Micromanagement

A C A D E M I C P A P E R

Transdisciplinary public leadership theory: Between the extremes of “traditional public administration” and “new public management”

Emmanuel Yeboah‐Assiamah1 | Kwame Asamoah2 | Samuel Adams3

1 School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch

University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

2 Department of Public Administration &

Health Services Management, University of

Ghana Business School, Accra, Ghana

3 School of Public Service and Governance,

Ghana Institute of Management and Public

Administration, Accra, Ghana

Correspondence

Emmanuel Yeboah‐Assiamah, School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University,

Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Email: [email protected]

The 21st century public organization is faced with complex problems, informed stake-

holders, and information flows, which necessitate a corresponding open system view

of leadership. The traditional notions of public administration and new public manage-

ment had been structured by strict bureaucratic rules and managerial flexibility,

respectively. This paper begins by theorizing two hypothetical constructs (helicopter

and deadbeat leadership), which engage in extreme micromanagement/surveillance

and negligence/indifference, respectively. Those form basis for designing an optimal

(transdisciplinary) leadership, which forges synergistic link between leaders, subordi-

nates, and external actors in codesigning objectives and strategies to address societal

problems. Strategies to promote transdisciplinary leadership are discussed.

1 | INTRODUCTION

The public leadership literature had mainly been underpinned by

Weberian bureaucracy and Taylor's scientific management theory

(Bingham, O'leary, & Carlson, 2014; Frederickson, Smith, Larimer, &

Licari, 2015), which had maintained that mechanistic organizational

control remains more appropriate to stable organizational environ-

ments (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Rational calculation (excessive con-

trol), rules (precision) associated with these theories tended to reduce

leaders and workers into a bureaucratic machine and behaved as “a

cog in a wheel.” In other words, ingenuity, initiative, and context‐

dependent decision making appeared largely inhibited (Torsteinsen,

2012). Observing the structural constraints and practical limitations

associated with the regime, new public management (NPM) theorists

rose in the 1980s and 1990s to advance a need for flexibility, innova-

tion, managerialism, and responsiveness in the public sector, which

challenged the basic tenets of bureaucratic/mechanistic organizational

forms (Miles, Snow, Matthews, & Coleman, 1997).

The 21st century public sector is faced with complex social prob-

lems mostly ill‐defined and “wicked” in nature (Geyer & Rihani, 2012;

Innes & Booher, 2010). Public organizations and officials are faced

with challenging goals exacerbated by limited resources flanked by

complex and informed stakeholders, alert media, advances in informa-

tion technology (IT), and information flow (Head & Alford, 2015;

Thomas, 2013). That regard, subordinates or external actors may be

well‐informed on a prevailing issue at times even more than manage-

ment or the so‐called “experts” (Von Krogh, Nonaka, & Rechsteiner,

2012). Public organizations have multiple departments or units and

stakeholders. Each of these entities has a peculiar goal (solving societal

problems) to make lives better for their clients (citizens), at times, man-

date or goals may overlap. Thomas (2013) contends “today's public

managers face a public far more complex than their predecessors

encountered. This public is more complex in its numbers, with more

organizations and more people, and more complex in the interests

those organizations and individuals represent, ranging from the con-

cerns of traditional business and labor groups to those of citizen and

public interest groups” (p. 1). This calls for a shift in the organizational

leadership approach toward a one that strives for an interplay

between leaders, organizational members, and external constituents

in a more participatory and consultative manner.

Assessment of literature reveals that theories of leadership mainly

emanate or are determined by the nature of interaction between

leaders and their subordinates (House & Aditya, 1997). They posit

“to this day, the dominant proportion of … studies is primarily con-

cerned with the relationship between leaders and followers” (p. 409).

A missing link has been an apparent neglect of the cultural context

within, which leaders operate, the interaction between leaders and

their external constituencies. Scholars (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998)

propose the chaos and complexity theories to recommend a new

focus on the leadership literature and discourse. This current study

Received: 4 October 2018 Accepted: 13 October 2018

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1887

J Public Affairs. 2019;19:e1887. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1887

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1 of 10

conceptualizes transdisciplinary leadership (hereafter

“trans'd'leadership”) and advances how such approach is applicable

and relevant to administrative processes in the public sector. The con-

cept of transdisciplinarity is credited to Nicolescu (1985) who con-

tends a need to remove the boundaries between entities and the

rest of the world to solve societal problems. Taking cues from his

notion, this paper argues that the transdisciplinary leader is the one

that strives to remove the boundaries between the organization (man-

agement and key decision makers), its departments (line supervisors

and staff), and outside world (external environment and stakeholders)

to really serve the latter well or address their problems. A hallmark of

transdisciplinary leader is integration, resilience, deep learning, and the

quest for organizational sustainability underscored by philosophy of

making decision “with” stakeholders and tailor‐made “for” them.

McGregor and Volckmann (2013) provide that transdisciplinarity is

the appropriate means to create those interspaces to facilitate cross‐

sectoral learning and integrative knowledge. From the notions above,

this paper posits that public organization needs to become borderless

and cordless by building bridges between its departments and outside

world in attempt to confront the complex challenges facing society.

The main goal of this paper is to conceptualize an optimal leadership

typology that is more tailor‐made to governing the 21st century public

sector organization, which is faced with complex problems and

stakeholders.

