510 forum

PUBLIC LEADERSHIP A review of the literature and framework for future research

Rick Vogel and Doris Masal

Rick Vogel Chair of Public Management & Public Policy Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen Germany E-mail: [email protected]

Doris Masal Chair of Public Management & Public Policy Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen Germany E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This study analyses and reviews the litera- ture on public leadership with a novel com- bination of bibliometric methods. We detect four generic approaches to public leadership (i.e. a functionalist, a behavioural, a biogra- phical and a reformist approach) which differ with regard to their philosophy of science (i.e. objective vs subjective) and level of ana- lysis (i.e. micro-level vs multi-level). From our findings, we derive four directions for future research which involve shifting the focus from the aspect of ‘leadership’ to the element of ‘public’, from simplicity to com- plexity, from universalism to cultural relati- vism and from public leadership to public followership.

Key words Leadership, publicness, followership, biblio- metrics, network analysis

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Public Management Review, 2015

Vol. 17, No. 8, 1165–1189, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.895031

INTRODUCTION

In his seminal review of research on public leadership, Van Wart (2003) empathically called for more research in the field of public leadership, where ‘the needs are great and the research opportunities are manifold’ (2003, 225). A decade later, it has become widely accepted that public leadership is a phenomenon worth studying because in an increasingly complex and ambiguous world, new challenges and pressures are placed on public organizations and their leaders (Van Wart 2013). The public sector is rapidly changing, and so is the nature and significance of public leadership. In face of these profound changes, scholars of public administration (PA) now broadly agree that leadership is crucial to the efficiency and accountability of public organizations and thus deserves greater attention (Raffel, Leisink, and Middlebrooks 2009b; Teelken, Ferlie, and Dent, 2012). However, despite, or perhaps because of, the growing number of publications on this topic, public leader- ship remains an elusive concept (e.g. Dull 2009; Fernandez 2005). The fragmented state of the field makes it difficult to gain an overview of the various streams of research and to grasp how they relate to each other. This study aims to map the literature on public leadership, to identify emerging

approaches to research within that literature and to provide directions for future research. Our emphasis is on organizational leadership in a distinct PA perspective, rather than on other forms of public leadership, such as political, community or military leadership (Raffel, Leisink, and Middlebrooks 2009a; Van Wart 2003, 2013; Van Wart and Dicke 2008). The contribution of this study is threefold: first, we extract a bibliometric map that will provide orientation with regard to the past history, present state and future development of research on public leadership and will help scholars navigate this fragmented field. This helps encouraging dialogue across multiple per- spectives and preserving theoretical, conceptual and methodological balance. Second, we advance bibliometric applications by combining two established methods – namely co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling – in a new way that allows for the integration of two distinct sets of results, obtained by applying each method separately, in a single map. Because bibliographic data reflect the references that authors cite in scholarly publications, bibliometric maps can be said to represent the self-portrait of a scientific community that its members have unconsciously drawn over time. However, a quantitative approach to the literature does not substitute for, but rather comple- ments, introductions to and commentaries on the subject by recognized experts in the field (e.g. Denis, Langley, and Rouleau 2005; Raffel, Leisink, and Middlebrooks 2009a; Teelken 2012; Van Slyke and Alexander 2006; Van Wart 2003, 2013). The remainder of this article is organized as follows: in the next section, the data and

methods of the bibliometric analysis are introduced. We will compile relational data extracted from the bibliographies of nearly 800 journal articles, process them on two levels of analysis using network and factor analysis and finally integrate the results by

1166 Public Management Review

means of correspondence analysis. The third section is devoted to our results which reveal four generic approaches to public leadership (i.e. a functionalist, a behavioural, a biographical and a reformist approach) that differ with regard to their philosophy of science (i.e. objective vs subjective) and level of analysis (i.e. micro-level vs multi- level). Within this map, it can be seen that five clusters of current research are related to six clusters of foundational works on public leadership. In the fourth section, we assess the current state of the field and identify four avenues deserving further investigation. The paper concludes with a brief summary.

MAPPING RESEARCH ON PUBLIC LEADERSHIP WITH BIBLIOMETRICS

Bibliometrics is a subfield of the history and sociology of science that emerged from the application of statistical methods to the analysis of formal communication among scholars (for a review, see Verbeek et al. 2002). In view of the ‘publish-or-perish’ attitude in contemporary academia, bibliometric mapping provides a powerful set of methods for tracking the creation and dissemination of scientific information on a particular topic. When used descriptively rather than evaluatively (Van Leeuwen 2004), bibliometric methods reveal the history and current state of research and indicate which trends are likely to emerge in the future.

Data

We extracted bibliographic data for journal articles covered by the Thomson Reuters Social Science Citation Index® (SSCI). We focused on peer-reviewed journals because they play a key role in communicating scientific knowledge, acknowledging intellec- tual property and exercising reputational control in academia. The period of inves- tigation covers all available years up to and including 2011. Our data sampling was restricted to English-language journals in the subject category of ‘Public Administration’. Within this category, we did not differentiate further by means of quality indicators (such as the impact factor) because we aimed to cover a wide range of journals, including both highly ranked outlets in the core of the field and less prestigious journals at the margins. We then proceeded with a broad query within this category, selecting articles, reviews and proceedings papers that included the search term ‘leadership’ in the title, abstract and/or keywords. Given that ‘leader- ship’ is not a technical term, items with low or no relevance to the research subject of public leadership tend to be weakly related to more significant publications in this field and were thus eliminated at later stages of the analysis. After extraction from the database, the bibliographic data were thoroughly cleaned in order to adjust different spellings and to eliminate typing errors. Moreover, references to various editions of

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1167

the same book were harmonized. The final data set contained 787 citing documents with 33,183 references to 25,645 cited documents.

Methods

We processed the bibliographic data in four steps (see Figure 1). The procedure we followed is based on two generic methods of bibliometric retrieval, i.e. co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling. These two methods deal with different levels of analysis and thus differ significantly in their results (for comparisons, see Jarneving 2005; Vogel and Güttel 2013). Whereas most bibliometric studies apply either of the two methods, we chose to combine them in a new way and integrate the results in a single map of research on public leadership.

Co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling Co-citations and bibliographic couplings are different kinds of intertextual relationships that arise when scholars compile the reference lists of their publications. These relationships are used as bibliometric measures that are considered to indicate the degree of similarity between the co-cited or coupled documents. On that basis, large bodies of literature can be grouped into clusters of publications that tend to be homogeneous within the clusters, but heterogeneous between them. Despite their apparent similarities, the two methods have important differences. As Figure 2 shows, a co-citation is a relationship between cited documents, whereas a bibliographic coupling links citing documents. A co-citation is said to occur when two publications a and b are cited by another publication A (Small 1973). Documents are thus co-cited if

Correspondence analysis Integrating results

Compiling relational data1

Network analyses Reducing networks to the cores2

Factor analyses Clustering the network cores3

4

Co-citation analysis Bibliographic coupling

Figure 1: Analytical procedure

1168 Public Management Review

they appear on the same reference list. In contrast, a bibliographic coupling arises when two publications A and B cite the same source a (Kessler 1963). Documents are thus coupled if their bibliographies include at least one common reference. Put differently, a co-citation is a relationship between texts that are included as references in another text, whereas a bibliographic coupling is a link between texts that include the same reference. The two methods differ in several respects (Jarneving 2005; Vogel and Güttel 2013),

but their fundamental difference concerns their time horizons: co-citation analysis is biased towards the past of a scientific field because it focuses on cited documents which are inevitably older than citing documents (with the exception of publications that are cited as ‘forthcoming’). As citations accumulate over time, this method identifies classical works that are frequently, and often ceremonially rather than substantively, cited together. This makes co-citation analysis particularly suitable for the detection of high-impact publications that represent the intellectual history and origins of a parti- cular research field. However, this focus creates some convergence towards the main- streams of research. In contrast, bibliographic coupling is biased towards current research because it traces

more recent publications, independently of the frequency with which they have been cited. In that sense, it records the production, rather than the consumption, of scientific texts. This method allows for some divergence since it covers all citing documents, including those with little chance of receiving attention in the future because they depart too much from the mainstream and/or have been published in peripheral journals. Thus, combining co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling offers the advantage of considering both convergent and divergent trends in the field under investigation.

