decision theory with global 7

http://aas.sagepub.com

Administration & Society

DOI: 10.1177/0095399706289714 2006; 38; 556 Administration & Society

Janet V. Denhardt and Kelly B. Campbell The Role of Democratic Values in Transformational Leadership

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/5/556 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Administration & Society Additional services and information for

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/5/556 Citations

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

556

THE ROLE OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

JANET V. DENHARDT KELLY B. CAMPBELL Arizona State University

Transformational leaders are typically seen as visionaries and catalysts of organizational change. Although organizational change is important, the transformational leadership model is vitally important and relevant to the public sector in ways that are not accounted for in this model. This article builds on and extends existing literature by identifying the key normative elements of a public sector transformational leadership model. Specifically, it focuses on why transformational leadership in the public sector should explicitly address democratic norms and the role of citizens and citizenship in both formulating and realiz- ing shared goals.

Keywords: transformational leadership; organizational change; democratic values; citizenship

There are few issues that are both more current and enduring in the field of public administration than those surrounding the subject of lead- ership. We continually look for new and better ways to understand the leadership process and, most particularly, the skills and responsibilities unique to leadership in the public sector. Although the leadership litera- ture is vast and varied, there has been a growing emphasis in the recent past on the use of transformational models as a way to understand the role leaders play in achieving significant organizational change. Although there are exceptions, the great majority of this work is written from a private sector perspective and is based on corporate business models. Transformational leaders, in this view, are understood to be visionaries and catalysts of change who sell their ideas and successfully reshape and reinvent their organizations.

This private sector transformational leadership model has been a good fit with the dominant emphasis in the public sector during the

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 38 No. 5, November 2006 556-572 DOI: 10.1177/0095399706289714 © 2006 Sage Publications

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 557

past two decades on reinventing and reforming government to make it more businesslike and efficient. Van Wart (2003), in his review of the public leadership literature, reflects this view when he says leaders are called transformational when they succeed in moving their organizations in new directions and achieving measurably better results and outcomes.

This article argues that although the successful achievement of organizational change is important, this business-based model provides an inadequate and limited foundation for building a model of public sector transformational leadership. In the public sector, we suggest that it is not enough to focus solely on leadership as a vehicle for accom- plishing change in the most innovative, effective, and efficient way pos- sible. Instead, both the means and ends of leading change must be considered. Transformation in the public sector inevitably involves fun- damental and unavoidable normative questions that demand our atten- tion, and these questions are not adequately addressed in the current dominant model.

Particularly in light of the growing number of scholars and practitioners who are calling for the reaffirmation of democratic values, citizenship, and service in the public interest as the normative foundation of public admin- istration, we are reminded of the centrality and importance of these values in how we seek to lead, work with, and inspire others (i.e., deLeon & Denhardt, 2000; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003; Frederickson, 1996; King & Stivers, 1998; Schacter, 1997; Terry, 1993, 1998; Wamsley & Wolf, 1996). Although this literature has spawned an important and exciting dialogue about the normative foundations of public administration, these ideas have not been adequately integrated with our understanding of the responsibili- ties and scope of transformational leadership in the public sector. In other words, how can and should these normative ideals change how we view public leadership?

This article builds on and extends the existing literature by identify- ing the key normative elements of a public sector transformational leadership model and explaining how such a model compares with the now dominant business-based perspective. Specifically, it focuses on how and why transformational leadership in the public sector should explicitly address democratic norms and the role of citizens and citizenship in both formulating and realizing shared goals. By integrat- ing these normative elements into our view of transformational leader- ship, we change how we understand the nature and responsibilities of public sector leadership at all levels.

To explore these issues, this article initially revisits the original theoreti- cal framework for understanding the normative basis of transformational

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

558 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

leadership as set forth in James MacGregor Burns’s (1978) Pulitzer Prize–winning book Leadership. We then compare his model to current conceptions and research on transformational leadership. In doing so, we find that current perspectives have largely become bifurcated into two camps: “transformation as change” and “transformation as moral elevation.” This comparison further reveals the dominance of the trans- formation as change perspective in the literature, and we suggest reasons why that may be so.

We then argue that this bifurcation of thought is not only inconsistent with Burns’s (1978) work but is artificial and problematic in practice, most particularly in the public sector. In doing so, we suggest rethinking the application of the transformational leadership model not only to consider the moral and value questions that have been discussed by others but also to explicitly consider the role of citizens. By doing this, it is our intention to contribute to the foundation of a normative model of public leadership based on democratic values, citizenship, and service in the public interest.