2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 | Great man theory vs. open system view of leadership

The great man theory had underpinned leadership treatise in the 19th

century, which developed out of the extraordinary qualities of

renowned leaders (including Julius Caesar, Mahatma Gandhi, and Cyrus

the Great) leading to the idea that great leaders are born with unique

qualities/traits, which cannot be found in all members of society. That

regard, such theory posits that leaders are born and not made. Knee‐

deep in this mentality, many leaders/managers are tempted to carry

themselves as repository of knowledge, expertise, and experience, or

age and may tend to operate as a lone ranger in steering the affairs of

the organization and decision making processes (Ireland & Hitt, 2005).

Scholars (Fernandez, Cho, & Perry, 2010) focus on the

leader/manager as a strategic individual; it nonetheless, does not sug-

gest that he/she acts as a lone ranger but in concert with other

stakeholders. These scholars focus on the interplay of leaders and

followers in the traditional leader–follower dyadic relationship. How-

ever, it could be observed that a greater amount of interactions in

the organization transpire between colleagues along the horizontal

or vertical levels rather than between formal leaders and their subor-

dinates (Kickul & Neuman, 2000). This has given rise to the idea of

distributed leadership (Fernandez et al., 2010; Van Wart, 2014).

Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch (2002) contend “leadership is not only

incremental influence of a boss toward subordinates, but most impor-

tantly it is the collective incremental influence of leaders in and

around the system” (see also Scott, 1987). The open system theory

provides useful model for explaining the interaction between an

organization, its immediate, and remote stakeholders. Organizations

are not cut off from their environments (Scott, 1987), “but are open

to and rely on flows of both human and non‐human resources from

outside” (ibid, p. 23). In an age of greater interdependence and net-

works, an organization cannot function as a closed loop (self‐regulat-

ing), but an open loop, which has to rely heavily on its external

environments to survive (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).

3 | METHODOLOGY

This study analyzes from theoretical and existing empirical studies,

drawn from journal articles, cases, and online resources to assess the

challenges in contemporary public sector leadership and attempts to

conceptualize a transdisciplinary leadership, which is premised on

the open system view of organization. The literature search covered

all terminologies related to the concept of leadership in the public sec-

tor: “public sector leadership,” “new public management,” “bureau-

cratic public sector management,” and “public governance.” Authors

combined adjectives related to common obstacles faced in public lead-

ership under archetypical bureaucratic leadership and NPM. The study

first developed two ideal leadership constructs labeled “helicopter

leadership1” and “deadbeat leadership2” framed along “bureaucracy”

of traditional public administration and “managerial flexibility” of

NPM, respectively. Finally, the study searched for literature on optimal

leadership typology (transdisciplinary leadership3) situated within a

midpoint of the two extremes. Search words for developing the opti-

mal leadership typology included “public value governance,” “collabo-

rative governance,” “shared leadership,” “distributed leadership,” and

“participatory leadership.”

The above phrases were combined variously to obtain a pool

of relevant literature on the study. The following search domains

were adopted based on their relevance to the study and accessibil-

ity to the researchers: Springer, Tandfonline, EmeraldInsight, and

Google Scholar. The large pool of articles was initially sorted for

relevance by skimming through their abstracts. After this heuristic

process, all abstracts were independently reviewed by each of the

three authors. At the end of the process, authors met to eliminate

duplicates and made a short list of abstracts for detailed and sys-

tematic review.

4 | THE TRANS'D'LEADERSHIP THEORY

This study discusses a new approach to leadership in public sector.

The study initially designs two extreme hypothetical leadership con-

structs, deadbeat leadership and helicopter leadership, respectively.

A midpoint between these two constructs is the transdisciplinary lead-

ership (trans'd'leadership theory). Deadbeat is used in this study to

1A leader who engages in extreme surveillance approach, “micromanages” everything subordinates do.

2A purely idle and clueless leader who is oblivious of his/her supervisory role.

3Transdisciplinary leadership forges link between leaders, subordinates, and

external actors in codesigning objectives and strategies.

2 of 10 YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL.

represent a purely idle and clueless leader who is oblivious of his/her

supervisory role and mainly leaves subordinates to do whatever they

desire without recourse to adequate supervision. This is denoted by

greater and thicker arrows (see Figure 1) flowing from

subordinates/staff, demonstrating their unfettered influence vis‐à‐vis

the leader/manager as far as business of the organization is con-

cerned. Helicopter is used to conceptualize a leader who engages in

extreme surveillance approach, “micromanages” everything subordi-

nates do; and he/she does not allow them space for ingenious partic-

ipation. This is denoted by total and maximum flows from the leader

(Figure 1) demonstrating that all instructions, directives, insights, and

inputs flow from top‐down leader while subordinates are reduced to

tools and objects who only comply without any meaningful input or

ingenuity. The transdisciplinary leadership theory seeks to distinguish

between two types of organizations, namely, those dominated by

deadbeat leadership and those dominated by helicopter leadership.

Being hypothetical suggests, these two extreme organizations (those

by deadbeat and helicopter leadership) may not exist in the real world

although there might be some organizational context, which could

come too close. The trans'd'leadership represents a midpoint between

deadbeat leadership and helicopter leadership and consolidates other

relevant features, which make it optimal for addressing 21st century

complex public sector problems. The proportional array of arrows

flowing in equilibrium position (Figure 1) demonstrates that the leader

and subordinates codesign and cocreate strategies and enforce in a

more collaborative/participatory manner. Beyond the interaction of

leader–subordinate, a striking attribute of the transdisciplinary leader

is its open system view, which lays emphasis on external stakeholders

in strategy formulation and task execution.