Network analyses Despite the differences between co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling, the results obtained with each method have the same relational data structure. Two symmetrical matrices emerged from the first step of the bibliometric analysis: the co-citation matrix contained all cited documents as row and column headers and the

Citing Documents

Cited Documents

A B

aa b

A

Co-citation

Bibliographic coupling

Figure 2: Co-citation and bibliographic coupling Source: Vogel and Güttel (2013).

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1169

co-citation counts as values, whereas the coupling matrix assigned the number of bibliographic couplings to every pair of citing documents. The main diagonals of the matrices were considered as missing values. In the next step, we processed the raw matrices by means of network analysis. Since the matrices were quadratic and symmetric, we analysed them as undirected one-mode networks (Wasserman and Faust 2009). The goal of this step was to separate the cores of the bibliographic networks in order to focus the analysis on highly interdependent publications while eliminating loosely connected documents on the periphery. For this purpose, we employed a categorical core/periphery model proposed by Borgatti and Everett (1999). By using this procedure for data reduction, we avoided the arbitrary setting of absolute or relative thresholds and instead applied an algorithm consistently to both networks. After reduction to the network cores, the co-citation matrix consisted of 330 documents, whereas the coupling matrix contained 121 documents.

Factor analyses The aim of the third step was to cluster the rows and columns of the matrices into groups of similar publications. In keeping with bibliometric standards set in previous works (McCain 1990), we first converted the raw frequency counts in the matrices into correlations based on Pearson’s coefficient. The clustering results that are produced by means of relative measures of document similarity have proved to be more balanced than those produced by means of absolute frequencies, because they are less affected by outliers of extremely high (or low) citation rates (McCain 1990). After the conversion, we applied factor analyses with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization to the correlation matrices. We excluded documents with no significant loadings (i.e. loadings <0.4; McCain 1990) from further analysis. This reduced the samples to 282 cited documents and 107 citing documents. Table 1 provides a summary of the factor extraction. The cluster labels emerged from our interpretations of the eleven extracted factors. For this purpose, we reviewed the assigned documents thoroughly, searched for substantial commonalities within the clusters and chose a self-explanatory label for each cluster.1

Correspondence analysis Up to that point, a separate bibliometric analysis was run in a similar manner for the co-citation and coupling matrix. In the final step, we integrated the intermediate results using correspondence analysis (CA). Like a multidimensional scaling approach, CA is an exploratory multivariate technique for visualizing categorical data in a low-dimensional space (Greenacre 1984). To our knowledge, this study is the first to use CA for integrating the results of co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling in a single bibliometric map. This approach makes it possible to determine the degree of

1170 Public Management Review

correspondence between the forefront of research (i.e. the coupling clusters) and the foundations on which this research is built (i.e. the co-citation clusters). To integrate those intermediate results, we first created a two-way frequency cross-tabulation with

Table 1: Factor extraction

Factor Label Number of documents

Eigen- value

Variance explained Most characteristic references (in brackets: factor loadings)(%) (Cum. %)

Co-citation analysis 1.1 New public

management 74 98.720 29.915 29.915 1. Moe 1994 (.904); 2. Barzelay and

Armajani 1992 (.891); 3. de Leon and Denhardt 2000 (.889)

1.2 Leadership theory 79 61.745 18.711 48.626 1. Kotter 1990 (.969); 2. Blake and Mouton 1964 (.968); 3. House and Mitchell 1974 (.967)

1.3 Organization publicness

45 33.548 10.166 58.792 1. Bozeman 1987 (.877); 2. Wolf 1994 (.869); 3. Rainey, Leisink, and Middlebrooks, 1995 (.869)

1.4 Organization theory

27 28.594 8.665 67.456 1. Ouchi 1981 (.835); 2. Trice and Beyer 1993 (.774); 3. Selznick 1949 (.772)

1.5 Public service innovation

27 25.896 7.847 75.304 1. Borins 1998 (.907); 2. Light 1998 (.894); 3. Mohr 1969 (.893)

1.6 New public administration

21 18.756 5.684 80.988 1. Marini 1971 (.794); 2. Luke 1998 (.785); 3. Ospina and Dodge 2005 (.783)

Bibliographic coupling 2.1 Public leadership

outcomes 21 32.403 26.779 26.779 1. Andrews and Boyne 2010 (.946); 2.

Andrews et al. 2011 (.944); 3. Cho and Ringquist 2011 (.933)

2.2 Transformational public leadership

31 29.109 24.057 50.836 1. VanWart and Kapucu 2011 (.878); 2. Jaskyte and Dressier 2005 (.869); 3. Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010 (.866)

2.3 Public leadership ethics

26 16.561 13.687 64.523 1. Boyne and Dahya 2002 (.855); 2. Lee, Moon, and Hahm 2010 (.852); 3. Lambright and Quinn 2011 (.836)

2.4 Collaborative public leadership

15 15.183 12.548 77.071 1. Hartmann and Khademian 2010 (.940); 2. Kronenberg and Khademian 2009 (.932); 3. Au 1996 (.929)

2.5 Public reform leadership

14 11.267 9.311 86.382 1. Hansen 2011 (.755); 2. Awortwi 2010 (.731); 3. Moon and de Leon 2001 (.726)

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1171

the aggregated number of references to the cited documents in each co-citation cluster that were contained in the citing documents in each coupling cluster. This contingency table was subsequently converted into a two-dimensional scatter plot.

FOUR APPROACHES TO PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

The map presented in Figure 3 shows the results of the bibliometric analysis at the most aggregated level. The scatter plot displays the extracted clusters of literature, arranged in a two-dimensional space with four quadrants. The black clusters have emerged from the bibliographic coupling analysis, thus indicating recent trends in research on public leadership, whereas the white clusters have resulted from the co-citation analysis, thus reflecting various traditions on which current research builds. The spatial distances between the clusters were calculated on the basis of references that connect biblio- graphic coupling clusters to co-citation clusters. The closer a black cluster lies to a white one, the greater the number of publications contained in the former that cite publications contained in the latter. In order to arrive at the best fitting labels for the elements of our framework, we pursued an inductive approach: we thoroughly reviewed the clustered publications, gave the clusters proper names, arranged them

2.2 Transformational Public Leadership

2.3 Public Leadership Ethics

2.4 Collaborative Public Leadership

2.5 Public Reform Leadership

1.1 New Public Management

1.2 Leadership Theory

1.4 Organization Theory

1.3 Organizational Publicness

1.5 Public Service Innovation

1.6 New Public Administration

2.1 Public Leadership Outcomes

Multi-Level

S u

b je

c tiv

eO b

je c ti

v e

Micro-Level

Functionalist Approach

Behavioural Approach

Biographical Approach

Reformist Approach

I

II

IV

III

Figure 3: Map of research on public leadership Note: ● = bibliographic coupling cluster; ○ = co-citation cluster; cluster size weighted by mass.

1172 Public Management Review

in the two-dimensional space and continued with an interpretation of the emerging dimensions and boxes. Our interpretations will become more evident from the brief descriptions of the approaches below. The horizontal dimension represents public leadership research from the perspective

of the philosophy of science, with ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ as the two ends of the continuum. This dimension is broadly consistent with the philosophical dimension in Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) analysis of paradigms in organizational sociology. According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), all scientific inquiries into the social world are guided by basic assumptions about it and about appropriate ways of investigating it. From the perspective of an objective philosophy of science, the social world constitutes a reality of its own that exists independently of individual cognition and has a tangible structure. Researchers can acquire knowledge about this reality and investigate the structural elements and causal relationships it comprises; their primary interests are the regularities and laws governing the observed reality. In terms of methodology, objecti- vists consider large-scale studies and quantitative methods most appropriate for detect- ing general rules and patterns. On the contrary, the subjective philosophy of science assumes that the social world does not

exist outside the human mind, but is rather a product of subjective experience. Consequently, knowledge about the social world can only be acquired by those who experience reality directly from within cultural systems of meaning. Researchers who follow this approach thus avoid imposing a frame of reference from outside, and instead try to adopt the perspective of those who create and interpret reality. With regard to methodology, subjectivists favour small-scale studies and qualitative methods because they are mainly concerned with the particularities of individual cases. They thus aim to gain in-depth knowledge on historical contexts, institutional conditions and personal backgrounds, which is best acquired by means of interpretive methods applied in case study designs. The vertical dimension reflects the level of analysis in research on public leadership.

