )

Statement

Mean

Normed

Score

I am widely trusted .90

I pursue work with energy and drive .85

I put the public good first .89

I convene stakeholders and secure agreement for

collective community action

.67

I find multiple champions for change .67

I build constituent support and citizen coalitions .63

I identify the full spectrum of knowledgeholders and

stakeholders

.71

I enlist different groups and organizations

appropriately to address issues or problems

.71

One natural question at this point is whether current public

leaders already have these competencies at a comparable level to

more traditional public leadership competencies. There are

numerous calls for developing this new set of competencies in

public (administrative) leaders, based on an assumption that their

skill-set is by-and-large intra-organizational. Data from the Public

Executive Leadership Program (PELA) (discussed in more detail

below), suggests that the assumptions are correct. PELA

participants from four cohorts (2007-2010) were asked to fill out a

self-assessment based on a list of statements. Some of the

questions had to do with leadership generically while others were

more closely aligned with specific collaborative competencies. As

PAQ SPRING 2013 81

a selection from these questions displayed in Table 3 (above)

demonstrates, scores on explicitly collaborative governance-

related statements scored lower than those with more ‘generic’

leadership qualities.

DEVELOPING COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES—

THE EXPERIENCE OF TWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

While there is an emerging agreement on the nature of this

expanded set of competencies, it remains to be seen how best to

develop those in others. Day (2000) chronicled the evolution of

contemporary leadership development, including the refining of

methods to address changing leadership needs. He stated,

“Developing individual leaders without concern for reciprocal

relations among people or their interactions within a broader social

context ignores the research demonstrating that leadership is a

complex interaction between individuals and their social and

organizational environments” (Day, 2000, p. 605).

As part of this transition, Day (2000) noted the importance

of action (project-based) learning and peer development

opportunities (mentoring, networking) as part of contemporary

leadership development programs. Bingham, Sandfort and

O’Leary (2008) also argue that collaborative public management

requires both new methods and revised content that balances the

need for knowledge and the need for application. They submit that

the new competencies required for effective collaborative

management are best learned through “active and experiential

learning” (p. 283).

What is shared across these recommendations is a focus

on adult learning theory. As Berman, Bowman, West and Van

Wart (2010) note, this theory “emphasizes the extensive

experiences of adults, interest in self-improvement and problem

solving, and preferences for active participation and exercise of

some control in learning,” (p. 279). Thus, traditional models of

instruction are less suited to the needs of adult learners. As noted

by Mezirow (1997), it is only through critical reflection, engaging

with new groups, experiencing other cultures that we can begin to

become self-aware and transform “interpretations, beliefs, and

habits of mind or points of view,” (p. 7). Adult learners need to

82 PAQ SPRING 2013

master new content, but they must also consider the ways their

own assumptions influence that process. Moreover, they must

learn to recognize other frames of reference and learn to work with

others to solve problems and accomplish shared goals.

In the context of public management specifically,

Denhardt (2001) considers the various developmental needs and

managerial skills that are most relevant to students and

practitioners. A key component of Denhardt’s (2001) analysis

centers on the development of “interpersonal” skills that rest on an

understanding of others as well as personal self-reflection. This

treatment considers the various ways of developing these critical

needs, including the value of traditional, classroom-style

instruction as well as experiential learning opportunities. This

focus helps to illustrate Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle,

which includes experience, observation, abstraction and

experimentation. Contemporary approaches that illustrate the

cycle components are expected to contribute to improved learning

outcomes as a result.

While these recommendations together speak to the value

of nontraditional training methods that reflect adult learning theory

and experiential learning, this investigation presents an

opportunity to test these recommendations in practice and respond

to the question: which programmatic components are best suited

to develop collaborative competencies?

This study draws on comparative data from two local

government leadership development programs to answer these

questions. Both programs highlight competencies that fall outside

the sphere of traditional (organizational) leadership. The two

programs also utilize emerging training and development

approaches that emphasize adult learning theory and contemporary

instructional models. The programs are presented below and

summarized in Table 4.

