Running header STRATEGY, PLANNING, AND SELECTION11STRATEGY, .docx

Running header: STRATEGY, PLANNING, AND SELECTION
1 1
STRATEGY, PLANNING, AND SELECTION 5
Strategy, Planning & Selection
Melissa Miller
Professor: Dr. Robert Waldo
Strayer University
Global Campus
HRM 599: Human Resources Management Capstone
April 21, 2019
Introduction
A human resource manager has the responsibility for managing
the human resource within an organization. The functions in
managing the human resource include: recruiting of new
employees, compensation of employees in cases of accidents or
termination of their contracts, ensuring that the employee
receives their benefits, designing work that should be done by
employees, and establishing the relationships between
colleagues and colleagues and the management in the
organization. The primary purpose of human resource managers
is to ensure that the productions of an organization increase
with the human resources available. So, they have to motivate
the employees towards the achievement of the organization’s
goals.
Furthermore, they have a role in acquisition, development and
retaining the talent that will ensure that the organization

competes effectively with its competitors. Human resource
managers should also arrange the workforce in a manner that
will ensure they deliver effective and hence maximize the
production of the organization (VIRÁG & ALBU, 2014).
Therefore, this paper analyses some aspects of human resource
management.
Business Strategies
Businesses have their distinctive features, and they are unique
in the way they do their things. The way various companies
market their products, conduct their sales, acquire their
customers, and manage their employees will reveal the values of
each business. There are multiple strategies in business that can
be used or adjusted to suit the needs of the company so that they
can improve their businesses. It is essential for human resource
managers to understand the strategies of marketing that will
enable them the company to compete effectively with other
companies. Cost leadership strategy uses price as the basis of
competition. In this strategy, the prices are kept low to attract
more customers.
Additionally, differentiation is also a strategy in business. In
this strategy, the companies provide either unique products or
services to compete effectively with their competitors. Lastly,
focus niche is also another strategy in business. Focus niche is
whereby the enterprises focus on a specific target market to sell
their products. Therefore, it is essential for an organization to
enhance these business strategies so that they can improve their
performance.
Cost leadership strategy will work best for a local organization.
In cost leadership, the price is an essential factor in the
competition. It is the best for local organizations because the
retailers can obtain their goods in massive quantities from the
wholesalers at low prices. The retailers for them to thrive in the
market they will have to lower their costs for them to attract
more customers. With more customers their profits will increase
thereby, doing their businesses to thrive. The low-cost strategy
is useful for retailers as they will sufficiently meet the needs of

a small group of people with specific needs. Because retailer
organization server a particular purpose they will be able to
meet specific needs. Thereby, it is vital for local organizations
to use cost leadership in their businesses.
Cost leadership business strategy is an essential factor in human
resource management. The policy influences the way
recruitment of employees, training, and development of
employees on the consideration of cost. Businesses employ the
services of human resource with the primary purpose of
reducing the damage that the company will incur so that it can
improve the profits. Many enterprises have misinterpreted this
strategy by offering lower salaries, terminating contracts of
employees with higher wages and not delivering the required
training to an employee to minimize the cost and maximize the
profits. Cost leadership should be applied only in the following
scenarios. When the business has established itself well in the
market, thereby their job market is attractive.
Additionally, it can also be applied when the company wants to
be on the same level as its competitors in the market. Lastly, it
is used when there is sufficient training so that the employees
can use the knowledge they learned in the development of the
company(Saebi & Foss, 2015). Therefore, when asked well cost
leadership strategy can be the best in propelling the business
ahead.
Approaches to Job Design
Job design has two main perspectives: its impact and how
complicated a job may be to employees. The impact perspective
deals with how an approach is associated with factors that are
beyond the situation like how rewards are given to employees.
On the other hand, the complexity perspective entails how the
employees display their competencies at different levels and
how the decision is made and how they enhance the
organization to be successful. Four approaches influence job
design and they are discussed below.
Job rotation is one of the approaches to job design. It occurs
when employees move from one job to another in the same

organization to eliminate the boredom that comes with doing
one task at a time. It involves individuals with similar skills
exchanging their jobs or individuals with more than one skill
exchanging positions. For example, in production individuals
can move from the packaging department to the production
department to reduce the boredom even, though the cost of
training individuals may be high it the best way to alleviate
boredom in the organization and hence increasing job
efficiency.
Additionally, job engineering is another approach to job design.
With this approach, it deals with activities to be performed by
the organization, how the operations will be performed, how
different employees will perform their jobs, the quality of work
that needs to be done, and the relationship between workers and
the machines. They determine how tasks will be completed and
the time required performing the tasks. With this approach, it
requires that the employees have specialized skills to perform
their functions effectively even though this approach is termed
as dull because they are no rotation at work, but it is cost
effective.
Furthermore, another approach to job design is job enlargement.
In this approach, the number of tasks that are performed by each
worker is increased. For example, an auto mechanic, the
mechanic has to do a variety of jobs on vehicles like wiring,
panel biting, and painting of cars. In this approach, it involves
doing similar tasks that are related to what you are doing to
increase your efficiency. With this approach, it saves on the
cost of employing more employees, and furthermore, it
increases the efficiency of workers.
Lastly, job enrichment is also an approach to job design. In this
design, more motivating factors are integrated into the job set
up so that individuals can be motivated to work hard. The
appointments are made to allow the creativity of employees,
expose them to more tasks that are challenging, enables the
employees to make their own decisions and they can plan and
control the operations of the organization. By doing this, it

allows the employees to have a chance to work the way they
want; therefore, working to their level best.
Job design has a vital role in deciding the features of a specific
job. It has a role in determines the tasks and responsibilities of
any particular position, how the posts are to be done, and the
relationships between the various components of the
organization. Furthermore, the job design gives the
specifications for doing a particular job and how the different
tasks will be rewarded. It balances both the organization and the
employee needs. They also, that the jobs are not specialized
much so that they don’t create aspects of boredom. It also has a
vital role in staffing in the organization. If the tasks are
correctly designed, then efficient managers will be motivated to
join the organization.
Additionally, the employees will be prompted to work towards
achieving the goals and targets of the organization. However, if
there are poor job designs, then individuals will not be driven
towards the attainment of the organization goals(Oldham &
Fried, 2016). Thereby, it is crucial for an organization to work
towards achieving a proper job design.
Constraints of Recruiting Workers
Recruiting of employees is one of the tasks that is mandated to
human resource managers though at times they have challenges
in carrying out this task. One of the problems that human
resource managers encounter is that they sometimes need to
make the hiring process to be speedy. It is because many
companies are growing at a faster rate. Therefore, employees
need to be hired faster to fill the vacant positions. Human
resource managers will thereby lack the necessary time to go
through the qualifications of each of the candidate and choose
the best candidate. With this scenario, the employee selected
might not meet the obligations of the company or may not be
the best among the candidate. Therefore, human resource
personnel should be given appropriate time to choose the best
candidate for the job.
Additionally, the lack of sufficient resources is also a constraint

to the recruitment process. The recruitment process is key to
any organization. It has many steps that require funds for the
process to run smoothly. For instance, there should be an
advertisement so that candidate with qualifications can apply.
The method of publication requires resources so that the
information is delivered well to those who are legible(Coller,
Cordero, & Echavarren, 2017). If there are no resources, then
the process might not go on well as planned.
Enhance the effectiveness of the recruitment process; the
following strategies can be initiated in the process. Firstly, to
enhance the efficiency of the recruitment process the recruiters
should understand the needs of the organization. By knowing
the needs of the organization then the candidate with the right
skills will be chosen. Additionally, providing a job description
is also a method that human resource managers could employ
during the recruitment process. The job description should
highlight the impact individuals will have on the organization
rather than the requirements that are needed by the
organization. Lastly, to enhance the recruitment process, they
should have their pipeline that they can get the skills they
require. Human resource managers should put this into
consideration during the hiring process.
For an effective recruitment process, human resource managers
should avoid the following during this process. Firstly, not
establishing the purpose of the recruitment process might lead
to choosing a candidate without the skills you require.
Additionally, talking too much during the interviewing process
will make them not to get much from the interviewees.
Furthermore, judging interviewees based on their words, they
should have supporting evidence. Also, the managers should not
sell the job to the candidates. Lastly, managers sometimes give
in to the pressures of the market(Breaugh, 2013). If these
problems are avoided, then the recruitment process will run
smoothly.
In conclusion, this paper has analyzed some aspects of human

resource. The business strategies that are used in human
resource are cost leadership, differentiation, focus niche.
Approaches to job design are job rotation, job engineering, job
enlargement, and job enrichment. The constraints of recruitment
are speedy of the process and insufficient resources. To make
the recruitment process efficiently the needs of the organization
should be known, and the job description should be provided.
The problems that are associated with the recruitment process
are not understanding the purpose of recruitment and judging
the interviewee based on their words.
References
Breaugh, J. (2013). Employee Recruitment. SSRN.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143757
Coller, X., Cordero, G., & Echavarren, J. M. (2017).
Recruitment and selection. In Political Power in Spain: The
Multiple Divides between MPs and Citizens.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63826-3_5
Oldham, G. R., & Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and
theory: Past, present and future. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.002
Saebi, T., & Foss, N. J. (2015). Business models for open
innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies
with business model dimensions. European Management
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002
VIRÁG, C. E., & ALBU, R. G. (2014). Human resource
management in micro and small enterprises. Bulletin of the
Transilvania University of Brasov. Series V: Economic
Sciences.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Art of Leadership Communication
Sriram, Pavan
Leadership Excellence Essentials; Apr 2014; 31, 4; ProQuest
Central
pg. 54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reference
Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. (2013). Leading with
communication: A practical approach to leadership
communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
· Chapter 15, "Social Networking and Technology," pages 273–
288.
SOCIAL NETWORKING AND TECHNOLOGY
In the playgrounds of our lives, including nursery school and
kindergarten, it is likely that we were taught to share. As we
matured, however, many of us also learned to keep things to
ourselves. The competing lessons
of share and mine complicated our lives a bit. What should we
share? What should we keep for ourselves?
Being graded on individual achievement in school initially made
the idea of sharing even more difficult for us. Yet today we
frequently find ourselves in groups and teams, and we are all
expected to share and collaborate. Achieving balance between
these two forces of sharing and keeping information to
ourselves has not been easy for some of us. Every aspiring or
practicing leader, however, needs to work it out. Some are
having more difficulty than others accomplishing this, while

recognizing that sharing and collaborating are 21st-century
imperatives.
According to data from Fisheye Analytics, while online venues
typically discuss company executives, too few of these
executives actively use social media—media for social
interaction—to spread their own messages. Not enough leaders
are using social media strategically to build their personal
brands in and out of their organizations or to engage with peers,
employees, customers, and the public.1
We live in a culture of sharing.
If you are like many students of leadership today, you may be
ready to change that perception. Just consider your own
connectedness. When you arrive in class, do you immediately
turn off electronic devices disconnecting yourself from others?
Do you turn off your cell or merely put it on vibrate? Do you
ever text before, or maybe even after, the instructor enters and
starts class? If using an iPad or laptop, do you use it only for
taking notes, or do you also use it to check your Facebook or
LinkedIn pages? Who, if anyone, do you follow on Twitter?
How many followers, if any, do you have on Twitter? If you
have followers, does that automatically make you a leader? How
connected a leader do you aspire to be?
THE SHARING LEADER: HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT
LEADING VIA ENGAGEMENT?
How do you want to lead? What tools do you see yourself using
to interest and excite followers?
One focus of this chapter is on social networks internal to the
organization. The fact is that tools of collaboration have
multiplied, and leaders can no longer be reactive rather than
proactive when it comes to social media use.2 Another focus of
this chapter is how you can use technology, specifically social
media, to help redefine “sharing” and the leader-follower
relationship. As Soumitra Dutta writes in “What's Your Personal
Social Media Strategy?”, “It's no secret that social media—
global, open, transparent, non-hierarchical, and real time—are
changing consumer behavior and workplace

expectations.”3 Social media can be your partner in connecting
you with members of your team, facilitating the nurturing of
new ideas, the solving of problems, and the transformation of
your organization.
Rachel Sterne embraced social media when she was named the
first chief digital officer for the city of New York, one of only a
few governmental officials in the country focused on
transforming their organizations’ relationships with
stakeholders using the digital arena. Sterne, for example, was
charged with reinventing how the city engages its stakeholders
and chose to use Facebook, Tumblr, Foursquare, and Twitter to
reach her goal. Sterne also hopes to persuade colleagues to
embrace, not fear, digital outlets. Sterne asserts that only if
leaders use social media in an authentic way (posting
themselves, not having assistants manage their accounts) will
they succeed.4
Chances are that the people you are interested in reaching and
rallying are already online. They likely use YouTube, Twitter,
Yammer, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google?, just to name a few
social media sites. In fact, they may have participated in
creating much of the content they view and share online. As we
think about it, our culture could be described as a culture of
sharing. We update our status on Facebook numerous times a
day, check in at Foursquare, tweet thoughts and
recommendations, and upload photos or videos to Flickr and
YouTube. As a leader, you can take advantage of this. As Mark
Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive of Facebook,
explained, “People want to share and stay connected with their
friends and the people around them”; that if people have
“control over what they share, they will want to share more”;
and that “if people share more, the world will become more
open and connected. And a world that's more open and
connected is a better world.”5 User sharing can benefit leaders
and their companies as well.
Let's see where we are. You aspire to lead, and you want others
to follow. For this to happen, you need to build relationships,

and technology can assist you in that effort by giving you a
platform through which you and those you hope will be your
partners in mission, goals, and values are able to share ideas
and experiences. But first, we need to explore how you really
feel about sharing when it comes to leading.
Self-Reflection: Looking In and Out
What is your SQ—sharing quotient? Using a scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 representing “strongly agree” and 5 representing
“strongly disagree,” score your response to each of the
following questions:
I prefer keeping information confidential. _____
I believe that explaining an idea to everyone takes too much of
my time. _____
I believe I have no responsibility for others’ understanding of
how and why we make decisions. _____
I don't believe in using technology to foster collaboration.
_____
I don't believe the leader should blog. _____
Using technology to update those in and external to the
organization is PR and nothing more. _____
I cannot commit to hearing from everyone who wants to voice
his or her opinions in the organization. _____
It is not my responsibility to promote the uncensored
contribution of ideas. _____
I don't think it is advisable to involve everyone in innovation
efforts. _____
Open technology platforms are not in a leader's best interests.
_____
TOTAL _____
The higher your score, the higher your SQ. If you scored lower
than you thought you should have, you may need to consider the
following: how a lack of openness could impede goal
achievement, what led to your viewing sharing as antithetical to
leading, and what you can do to increase your comfort with
sharing. On the other hand, whether you scored high or low on
sharing, it is time to ask yourself what you can do to formally

encourage sharing and the specific kinds of sharing you would
like to implement.
We may not all feel good about sharing because we may not
have had good experiences with what was shared about us in the
past or fear what could be shared about us in the future. In part,
Watergate became a crisis because the tapes made of former
president Nixon's oval office conversations were ordered to be
shared. Today, sharing occurs via the Internet. Users have
“fans” and “followers” with whom they can maintain digital
contact. Only communication doesn't just go in one direction, it
goes in all directions—creating transparency as opposed to
privacy, openness as opposed to secrecy, engagement with
others as opposed to distance from them. We are getting more
and more used to expressing ourselves in public and in real
time. Leaders now have the opportunity, perhaps the obligation,
to deal with this.
Use social media to build your personal brand.
Of what value is sharing? Why are we talking about it?
Consider this: at Comcast, one executive started a Twitter
account named @ComcastCares and, with that effort, succeeded
in putting a more human face on the company.6 Being open to
the use of online media may enhance your ability to excite and
involve people who would otherwise follow from the sidelines.
People once left outside the doors where decisions are made
suddenly can find themselves enticed to enter. Sharing can help
you determine what people like and dislike, embrace and fear.
By engaging with others, you can develop a more collaborative
team because the engagement generated by sharing also fosters
trust.
Use Sharing To
Excite others
Increase understanding
Foster trust and collaboration
Increase connection and support
Increase access to ideas
Accelerate involvement and innovation