The continuum from the ‘micro-level’ to the ‘multi-level’ can be best illustrated with Coleman’s widespread heuristic for the analysis of social phenomena (1990), which has become popularly known as ‘bathtub’. According to Coleman (1990), two general modes of analysis of social phenomena predominate in contemporary research. The first mode is concerned with explaining and understanding individual behaviour; this repre- sents the micro-level of analysis at the bottom of the ‘tub’, where individuals are of primary interest. This mode of analysis involves observations not on the level of the system as a whole but on the level of the individual as part of the system. The micro- level focus does not preclude that individual behaviour may be explained by factors that go beyond personal characteristics and derive from the broader social context. The second mode of social research is concerned with explaining and understanding

the social system as a whole (rather than the behaviour of individuals) at the macro- level of analysis – the top of the ‘bathtub’. The notion of ‘system’ is fairly broad and includes any form of social organization, ranging from small groups to entire societies.

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1173

However, changes on the system-level result from the actions of individuals who are part of these systems. Thus, social phenomena may be investigated at a lower level than that of the system, at which the system’s components can be studied, and subsequently the aggregated outcomes of these elements may be examined at the systemic level. This transition from the micro- to the macro-level rarely occurs directly through the mere summation of behavioural effects but is more likely to be emergent and nondetermi- nistic. We refer to research that considers both the micro- and macro-level of analysis, whether implicitly or explicitly, as ‘multi-level’. The combination of the two dimensions yields four approaches to public leadership.

It should be noted here, however, that the philosophical and the analytical dimensions of studies on public leadership are independent of each other, as a certain philosophical stance does not predetermine the level of analysis on which research is carried out. Furthermore, the distinctiveness of the four quadrants has been exaggerated for analytical purposes. The basic pairings outlined above (i.e. objective vs subjective, micro-level vs multi-level) are extreme positions at the opposite ends of the two dimensions. As already mentioned, these extreme positions do not represent a dichot- omy but mark the ends of a continuum characterized by considerable variation. Below, we will outline the four perspectives and summarize their basic positions and key topics drawing on the literature assigned to the respective clusters.

The functionalist approach to public leadership

Currently, the functionalist approach is most clearly adopted by publications in a cluster that we have labelled Public Leadership Outcomes. In these studies, various performance measures on which public leadership may have an impact serve as dependent variables; these include service performance (Andrews and Boyne 2010; Andrews et al. 2011), customer satisfaction (Andrews and Boyne 2010), work-unit performance (Cho and Lee 2011; Cho and Ringquist 2011), perceived network effectiveness (McGuire and Silvia 2009), internal efficiency (Ritz 2009) and property-tax collection (Avellaneda 2009). Several authors in this cluster place particular emphasis on innovation in the public sector and investigate how public leadership determines a government’s innovation capacity (Kim and Chang 2009), the adoption of innovation in general (Damanpour and Schneider 2010; Kim and Lee 2009) and the implementation of certain reform policies more specifically (Dull 2009; Jacobson, Palus, and Bowling, 2010; Riccucci et al. 2004). The strong focus on the link between leadership and innovation in current research is the reason for the close proximity of this cluster to the body of literature that we refer to here as Public Service Innovation. This co-citation cluster includes foundational works on innovating in the public sector (e.g. Borins 1998; Light 1998; Mohr 1969) that serve as points of reference for the more recent studies in the Public Leadership Outcomes cluster. The major interest in the macro-level outcomes of micro-level leadership requires

scholars to control for many more variables that may determine these outcomes either

1174 Public Management Review

directly or through leadership. Situational factors of this kind reside at various levels of analysis and range from demographic characteristics, such as educational level (Jacobson et al. 2010) and political party affiliation (Avellaneda 2009), to organizational features, such as goal clarity (Stazyk, Pandey, and Wright 2011) and management capacity (Kim and Lee 2009), to environmental factors, such as population density and ethnic diversity (Andrews and Boyne 2010). Of particular interest here is the effect of an organization’s belonging to the public sector on the processes and outcomes of leadership. Although all studies selected for the bibliometric analysis were carried out in public settings, only very few reflect explicitly on the distinctive aspects of leadership in the public as compared to the private sector (Andersen 2010; Hansen and Villadsen 2010; Stazyk, Pandey, and Wright 2011; Van Slyke and Alexander 2006). In the functionalist approach to public leadership, the presence of this issue is evidenced by the appearance of a further co-citation cluster in the first quadrant of the bibliometric map, referred to here as Organizational Publicness. This cluster comprises theoretical and empirical studies on the similarities and differences between public and private management that are specifically concerned with public leadership (Bozeman 1987; Rainey and Chun 2005; Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995).

The behavioural approach to public leadership

The behavioural approach has given rise to a considerable body of literature which we refer to here as Transformational Public Leadership. It also surfaces in an adjacent co-citation cluster, labelled Leadership Theories, which represents a wide range of such theories in the behavioural tradition of management (e.g. Blake and Mouton 1964; House and Mitchell 1974; Kotter 1990). These classics of the literature on leadership provide current research with con- ceptual foundations and with operational definitions of leadership traits, skills and beha- viours. Within this frame of reference, several authors examine the specific demands that public leaders face, particularly in turbulent environments that create strong pressures on leaders to act. New challenges to public leadership emerge from long-term changes of a socio-economic nature that affect e.g. demographic trends, social movements, shrinking budgets and IT developments (Kouzmin and Korac-Kakabadse 2000; Valle 1999), but also from short-term disruptions like Hurricane Katrina (Choi 2008; Kapucu and Van Wart 2008; Van Wart and Kapucu 2011). In both cases, public leaders are increasingly required to develop abilities of coping with, and adapting to, profound environmental changes. Among the foundations of behavioural research on public leadership, the concept of

transformational leadership (Bass 1996) is of paramount importance. Many of the included works stress that the response to dramatic disasters requires decisive leadership, while continuous learning, environmental scanning and organizational change are of less significance (Kapucu and Van Wart 2008; Van Wart and Kapucu 2011). By contrast, the routine operations of public sector organizations require competencies of transformational leader- ship. Several studies examine the behavioural impact of leaders on their followers and

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1175

provide evidence that transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction (Mary 2005; Park and Rainey 2008; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008; Valle 1999), organizational commitment (Chu and Lai 2011; Robertson and Shui-Yan 1995), extra effort (Mary 2005), public service motivation (Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010; Park and Rainey 2008) and performance (Chu and Lai 2011; Rowold and Rohmann 2009; Valle 1999), but negatively associated with absenteeism and turnover (Valle 1999). Despite the benefits of transformational leadership, one study in this cluster has found that in the US, federal employees rank their leaders higher in transactional than in transformational competencies (Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008). According to this approach, the tendency towards transactional leadership may be reinforced by structural features commonly associated with public agencies, as strong authority and weak communication across hierarchical levels impact negatively on the practice of transformational leadership (Wright and Pandey 2010). However, empirical evidence on whether public sector organizations facilitate or inhibit transformational leadership is still sparse and yields mixed results. In a comparative study of the leadership styles of public and private managers, Hansen and Villadsen (2010) have shown that public managers are more likely than private managers to use participative elements in their leadership behaviour, which tend to fall into the transformational category.

