Case Study: Organizational Structure & Culture Assignment Instructions Overview In this Case Study, you will apply the Statesmanship model discussed in Module 1: Week 1 to a real, specific publi

Case Study: Organizational Structure & Culture Assignment Instructions Overview In this Case Study, you will apply the Statesmanship model discussed in Module 1: Week 1 to a real, specific publi
The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure Joris van der Voet ⇑ Institute of Public Governance and Management, ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain article info Article history: Available online 9 November 2013 Keywords: Change management Leadership Organizational structure Public sector organizations abstract There is an extensive private sector literature on organizational change management. However, recent studies have suggested that the specific context of public organizations may have consequences for the management organizational change. This study examines to what extent different change approaches and transformational leadership of direct supervisors contribute to theeffectiveimplementation of organizational change in public organizations, and to what extent the bureaucratic structure of public organizations makes the implementation of organizational changes3pecific. The implementation of an organizational change in a Dutch public organization is studied using quantitative methods and tech- niques. The results indicate that bureaucratic organizations may effectively implement organizational change with both planned and emergent change approaches. The contribution of transformational lead- ership depends on the type of change approach and organizational structure. Transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors contributes little to planned processes of change, but is crucial in emergent processes of change in a non-bureaucratic context. Although the literature on change management mostly emphasizes the leadership of senior managers, the leadership role of direct supervisors should not be overlooked during organizational change in public organizations. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction There is an extensive private sector literature on organizational change management (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burke, 2010; Self, Armenakis, & Schraeder, 2007). However, recent studies have questioned to what extent private sector change management techniques are applicable in a public sector context, and have suggested that the differences between the pub- lic and private sector could play a role (Boyne, 2006; Karp & Helgø, 2008; Kickert, 2013; Klarner, Probst, & Soparnot, 2008; Rusaw, 2007). Several authors have suggested that the specific context of public organizations may have consequences for the management organizational change (Burnes, 2009; Coram & Burnes, 2001; Isett, Glied, Sparer, & Brown, 2012; McNulty & Ferlie, 2004), but there is little empirical evidence concerning this issue. A recent literature review of research on change management in the public sector byKuipers et al. (2013)found that most studies emphasize the content and context of change, instead of the implementation pro- cess. Moreover, Kuipers et al. conclude that many studies did not address the outcomes or success of a change intervention. Although there is substantial evidence that the implementation of organization change often fails (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burke, 2010; Burnes, 2011; Kotter, 1996), there is relatively little evidence about how organizational change can be effectively managed in the public sector (Fernandez & Pitts, 2007; Kickert, 2010). This study aims to contribute to research on change manage- ment in public organizations by addressing the effectiveness and specificity of change management in public organizations. First, this study aims to identify what factors contribute to theeffective implementation of organizational change in the public sector. As the implementation of organizational change ultimately depends on the support of employees (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007). The concept of employee willingness to change is used to assess the degree to which employees support the implementation of change (Metselaar, 1997). Following the emphasis on the role of leadership in the change management literature (e.g.Gill, 2002; Higgs & Rowland, 2005, 2010; Karp & Helgø, 2008; Kotter, 1996), this study examines to what extent leadership contributes to employee willingness to change in the public sector. Attention is focused on the transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors. In addition, this study accounts for the effects of different change management approaches that are outlined in the literature on change management (Beer & Nohria, 2000; By, 2005). We refer to these approaches as planned and emergent change (cf.Bamford & Forrester, 2003; Burnes, 1996, 2004; Kickert, 2010). 0263-2373/$ – see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.10.001 ⇑Tel.: +31 (10) 408 1789. E-mail address:[email protected] European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 Contents lists available atScienceDirect European Management Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj Secondly, this study aims to examine to what extent the specific nature of public organizations makes the implementation of orga- nizational changespecific. A detailed literature exists about the specific characteristics of the objectives, environment, organiza- tional structure of public sector organizations and the characteris- tics of their employees (e.g.Allison, 1979; Boyne, 2002; Farnham & Horton, 1996; Rainey, 2003; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000). In this study, attention is focused on the organizational structure. Public organizations typically operate under a strict legal framework and are confronted with high demands for accountability (Rainey, 2003). Because of this, public organizations tend to avoid risks by formalizing