Additionally, sharing can also engender connection to and
support for one another. For example, the U.S. Army used a
social media program, ArmyStrongStories.com, to encourage
soldiers to blog about their experiences. Any rank-and-file
soldier is free to post a blog. The natural allies of a company
and its most believable voices are its employees.7 When people
are able to pose questions (answered by either one another or
you) and comment on one another's ideas, they effectively are
given a voice and shed their reluctance to voice opinions.
There are also other benefits. If they are interacting on your
social network, they are less likely to be interacting on a
network unrelated to the organization. And if you can use
technology to cut down on unproductive travel, limit the number
of poorly planned meetings, and harness the collaborative
productivity of your partners and followers by forging links that
improve the quality and quantity of interactions, then you can
increase access to new ideas, accelerate innovation, and make
sizeable leadership gains. For example, Alcatel-Lucent CEO
Ben Verwaayen blogged on the company's internal website,
asking for input from all 80,000 staff worldwide. Asserting that
the blog let him get beyond “corporate speak” and dialogue
directly with employees, Verwaayen credits it for increasing
employee support of him and the company's strategic plan.8
What do the characters’ comments reveal about how they see
their leader? Based on their responses, what advice would you
give the leader?
DILBERT © 2011 Scott Adams. Used by permission of
UNIVERSAL UCLICK. All rights reserved.
DO YOU CARE WHAT YOU SHARE?
What is it that you can share? How will sharing facilitate
leading?
First, you can share information. You can use social networks to
communicate or reinforce a decision, introduce a goal, and
involve your team in implementing strategy and connecting with
one another so they can focus on the goal. Second, you can use

a blog or another collaborative plat-form like Yammer to update
thinking and progress. If one of the leader's tasks is to
communicate the organization's mission, a blog can facilitate
this effort. Third, by conversing online you can open yourself to
more immediate feedback, making it easier for you to more
readily identify who supports and who has problems with an
idea. People can help one another with problems not by ignoring
them, but by airing, addressing, and coming together to resolve
them. Fourth, you can apply the creative solutions generated by
crowdsourcing to help solve a specific problem. Finally, you
can generate buy-in for decisions by opening up information
sharing—meaning that by using collaborative technology,
everyone is free to offer input, with the leader responsible for
the ultimate decision.
You can't be a secret sharer.
THE BENEFITS OF SHARING
Relationships have value. Sharing enables leaders and followers
to grow, converse, help, and accomplish change together. Let us
look at these outcomes in turn.
Growth
Sharing facilitates personal and organizational growth. It lets
leaders enhance their understanding of supporters across
multiple locations and vice versa. Leaders and supporters listen,
learn about, and respond to one another's concerns, offering
ideas on initiatives and generating feedback and insights that
make decision making easier.
Conversation
Sharing promotes conversation, removing barriers between
people, enhancing understanding, and leading to the creation of
long-term focused relationships. Conversation is at the heart of
every relationship. When people talk to each other, others
become curious, first watching what is going on and, perhaps in
time, entering the conversation as well. Dialoguing can feed
itself. Adding a “share this” button facilitating the posting of
content is now commonplace.
Alerts You to Problems

Monitoring online interactions can alert you to problems and
potential problems, letting you answer questions and respond
more quickly than you otherwise could. When you see what
people comment on, you pick up on concerns and areas of
weakness. Giving feedback and offering advice becomes
natural, as do offers to help.
Accomplishes Change
Ask a simple question. For example, How can we be better?
People want to play a role in making things better—an idea that
can have a transforming effect on internal communications. If a
conversation around such a question is moderated, say by the
innovation director, ideas never thought of before—ideas
beyond the familiar—can be handed over to developmental
teams and transformed into actions leading to a culture of
continuous improvement.9
Observation: Watch and Learn
Interview an organization's leader regarding his or her thoughts
and feelings about using social networking, the kinds of online
sharing occurring in the organization, the role the leader plays
in the network(s), problems and benefits he or she perceives,
and how the leader would like to see social networks evolve.
Every sharing activity you engage in, whether a blog, Wiki,
tweet, discussion forum, or podcast, needs to have a goal. Once
you formulate the goal you want to address—for example, let's
say yours is to reduce turnover—then you can activate an action
plan. You can learn about how people feel about the goal (why
they think turnover is high), talk about it (discuss reasons for
leaving the company), figure out how to support concerns
(suggest alternatives to leaving), and then change what needs to
be changed to reach your goal (put a retention program into
effect).
LIMITING RISKS OF SHARING: COMMUNICATING
AUTHENTICITY
Sharing can make you feel that you are losing or giving up
control. Some companies have even blocked the use of social
media—perhaps fearful that confidential company information

might be disclosed. But sharing is not necessarily an
uncontrollable activity. You can structure a social media policy
to ensure accountability.
Establishing Ground Rules for Sharing
It is okay for you to establish limits on what your “wills” and
“won'ts” are when it comes to sharing. Begin by identifying
where sharing can contribute to gains. Lay out the ground rules
for participation. If people use good judgment and common
sense, understand the company's values, promise to act in
accordance with them, are in tune with the reasons for
embracing social media, and take responsibility for their posts,
then the trust you place in them should be reciprocated, with all
acting in accordance with understood expectations. And as trust
builds, the trust you place in them and the trust they place in
you, so will the value of sharing, as deep, productive
relationships are forged.
FIGURE 15.1
© The Financial Times, August 10, 2011.
There are a number of other decisions to make about sharing.
Do you feel the need to know who is blogging about what
topics, for example? If your answer is no, then you are okay
with uncoordinated sharing. In contrast, you may decide to
initiate and empower a few people to orchestrate the effort,
making sharing primarily their responsibility. Which do you
prefer? If you are optimistic about social media's ability to
build connections and comfortable working with others to get
things done, then sharing will come easily to you. On the other
hand, some contend that the “good intentions” of sharing cannot
possibly last—that excessive sharing actually makes
surveillance of employees easier—and could potentially cause
users harm down the road. Do you agree? For example, Social
Intelligence Corp. provides a service that feeds to client
companies every faux pas, every sarcastic comment, every line
of implied prejudice, even lewd personal photographs, by
scouring sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and LinkedIn

and compiling a dossier containing findings.10 The lesson: don't
put anything online that you would not want anybody to know.
FIGURE 15.2
© The Financial Times, August 10, 2011.
Working It Out: Alone or Together
First, you are going to work collaboratively online to develop
your own social network. In order to do this, you need as a team
to name the network, establish the network's form and goals,
identify who the stakeholders are in the network and how you
intend to ensure inclusiveness, and write scenarios depicting
good and bad practices, as well as the “wills” and “won'ts” of
your social network's online interaction policy. Effectively, you
are establishing “best practices” guidelines for your network's
users. Once this is done, create a podcast or video to share what
you have developed with the class.
Acquiring Authenticity
According to an article from the Harvard Business
Review,“Managing Authenticity: The Paradox of Great
Leadership,” “Authenticity is a quality that others must
attribute to you. No leader can look into a mirror and say, ‘I am
authentic.’”11
When you are authentic, you are genuine—an individual, not a
copy. You know who you are. People trust you because they
judge you to be genuine.12 Authentic leaders share to build
trust. In like fashion, shared goals depend on trust. Authentic
leaders depend on support teams to help them achieve their
goals. They open themselves to different viewpoints, make
themselves available to people throughout the organization, and
use technology to facilitate their communication. They engender
a culture of transparency, publicly admitting errors and
explaining rationales for decisions.
Technology such as project blogs, video blogs, and internal
Wikis facilitates sharing and helps reveal how an organization
does business. Networks spread goals, help the vision permeate
the organization, and explain strategy. As more and more people

follow you, your leadership profile rises. However, that does
not mean leaders have to share everything. In fact, sharing
everything can actually contribute to others seeing you as
inauthentic. If you explain your reasons, people will accept why
you can't reveal more to them.
Sharing, or a culture of open leadership, can transform an
organization.13 A skillful and pragmatic social networking
program can help communicate and drive home the
organization's vision. However, it all starts with a leader who is
willing to embody personally the culture of sharing, encourage
participants to experiment, take risks that sometimes lead to
failure, and resiliently move on. With technology supporting
collaborative processes, and goals functioning as the catalyst,
empowered participants learn to think like team members, not
just individuals. Everyone becomes a stakeholder in growing the
company.
Theory Into Practice
The Merging of Virtual and Real
In their book, Infinite Realty: Avatars, Eternal Life, New
Worlds, and the Dawn of the Virtual Revolution, Jim
Blascovich and Jeremy Bailenson suggest that avatars are able
to make a better impression than we could ever hope to
make.14 What this means is that workplaces likely will be
making a paradigm shift to three-dimensional avatar
conferencing. Participants attending such conferences will feel
immersed in the scene as they perceive the situation through the
eyes of their avatars.
The theory is that while many don't like video conferencing
because it doesn't feel like a real meeting, once users can feel
like they are sitting around a table and have full view of others
present, they will enjoy it more. A leader, for example, could
program his or her avatar and make it appear that he or she was
looking directly at you—but actually create the same illusion
for all others involved in the meeting who were programmed
similarly to be perfect participants. What is more, the authors
report that avatars could be created with faces that actually

morph with the faces of those you want to impress, enabling
each person present to see a face containing some of his or her
own features.
Why do you believe we are more likely to approve of someone
who resembles us? In your opinion, is there anything ethically
questionable about creating an avatar's face for yourself that
partially morphs with the face of another?
LEADING VIRTUAL TEAMS
In today's organizations, virtual teams are responsible for much
of the organization's work including marketing, strategic
planning, and customer service. Empowered by collaborative
technologies, virtual team members can shape the organization's
course as never before.
Virtual teams draw on the expertise of employees based around
the globe. Employees across multiple countries are participating
in highly interactive meetings, shaping ideas in concert, and yet
never leaving their desks. Team members currently create user-
generated content, posting and sharing content in ways not
possible a decade ago—even using crowdsourcing to access
brainpower outside the organization as a means of securing
creative solutions to posted problems.
E-Leadership Tools and Strategies
Leading a virtual team does not change the leader's charge of
building a climate of trust, collaboration, and commitment that
fosters the diversity of opinion critical for making sound
decisions. However, it does complicate and energize it. The
reason: for at least some of the time, the leader is decoding and
encoding messages without the benefit of nonverbal cues that
face-to-face communication offers. The tone of a comment, the
facial expression of the person posting a comment, as well as
the person's posture and demeanor are left to the leader to
imagine. That said, Skype and webcams are accelerating in use,
making it easier for leaders to use video conferencing to
interact with employees and other stakeholders located
anywhere. With leaders spending increasing amounts of time
leading virtual teams, the ability to interpret emotions while

fostering collaboration is critical.
It falls to the leader to provide guidelines and structure for the
online group's work. The leader has to make the team's purpose
absolutely clear, outline the team's operating parameters, and
set contribution and performance expectations—such as
consistency of participation, responding to questions and
requests for input promptly, and completing tasks on time. The
leader should monitor but not impede the group's work,
facilitate the team's choice of media, offer comments and
feedback as needed, and respond enthusiastically to the team's
creative ideas and efforts. Virtual leaders need to listen,
demonstrate respect for diverse opinions, and express their
appreciation for the team's work.
Because online media encourage sharing and openness, the
directive/authoritarian leader and the laissez-faire leader will
likely be disadvantaged while the collaborative leader will
excel.15 Because sharing spreads information through-out the
organization, letting others in on what the leader knows and
vice versa, the leader needs to function as other than the
primary information source. Instead, the leader has to be a
process implementer, that is, a facilitator of the team's work.16
Special Challenges Facing Virtual Leaders
Increasing numbers of leaders work in offices that contain few
if any other people in the same physical space. Organizations
have gone global—venturing beyond the building box. They no
longer are constrained by walls, meaning they no longer are
limited by their physical spaces. Because their employees are
geographically dispersed, their leaders lead them in virtual
teams—separated by time and distance—directing their virtual
projects from afar.
E–team leaders need to be ready to coordinate work
accomplished globally—on a 24/7 basis—exerting leadership
not only across space, but also through time. Thus, the
definition of the workday has also evolved. Virtual workdays
cross time zones, generating a “follow the sun” approach that
depends on technology, including telecommuting,

teleconferencing, and videoconferencing, to function.17
While still affirming traditional goals, leaders of virtual groups
face a number of unique challenges, including that they may
never physically meet the members of their staffs. Thus, they
find ways to use technology to collaborate and bridge physical
distances. They do not depend on face-to-face contact to resolve
conflicts or solve problems. Instead, they use technology to
communicate enthusiasm, inspire quality work, foster
collaboration, and convince others who may have never met
them up close and personal to trust them. While in face-to-face
teams trust develops from the formation of social and emotional
attachments, in virtual teams it develops more from the timely
sharing of information and the keeping of team commitments.
Those who lead from a distance need to be proactive, engage
team members, and display their confidence in them. They need
to build systems that sustain team synergy, and to do this, they
need to rely on tools that foster teamwork and feelings of
connection between and among team members and the leader.
Of interest is the finding that in virtual teams transformational
leaders significantly improve the performance of team
members.18 Empowerment also tends to be higher in virtual
teams.19 When leaders reach out, listen and respond to, and
value and respect the members of their team, they are better
able to connect with them and lead.
Unfortunately, working virtually may also increase the potential
for mistaken first impressions and stereotyping based on
geographic and cultural differences. Such faulty perceptions
work against the building of effective relationships and if left
unchecked, can impede the team's operation. As a result, virtual
leaders need to be personcentric, doing their best to forestall
misperceptions, feelings of employee isolation,
misunderstandings due to delays in responding, and confusion
resulting from cultural differences or equipment troubles.
Instead, they need to capitalize on the built-in diversity
knowledge of the teams they lead.20
While in traditional teams leaders use facial expressions, office