The Public Executive Leadership Academy (PELA)

The Public Executive Leadership Academy (PELA) is a two-

week, residential leadership program run by the UNC School of

Government for local government managers and department

heads. Its development was a direct response to demand from local

government managers in North Carolina for their own senior-level

PAQ SPRING 2013 83

leadership program. The program was launched in 2005 and has

been offered annually since then. The average cohort size is 25.

PELA is distinctive for its focus on “community

leadership” and consideration of local government managers as

“change agents” in their communities (Stenberg, Upshaw, &

Warner, 2008). This focus on community (or collaborative)

leadership reflects specific direction from the North Carolina City

and County Management Association (NCCCMA), whose

representatives initially approached the School of Government

about developing such a program. Leading across boundaries was

viewed as an emerging, critical competency for local government

leaders.

Representatives from NCCCMA and ICMA worked with

School of Government faculty to design the program, and the

community/collaboration focus emerged from those interactions.

Additionally, regional focus groups were held with municipal and

county managers from across North Carolina to ascertain their

major challenges and issues, what they feel they needed to manage

those issues, priorities for training programs, and program design

preferences (Stenberg, Upshaw, & Warner, 2008). Several

collaborative governance-related themes prominently emerged in

these discussions, including specifically intergovernmental

relations and citizen engagement. Skills identified included

facilitation, conflict resolution, collaborative decision-making, and

communication. These results were consistent with trends in the

field identified by Nalbandian (1999) and the competencies cited

above.

PELA was designed around these collaborative

competencies and advertised as a mid-to- senior level leadership

program focused on community leadership (as opposed to other

programs’ focus on organizational leadership). Modules on

situation assessment, stakeholder analysis and engagement, group

facilitation, group decision-making and creativity form the core of

PELA’s curriculum. The skill development components are

framed within several context-setting sessions on the changing

nature of local governance, community values and social equity.

Additionally, a 360-degree assessment on “community leadership

competencies” (filled out by participants and their colleagues

within their organization as well as in the community) is used to

84 PAQ SPRING 2013

help participants identify areas of strength and needed

improvement. Concepts and skills are applied throughout and after

the program in a “community change project” identified and

spearheaded by participants.

Supervisory Leadership Training (SLT)

The Kansas Supervisory Leadership Training (SLT) program is a

three-day session designed by the University of Kansas’s Public

Management Center (PMC) specifically for mid-level public

managers. The PMC is the “professional development arm” of the

University of Kansas’ School of Public Affairs and

Administration. The PMC manages a variety of professional

development programs, including the Certified Public Manager

program, the Emerging Leaders Academy, and customized courses

as requested.

The SLT program focuses on the theme of “supervisor as

leader” and emphasizes skill development related to managing the

relationship with followers. To this end, the program offers a

curriculum of diverse supervisory topics that span individual

leadership development (including leadership styles) traditional

organizational challenges (such as conflict management, coaching

and performance appraisal) as well as emerging leadership

priorities (including collaboration). Content is delivered via a

variety of instructional tools and techniques, including: lecture,

multi-media presentations, self-assessments, group discussions,

scenarios and (optional) follow-up peer consultations.

While the SLT program is available for cities throughout

Kansas, this investigation centers on data collected from sessions

offered in 2010-2011 for managers from a single Kansas city. The

city’s mid-level managers (total of 167 at the start of program)

were all enrolled in the SLT program. Eight SLT sessions were

scheduled over the course of nine months to average

approximately 20 participants at each training session. Program

coordinators managed enrollment to ensure a diverse group at each

session, representing various city departments, to enhance

networking and collaboration.

PAQ SPRING 2013 85

Table 4

Program Comparisons PELA SLT

Program

goals

Prepare local government

managers to lead across

boundaries and act as

community change agents

Prepare local government

managers to lead within and

across boundaries

Cohort Senior and mid-level

managers

(Average class size: 25)

Mid-level managers

(Average class size: 20)

Time in

residence

Two weeks (two one-week

sessions separated by a

month)

Three days

Framework Community leadership,

leading across boundaries

Supervisors as leaders,

relationship-based

leadership

Training

topics

Facilitation, conflict

resolution, collaborative

decision-making,

communication,

intergovernmental relations,

citizen engagement

Leadership styles, managing

change, coaching and

motivation, performance

management, teamwork and

collaboration

Methods Lecture, discussion,

scenario analysis, group

activities, simulation/role

play

Lecture, discussion,

scenario analysis, group

activities

Innovative

approaches

360 degree assessments,

learning teams, community

change project

Self-assessment, peer

learning applications

We now turn to data collected from program participants

to explore how local government managers understand this

changing landscape and the resulting demands in terms of

individual competencies. Further, we explore the extent to which

these programs and the methods employed impact participants’

confidence in working in collaborative contexts.

EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF PELA AND SLT

Regrettably, as a result of the economic recession, funding for

training has been restricted (Ammons & Fleck, 2010) or

eliminated altogether (Johnson, 2010) in many local governments.

Especially in a time of constrained resources, the investment of

scarce dollars into training programs is scrutinized. As a result,

86 PAQ SPRING 2013

evaluation of training outcomes is critical. Local governments

want to see the impact of training dollars, but this can represent a

difficult request.

As Berge (2008) finds, training evaluation is complicated

by a host of challenges, including conflicting goals for the training

experience and “antiquated” evaluation methods. While improved

performance may be an expected end goal of participating in a

training program, the value of other related outcomes, including

individual learning and competency development may be lost in

the process.

Traditionally, training evaluation centered on immediate

reactions to the training experience. According to Kirkpatrick and

Kirkpatrick (2006), this “level one” evaluation can indicate the

level of satisfaction with the training experience, but is insufficient

to illustrate training impact. Rather, program evaluators need to

move beyond immediate reactions and evaluate higher-order

outcomes, including learning, behavior and results.

This research presents an opportunity to evaluate the

higher-order outcome of individual learning and address related

questions including: “What skills were developed or improved?

What attitudes were changed?” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006,

p. 42). This speaks to a broader research question: what are the

most appropriate methods to evaluate the expected outcomes of

collaborative leadership development programs? As discussed in

Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006), surveys and self-awareness

reflections can provide insights on these questions, which together

speak to the broader goal of building capacity for improved

collaborative performance.

Methods

This investigation presents original quantitative and qualitative

data to explore collaborative leadership training and outcomes.

The quantitative analysis centers on the Kansas Supervisory

Leadership Training program evaluation. The methodology

adopted is the switching replications approach (Trochim &

Donnelly, 2007) that allows for members of a single group (mid-

level managers from a single city) to act as treatment and control

groups. For the purposes of this investigation, treatment is

participation in the leadership development program. Individuals

PAQ SPRING 2013 87

in the treatment group completed the training as of March 2011. A

survey was administered following the March training and ended

prior to the start of the April training session. Members of the

control group had not completed the training session as of March

2011.

The switching replications methodology is particularly

well suited for this research as it allows equality in program

participation (i.e., all are able to receive the benefits of the

“treatment”) and by spacing out the participation over time,

equivalent comparison groups are created in the process (Trochim

& Donnelly, 2007). Substantial qualitative data was also obtained

from interviews with a sample of PELA participants from the first

five years of the program (n=49). The insights from these

interviews shed light on the long-term impact of training and

provide avenues for further investigation.

Findings

PELA program evaluation questions served as a framework for the

SLT leadership evaluation and were included items in the SLT

survey. PELA evaluation data from the first two years revealed

statistically significant increases on all dimensions among

program participants (Stenberg, Upshaw, & Warner, 2008). 2 The

SLT program evaluation offered an opportunity for comparison by

utilizing the same questions for a control and treatment group.

This investigation revealed significant differences between the

groups on two dimensions: self-awareness and value of public

service. Considered together, the data suggest that leadership

training can have both long-term benefits for participants (PELA

evidence) and that those who participate in similar programs

illustrate significantly higher levels of self-awareness and

commitment to public service (SLT data).

88 PAQ SPRING 2013

Table 5 SLT Survey Responses

Survey Question Mean

Treatment

Group

n=62

Control

Group

n=60 Sig.

1. I know myself as a

leader. 4.04 4.12 3.89 .025*

2. I take a broad,

systematic view of issues

affecting my community.

3.78 3.85 3.65 .109

3. I engage key

stakeholders in creating a

vision for my community.

3.43 3.46 3.36 .511

4. I encourage teamwork,

community building,

partnerships, and

collaborative problem

solving across

jurisdictions and sectors.