4.1 | Deadbeat leadership

“Deadbeat” is used to illustrate a completely “hands‐off” leadership

approach where leaders allow their subordinates a total unguarded

space to make own decisions on how organizational objectives set

up by leaders would be achieved. Typically, there is a disconnection

between the leader and subordinates in their expectations; the leader

is concerned with setting objectives for the organization and also pro-

vision of requisite resources using his own “expertise” or how he/she

deems fit. The subordinates or staff on the hand, have a task to adopt

ways to accomplish such objectives in a way they also deem fit. The

latter is to resolve problems, overcome issues, and generate work

schedules by themselves. In other words, there is centrifugal force4

between the two, where both the leader and subordinate drift away

from the center (achieving organizational goals). This type of leader-

ship typifies a situation where leaders demonstrate total disregard

for supervisory duties and lack of guidance to subordinates (see Brad-

ford & Lippitt, 1945).

4.2 | Helicopter leadership

This illustrates leadership approach whereby the leader closely moni-

tors and controls the activities of subordinates or employees without

recourse to the views of the latter. Leaders “micromanage” the subor-

dinates in a typical surveillance approach where the latter do not have

breathing space for ingenuity. Typically, helicopter leader attempts at

digging his/her fingers deep into the pie of those actually doing the

work; the leader pokes his/her nose in the whole kit and caboodle

of the subordinate ostensibly to ensure objectives and tasks are exe-

cuted precisely in the “leader's way.” This reflects a typical traditional

public administration structured by ideal type bureaucracy

underpinned with strict rules, strict adherence to procedures/orders,

and detailed supervision. Workers operate according to the will and

detailed direction of the leader who rewards the efforts of subordi-

nates positively or negatively. These leaders are in constant flux with

their subordinates directing them on “what,” the “how” as well as

4A concept borrowed from natural science, which means a force, arising from

the body's inertia,... and is directed away from the center around which the body

is moving.

Box 1: Structural weaknesses with deadbeat leadership

Deadbeat leadership is susceptible to widespread

manipulation of the system by subordinates due to the

total freedom and could also be suicidal if subordinates do

not possess high expertise, discipline, (Eagly, et al. 2003) or

skills on the job. The disconnection between leaders and

staff in setting objectives or tasks to be accomplished may

reduce the quality of goals. Superiors should know that the

sum of product derived from synergy between leaders and

staff is far greater than the exclusive setting of

organizational goals by leaders For example, the duo could

actively brainstorm on how public welfare could be

enhanced or how to structure public problems and could

avail to the organization various policy alternatives,

alternate ways of achieving the desired choice. The

deadbeat leadership also becomes caput where

organizational members do not possess the ability to set

their own timelines and how to manage projects and

problems on their own. This would have a negative impact

on organizational outcomes. This leadership typology may

lead to disjointedness in the organization as members

within a group may be unaware of their own roles within

the broader framework of the organization. The deadbeat

leadership approach leaves leaders largely uninvolved and

mainly segregated from how things are done in the

organization. It is more likely to usher staff to exhibit

carelessness in the operationalization of their duties. Due

to the disconnection between leaders and staff, it is

possible for the former to insulate himself/herself personal

accountability and responsibility for the subordinate's

failures. Finally, unethical staff may see the unfettered

freedom to perpetrate other unorthodox administrative

practices including corruption of all forms and kinds.

YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL. 3 of 10

“when” to do and ensures compliance by closely monitoring them. Fol-

lowers may be obliged to carry out these conscientiously, albeit, they

may not know “the why” behind the objectives, or they could have

achieved such objective using more prudent approach in an efficient

or effective manner (Sosik & Jung, 2010). Stress management, which

remains crucial in public sector HR tends to be downplayed in this

leadership typology and rather nourishes stressful work environment

(Elshout, Scherp, & Feltz‐Cornelis, 2013).

4.3 | Structural constraints with the helicopter leadership model

The helicopter leadership regime with extreme adherence to proce-

dures is usually underpinned by strictest sense of Weber's ideal type

bureaucracy, which calls for total subservience to formal and system-

atic procedures, which might not necessarily be the most effective or

efficient in performance of context‐specific tasks. There are various

studies, which demonstrate that the sets of formalized procedures

tend to constrain the process of delivering services to the public sec-

tor (De Vries & Nemec, 2013). Detailed attention to instructions, laid

down rules tends to create “paper trails” and only slows down the

public sector's capacity to achieve stated goals. Helicopter leadership,

with strict bureaucratic underpinnings, result in over formalization,

rigidity in policy, and task execution (Raadschelders, 2014).

Additionally, helicopter leadership, which mainly hinges on the

exclusive expertise of leaders is prone to a phenomenon Veblen refers

to as “trained incapacity,” which is “that state of affairs which one's

abilities function as inadequacies or blind spots;. .. and inadequate

flexibility in the application of skills will in a changing milieu, result in

more or less serious maladjustments.” Strict adherence to rules and

instructions and impersonal touch with duty becomes problematic

because “functionaries minimize personal characterization and resort

to categorization, the peculiarities of individual cases are often

ignored” (Merton, 1940, p. 566). Employees are reduced to robots,

which is counterproductive because the “… inadequate flexibility in

the application of skills will in a changing milieu, result in more or less

serious maladjustments” (Merton. 1940, p. 4).