The biographical approach to public leadership

In the recent literature, the biographical approach did not emerge as a separate cluster; however, its presence becomes evident through its connection with ethical issues of public leadership. This synthesis is manifested in the Public Leadership Ethics cluster in the third quadrant of the bibliometric map (see Figure 3). The majority of articles that make up this cluster focus on the normative foundations of public leadership and examine how leaders cope with the challenges and contradictions that arise from the increasing complexity of ethical issues in contemporary politics. This perspective is closely related to the New Public Administration tradition, which surfaces as a small yet distinct co-citation cluster. The most significant among these foundational works is the report on the first Minnowbrook conference (Marini 1971), which paved the way for the scholarly perspective that lends this cluster its name. This perspective has been critical of traditional approaches to public administration. Moreover, instead of applying generic concepts of leadership to the public sector, the ‘new public administration’ approach is concerned with common goods, democratic values and public trust (Crosby and Bryson 2005; Frederickson 1997) and with how public service ethics can be preserved in an age of non-hierarchical collaboration across sectors (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Luke 1998). In line with that, current research places emphasis on the ‘public’ element of public leadership, which it defines as a normative commitment to the core values of public services (Denhardt and Campbell 2006; Getha-Taylor et al. 2011). This concern for democratic accountability

1176 Public Management Review

is largely in keeping with the stewardship view of administrative leadership, whereas the other approaches tend to follow the entrepreneurial view, placing greater emphasis on managerial discretion (Denis, Langley, and Rouleau, 2005; Van Wart 2003). Several case studies – e.g. on French prime ministers (Bezes 2001), the head of a

federal agency (Dobel 1995) and a former British prime minister (Moon 1995) – illustrate the increasingly complex, and often contradictory, demands that public leaders face today. Often these tensions arise from the competing logics of politics and administration, or of democracy and bureaucracy (Jung, Moon, and Hahm, 2008; Lee, Moon, and Hahm, 2010; Sinclair, Baird, and Alford, 1993; Vogelsang-Coombs and Miller 1999). The dilemma between political responsiveness and administrative responsibility has been reinforced by recent management reforms. As these reforms devolve discretionary free- dom to lower levels of the hierarchy, not only leaders in the upper echelons, but street- level bureaucrats as well are increasingly challenged to cope with complex sets of standards (Vinzant and Crothers 1996). The emergence of such demands has renewed scholarly interest in the ethical foundations of good government and in the normative practices and moral resources that derive from them. In an effort to define the personal virtues that ethical leaders ought to possess, some authors identify prudence and practical wisdom as prerequisites for making appropriate judgements when confronted with competing values (Dobel 1998; Kane and Patapan 2006). While there is some dispute as to whether the values of conservatorship or entrepreneurship offer more appropriate guidance for prudent leadership in the public sector (Currie et al. 2008; Kalu 2003; Terry 1990, 1998), most authors who are concerned with ethical issues tend to agree that leadership itself is a moral obligation rather than just a right (Behn 1998).

The reformist approach to public leadership

The reformist approach to public leadership is the most populated quadrant in the bibliometric map (see Figure 3). In all other subfields, research is concerned to some extent also with issues of management reforms in the public sector. However, only in the reformist quadrant is the preoccupation with public management reforms the defining characteristic of whole clusters of literature. Current research predominantly draws on the literature comprised in the New Public Management cluster (e.g. Barzelay and Armajani 1992; de Leon and Denhardt 2000; Moe 1994), which has emerged from the co-citation analysis as the most eminent factor in terms of explanatory power (see Table 1). The other co-citation cluster in the fourth quadrant, Organization Theory (e.g. Ouchi 1981; Selznick 1949; Trice and Beyer 1993), is close to the centre of the bibliometric map, representing studies that provide a fairly general basis for research on public leadership and are to some extent relevant to all approaches. Two streams of current leadership research have evolved from the ‘new public manage-

ment’ perspective. We call the first cluster Collaborative Public Leadership, as most of the articles it comprises are mainly concerned with the shift from government in hierarchies to

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1177

governance in networks (Kirlin 1996). An example of this shift is provided by the new forms of collaboration with institutions of the civil society and the market economy that arise from the empowerment of citizens as customers or consumers (Aberbach and Christensen 2005) and from strategies of competitive sourcing (Joaquin 2009), respectively. This approach argues that leadership is affected by, and affects, cross-sectoral collaboration in a number of ways. On the one hand, it is affected by collaboration because networked modes of producing public goods and services redefine leadership roles both in politics and in administration. The new role of leaders is more complex in collaborative processes that involve delegated authority than in traditional settings, since leaders have to merge it with the roles of negotiator, contractor, expert, manager, mediator, sponsor, etc. (Aberbach and Christensen 2005; Kronenberg and Khademian 2009; Ryan 2001). Considering a network as a whole, rather than focusing on certain parts, and balancing its unity and diversity (Saz-Carranza and Ospina 2011), pose particular challenges to public leadership. On the other hand, leadership has been proved to be a decisive factor for successful collaboration. This is true both for the initial stage of collaboration, as leadership fosters the collaborative capacity of public agencies (Weber and Khademian 2008), and for the results of collaboration, because agencies are more likely to collaborate effectively if there is some continuity in leadership (Behn 2010; Ryan 2001). We refer to the second black cluster in the reformist subfield as Public Reform Leadership,

since most included studies elaborate on how leadership drives the spread of ‘new public management’ reforms across national, regional and local contexts. This strand of research is embedded in more general efforts to assess the level of implementation of management reforms in the public sector (Brudney and Wright 2002; Moon and de Leon 2001). Several studies demonstrate that, among several other factors, the presence of leadership with a strong emphasis on innovation and change enhances the adoption of elements from the reform agenda (Burke and Costello 2005; Cristofoli et al. 2011; Hansen 2011; Hennessey 1998). Moreover, the more favourably leaders evaluate the symbolic costs and benefits of results-oriented reforms (Moynihan 2005) and the more they internalize the values of reinventing government (Moon and de Leon 2001; Sanger 2008), the larger the impact of this factor. The development of leadership skills is thus seen as a preferential device for building local competencies for the adoption of global reforms (Awortwi 2010; Wallis and McLoughlin 2007). Once empowered, however, public leaders may exploit administrative reforms in order to pursue their own political agendas (Durant 2008). In a more critical vein, other studies perceive administrative leadership as a vehicle for the diffusion of neo-manage- rialist ideologies that foster liberation and market-driven management in the public sector and, in turn, contribute to the thinning of administrative institutions (Terry 1998, 2005).

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

The goal of this study is to explore the range of research on public leadership by structuring the rapidly expanding body of literature on this topic. To our knowledge,

1178 Public Management Review

this is the first study to apply advanced bibliometric methods in order to supplement qualitative reviews of, and introductions to, public sector leadership (Raffel, Leisink, and Middlebrooks 2009a; Teelken 2012; Van Wart 2003, 2013). The results of our bibliometric analysis enabled us to identify four generic approaches to public leadership which differ in their philosophy of science and level of analysis. In addition to providing an overview of past and current research, the map indicates where gaps remain. Taking these into account, we derive four avenues for future research that will help move research on public leadership some steps closer to integration.

From public leadership to public leadership

In current research on public leadership, the emphasis is still on the aspect of ‘leader- ship’ rather than on the ‘public’ element. Only very few works covered by our analysis provide insights into the particularities of leadership in the public sector, as compared to leadership in the private sector (Andersen 2010; Hansen and Villadsen 2010; Hooijberg and Choi 2001; Van Slyke and Alexander 2006). This is despite the fact that all analysed articles, whether theoretical or empirical, are concerned with public sector organizations, given that we selected them exclusively from PA journals. The reason for this tendency is that a large number of these works apply universal concepts of leadership and fail to explore the specific traits and dynamics of public leadership (Raffel, Leisink, and Middlebrooks 2009a). This is particularly apparent in the beha- vioural approach, which refers to a greater extent to management and psychology than the other approaches do. Although generic concepts allow for cross-sectoral compar- isons of leadership, this opportunity is rather rarely used. This suggests that research on public leadership needs to pay more attention to publicness itself. Extant research provides certain starting points for exploring both empirical and normative publicness (Bozeman and Moulton 2011). More specifically, the functionalist approach comprises explicit comparative leadership studies and incorporates the literature on empirical publicness (Bozeman 1987; Rainey and Chun 2005; Rainey, Leisink, and Middlebrooks, 1995). In comparison, the biographical approach considers normative publicness more implicitly, by addressing ethical issues of public services and taking into account the political dimension of leadership. Greater efforts in this direction will help redress the imbalance between leadership as a general subject and the under-researched public leadership in particular.

