6 pages continuation

JPART 20:75–89

Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure Matter?

Bradley E. Wright University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Sanjay K. Pandey University of Kansas

ABSTRACT

This study contributes to our understanding of leadership in public sector organizations by

investigating the effect of organizational structure on the transformational leadership practices

of municipal chief administrative officers. Using data from a national survey of senior

managers in local government, the findings of this study suggest a number of possible

explanations for why public sector organizations exhibit higher levels of transformational

leadership than what scholars traditionally expect. Our findings suggest that the structure of

these organizations may not be as bureaucratic as commonly believed and that some

bureaucratic characteristics had little, if any, adverse affect on the prevalence or practice of

transformational leadership behaviors. In particular, although organizational hierarchy and

inadequate lateral/upward communication were associated with lower transformational

leadership, no relationship was found between transformational leadership behaviors and

two types of organizational red tape. Contrary to expectations in the mainstream leadership

literature, however, the use of performance measurement by municipal organizations was

associated with a significant increase in reported transformational leadership behaviors.

Although the importance of leadership has been widely recognized in the public management

literature (Fernandez 2005; Hennessey 1998;Moynihan and Ingraham 2004; Van Slyke and

Alexander 2006; VanWart 2005), at least one review of this literature has urged the field to

adopt and empirically test more contemporary theoretical models from the mainstream

leadership literature (Van Wart 2003). Despite the limited attention public management

scholars have given such theories, one of the most popular mainstream leadership theories

has been frequently used to make strong and often pessimistic claims regarding the poten-

tial value of leadership in public organizations. In particular, transformational leaders are

expected to be both less common and less effective in public sector organizations than

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (2008) in

Anaheim, CA. We thank three anonymous reviewers for the journal for making valuable suggestions. Data analyzed

in this article were collected under the auspices of the NASP-IV, a project supported in part by the Institute for Policy

and Social Research and the Department of Public Administration at the University of Kansas. Naturally, this support

does not necessarily imply an endorsement of analyses and opinions reported in the article. Address correspondence

to the author at [email protected].

doi:10.1093/jopart/mup003 Advance Access publication on April 30, 2009 ª The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]

private sector organizations because the former are thought to rely more on bureaucratic

control mechanisms (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell 1997; Pawar and Eastman 1997;

Shamir and Howell 1999) that provide institutional substitutes for leadership (Lowe, Galen

Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996). Contrary to these expectations, however, meta-

analyses have consistently found that transformational leadership behavior is at least as

common and effective in public organizations (Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio 2002; Lowe,

Galen Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996).

There are a number of potential explanations for this discrepancy between mainstream

leadership theoretical expectations and empirical observation. Perhaps the most obvious

explanation is that government organizations are generally not as bureaucratic as main-

stream leadership theorists assume. Several recent studies suggest that, on average,

government organizations exhibit only moderate levels of bureaucratic control mechanisms

such as centralization, formalization, and routinization (Boyne 2002; Pandey and Wright

2006; Wright 2004). That said, empirical research investigating public and private sector

differences suggests that public sector organizations are often more bureaucratic in terms of

formalization in some areas, most notably in purchasing and human resource management

(Boyne 2002; Pandey and Scott 2002; Rainey and Bozeman 2000). Even so, it remains

uncertain as to whether such differences adversely affect leadership practices. Thus, a sec-

ond explanation for the discrepancy between theory and observation may be that the

reliance on bureaucratic control mechanisms does not adversely affect either the prevalence

or effectiveness of transformational leadership.

In fact, regardless of whether the common stereotype of bureaucratic government

organizations is correct, it is important to test whether bureaucratic characteristics inhibit

transformational leadership in the public sector because public organizations vary on the

degree to which they use such mechanisms. Given the potential impact of these relation-

ships, surprisingly little research has investigated the organizational and contextual influ-

ences on the emergence and effectiveness of transformational leadership. This study will

address this need by testing the degree to which the characteristics of public sector organ-

izations hinder the emergence of transformational leadership.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Transformational Leadership

First conceptualized by a political scientist (Burns 1978), transformational leadership has

become one of the most prominent theories of organizational behavior. In contrast to lead-

ership based on individual gain and the exchange of rewards for effort, transformational

leaders motivate behavior by changing their followers’ attitudes and assumptions. To direct

and inspire individual effort, these leaders transform their followers by raising their aware-

ness of the importance of organizational outcomes thereby activating their higher order

needs and inducing them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organiza-

tion. Although such leadership was originally expected to be distinct from, and more ef-

fective than, reward or transaction-based leadership, empirical findings have consistently

suggested that successful leaders augment their use of beneficial transactional behaviors

with more transformational ones (Bass and Riggio 2006).