4.4 | An optimal leadership typology: Trans'd'leadership

While the deadbeat leader totally is secluded from employees, the

helicopter leader also unduly hawks on the employees, which in both

cases often are detrimental to employee productivity. In both cases,

the leader and the organization remain silent on external stakeholders

and how their concerns are brought into the larger picture of organi-

zational goal setting/objectives. They appear to view the organization

as closed system because they make no clear‐cut reference to the

external environment. This paper conceptualizes the transdisciplinary

leader (trans'd'leader) as one who neither totally ignores the subordi-

nates in goal setting or task accomplishment nor totally micromanages

how things are to be done. This leadership ensures optimal connection

between leaders and subordinates in goal setting and task accomplish-

ment in a collaborative manner. The leader engages workers by

designing a common objective, which also takes into consideration

the numerous external actors who are stakeholders to the organiza-

tion or would be affected by the organization's decisions. In other

words, this leader is a team player, collaborative, transformational,

and engages with workers within the organizational walls and those

external stakeholders.

This leadership typology typically is focused on carrying subordi-

nates along by transforming their values and beliefs (Johnson &

Dipboye, 2008). The leader inspires subordinates and brings them into

Box 2: Helicopter leadership makes workplace a hell

Helicopter leadership makes the management tools of

leaders become narrowed, almost limited to control and

surveillance, which when overtly resorted to becomes

problematic, and leaders would end up losing same. If

leadership gets reduced to surveillance and control,

participation, “give and take” communication between

leaders and subordinates get eroded. Excessive display of

control as an instrument of leadership will eventually lead to

breakdown of trust in the organization. Helicopter leaders

are authoritarians whose approach may be viewed by

subordinates as despotic, and an insistence on

micromanaging may suggest distrust for employees and the

latter may feel same. Behn (1995) viewed the

micromanagement problem as a trust question; distrust

between funding organizations and contractors has resulted

in many procedural rules. Attempts at micromanagement

impose considerable operational constraints that prevent

workers from experimentation or innovation in service

delivery (Behn & Kant, 1999). Higher degrees and

prolonged period of helicopter governance nurture/nourish

a very dependent workforce who lack confidence; produces

a timid workplace climate where people become less

assertive and staff may feel disabled in carrying out task

without leader's instruction even if urgent and contextually

appreciable. Why would the leader/management spend

resources to hire competent/experienced staff if their views

will not count? Steve Jobs put it, “it doesn't make sense to

hire smart people and then tell them what to do. We hire

smart people so they can tell us what to do.” This is against

a backdrop that organizations recruit their workforce by

assessing their core competencies.

Staff who feel being surveilled by their leaders and only

reduced to “robots” may eventually consider resigning or

seeking alternative employment elsewhere. A major reason

for helicopter leadership is perhaps because leaders feel

employees are inexperienced, not too perfect, and not

trustworthy; insecurity and ego of leaders which in all

cases tend to view workers in a negative sense (Chambers,

2009). This leadership may achieve short term objectives

but repugnant to medium and long‐term productivity and

growth of organizations.

4 of 10 YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL.

a common platform of joint goal setting and how best to accomplish

organizational goals. Decision making is neither the sole responsibility

of the leader nor totally delegated to subordinates but a joint task

undertaken by both leaders and staff. Task accomplishment is also

not the sole responsibility of subordinates but a brainstorming process

between leaders and relevant actors on “how best” to accomplish the

task in a more effective and efficient manner. Due to the collaborative

approach, this leadership adopts, workers are well motivated hence

they perform with their hand, head, and heart (3Hs) to accomplish

the desired organizational goals. Burns (1978) provides key features

(personality, communication, rational stimulation, and individualized

thought), which are relevant to stimulating a joint action and process

between leaders and followers.

TD leader is also a transformational leader, very charismatic and

possesses unique qualities (McLaurin & Al‐Amri, 2008). This leadership

typology is more pronounced and ideal at the upper level of manage-

ment where strategic decisions are conceptualized and carried out.

Subordinates or staff are carried along, involved in the decision pro-

cesses and views are consolidated in the total decision processes.

These leaders do not hawk on staff, do not fully ignore them but try

to develop workers' full potential by engaging and actively involving

them in relevant activities of the organization (Johnson & Dipboye,

2008). The leader's ability to motivate the follower to accomplish

more than what the follower planned to accomplish (Krishnan 2005)

is the synergistic value derived from transdisciplinarity.

In this typology, the leadership space is very opened and

embraces the idea of shared responsibility (Pearce, 2004) between

leader, their subordinates, and external environment; and decisions

are made taking cues from the organizational environment and exter-

nal actors (Ireland & Hitt, 2005). This type of leadership whose empha-

sis is on networks and collaborative approach to decision making is

ideal for 21st century public sector, which is confronted with complex

and wicked problems, which are in a flux exacerbated by advancement

in information flow. Pearce, Manz, and Sims (2009) maintain “senior

most leaders may not possess sufficient and relevant information to

make highly effective decisions in a fast‐changing and complex world

…” (p. 235). In reality, “managers down the line may be more highly

informed and in a far better position to provide leadership” (ibid, p.

235). The growing complexities of public problems and sophisticated

public (stakeholders) in the 21st century fly in the face of the tradi-

tional idea of how organizations and public sector should operate,

which necessitates transdisciplinary leadership. The fundamental dis-

tinction between traditional notions of leadership and transdisciplinary

leadership is that the influence process is built upon more than just

downward influence on subordinates or followers by an appointed

or elected leader. The latter entails broadly sharing power and influ-

ence among a set of individuals rather than centralizing it in the hands

of a single individual who acts in the clear role of a dominant superior.

Essentially, public leadership should be viewed as a dynamic,

unfolding, interactive influence process among individuals, where the

objective is to lead one another toward the achievement of collective

goals and that, the influence process often involves peer influence and

at other times involves upward or downward hierarchical influence.