MACGREGOR BURNS AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Transformational leadership, particularly as it was originally framed by Burns, provides a solid foundation from which to begin an examina- tion of the normative implications of public leadership at all levels— from the executive level to street-level leaders (Grundstein-Amado, 1999; Vinzant & Crothers, 1998). Burns’s (1978) classic work on trans- formational leadership presents a compelling and important moral inter- pretation of leadership. In his book, Burns described two types of leadership: transactional and transformational. Transactional leadership, he said, involves a series of exchanges between leaders and followers. In this type of leadership, the leader and follower come together in a rela- tionship that advances the interests of both, but there is no deep or endur- ing link between them. They are simply self-interested participants in an exchange process.

The focus here, however, is on the second kind of leadership that Burns (1978) called transforming or transformational. Unlike transac- tional leadership, transformational leadership requires the leader to understand and support the needs of followers, seeking higher level needs and engaging followers as whole persons. “The result of transfor- mational leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 559

agents” (p. 4). In fact, Burns defines transformational leadership as a process in which “leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation” (p. 20). (Of course in the public sector, a key question arises as to who we consider to be the followers, an issue that will be discussed in a later section of this article.)

In contrasting transformational and transactional leadership, Burns (1978) called into question some of the most common, and still prevalent, notions about leadership and the change process. Essentially, Burns rejected the idea that leadership is something that leaders do to followers to attain organizational goals. Moreover, it is not merely something that occurs within the context of a particular group or organization seeking its own interests, nor is it a property or characteristic of any individual or a set of activities undertaken. Rather, Burns understands leadership as a mutual interaction and relationship between leaders and followers that ultimately changes or transforms both. The values and morals of both the leader and follower are elevated through the relationship; both par- ties become mobilized, inspired, uplifted. It is only this form of leader- ship, he says, that has the capacity to move groups, organizations, even societies toward the pursuit of higher purposes.

By necessity, this transformation involves critical and unavoidable ques- tions about values. Burns does not consider those who accomplish even very significant changes as transformational leaders unless they satisfy the requirement that the change itself is moral, as judged against the higher level needs and values of the followers. Burns states, “Moral leadership emerges from, and always returns to, the fundamental wants and needs, aspirations, and values of the followers. I mean the kind of leadership that can produce social change that will satisfy followers’ authentic needs” (p. 4). To Burns, then, transformational leadership is concerned with both the change process and the source and nature of the core values being sought.

NARROWING THE MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF LEADERSHIP—TRANSFORMATION AS CHANGE

Burns’s (1978) work challenged us to confront the essential and irreducible questions of values and morality in the transformational leadership process. In examining the literature on transformational leadership subsequent to Burns’s publication in 1978, it becomes appar- ent that this previous focus on morality and values is largely replaced with an emphasis on a more value-neutral perspective that we call here transformation as change. In fact, in commenting on Burn’s work, Van

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

560 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

Wart (2003) noted, “It was not the ethical dimension that catapulted it to prominence, but its transformational theme” (p. 217). So, although Burns is the most commonly cited author in reference to transforma- tional leadership and he is routinely acknowledged as the originator of the concept, his view of transformation as unavoidably ethical– and value–based has clearly been eclipsed. Instead, what is most regularly accepted and employed is more like the version of transformational lead- ership that emerges with Bernard M. Bass’s (1985) publication Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations.

Bass also uses the terms transformational and transactional leader- ship, but his conceptualizations differ from Burns in a number of impor- tant ways (Bass, 1985, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bass & Steidlemeier, 1999). Bass (1998a) views transformational leadership as a mixture of charisma, inspirational motivation, intellec- tual stimulation, and individualized consideration, whereas transactional leadership is that which occurs through contingent reinforcement (pp. 171-172). Unlike Burns, Bass does not see transformational and transactional as two ends of a spectrum. Instead, Bass finds “the two approaches to be independent and complimentary” (Alimo-Metcalf & Alban-Metcalf, 2001, p. 2).

Like Burns, Bass (1998b) said that the transactional leader exchanges rewards for job performance. But when Bass talks about transforma- tional leaders, his perspective diverges from Burns. Bass argues that transformational leadership seeks to arouse or alter the needs of follow- ers, not to discover them. The leader works to raise the follower’s level of awareness and acceptance of designated goals and finds ways to convince followers to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the larger group and/or by altering their need levels.