size, dress, body language, and vocal cues to exert leadership,
in virtual teams they tend to use an abundance of task-oriented
messages—initiating, scheduling, questioning, and taking time
to ensure followers understand and can execute goals.21
In summary, virtual teams are just like real teams, except that
team members work in geographically dispersed workplaces,
possibly at different times. Like all teams, members need to
share information about themselves and their task, establish
trust, define goals, develop shared expectations, and work out
conflicts, including individual roles and responsibilities, so they
can complete their projects. When they work well, the members
of virtual teams come to trust one another to behave
consistently, understand each other so that they can anticipate
one another's behavior, and share compatible values and
goals.22 When led effectively, virtual teams reduce costs and
increase the sharing of knowledge, contributing to the growth
and success of the organization.
Post It: Imagineering a Better Way
In Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the
Way You Lead, author Charlene Li identifies five levels of
engagement people have with social networking:
(1) Watching. Watchers passively read a site's content, reading
blogs, listening to podcasts, or watching video content, for
example. There is little engagement you can have with a
watcher, also known as a lurker.
(2) Sharing. Sharers are a step up from watchers. Sharers pass
on what they read or see to one or more other people.
(3) Commenting. Commenters add their voices to the
discussion.
(4) Producing. Producers create content; they are not engaged
intermittently, but they are engaged over time.
(5) Curating. Curators are highly and personally engaged as a
moderator, editor, or motivator. Few people are curators; most
are watchers.23
Here's the challenge: What can you do to get people to increase
not just the amount but also the usefulness of the sharing and

commenting they engage in? What can you do to encourage
their full participation?
Being social is fundamental to our humanness. Being virtual is
in vogue. The popularity of social media and virtual spaces
demonstrate this. While you have likely used an array of social
media in your private life to make connections and share with
friends, using social media and leading virtual teams are now
also critical leadership tools. How eager are you to embrace
them?
Reference
Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. (2013). Leading with
communication: A practical approach to leadership
communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
· Chapter 5, "Perceiving Like a Leader: Paradigm Power," pages
87–102.
PERCEIVING LIKE A LEADER
Paradigm Power
What is the relationship between perception and leadership?
Why is it that some leaders are able to look at a problem,
deconstruct it, conceive its possible solutions, and then
implement the best solution, while others cannot?
Consider this: the Chinese character for crisis is the same as the
Chinese character for opportunity. It's a question of perception.
It may well be that one leader's crisis is another leader's
opportunity.
As we will see, the leader's ability to perceive—to select,
organize, and interpret experience—influences the leader's
understanding of situations, followers, and themselves. What
the leader perceives and how the leader thinks about what she or
he perceives shape his or her understanding of people and
events. How a leader interprets experience offers clues to the

leader's ideology and the effectiveness of the paradigm the
leader employs. For example, when Cathie Black, a journalist
and magazine executive but a noneducator, was named as the
next chancellor of New York City's public schools, Jeffrey A.
Sonnenfeld, founder of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute
at Yale University's School of Management, noted that while it
was obvious she was not an educator, she had been
inspirational, making a difference in the way editors looked at
front pages. According to Sonnenfeld, Black had said, “We're
going to have women on the front page, not just in the style
section, and we're going to have African Americans on our
front, not ghettoized in the sports pages,” effectively opening
the door to a paradigm shift.1 Unfortunately, Cathie Black did
not last more than a scant three months in the role of chancellor.
Forced out, her position was ceded to someone who had worked
in the New York City school system for years, Dennis Walcott,
an educator hailed for being all that Cathie Black wasn't.
According to leadership expert Warren Bennis, it appears that a
leader has to be good at both shifting and encouraging
perspective shifting because shifting stances, whether by the
leader or followers, can change everything.2
By exploring the I behind the leader's eyes, we will come to
better understand how the leader's powers of perception
influence what the leader thinks is or is not possible. The I
behind the leader's eyes also influences the frames of reference,
perspectives, or paradigms that the leader uses and the extent to
which the leader is successful at creating a shared reality,
something Cathie Black was not able to do.3
THE LEADER'S I
Perception provides each of us with a uniquely personal view of
the world. Why is this?
Information theorists tell us that our eyes can process about 5
million bits of data per second, but they also tell us that our
brains are capable of handling only some 500 bits per second,
compelling every one of us to distinguish those stimuli we will
attend to or experience from those we will ignore. Leaders are

particularly active participants in perceiving, selecting,
organizing, and evaluating the multitude of stimuli that are out
there competing for attention. And, like every one of us, leaders
also practice selective perception, shifting their spotlight of
attention from one stimulus to another until one catches their
interest and they focus on it. Leaders who have been trained not
to make snap judgments regarding what is or could become
important have the perceptual advantage because they do not
purposefully avoid some stimuli while exposing themselves
readily to others. Instead, they take the time they need to learn
more about situations and people before filling in any
perceptual gaps or drawing any conclusions.
Stages and Frames of Perception
Leaders deconstruct the perceptual process into four stages:
(1) The selecting stage, during which they choose to attend to
some stimuli from all those stimuli they are exposed to
(2) The organizing stage, during which they give order to the
selected stimuli
(3) The interpreting/evaluating stage, during which they give
meaning and draw conclusions about the selected stimuli based
on their life experiences
(4) The responding stage, during which they think, say,
and/or do something reflective of their perception
Effective leaders develop the ability to change the frames of
reference they habitually employ. For example, the renowned
composer Gustav Mahler required the members of his symphony
orchestra to sit out in the audience periodically to experience
how things looked and sounded from the audience's perspective.
Changing perspectives changes people. As a result of revisiting
and revising their views of the world, their thoughts about
people, and even how they conceive of leadership, leaders may,
in time, switch paradigms—the means they use to understand
and explain reality—breaking with an ineffective or timeworn
way of perceiving things.
When you change perspectives, you change yourself.
While using the wrong paradigm can impede a leader's progress,

making the right paradigm shift, one that enables the leader to
see a situation in a fresh perspective or totally new light, can
open endless possibilities.4
Evolving Organizational Paradigms
Leadership expert Stephen Covey identifies four different
organizational paradigms: (1) the scientific/authoritarian
paradigm, (2) the human relations paradigm, (3) the human
resource paradigm, and (4) the principle-centered leadership
paradigm. Covey explores how each paradigm affects the
leader's perception of people and their role.
A leader who employs the scientific/authoritarian paradigm sees
people as economic beings (what Covey calls stomachs) and
believes his or her role is to motivate them using the “carrot and
the stick” technique, effectively manipulating the reward
package provided to them.
In contrast, a leader who adopts a human relations paradigm
recognizes that people have both economic needs and social
needs; in other words, they have hearts in addition to stomachs.
They want to be well treated and to feel that they belong. While
such a leader still believes he or she is in charge, the leader also
tries to develop a harmonious team.
On the other hand, the leader who uses the human resource
paradigm perceives that people have minds in addition to having
hearts and stomachs; that they are psychological beings, not
merely economic or social beings. Thus, such a leader seeks to
recognize and make better use of the talent, creativity, and
resourcefulness of people.
It is, however, the last paradigm that Covey values most
because he believes that only a principle-centered leader works
with the whole person by paying attention to the spiritual needs
of people—empowering them with a sense that they are doing
something that matters—in addition to meeting their economic,
social, and psychological needs.
Covey explains each of the perceptual shifts this way:
The scientific management (stomach) paradigm says, “Pay me
well.” The human relations (heart) paradigm says, “Treat me

well.” The human resource (mind) paradigm suggests, “Use me
well.” The principle-centered leadership (whole person)
paradigm says, “Let's talk about vision and mission, roles, and
goals. I want to make a meaningful contribution.”5
Of course, the accuracy and reliability of a leader's perception
is equally affected by his or her ability to use a presented
opportunity to construct a meaningful frame or mental picture
that others will connect with and respond to; it is similarly
dependent on a leader's ability to overcome potential perceptual
barriers.
PERCEPTUAL REALITIES
To lead effectively, the leader should not assume too much
regarding how others see the organization. Leaving things
implicit or unspoken also leaves them vulnerable to
misinterpretation.Answer the Big Questions
Instead of leaving followers floundering, leaders need to be able
to provide ready answers to the big questions followers—
internal and external stakeholders—want answers to on demand.
Among the questions leaders need to answer are the following:
Why are we here? (the mission question), Where are we headed?
(the vision question), What do we stand for? (the values
question), and Who are we really? (the collectiveidentity
question). The answers leaders give in response to these
questions provide clues to the mental models, those pictures we
hold in our heads of people, events, ourselves, and how the
world works, that similarly construct the leader's frame, setting
up the persuasive opportunities he or she will use while
governing the organization and shaping the leadership context.6
By becoming more aware of their mental models, and
communicating them to others, leaders also enhance their ability
to reframe and adapt their messages when needed. The more
awareness leaders develop, and the more they mentally rehearse,
the better able they are to provide an effective frame. As Arkadi
Kuhlmann, chairman and president of ING Direct USA, says,
“You have to understand that everything's being interpreted, and

you have to keep thinking in two and three dimensions. People
are going to follow you if they have confidence in you. And the
No. 1 job of a CEO is to eliminate doubt. My only job, really, is
to eliminate doubt in every situation.”7The Leadership
Perspective Model
The leadership perspective model proposed by James M. Kouzes
and Barry Z. Posner offers clues to issues about which leader
and follower are likely to agree or disagree.8 Once the leader
has an understanding regarding what the points of potential
disagreement might be, she or he can prepare to address them.
Kouzes and Posner's model (see Figure 5.1) contains four
quadrants: issues of high importance to the leader but of low
importance to employees (Quadrant A); issues of high
importance to the leader and high importance to employees
(Quadrant B); issues of low importance to the leader and low
importance to employees (Quadrant C); and issues of low
importance to the leader but of high importance to employees
(Quadrant D).The Optimism Advantage
In addition to exhibiting confidence (self-efficacy—the belief
that you have the abilities needed to complete a task or realize a
goal), practicing balanced processing (soliciting and
considering viewpoints from those with whom you disagree),
and valuing relational transparency (communicating openly and
honestly), leaders also give themselves a perceptual advantage
if they display optimism (demonstrating positive expectations
for the future).
Optimism and self-efficacy go hand in hand. Optimistic leaders
remain open to perceiving possibilities, believing in their
capabilities and what they can achieve. When optimists suffer a
defeat they view it as a temporary setback brought about by
circumstances, bad luck, or others; they do not view it as a
personal failure. Optimists have resilience; they bounce back
again and again. Believing in yourself makes it possible for you
to accomplish more. In contrast to optimists, pessimists do not
believe they can control their destiny. Pessimists think they
can't, while optimists think they can.

Psychologist Martin Seligman tells this story: “We tested the
swim team at the University of California at Berkely to find out
which swimmers were optimists and which were pessimists. To
test the effects of attitude, we had the coach “defeat” each one:
After a swimmer finished a heat, the coach told him his time—
but it wasn't his real time. The coach had falsified it, making it
significantly slower. The optimists responded by swimming
their next heat faster; the pessimists went slower on their next
heat.”9 Having an optimistic outlook gives leaders added
strength, making them more resourceful and setting them back
on a path to success.10
We also see this outlook in the behavior of NFL quarterback
Tim Tebow. According to observers, Tebow's optimism is what
fires up his teammates. Tebow tells his teammates, “Believe in
me” and does so with such persuasive charisma that his
teammates renew their belief in themselves—and actually
perform better.11 A leader's optimism can change how others
perceive a situation, making a difference.
PERCEPTUAL BARRIERS
While it is important to understand the perceptual perspectives
that leaders and followers rely on when interacting about issues
of high and low concern to them, it is also important to
understand the different paradigms they use when interpreting
reality. While we have a variety of paradigms at our disposal,
some of the paradigms we adopt can impede decision making by
contributing to our perceiving an issue, situation, or people
unfairly, inaccurately, or even pessimistically.The “My Past
Holds the Answer” Paradigm
Relying on past learning or experiences to perceive present
situations and people may complicate things. Both learning and
experience can create expectations, perceptual sets or the
readiness to perceive in predetermined ways, influencing the
leader's perception of both situations and people. Basing
perception only on what was learned or experienced previously
can blind a leader to viable alternative interpretations. The

reality is that learned perceptions can create biases and blind
spots. It is up to the leader not to be controlled by unconscious
learning but to gain control of learning by reflecting instead on
what it is she or he wants to do. Leaders need to work to escape
from limited ways of seeing. As Geoff Vuleta, CEO of
Fahrenheit 212, an innovation and consulting firm, notes,
“There have been times… where I realized I needed to reinvent
myself.”13The “What I See First Is What I Go With” Paradigm
Should assessments made during the first few minutes influence
the leader's judgment? If a leader bases perceptions on an initial
assessment, the danger is that the leader will freeze that initial
judgment and even if it is wrong, work to make all perceptions
conform to it, effectively operating with a closed mind. The
effective leader works against making such snap perceptual
conclusions.The “It's Just Like______,” or “You're Just Like
______” Paradigm
If the leader is prone to stereotyping situations and people,
carrying with him or her existing impressions or fixed mental
images of what to expect, he or she is likely to use broad
generalizations to process experience, effectively disregarding
information that does not conform to commonly held beliefs.
Encouraging pigeonholing by emphasizing similarities is not an
effective perceptual practice. Instead of categorizing situations
and people, the more effective leader takes the time to
distinguish persons and situations from others by noting as
many differences as possible. For example, Fahrenheit 212 CEO
Geoff Vuleta asks job candidates to reinvent themselves as a
beverage. Each candidate presents himself or herself as if in a
bottle, explaining his or her personally defining characteristics
and traits, bringing his or her individual drink alive for the
organization's leader, and pitching why he or she would buy
it.14The “I Know It All” Paradigm
No one knows everything there is to know about anything—
including leaders. According to Science and Sanity author
Alfred Korzybski, allness refers to the erroneously held belief
that any one person can possibly know all there is to know.15

Wise leaders, therefore, end every assessment they make with
the words et cetera (“and others”), as a reminder of that
fact.The “Blindering” Paradigm
A leader can blind himself or herself to a problem's solution by
defining the problem in a way that imposes restrictions on
solutions that do not really exist. Just as blinders placed on a
horse limit the number of visual stimuli the horse receives,
leaders may don figurative blinders that hinder their ability to
look at a problem and come up with a viable solution.
Unconsciously adding one or more restrictions that limit
perception of the problem impedes discovering a solution and
taking appropriate action. We can illustrate blindering's impact
with the following exercise: attempt to draw four straight lines
that will connect each of the nine dots in Figure 5.2. Do this
without lifting your pencil or pen from the page or retracing a
line.
Most people find this exercise challenging. Why? Because while
the problem imposes only one restriction—that you connect the
dots with four straight lines without lifting your pencil or pen
from the page or backtracking over a line—most of us add
another restriction as well. After looking at the dots, we assume
The “Fact/Inference Confusion” Paradigm
Like the rest of us, a leader makes numerous inferences every
day. The validity or high probability of the inferences the leader
makes guides decision making and determines his or her
leadership effectiveness. Sometimes, a leader treats as fact that
which he or she did not actually observe but which he or she
wishes were true. Other times, a leader fails to distinguish
between a fact and an inference, treating the inference he or she
makes as if it were, in fact, a fact.16 Facts are not always easy
to come by, but it is most important to be able to distinguish
between them and inferences. The failure to do so can be
dangerous and can cause the leader to jump to a conclusion that
contributes to making the wrong decision, taking an
inappropriate action, or, at the very least, demonstrating poor
judgment.