Leading by transforming followers and their commitment to the organizational mission

requires a number of conditions to bemet. First, leadersmust inspirationallymotivate employ-

eesbyclearlyarticulatinganappealingvisionof theorganization’smissionandfuture.Creating

76 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

a vision, however, is not enough. Transformational leaders must also encourage and facilitate

their followers to work toward that vision. Thus a second, but closely related, condition is

that the leader becomes a source of idealized influence, functioning as a rolemodel (modeling

behaviors consistent with the stated vision) and building employee confidence and pride in the

organization. Similarly, a third condition is that they must help followers achieve the

mission by intellectually stimulating them to challenge old assumptions about organizational

problems and practices. In using these three factors—inspirational motivation, idealized

influence, and intellectual stimulation—transformational leaders essentially direct, inspire,

and empower their employees.1 Research has not only validated the existence of trans-

formational leadership but also has consistently linked the practice of these transformational

leadership behaviors with employee performance and satisfaction (Bass and Riggio

2006), even in government (Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio 2002; Lowe, Galen Kroeck, and

Sivasubramaniam 1996; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008; Wofford, Lee Whittington,

and Goodwin 2001) and nonprofit (Egri and Herman 2000) organizations.

It should be noted that this emphasis onmissionmaymake transformational leadership

particularly useful in public and nonprofit organizations given the service and community-

oriented nature of their missions. Consistent with transformational leadership’s emphasis

on the motivating potential of organization mission, a key tenet of the literature on public

employee motivation (Perry and Porter 1982; Perry and Wise 1990; Rainey and Steinbauer

1999; Weiss 1996; Wright 2007) is that ‘‘the more engaging, attractive and worthwhile the

mission is to people, the more the agency will be able to attract support from those people,

to attract some of them to join the agency, and to motivate them to perform well in the

agency’’ (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999, 16). Even with this convergent emphasis on mis-

sion, there is a growing recognition that more work is needed to build a better understanding

of how organizational conditions may encourage or discourage such practices (Moynihan

and Pandey 2007; Paarlberg and Perry 2007).

Organizational Structure Influences on Transformational Leadership

Although a considerable amount of empirical research has investigated the prevalence and con-

sequences of transformational leadership (Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio 2002; Lowe, Galen

Kroeck, andSivasubramaniam1996), very little has focused on its antecedents. In particular,

very little is knownabout the organizational conditions thatmay facilitate or hinder the emer-

gence or effectiveness of transformational leadership behaviors. Nonetheless, scholars have

used the underlying theory to suggest a number of potential relationships between the orga-

nizational structure (or context) and transformational leadership (Bass and Riggio 2006;

Howell1997;PawarandEastman1997;RaineyandWatson1996;Shamir,House,andArthur

1993; Shamir and Howell 1999). One common theme among these theories is that transfor-

mational leadership requires employees (both leaders and followers) to have a certain degree

of flexibility in how they define and perform theirwork. The increased control and associated

feelings of responsibility in their work facilitates both the ability of employees to be intrin-

sically motivated by their work as well as the development of the confidence necessary to

achieve it (Conger and Kanungo 1988; Thomas and Velthouse 1990).

1 Although the most common conceptualization of transformational leadership included diagnosing and evaluating

the needs of each follower as a fourth dimension (individualized consideration), we follow the approach of some recent

work that has reclassified this aspect of leadership as more transactional than transformational (Avolio, Bass, and Jung

1999; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008).

Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 77

If flexibility and discretion is necessary for transformational leadership, then it is not

surprising that so many scholars suggest that the elaborate control systems associated with

mechanistic or bureaucratic organizations should hinder both its emergence and effective-

ness (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell 1997; Pawar and Eastman 1997; Rainey and Watson

1996; Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993; Shamir and Howell 1999). By definition, this form

of organization is meant to emphasize leadership through rational-legal, as opposed to char-

ismatic, means (Weber 1948). The desire for stability, predictability, and equity in bureau-

cratic organizations results in a reliance on structural mechanisms to limit individual

discretion and promote uniformity in how employees interpret and respond to work situa-

tions or tasks. Structural characteristics associated with such strong situations include hi-

erarchical distribution of authority, stringent formalization through rules and regulations,

and a reliance on downward (and limited upward and/or lateral) communication (Howell

1997; Shamir and Howell 1999). Such structural characteristics hinder both the need and

potential for transformational leadership. First, they reduce the need for leadership by

using organizational design features to provide sufficient cues to guide employee behavior

(Shamir and Howell 1999). Second, they also reduce the potential to exercise leadership by

restricting the leader’s ability to act in novel ways or provide an appealing vision by

reinterpreting organizational objectives in ways that are more congruent with employee

values (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell 1997; Shamir and Howell 1999). Consistent with

this expectation, high levels of centralization and formalization have been found to alienate

employees from their work by inhibiting the expression of individual differences, motives,

and attitudes (Aiken and Hage 1966; DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005).