Importantly, the morality of the ends and values being sought in the change process are not considered. As such, Bass markedly narrows the moral foundations on which transformational leadership previously stood. Although Bass suggests that it may be in a leader’s long-term interest to act according to moral principles, in his view transformational leadership does not imply or require a moral element.

Ironically, this may be, at least in part, a measurement issue rather than an explicitly philosophical or moral one. Bass and Avolio (1993) developed their Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to advance empirical research on the topic of leadership. In fact, this instrument has been adapted and adopted by many of the scholars con- ducting research on transformational leadership (Alimo-Metcalf & Alban- Metcalf, 2001; Bycio, Allen, & Hackett, 1985; Den Hartog, House,

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 561

Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1997; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998). Perhaps because of the difficulty of measuring morality and values, or simply because they view transformational leadership differently than Burns, the morality of transformational change is not addressed in this model. Instead, Bass and Avolio focus on “the measurement of their respective factors, how the factors should and do relate to various mea- sures of performance” (p. 54).

Interestingly, in his 1998 article “The Ethics of Transformational Leadership,” Bass (1998a) comes close to a Burns-like conceptualiza- tion of transformational leadership when he states,

Leaders are truly transformational when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important, and beautiful; when they help to elevate follow- ers’ needs for achievement and self-actualization; when they foster in followers higher moral maturity; and when they move followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of their group, organization, or society. (p. 171)

Even so, with the emphasis on empirical research based on the MLQ questionnaire, this potentially critical distinction has become blurred, if not lost. Ultimately, the ways in which Bass’s work has been interpreted, operationalized, and maintained have failed to take morality or values into consideration.

Another factor that has moved the transformational leadership away from its original moral grounding is the tendency of scholars to place transformational and visionary leadership theories into a single, larger category based on the notion of charisma (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Burns, 1978; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; House & Shamir, 1993; Sashkin, 1988; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). This position argues that charismatic leaders are solely responsible for the creation and formulation of a new vision and that they are the ones who can get followers to commit, sacrifice, and go above and beyond to see this vision materialize (House & Shamir, 1993; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). The idea is that if leaders are charismatic and good communicators, they can convince followers to give up their “selfish” personal goals and look beyond their own self-interest to accept and embrace the organizational vision and interests as defined by the leader. If the vision is one devel- oped and articulated solely by the leader, then it is not a transformation of self-interest as suggested by Burns (1978) but merely a reflection of the leader’s interest winning out. In such cases, the use of persuasion or other tactics by charismatic leaders makes the possibility of employee or citizen manipulation seem possible, if not likely.

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

562 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

When issues such as these are raised in the literature, they are most often raised in the context of business ethics, not public sector values, and the focus is generally on the argument that leaders must demonstrate integrity and trustworthiness to achieve organizational transformation and change. It is argued that the perception that the leader lacks moral integrity or credibility undermines his or her ability to influence others to commit to the vision and achieve organizational objectives (Kanungo, 2001; Simons, 1999). Although integrity is obviously important, these arguments do not provide a normative or moral framework for under- standing integrity and avoiding manipulative behavior, particularly in the public sector. It simply requires that a leader be consistent. In fact, one can imagine a leader expressing and acting in a manner consistent to values that do not serve followers and still achieving what Simons (1999) would define as behavioral integrity. Again, it is how much integrity a leader needs to obtain commitment from followers that is questioned, not the end values being sought in the change process.

The work of Grundstein-Amado (1999) is an exception to this trend, in her critique of transformational relationships that have a unilateral concept of influence (the leader inducing followers to comply with the leader’s vision of the organization). Instead, she calls for a process of bilateral transformational leadership. There are two key components in the bilateral transformational leadership process: self-discovery and reflection.

Both self-discovery and reflection encourage leaders and followers to assess their values and assumptions and modify them if necessary and then arrive at a joint transformative judgment in a given social context. The transformative judgment becomes the basis for a formulation of a new shared vision. (pp. 252-253)

This approach, she says, “enhances the moral conduct within public service organizations, builds a new spirit of cooperation, and cultivates organizational effectiveness” (p. 259).