3.86 3.88 3.81 .579

5. I develop and hone

listening and

communication skills.

3.84 3.85 3.81 .746

6. I assess risks and

develop strategies to

minimize negative

consequences.

4.06 4.03 4.10 .458

7. I facilitate change to

improve the quality of life

in our community.

3.75 3.82 3.63 .127

8. I celebrate the dignity

and worth of public

service.

3.81 3.95 3.60 .013*

Unlike the PELA program responses that illustrated

significant differences on all measures, the SLT program (which is

PAQ SPRING 2013 89

focused on supervisory leadership skills with a secondary focus on

collaboration) illustrates an impact on only two measures (see

Table 5 above). This finding suggests that if collaboration is an

emerging leadership requirement, a more extensive focus will be

necessary in training sessions in the future and that an extended

time frame may be more appropriate for evaluating the leadership

training outcomes. The difference between three and ten days of

intensive training is certainly significant. The SLT results seem to

indicate that a short program can help raise awareness of

leadership concepts but is unlikely to result in immediate

behavioral changes (questions 2-7).

Besides the PELA evaluation questions, the SLT

evaluation survey included 14 additional questions related to

collaboration. The results (see Table 6) reveal that generally, those

who participated in the training indicate stronger agreement with

questions related to the value of collaboration. Two items

distinguish the treatment and control groups. First, those who

participated in the training session illustrate a significant

difference in regard to the perception of collaboration as a

requirement for getting the job done. They are more likely to

recognize collaboration as a work requirement. Second, those who

participated in the training session illustrate a significant

difference in regard to the value of collaboration. They are more

likely to agree that collaboration is worth the extra effort involved.

This finding is particularly interesting given the short duration of

SLT and that the collaborative competency element is only a

portion of the overall program. One might surmise that more

prolonged exposure to collaborative competency training would

yield even stronger results, which seem to be the case based on

interviews of PELA participants several months after they finished

the program.

90 PAQ SPRING 2013

Table 6 SLT Survey, Collaboration-related Questions

Survey Question Mean

Treatment Group

n=62

Control Group

n=60 Sig.

1. Collaboration within our organization is

critical to achieving our vision, values, and

mission.

4.16 4.22 4.05 .184

2. Collaboration within the City needs

improvement. 3.67 3.70 3.60 .544

3. Improved partnerships with

organizations and individuals outside of

our organization would help us meet our goals.

3.68 3.70 3.63 .609

4. My job requires me to collaborate with

other departments frequently. 4.09 4.20 3.89 .049*

5. A significant amount of my work week

is spent on collaborative efforts. 3.50 3.59 3.35 .176

6. I would describe my previous collaborative experiences as positive.

3.92 3.93 3.89 .686

7. We achieve improved results when we

work collaboratively. 4.15 4.20 4.05 .186

8. Collaboration is worth the extra effort

involved. 4.20 4.29 4.05 .042*

9. I can trust the people I collaborate with to do a good job.

3.82 3.82 3.81 .956

10. I rely on collaboration to get the job

done. 3.73 3.75 3.70 .690

11. Collaboration will be even more

necessary in the future. 4.14 4.14 4.13 .920

12. I actively seek the input of others to make better decisions.

3.98 4.03 3.89 .296

13. The input of my peers matters to me

when making important decisions. 4.01 4.03 3.97 .603

14. The input of my supervisors matters to

me when making important decisions. 4.04 4.03 4.05 .884

PAQ SPRING 2013 91

Both PELA and SLT include peer group consultation as

part of their programs. The inclusion of this pedagogical approach

is based on the premise that group collaboration, as part of the

program, will lead to improved learning outcomes in terms of

collaborative competencies. While the peer groups (called

“learning teams”) are a mandatory part of PELA, the SLT

evaluation effort allows participants to (voluntarily) engage in peer

groups to collaboratively examine organizational challenges

(referred to as “leadership apps”), consider decisions jointly, and

address shared managerial concerns. This presents an opportunity

to investigate the ways in which a contemporary instructional

method (peer group consultation) influences attitudes about

collaboration.