PERCEIVING LIKE A LEADER
A major part of leading is making good decisions. Effective
leaders automatically weigh and balance evidence and feelings,
relying on both analytical (left brain) and intuitive (right brain)
thinking in their search to find ways to join reason and emotion.
Insightful leaders know when to rely on analytics and when to
rely on their gut. They trust their judgment and use their
experience—instinctually perceiving whether to forge ahead or
take cover because they see possibilities and opportunities
where others do not.
The French word for insight translates as penetration. By
penetrating insightfully, that is, perceiving a situation more
fully and more clearly, a leader enhances his or her leadership
effectiveness. Perception may or may not be reality. While we
may know the figures, such as sales volume or market share, we
may delude ourselves when it comes to how “on board” people
are, how willing they are to embrace an idea, how committed
they are to our vision, or how willing they are to go above and
beyond. Others may see things differently than we do.
Here are four steps you can take to sharpen your perceptual
skills:
1. Get to really know your followers. Understand their
perceptions of the organization and you. Watch out for
preconceptions on your part or theirs. Listen to opposing
viewpoints. Make it your business to uncover hidden problems.
Remember, to ensure that the leader and followers do not work
at cross purposes, they need to share congruent, not disparate,
perceptions.
2. Make hunting for ideas a habit. By staying up with the
research in your field you accumulate the raw material needed
to see a problem's parts or develop new associations of thought.
Regularly linking two ideas not previously linked to each other
enhances your powers of perception.
3. Give yourself permission to think in novel ways—make
curiosity and taking mental risks their own reward. Your

organization may have a competitive advantage at a point in
time, but what is crucial is whether you will have the
evolutionary advantage needed over time.18
4. Put aside your own concerns long enough to take an active
interest in understanding others and their concerns. Take time to
learn from others’ perspectives.
Effective leaders don't let their perceptions box them in or out.
Their ability to exercise flexibility instead of perceiving in but
one dimension frees leaders to think more creatively. Shifting,
and getting others to shift, to a different perspective can make
all the difference.
Theory to Practice
Montgomery Van Wart is professor at
California State University, San Bernardino.
He is also a senior research fellow at the
University of Leuven and visiting professor
at Rutgers University. His books include
Leadership in Public Organizations
(2nd ed., M. E. Sharpe, 2012), Dynamics
of Leadership in Public Service (2nd
ed., M. E. Sharpe, 2011), and Changing

Public Sector Values (Garland, 1998). He
has published numerous articles in Public
Administration Review and elsewhere
on administrative leadership. He is associate
editor of Public Performance and
Management Review.
E-mail: [email protected]
Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary
Challenges of Leaders 553
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 73, Iss. 4, pp. 553–565. © 2013 by
The American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.1111/puar.12069.
Donald P. Moynihan, Editor
Montgomery Van Wart
California State University, San Bernardino
Leadership theories and the academic literature can some-
times seem diffi cult for practitioners to understand because
of complex conceptualizations, obscure terms, and its
enormousness. Yet taken as a whole, the literature makes
a great deal of sense and has much to off er. Indeed, the
truths are often quite simple, elegant, and straightforward.
Th e purpose of this article is to review the major fi ndings

of the organizational leadership literature and to identify
the important overarching insights, specifi cally those of
particular importance to today’s leaders in administrative
positions in the public sector, where an evolving context
constantly reconfi gures age-old challenges.
Leadership theories, and the academic literature related to those
theories, can sometimes seem diffi cult for practitioners to
understand because
of complex conceptualizations, obscure terms, and
their sheer numbers. Taken as a whole, however, the
literature makes a great deal of sense and has much to
off er. Indeed, the truths are often quite simple, ele-
gant, and straightforward. Th e purpose of this article
is to review the major fi ndings in the literature on
organizational leadership and to identify the overarch-
ing insights, especially those of particular importance
to contemporary leaders in administrative positions
in the public sector because of their diff erent context
(Anderson 2010; Hooijberg and Choi 2001).
In this article, we will concentrate on leaders in the
public sector with career administrative positions,
generally occupying civil service positions. Th at is, the
focus is organizational leadership in the public sector
rather than political or policy-
making leadership. For the
purpose of this article, we will
address leadership at all levels,
from supervisors to executives,
as well as leadership as a process
rather than a function solely of
individuals.
After a discussion of the challenge of defi ning leader-
ship, the fi rst purpose of this article is to provide a

frame for what is constant in leadership and what is
new in leadership. Th e second purpose of the article
is to present fi ve well-recognized theories of leader-
ship, along with their bodies of related literature (Van
Wart 2012; Yukl 2002). For the sake of simplicity,
those overarching theories of leadership are labeled as
follows:
1. Classical management and role theory
2. Transactional leadership theory
3. Transformational leadership theory
4. Horizontal or collaborative leadership theory
5. Ethical and critical leadership theory
Each of these broad theories includes a variety of
valid theoretical domains and perspectives.1 Also,
each of the theories of leadership has been associated
with major research eras or heydays, but all of them
have continued to evolve and to be used in research,
education, and training as other theories have risen
to prominence. In this article, we will focus both on
the latest research fi ndings and on those aspects of the
literature that have best endured the test of time.
We will explain a broad lesson in each of the fi ve
leadership theories, then off er two to four insights.
All are widely agreed-upon insights from researchers
in the topic area. In the main, taking advantage of
the lessons of the leadership literature takes an ability
to use one’s talents eff ectively, to learn from both
good and bad experiences, to thoroughly understand
one’s current situation, and to establish a sense of
character and competence
that others trust—no small

order (Phillips and Loy 2008).
Understanding the lessons of
leadership is important in order
that those aspiring to leadership
may identify their strengths
and weaknesses and improve
themselves, as well as leadership in their organiza-
tions. Nonetheless, understanding alone is only the
fi rst step to eff ective leadership, and that fi rst step is,
Lessons from Leadership Th eory and the Contemporary
Challenges of Leaders
Th e focus is organizational
leadership in the public sector
rather than political or policy-
making leadership.
554 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013
(Rost 1991). While this type of analysis can be highly
enlightening,
it can easily overwhelm the practitioner and even other
academics.
Much leadership research works in very specifi c leadership
situations
that are carefully controlled so that the problem of excessive
uni-
versalism is avoided and the innumerable situations studied
provide
a highly nuanced picture for a specifi c area such as
administrative

leadership. However, both the narrowness of the study and the
terminology of the academic style make it diffi cult for
practitioners
to use, which is reason for a bridging article like this.
Th e answer for practitioners is often to decide what perspective
they
want to adopt for their concrete purpose and be explicit about
the
assumptions adopted. For example, is the purpose of study to
help
individuals build better leadership skills from a relatively
managerial
perspective, mentoring aspect, or organizational change
approach?
Or is the purpose of study to examine how systems function eff
ec-
tively or how they are integrated into the overall environment?
Th at
is, does one want to adopt the perspective that individuals add
up
to systems of leadership, or that leadership is a system
composed of
individuals? Th e diff erence is not trivial. Th is is the level of
analy-
sis issue. Another particularly important aspect of leadership is
whether one is more interested in explaining how leadership is
(i.e.,
descriptive) or should be (i.e., prescriptive). Still another
example of
defi nition and focus decisions is the level of activity analyzed,
such
as tasks, behaviors, or style patterns, which may make an
enormous
diff erence depending on whether one is adopting an
overarching

leadership philosophy or providing contextualized feedback to a
line
supervisor.
Th is article provides a relatively instrumental framework by
look-
ing at fi ve levels of analysis that are roughly equivalent to the
fi ve
theories described earlier: getting results,
leading followers, leading organizations,
leading systems, and leading with values. It
provides both descriptive analysis of leader-
ship practices and trends but also extends the
prescriptive recommendations of best practice
from both eff ectiveness and value-based per-
spectives. Th ere are other equally valid ways of
examining the fi eld of administrative leader-
ship (e.g., through power, gender, culture,
various postmodern and critical perspectives,
etc.) that space does not allow.
The Old and the New in Leadership Theory
Leadership is constantly changing because of new contexts,
tools,
conceptualizations, and concerns, as illustrated by the diff ering
situational demands on leadership. While abstract principles
may
remain consistent, the more practical and operational aspects
gener-
ally vary substantially and are vitally important for leaders if
they
are to lead eff ectively. Sometimes genuinely new aspects of
organi-
zational life develop; for example, communication patterns have
been fundamentally diff erent in the last quarter century because

of the Internet. Leadership and communication are inextricably
intertwined, so the types of communication skills that leaders
need
change, as well as their concomitant responsibilities (Kouzmin
and
Korac-Kakabadse 2000). Sometimes the practices in
organizations
shift substantially over time. For a variety of reasons, including
the
education of the workforce, the rise of technology, and the
thinning
generally, the easiest. Mastering the many lessons of leadership
is
challenging, but those hoping to become eff ective leaders
should
be able to meet the challenges and enjoy doing so.
The Challenge of Defi ning Leadership: Where You Sit
Is How You Defi ne It
Everyone feels that they know leadership “when they see it,”
and
everyone can talk about it impressionistically. Trading
impressions,
however, ultimately is not very useful beyond superfi cial
discus-
sions because leadership is a complex set of processes that is
diffi cult
to perform successfully. Further, there are fundamentally diff
erent
types of leadership, such as social movement leadership,
political
leadership, and organizational leadership. Even when examin-
ing organizational leadership, the diff erences between
underlying
ideal models of private and public sector leadership are signifi

cant,
though they share much in common, too. Th us, to be able to
dis-
cuss leadership coherently with others and to be able to use it
eff ec-
tively for hiring, development, promotion, evaluation, and a
host
of other pragmatic functions, it is necessary to make
fundamental
distinctions, expose assumptions, defi ne terms, and have some
basic
mental models of leadership that are context specifi c.
Simplistic defi nitions of leadership abound in “how-to”
leadership
books in corporate, political, social, and administrative
contexts. A
common perspective in such books is to defi ne leadership by
one
important aspect, such as the ability to infl uence others, the
ability
to change organizations, the ability to provide a vision, the
ability to
create consensus to move forward, the use of emotional
intelligence
(Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee 2002), or even the use of
common
sense (Cain 1999). A strength of this approach is the focus that
it
brings to a complex concept and, when done well, the valid
insights
that the reader may be able to apply to his or
her understanding and context. A weakness of
this approach is that it inevitably omits many
leadership roles and may even belittle other
perspectives (Kotter 1990; Zaleznik 1977).

A second approach is to provide a list of
important factors, frequently embedded in
a philosophy that is associated with a spe-
cifi c individual or context. Examples of such
broad-based list approaches include leadership
of Marines, of warriors (e.g., Logan, King,
and Fischer-Wright 2008; Roberts 1985), of
the approach of individual corporate chief executive offi cers
and
other executives, and so on. A strength of this approach is the
more
holistic perspective and, when well done, the examination of the
principles undergirding leadership. A weakness of the laundry-
list
approach is that it is diffi cult to tell how much the specialized
con-
text is really typical or generalizable, and thus the reader must
make
a large leap to his or her situation. Indeed, both the focused and
list
approaches tend to be highly universalistic across sectors,
industries,
levels of leadership, and situations.
When academics need to come to terms with the complexity of
defi ning leadership, the problem is often reversed as they try to
be
comprehensive or situationally precise. Th ey can easily spend
an
entire chapter cataloging defi nitions (Bass 2008) or assert that
the
221 extant defi nitions that one researcher found were all defi
cient
Th is article provides a relatively

instrumental framework by
looking at fi ve levels of analy-
sis that are roughly equivalent
to the fi ve theories described
earlier: getting results, leading
followers, leading organizations,
leading systems, and leading
with values.
We now turn to the new challenges facing leaders in the context
of broader, enduring patterns of best practices, especially as
those
practices have been developing in public sector organizations.
Management Theory: Effective Leaders Understanding
and Accepting the Complexity and Demands
of Their Roles
Management theory is based on the idea that organizations are
systems in which desired goals are achieved through the wise
use of
human, fi nancial, technological, and natural resources (Fayol
1930).
Eff ective management requires planning, organizing, staffi ng,
direct-
ing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting, among other things
(Gulick and Urwick 1937).
Leaders are not the only factor infl uencing organizational

success,
follower happiness, and constituent satisfaction; however,
leaders
are generally signifi cant factors and, sometimes, the most
important
factor (e.g., Fernandez 2005; Hennessey 1998; Kaiser, Hogan,
and
Craig 2008; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008). For example,
in a study using 30,000 respondents, Dull (2010) demonstrated
the strong relationship between trusted leadership and satisfac-
tion, perceived performance, and a sense of freedom in
expressing
opinions. Th e literature also points out, however, that
leadership
is often romanticized or exaggerated in many circumstances,
even
when leaders are perceived to play relatively strong roles (e.g.,
Kets
de Vries 1988; Waldman et al. 2001); that administrative
leaders,
in the public sector in particular, are severely constrained from
making dramatic diff erences (Kaufman 1981; Van Wart 2012);
and
that change and organizational success depend on many factors
beyond the leaders themselves (Fernandez, Cho, and Perry
2010).
Leaders have the responsibility of dividing and coordinating
work
in complex systems in which distractions, systems deterioration,
and
external challenges are constant, even in stable times
(Mintzberg
1973). Unstable times and crises increase distractions and
challenges
and often require a completely diff erent set of skills (Boin and
Otten 1996; Wheatley 2006). Th e variety of needs and

expectations
of followers is enormous and almost insatiable, so ensuring that
well-trained and top-performing followers do not leave because
of
poor leadership at any level is important (Buckingham and Coff
man
1999). Constituent satisfaction is ever changing, so leaders need
to
ensure that those needs are constantly being monitored for
quality
and adjustment (Moynihan 2004). Th ere are some important
corol-
laries to the fact that leadership is important and challenging.
Leaders strongly expect results. One measure of the challenge
of
leadership is in the harsh assessments that we give our leaders.
If
leadership were easy, more would be perceived as effective
leaders.
Many are perceived as effective administrative leaders, but few
as
exceptional leaders. For example, in the data on administrative
leaders in the U.S. federal system, one study showed that the
overall
average for leaders was 3.42 on a fi ve-point scale, with fi ve
being
high, and with transactional skills being higher than
transformational skills, although followers wanted the reverse
(Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008). Direct supervisors did
much
better, at about a 64 percent average rating, but federal
executives
hovered around 50 percent (OPM 2008, 2011).
Leadership is diffi cult because leaders play many major roles,

with each role entailing its own competencies, requirements,
and
of management in recent decades, organizations use more teams
and have tried more to devolve work as much as possible,
includ-
ing coproducing with clients in some cases (Denis, Langley, and
Sergi 2012). Th e fact that leaders lead “fl atter” organizations
is
an example of how changing organizations subtly but
profoundly
aff ect leadership. Sometimes there are ideological shifts in
society
that aff ect notions of how systems should be organized. Since
the
early 1980s, the emphasis on increasing types of public services
to
compete, compare, and outsource has been immense, and, more
recently, many academics and practitioners have been focusing
on the importance of networking and collaborating in contempo-
rary society. While “hierarchical” skills are not going to
disappear
(Gabris and Ihrke 2007), the change in emphasis caused by the
new
paradigmatic shifts in the public service are enormous (Heifetz,
Grashow, and Linsky 2009). Sometimes what is new in
situational
leadership infl uences the changes in constraints and demands
on
leaders in particular contexts; for example, leaders dealing with
disasters face challenges very diff erent from those trying to
motivate
others to prepare for disasters (Van Wart and Kapucu 2011).
So, in our times, what primary challenges must public leaders
face,

and which of those challenges will shape our research agenda
and
the lessons that researchers seek to craft? Th ere are numerous
lists
of overarching, contemporary challenges aff ecting public
organiza-
tions and their leaders (e.g., Abramson, Breul, and Kamensky
2006;
Cortada et al. 2008; Saner 2001), from which we can discern a
number of trends aff ecting public sector leadership, often in
ways
quite diff erent from their private sector counterparts; for
example,
while the balance sheets of corporations are at all-time highs,
the
stress on public sector organizations around the world is greater
than at any time since the end of World War II. While the
phenom-
enon of organizational decline is not new in the public sector,
and
while many important lessons are to be learned from that
decline
(Bozeman 2010), the Great Recession and the continuing
restruc-
turing of our political economy will certainly provide a unique
constellation of factors dissimilar to those that public sector
leaders
have confronted in many decades (Pandey 2010). Other
challenges
include the marketization of public agencies, heightened
employee
cynicism, pension reform, acquisition of new virtual
management
skills, and the widespread loss of social consensus, among
others.
Table 1 provides a summary of some of the specifi c situational

chal-
lenges facing public sector managers today.
Table 1 Contemporary Challenges for Administrative
Leadership in the Public
Sector
Leadership Focus Some of the Contemporary Challenges
Leading for
results
• Long-term fi scal stress, need for tough choices
• Globalization and the penetration of higher levels of com-
petition and market values
Leading
followers
• Increased cynicism of employees
• Reduced resources to compensate (e.g., reduced benefi ts
packages)
Leading
organizations
• Technological revolution and the need for virtual manage-
ment and leadership skills
• Redesigning organizations and systems to fi t dramatically
different public demands
Leading systems • Challenges of team-based organizational
structures
• Unraveling social consensus