We agree with and extend the argument of Grundstein-Amado (1999), which focuses on organizational ethics, to consider the implications of these normative issues for democratic values, citizenship, and the public interest. In other words, although Grundstein-Amado highlights a critical component of transformational leadership in the public sector, her argu- ment does not go far enough. In addition to the need for bilateral influence within the organization, we argue that transformational leadership involves fundamental questions about the goals and values being sought in the larger public context. They are questions that go to the very heart of democratic governance and public service.

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

A “RETURN” TO TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP?

Although it is helpful and useful to understand ethical and trustworthy behavior on the part of business leaders and the mechanics and strategies of change that work best, it is also important to attend to the normative and value-based questions regarding the nature of change itself, particularly in the public sector. As mentioned earlier, in private sector leadership studies that attempt to measure and quantify transformational leadership, complex and subjective values such as liberty, democracy, and justice tend to get overlooked. This may be the nature of quantitative social science striving to attain facts about what transformational leadership looks like, what pre- dicts success, and how it can best be utilized, or it may be the nature of a business community not charged with upholding democratic values or serving the public interest. Whatever the reason, only a few authors chal- lenge the apparent disregard for the central tenet of the moral nature of leadership in the transformation as change literature.

Even so, some of the ideas expressed in this literature can be adapted and used as a base on which we can build an argument for a return to the moral elements of transformational leadership as applied to the public sector. For example, Ciulla (1998), in her writing on ethical leadership in the private sector, writes, “Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good. Ethics, then, lies at the very heart of leadership” (p. xv). She and other contemporary writers (Arnold, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Aronson, 2001; Cuilla, 1995, 1998; Simons, 1999) have revisited Burns and, ultimately, are trying to refocus our attention on the inseparability among morality, values, and transformational leadership. “The point is that no matter how much empirical information we get from the ‘scientific’ study of leadership, it will always be inadequate if we neglect the moral implications” (Cuilla, 1995, p. 14).

Kanungo (2001) also offers a useful framework that we can use for thinking about different ethical standards for transactional and transformational leadership. He points out that teleological ethics is con- cerned with outcomes and ends, whereas deontological ethics is concerned with the intrinsic moral status of an action. Accordingly, “The two views of leadership behaviors have to be judged for their moral standing by using two fundamentally different ethical perspectives” (p. 263). Kanungo asserts that transactional leadership behaviors can be morally justified when examined through the lens of teleological ethics, and transformational

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 563

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

behaviors can be morally justified based on deontological ethics. Although each perspective is distinct in evaluating the means or ends of a leader’s actions, both assume an underlying ethical component that must exist to achieve moral justification. Similarly, Aronson (2001) states, “Ethical leadership does not depend on the leader’s style per se, but rather on his or her level of moral development or the extent to which the influence process employed is motivated by ethical values” (p. 248).

How do we then build on this ethical analysis to consider the norma- tive elements of transformational leadership in the broader context of democratic governance? Again, it is instructive to look at how Burns, as the author of the original conception of transformational leadership, responds to these issues. When writing the foreword to Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (Burns, 1998), he further clarifies his position on the nor- mative basis of leadership. He discerns three types of leadership values: ethical, modal, and end. Ethical values are “‘old fashioned character tests’ such as sobriety, chastity, abstention, kindness, altruism, and other ‘Ten Commandments’ rules of personal conduct” (p. x). These values Burns associates with status quo leaders who find themselves in stable environments and need to preserve good relations among community members. Modal values are things such as integrity, honesty, and accountability. These are the values needed by transactional leaders who depend on others to live up to promises, contracts, or agreements. According to Burns, “‘End values’ (such as liberty, equality, justice and community) lie at the heart of transforming leadership, which seeks fundamental changes in society, such as the enhancement of individual liberty and the expansion of justice and of equality of opportunity” (p. x). These end values are not only foundational to transforming leadership, but are integral for those of us working toward a more demo- cratic public service.

BUILDING A MODEL OF PUBLIC TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

How do these moral questions about the transformational leadership process relate specifically to leadership in the public sector, particularly in light of the calls for a reaffirmation of democratic values, citizenship, and service in the public interest as the normative foundations of the field of public administration? Numerous scholars have called for the use of value-based leadership but have not directly addressed these

564 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

public sector normative ideals. Greenleaf’s (1977) “servant leadership,” O’Toole’s (1995) emphasis on respecting followers, and Block’s (1993) model of stewardship all point the way to a careful consideration of the role of values in the leadership process. In the public sector, Terry (1995) suggests that leaders act as conservators of the public service values embodied in their organizations, and Heifetz (1994) calls on public leaders to help communities face their problems.