The results from this investigation (Table 7, below) are

mixed and surprising. While those who participate in peer groups

were significantly more likely to agree that collaboration is worth

the extra effort involved, mean responses indicate that they were

somewhat less likely to agree that the input of their peers matters

when making important decisions. This observation (though not

statistically significant) is somewhat surprising as group work is

intended to help participates better appreciate the benefits of

collaboration firsthand. Group learning to develop collaborative

competencies is thus worth additional investigation. For instance,

considering the format and duration of these activities may

indicate opportunity for adjustments.

92 PAQ SPRING 2013

Table 7 SLT Survey, Peer Group Versus No Peer Group

Survey Question Mean

Peer Group

Follow-up

(n=51)

No Peer Group

Follow-up

(n=71) Sig.

1. Collaboration within our organization

is critical to achieving our vision, values, and mission.

4.16 4.18 4.13 .678

2. Collaboration within the City needs

improvement. 3.67 3.68 3.65 .841

3. Improved partnerships with

organizations and individuals outside of our organization would help us meet our

goals.

3.68 3.70 3.65 .714

4. My job requires me to collaborate with

other departments frequently. 4.09 4.10 4.07 .862

5. A significant amount of my work week is spent on collaborative efforts.

3.50 3.50 3.50 .956

6. I would describe my previous

collaborative experiences as positive. 3.92 3.91 3.92 .948

7. We achieve improved results when we

work collaboratively. 4.15 4.20 4.09 .332

8. Collaboration is worth the extra effort involved.

4.20 4.31 4.09 .057*

9. I can trust the people I collaborate with

to do a good job. 3.82 3.81 3.82 .904

10. I rely on collaboration to get the job

done. 3.73 3.64 3.82 .184

11. Collaboration will be even more necessary in the future.

4.14 4.04 4.23 .148

12. I actively seek the input of others to

make better decisions. 3.98 3.97 3.98 .990

13. The input of my peers matters to me

when making important decisions. 4.01 3.93 4.07 .200

14. The input of my supervisors matters to me when making important decisions.

4.04 3.91 4.15 .094

PAQ SPRING 2013 93

As noted previously, the role of reflection and self-

assessment is considered a way to examine individual

development. For the purposes of this investigation, the SLT

survey provided an opportunity for participants to indicate their

personal level of effectiveness related to collaboration. For those

who perceive themselves as above average in terms of

collaborative ability, they are significantly more likely to indicate

the importance of developing listening and communication skills,

which can be considered an emerging competency area for

leadership development (see Table 8).

Table 8

SLT Survey, Differences in Collaborative Ability

Question

Self-

Assessment:

Above Average

Collaboration

Ability

Self-

Assessment:

Below Average

Collaborative

Ability Sig.

I develop and hone

listening and

communication

skills.

4.08 3.25 .000***

Connected to this point, there exists a strong positive

relationship between individual self-assessment of collaborative

skills and questions related to two emerging leadership

competencies: self-awareness (“I know myself as a leader,”

correlation coefficient: .347**) and listening/communication (“I

develop and hone listening and communication skills,” correlation

coefficient: .490**). This relationship exists among treatment

group members but is not illustrated among control group

members, suggesting a training impact.

Qualitative data collected from interviews of forty-nine

PELA participants from the first five cohorts also supports, at least

somewhat, the idea that collaborative competencies can be

developed in executive leadership development program settings.

Participants were asked which aspects of the program participants

valued most and what impact the program has had on them with at

94 PAQ SPRING 2013

least one, and up to four, years of time passing after their

participation. The interview data found PELA participants

maintaining very positive impressions of their experience and

almost uniformly saying it was a beneficial investment of their

time with real impacts on how they lead in their organizations and

communities.

Questions regarding what participants felt they gained

from the program and how they perceived their leadership had

changed yielded some interesting insights into what participants

value most. The strongest theme from these questions has to do

with participants feeling they understand different points of view

better, are better listeners, and generally “deal with people better.”

Participants consistently cited a change in how they view and

appreciate others, implying that their style is less directive and

more relation-based, consistent with working in collaborative

settings. Additionally, there are many references to “seeing the big

picture.” Another dominant theme was recognition by participants

that their facilitation skills have been improved and utilized.