Leading with
values
• Lack of trust in political and administrative systems
• Confusion about which paradigm to follow (e.g., hierarchi-
cal, market-based, or collaborative)
and more training in service and have a greater need for worker
and
leader continuity, but the new needs fl y in the face of
organizational
and demographic trends that discourage loyalty and long-term
relationships and, understandably, contributing to complaints
from
hiring managers that good applicants cannot be found despite
large
candidate pools because of the breadth of experience and the
technical abilities now commonly required.
Transactional Leadership Theory: Leaders Need
to Use a Variety of Styles with Followers
as They Pursue Multiple Goals
Transactional leadership theories have focused on the daily
inter-
actions of leaders and their followers. Th e theories emphasize
the
operational level, so these theories have tended to be used
among
supervisors, but their use among executives is not inappropriate.
Good leaders need to be sure that followers have what they need

to do the job: direction and training, encouragement and
support, participation, achievement-oriented motivation, and
independence after they reach high levels of competence. Based
on
expectancy theory (Vroom 1964), leaders need to facilitate the
basics of employee motivation so that followers have the ability
to
do the job, the belief that they will succeed, and the feeling that
their efforts will be worthwhile. A number of researchers have
focused on the various needs resulting in differing styles.
Hersey and
Blanchard (1972) asserted that leaders need to pay close
attention to
the developmental and related psychological states of followers
as
they mature and adjust their styles accordingly. They asserted
that
workers need and want training and structure when they are new
and inexperienced, therefore making them receptive to a
directing
style. As soon as the workers have gained some knowledge and
experience, supervisors will be able to engage in discussions
with
them in order to enhance worker understanding and help them
continue to improve. Such discussions lend themselves to a
coaching
style. When workers become relatively competent and able to
solve
problems on their own, the ideal style is supporting because it
allows substantial freedom with minimal oversight. When
workers
are reliably competent and almost entirely self-directed, the
ideal
style is delegating. Hersey and Blanchard have come under a
good
deal of criticism for their simplicity and lack of empirical

support
(e.g., Yammarino et al. 2005), but their development of a
logical
series of leader styles was important, and their model continues
to
be popular in supervisory training.
A similar but more sophisticated way of looking at followers’
needs
is to emphasize the leader’s role in creating clear paths for
followers
in achieving joint goals (House 1996; House and Mitchell
1974).
Based on contingencies, leader will choose to use the styles that
will
help his or her followers succeed; for example, in order to avoid
discouraging followers, leaders may use “directive” leadership
to
compensate for or to correct one or a combi-
nation of such administrative or operational
weaknesses as unclear job descriptions, a lack
of instructions, or overlapping or unclearly
delineated job responsibilities. It is a leader’s
responsibility to ensure that the requirements
of the job are clearly presented. Th e research-
ers have a number of other prescriptions.
When jobs are diffi cult because of complexity
challenges. A certain continuity of those roles has existed over
time
with a focus on and balance of tasks and people (e.g., Blake and
Mouton 1964; Hemphill and Coons 1957), but more recent
exami-
nations have also revealed the increasing importance of change
(Bass

1985; Ekvall and Arvonen 1991; Fernandez 2008), diversity
(Barney
and Wright 1998; McLeod, Lobel, and Cox 1996; Pitts 2005),
and
integrity (Colquitt et al. 2001). In a study of U.S. federal
manag-
ers, Fernandez, Cho, and Perry (2010) explained how leaders
are
expected to perform (or grapple with) fi ve major roles more or
less
simultaneously. Th ose roles closely relate to the fi ve foci
identifi ed
and explained in the literature that served as an important
source of
information for this article. First, leaders must lead in task
accom-
plishment by informing, communicating goals, accepting
suggestions
and making improvements, and, ultimately, evaluating
performance.
Second, leaders need excellent human relations skills so that
follow-
ers more easily practice and thereby improve their own
leadership
skills so that they ultimately will feel empowered. Th ird,
leaders need
to facilitate change by encouraging and rewarding innovation
and
creativity. Fourth, given the rise of minorities, ethnic groups,
and the
changing roles of women in the workplace, leaders must make
leading
in diversity a top priority by making sure that the public
workforce
represents the public at large and that people of diff erent
backgrounds

are comfortable. Finally, leaders need to lead with integrity,
which
includes not only such standard virtues as honesty and selfl
essness
but also working hard to discourage and prevent unethical
conduct
and to maintain an environment safe for the disclosure of
wrongdo-
ing. Because those leadership roles involve greatly diverse
functions,
they often involve confl icting values and goals; also, in times
of social
unrest and economic stress, of diminishing trust among leaders
and
the led, of increasing penetration of markets, and of great and
fre-
quent changes, the roles become more diffi cult to fi ll eff
ectively.
Administrative leadership requires developmental education and
training. The expectations and challenges are so great that most
leaders will derail, be overwhelmed, or stagnate as their jobs
evolve
(McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison 1988). Leaders must develop
a
variety of skills (discussed later) so that they can fulfi ll their
technical functions and be able to lead in a variety styles well;
furthermore, the more leaders advance in their positions, the
more
related experience is necessary so that they can handle their
positions (Jaques 1989). Hunt (1996) described three styles of
leadership—direct, organizational, and systems—based on the
echelon or the stratum of the organization that the leader
occupies.
Frontline supervisors are direct leaders who fi rst need the
technical

competencies and basic interpersonal skills to perform their
jobs
effectively. Mid-level managers run programs and integrate
operations as organizational leaders. Senior managers and
executives
operate in systems in which conceptual skills expand as an
understanding of changing markets, distant threats, innovations
in
other fi elds, and political interventions become more
important; in
addition, contemporary leaders must contend
with leaner and fl atter organizations that
require employees lower in organizations to
have competencies formerly considered more
managerial because they must deal with more
self-management, problem solving, and
customer or client relations on the front line
(Brookes 2011). Low-level employees,
therefore, need more education upon entry
When jobs are diffi cult because
of complexity or change, par-
ticipatory leadership is help-
ful, as is achievement-oriented
behavior when higher standards
are required.
in order to increase productivity and to neutralize negative
public

perceptions.
Leaders need to include followers as much as, but no more than,
is necessary in making decisions. For example, Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2011) found that empowerment needs to be
wisely
implemented if it is to stimulate instead of discourage
innovation.
One of the primary functions of leaders, but certainly not the
only
function, is to set the parameters for decision making in their
organizations or units. The research by Vroom and Jago (1988)
is
useful in analyzing those parameters. Four types of decision
making,
having important ramifi cations, can be used in a variety of
conditions, in order that a decision promote quality, enhance
acceptance, provide for timeliness, and control costs, as well as
provide opportunities for employee development. “Autocratic”
or
directive decision making tends to be practical and useful when
timeliness is critical, when dissent among others is likely to be
high,
when input is unlikely to enhance decision quality, or when the
decision is routine and participation is likely to be more
bothersome
than enhancing. Leaders, on the other hand, should consult with
followers if they need or want substantial input, individually or
in
groups, before making decisions. Consultation becomes more
useful
when timelines are not as critical, when decision centralization
is
important but hearing different viewpoints is useful, and/or
when
input is likely to increase decision quality. Joint decision

making
occurs when leaders allow groups to make decisions with or
without
veto power. Joint decision making generally takes longer but
increases decision acceptance and works well in the absence of
strong discord among employees, and decision quality is worth
the
increased group effort. Delegation occurs when a leader allows
others to make decisions and supports them consistently in
those
decisions. Transactional leadership theory generally holds that
good
leaders promote higher levels of participation and delegation as
groups, units, and workforces are better trained, more closely
aligned, and strongly self-directed. Weak leaders, however, can
overuse joint decision making, waste a lot of time, delegate
responsibilities to employees incapable of managing, or go
through
participation but frequently override decisions or disregard
input
(i.e., false empowerment).
Providing the proper amount of decision making, with the
appro-
priate degree of centralization or decentralization, has always
been
a challenge to modern leaders because of the number of
decisions
they need to make and because of the diffi culty in making such
decisions that will also be widely accepted. Contemporary
leaders
fi nd that challenge particularly acute. Fiscal pressures mean
that for
the long term, new solutions must be found, innovation must be
encouraged, and participation must be maximized, but those
same

pressures mean that in the short term, timelines are tighter, so,
con-
trarily, more effi cient decision making (i.e.,
less participation) is also encouraged.
Transformational Leadership Theory:
Although Not Everyone Can Be a
Charismatic Leader, Everyone Can Be
a Transformational Leader
At its core, transformational leadership is
about managing organizational change.
Transformational leaders succeed in
or change, participatory leadership is helpful, as is
achievement-
oriented behavior when higher standards are required.
Unpleasant
jobs call for supportive leadership. Highly interdependent
followers
call for more participatory leadership. When workers have more
control over their jobs, achievement-oriented leadership works
bet-
ter than does directive leadership. Lack of training and
education
commonly calls for a more directive style, as do situations in
which
subordinates have a preference for structure and order; however,
when workers prefer fi rm control over their work, a more
participa-
tory or achievement-oriented style of leadership tends to work
more
eff ectively. As the need for security grows, so does the
preference
for directive leadership, but when the need is low, an
achievement

style may work better. House’s research (House 1996; House
and
Mitchell 1974) has not been without its critics, but the idea of
leaders matching styles to diff erent situational demands has
nearly
universal support.
Contemporary leaders are particularly challenged, for several
reasons. Fulfi lling the transactional demands of leadership
requires
much analysis and time because fulfi lling those demands is
custom-
ized. Since the thinning of middle management and the fl
attening
of public sector organizations in the 1990s, practicing
transactional
leadership has become only more diffi cult. Th e Great
Recession
that began in 2007, along with the resulting fi scal pressure,
has,
in turn, put pressure on line workers and, implicitly, on leaders
to try to take up the slack; further, the increased speed of
change
in organizations also causes the needs of followers to change
more
quickly, too.
Good leaders can ill afford to have “out” groups. Stated
affi rmatively, good leaders create as many “high-exchange”
relationships as possible (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). High-
exchange relationships are those in which followers receive
ample
attention and good assignments in return for high levels of
productivity. Low-exchange relationships are those in which
little
interaction between leaders and followers occurs because they

have
fallen into patterns of distrust and followers tend to be unhappy
with aspects of their positions, resulting in tendencies toward
signifi cantly lower levels of productivity; on the other hand,
high-exchange members tend to have better attitudes, to produce
more, and to be more fl exible. They also change jobs less
frequently, advance more frequently, and are more willing to
contribute to group goals. This transactional principle implicitly
proposes an ideal style; ideal leaders maintain numerous high-
exchange relationships, while poor leaders allow or even
encourage
many low-exchange relationships. That principle is highly
articulate
and well practiced in military leadership (e.g., Campbell 2009).
Contemporary leaders face “leaner” organizations, making the
sidelining of low-productivity workers more
problematic, while putting more stress on
high-productivity workers to stay in hyper-
productive modes; additionally, the greater
diversity of the workforce challenges leaders to
ensure that workers and groups do not feel less
valued because of diff ering cultural and ethnic
backgrounds. Finally, the external level of trust
has fallen, so internal levels of goodwill and
shared missions become even more important
Contemporary leaders face
“leaner” organizations, making
the sidelining of low-productiv-
ity workers more problematic,
while putting more stress on
high-productivity workers to
stay in hyperproductive modes.

rocked by scandal, defi nitive or bold top-down changes may be
necessary (Tichy and Devanna 1986). More often, when the
changes are meant to be a part of the culture, to enhance effi
ciency
and effectiveness or simply to adapt to contemporary needs,
acceptance from the bottom up is needed, support must be
generated, and input for execution must be elicited (Kouzes and
Posner 1987). Some research indicates that the acceptance of
change is even more important in the public sector than in the
private, where chief executive offi cers have more power to
drive
reforms through unilaterally (Nutt and Backoff 1996). Today,
because of global trends, horizontal or networked change is
increasingly important, and if whole industries or regions are to
fl ourish, some vision fl exibility is necessary to accommodate
the
larger numbers of stakeholders (Currie, Grubnic, and Hodges
2011).
While transformational leadership requires a great deal from
leaders in terms of passion, commitment, energy, and insight,
there are many dangers for leaders whose belief in themselves
becomes egotistical. History is full of leaders whose success
and
genius proved to be their undoing (see Xerxes, Julius Caesar,
Robespierre, and Hitler). The expression that “power corrupts”
simply points out the siren song of great infl uence, sometimes
turning good things into bad perceptions, unhealthy attitudes, or
disastrous results (Raskin, Novacek, and Hogan 1991). Great
insights and visions can become maniacal domination without
pragmatism and input. Self-confi dence can become narcissism,
or

worse, without humility (Conger 1989; Sandowsky 1995;
Shipman
and Mumford 2011). Heroic instincts such as sacrifi ce and
willingness to take risks can become blind spots and
recklessness,
thereby leading the entire organization astray; for example, the
infamous treasurer of Orange County, California, Robert Citron,
never stole a dollar from his county, but his well-meaning but
foolhardy “transformation” of public sector cash management
led to
the largest public default in U.S. history and to jail time for him
(Simonsen 1998). Contemporary leaders encounter several
additional challenges about their roles in the change process.
First,
because of market penetration and the pressure of structural
reform,
the guidelines for what constitutes “good” change are more
open to
opinion and debate, and headstrong leaders can neglect
democratic
values (Denhardt and Campbell 2006), resulting in their being
perceived as insensitive or egotistical when, in fact, other infl
uences
are more critical. Second, contemporary leaders must deal with
heightened public consciousness of public sector problems,
scandals,
and crises and with a willingness of the media to judge harshly
implementation errors or lone ethical violations (Boin et al.
2010).
Such harsh judgments may cause leaders to be so cautious that
they
fail to institute needed changes.
Horizontal and Collaborative Leadership Theory:
Leaders Need to Be Extremely Careful to Avoid
Getting in the Way of Leadership Because