From universalism to cultural relativism of public leadership

The limited attention given to publicness in current studies may reflect a trend in leadership research that extends beyond PA, namely a strong focus on leaders and their

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1179

achievements at the neglect of the context in which they exercise leadership. Put differently, there is too much ‘agency’ and too little ‘structure’ in studies on leadership (Ferlie 2012; Teelken 2012). Another manifestation of this bias is the little attention paid to the cultural context of public leadership. To a greater or lesser extent, all four approaches are predominated by North American scholarship. Only a minority of core articles in our analysis were (co-)authored by scholars from Europe, Asia and Austrasia, and none by authors from South America and Africa. Accordingly, most empirical research on public leadership is carried out in the Anglo-American world. Among those studies that focus on other regions, many examine managerial reforms that were introduced in and have spread from English-speaking countries around the world. However, the phenomenon of leadership is not likely to be universally uniform. On the contrary, it is most likely culturally glossed by the administrative traditions and institutional logics of the political system in which it takes place. These systems differ remarkably across cultural contexts, particularly between the managerial tradition of Anglo-America and the etatist tradition of Continental Europe. Future research should take these settings into greater consideration and ideally engage in cross-cultural comparisons of public leadership (Raffel, Leisinik, and Middlebrooks 2009a).

From simplicity to complexity of public leadership

Taking the context of leadership more seriously will require not only adding more analytical constructs to public leadership research, but also reconsidering how the various elements of public leadership (i.e. context, processes and outcomes) co-evolve and interact. In particular, non-simple interrelations between observed phenomena (i.e. links other than direct unidirectional cause-and-effect relationships) deserve greater attention than they have received so far. Many relationships among the elements of public leadership are bilateral and simultaneous rather than unilateral and sequential. In order to account for these more complex links and understand the leadership phenom- enon more holistically, future studies must elaborate on the ‘fit’ between the context and process of leadership as well as between leaders and followers. Only few studies have hitherto examined the effects of such interactions (e.g. Ritz et al. 2012; Wallace and Tomlinson 2010). Although the design of the present study suggests that we favour objective approaches with quantitative methodologies, we deem qualitative research equally and possibly more appropriate for addressing issues of ‘fit’ in public leadership. Qualitative research in case study designs can account for a larger number of variables and more complex relationships among these. This is because the smaller number of observations means that such methods have to deal with fewer problems of measur- ability and comparability. The biographical and reformist approach could be applied to case studies in order to obtain inductively certain configurations of contexts, leaders and followers; subsequently, it would be possible to apply the functionalist and behavioural

1180 Public Management Review

approach in order to elaborate on these interactions by testing them deductively in large-scale studies.

From public leadership to public followership

The least explored element of public leadership concerns, somewhat paradoxically, followers. Like works on leadership in general, studies that focus on public leadership also take a leader-centred perspective that ignores the important role of followers. This is particularly evident in the biographical approach which focuses most strongly on the individual skills and personal traits of political leaders, thereby supporting ‘great man’ theories of leadership. Only the behavioural approach includes followers to some extent, but these studies are limited to the unilateral impact of leaders on followers in terms of the latter’s job satisfaction (e.g. Mary 2005; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008) or organizational commitment (e.g. Chu and Lai 2011; Robertson and Shui-Yan 1995). As neither the interactions between subordinates and supervisors nor the feedback from the former to the latter have been considered so far, public leadership research falls short of what leader–member exchange theory (e.g. Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995) and the burgeoning literature on followership (e.g. Bligh 2011) suggest; namely, that followers are active participants rather than passive recipients in the leadership process. To make progress towards a theory of public followership (Gilbert and Hyde 1988), future research could draw more extensively on the vast literature on public service motivation (e.g. Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010; Park and Rainey 2008). As these works argue, the effectiveness of leadership depends on the kind and strength of motivation on the part of both leaders and followers. There is vast evidence that motivational dispositions in the public sector differ from those in other settings due to the effects of selection and socialization (Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise 2010). These findings raise the question of how the motivation of public leaders affects their styles and roles and what specific demands public followers place on them. Introducing followers into public leadership studies would also strengthen multi-level research. Although we have classified the functionalist and reformist approach as multi-level (Figure 3), this is not to say that all studies in these quadrants interrelate the analytical levels consciously and consistently (Cho and Ringquist 2011; Yammarino et al. 2005). In the transition from micro-level leadership to macro-level outcomes, changes in the behaviour of followers are often the missing link.

Limitations

The present study is limited by the general shortcomings of bibliometrics which derive from this method’s merely statistical and strongly reductionist approach to examining a

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1181

given body of literature. However, our outlines of the extracted approaches have shown that the two dimensions of our framework cover a considerable variety of research. In particular, the first dimension (i.e. philosophy of science) strongly deter- mines what values, theories, methods and styles are applied within the four subfields of research. For example, the functional approach pursues managerial values of efficiency and effectiveness, while the biographic approach is more attached to political values of representativeness and accountability. The behavioural approach strongly builds on theories of transformational leadership, whereas the reformist approach refers to institutional and network theories. The left boxes are almost exclusively filled with quantitative methods, while works in the right subfields apply more qualitative and mixed designs, associated with different styles of presentation. As long as more fine- grained analyses by experts enrich the rather broad and abstract categories of biblio- metric grids, such analyses are useful complements to qualitative reviews. There are some more specific limitations to our analysis which arise from the data

sampling. First, our study is somewhat Anglo-centric because we did not include studies in languages other than English into the data set. To redress this, future research could also consider works on public leadership that are published in other languages. Second, we gathered our bibliographic data only from journal articles. Journal-based publishing has repeatedly been criticized for facilitating the mainstream at the expense of innova- tions, since rankings (e.g. Mingers and Willmott 2013) and peer review (e.g. Frey 2003) may have such performative effects on research. Taking various forms of publications into consideration will provide a more comprehensive picture of scholarship on public leader- ship, including more heterodox streams of research. Indeed, there are several books and edited volumes that have made significant contributions to the field of public leadership (Joyce 2012; Morse and Buss 2008; Morse, Buss, and Kinghorn 2007; Raffel, Leisinik, and Middlebrooks 2009b; Teelken, Ferlie, and Dent 2012; Van Wart 2011). Finally, our data sampling was limited to PA and did not extend to works in other subject categories. Although the boundaries of PA to adjacent fields are less permeable than often assumed (Vogel, forthcoming), research that is relevant to public leadership may also be published, for instance, in the context of political science, general management or social psychology; thus, future studies on the topic of leadership could broaden their scope accordingly. This would be particularly important for works that do not concentrate on organizational leadership but examine other forms, such as political, community or military leadership.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

For some commentators, ‘nothing in public administration is more important, inter- esting, or mysterious than leadership’ (Lambright and Quinn 2011, 782). The present study has provided a review of past and present research on the leadership phenomenon in public administration and derived a framework for integrating that research. The growing number of publications in that field gave us reason to take a bibliometric