The next step is to extend this value-based and ethical leadership per- spective to consider the question of transformational leadership grounded in public sector normative theory and values. There is a long history of concern with the normative elements of public administration going back to the work of writers such as Appleby (1945), Waldo (1948), and Dahl (1947). During in the 1940s who urged public administration to move beyond efficiency to pursue democratic values. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in these normative concerns. Although not gaining quite the prominence of the scientific and businesslike administrative management theorists, for more than 50 years numerous public administration scholars have written about the field’s need for “(a) collaboration; (b) a moral perspective on the public interest; (c) a concern for democratic administration; and (d) experi- mental action” (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996, p. 19).

A variety of different normative perspectives have emerged, which, taken together, form a framework for understanding the norms and val- ues that support and guide public administrators in their role as partici- pants in democratic governance. For example, the new public administration that emerged from the Minnowbrook Conferences in 1968 and 1989 (Bailey & Mayer, 1992; Marini, 1971) urged attention to the value of social equity. The Refounding Public Administration Project of the 1980s and 1990s (Wamsley et al., 1990; Wamsley & Wolf, 1996) defined public administration as competence directed toward the public interest and emphasized the important role of citizens in the process. Rohr (1986) suggested the constitutional legitimacy of administrative action is based on a charge to uphold constitutional values in the public interest. Goodsell (1990) asserted that “public bureaucracy is . . . the leading institutional embodiment and proponent of the public interest in American life” (p. 107). According to Cooper (1991), an ethic of citizenship should be the basis of understanding the role of public administrators. More recently, Denhardt and Denhardt (2003) wove these elements together, again highlighting democratic values, citizen- ship, and the public interest as the normative basis of public administra- tion under the mantle of the new public service.

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 565

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

This stream of literature provides the theoretical, normative, and philosophical foundations on which we base our model of transforma- tional leadership in the public sector. Although there is a diversity of perspectives and prescriptions, in general within this literature, empha- sis is placed on democratic values, citizen participation, community, col- laboration, the public interest, networks of relationships, multiple layers of accountability, and viewing of public administrators as active partici- pants in the governance process.

These norms and values, most particularly citizenship and citizen engagement, have not been fully integrated into our understanding of the nature of public leadership. Transformational leadership, as it was origi- nally conceptualized by Burns and as further extended in this article, is a way to put these values and ideas into practice. If we ascribe to the idea that transformational leadership in the public sector should involve atten- tion to both the accomplishment of change and moral questions as origi- nally suggested by Burns, then it is a natural progression to extend his model to deal with the question of citizenship and the public interest.

In Burns’s (1978) model, the leaders and “the follower” engage in a mutual dialogue that transforms and elevates the morals and values of both in developing a vision for change. The actions of those who hold leader- ship positions in public organizations affect more than those who are under their direct and daily supervision. Moreover, the public sector is not a solitary and isolated institution, composed of clearly defined leaders and followers. There are multiple levels of organizational and community involvement where frequently those of us who are leaders in one arena are followers in another. For these reasons, in the public sector we need to pay particular attention to whom we mean by leaders and followers. We sug- gest that in public administration the leaders and followers, or participants in the process, must include citizens and public servants at all levels of the organizational chart.

By extending the notion of leaders and followers to include citizens, one is better able to see the connections among transformational leader- ship, civic engagement, and democracy. The moral transformation that Burns argues is so central to the leadership process is also central to the process of transforming self-interested customers of government organi- zations into engaged and active citizens. Likewise, it is central to the refounding and revitalization of a democratic public administration. To quote Barber (1984), participation in dialogue about values and goals creates communities of citizens “who are united less by homogeneous interests than by civic education and who are made capable of common

566 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 567

purpose and mutual action by virtue of their civic attitudes and partici- patory institutions” (p. 117). Similarly,

By the way we relate to one another and to citizens as we serve them, individually and collectively, we take part with them in constituting our- selves as individuals and as a nation. We are participating in the cocreation of the kinds of persons we are and the kind of nation we are. (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996, p. 33)

Public leaders play a crucial role in this process. By facilitating active and inclusive participation, they contribute to the development of citizen- ship. According to Sandel (1996), democratic citizenship is a process in which citizens develop a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, and a moral bond with their community. Democratic government depends on the development of an engaged, involved citizenry and a civil society in which people work together to express personal interests in the context of the needs of the community (Putnam, 2000). King and Stivers (1998), deLeon and Denhardt (2000), Denhardt and Denhardt (2003), and others have argued that public administration plays a critically important role in facilitating this sort of active citizenship that results in the transformation of both public organizations and the citizens they serve.