The “machine‐like” tendencies of helicopter leadership (underpinned

by micromanagement and extreme bureaucracy) tend to complicate

the task of providing good customer service and public value to citi-

zens; Lovell (1992) puts it, bureaucracies “are developed to do a spe-

cific job” and mostly execute such jobs and but “do not lend

themselves easily to change,” (even when context demands such flex-

ibility and dynamism; p. 395).

4.5 | 4.3 Justification of transdisciplinary leadership theory

A dominant leadership paradigm has been conceptualized along a sin-

gle individual with an emphasis on how that individual (leader) inspires,

commands, and controls followers. Such framing has underpinned

leadership discourse and practice largely reinforced by media atten-

tion to great leaders (Pearce et al., 2009, p. 234). Meanwhile, empirical

evidence suggests that effective teams and shared leadership produce

appreciable outcomes which have made some scholars argue for

shared leadership (Pearce et al., 2009; Taylor, 2013; Wang, Waldman,

& Zhang, 2014). For instance, a study of 500 companies revealed that

although the role of CEOs remained paramount, those companies that

really performed well were those organized in teams with shared lead-

ership (see Pearce et al., 2009). In their study, some relevant narratives

were quoted by managers and team leaders, which remain relevant to

transdisciplinary leadership theorizing. See Box 3.

The foregoing discussions have been corroborated by Vera and

Crossan (2004) that leaders should carry themselves largely as

facilitators/enablers to foster the congenial atmosphere that support

organizational learning and knowledge sharing throughout the organi-

zation. Public leaders should therefore not be seen as setting the strat-

egy but rather establishing the parameters or boundaries within which

strategy could develop/emerge. Lewin (1999) advances a new “man-

agement logic,” whereby leaders adopt/select the arenas of competi-

tion, setting strategic performance aspirations or setting the strategic

stance, and to facilitate a process of collaboratively unpacking with

subordinates and other external stakeholders. Jonas et al. (1990) cor-

roborate that an optimal leader should strive to create a room for

change, nurture commitment and ownership, and needs to balance

stability and innovation in a shared manner. Observing the challenges

associated with mutually exclusive tendencies (lone ranger practices)

of leaders, Clark (1999) sees it distasteful for leaders to take decisions

and strategies and impose on subordinates. Clark rather argues for

leadership interventions that will bring forth “emergent strategy”

Box 3: Narratives relevant to transdisciplinary leadership

“my [manager's] most important role is for building the team;

getting them to interact without being directed”;

“you [manager] have to play cheerleader sometimes [and]

you [manager] have to be careful not to be a dictator”

“I [manager] have told them [employees] their goal is to

replace me. “let's have a critical conversation”

Pearce et al., 2009

YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL. 5 of 10

defined in this current study to mean outcomes derived through ideas

synthesized from the deliberative interaction between different organi-

zational members who are integrated, involving team members from

diverse backgrounds and units within the organization together with

key external constituents by bridging the barrier between management,

staff and external environment. The transdisciplinary leader does not

see himself or herself as a lone ranger or a repository of knowledge

(all knowing) but a cocreator (primus inter pares—first among equals)

and team player with other relevant stakeholders especially the subordi-

nates. That regard, the leader strives very hard to keep the staff along,

involves and engages them in strategy formulation and execution and

thrives on networks. This leadership typology (Figure 1). places value

on democracy or participation, staff or subordinates, public value crea-

tion, and effective engagement (see Meynhardt, 2009).

The transdisciplinary leadership is underpinned by an open sys-

tem5 view of organization, which not only argues for a steady collab-

oration or partnership between leaders and their staff/subordinates

but also their external environment or actors (see Figure 2). This view

is a step toward advancing existing theories of public leadership by

arguing for a greater cocreation of strategies and decisions between

leadership and staff with also greater inputs from their external con-

stituents. This point has been advanced by Cooper (1984) that admin-

istrators should have an orientation to work as “professional citizens”

who “seek ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’ the citizenry” (p. 143).

This calls for an active deliberation and participation of the public in

the delivery of public value to the people. Jørgensen and Bozeman

(2007) posit a need for public leaders to engage local community

members and actors from different interests and sectors because

“public values and public value are not the exclusive province of gov-

ernment, nor is government the only set of institutions having public

value obligations [albeit] government has a special role as guarantor

of public values” (p. 373). In the public sector, a major reason that

has accounted for poor policy outcomes has been lack of coordination

between ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), which end up

distorting productivity (Thomas, 2013). It also becomes more problem-

atic when leadership in the public sector secludes itself from its exter-

nal environment and relevant stakeholders.6 For example, in Ghana,

this leadership seclusion from staff and external actors has led to the

neglect of many public markets that have been constructed with pub-

lic resources due to poor engagement with relevant stakeholders and

somewhat failure to govern in networks. The 21st century public sec-

tor should aim at promoting “public value” in what has become known

as public value governance (Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2014).

4.6 | From theory to praxis: Toolkit of transdisciplinary leadership

This section provides a toolkit and process for actualizing and optimiz-

ing a trans'd'leadership. The key strategies for ensuring TD leadership

practices are illustrated in Figure 2.

Creating and promoting public value cannot be done by the leader

alone acting as a lone ranger, a collaborative approach is quintessential

as this helps to bring the workers and constituents on board toward

emergent strategy and outcomes (see Figure 2). The following key

pointers are crucial in forging leader–follower external interaction.