Although the structural characteristics of bureaucratic organizations are commonly

expected to impede transformational leadership, very few studies have empirically tested

this assumption. Recent studies of firefighters in the United States and public sector

employees in Australia have, however, found that formalization and centralization

decreases the likelihood that organizational leaders will exhibit transformational leadership

behavior (Rafferty and Griffin 2004; Sarros et al. 2002). Although there is limited support

for the adverse effects of centralization and formalization on transformational leadership,

the effects of other bureaucratic structural characteristics such as weak lateral/upward com-

munication are largely unanalyzed. In an attempt to better understand these relationships,

we propose to test the following hypotheses:

H1 The more hierarchical an organization’s authority structure, the lower the reported

practice of transformational leadership behaviors.

H2 The weaker the lateral/upward communication in an organization, the lower the

reported practice of transformational leadership behaviors.

H3a,b The greater organizational formalization (measured as [3a] procurement red tape

and [3b] human resource red tape), the lower the reported practice of

transformational leadership behaviors.

In addition to these more traditional bureaucratic mechanisms, other characteristics

associated with public sector organizations may also influence the emergence and ef-

fectiveness of transformational leadership. In particular, it has been recently suggested

that the limited use of performance measurement and lack of managerial discretion

needed to link rewards to performance are key issues that require greater attention when

trying to understand leadership in public organizations (Van Slyke and Alexander 2006).

78 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Public sector organizations are, for example, typically viewed as having ambiguous and

hard-to-measure performance goals as well as weak relationships between extrinsic re-

wards and employee performance (Wright 2001). Although these expectations have not

been sufficiently tested, existing research is mixed. Although sector-based differences in

organizational goal complexity or ambiguity have not been consistently found (Boyne

2002; Rainey andBozeman 2000), a few studies have shown that public sector organizations

have a weaker relationship between extrinsic rewards and performance (Porter and Lawler

1968; Rainey 1983). Nevertheless, both of these conditions are not only expected to vary

across public organizationsbut also support theuse of transformational leadershipbehaviors.

The use of performance measurement and rewards are often intertwined. If perfor-

mance is not easily measured, it is difficult to establish clear reward contingencies that

allow managers to link extrinsic rewards with performance. The resulting lack of clear

goal-reward contingencies can encourage leaders to rely more on person (rather than po-

sition) powers which serve as the foundation of transformational leadership. Thus, several

scholars have suggested that organizations are less conducive to transformational leader-

ship when they have clear and specific goals that allow objective or highly consensual ways

of measuring performance (Howell 1997; Shamir and Howell 1999). Instead, it is expected

that greater ambiguity in the criteria for evaluating the organization’s performance can

support transformational leadership by providing leaders with greater latitude to define

organizational expectations and vision in ways that best inspire their employees (Shamir

and Howell 1999). Admittedly, the relationship between organizational performance man-

agement and leadership might depend on whether the organization views performance

management as just a reporting requirement to fulfill or a learning opportunity to question

existing practices and convince others of the legitimacy of certain outcomes (Moynihan

2005a). Even if an organization’s leadership takes the former view, ‘‘the continued exis-

tence of financial and personnel control systems that emphasize compliance and error

avoidance’’ effectively limits their discretion and undermines their ability to use perfor-

mance measures in this way (Moynihan 2006, 84). Consistent with these expectations (and

in partial contradiction with Hypothesis 3b above), we hypothesize:

H4 The more an organization’s structure impedes the establishment of extrinsic

reward-performance contingencies (here measured as human resource red tape),

the higher the reported practice of transformational leadership behaviors.

H5 The use of organizational performance measures will decrease the reported

transformational leadership behaviors.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

Data Collection

The data for this study were collected in Phase 4 of the National Administrative Studies

Project (NASP-IV). NASP-IV is a multimethod study, a key part of which is a survey ad-

ministered to a nationwide sample. The theoretical population of interest for NASP-IV was

comprised of senior managers (both general and functional) in U.S. local government

jurisdictions with populations over 50,000. The general managers included the city

manager and assistant/deputy city managers. Functional managers included in the study

headed key departments, namely Finance/Budgeting, Public Works, Personnel/HR,

Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Community Development.

Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 79

The sample design and construction for the NASP-IV study were aided by the Inter-

national City/County Management Association (ICMA). ICMA is widely regarded as the

authoritative source of information about U.S local government jurisdictions and profes-

sionals serving in these jurisdictions. Based on the study criteria, ICMA compiled a list with

contact details of potential respondents (ICMA was not able to provide e-mail addresses

because of its policy not to share e-mail addresses). Beginning with the initial list provided

by ICMA, the NASP-IV team used publicly available information to gather basic infor-

mation about each jurisdiction’s chief administrative officer (tenure and gender).

These efforts resulted in 3,316 individuals in the study sample. Each respondent in the

study sample received an initial letter through U.S. mail which introduced the study

and provided details on how to participate in the study. Each potential respondent was

directed to the study Web site and provided a secure study participation code. After

the initial letter via U.S. mail, multiple methods were used in follow-up efforts to contact

the respondents—e-mail, fax, and phone calls. When the study concluded 1,538 of the

3,316 had responded, for a response rate of 46.4%. As our focus was on the leadership

behavior exhibited by the chief administrative officer, we did not want to rely on

self-reports of transformational leadership by chief administrative officers themselves.