the operations and centralizing decision-making in the organization (Mintzberg, 1979). The organizational structure of public organizations is therefore generally said to be relatively bureaucratic (Boyne, 2002; Farnham & Horton, 1996). The organi- zational structure has traditionally been highlighted as a determi- nant of how organizations change (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979). Moreover,Coram and Burnes (2001)andIsett et al. (2012)have argued that the bureaucratic organizational structure of public organizations may have a bearing on the man- agement of change, but there is limited empirical evidence regard- ing this issue. To summarize, the first objective of this study is to assess to what extent transformational leadership and different change management approaches contribute to willingness to change in a public organization. The second research objective is to examine to how these relationships are affected by bureaucratic organiza- tional structure. The central research question is:How is the effec- tiveness of transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors in planned and emergent change affected by a bureaucratic organiza- tional structure? In order to address the research objectives, the implementation of an organizational change in a Dutch public organization is ana- lyzed using quantitative methods. In the next section, the literature concerning organizational change in the public sector is reviewed. Moreover, the relationships between leadership, processes of change and the organizational structure are discussed in order to formulate hypotheses. Methods, sample and measures provides an overview of the methods, sample and measures of this study. Results are presented in Analysis and Results, followed by a discus- sion of the results in Discussion, limitations, and implications for future research. In this section, limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are also discussed. The main conclusions are given in Conclusion. Theoretical background and hypotheses Organizational change in public organizations Public organizations are often confronted with the need to implement organizational changes. However, the processes through which organizational change in public organizations come about have received relatively little attention in academic research (Kickert, 2010; Kuipers et al., 2013). A prominent line of research that focuses on organizational change in public organizations is the public management reform perspective (e.g.Boyne, Farrell, Law, Powell, & Walker, 2003; Kickert, 2007; Ongaro, 2010; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). This perspective focuses on ‘‘the deliberate changes to the structures and processes of public sector organizations with the objective of getting them (in some sense) to run better’’ (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004, p. 8). However, the public management reform perspective is focused on the content and effects of organizational changes on the sector or na- tional level (e.g.Ackroyd, Kirkpatrick, & Walker, 2007; Heinrich, 2002; Pollitt, 2000), rather than on the implementation processes in individual organizations. As a consequence, the reform perspective has contributed little to insights about how the imple- mentation of organizational change in the public sector is managed. Theory on the management of organizational change manage- ment has traditionally been based on private sector research, cases and examples (Stewart & Kringas, 2003; Thomas, 1996). Change management research has addressed the role of contextual factors during organizational change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Pettigrew, Ferlie, & McKee, 1992; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001), but not the specific contextual characteristics of public organizations (Kuipers et al., 2013). In the past decade, the issue of change management in public organizations has received increased attention (Fernandez & Pitts, 2007; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). Recent studies have focused on organizational changes in different types of public sector organizations, such as health care organizations (Chustz & Larson, 2006; Isett et al., 2012; Klarner et al., 2008; McNulty & Ferlie, 2004), local government organiza- tions (Liguori, 2012; Seijts & Roberts, 2011; Zorn, Page, & Cheney, 2000) and central government organizations (Coram & Burnes, 2001; Ryan, Williams, Charles, & Waterhouse, 2008; Sminia & Van Nistelrooij, 2006; Stewart & Kringas, 2003; Stewart & O’Donnell, 2007). Despite the increased attention for organizational change in public organizations, the literature has two considerable short- comings. Based on a review of the literature on organizational change in public organizations between 2000 and 2010,Kuipers et al. (2013)state that most of the studies were based on case-based design using qualitative methods. Such studies often emphasize the importance of leadership during change in public organizations (Karp & Helgø, 2008; Klarner et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2008). Other than research conducted in the private sector (e.g.Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2005, 2010; Liu, 2010), little research has studied the effects of leader- ship during change in public organizations (Fernandez & Pitts, 2007). A first shortcoming is thus that existing research has little attention for theeffectivenessof leadership and different ap- proaches to change. An exception isHennessey (1998), who stud- ied the influence of leadership competencies during the implementation of ‘reinventing government’ changes in the United States. A second shortcoming concerns the lack of empirical evidence about thespecificityof organizational change in the public sector. A central point of view in public management research is that pri- vate sector insights may not be applicable in public organizations (Boyne, 2006). There is a large literature on the specific character- istics of public organizations (e.g.Boyne, 2002; Rainey, 2003). In addition, many studies have suggested that the specific public sec- tor context may influence organizational change (Isett et al., 2012; Klarner et al., 2008; McNulty & Ferlie, 2004). However, little re- search has empirically addressed the question what is specific or distinct about change in public organizations (exceptions are Kickert, 2013; Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995). While many recent studies have studied change in public organizations, the distinctive characteristics of public organizations are generally not accounted for in the design or variables of these studies (e.g.Chustz & Larson, 2006; Isett et al., 2012; Klarner et al., 2008; Sminia & Van Nistelrooij, 2006; Tummers, Steijn, & Beckers, 2012) As such, there is little empirical evidence about what makes change management specific in public organizations. In order to formulate hypotheses about the effectiveness of organizational change in public organizations, change manage- ment and leadership theory is reviewed subsequently. Then, the relations between change and a bureaucratic organizational struc- ture are discussed in order to formulate hypotheses concerning the specificity of organizational change in public organizations. 374J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 Processes of organizational change and its leadership The support of employees is crucial for the successful imple- mentation for organizational change (Bartunek et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2007). One of the central assumptions of the change manage- ment literature is that employee support for the implementation of organizational change is not only dependent on what changes – the content of change – but also on the process of change through which organizational change comes about (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Self et al., 2007). Organizational change is thus something that can be managed. In this study, the concept willingness to change is used to account for the support of employees concerning organizational change.Metselaar (1997:42)defines willingness to change as ‘‘a positive behavioral intention towards the implemen- tation of modifications in an organization’s structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member’s side to support or enhance the change process.’’ The change management literature consists of many different approaches, strategies, interventions and actions through which change can be implemented (e.g.Burke, 2010). The literature is dominated by the distinction between planned and emergent pro- cesses of change (Bamford & Forrester, 2003; By, 2005). Planned change occurs through a process of rational goal-setting in which change objectives are formulated in advance and implemented in a top-down fashion. The central assumption is that the organiza- tion must go through a number of phases in order to successfully change to a desired future state (Burnes, 1996, 2004). The emer- gent approach to change is a more devolved and bottom-up way to implement change (By, 2005). The content of change is not the starting point as in the planned approach to change, but rather the outcome of an emergent change process. Employees are not seen as passive recipients of the organizational change, but are stimulated to actively contribute to the change process (Russ, 2008). Leadership is generally highlighted as one of the key drivers of the implementation of organizational change (Herold et al., 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2005, 2010, 2011; Liu, 2010). A great deal of the change management literature is therefore concerned with change leadership. Change management refers to the process of change: the planning, coordinating, organizing and directing of the processes through which change is implemented, while leader- ship is aimed at the motivation and influence of employees (Gill, 2002; Spicker, 2012). Change management can thus be seen as a sine qua non, while the successful organizational change ulti- mately requires leadership to be enacted (Eisenbach, Watson, & Pillai, 1999). Research on change leadership is mostly directed at the role of senior executives or the role of a guiding coalition at the top of the organization (e.g.Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Hennessey, 1998; Kotter, 1996). However,Burke (2010)argues that senior managers often initiate organizational change, while the implementation of change relies on lower level leadership. This study is therefore aimed at examining the contribution of leader- ship enacted by direct supervisors. The main leadership theory that emphasizes organizational change is the theory of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985, 1999). This theory states that ‘‘by articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and providing individualized support, effective leaders change the basic values, beliefs, and atti- tudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization’’ (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996, p. 260). Transformational leadership can be expected to be especially effective in times of organizational change (Conger, 1999; Herold et al., 2008; Liu, 2010; Pawar & East- man, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999).Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman (1997, p. 20)argue how transformational leadership can ultimately transform the organization ‘‘by defining the need for change, creating new visions, [and] mobilizing commitment to these visions.’’ Although studies often highlight the importance of leadership during change (e.g.Gill, 2002; Kotter, 1996), there is little empirical evidence concerning the influence of transformational leadership on employee support for change (Burke, 2010; Herold et al., 2008), especially in the public sector (Fernandez & Pitts, 2007). Rather than seeing change as a contextual factor which may influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership (Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999),Eisenbach et al. (1999, p. 84)have argued how transformational leaders can be expected to execute the phases of change that are high- lighted in the literature on planned organizational change (e.g. Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996). For example, transfor- mational leaders may initiate change by developing an appealing future vision for the organization, which is generally seen as a crucial first step in the implementation of planned change (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Kotter, 1996). Moreover, transforma- tional leaders can be expected to contribute to the implementa- tion of change by providing intellectual stimulation through the formulation of challenging objectives and the stimulation of new ways of thinking (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Similarly,Higgs and Rowland (2011: 329)have noted parallels between the idealized influence and inspirational motivation provided by transforma- tional leaders, and the behaviors of leaders in the implementation of planned change, such as envisioning a future state, role model- ing and giving individual attention to employees (Gill, 2002; Higgs & Rowland, 2010). In planned processes of change, transformational leaders can thus be expected to be uniquely effective change leaders (Eisenbach et al., 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2011). However, organizational change can also come about through emergent processes of change (Burnes, 2004; By, 2005), and different change processes may call for a different role of leadership (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Rather than initiating and directing the implementa- tion of change, leadership in emergent processes of change may consist of delegating responsibilities and creating capacity among employees to implement the change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005, 2010; Van der Voet, Groeneveld, & Kuipers, 2013). The following hypothesis is proposed: H1.A higher degree of transformational leadership will increase the effectiveness of a planned process of change, but it will not increase the effectiveness of an emergent process of change. Bureaucratic organizational structures and processes of change In recent years, several studies have investigated the influence of contextual factors on the outcomes of organizational change (e.g.Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007; Rafferty & Restubog, 2009; Self et al., 2007). Several authors point out the relevance of organizational structure as a relevant contextual factor during organizational change. For example,Weick and Quinn (1999)argue that classic machine bureaucracies will require being unfrozen be- fore organizational changes can take place. Similarly,Coram and Burnes (2001)argue that a planned approach to change is most suitable for rule-based, rigid structures.Burnes (1996)states that a top-down bureaucratic management style is associated with planned change, while a more decentralized, flexible management style corresponds with emergent change. However, little research has focused on how the effectiveness of different change ap- proaches is affected by a bureaucratic organizational structure. In organization theory, the term bureaucracy refers to an ideal typical organization that stresses a formal hierarchy, rules, specialization, impersonality, routine and merit-based J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 375 employment (Morgan, 1996). In general, the term bureaucracy is more often used to refer to negative aspects of rule-based, mecha- nistic organizations than to the ideal type organizational structure. The degree to which an organization is bureaucratic is dependent, among others, on the degree of centralization and formalization (Aiken & Hage, 1971; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979). Rainey (2003)andRainey and Bozeman (2000)also list red tape as a characteristic of bureaucracies. In this study, a bureaucratic organizational structure is defined as a high degree of centraliza- tion, formalization and red tape (compareBurns & Stalker, 1961; Rainey, 2003). Centralization refers to the degree to which members participate in decision-making (Aiken & Hage, 1968). Formalization is the degree to which organizational activities are manifested in written documents regarding procedures, job descriptions, regulations and policy manuals (Hall, 1996). Red tape concerns the negative effects of these rules, procedures and instructions (Bozeman & Scott, 1996). Red tape is, by this definition, thus necessarily a pathology and formalization can be said to lead to red tape but is not by itself red tape (Pandey & Scott, 2002). As there is little empirical evidence concerning the direct rela- tionships between organizational structure and processes of change, we base our arguments on the broader literature about organization theory, innovation, entrepreneurship and strategy. A high degree of centralization can be said to diminish the likelihood that organizational members seek new or innovative solutions (Atuahene-Gima 2003; Damanpour 1991). Similarly, centralization is related to stability, while innovative, prospecting organizations are characterized by decentralized decision-making structures (Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2007).Moon (1999)argues that centralized organizations are less responsive to environmental de- mands, because mid-level managers and operators are less auton- omous and flexible in their interactions with clients. A high degree of formalization can also be expected to impede processes of adap- tation and learning. The amount of required paperwork and writ- ten rules tends to cause administrative delay and poor communication with costumers (Hage & Aiken, 1970). Moreover, a high degree of formalization is negatively related to innovation (Walker, 2008), experimentation and ad hoc problem solving ef- forts (March & Simon, 1958) and managerial entrepreneurship (Moon, 1999). Red tape can also be expected to impede