1182 Public Management Review

approach, which is useful for detecting emerging patterns in rapidly expanding bodies of literature. Our analysis yielded a bibliometric map that displays four distinct yet interrelated approaches to public leadership, which are differentiated by a number of philosophical and analytical divisions. The functionalist approach advances the strategic management of public organizations because it addresses mainly the performance implications of public leadership. The behavioural approach facilitates the transfer of theories and methods from the field of organizational behaviour to the field of public administration. The biographical approach tends to take into account the political dimension of public leadership since it often focuses on elected officials and senior appointees who have excelled in political domains. The reformist approach contributes to the ongoing discussion on public sector reforms, which has recently become more critical of managerial approaches. Exploring the more subtle assumptions of the various perspectives of public

leadership may encourage researchers to reflect on their own approach, consider alternative paths and engage in cross-paradigmatic discourse (Ospina and Uhl-Bien 2012). Despite the impressive quantity and variety of existing research, there are still many ‘white spots’ on the map. Our findings support the view that this field is still in its infancy (Raffel, Leisink, and Middlebrooks 2009a; Van Wart 2003), particularly in comparison with the far broader range of theories, concepts and topics that feature in works that examine leadership in general (e.g. Yukl 2010). In this regard, it is significant that only the first dimension of Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework (i.e. philosophy of science) emerged from our data, whereas we did not detect the second dimension (i.e. theory of society). This is due to the fact that the field of public leadership adheres almost exclusively to a sociology of regulation, largely disregarding more critical and emancipatory approaches outside the boxes of our bibliometric grid. Even within these boxes, many heterodox voices that can be heard in general leadership studies have not yet been echoed in public leadership research. For example, constructionist and relational approaches argue that the social context provides the conditions that encourage particular forms of leadership to emerge, while the process of leadership, in turn, reproduces this context through the collective attribution of meaning (Hosking 2011; Ospina and Foldy 2010; Ospina and Uhl-Bien 2012; Uhl-Bien 2006). Leadership, then, is understood as a social construct that emerges from the interaction between members and the organizational context. Among many other perspectives outside the mainstream of actor-centred approaches, this thinking is worth to be applied to public leadership in order to account for the particular setting of public organizations and the way how this context shapes, and is shaped by, the interactions of leaders and followers. Much has been achieved, but much still remains to be done in order to yield urgently

needed insights into the complex phenomenon of public leadership. The agenda set in this paper provides some next steps for directing research towards public leadership in the twenty-first century.

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1183

NOTE 1 Our interpretations were primarily guided by the publications that loaded highest on each factor, as these

works are most characteristic of the respective cluster. For example, the seminal publications by Bozeman (1987), Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman, (1995), and Chun and Rainey (2005) are among the highest-loading documents on the third factor extracted from the co-citation matrix (see Table 1). Since these publications elaborate on the distinctiveness of public as compared to private organizations, we gave the respective cluster the label of Organizational Publicness.

REFERENCES Aberbach, J. D., and T. Christensen. 2005. “Citizens and Consumers.” Public Management Review 7 (2): 226–245. Andersen, J. A. 2010. “Public Versus Private Managers: How Public and Private Managers Differ in Leadership

Behavior.” Public Administration Review 70 (1): 131–141. Andrews, R., and G. A. Boyne. 2010. “Capacity, Leadership, and Organizational Performance: Testing the Black

Box Model of Public Management.” Public Administration Review 70 (3): 443–454. Andrews, R., G. A. Boyne, J. Law, and R. M. Walker. 2011. “Strategy Implementation and Public Service

Performance.” Administration & Society 43 (6): 643–671. Au, C.-F. 1996. “Rethinking Organizational Effectiveness: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Study of

Organizational Effectiveness for Social Welfare Organizations.” Administration in Social Work 20 (4): 1–21. Avellaneda, C. N. 2009. “Mayoral Quality and Local Public Finance.” Public Administration Review 69 (3): 469–486. Awortwi, N. 2010. “Building New Competences for Government Administrators and Managers in an Era of

Public Sector Reforms: The Case of Mozambique.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 76 (4): 723–748.

Barzelay, M., and B. J. Armajani. 1992. Breaking Through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bass, B. M. 1996. A New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Behn, R. D. 1998. “What Right Do Public Managers Have to Lead?” Public Administration Review 58 (3): 209–224. Behn, R. D. 2010. “Collaborating for Performance: Or Can There Exist Such a Thing as CollaborationStat?”

International Public Management Journal 13 (4): 429–470. Bezes, P. 2001. “Defensive Versus Offensive Approaches to Administrative Reform in France (1988–1997): The

Leadership Dilemmas of French Prime Ministers.” Governance – an International Journal of Policy and Administration 14 (1): 99–132.

Blake, R. R., and J. S. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid. 2nd ed. Houston, TX: Gulf. Bligh, M. C. 2011. “Followership and Follower-Centred Approaches.” In The Sage Handbook of Leadership, edited

by A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson and M. Uhl-Bien. London: SAGE. Borgatti, S. P., and M. G. Everett. 1999. “Models of Core/Periphery Structures.” Social Networks 21 (4): 375–395. Borins, S. F. 1998. Innovating with Integrity: How Local Heroes are Transforming American Government. Washington,

DC: Georgetown University Press. Boyne, G., and J. Dahya. 2002. “Executive Succession and the Performance of Public Organizations.” Public

Administration 80 (1): 179–200. Bozeman, B. 1987. All Organizations are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass. Bozeman, B., and S. Moulton. 2011. “Integrative Publicness: A Framework for Public Management Strategy and

Performance.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (Suppl. 3): i363–i380. Brudney, J. L., and D. S. Wright. 2002. “Revisiting Administrative Reform in the American States: The Status of

Reinventing Government During the 1990s.” Public Administration Review 62 (3): 353–361.

1184 Public Management Review

Burke, B. F., and B. C. Costello. 2005. “The Human Side of Managing for Results.” American Review of Public Administration 35 (3): 270–286.

Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann.

Cho, Y. J., and J. W. Lee. 2011. “Perceived Trustworthiness of Supervisors, Employee Satisfaction and Cooperation.” Public Management Review 13 (7): 941–965.

Cho, Y. J., and E. J. Ringquist. 2011. “Managerial Trustworthiness and Organizational Outcomes.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (1): 53–86.

Choi, S. O. 2008. “Emergency Management: Implications from a Strategic Management Perspective.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 5 (1): 1–21.

Chu, L.-C., and C.-C. Lai. 2011. “A Research on the Influence of Leadership Style and Job Characteristics on Job Performance Among Accountants of County and City Government in Taiwan.” Public Personnel Management 40 (2): 101–118.

Chun, Y. H., and H. G. Rainey. 2005. “Goal Ambiguity in US Federal Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 15 (1): 1–30.

Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Cristofoli, D., G. Nasi, A. Turrini, and G. Valotti. 2011. “Civil Service Reforms in Italy: The Importance of

External Endorsement and Administrative Leadership.” Governance – an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions 24 (2): 261–283.

Crosby, B. C., and J. M. Bryson. 2005. Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Currie, G., M. Humphreys, D. Ucbasaran, and S. McManus. 2008. “Entrepreneurial Leadership in the English Public Sector: Paradox or Possibility?” Public Administration 86 (4): 987–1008.

Damanpour, F., and M. Schneider. 2010. “Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 19 (3): 495–522.

de Leon, L., and R. B. Denhardt. 2000. “The Political Theory of Reinvention.” Public Administration Review 60 (2): 89–97.

Denhardt, J. V., and K. B. Campbell. 2006. “The Role of Democratic Values in Transformational Leadership.” Administration & Society 38 (5): 556–572.

Denis,J.-L., A. Langley, andL.Rouleau. 2005.“Rethinking LeadershipinPublicOrganizations.” In TheOxford Handbook of Public Management, edited by E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn Jr, and C. Pollitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dobel, J. P. 1995. “Managerial Leadership in Divided Times.” Administration & Society 26 (4): 488–514. Dobel, J. P. 1998. “Political Prudence and the Ethics of Leadership.” Public Administration Review 58 (1):

74–81. Dull, M. 2009. “Results-Model Reform Leadership: Questions of Credible Commitment.” Journal of Public

Administration Research & Theory 19 (2): 255–284. Durant, R. F. 2008. “Sharpening a Knife Cleverly: Organizational Change, Policy Paradox, and the

‘Weaponizing’ of Administrative Reforms.” Public Administration Review 68 (2): 282–294. Ferlie, E. 2012. “Concluding Discussion. Paradigms and Instruments of Public Management Reform – the

Question of Agency.” In Leadership in the Public Sector. Promises and Pitfalls, edited by C. Teelken, E. Ferlie, and M. Dent. London: Taylor & Francis.