Therefore, the responses of city managers were excluded which reduced the number of

observations to the 1,322 responses from functional and deputy/assistant managers.

Of these 1,322 respondents, 16.7% were general managers (deputy or assistant) and

the rest managed specific city departments and/or functions. This distribution of functional

specialization of respondents closely matched the distribution of functional specializations

in the sample. The mean age was 50 with an interquartile range of 9 (25th percentile being

46 and 75th percentile being 57). As expected, a sizable majority were male (68.1%), white

(85.4%), highly educated (more than 60% with graduate degrees), and well compensated

(64% with salaries over $100,000).

Because we want to test the effect of organizational structure and context on trans-

formational leadership, we aggregate responses by organization. At least one response was

received from 489 of the 529 local governments in the sampling frame. In order to reduce

potential bias associated with the perspective of any single respondent, the study sample

was reduced to the 205 local governments for which at least three responses (excluding

responses from the chief administrative officer) were received and a chief administrative

officer was identifiable.2 Table 1 provides basic demographic information about the chief

administrative officers (gender and position tenure) and local government (number of em-

ployees and population) for both the study sample and the sampling frame. No significant

difference (p. .05) was found between these two groups, suggesting that the study sample

may be representative of the overall sampling frame.

Wherever possible, the study variables were measured using multiple item measures

that have been tested and validated in earlier studies (see the Appendix for specific wording

and sources). In an effort to minimize survey length and maximize survey response, trans-

formational leadership was measured using a small set of items selected specifically for this

study. Items were selected from four socialized charismatic leadership subscales (vision,

role modeling, inspirational communication, and intellectual stimulation) developed by

House (1998) that depict the three transformational dimensions (inspirational motivation,

2 This latter criterion resulted in the exclusion of many cities with mayor-council form of government.

80 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

idealized influence, and intellectual stimulation) previously described.3 One itemwas taken

from each of three subscales (Intellectual stimulation, role modeling, and inspirational

communication), whereas two items were selected from the vision scale because of the

underlying importance transformational leadership places on organizational goals and vi-

sion. Although this five-itemmeasure represents items from four different subscales (House

1998) that reflect the three dimensions of transformational leadership, a factor analysis of

these items extracted only one factor that explained nearly 76% of their variance and is

consistent with previous findings that suggest that the transformational dimensions may

be best characterized as a single factor (Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999).

Consistent with previous studies analyzing subordinate reports of transformational

leadership behaviors, the variables in this study were created by averaging responses from

each organization (Bommer, Rubin, and Baldwin 2004; Judge and Bono 2000). To help

control for the effects of chief administrative officer characteristics on leadership behavior,

the gender and tenure of the chief administrator were included in the model. In addition, we

attempted to isolate the effects of hierarchy from that of organizational size by controlling

the number of employees working for city government.

RESULTS

Table 2 provides theunivariateandbivariatestatisticsof thestudymeasures.Allmultiple items

measures achieved an acceptable level of reliability (ranging from 0.78 to 0.92) with the ex-

ception of themeasures of lateral/upward communication and performancemeasurement. Es-

timates of internal reliability for these two measures were not analyzed and reported because

they represent a formative (rather than reflective) measure where each scale item represents

a different type of communication or performance measurement and, therefore, can make

a unique contribution to the construct’s measurement (Law and Wong 1999; Law, Wong,

Table 1 Chief Administrative Officer and Organization Characteristics for Local Governments in the Target Population

Study Sample Nonstudy Sample

Chief Administrative Officer

Gender

Male (%) 87.3 88.7

Female (%) 12.7 11.3

Position tenure

Mean 6.58 7.49

SD 6.44 6.72

Local governments

Number of employees

Mean 1,133 1,120

SD 1,510 3,245

Population (2000 census)

Mean 143,568 150,060

SD 176,039 292,209

3 Although transformational and charismatic leadership are often discussed as separate theories in the literature,

conceptual and empirical evidence suggests a considerable degree of overlap that exists between these theories and

their measures (Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999; Hunt 1999; Yukl 1999).

Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 81

Table 2 Measure Means, SDs, Correlations, and Reliability (n 5 205)

Mean SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Transformational leadership 20.12 3.03 5–25 (0.92)

2 Hierarchical authority structure 4.70 1.39 0–10 20.37* na

3 Weak lateral/upward communication 4.55 0.90 2–10 20.39* 0.26* na

4 Procurement red tape 8.39 2.10 3–15 –0.16* 0.17* 0.18* (0.90)

5 Human resource red tape 12.87 2.44 4–20 20.11 0.13 0.17* 0.42* (0.78)

6 Performance measurement use 10.76 2.49 3–18 0.45* 20.07 20.22* 20.13 20.17* na

7 Gender na na na 20.04 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.03 na

8 Chief Administrative Officer tenure 6.58 6.44 na 0.24* 20.19* 20.12 20.11 20.08 0.11 20.08 na

9 Organization size (employees) 1,133 1,510 na 0.04 0.22* 0.04 0.13 0.01 0.23* 0.23* 20.04 na

Note: na, not applicable.