While specific mention of interorganizational

collaboration was not a prominent theme from the interviews,

there were some specific mentions of note in response to “has your

leadership changed as a result of PELA, and if so, how?” The

following comments illustrate participants’ feelings of changes in

their leadership orientation toward collaborative governance:

“I can more effectively lead through collaboration.”

“Able to view issues from … the community's frame of

mind.”

“More aware of the shared aspect of leadership with

shareholders.”

“More in tune with how to engage the public with projects

before those projects are too far along.”

“Meeting facilitation; more effective meetings.”

While these statements are not generalizable, they do reflect

recognition by program participants of changes in their leadership

toward a more collaborative approach, again suggesting that

collaborative competencies can be developed or enhanced through

leadership development programs.

PAQ SPRING 2013 95

In short, the interview data strongly suggests congruence

between participant’s self-reported “take-aways” and the intent of

the course to develop collaborative competencies consistent with

the changing nature of public leadership. The data confirms that

participants appreciate and recognize the importance of

developing those collaborative skills. It also confirms that

experiential learning methods, including case studies, role-playing

activities, and applied learning projects are effective tools for

developing those skills in learners.

DISCUSSION

This investigation provided an opportunity to consider three

related questions that affect both scholarship and practice: 1) What

additional leadership competencies are required of local

government managers for collaborative governance? 2) Which

programmatic components are best suited to develop collaborative

leadership skills? 3) What are the most appropriate methods to

evaluate the varied expected outcomes of collaborative leadership

development programs?

Our study illustrates two approaches to local government

leadership development that yield varied outcomes. PELA

participant feedback illustrates individual growth on all relevant

measures over time. Comparatively, data from the SLT

participants does not illustrate the same pattern. The distinctions

between the PELA collaborative leadership development program

and the SLT supervisory leadership program are notable, given

these findings. The PELA program centers exclusively on the

development of collaborative/community leadership skills, while

the SLT program includes collaboration as a topic area within a

broader supervisory skill curriculum. Despite similar instructional

methods, responses from SLT and PELA participants do not

mirror one another. This suggests that if collaboration is indeed a

critical learning objective, training and development curriculum

should be more fully focused on that specific outcome.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that impact on individuals’

collaborative competencies may require more extensive training

considering the PELA program devotes a majority of the 10 days

of programing to collaboration while collaboration skills are only

one part of a three-day SLT program.

96 PAQ SPRING 2013

Second, while innovative program delivery methods are

emphasized by the literature, the findings from this research offer

mixed support for the claim that active (and/or peer) learning

results in improved collaborative learning outcomes. While the

PELA participants’ qualitative feedback speaks to the value of

these approaches, the SLT data suggests the importance of time in

interpreting outcomes. The PELA feedback offers the benefit of

extended reflection and application of lessons learned, but

additional comparison data is necessary to allow for more nuanced

examination of methods and competency development over time.

Finally, considering the ways in which we evaluate

learning outcomes, particularly those related to collaborative

leadership development, is an ongoing priority. As Kirkpatrick and

Kirkpatrick (2006) noted, training program evaluation typically

centered on reaction assessments. Both PELA and SLT evaluation

approaches offer improvements on this approach and provide

insights on how best to evaluate outcomes. In the SLT example,

we gain insights on the relationship between self-assessment and

emerging leadership competencies. While the validity of self-

assessment may be questioned (Fox & Dinur, 1988) there is

evidence from psychological studies to suggest that self-

assessments can serve as predictors of performance (Shrauger &

Osberg, 1981). Thus, findings from our investigation suggest that

higher perceptions of collaborative ability may contribute to

improvements related to collaborative leadership skills.

LOOKING AHEAD

There is strong support in the literature for an emerging set of

competencies around collaborative governance that are distinct

from those traditional leadership competencies rooted in hierarchy

and formal authority. Evidence from two leadership development

programs discussed here suggests that local government leaders do

see deficiencies in these competencies and that programs that

include or even focus on these competencies can lead to

improvements in those competencies among participants. Results

for the impact of specialized learning approaches, like the use of

peer consultation groups, is mixed, suggesting that perhaps these

additional competencies can be developed in similar fashion as

other adult learning approaches. It also suggests we need more

PAQ SPRING 2013 97

careful study of leadership development programs, their overall

impacts on leadership competencies and behaviors, and the

specific impact of pedagogical tools such as peer groups, role-

playing activities, and case studies.