Fernandez, S. 2005. “Developing and Testing an Integrative Framework of Public Sector Leadership: Evidence From the Public Education Arena.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 15 (2): 197–217.

Frederickson, H. G. 1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Frey, B. S. 2003. “Publishing as Prostitution? – Choosing Between One’s Own Ideas and Academic Success.”

Public Choice 116 (1/2): 205–223.

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1185

Getha-Taylor, H., M. H. Holmes, W. S. Jacobson, R. S. Morse, and J. E. Sowa. 2011. “Focusing the Public Leadership Lens: Research Propositions and Questions in the Minnowbrook Tradition.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (Suppl. 1): i83–i97.

Gilbert, G. R., and A. Hyde. 1988. “Followership and the Federal Worker.” Public Administration Review 48 (6): 962–968.

Goldsmith, S., and W. D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Graen, G. B., and M. Uhl-Bien. 1995. “The Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of LMX Theory of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level, Multi-Domain Perspective.” Leadership Quarterly 6 (2): 219–247.

Greenacre, M. J. 1984. Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. London: Academic Press. Hansen, J. R., and A. R. Villadsen. 2010. “Comparing Public and Private Managers’ Leadership Styles:

Understanding the Role of Job Context.” International Public Management Journal 13 (3): 247–274. Hansen, M. B. 2011. “Antecedents of Organizational Innovation: The Diffusion of New Public Management into

Danish Local Government.” Public Administration 89 (2): 285–306. Hartmann, J., and A. M. Khademian. 2010. “Culture Change Refined and Revitalized: The Road Show and

Guides for Pragmatic Action.” Public Administration Review 70 (6): 845–856. Hennessey Jr, J. T 1998. “‘Reinventing’ Government: Does Leadership Make the Difference?” Public

Administration Review 58 (6): 522–532. Hooijberg, R., and J. Choi. 2001. “The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Leadership Effectiveness

Models: An Examination of Leadership in a Private and a Public Sector Organization.” Administration & Society 33 (4): 403–431.

Hosking, D. M. 2011. “Moving Relationality: Mediations on a Relational Approach to Leadership.” In The Sage Handbook of Leadership, edited by A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, and M. Uhl-Bien. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

House, R. J., and T. R. Mitchell. 1974. “Path-Goal Theory of Leadership.” Contemporary Business 3 (Fall): 81–98. Huxham, C., and S. E. Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage.

London: Routledge. Jacobson, W. S., C. K. Palus, and C. J. Bowling. 2010. “A Woman’s Touch? Gendered Management and

Performance in State Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 20 (2): 477–504. Jarneving, B. 2005. “A Comparison of Two Bibliometric Methods for Mapping of the Research Front.”

Scientometrics 65 (2): 245–263. Jaskyte, K., and W. W. Dressier. 2005. “Organizational Culture and Innovation in Nonprofit Human Service

Organizations.” Administration in Social Work 29 (2): 23–42. Joaquin, M. E. 2009. “Bureaucratic Adaptation and the Politics of Multiple Principals in Policy Implementation.”

American Review of Public Administration 39 (3): 246–268. Joyce, P. 2012. Strategic Leadership in the Public Services. London: Taylor & Francis. Jung, K., M. J. Moon, and S. D. Hahm. 2008. “Exploring the Linkage Between Ministerial Leadership and

Performance in Korea.” Administration & Society 40 (7): 667–690. Kalu, K. N. 2003. “Entrepreneurs of Conservators? Contractarian Principles of Bureaucratic Performance.”

Administration & Society 35 (5): 539–563. Kane, J., and H. Patapan. 2006. “In Search of Prudence: The Hidden Problem of Managerial Reform.” Public

Administration Review 66 (5): 711–724. Kapucu, N., and M. Van Wart. 2008. “Making Matters Worse an Anatomy of Leadership Failures in Managing

Catastrophic Events.” Administration & Society 40 (7): 711–740. Kessler, M. M. 1963. “Bibliographic Coupling Between Scientific Papers.” American Documentation 14 (1): 10–25. Kim, S. E., and G. W. Chang. 2009. “An Empirical Analysis of Innovativeness in Government: Findings and

Implications.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 75 (2): 293–310.

1186 Public Management Review

Kim, S. E., and J. W. Lee. 2009. “The Impact of Management Capacity on Government Innovation in Korea: An Empirical Study.” International Public Management Journal 12 (3): 345–369.

Kirlin, J. J. 1996. “The Big Questions of Public Administration in a Democracy.” Public Administration Review 56 (5): 416–423.

Kotter, J. P. 1990. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management. New York: Free Press. Kouzmin, A., and N. Korac-Kakabadse. 2000. “Mapping Institutional Impacts of Lean Communication in Lean

Agencies – Information Technology Illiteracy and Leadership Failure.” Administration & Society 32 (1): 29–69.

Kronenberg, P., and A. Khademian. 2009. “Beyond ‘Connecting the Dots’: Toward the Strategic Managing of Organizing.” International Public Management Journal 12 (1): 48–81.

Lambright, W. H., and M. M. Quinn. 2011. “Understanding Leadership in Public Administration: The Biographical Approach.” Public Administration Review 71 (5): 782–790.

Lee, S. Y., M. J. Moon, and S. D. Hahm. 2010. “Dual Faces of Ministerial Leadership in South Korea: Does Political Responsiveness or Administrative Responsibility Enhance Perceived Ministerial Performance?” Administration & Society 42 (Suppl. 1): 77S–101S.

Light, P. C. 1998. Sustaining Innovation: Creating Nonprofit and Government Organizations That Innovate Naturally. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Luke, J. S. 1998. Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Marini, F. 1971. Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Scranton, PA: Chandler. Mary, N. L. 2005. “Transformational Leadership in Human Service Organizations.”Administration in Social Work

29 (2): 105–118. McCain, K. W. 1990. “Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space – a Technical Overview.” Journal of the American

Society for Information Science 41 (6): 433–443. McGuire, M., and C. Silvia. 2009. “Does Leadership in Networks Matter? Examining the Effect of Leadership Behaviors

on Managers’ Perceptions of Network Effectiveness.” Public Performance & Management Review 33 (1): 34–62. Mingers, J., and H. Willmott. 2013. “Taylorizing Business School Research: On the ‘One Best Way’

Performative Effects of Journal Ranking Lists.” Human Relations 66 (8): 1051–1073. Moe, R. C. 1994. “The ‘Reinventing Government’ Exercise: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the

Consequences.” Public Administration Review 54 (2): 111–122. Mohr, L. B. 1969. “Determinants of Innovation in Organizations.” American Political Science Review 63 (1): 111–126. Moon, J. 1995. “Innovative Leadership and Policy Change: Lessons from Thatcher.” Governance – an International

Journal of Policy and Administration 8 (1): 1–25. Moon, M. J., and P. de Leon. 2001. “Municipal Reinvention: Managerial Values and Diffusion Among

Municipalities.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 11 (3): 327–352. Morse, R. S. and T. F. Buss, eds. 2008. Innovations in Public Leadership Development. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Morse, R. S., T. F. Buss, and C. M. Kinghorn. 2007. Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century. Armonk,

NY: M. E. Sharpe. Moynihan, D. A. 2005. “Why and How Do State Governments Adopt and Implement ‘Managing for Results’

Reforms?” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 15 (2): 219–243. Ospina, S., and E. Foldy. 2010. “Building Bridges from the Margins: The Work of Leadership in Social Change

Organizations.” Leadership Quarterly 21 (2): 292–307. Ospina, S., and M. Uhl-Bien. 2012. “Exploring the Competing Bases for Legitimacy in Contemporary Leadership

Studies.” In Advancing Relational Leadership Research. A Dialogue Among Perspectives, edited by M. Uhl-Bien and S. Ospina. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Ospina, S. M., and J. Dodge. 2005. “It’s About Time: Catching Method up to Meaning – the Usefulness of Narrative Inquiry in Public Administration Research.” Public Administration Review 65 (2): 143–157.

Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1187

Paarlberg, L. E., and B. Lavigna. 2010. “Transformational Leadership and Public Service Motivation: Driving Individual and Organizational Performance.” Public Administration Review 70 (5): 710–718.

Park, S. M., and H. G. Rainey. 2008. “Leadership and Public Service Motivation in US Federal Agencies.” International Public Management Journal 11 (1): 109–142.

Perry, J. L., A. Hondeghem, and L. R. Wise. 2010. “Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future.” Public Administration Review 70 (5): 681–690.

Raffel, J. A., P. Leisink, and A. E. Middlebrooks. eds. 2009a. “Introduction.” In Public Sector Leadership: International Challenges and Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Raffel, J. A., P. Leisink, and A. E. Middlebrooks, eds. 2009b. Public Sector Leadership: International Challenges and Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Rainey, H. G., and Y. H. Chun. 2005. “Public and Private Management Compared.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, edited by E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, and C. Pollitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rainey, H. G., S. Pandey, and B. Bozeman. 1995. “Research Note: Public and Private Managers’ Perceptions of Red Tape.” Public Administration Review 55 (6): 567–574.

Riccucci, N. M., M. K. Meyers, I. Lurie, and J. S. Han. 2004. “The Implementation of Welfare Reform Policy: The Role of Public Managers in Front-Line Practices.” Public Administration Review 64 (4): 438–448.

Ritz, A. 2009. “Public Service Motivation and Organizational Performance in Swiss Federal Government.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 75 (1): 53–78.

Ritz, A., A. Shantz, K. Alfes, and A. S. Arshoff. 2012. “Who Needs Leaders the Most? The Interactive Effect of Leadership and Core Self-Evaluations on Commitment to Change in the Public Sector.” International Public Management Journal 15 (2): 160–185.

Robertson, P. J., and T. Shui-Yan. 1995. “The Role of Commitment in Collective Action: Comparing the Organizational Behavior and Rational Choice Perspectives.” Public Administration Review 55 (1): 67–80.

Rowold, J., and A. Rohmann. 2009. “Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles, Followers’ Positive and Negative Emotions, and Performance in German Nonprofit Orchestras.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership 20 (1): 41–59.

Ryan, C. M. 2001. “Leadership in Collaborative Policy-Making: An Analysis of Agency Roles in Regulatory Negotiations.” Policy Sciences 34 (3/4): 221–245.

Sanger, M. B. 2008. “From Measurement to Management: Breaking Through the Barriers to State and Local Performance.” Public Administration Review 68 (Suppl. 1): S70–S85.

Saz-Carranza, A., and S. M. Ospina. 2011. “The Behavioral Dimension of Governing Interorganizational Goal- Directed Networks – Managing the Unity-Diversity Tension” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (2): 327–365.

Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sinclair, A., J. Baird, and J. Alford. 1993. “What Do Chief Administrators Do? Findings from Victoria.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 52 (1): 12–24.

Small, H. C. 1973. “Co-Citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship Between Two Documents.” Journal of the American Society of Information Science 24 (4): 265–269.

Stazyk, E. C., S. K. Pandey, and B. E. Wright. 2011. “Understanding Affective Organizational Commitment: The Importance of Institutional Context.” American Review of Public Administration 41 (6): 603–624.

Teelken, C. 2012. “Introduction: An Overview and Conceptualization.” In Leadership in the Public Sector. Promises and Pitfalls, edited by C. Teelken, E. Ferlie, and M. Dent. London: Taylor & Francis.

Teelken,C., E.Ferlie,andM.Dent. eds.2012.Leaderhsip inthePublic Sector.Promises andPitfalls. London:Taylor&Francis. Terry, L. D. 1990. “Leadership in the Administrative State.” Administration & Society 21 (4): 395–412. Terry, L. D. 1998. “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement.”

Public Administration Review 58 (3): 194–200.

1188 Public Management Review

Terry, L. D. 2005. “The Thinning of Administrative Institutions in the Hollow State.” Administration & Society 37 (4): 426–444.

Trice, H. M., and J. M. Beyer. 1993. The Cultures of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Trottier, T., M. Van Wart, and X. Wang. 2008. “Examining the Nature and Significance of Leadership in

Government Organizations.” Public Administration Review 68 (2): 319–333. Uhl-Bien, M. 2006. “Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and

Organizing.” Leadership Quarterly 17 (6): 654–676. Valle, M. 1999. “Crisis, Culture and Charisma: The New Leader’s Work in Public Organizations.” Public

Personnel Management 28 (2): 245–257. VanLeeuwen, T. 2004.“DescriptiveVersus EvaluativeBibliometrics. Monitoring andAssessingof NationalR&D Systems.”

In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems, edited by H. Moed, W. Glänzel, and U. Schmoch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Van Slyke, D. M., and R. W. Alexander. 2006. “Public Service Leadership: Opportunities for Clarity and Coherence.” American Review of Public Administration 36 (4): 362–374.

Van Wart, M. 2003. “Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment.” Public Administration Review 63 (2): 214–228. Van Wart, M. 2011. Dynamics of Leadership in Public Service: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Van Wart, M. 2013. “Administrative Leadership Theory: A Reassessment After 10 Years.” Public Administration

91 (3): 521–543. Van Wart, M., and L. A. Dicke. 2008. “Introduction.” In Administrative Leadership in the Public Sector, edited by M.

Van Wart and L. A. Dicke. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp. Van Wart, M., and N. Kapucu. 2011. “Crisis Management Competencies.” Public Management Review 13 (4): 489–511. Verbeek, A., K. Debackere, M. Luwel, and E. Zimmermann. 2002. “Measuring Progress and Evolution in

Science and Technology – I: The Multiple Uses of Bibliometric Indicators.” International Journal of Management Reviews 4 (2): 179–211.

Vinzant, J., and L. Crothers. 1996. “Street-Level Leadership: Rethinking the Role of Public Servants in Contemporary Governance.” American Review of Public Administration 26 (4): 457–476.

Vogel, R. Forthcoming. “What Happened to the Public Organization? A Bibliometric Analysis of Public Administration and Organization Studies.” American Review of Public Administration.

Vogel, R., and W. H. Güttel. 2013. “The Dynamic Capability View in Strategic Management: A Bibliometric Analysis.” International Journal of Management Reviews 15: 426–446.

Vogelsang-Coombs, V., and M. Miller. 1999. “Developing the Governance Capacity of Local Elected Officials.” Public Administration Review 59 (3): 199–217.

Wallace, M., and M. Tomlinson. 2010. “Contextualizing Leader Dynamics: How Public Service Leaders Endeavour to Build Influence.” Leadership 6 (1): 21–45.

Wallis, J., and L. McLoughlin. 2007. “A Diagnosis of Leadership Effectiveness in the Irish Public Sector.” Public Management Review 9 (3): 327–351.

Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 2009. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. 18th print. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weber, E., and A. M. Khademian. 2008. “Managing Collaborative Processes: Common Practices, Uncommon Circumstances.” Administration & Society 40 (5): 431–464.

Wolf, P. J. 1994. “A Case Survey of Bureaucratic Effectiveness in U.S. Cabinet Agencies: Preliminary Results.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 3 (2): 161–181.

Wright, B. E., and S. K. Pandey. 2010. “Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure Matter?” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 20 (1): 75–89.

Yammarino, F. J., S. D. Dionne, J. U. Chun, and F. Dansereau. 2005. “Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-of-the-Science Review.” Leadership Quarterly 16 (6): 879–919.

Yukl, G. A. 2010. Leadership in Organizations. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Vogel & Masal: Public leadership 1189

Copyright of Public Management Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.