8 2

and Mobley 1998). The bivariate correlations provided in table 3 suggest that the measures

are distinct and yet related (in expected ways). Although just under half of the correlations

(16 of 36) were statistically significant (p , .05), the absolute value median correlation

among the measures was low (0.13) and the largest bivariate correlation was only 0.45, sug-

gesting that no measure shared more than one-fifth of its variance with any other measure.

A review of themeans and standard deviations suggests a number of interesting patterns.

First, although there is considerable variation across the measures, respondents do not gen-

erally describe their local government organizations as highly bureaucratic. The average

scores on the extent of hierarchy, lateral/upward communication inadequacies, and the for-

malization of procurement practices were below the scale midpoint. A similar pattern is seen

when looking at performance measurement as respondents describe their organizations as

using amoderate level of performancemeasures. That said, chief administrative officers were

generally described by their immediate subordinates as exhibiting a relatively high level of

transformational leadership behaviors with the average score well above the scale midpoint.

In order to test the study hypotheses, transformational leadership was regressed onto

the six independent variables while controlling for several characteristics of the chief ad-

ministrative officer (tenure and gender) and organization size (measured as the number of

employees). The results of the ordinary least squares multivariate regression analysis (table

3) indicate that, together with the controls, these five hypothesized antecedents explained

just over one-third of the variation in the use of transformational leadership behaviors by

city chief executive officers (adjacent R2 5 .36). Nonetheless, the findings regarding the

effect of bureaucratic structure on transformational leadership behaviors were mixed. Of

the first three hypotheses, only Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported; hierarchical organi-

zation structure and weak lateral/upward communication were found to be negatively as-

sociated with transformational leadership behaviors (p, .05). Hypotheses 3a and 3b were

not supported, however, as greater formalization (operationalized as either procurement or

human resource red tape) was not found to have a significant effect on the extent to which

chief administrative officers were reported to embody transformational leadership behav-

iors (p . .05). Also unsupported was Hypothesis 4 which tested an alternative theoretical

Table 3 Regression Analysis Results Predicting Transformational Leadership

b SE b b Significance

Structural characteristics

Hierarchical authority structure 20.58 0.13 20.26 0.00

Weak lateral/upward communication 20.77 0.20 20.23 0.00

Procurement red tape 20.06 0.09 20.04 0.50

Human resource red tape 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.36

Performance measurement use 0.45 0.07 0.37 0.00

Chief Administrative Officer characteristics

Female 20.03 0.52 0.00 0.95

Position tenure 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.03

Organizational characteristics

Number of employees (00s) 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.63

Constant 11.37 2.18 0.00

R2 5 .39

Adjusted R2 5 0.36

F(8, 196) 5 15.38

Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 83

expectation for the relationship between managerial discretion in human resource decisions

and their leadership; that the lack of extrinsic reward-performance contingencies would

require leaders to rely more on transformational practices to motivate and direct their em-

ployees. Overall, however, this study could not support either relationship as the presence

of human resource red tape neither decreased (Hypothesis 3b) nor increased (Hypothesis 4)

transformational leadership. Finally, in direct contradiction with Hypothesis 5, the use of

organizational performance measurement was found to increase (not reduce) the degree to

which municipal chief administrative officers were reported to exhibit transformational

leadership behaviors (p , .05).

One limitation of this study is its use of cross-sectional data to test claims of causality.

As a consequence, the causality direction may be reversed. Transformational leadership

may be the cause (rather than the product) of an organization’s lower use of hierarchy

or greater use of lateral/upward communication and performance measurement. In attempt

to strengthen confidence in the causal direction tested here, the model was also estimated

for only jurisdictions where the chief administrative officers had less than 2 years of tenure.

Such new leaders are less likely to have sufficient time and resources to change or establish

these characteristics of their organization. Although the resulting sample size was small

enough to substantially reduce the statistical power of the tests (n 5 42), the results were

similar to that found with the full sample. Transformational leadership behavior was still

associated with greater use of lateral/upward communication and organizational perfor-

mance measures (p , .05) although no longer affected by organizational hierarchy. To-

gether, these two factors explained nearly one-quarter (adjacent R25 .24) of the variance in

reported transformational leadership behaviors.

Conclusion

This study contributes to our understanding of public sector organizations and leadership by

looking at the relationship between transformational leadership practices and organizational

characteristics. In particular, this study not only supports previous findings regarding the

prevalence of transformational leadership practice in public organization but also suggests

a number of possible explanations for why public sector organizations exhibit higher levels

of transformational leadership than the mainstream management literature seems to expect.