an organi- zation’s capability to adapt to its environment, as it may cause unnecessary delays (Bozeman & Scott, 1996).Moon and Bretschne- ider (2002)find that red tape is negatively related to the imple- mentation of IT innovations. Most of the above studies delve into the relationship between organizational structure and change. As such, a bureaucratic orga- nizational structure can be expected to lead to the adoption of a planned approach to change, while a non-bureaucratic organiza- tional structure would make the adoption of an emergent approach more likely. However, as the organizational structure forms the context in which changes take place, the organizational structure is seen as a moderating influence on the effectiveness of processes of change in this study (compareSelf et al., 2007). Hypotheses are therefore formulated about the moderating influence of a bureau- cratic organizational structure on the effectiveness of planned and emergent approaches to change: H2.The more bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by a planned process of change. H3.The less bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by an emergent process of change. Methods, sample and measures Case selection and methods An organizational change within the Dutch public organization Urban Development Rotterdam (Stadsontwikkeling Rotterdam) was selected as a case for this study. This organization is the result of a recent merger of two former organizational units: the Develop- ment Agency Rotterdam (DAR) and the Agency of City Construction and Housing (ACCH). The organization was selected because of the organization-wide changes in both the organizational structure and culture that were taking place at the moment of data collec- tion. The departments within the organizational units approached the organizational changes in different ways. For some, the organi- zation-wide changes resulted in programmatic, planned change processes. For other departments, the changes took the form of more gradual, emergent changes. A quantitative approach was used to address the study’s hypotheses. An online questionnaire was used to measure the perceptions of individual employees regarding the organizational structure, the leadership style of their direct supervisor and the current organizational changes in their organization. The data were collected in May 2012. In all, 580 of 1353 employees filled out the online survey, a response rate of 42.8%. Procedure In order to account for the moderating effect of the bureaucratic structure on the relationship between the change process and willingness to change, two groups of respondents are compared that differ significantly on the degree of bureaucratic organiza- tional structure. The measure of the degree of bureaucratic structure is outlined first. Subsequently, the method of distinguish- ing between high and low level of perceived bureaucratic structure is explained. The conceptualization of bureaucratic structure in this study is a combination of separate measures for centralization, formaliza- tion and red tape (compareRainey, 2003).Aiken and Hage (1968)propose a measure for centralization that consists of two dimensions: ‘participation in decision making’ and ‘hierarchy of authority.’ In an examination,Dewar, Whetten, and Boje (1980) confirm the validity and reliability of these scales. In accordance with other research, for exampleJaworski and Kohli (1993)and Pandey and Wright (2006), centralization is measured with the Aiken and Hage (1968)scale for ‘hierarchy of authority.’ This mea- sure consists of five items that are measured on a fourpoint Likert scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure is .864.Aiken and Hage (1968)also propose a measure for formalization. However, Dewar et al. (1980)conclude that the discriminant validity of these scales is unsatisfactory. Another measure is proposed by Desphande and Zaltman (1982). This study uses a shortened ver- sion of this scale that is also used byJaworski and Kohli (1993). This measure consists of 7 items. The items are measured on a fourpoint Likert scale and the Cronbach’s alpha for this measure is .728. In order to assess the level of red tape experienced, the sin- gle item measure proposed byPandey and Scott (2002)is used. According to the authors, this measure is most congruent with con- ceptual definitions offered byBozeman (1993)andBozeman and Scott (1996). Significant differences exist in the degree in which the organi- zational structure of the departments within the organization is bureaucratic. Departments within the organization were classified according to the organizational unit they were formerly a part of. However, some departments (mostly staff departments such as personnel, finance and IT) in the merger organization are a mix 376J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 of both DAR and ACCH employees. These cases were therefore re- moved from the dataset. The effective sample consists of 284 employees. At-test indicates that the reported score on perceived bureaucratic structure is significantly higher among respondents in former DAR departments than respondents in former ACCH depart- ments (F= 4.552,p= .044). Although the concepts concerning the organizational structure are measured at an individual level, the data show that former DAR departments are significantly more bureaucratic than the departments that were part of ACCH. In or- der to account the moderating effect of organizational structure, a highly bureaucratic model (employees in DAR departments) is compared with a low bureaucratic model (employees in ACCH departments). Measures A full list of measures is given in appendix A. Unless stated otherwise, all measures were based on a five point Likert scale. Planned change and emergent change.Despite the dominance of the planned and emergent approach to change in the literature on change management, the literature offers virtually no quantitative measures for these concepts. The only available measure is pro- posed byFarrell (2000). This measure consists of six items for planned change and five items for emergent change and is mea- sured on a seven point scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of planned change was unsatisfactory. Similar to the original study byFarrell (2000)and based on a factor and reliability analysis, three items of this scale for planned change scale were not in- cluded in the analysis. Despite these modifications, the Cronbach’s alpha is only .688. 