There are a variety of questions that follow this

investigation. To begin, this article highlights the ways training

curricula can adapt to emphasize collaborative competencies, but

follow-up questions emerge, including: what is the goal of

developing collaborative competencies? Do these competencies

result in a more collaborative workforce? How can this be

assessed at the local government level? Also, this article identifies

ways to evaluate expected training outcomes, but this effort

centered on learning outcomes. The additional outcomes of

behavioral change and organizational results offer avenues for

future research. For instance, what are the tangible indicators of a

more collaborative workforce (improved efficiency, effectiveness,

or ethical activity, for instance)? To address these questions,

additional research is necessary.

As collaborative governance continues to coalesce into a

dominant framework or even paradigm for public administration

generally (and local government specifically) we need to pay even

more attention to the leadership development needs of those

individuals that enact collaborative governance. This study is a

step in this direction and it is the hope of the authors that others

will contribute to better understanding “which programs,

strategies, and curricula are most appropriate to build and nurture

leadership skills for public leadership ‘across boundaries’” (Getha-

Taylor et al., 2011, p. i92).

Beyond recommendations for what academic research

might contribute to developing collaborative competencies, this

study also suggests recommendations for practice. Local

government leaders should approach leadership training and

development strategically. They should identify specific outcome

goals for training (e.g. goals around better facilitating

collaboration), then align training content and methods with those

goals. Furthermore, as part of a strategic approach to leadership

development, more attention should be paid to evaluating training

outcomes meaningfully. Although these are hard fiscal times for

local governments, we argue that focusing on leadership

98 PAQ SPRING 2013

development (for collaborative governance in particular) has never

been more important. Effective collaborative leadership may well

be the key to local governments surviving, and even thriving,

during this long-term fiscal crisis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Chris Silvia for his helpful comments on

an early draft of this article along with the constructive feedback

from anonymous reviewers. An earlier version of this article was

presented at the 2011 Public Management Research Conference in

Syracuse, New York.

NOTES

1. The University Network for Collaborative Governance (UNCG)

“consists of centers and programs in colleges and universities that

engage in service and scholarship in order to enable citizens and

their leaders to engage in dialogue, discussion, problem solving,

and conflict resolution around public issues.” The network’s

objectives include “support [ing] the use of best practices and

systems for collaborative governance.” See

http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/ (accessed May 16, 2012).

2. These results were only from the first two cohorts of PELA and

the before and after assessment was done retrospectively (meaning

the participants answered both sets of questions after having

completed the program). Though the N is too small to generalize

from, the data suggests that PELA participants generally believed

their leadership competencies were improved across the board.

Additional qualitative data from five cohorts supports this

conclusion.

PAQ SPRING 2013 99

REFERENCES

Ammons, D. N., & Fleck, T. A. (2010). Budget-balancing tactics

in local government. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North

Carolina School of Government.

Berge, Z.L. (2008). Why it is so hard to evaluate training in the

workplace. Industrial and Commercial Training. 40(7);

390-395.

Berman, E.M., Bowman, J.S., West, J.P., & Van Wart, M. (2010).

Human resource management in public service:

Paradoxes, processes, and problems (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bingham, L.B, Sandfort, J., & O'Leary, R. (2008). Learning to do

and doing to learn: Teaching managers to collaborate in

networks. In L.B. Bingham & R. O'Leary (Eds.), Big ideas

in collaborative public management (pp. 270-285).

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design

and implementation of cross-sector collaboration:

Propositions from the literature. Public Administration

Review, 66(Supplement), 44-55.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Career guide to industries

2010-11 edition: State and local government. Retrieved

from http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs042.htm

Condrey, Stephen E. (Ed.) (2010). Handbook of human resource

management in government (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, B. (2011, May 11). School funds, social services cut in

Kansas budget compromise. Kansas City Star. Retrieved

from

http://www.tilrc.org/assests/news/0511news/0511state11b.

html (October 27, 2011)

100 PAQ SPRING 2013

Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context.

The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 581-613.

Denhardt, R.B. (2001). The big questions of public administration

education. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 526-34.