Taken together then, what might a normative model of public transfor- mational leadership look like? As depicted in Figure 1, the public trans- formational leadership model moves away from popular conceptions of transformational leadership as change and builds from Burns’s (1978) conception of transformational leadership as moral elevation. It is in part framed on the leadership literature that has emphasized a consideration of moral agency, mutual interaction and elevation, concern with means and ends, full engagement of the whole person, inspiration, bilateral influence, ethics, and shared values. The model also draws from normative public administration theory to consider such factors as the public interest, col- laboration, constitutional values, citizenship, democratic values, networks of relationships, multiple layers of accountability, and a view of public administration as part of the governance process. Only by drawing from both the value-based leadership literature and from these normative com- ponents of public administration theory can a more robust and complete view of public sector transformational leadership be envisioned.

It is not that accomplishing change, sometimes very profound change, is not important. We suggest that the challenges of public leadership require attention to transformation as both a moral process and a change process. In practice, they are two sides of the same coin. In the public

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

568 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

sector, leaders are called on to change and respond to a variety of internal and external environmental factors. In addition, changes in the political environment, shifting public demands, employee needs, changes in tech- nology, public crises, budgetary cuts, and a variety of other factors demand that public administrators, as leaders, build organizations that can respond quickly and successfully to change efforts. Anyone who would suggest the leadership in the public service is only about elevating the morals and values of the participants or building citizenship would likely be told that they have no understanding of the realities of public service in an environment that demands measurable results, multiple layers of accountability, and “more with less.”

We argue, however, that recognizing these realities and demands does not lessen the importance of the moral, normative element of trans- formational leadership. In fact, it brings it to center stage. This is so for the simple reason that the goals we seek in the public sphere are intrin- sically public, involving both questions of effectiveness and efficiency and the nature of community and democratic citizenship. What good is the achievement of measurable results if their attainment weakens the ties of community, disengages citizens, alienates those in the organization, and makes them less capable of change in the future? Fortunately, it is not

Public Transformational

Leadership

Normative Public

Administration Theorists

Collaboration

The Public Interest

Constitutional Values

Citizenship

Democratic Values

Networks of Relationship

Governance

Multiple Accountabilities

Burns Change

Bass

Moral Agency

Mutual Elevation

Concern with Means and Ends

Engagement

Inspiration

Bilateral Influence

Ethics

Shared Values

Figure 1: Public Transformational Leadership Model

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

an either–or question. Change can be achieved through a process that leaves the participants better and more capable, concerned with shared values, and capable of engaged, enlightened participation in the future. This makes the question of whether the vision being sought is solely the leader’s or, if it is developed as the result of an open, authentic dialogue with followers, takes on a special importance. If we are commit- ted to democratic governance, then it is no longer enough for leaders to come up with an idea and then work to convince others it is right. Instead, we need leaders who work with others to come up with the right idea.

CONCLUSION

Leadership in the context of democratic governance involves more than simply the accomplishment of change and the efficient and effec- tive production of results. All change in the public sector, whether focused on the organization, community, or the society as a whole, unavoidably involves normative and value-based questions because of the nature of democratic governance. Public leadership necessarily involves questions about the role of public administration in facilitating citizenship and dialogue about the public interest, the moral tensions surrounding questions about self-interest versus the public interest, the nature and role of citizenship, and the realization of democratic ideals. From this perspective, it is not enough to simply use charisma and other tactics to convince people to adopt new approaches that individual administrators think are a good idea. If the goals being sought are not moral, not based on the public interest, and not rooted in the values of democracy and citizenship, public leadership has failed.

If we are to discover and reaffirm the normative basis of public administration based on democratic values and the public interest, it is vitally important that we examine the ways in which we understand and practice public leadership. Transformational leadership focused on both the accomplishment of change and the morality of change is needed to engage citizens and public servants in building stronger communities, addressing difficult public problems, and realizing shared values and goals. After reviewing the current literature, it becomes apparent that the dominant models of transformational leadership obscure if not ignore the importance and centrality of the moral component of trans- formational leadership. The fact that most of the literature acknowledges Burns and then quickly accepts without question the standards and

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 569

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

measurements proposed by Bass speaks volumes to the tension between those who see the importance of including a moral element in leadership and those who dismiss it as either irrelevant or too difficult to quantify.