These are discussed below:

4.6.1 | Engage employees in goal setting

A major element required to glue public organizations together is for

leadership to involve the staff or subordinates in relevant decision making

and target setting. Engaging employees in target and goal setting remains

centerpiece in effective and efficient delivery of public sector goals. In a

study of 116 health and welfare agencies, Aiken and Hage (1966)

contend that high levels of formalization served as constraints on

FIGURE 1 Transdisciplinary leadership model

5The concept that organizations are strongly influenced by their internal and

external environment (Scott, 2007).

6Meanwhile, a new movement in post‐NPM has arisen for a networked, multisector, no‐one‐wholly in‐charge world, and to the shortcomings of previ- ous public administration approaches.

6 of 10 YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL.

caseworker decisions. These constraints served as a source of alienation

among professional employees. Chao, O'Leary‐Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and

Gardner (1994) suggests that the values emphasized in an organization's

culture influence the structural characteristics that moderate the level

and type of discretion exercised. From a proficiency perspective, these

kinds of constraints are important because they enhance accountability,

protect clients from the whims and caprices of individual bureaucrats,

and reduce the potential for workers to breach the public trust, usurp

political authority, and/or interject institutional, group, or individual bias

into decision making (Blau & Meyer 1971; Burke 1986). A third, albeit

mixed, stream of research points to the importance of client attributes

in influencing decision outcomes in human service organizations (Franklin

1985; Stone 1981; Weimann 1982). If leaders fail to engage their

subordinates in goal setting, there is always a fear that the goals set for

staff would not be based on their individual potentials, but what the

leader rather expects from them, in most cases, they would not exactly

be motivated (Bailey, Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, 2017; Guan & Frenkel,

2018; Yalabik, Rayton, & Rapti, 2017). It is crucial to get them in the goal

setting process so that they could see purpose in the work. In an empirical

survey to assess indicators and praxis of employee engagement in the

United States, the Society for Human Resource Management (2016)

observed that relationships between persons in the workplace and

opportunities for engagement among others rank high in the engagement

discourse and workplace happiness, which also has implication for

employee behavior and productivity. This is illustrated in Figure 3.

4.6.2 | Foster a two‐way conversation

A two‐way communication between leadership and subordinates that

is freely and regularly done helps nurture a trustworthy workplace. It

is an approach to access precious inputs from subordinates as well

as critical success factors from their perspective. It is also an avenue

to get to know fundamental challenges and problems prevalent in

the organization. A two‐way communication suggests that leaders

communicate with staff and staff members are also free to make their

concerns and opinions expressed without fear of

intimidation/victimization. In short, things are not always done in the

leader's way only but in a coordinated manner. Rather than issuing

orders and directives here and there, it is appreciable to ask

employees for their ideas and opinions with a view to ascertaining

how best a task could be accomplished more effectively and effi-

ciently. There are many ways in killing a cat, and employees might

even know the best way. It is also instructive to adopt both formal

and informal avenues in order to get relevant information. This sug-

gests that engaging employees and other stakeholders and providing

avenues/platforms for their concerns/opinions/thoughts help engen-

der emergent public value or outcomes and an added advantage of

driving out the zeal and motivation required to enforce strategies

and goals achieved. Cooper and Wood (2011) contend available evi-

dence suggest that employees are moved and motivated in the work-

place by things other than money, which is an indication that the

FIGURE 2 Transdisciplinary leadership and emergent strategy

FIGURE 3 Implications and options for employee engagement

YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL. 7 of 10

leadership style and extent to which staff are engaged and valued con-

tributes immensely to employee satisfaction and overall productivity.

They posit, the top motivator is “respect”; how valued and trusted

by their organization employees feel (Cooper & Wood, 2011).

4.6.3 | Make employee recognition personal

Trans'd'leadership particularly gets to appreciate contribution of subor-

dinates in a way, which helps to motivate them to contribute more in

the productivity of the public sector. These leaders engage employees

and stakeholders well in their employee recognition programs. The

leaders do not micromanage what forms of rewards that should be

given to employees but cocreated although leadership may have

budget threshold for such program. A 2016 Society for Human

Resource Management Report contends “the way jobs are shaped, by

both managers and employees, has a huge impact on our sense of

wellbeing at work … , we need managers with better social and interper-

sonal skills, who manage people by praise and reward and not fault‐

finding … ., individuals should have autonomy and control over their

work – the absence of micro‐management”.7 Leaders could choose

the threshold on how much budget to be spent on such efforts but

should allow employees have a say in choosing what satisfies them

most. That makes the recognition more personal and more motivating.

Cocreating employee recognition programs will help make such reward

schemes more meaningful to subordinates and more effective.

4.6.4 | Focus feedback on results

Appropriately, it is imperative for leaders to be in constant touch with

employees and external stakeholders in the spirit of regular feedback

from its internal and external environment, which enables the organi-

zation to grow. It is instructive to guide subordinates using feedback

as an input for further improvement and should avoid helicopter

approach. After cocreating the objectives and process, leaders need

not to micromanage employees but allow them to use their own feed-

back results. Employees can look at their results and think about

whether or not their process worked as well as they would hope. They

can see what they are doing right and what is leading to their success,

as well as how they need to adapt. This type of feedback gives them

more control over how they improve. It is more collaborative than

being told what they are doing “right” or “wrong.”