It Is Ultimately a Process, Not a Person
Horizontal leadership, also known as distributive leadership,
had its
research beginnings in the 1970s with the idea that eff ective
leader-
ship often reduces the need for formal leaders by facilitating the
use
of “substitutes,” such as providing or increasing levels of
training,
unambiguous tasks, clear protocols, eff ective frontline problem
solving, and recruitment selections based on intrinsic
satisfaction
instituting changes in structure, procedure, ethos, technology,
and/
or production. Javidian and Waldman (2003) found that, similar
to transformational leaders in the private sector,
transformational
leaders in the public sector tend to have four major characteris-
tics: energy and determination, vision, provision for challenge
and
encouragement for subordinates, and an appropriate degree of
risk taking. Just as transactional leadership suited the more
static
public management from the 1950s to 1970s, the focus of trans-
formational leadership on change especially suits a more
tumultu-
ous world. Neither complexity (Uhl-Bien, Marion, and
McKelvey
2007) nor chaos (Kiel 1994) in contemporary organizations
shows
any sign of lessening for their leaders. Indeed, complexity and
chaos show every sign of not only continuing but also of
fomenting
change—at times, dramatic change (Pollitt and Bouckaert
2011). A

number of corollaries follow from the preceding conclusion.
A major role for leaders is to facilitate change—in both the
mission and vision as well as the values and ethos. Effective
leaders not only ensure that things get done and that employees
are
appropriately empowered in the present but also take the
organization into the future. The environments of organizations
are
always changing, so the roles of their leaders adjust to ensure
that
the organizations will institute changes as they become
necessary
(Behn 1998). A charismatic personality may help lead people to
change, but it is not necessary (Bennis and Nanus 1985; Roberts
and Bradley 1988); the implementation of change is more a
science,
the basic steps of which may be easily explained (for an
excellent
summary, see Fernandez and Rainey 2006). Various studies
have
found that public managers are critical for “reinvention” at the
federal level (Hennessey 1998), as well as for innovation at the
state
and local levels (Borins 2000; Wright, Moynihan, and Pandey
2012). A contemporary challenge lies not only in the quality of
technical design that guides the change but also in the clarity
with
which transformational leaders communicate goals,
communicate
(including listening as well as speaking) with followers, and
minimize political constraints (Moynihan, Wright, and Sanjay
2012).
Transformational leadership rarely interferes with transactional
leadership; it supplements it and, generally, proves diffi cult if

transactional leadership does not precede it. Surveys in the
public
sector routinely show that leaders need both, even if leaders
tend to
demonstrate more competence in transactional skills than in
transformational skills (Bass 1985; Trottier, Van Wart, and
Wang
2008). Research also indicates that using change management
techniques alone does not lead to success without effective
general
management skills, strategic planning, performance metrics, and
skills for collaborating with external resources (Kelman 2011).
Indeed, studies of local government fi nd that “red tape” in the
form
of performance management metrics improves leadership
performance, despite the outcry against bureaucratic rulemaking
often expressed in the mainstream literature (Wright and Pandey
2010).
Leaders do not have to know exactly what the change must be,
only that change is needed and that it may be achieved in
different ways. Depending on the circumstances and on the
personality of the leader, change can be top down, bottom up, or
horizontal. When major legislative changes occur or an agency
is
Mutual determination and execution create an
appealing form of work democracy that, when
functioning ideally, enhances identifi cation
with the work and task selection based on
fl exibility, innovation, and talent and interest.

Horizontal leadership is increasingly
necessary outside the organization, too, and
widely called “collaborative leadership.”
Other names include “facilitative leadership,”
“adaptive leadership,” “integral leadership,”
and “catalytic leadership,” among others.
Collaborative leadership focuses on power
sharing among organizations (e.g., Crosby
and Bryson 2010; Newell, Reeher, and
Ronayne 2012). It deemphasizes the roles of
both leaders and followers in order to
emphasize the needs of the network, system,
environment, or community, resulting in a collaborative style
(Jackson and Stainsby 2000; Kettl 2006). Collaborative theory
emphasizes the need to support the health of communities and
the
environment for the good of all, and thus it is particularly well
suited to the public and nonprofi t sectors. It requires a long-
term
perspective in achieving many of the desired results. It
emphasizes a
cooperative, win–win perspective that can be gained only by
working painstakingly through problems in order to frame them
as
opportunities, if those opportunities can be looked at broadly
enough. It maintains that all systems, especially those charged
with
enhancing the common good, have limited resources that tend to
be
squandered when a systemic approach is not applied.
Collaborative
leadership is most likely to occur in communities and in
professional environments sensitized to communal needs and
accountability, where individual leaders share collaborative

dispositions. Leaders in collaboration tend to have a
particularly
strong service mentality and tend to excel at
consultation and environmental evaluation.
They have a strong sense of community,
whether a local or regional community, an
environmental community, or a community
of practice or need (e.g., a charity).
Collaborative leaders are judged by their
contribution to building communities, to
mutual learning and sharing, to cooperative
problem solving, and to working on “wicked” problems
(Heifetz 1994). Despite their growing popularity and increasing
use,
networks do not replace internal organizational hierarchies, are
not
ideal organizational forms in all cases in pragmatic terms, and,
like
most types of leadership, can lead to lower productivity and
effectiveness if not managed effectively (Goodsell 2011;
McGuire
2006). Even while they emphasize the critical importance of
collaborative leadership, advocates often point out the
tremendous
diffi culty in implementing it because of the variety of
competing
competencies and because of the frameworks that need to be in
place (Crosby and Bryson 2010).
While the literature on horizontal and collaborative leadership
is
currently the most dynamic, the research in this area also identi-
fi es the types of problems that must be confronted. Th e
research

in collaborative leadership has been strongest when showing
how
(Kerr and Jermier 1978). Self-managed
teams and self-managed networks (Wachhaus
2012) are examples of the trends in current-
day management. Just as the operationally
focused, transactional leadership theory was
complemented later by the growth of transfor-
mational leadership, so, too, has distributed
leadership theory been complemented by col-
laboration theory, which focuses on horizontal
relationships across agencies (when it is often
called “networking”) and sectors (when it is
normally called “partnering”). Several corol-
laries follow from the importance of focus-
ing on leadership as a process rather than as
individuals. Th e meteoric rise of collaborative
leadership, as well as the newly reconceptual-
ized horizontal leadership (Pearce and Conger
2003), has resulted directly from the problems
facing contemporary leaders who must fl atten organizations,
provide
more organic structures, enhance social integration, create
learning
organizations with change at the lowest level possible, and even
fi nd
ways to include clients and the public more fl uidly.
Sometimes leaders need to foster systems in which they are not
needed or leave those systems alone when they are working
well;
delegation can be leadership at its best. Formal leaders have
limited time; fewer managerial and operational demands allow
them
to focus their efforts more narrowly on strategic issues. Formal

leaders are expensive; reducing their number saves money. Less
leadership also allows higher levels of self or group monitoring
and
innovation. More often than not, in high-performing systems,
subordinates will set high standards of production and quality
for
themselves and need only a minimum of oversight. Formal
leadership tends to restrict and tightly control information fl
ows. In
many business situations, such restrictions
cause dysfunction because good ideas and
much enthusiasm come through informal
networking, lateral communication, and
nonhierarchical forms of innovation diffusion.
Finally, formal leadership tends to concentrate
power high up in the chain of command;
empowerment requires a more devolved and
decentralized model of leadership. When
successfully implemented, empowerment, whether through
participation or delegation, enhances internal accountability,
sense
of ownership, professional affi liation, and buy-in with group
goals
(Kim 2002; Locke and Latham 2002).
Horizontal leadership is increasingly valued in a well-educated
world of fast change. A prime example is team leadership
(Denis,
Langley, and Sergi 2012; Katzenbach and Smith 1993). The
theory
of the self-managed team entails a contingency approach that
thrives
only under special conditions, but conditions to which most
well-managed organizations aspire. The single combined style
of
team leadership distributes the standard functions of leadership

among the members of the group or allows the group to assign
leadership functions based on member talents and availability;
thus,
direction, support, participation, achievement, inspiration, and
external connectedness are mutually determined and executed.
Leaders in collaboration tend to
have a particularly strong service
mentality and tend to excel at
consultation and environmental
evaluation.
Just as the operationally
focused, transactional leadership
theory was complemented later
by the growth of transforma-
tional leadership, so, too, has
distributed leadership theory
been complemented by col-
laboration theory, which focuses
on horizontal relationships
across agencies (when it is often
called “networking”) and sec-
tors (when it is normally called
“partnering”).
(Avolio and Gardner 2005; Gardner et al. 2005), and leaders

who
are positive emphasize openness, transparency, and optimism
(Luthans and Youssef 2007; Norman, Avolio, and Luthans
2010).
Authentic leaders are self-aware in terms of their values,
cognitions,
and emotions. The core values of authentic leaders include the
basic
integrity discussed earlier. They are adept at self-regulation in
terms
of their emotional intelligence, self-improvement goals, and
congruence between their actual and ideal selves. Authentic
leaders
control their ego drives and defensiveness, thereby encouraging
openness, feedback, and effective communication. Their self-
awareness increases the transparency in their communication
and is
more likely to be infused with prudence or wisdom. Finally,
authentic leaders develop positive psychological capital with
followers, whose self-awareness is also enhanced and whose
authentic interaction becomes more likely.
Good leaders know how to lead through service, spirit, sacrifi
ce,
and sustainability. First, the proponents advocate altruism and
“calling” as values in some explicit form, from the servant to
the
steward metaphor (Greenleaf 1977; Terry 1995). In the public
sector
literature, recognition of the importance of identifying,
eliciting, and
encouraging public service motivation is growing (Alonso and
Lewis
2001; Moynihan and Pandey 2007; Perry 1997). Second,
responsible
leadership always puts the needs of subordinates and external

constituents fi rst (Cooper 1990; Cooper and Wright 1992;
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003) and ensures that the
developmental
and mentoring role of the leader is primary (Manz and Sims
1989).
It also implies a strong empowerment thrust. Third, at certain
times
and in certain situations, ethical leaders may subtly emphasize
the
spiritual and servant roles as they engage in work that requires
“emotional labor” and emotional healing when clients have been
distressed. Emotional labor is the act of showing sensitivity,
empathy,
and compassion for others. It is most extensive when negative
events
such as disasters, death, or great suffering occur (Newman,
Guy, and
Mastracci 2009). Finally, ethical leadership strongly emphasizes
the
long-term needs of the community and environment (Kohlberg
1981; Bennis, Parikh, and Lessem 1994).
Despite the logical and emotional appeal of such ethical
proposi-
tions, researchers point out that applying them is often more
diffi cult and subtle than might be immediately apparent. Th e
clash
of value systems for contemporary leaders can be fi erce,
meaning
that integrity alone may not provide the answers (Lewis and
Gilman
2005). Simultaneous demands for transparency and privacy, due
process and effi ciency, are examples of the everyday ethical
confl icts
that leaders must manage. Authentic leaders, such as
transforma-

tional leaders, can fall sway to their own agenda (Ford and
Harding
2011), and positive leaders can become organizational
cheerleaders
(Fineman 2006; Hackman 2009; Shipman and Mumford 2011).
Excessive attention to laws and rules leads to rigidity (O’Leary
2006; Warner and Appenzeller 2011), but excessive focus on
profes-
sionalism can lead to elitism (Katzenbach and Smith 1993) or
worse
(Adams and Balfour 1998). Sometimes leaders think that they
are
servant or transforming leaders, when in fact they are
functioning
as charismatic narcissists (Kets de Vries 1985; Cooper and
Wright
1992).
Th e lessons of administrative leadership discussed are
summarized in
table 2.
collaborative leadership has helped revitalize attention on
neglected
policies (Redekop 2010) and overlooked communities (Morse
2010;
Ospina and Foldy 2010), as well as when looking at the specifi
c
tools and behaviors of collaboration (Crosby and Bryson 2010;
Page
2010; Silvia and McGuire 2010). Collaboration becomes more
dif-
fi cult and the literature less helpful in dealing with challenges
when
decentralization, devolution, and dispersing power must be
accom-

plished in areas requiring high levels of accountability
(McGuire
2006). Collaboration may raise contradictions among organiza-
tional, economic, and democratic goals; further, the literature
shows
that public sector leaders who enter into partnerships without
the
ability to bargain eff ectively and without the staff to monitor
imple-
mentation often serve the common good poorly (Jamali 2004).
Ethical Leadership Theory: Good Administrative Leaders
Instill and Build Trust, Understand Duty, and Keep
the Common Good in Mind at All Times
Ethics-based approaches to leadership tend to include three
major
concerns or pillars (Ciulla 2004). Th e fi rst concern is the
intent of
individuals, whether they are leaders or members of the
organiza-
tion. A second concern is selecting the proper means for doing
good.
A third concern is selecting the proper ends. Most would agree
that
all three concerns (good intent, proper means, and appropriate
ends or, stated diff erently, character, duty, and the greatest
good)
must be functioning in order for eff ective leadership (as a
process)
to be robust (Ciulla 1995). In a topsy-turvy world, robust, eff
ec-
tive leadership is more easily discussed than instituted, and, for
contemporary leaders, instituting it has never been more
challeng-
ing or divisive because of the competing values that those
leaders

face along with standards and demands that have never been
higher
(Geuras and Garofalo 2011; OECD 2000; Van Wart and Berman
1999; Walzer 2002).
Leaders demonstrate integrity. Integrity has a number of
dimensions; all of them relate to the wholeness of oneself in
society.
The fi rst dimension that people normally think about is honesty
or
truth telling. The second dimension of integrity relates to
trustworthiness (Carnevale 1995). Trustworthy people know
their
principles, are able to explain them clearly, and consistently
conform
to them (Manz et al. 2008; Palanski and Yammarino 2009). In
the
public sector, principles include such civic virtues as dedication
to
public service, commitment to the common good, and dedication
to the law of the land. A third dimension of integrity is fairness.
Those with management and executive responsibilities have
much
discretion, so fairness is important in both the equality of
treatment
and making rational and appropriate exceptions. The fi nal
dimension of integrity is conscientiousness, or concern for
doing an
effective job (Van Der Wal et al. 2011). At a basic level,
conscientiousness means forming good habits and working
earnestly; at a higher level, conscientiousness includes striving
for
excellence, which, in turn, enhances leader credibility (Dull
2009).
Leaders understand that duty is important and that it comes with
especially high standards in the public sector: duty includes