First, although transformational leadership behaviors are expected to be hindered by

the bureaucratic structure of public sector organizations, our study of local governments

contributes to a growing set of empirical findings that suggest public organizations are not

always highly bureaucratic (Pandey and Wright 2006; Wright 2004). Although consider-

able variation exists in the degree to which public organizations exhibit strong situational

characteristics, on average, such organizations were only found to be characterized bymod-

erate degrees of hierarchical distribution of authority, formalization or red tape, organiza-

tion performance measures, and reliance on downward (and limited upward or lateral)

communication (table 2). Although this study only includes local government organiza-

tions, which may be less bureaucratic and more innovative by nature, previous studies have

found that other types of public organizations often do not fit the common bureaucratic

stereotype (Boyne 2002; Pandey and Wright 2006; Wright 2004). Even so, future studies

should attempt to validate these findings in other types of government organizations.

A second set of findings concern the relationships between these organizational

characteristics and transformational leadership. Here the findings were more inconsistent.

84 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Although some bureaucratic characteristics seem to reduce the practice of transformational

leadership behaviors, others do not. In particular, although the greater reliance on hierarchical

authority and weaker lateral/upward communication were both associated with a lower preva-

lence of transformational leadership behaviors, the presence of human resource or procurement

red tape seemed to have no effect. Together, these findings partially support transformational

leadership’s need for flexibility while simultaneously suggesting that the type or level of

flexibility required may be more within the purview of leaders of public sector organizations.

For example, the findings that transformational leadership behaviors are not adversely affected

by organizational rules and red tape may be fortunate as such procedural constraints are

often established by authorities outside the agency in order to protect citizens and avoid inap-

propriate use of public resources. In contrast, although hierarchical decision making and

communication were found to adversely affect transformational leadership, the genesis of

these characteristics can often be found within the organization itself and, as a result, may

be easier for the organization’s leadership to change. A growing literature suggests not

only why leaders should (Kim 2002; Pandey and Garnett 2006; Pandey and Wright 2006)

but alsohowtheycan (Garnett 1994;Lawler1986;MossandSanchez2004)useabroad range

of communication and empowerment practices within their organizations. Future research

should continue to investigate these relationships and better establish their causal sequence

using longitudinal and experimental designs. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that

the transformational leadership behaviors within an organization may not be that affected

by constraints imposed by external authorities.

In addition, in direct contradiction with expectations, an organization’s use of perfor-

mance measures was found to be associated with significant increases in a chief admin-

istrative officer’s use of transformational leadership behaviors. Although inconsistent with

the expectations of the mainstream leadership literature, this finding is consistent with rel-

evant expectations and findings regarding transformational leadership in the public sector

(Rainey and Watson 1996). One possible explanation for this finding is that performance

measures may help leaders clearly articulate their vision of the organization’s mission

(Rainey andWatson 1996) or even build employee confidence and pride in the organization

by measuring the impact of their work (Wright and Pandey 2007). Consistent with this

explanation, Yang and Pandey (2009) found that managing for results (MFR) activities

can increase employee commitment not only by improving communication and organiza-

tional goal clarity but also by reducing (rather than increasing) centralization and routin-

ization. Although MFR is often characterized as a way for elected officials to assert

additional oversight and policy control over agencies, in practice some organizations have

been able to use MFR to reshape their agency’s culture ‘‘by making it mission-based and

emphasizing the central role that employees played in achieving this mission’’ (Moynihan

2005b, 234). This use and its emphasis on communication and mission motivation are con-

sistent with the fundamental tenets of transformational leadership. In addition, to maximize

follower satisfaction and performance, leaders must utilize both transactional and trans-

formational practices as latter are only expected to augment (not replace) the effective

use of contingent rewards (Bass and Riggio 2006). To the extent that MFR helps define,

measure, and monitor employee performance, then it also provides leaders with a stronger

foundation for guiding behavior and performance through the use of organizational re-

wards.

Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 85

Takenasawhole, thesefindingschallenge the strong andpessimistic a priori expectations

fostered bymainstream (or generic) management literature about the prospects of transforma-

tional leadership in the public sector. The study also adds to a growing consensus in public

management scholarship that ‘‘management matters’’ and that public organizations and their

leaders can overcome structural constraints (e.g., Andrews et al. 2009; Ingraham, Joyce, and

Donahue 2003;Moynihan and Pandey 2005; Pandey, Coursey, andMoynihan 2007; Rainey

and Steinbauer 1999). Ingraham, Joyce, and Donahue (2003) argue that leadership can per-

form an integrating function and overcome structural constraints arising from specific man-

agement subsystemsor ‘‘silo-like’’ subsystems that operatewith little coordination.Andrews

et al. (2009) show that centralization’s effect on performance is mediated by the strategic

orientation of the organization. Similarly, Pandey, Coursey, and Moynihan (2007) have

shownthatbureaucratic red tape’snegativeeffect onorganizationalperformance ismitigated

by developmental culture. Our research findings for transformational leadership, taken to-

gether with other recent research, makes the case that structural constraints in the public

sector do not necessarily stand in the way of superior performance and/or leadership.