Emerson, K., & Smutko, L.S. (2011). UNCG guide to

collaborative competencies. Portland, OR: Policy

Consensus Initiative and University Network for

Collaborative Governance.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, N., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative

framework for collaborative governance. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.

Fox, S., & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A field

evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41(3), 581-592.

Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifying collaborative competencies.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28 (2), 103-

119.

Getha-Taylor, H., Holmes, M. H., Jacobson, W. S., Morse, R.S., &

Sowa, J.E. (2011). Focusing the public leadership lens:

Research propositions and questions in the Minnowbrook

tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 21(1), i83-97.

Government Accountability Office. (2006). Catastrophic

disasters: Enhanced leadership, capabilities, and

accountability controls will improve the effectiveness of

the nation’s preparedness, response, and recovery system.

Washington, DC: Author.

Iles, P., & Preece, D. (2006). Developing leaders or developing

leadership? The academy of chief executives’ programmes

in the north east of England. Leadership, 2(3), 317-340.

PAQ SPRING 2013 101

Johnson, K. (2010, October 4). Police training halts as agencies

face budget cuts. USA Today. Retrieved from

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-04-cop-

training_N.htm

Kirkpatrick, D.L., & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006). Evaluating training

programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the

source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Koliba, C., Meek, J.W., & Zia, A. (2011). Governance networks in

public administration and public policy. Boca Raton, FL:

CRC Press.

Light, P. (2011, April 25). Filling our “mythic hero” vacuum, and

starting with universities. The Washington Post. Retrieved

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/light-on-

leadership/post/filling-our-mythic-hero-vacuum-and-

starting-with-

universities/2011/03/18/AFzCHSjE_blog.html

Linden, R. M. (2010). Leading across boundaries: Creating

collaborative agencies in a networked world (1st ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Marsh, M. (2010). Leadership and leading: Leadership challenges.

In J. L. Perry (Eds.), Jossey-bass reader on nonprofit and

public leadership. (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning in practice: Insights

from community, workplace, and higher education (1st

ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

102 PAQ SPRING 2013

Morse, R.S. (2008). Developing leaders in an age of collaborative

governance. In R. S. Morse & T.F. Buss (Eds.),

Innovations in public leadership development. (pp. 79-

100). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Morse, R.S. & Buss, T.F. (Eds.). (2008). Innovations in public

leadership development. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Morse, R.S., & Stephens, J.B. (2012). Teaching collaborative

governance: Phases, competencies, and case-based

learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 565-

584.

Nalbandian, J. (1999). Facilitating community, enabling

democracy: New roles for local government managers.

Public Administration Review, 59 (3), 187-196.

Okubo, D. (2010). Fiscal sustainability and local government.

National Civic Review, 99 (4), 34-39.

O’Leary, R., Bingham, L.B., & Choi, Y. (2009). Teaching

collaborative leadership: Ideas and lessons for the field.

Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16 (4), 565-592.

Saad, L. (2011, September 26). Americans express historic

negativity toward U.S. government: Several long-term

Gallup trends at or near historical lows. Gallup. Retrieved

from http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/americans-

express-historic-negativity-toward-government.aspx

Shrauger, J.S. & T.M. Osberg. (1981). The relative accuracy of

self-predictions and judgments by others in psychological

assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 322-351.

Stenberg, C.W., Upshaw, V.M. & Warner, D. (2008). From local

managers to community change agents: Lessons from an

executive leadership program experience. In R.S. Morse &

T.F. Buss (Eds.), Innovations in public leadership

development, (pp. 101-128). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

PAQ SPRING 2013 103

Sullivan, H., Williams, P. & Jeffares, S. (2012). Leadership for

collaboration: Situated agency in practice. Public

Management Review, 14(1): 41-66.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management.

New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J.P. (2007). The Research Methods

Knowledge Base (3rd ed). Mason, OH: Atomic Dog

Publishing.

Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An

assessment. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 214-28.

Van Wart, M. (2005). Dynamics of leadership in public service:

Theory and practice. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Van Wart, M. (2009). An introduction to leadership and some of

the challenges in the study and teaching of it. Washington,

DC: The American Society for Public Administration.

Yukl, G.A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.