There is far to go if we hope to attain the elusive ideals of mutual empowerment, moral elevation, and social change that Burns’s transfor- mational leadership promises in the public sector. Although debates over the best strategies to achieve change, measurement, and effectiveness remain the mainstream, there is a small but growing body of literature that recognizes the explicitly ethical and intrinsically moral dimensions of transformational leadership. By integrating these ideas with the nor- mative ideals of public administration theory, we can begin to build a model of public transformational leadership. In doing so, we should explicitly emphasize democratic values and the critical role of citizens and citizenship in the public leadership process.

REFERENCES

Alimo-Metcalf, B., & Alban-Metcalf, R. J. (2001). The development of a New Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 1-27.

Appleby, P. (1945). Big democracy. New York: Knopf. Arnold, K. A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership or the

iron cage: Which predicts trust, commitment, and team efficacy? Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 22(7), 315-320.

Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 244-256.

Bailey, M. T., & Mayer, R. T. (Eds.). (1992). Public management in an interconnected world: Essays in the Minnowbrook tradition. New York: Greenwood.

Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm tran-

scend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139. Bass, B. M. (1998a). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.),

Ethics, the heart of leadership (pp. 169-192). Westport, CT: Quorum. Bass, B. M. (1998b). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bass, B. M. (1998c). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational

impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques.

In M. M. Chemer & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlemeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.

570 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Denhardt, Campbell / TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 571

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, J. M. (1998). Foreword. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, the heart of leadership

(pp. ix-xii). Westport, CT: Quorum. Bycio, P., Allen, J. S., & Hackett, R. D. (1995). Further assessment of Bass’ (1985) con-

ceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.

Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 5-28.

Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic lead-

ership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Cooper, T. (1991). An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall. Dahl, R. A. (1947). The science of public administration. Public Administration Review, 7,

1-11. deLeon, L., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The political theory of reinvention. Public

Administration Review, 60(2), 89-97. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving not steering.

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W.

(1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An observational field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34.

Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 263-269.

Goodsell, C. T. (1990). The case for bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist. Grundstein-Amado, R. (1999). Bilateral transformational leadership: An approach for fos-

tering ethical conduct in public service organizations. Administration & Society, 31, 247-260.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

House, R. J. (1977). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward an integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemer & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257-265.

King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti- government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marini, F. (Ed.). (1971). Toward a new public administration. Scranton, PA: Chandler. O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual

influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 80-109.

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

572 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2006

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rohr, J. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy’s discontent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leaders. In J. A. Conger & R. Kanungo (Eds.),

Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schachter, H. L. (1997). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89-104.

Terry, L. D. (1993). Why we should abandon the misconceived quest to reconcile public entrepreneurship with democracy. Public Administration Review, 53, 393-395.

Terry, L. D. (1995). Leadership of public bureacracies: The administrative as conservator. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Terry, L. D. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 194-200.

Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). Transformational leadership. New York: John Wiley. Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective management

practice? Group and Organization Management, 23, 220-235. Van Wart, M. (2003). Public–sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public

Administration Review, 63, 214-228. Vinzant, J., & Crothers, L. (1998). Street-level leadership: Discretion and legitimacy in

front-line public service. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state. New York: Ronald Press. Wamsley, G. L., Bacher, R. N., Goodsell, C. T., Kronenberg, P. S., Rohr, J. A., Stivers, C. M.,

et al. (1990). Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wamsley, G. L., & Wolf, J. F. (Eds.). (1996). Refounding democratic public administra-

tion: Modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Janet V. Denhardt is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. Her teaching and research interests focus on organizational behavior, leadership, and public service values. Her most recent book, The Dance of Leadership (with Robert Denhardt) was preceded by The New Public Service, Managing Human Behavior in Public and Non-Profit Organizations (with Robert Denhardt and Maria Aristegueta) and Street-Level Leadership (with Lane Crothers). Her work has also been published in numerous journals, including Public Administration Review, Administration & Society, and American Review of Public Administration.

Kelly B. Campbell is an academic associate with the Center for Nonprofit Leadership & Management, and a faculty associate and PhD candidate in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. Her research interests include civic engagement, leadership, the nonprofit sector, democratic governance, and organizational behavior and capacity building.

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from