1The Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of emer- gent change is .739. However, one item was removed as it did not load on both the factor of both planned and emergent change in an exploratory factor analysis. As a result, the internal consistency of the scale was improved to a Cronbach’s alpha of .820, which can be considered to be very good (DeVellis, 1991). However, these alter- ations make it apparent that the current available measures for planned and emergent change proposed byFarrell (2000)are not fully valid and reliable. This issue is further discussed in the discus- sion of this study. Transformational leadership.The measure ofPodsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990)for transformational leadership was used. This measure consists of 21 items and contains the dimen- sions articulating vision, provide appropriate model, foster accep- tance goals, high performance expectancy, individual support and intellectual stimulation. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .944. Willingness to change.Willingness to change is measured based on the validated scale byMetselaar (1997). The measure consists of 4 items with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .890. The concept willingness to change is preferred over other psychological constructs such as commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) or cynicism to change (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005), because it not only mea- sures employee attitudes about change, but also their behavioral intentions. Controls. We control for age, education level (ranging from 1: Primary school through 7: Ph.D.) and organizational tenure. More- over, dummy variables are included to account for the gender of respondents and whether or not respondents have a supervisory position. Analysis and results Descriptive statistics and correlations The mean scores, standard deviations and correlations of all variables in this study are presented inTable 1. The mean scores of the variables indicate that the average age of the sample is 45.8 years with an average tenure of 12.7 years. The average score on education level is 5.1 (range 1–7), which indicates a relatively highly educated workforce (5 = applied university). The majority of the respondents is male and 13% of the respondents has a super- visory position. The average scores on planned and emergent change are just below the theoretical mean of 4 on the 7-point Lik- ert scale. The score on willingness to change shows a mild favor- ability toward the organizational changes in the organization. The correlations indicate a relatively strong correlation between planned and emergent change (.358,p< .01). Moreover, all central variables (emergent change, planned change and transformational leadership) are positively and significantly related to employee willingness to change. Regression analyses The hypotheses are tested by means of linear regression. Inter- action variables were computed in order to account for the interac- tion effects between transformational leadership, planned change and emergent change (H1). The independent variables were there- fore standardized for the analysis. Moreover, a low and high bureaucracy model are compared in order to account for the mod- erating effects of organizational structure (H2 and H3). The general model consists of both the low and high bureaucracy model. Sam- ple size, constant and adjusted R square are reported for all three models. The regression analysis for the general model indicates that both planned and emergent processes of change are positively re- lated to employee willingness to change. The effect of planned change is significant (p< 0.05), while the effect of emergent change is not. Transformational leadership is also positively and signifi- cantly related to willingness to change. Of the control variables, age and supervisory position are positively related to willingness to change, while a negative relationship exists between tenure and employee willingness to change. In the low bureaucracy model, there are considerably less sig- nificant explanatory variables for employee willingness to change. Neither the planned approach to change nor the emergent ap- proach to change is positively related to employee willingness to change. The control variables indicate that supervisors are signifi- cantly more likely to have a positive attitude toward organizational changes in the organization. In the high bureaucracy model, both planned and emergent change are positively and significantly re- lated to employee willingness to change. Hypothesis 2 is supported by the data because planned change is positively related to em- ployee willingness to change in the high bureaucracy model, but not in the low bureaucracy model. Hypothesis 3 is rejected, since emergent change is also more effective in the high bureaucracy model than in the low bureaucracy. Similar to the general model, the effects of age and tenure are significant in the high bureaucracy model. The positive effect of transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors is no longer significant in the low and high bureaucracy model. The regression analyses inTable 2indicate that there are two significant interaction effects. In the general model, the interaction effect between planned change and transformational leadership is negatively related to employee willingness to change. InFig. 1, this interaction-effect is plotted to allow interpretation. 