respect
for the law, rules, and professional norms (Menzel 2007;
Sergiovanni 2007; Terry 1998).
Good leaders know themselves and emphasize the positive,
which
is often called “authentic” or “positive” leadership. Leaders
who
are authentic emphasize self-awareness and self-improvement
involved, of the great number of competencies demanded, and
of the
great variety across situations. Perhaps most pertinent of all,
leaders
need to understand that the leadership skills that worked
previously
may not work in new situations or in changed environments. It
also
means that those who think that they can simply rely on their
natu-
ral leadership talents, no matter how substantial, are likely to
derail
themselves early in their careers. Leadership requires the
pursuit of
a lifetime and requires continuous honing if the leader is to
avoid
reaching a plateau.
In particular, the literature points out that
leaders focus on results, followers, change,
and leading systems, albeit with diff erent

emphases, as well as leading ethically with
principles. To get results, leaders need to have
high expectations of themselves and others
and constantly upgrade the skills of them-
selves and their followers. To lead followers
well requires analysis and support of their
needs, preventing out-groups, facilitating
diversity, and providing decision making that
is as inclusive as possible. To lead change does
not require charisma, but it does require basic
Conclusion
Th is review has demonstrated that although the fi eld of
leadership
is rather complex, paralleling the complexity of leadership
itself, the
major lessons presented in the leadership literature are
nonetheless
coherent, and the fi eld continues to provide relevant insights.
Th is
review has emphasized that specifi c aspects of leadership may
be
straightforward individually, but if those aspects are taken as a
whole,
leadership quickly becomes more diffi cult, complex, and
demanding.
It is important to note that although the broad principles of
leader-
ship may be relatively timeless, the specifi c and
practical challenges of leadership evolve and
change signifi cantly over time. Today’s leaders
must deal with ongoing fi scal stress, penetra-
tion of market mentalities in the public sector,
employee cynicism fueled by fewer resources
and greater responsibilities, massive technologi-
cal and communication changes, the pressure

to lead horizontally both inside and outside the
organization, unraveling social consensus in
many arenas, and, at a basic governance level,
confusion about which paradigm to follow and
when. Practitioners, then, need to be aware
of the vast number of situations and factors
Table 2 The Purposes of Leadership
Leadership
Focus
Overarching School
Focusing on This
Level of Leadership
Famous Examples of Theorists and Their Models Some Lessons
from the School of Thought
Leading for
results
Management
theory
• Fayol (1930), Gulick and Urwick (1937),
organization theory
• Hunt (1996), stratifi ed systems theory
• Vroom (1964), theory of motivation
• There are high expectations of leaders to get results.
• Leadership requires developmental education and training.
Leading
followers

Transactional lead-
ership theory
• Hersey and Blanchard (1972), situational
leadership
• House (1996; House and Mitchell 1974),
contingency theory
• Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), leader member
exchange theory
• Vroom and Jago (1988), decision-making
theory
• Good leaders need to be sure that followers have what they
need to do
the job: direction and training, encouragement and support,
participa-
tion, achievement-oriented motivation, and independence when
high
levels of competence are achieved.
• Good leaders can ill afford to have “out” groups.
• Leaders need to include followers as much as necessary in
decision mak-
ing and no more.
Leading
organizations
Transformational
leadership
theory

• Bass (1985), full-range leadership
• Tichy and Devanna (1986), change master
theory
• Kouzes and Posner (1987), leadership prac-
tices
• Conger (1989), charismatic leadership
• A major and important role of leaders is to facilitate change—
both the
mission and vision, as well as the values and culture.
• Transformational leadership is rarely at the expense of
transactional
leadership; it is in addition to it, and generally, it is hard to
achieve
transformation if transactional leadership does not precede it.
• Leaders do not have to know exactly what the change must
be—only
that it is needed and that there are different ways of achieving
it.
• While transformational leadership requires a great deal of
leaders in terms
of passion, commitment, energy, and insight, there are many
dangers
for leaders whose belief in themselves becomes egotistical.
Leading systems Horizontal and col-
laborative lead-
ership theory
• Kerr and Jermier (1978), leadership substitutes

theory
• Katzenbach and Smith (1993), high
performing team theory
• Crosby and Bryson (2010), social change
theory
• Heifetz (1994), adaptive leadership theory
• Sometimes leaders need to foster systems in which they are
not needed
or leave them alone when they are working well; delegation can
be
leadership at its best.
• Horizontal leadership is increasingly valued in a well-
educated world of
fast change.
• Horizontal leadership is increasingly necessary outside the
organization,
too; this is widely called “collaborative leadership.”
Leading with
values
Ethical leadership
theory
• Ciulla (1995, 2004), ethical leadership
• Avolio and Gardner (2005), authentic
leadership
• Terry (1995), conservatorship
• Kettl (2006), collaboration theory

• Cooper (1990), responsibility theory
• Greenleaf (1977), servant leadership
• Leaders demonstrate integrity.
• Good leaders know themselves and emphasize the positive,
which is
often called “authentic” or “positive” leadership.
• Good leaders know how to lead through service, spirit, sacrifi
ce, and
sustainability.
To lead change does not require
charisma, but it does require
basic managerial or transac-
tional competence, a clear sense
of what must be accomplished
with the ability to let change
evolve, and the ability to distin-
guish among diff ering bottom-
up, top-down, and center-out
strategies.
Avolio, Bruce J., and William L. Gardner. 2005. Authentic
Leadership Development:
Getting to the Root of Positive Forms of Leadership. Leadership
Quarterly 16(3):
315–38.

Barney, Jay B., and Patrick M. Wright. 1998. On Becoming a
Strategic Partner: Th e
Role of Human Resources in Gaining Competitive Advantage.
Human Resource
Management 37(1): 31−46.
Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations. New York:
Free Press.
———. 2008. Th e Bass Handbook of Leadership: Th eory,
Research, and Managerial
Applications. New York: Free Press.
Behn, Robert D. 1998. Do Public Managers Have the Right to
Lead? Public
Administration Review 58(3): 209–24.
Bennis, Warren, and Burt Nanus. 1985. Leaders: Strategies for
Taking Charge. New
York: Harper & Row.
Bennis, Warren, Jagdish Parikh, and Ronnie Lessem. 1994.
Beyond Leadership:
Balancing Economics, Ethics, and Ecology. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Business.
Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. 1964. Th e Managerial
Grid: Key Orientations
for Achieving Production through People. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Boin, R. Arjen, Paul ’t Hart, Allan McConnell, and Th omas
Preston. 2010.
Leadership Style, Crisis Response and Blame Management: Th e
Case of

Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration 88(3): 706–23.
Boin, R. Arjen, and Marc H. P. Otten. 1996. Beyond the Crisis
Window of Reform:
Some Ramifi cations for Implementation. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis
Management 4(3): 149–61.
Borins, Sandford. 2000. Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers, or
Enterprising Leaders?
Some Evidence about Innovative Public Managers. Public
Administration Review
60(6): 498–507.
Bozeman, Barry. 2010. Hard Lessons from Hard Times:
Reconsidering and Reorienting
the “Managing Decline” Literature. Public Administration
Review 70(4): 557–63.
Brookes, Stephen. 2011. Crisis, Confi dence and Collectivity:
Responding to the New
Public Leadership Challenge. Leadership 7(2): 175–95.
Buckingham, Marcus, and Curt Coff man. 1999. First, Break All
the Rules: What the
World’s Greatest Managers Do Diff erently. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Cain, Herman. 1999. Leadership Is Common Sense. New York:
Lebhar-Friedman.
Campbell, Donovan. 2009. Joker One: A Marine Platoon’s Story
of Courage, Leadership
and Brotherhood. New York: Random House.
Carnevale, David G. 1995. Trustworthy Government:
Leadership and Management

Strategies for Building Trust and High Performance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ciulla, Joanne B. 1995. Leadership Ethics: Mapping the
Territory. Business Ethics
Quarterly 5(1): 5–28.
———, ed. 2004. Ethics, the Heart of Leadership. 2nd ed.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Colquitt, Jason A., Donald E. Conlon, Michael J. Wesson,
Christopher O. Porter, and
K. Yee Ng. 2001. Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic
Review of 25 Years
of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied
Psychology 86(3): 425−45.
Conger, Jay A. 1989. Th e Charismatic Leader: Behind the
Mystique of Exceptional
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, Terry L. 1990. Th e Responsible Administrator: An
Approach to Ethics for the
Administrative Role. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, Terry L., and Dale N. Wright, eds. 1992. Exemplary
Public Administrators:
Character and Leadership in Government. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cortada, James W., Sietze Dijkstra, Gerry M. Mooney, and
Todd Ramsey. 2008.
Government and the Perpetual Collaboration Mandate: Six
Worldwide Drivers
Demand Customized Strategies. Somers, NY: IBM Institute for
Business Value.

Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. 2010. Integrative
Leadership and the
Creation and Maintenance of Cross-Sector Collaborations.
Leadership Quarterly
21(2): 211–30.
Currie, Graeme, Suzana Grunic, and Ron Hodges. 2011.
Leadership in Public
Services Networks: Antecedents, Process and Outcome. Public
Administration
89(2): 242–64.
managerial or transactional competence, a clear sense of what
must
be accomplished with the ability to let change evolve, and the
ability
to distinguish among diff ering bottom-up, top-down, and
center-
out strategies. Leading systems starts in one’s home
organization
with the ability to set up high-quality professional environments
in which less “leadership” is required so that “leaders” can
spend
more time collaborating with sister organizations, the public,
and
other sectors. Leading ethically requires not only clear
principles
and integrity but also, in the public sector, with its high
standards,
a sense of duty, spirit, sustainability, and even sacrifi ce on
occasion;
such leadership tends to be built on superior self-knowledge and
a
sense of optimism infused with energy and perseverance.

It is also important to remember that, with the exception of
horizontal and collaborative leadership, this review has
emphasized
individual leadership within an organizational context—a
valuable
perspective, but not the only perspective. Although usually per-
ceived through individuals, leadership is a group process.
Indeed,
the literature on contemporary leadership emphasizes the idea
that
leadership itself is constantly being socially constructed,
making it
both subjective and a moving target.
Public administration scholars can learn from the broader
literature,
but mainstream leadership scholars can also learn from public
sector
studies. Scholars can study the eff ects of and formulate
prescriptions
about the challenges for administrative leaders that are created
by,
among other things, performance and accountability pressures in
a legal context; the demands to create trust in increasingly
divisive
environments; the ramifi cations of virtual communication on
the
leadership processes, where both transparency and privacy
concerns
are highly regulated; and the need to collaborate and build
community
without violating one’s specifi c mandate. For example,
interdisciplinary
learning is growing in importance, and public leaders are
naturally
embedded in networks in which collaborative leadership is, or

should
be, highly practiced. Leaders in all sectors could learn a great
deal
by studying successful public administrators who span
boundaries
and extraorganizational roles in a complex political, legal, and
social
environments. And, of course, as the world changes, the lessons
of
leadership must be reinterpreted, and the specifi c mix and
balance of
competencies needed by public sector leaders must also be
reevaluated.
Note
1. For a comprehensive review of the mainstream literature, see
Bass (2008); for a
comprehensive review of public sector organizational
leadership, see Van Wart
(2012); and for a review of the current research issues facing
the fi eld, see Van
Wart (2011).
References
Abramson, Mark A., Jonathan D. Breul, and John M. Kamensky.
2006. Six Trends
Transforming Government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for
Business of
Government.
Adams, Guy B., and Danny L. Balfour. 1998. Unmasking
Administrative Evil.
Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Alonso, Pablo, and Gregory B. Lewis. 2001. Public Service
Motivation and Job
Performance: Evidence from the Federal Sector. American
Review of Public
Administration 31(4): 363–80.
Anderson, Jon Aarum. 2010. Public versus Private Managers:
How Public and Private
Managers Diff er in Leadership Behavior. Public Administration
Review 70(1):
131–41.
Hemphill, John K., and Alvin E. Coons. 1957. Development of
the Leader Behavior
Questionnaire. In Leader Behavior: Its Description and
Measurement, edited by
Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, 6–38. Columbus: Ohio
State University,
Bureau of Business Research.
Hennessey, J. Th omas. 1998. Re-Inventing Government: Does
Leadership Make the
Diff erence? Public Administration Review 58(6): 522–33.
Hersey, Paul, and Kenneth H. Blanchard.1972. Th e
Management of Change.
Training and Development Journal 26(2): 20–24.
Hooijberg, Robert, and Jaepil Choi. 2001. Th e Impact of
Organizational
Characteristics on Leadership Eff ectiveness Models: An

Examination of Leadership
in a Private and a Public Organization. Administration &
Society 33(4): 403–31.
House, Robert J. 1996. Path-Goal Th eory of Leadership:
Lessons, Legacy, and a
Reformulated Th eory. Leadership Quarterly 7(3): 323–52.
House, Robert J., and Terrence R. Mitchell. 1974. Path-Goal Th
eory of Leadership.
Journal of Contemporary Business 3: 81–97.
Hunt, James G. 1996. Leadership: A New Synthesis. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Jackson, Peter M., and Lynn Stainsby. 2000. Managing Public
Sector Networked
Organizations. Public Money and Management 20(1): 11–16.
Jaques, Elliot. 1989. Requisite Organization: Th e CEO’s Guide
to Creative Structure
and Leadership. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall.
Jamali, Dima. 2004. Success and Failure Mechanisms of Public
Private Partnerships
(PPPs) in Developing Countries: Insights from the Lebanese
Context.
International Journal of Public Sector Management 17(5): 414–
30.
Javidian, Mansour, and David A. Waldman. 2003. Exploring
Charismatic Leadership
in the Public Sector: Measurement and Consequences. Public
Administration
Review 63(2): 229–42.

Kaiser, Robert B., Robert Hogan, and S. Bartholomew Craig.
2008. Leadership and
the Fate of Organizations. American Psychologist 63(2): 96–
110.
Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith. 1993. Th e Wisdom
of Teams: Creating the
High-Performance Organization. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kaufman, Herbert A. 1981. Th e Administrative Behavior of
Federal Bureau Chiefs.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kelman, Steven. 2011. Successfully Achieving Ambitious Goals
in Government: An
Empirical Analysis. American Review of Public Administration
41(3): 235–62.
Kerr, Stephen, and John M. Jermier. 1978. Substitutes for
Leadership: Th eir Meaning
and Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 22(3):
375–403.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R. 1985. Narcissism and Leadership:
An Object Relations
Perspective. Human Relations 38(6): 583–601.
Kettl, Donald F. 2006. Managing Boundaries in American
Administration: Th e
Collaboration Imperative. Special issue, Public Administration
Review 66:
10–19.