5 | CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This paper has postulated that due to the growing demands on public

leaders coupled with complex stakeholders and people's access to infor-

mation irrespective of their positions in the organization or status in soci-

ety; it has become crucial for public leaders to forge tighter and

synergistic relations with the subordinates and external stakeholders in

identifying public problems and codesigning workable solutions in a

synergistic manner. The paper critiques dominant arguments on leader-

ship, which tend to either pay peculiar attention to the extraordinary

traits of leaders or the dyadic leader–follower relations, which in both

cases are more of close systems in nature. The paper has advanced that

leadership style dominated by dictates/dominance of leader (helicopter

leadership) mostly is borne out of the leader's intense fear, which may

emanate from his/her perception of poor professional competence of

staff, previous failure of others or experience from elsewhere, fear of

being left out of the loop, risk avoidance, loss of recognition or credit

for achievement, loss of influence over the final outcome, and a feeling

or belief that leaders are super humans with extraordinary competence

(Pearce et al., 2009). This paper maintains, the thinking that leaders are

better informed or well‐equipped and that subordinates or wider constit-

uents are ill‐informed should be discarded toward a paradigm shift to

embrace a new public leadership practice that advances a greater collab-

oration and wider engagement of internal and external stakeholders. The

public officer operates within a professional and political milieu and

needs to balance these two imperatives through ambidexterity. Leader-

ship ambidexterity connotes an organization's ability to be efficient in

its management of current activities while enduring adaptably to address

subsequent emergent demands. It implores leaders to prudently manage

tensions between and among the following imperatives: stability vs.

change, hierarchy vs. lateral relations, existing power structure vs. volun-

tary vs. involuntary power sharing, formal networks vs. informal net-

works, and existing forums vs. new (Bryson et al., 2014; O'Reilly &

Tushman 2013). Ambidexterity is crucial for public sector leaders who

need to manage between political and professional administrative imper-

atives. How to manage political and technical requirements in ways with-

out compromising professionalism is crucial for public leaders. In the

workplace or public sector, leadership is very important, and it is also cru-

cial to identify some binding forces and entities within the organization

that can forge or facilitate cordial collaboration between leadership,

workers, and external constituents. More important is how to bridge

the gap between the organization and external stakeholders. This

requires the role of a champion who would act as a “collaborative capac-

ity builder” defined to mean an individual(s) who either by legal authority,

expertise valued in the network, reputation as an honest broker assists in

forging greater collaboration or helps in building bridges across leaders,

staff, and external stakeholders (Weber & Khademian, 2008).

In order to promote transdisciplinary leadership, the paper has

provided some key signposts including an involvement of employees

in goal setting, fostering a two‐way conversation, making employee

recognition personal, and focusing feedback on results. It is essential

for public leaders to promote knowledge and information sharing

between leaders, staff, and external constituents to optimize the pub-

lic outcomes as well as the relevance of public outcomes to the

greater good of the public (O'Leary & Vij, 2012). There is therefore,

a need to promote a clearly defined outcomes/expectation of staff

so that leaders would not have to hawk or micromanage their staff

all the time. A commonly defined means for evaluating employee

progress should be encouraged.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There is no conflict of interest.

7http://www.mas.org.uk/uploads/articles/Happiness_at_work_Why_it_Counts.

pdf

8 of 10 YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL.

FUNDING INFORMATION

There is no funding for this paper.

ORCID

Emmanuel Yeboah‐Assiamah http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9906-

1302

REFERENCES

Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 497–507.

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, ante- cedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 31–53.

Behn, R. D. (1995). The big questions of public management. Public Admin- istration Review, 55, 313–324.

Behn, R. D., & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of per- formance contracting. Public Productivity & Management Review, 470–489.

Bingham, L. B., O'leary, R., & Carlson, C. (2014). Frameshifting: Lateral thinking for collaborative public management. In Big ideas in collabora- tive public management (pp. 13–26). Routledge.

Bradford, L. P., & Lippitt, R. (1945). Building a democratic work group. Personnel, 22, 1–12.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value gover- nance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chambers, H. E. (2009). My way or the highway: The micromanagement sur- vival guide: Easyread super large 20pt edition. ReadHowYouWant. com.

Chao, G. T., O'Leary‐Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743.

Clark, A. (1999). ‘Leadership and influence: the manager as coach, nanny and artificial DNA’. In J.H. Clippinger III (Ed.), The biology of business: Decoding the natural laws of enterprise (pp. 47–66). San Francisco: , Jossey‐Bass.

Cooper, C. L. & Wood, S. (2011). Happiness at work: Why it counts. Avail- able online http://www.mas.org.uk/uploads/articles/Happiness_at_ work_Why_it_Counts.pdf. (Accessed on 27/08/2018)

Cooper, T. L. (1984). Citizenship and professionalism in Public Administra- tion. Public Administration Review, 44, 143–149.

De Vries, M., & Nemec, J. (2013). Public sector reform: An overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths. Interna- tional Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1), 4–16. https://doi. org/10.1108/09513551311293408

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Trans- formational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta‐ analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569.

Elshout, R., Scherp, E., & van der Feltz‐Cornelis, C. M. (2013). Understand- ing the link between leadership style, employee satisfaction, and absenteeism: A mixed methods design study in a mental health care institution. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, 823.

Fernandez, S., Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2010). Exploring the link between inte- grated leadership and public sector performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.009

Franklin, D. L. (1985). Differential clinical assessments: The influence of class and race. Social Service Review, 59(1), 44–61.

Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2015). The public administration theory primer. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

Geyer, R., & Rihani, S. (2012). Complexity and public policy: A new approach to 21st century politics, policy and society. Abingdon: Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203856925

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Guan, X., & Frenkel, S. (2018). How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting influence employee performance. Chinese Management Studies.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leader- ship: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409–473.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London: Routledge.

Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Management, 19(4), 63–77.