Transformational leadershipa (adapted from House 1998) d The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager clearly articulates his/her vision of the future d The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager leads by setting a good example. d The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager challenges me to think about old problems in

new ways. d The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager says things that make employees proud to be part of

the organization. d The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager has a clear sense of where our organization should be

in 5 years. Weak lateral/upward communicationa (Pandey and Garnett 2006) d Upward communication about problems that need attention is adequate. (R) d Lateral communication about work-related problems is adequate. (R) Low-performance measurement use (adapted from Brudney, Ted, and Wright 1999) Please indicate the extent (coded 1 [Not at all] through 6 [Fully]) to which your organization has

implemented each of the following: d Benchmarks for measuring program outcomes or results. (R) d Systems for measuring customer satisfaction. (R) d Obtaining an external review of organizational performance. (R) Hierarchical authority structure (Bozeman 2000) d Please assess the extent of hierarchical authority in your organization: (Please enter a number between

0 and 10, with 0 signifying few layers of authority and 10 signifying many layers of authority.) Human resource red tapea (adapted from Pandey and Scott 2002; Rainey 1983) d Personnel rules make it hard to remove poor performers from the organization. d Personnel rules on promotion make it hard for a good employee to move up faster than a poor one. d Pay structures and personnel rules make it hard to reward a good employee with higher pay here. d Personnel rules make it hard to hire new employees. Procurement red tapea (adapted from Pandey and Garnett 2006) d Rules and procedures governing purchasing/procurement in my organization makes it difficult for

managers to purchase goods and services. d Due to standard procedures, procurement is based more on the vendor’s ability to comply with rules

than on the quality of goods and services. d Rules governing procurement make it hard to expedite purchase of goods and services for a critical

project.

Note: R, reverse worded. aResponses on a 5-point agree/disagree scale coded 1 (Strongly Disagree) through 5 (Strongly Agree).

Appendix: Study Measures

86 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

REFERENCES

Aiken, Michael, and Jerald Hage. 1966. Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. American

Sociological Review 31:497–507.

Andrews, Rhys, George A. Boyne, Jennifer Law, and Richard M. Walker. 2009. Centralization, orga-

nizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory 19:57–80.

Avolio, Bruce J., Bernard M. Bass, and Dong I. Jung. 1999. Reexamining the components of transfor-

mational and transactional leadership using multifactor leadership questionnaire MLQ-Form 5X.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72:441–462.

Bass, Bernard M., and Ronald E. Riggio. 2006. Transformational leadership, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bommer, William H., Robert S. Rubin, and Timothy T. Baldwin. 2004. Setting the stage for effective

leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 15:

195–210.

Boyne, George A. 2002. Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management

Studies 39:97–122.

Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brudney, Jeffrey L., Hebert F. Ted, and Deil S. Wright. 1999. Reinventing government in the American

States: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review 59:19–30.

Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Conger, Jay A., and Rabindra N. Kanungo. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and

practice. Academy of Management Review 13:471–82.

DeHart-Davis, Leisha, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. Red tape and public employees: Does perceived

rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

15:133–48.

Dumdum, Uldarico R., Kevin B. Lowe, and Bruce J. Avolio. 2002. Meta-analysis of transformational and

transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In

Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, eds. Bruce J. Aviolio and Francis J.

Yammarino. New York: JAI Press. 35–65.

Egri, Carolyn P., and Susan Herman. 2000. Leadership in the North American environmental sector:

Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of

Management Journal 43:571–604.

Fernandez, Sergio. 2005. Developing and testing an integrative framework of public sector leadership:

Evidence from the public education arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

15:197–217.

Garnett, James L. 1994. Communicating for results in government: A strategic approach for public

managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hennessey, Thomas J. 1998. Reinventing government: Does leadership make a difference? Public

Administration Review 58:522–32.

House, Robert J. 1998. Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach:

Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, interclass correlations. In Leadership: The

multiple level approaches contemporary and alternative, eds. Fred Dansereau and Francis J.

Yammarino. London: JAI Press.

Howell, Jane M. 1997. Organization contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership. Kellogg Leadership

Studies Monograph. Center for Political Leadership and Participation. College Park, MD: Univ. of

Maryland.

Hunt, James G. 1999. Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical

essay. Leadership Quarterly 10:129–44.

Ingraham, Patricia W., Philip G. Joyce, and Amy K. Donahue. 2003. Government performance: Why

management matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Judge, Timothy A., and Joyce E. Bono. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:751–65.

Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 87

Kim, Soonhee. 2002. Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership.

Public Administration Review 62:231–41.