Kiel, L. Douglas. 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in
Government: A New
Paradigm for Managing Change, Innovation, and Organizational
Renewal. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kim, Soonhee. 2002. Participative Management and Job
Satisfaction: Lessons for
Management Leadership. Public Administration Review 62(2):
231–41.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1981. Th e Philosophy of Moral
Development: Moral Stages and the
Idea of Justice. Vol. 1. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kotter, John P. 1990. A Force for Change: How Leadership Diff
ers from Management.
New York: Free Press.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1987. Th e Leadership
Challenge: How to Get
Extraordinary Th ings Done in Organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kouzmin, Alexander, and Nada Korac-Kakabadse. 2000.
Mapping Institutional
Impacts of Lean Communication in Lean Agencies.
Administration & Society
32(1): 29–69.
Lewis, Carol W., and Stuart C. Gilman. 2005. Th e Ethics
Challenge in Public Service:
A Problem-Solving Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denhardt, Janet V., and Kelly B. Campbell. 2006. Th e Role of
Democratic Values in

Transformational Leadership. Administration & Society 38(5):
556–72.
Denis, Jean-Louis, Ann Langley, and Viviane Sergi. 2012.
Leadership in the Plural.
Academy of Management Annals 6(1): 211–83.
Dull, Matthew. 2009. Results-Model Reform Leadership:
Questions of Credible
Commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th
eory 19(2): 255–84.
———. 2010. Leadership and Organizational Culture:
Sustaining Dialogue between
Practitioners and Scholars. Public Administration Review 70(6):
857–66.
Ekvall, Göran, and Jouko Arvonen. 1991. Change-Centered
Leadership: An
Extension of the Two-Dimensional Model. Scandinavian Journal
of Management
7: 15−26.
Fayol, Henri. 1930. Industrial and General Administration.
Trans. J. A. Coubrough.
London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.
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 Th eory 15(2): 197–217.
———. 2008. Examining the Eff ects of Leadership Behavior on
Employee
Perceptions of Performance and Job Satisfaction. Public

Performance and
Management Review 32(2): 175−205.
Fernandez, Sergio, Yoon Jik Cho, and James L. Perry. 2010.
Exploring the Link
between Integrated Leadership and Public Sector Performance.
Leadership
Quarterly 21(2): 308–23.
Fernandez, Sergio, and Tima Moldogaziev. 2011. Empowering
Public Sector
Employees to Improve Performance: Does It Work? American
Review of Public
Administration 41(1): 23–47.
Fernandez, Sergio, and Hal G. Rainey. 2006. Managing
Successful Organizational
Change in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review
66(2): 168–76.
Fineman, Stephen. 2006. On Being Positive: Concerns and
Counterpoints. Academy
of Management Review 31(2): 270–91.
Ford, Jackie, and Nancy Harding. 2011. Th e Impossibility of
the “True Self ” of
Authentic Leadership. Leadership 7(4): 463–79.
Gabris, Gerald T., and Douglas Ihrke. 2007. No End to
Hierarchy: Does Rank Make
a Diff erence in Perceptions of Leadership Credibility?
Administration & Society
39(1): 107–23.
Gardner, William L., Bruce J. Avolio, Fred Luthans, Douglas R.
May, and Fred O.

Walumbwa. 2005. Can You See the Real Me? A Self-Based
Model of Authentic
Leader and Follower Development. Leadership Quarterly 16(3):
343–72.
Geuras, Dean, and Charles Garofalo. 2011. Practical Ethics in
Public Administration.
3rd ed. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Giacalone, Robert A., and Carole L. Jurkiewicz, eds. 2003.
Handbook of Workplace
Spirituality and Organizational Performance. New York: M. E.
Sharpe.
Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee. 2002.
Primal Leadership:
Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Goodsell, Charles T. 2011. Mission Mystique: Strength at the
Institutional Center.
American Review of Public Administration 41(5): 475–94.
Graen, George, and Mary Uhl-Bien. 1995. Relationship-Based
Approach to
Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
Th eory of
Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-
Domain Approach.
Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 219–47.
Greenleaf, Robert K. 1977. Servant Leadership: A Journey into
the Nature of Legitimate
Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Gulick, Luther, and Lyndall Urwick, eds. 1937. Papers on the

Science of
Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Hackman, J. Richard. 2009. Th e Perils of Positivity. Journal of
Organizational
Behavior 30(2): 309–19.
Heifetz, Ronald A. 1994. Leadership without Easy Answers.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press.
Heifetz, Ronald A., Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky.
2009. Leadership in a
(Permanent) Crisis. Harvard Business Review 87(7): 62–69.
Pandey, Sanjay K. 2010. Cutback Management and the Paradox
of Publicness. Public
Pearce, Craig L., and Jay A. Conger, eds. 2003. Shared
Leadership: Reframing the
Hows and Whys of Leadership. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Perry, James L. 1997. Antecedents of Public Service
Motivation. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Th eory 7(2): 181–97.
Phillips, Donald T., and James M. Loy. 2008. Architecture of
Leadership: Preparation
Equals Performance. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Pitts, David W. 2005. Diversity, Representation, and
Performance: Evidence about
Race and Ethnicity in Public Organizations. Journal of Public
Administration
Research and Th eory 15(4): 615−31.
Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2011. Public
Management Reform: A
Comparative Analysis. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Raskin, Robert, Jill Novacek, and Robert Hogan. 1991.
Narcissistic Self-Esteem
Management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
60(6): 911–18.
Redekop, Benjamin, W. 2010. “Physicians to a Dying Planet”:
Helen Caldicott,
Randall Forsberg, and the Anti-Nuclear Weapons Movement of
the Early 1980s.
Roberts, Nancy C., and Raymond T. Bradley. 1988. Limits of
Charisma. In
Charismatic Leadership: Th e Elusive Factor in Organizational
Eff ectiveness,
edited by Jay A. Conger and Rabindra N. Kanungo, 253–75. San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, Wes. 1985. Th e Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun.
New York: Warner
Books.
Rost, Joseph C. 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century.
New York: Praeger.

Sandowsky, Daniel. 1995. Th e Charismatic Leader as
Narcissist: Understanding the
Abuse of Power. Organizational Dynamics 24(4): 57–71.
Saner, Raymond. 2001. Globalization and Its Impact on
Leadership Qualifi cation
in Public Administration. International Review of
Administrative Sciences 67(4):
649–61.
Sergiovanni, Th omas J. 2007. Rethinking Leadership. 2nd ed.
Th ousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Shipman, Amanda, and Michael Mumford. 2011. When Confi
dence Is Detrimental:
Infl uence of Overconfi dence on Leadership Eff ectiveness.
Leadership Quarterly
22(4): 649–65.
Silvia, Chris, and Michael McGuire. 2010. Leading Public
Sector Networks: An
Empirical Examination of Integrative Behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly 21(2):
264–77.
Simonsen, William. 1998. Municipal Bonds: Policy and
Strategy. In Th e International
Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, edited by
Jay M. Shafritz,
1453–58. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Terry, Larry D. 1995. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: Th e
Administrator as
Conservator. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

———. 1998. Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism,
and the Public
Management Movement. Public Administration Review 58(3):
194–200.
Tichy, Noel M., and Mary Anne Devanna. 1986. Th e
Transformational Leader. New
York: Wiley.
Trottier, Tracey, Montgomery Van Wart, and XiaoHu Wang.
2008. Examining the
Nature and Signifi cance of Leadership in Government
Organizations. Public
Uhl-Bien, Mary, Russ Marion, and Bill McKelvey. 2007.
Complexity Leadership
Th eory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the
Knowledge Era.
U.S. Offi ce of Personnel Management (OPM). 2008. Federal
Human Capital Survey.
www.fedview.opm.gov/2008FILES/2008_Govtwide_Report.pdf
[accessed April 4,
2013].
———. 2011. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
http://www.fedview.opm.
gov/2011/ [accessed April 4, 2013].
Locke, Edwin A., and Gary P. Latham. 2002. Building a
Practically Useful Th eory
of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey.
American Psychologist

57(9): 705–17.
Logan, David, John King, and Halee Fischer-Wright. 2008.
Tribal Leadership:
Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Th riving Organization.
New York:
HarperCollins.
Luthans, Fred, and Carolyn M. Youssef. 2007. Emerging
Positive Organizational
Behavior. Journal of Management 33(3): 321–49.
Manz, Charles C., Vikas Anand, Mahendra Joshi, and Karen P.
Manz. 2008.
Emerging Paradoxes in Executive Leadership: A Th eoretical
Interpretation of the
Tensions between Corruption and Virtuous Values. Leadership
Quarterly 19(3):
385–92.
Manz, Charles C., and Henry P. Sims, Jr. 1989.
Superleadership: Leading Others to
Lead Th emselves. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McCall, Morgan, Michael M. Lombardo, and Anne M. Morrison.
1988. Th e Lessons
of Experience: How Successful Executives Develop on the Job.
New York: Lexington
Books.
McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management:
Assessing What We
Know and How We Know It. Special issue, Public
Administration Review 66:
33–43.

McLeod, Poppy Lauretta, Sharon Alisa Lobel, and Taylor H.
Cox, Jr. 1996. Ethnic
Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups. Small Group
Research 27(2): 246−64.
Menzel, Donald C. 2007. Ethics Management for Public
Administrators: Building
Organizations of Integrity. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1973. Th e Nature of Managerial Work. New
York: Harper & Row.
Morse, Ricardo. 2010. Integrative Public Leadership:
Catalyzing Collaboration to
Create Public Value. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Th eory 21(2):
231–45.
Moynihan, Donald P. 2004. Integrative Leadership in the Public
Sector: A Model of
Performance Information Use. Administration & Society 36(4):
427–53.
Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. Th e Role of
Organizations in
Fostering Public Service Motivation. Public Administration
Review 67(1): 40–53.
Moynihan, Donald P., Bradley E. Wright, and Sanjay K.
Pandey. 2012. Can
Transformational Leaders Alter the Experience of Red Tape?
International Public
Management Journal 15(3): 315–32.
Newell, Terry, Grant Reeher, and Peter Ronayne. 2012. Th e
Trusted Leader: Building

the Relationships Th at Make Government Work. 2nd ed.
Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
Newman, Meredith A., Mary Ellen Guy, and Sharon H.
Mastracci. 2009. Aff ective
Leadership and Emotional Labor. Public Administration Review
69(1): 6–20.
Norman, Stephen M., Bruce J. Avolio, and Fred Luthans. 2010.
Th e Impact
of Positivity and Transparency on Trust in Leaders and Th eir
Eff ectiveness.
Nutt, Paul C., and Robert W. Backoff . 1996. Walking the
Vision and Walking the
Talk: Transforming Public Organizations with Strategic
Leadership. Public
Productivity and Management Review 19(4): 455–86.
O’Leary, Rosemary. 2006. Th e Ethics of Dissent: Managing
Guerrilla Government.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2000. Trust in
Government: Ethics Measures in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD
Press.
Ospina, Sonia, and Erica Foldy. 2010. Building Bridges from
the Margins: Th e Work
of Leadership in Social Change Organizations. Journal of Public
Administration
Research and Th eory 21(2): 292–307.

Page, Stephen. 2010. Integrative Leadership for Collaborative
Governance: Civic
Engagement in Seattle. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Th eory
21(2): 248–63.
Palanski, Michael E., and Francis J. Yammarino. 2009. Integrity
and Leadership: A
Multi-Level Conceptual Framework. Leadership Quarterly
20(3): 405–20.
From Theory to Practice—The Federal Executive Board:
Leadership in Action 565
Waldman, David A., Gabriel G. Ramirez, Robert J. House, and
Phanish Puranam.
2001. Does Leadership Matter? CEO Leadership and Profi
tability under
Conditions of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty. Academy
of Management
Journal 44(1): 134–44.
Walzer, Michael, ed. 2002. Toward a Global Civil Society.
Providence, RI: Berghahn.
Wheatley, Margaret J. 2006. Leadership and the New Science:
Discovering Order in a
Chaotic World. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wright, Bradley E., Donald P. Moynihan, and Sanjay K.
Pandey. 2012. Pulling the
Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service
Motivation, and Mission
Valence. Public Administration Review 72(2): 206–15.

Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2010.
Transformational Leadership in
the Public Sector: Does Structure Matter? Journal of Public
Administration
Research Th eory 20(1): 75–89.
Yammarino, Francis J., Shelly D. Dionne, Jae Uk Chun, and
Fred Dansereau. 2005.
Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-of-the-Science
Review. Leadership
Quarterly 16(6): 879–919.
Yukl, Gary. 2002. Leadership in Organizations. Th ousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zaleznik, Abraham. 1977. Managers and Leaders: Are Th ey
Diff erent? Harvard
Business Review 55(5): 67–78.
Van Der Wal, Zeger, Leo Huberts, Hans Van den Heuvel, and
Emile Koltoff . 2006.
Central Values of Government and Business: Diff erences,
Similarities and
Confl icts. Public Administration Quarterly 30(3): 314–64.
Van Wart, Montgomery. 2011. Changing Dynamics of
Administrative Leadership.
In Th e State of Public Administration: Issues, Challenges, and
Opportunities,
edited by Donald C. Menzel and Harvey L. White, 89–107.
Armonk, NY: M.
E. Sharpe.
———. 2012. Dynamics of Leadership in Public Service: Th

eory and Practice. 2nd ed.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Van Wart, Montgomery, and Evan M. Berman. 1999.
Contemporary Public Sector
Productivity Values: Narrower Scope, Tougher Standards, and
New Rules of the
Game. Public Productivity and Management Review 22(3): 326–
47.
Van Wart, Montgomery, and Naim Kapucu. 2011. Crisis
Management
Competencies: Th e Case of Emergency Managers in the U.S.
Public Management
Review 13(4): 489–511.
Vroom, Victor H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York:
Wiley.
Vroom, Victor H., and Arthur G. Jago. 1988. Th e New
Leadership: Managing
Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Wachhaus, T. Aaron. 2012. Anarchy as a Model for Network
Governance. Public
Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of
Wiley-Blackwell 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.
FIGURE 5.1 The Leadership Perspective Model
PSL7010 – WEEK 3
Assignment: Communication and Organizational Effectiveness
As you discovered in your course readings, "Leaders'
communication can have profound effects on the behavior of
individuals in their circles" (Gamble & Gamble, 2013, p. 44).
Both communication and leadership styles will impact the
attitudes and productivity of followers.
After observing and interacting with the Riverbend City:
Communication and Organizational Effectiveness scenario (in
attachments), use the readings for this unit (in attachments):
· Use citations and references from this weeks resources (in
attachments)
· Analyze the issue you are facing as the leader in this scenario.
· Describe the leadership style(s) that will best complement the
needs of the work team, including supporting leadership
theory/ies.
· Describe the communication and listening style(s) that are best
suited for this scenario.
· Describe the role of social networking and technology
communications in addressing the situation.
· Use the leadership Perspective Model (see Figure 5.1 in
the Leading With Communication text on pages 92–93, (In
attachments), and predict the most important areas of focus and
perceptions of the followers in the scenario.
· Describe the manner in which your leadership actions and
communication strategies will ensure interpersonal and
organizational effectiveness.
· Describe the role of communication in resolving the issue.

Requirements
The assignment you submit is expected to meet the following
requirements:
· Written communication: Written communication is free of
errors that detract from the overall message.
· APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted
according to current APA style and formatting standards.
· Number of resources: Use a minimum of three scholarly
sources outside of the course text. All literature cited should be
current, with publication dates within the past five years.
· Length of paper: 6–8 pages, double spaced.
· Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.

Running header STRATEGY, PLANNING, AND SELECTION11STRATEGY, .docx

More Related Content

Similar to Running header STRATEGY, PLANNING, AND SELECTION11STRATEGY, .docx (19)

More from rtodd599 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Running header STRATEGY, PLANNING, AND SELECTION11STRATEGY, .docx