Johnson, S. K., & Dipboye, R. L. (2008). Effects of charismatic content and delivery on follower task performance: The moderating role of task charisma conduciveness. Group & Organization Management, 33(1), 77–106.

Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Admin- istration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The func- tion of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 27–51.

Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Transformational leadership and outcomes: Role of relationship duration. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(6), 442–457.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1–47.

Lewin, A. Y. (1999). Application of complexity theory to organization sci- ence. Organization Science, 10(3), 215–215.

Lovell, R. (1992). Citizen's charter: The cultural challenge. Public Administra- tion, 70(3), 395–404.

McGregor, S. L., & Volckmann, R. (2013). Transversity: Transdisciplinarity in higher education. Leading Transformative Higher Education, 58–81.

McLaurin, J. R., & Al Amri, M. B. (2008). ‘Developing an understanding of charismatic and transformational leadership’. In Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict (Vol. 13, No. 2, p. 15). Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.

Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved 15 August, 2018 from http://www. jstor.org/stable/2570634

Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public value inside: What is public value creation? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 192–219.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Matthews, J. A., & Coleman, H. J. (1997) Anticipat- ing the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 7–19.

Nicolescu, B. (1985). Nous, la particule et le monde. Paris: Le Mail.

O'Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0275074012445780

O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual the- ory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 797–837.

Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Per- spectives, 18(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.12690298

YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL. 9 of 10

Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2009). Where do we go from here?: Is shared leadership the key to team success? Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 234–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.008

Raadschelders, J. C. (2014). Bureaucracy and its “Objectives”? A response to Alexandru Roman. Administration & Society, 46(7), 853–860.

Scott, R. W. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. (2nd ed.). London: Prentice‐Hall.

Society for Human Resource Management (2016) Employee job satisfaction and engagement: Revitalizing a changing workforce Avail- able online https://www.shrm.org/hr‐today/trends‐and‐forecasting/ research‐and‐surveys/Documents/2016‐Employee‐Job‐Satisfaction‐a nd‐Engagement‐Report.pdf (Accessed on 28/08/2018)

Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. I. (2010). Full range leadership development: Pathways for people, profit and planet. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stone, C. N. (1981). ‘Attitudinal Tendencies among Officials’. In C. Goodsell, (Ed.). The Public Encounter: Where State and Citizen Meet. Bloominigton: Indiana University Press, 43–68.

Taylor, G. (2013). Implementing and maintaining a knowledge sharing culture via knowledge management teams: A shared leadership approach. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict, 17(1), 69–90.

Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109

Torsteinsen, H. (2012). Why does post‐bureaucracy lead to more formalisation? Local Government Studies, 38(3), 321–344. https://doi. org/10.1080/03003930.2011.629194

Van Wart, M. (2014). Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practiceRoutledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315705071

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240.

Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in organiza- tional knowledge creation: A review and framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 240–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐ 6486.2010.00978.x

Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta‐analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531

Weimann, G. (1982). Dealing with bureaucracy: The effectiveness of dif- ferent persuasive appeals. Social Psychology Quarterly, 136–144.

Yalabik, Z. Y., Rayton, B. A., & Rapti, A. (2017, December). Facets of job satisfaction and work engagement. In Evidence‐based HRM: A global forum for empirical scholarship (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 248–265). Emerald Publishing Limited.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Emmanuel Yeboah‐Assiamah is a TRECCAFRICA Doctoral Fellow

of Public and Development Management at the School of Public

Leadership, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Emmanuel

holds an MPhil in Public Administration and a Bachelor of Arts in

Political Science from the University of Ghana. His areas of

research and publication include public sector management and

leadership; development management; governance, decentraliza-

tion, and local governance; privatization and urban service deliv-

ery; collaborative governance; and sustainability with focus on

complexities. Emmanuel has written widely with his papers pub-

lished by inter alia, Sage, Emerald, Taylor & Francis, Wiley & Sons,

and Elsevier as well as serves as reviewer for many reputable

journals.

Kwame Asamoah is a senior lecturer in the Department of Public

Administration and Health Services Management at the University

of Ghana Business School. He holds a PhD in Public Administra-

tion from Jackson State University, USA, and a Master of Public

Administration degree from the University of Ghana Business

School, Legon. He teaches Public Policy Analysis, Issues in Public

Administration, and Public Sector Human Resource Management.

Currently, he is the head of Department of Public Administration

and Health Services Management, University of Ghana Business

School. His main research interests include Public Administration,

Public Policy Analysis, Decentralisation, Human Resource Man-

agement, and Organisational Behaviour.

Samuel Adams is a professor of Public Administration and Policy

at the GIMPA School of Public Service and Governance in Ghana.

Professor Adams is also research oriented, and his research areas

include economic growth, income inequality, leadership and gov-

ernance, environmental pollution, globalization and urbanization,

and mostly oriented towards providing evidence to inform policy.

Professor Adams has published over 60 articles and book chapters

in recognized journals such as Journal of Policy Modelling, Public

Organization Review, Energy Policy, Renewable Energy, Social Sci-

ence Quarterly, Economic Analysis and Policy, and the Renewable

and Sustainable Energy Reviews. He serves on the Editorial

Boards of four journals and a reviewer for over 20 internationally

recognized journals.

How to cite this article: Yeboah‐Assiamah E, Asamoah K,

Adams S. Transdisciplinary public leadership theory: Between

the extremes of “traditional public administration” and “new

public management”. J Public Affairs. 2019;19:e1887. https://

doi.org/10.1002/pa.1887

10 of 10 YEBOAH‐ASSIAMAH ET AL.

Copyright of Journal of Public Affairs (14723891) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 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.