Law,KennethS., andChi-SumWong.1999.Multidimensional constructs in structural equationanalysis:An

illustrationusingthejobperceptionandjobsatisfactionconstructs.JournalofManagement25:143–60.

Law, Kenneth S., Chi-Sum Wong, and William H. Mobley. 1998. Toward a taxonomy of multidimen-

sional constructs. Academy of Management Review 23:741–55.

Lawler, Edward E. 1986. High-involvement management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lowe, Kevin B., K. Galen Kroeck, and Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The

Leadership Quarterly 7:385–425.

Moss, Sherry E., and Juan I. Sanchez. 2004. Are your employees avoiding you? Managerial strategies for

closing the feedback gap. Academy of Management Executive 18:32–44.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2005a. Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public

Administration Review 65:203–16.

———. 2005b. Why and how do state governments adopt and implement ‘‘managing for results’’

reforms? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:219–43.

———. 2006. Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public

Administration Review 66:78–90.

Moynihan, Donald P., and PatriciaW. Ingraham. 2004. Integrative leadership in the public sector: Amodel

of performance information use. Administration & Society 36:427–53.

Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. Testing how management matters in an era of

government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

15:421–39.

———. 2007. The role of organizations in fostering Public Service Motivation. Public Administration

Review 67:40–53.

Paarlberg, Laurie, and James L. Perry. 2007. Values management: Aligning individual values and or-

ganizational goals. American Review of Public Administration 37:387–408.

Pandey, Sanjay K., David H. Coursey, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2007. Organizational effectiveness and

bureaucratic red tape: A multi-method study. Public Performance and Management Review

30:398–425.

Pandey, Sanjay K., and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. Connecting the dots in public management: Political

environment, organizational goal ambiguity and the public manager’s role ambiguity. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory 16:511–32.

Pandey, Sanjay K., and James L. Garnett. 2006. Exploring public sector communication performance:

Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review 66:37–51.

Pandey, Sanjay K., and Patrick G. Scott. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and

measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12:553–80.

Pawar, Badrinarayan S., and Kenneth K. Eastman. 1997. The nature and implications of contextual

influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management

Review 22:89–109.

Perry, James L., and Lyman W. Porter. 1982. Factors affecting the context for motivation in public

organizations. Academy of Management Review 7:89–98.

Perry, James L., and Lois R. Wise. 1990. The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration

Review 50:367–73.

Porter, Lyman W., and Edward E. Lawler. 1968.Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL:

Irwin-Dorsey Press.

Rafferty, Alannah E., and Mark A. Griffin. 2004. Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual

and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly 15:329–54.

Rainey, Hal G. 1983. Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structure, goals, and individual roles.

Administration & Society 15:207–42.

Rainey, Hal G., and Barry Bozeman. 2000. Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical re-

search and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

10:447–70.

88 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Rainey, Hal G., and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of

effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9:1–32.

Rainey, Hal G., and Steven A. Watson. 1996. Transformational leadership and middle management:

Towards a role for mere mortals. International Journal of Public Administration 19:763–800.

Sarros, J. C., G. A. Tanewski, R. P. Winter, J. C. Santora, and I. L. Densten. 2002. Work alienation and

organizational leadership. British Journal of Management 13:285–304.

Shamir, Boas, and Jane M. Howell. 1999. Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and

effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 10:257–83.

Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4:577–94.

Thomas, Kenneth W., and Betty A. Velthouse. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An ‘‘inter-

pretive’’ model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review 15:666–81.

Trottier, Tracey, Montgomery VanWart, and XiaoHuWang. 2008. Examining the nature and significance

of leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review 68:319–33.

Van Slyke, David M., and Robert W. Alexander. 2006. Public service leadership: Opportunities for clarity

and coherence. American Review of Public Administration 36:362–74.

Van Wart, Montgomery. 2003. Public sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration

Review 63:214–28.

———. 2005.Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Weber, Max. 1948. In Max Weber: Essays in sociology, trans. and eds. Hans H. Gerth and Charles W.

Mills. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Weiss, Janet A. 1996. Public management and psychology. In The state of public management, eds.

Donald F. Kettl and H. Brinton Milward. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Wofford, Jerry C., J. Lee Whittington, and Vicki L. Goodwin. 2001. Follower motive patterns as situ-

ational moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues

13:196–211.

Wright, Bradley E. 2001. Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised

conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11:559–86.

———. 2004. The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social

cognition theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14:59–78.

———. 2007. Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public Administration Review

67:54–64.

Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. What makes mission matter? Mission valence, public

service motivation and human resource outcomes. Presented at the 9th National Public Management

Research Conference, Tucson, AZ, August 8–13, 2008.

Yang, Kaifeng, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2009. How do perceived political environment and administrative

reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

19:335–60.

Yukl, Gary. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership

theories. The Leadership Quarterly 10:285–305.

Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 89

Copyright of Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory is the property of Oxford University Press /

UK 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.

Week 2 Mandatory Resources/Wooden - Stephen and Servant Leadership.pdf