1This value is below 0.70, which is seen as an acceptable degree of internal consistency. However,Kline (1999)states that a Cronbach’s alpha below .70 can be acceptable for a psychological construct.DeVellis (1991)states that while a value of over .70 is respectable, a value between .65 and .70 is minimally acceptable. J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 377 The interaction effect plotted inFig. 1indicates that the effec- tiveness of a planned process of change is dependent on the lead- ership style of the direct supervisor. In processes that have little characteristics of a planned change process, a higher degree of transformational leadership contributes to a higher level of em- ployee willingness to change than a lower degree of transforma- tional leadership. However, in a process that has many characteristics of planned change, this added value of a high degree of transformational leadership is no longer present. The second interaction effect in hypothesis 1 concerns the com- bined effectiveness of an emergent change approach and transfor- mational leadership. Hypothesis 1 states that a higher degree of transformational leadership of direct supervisors will not increase the effectiveness of an emergent approach to change. In the general model, the data support the data, as the effect of the computed interaction effect is not significant. However, in the low bureaucracy model, the relationship between emergent change and employee willingness to change is positively and significantly affected by a transformational leadership style. In order to inter- pret the effect, the interaction effect is plotted inFig. 2. The interaction effect inFig. 2indicates that the effectiveness of emergent change is dependent on the transformational leadership activities of direct supervisors. In processes with little emergent characteristics, the degree of employee willingness to change is not affected by transformational leadership behavior. However, in highly emergent processes of change, a high degree of transfor- mational leadership behavior significantly increases the effective- ness of an emergent approach to change. Moreover, the absence of transformational leadership in this situation will decrease the effectiveness of an emergent change process. Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age 45.80 10.19 1 2. Female gender (1 = yes) 0.37 0.24 .204 ** 1 3. Education level 5.10 1.14 .269 ** .006 1 4 Tenure 12.74 10.37 .614 ** .211 ** .258 ** 1 5. Supervisory position (1 = yes) 0.13 .38 .185 ** .149 * .102 .130 * 1 6. Planned change 3.73 1.19 .129 * .092 .092 .025 .028 1 7. Emergent change 3.99 1.20 .118 .063 .082 .119 .131 * .358 ** 1 8. Transform leadership 3.20 0.64 .067 .019 .029 .026 .142 * .276 ** .269 ** 1 9. Willingness to change 3.57 0.73 .037 .027 .127 * .099 .206 ** .238 ** .220 ** .254 ** 1 *Indicates a significant effect on thep< .05 level.**Indicates a significant effect on thep< .01 level. Table 2 Regression analysis. General model (n= 200) Low bureaucracy model (n= 105) High bureaucracy model (n= 95) Constant 3.630 3.538 3.657 Age .179 * .043 .259 * Gender .061 .073 .049 Education level .086 .111 .129 Tenure .226 ** .019 .406 *** Supervisor .172 * .224 * .096 Planned change .169 * .113 .251 * Emergent change .139+ .038 .237 * Transformational leadership .142 * .199 + .154 Planned *transformational .173 * .124 .085 Emergent *transformational .046 .222 * .106 Adjusted R square .192 .109 .336 +Indicates a significant effect on thep< .1 level. *Indicates a significant effect on thep< .05 level.**Indicates a significant effect on thep< .01 level.*** Indicates a significant effect on thep< .001 level. 1 1.52 2.53 3.54 4.55 Low planned Hi ghplanned Willingness to Change Low transfor High transfor Fig. 1.Interaction effect planned change and transformational leadership (general model). 1 1.52 2.53 3.54 4.55 Low emergent High emergent Willingness to Change Low transfor High transfor Fig. 2.Interaction effect emergent change and transformational leadership (low bureaucracy model). 378J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 Summing up the results of both interaction effects, the data contradict hypothesis 1. According to our study, a transformational leadership style is of little added value in planned processes of change. Rather, the effects of a planned change approach and the transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors seem interchangeable: either a transformational leadership style or a highly planned approach will lead to comparable levels of employ- ee willingness to change but a combination of both does not lead to increased effectiveness. In contrast, and contrary to hypothesis 1, transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors does in- crease the effectiveness of emergent processes of change, but only in situations with a low degree of bureaucratic organizational structure. Discussion, limitations, and implications for future research The results of the study are contrary to the theoretical expecta- tions expressed in hypothesis 1. It was assumed that transforma- tional leadership of the direct supervisor would be beneficial in planned processes of change, while it would be redundant in more emergent change. However, the results indicate that in highly planned processes of change, a low and high degree of transforma- tional leadership results in an equal level of employee support. A possible interpretation of this unexpected result is that planned processes of change are already very management driven. The leadership role is mostly filled in by higher level managers or a guiding coalition at the top level of the organization (e.g.Fernan- dez & Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996). Because of this, the additional contribution of the leadership of direct supervisors may be very limited. Moreover, the result concerning the effect of transformational leadership in an emergent process of change is contrary to hypoth- esis 1. In the general model, there is no significant moderating ef- fect of direct supervisor transformational leadership behavior on the relationship between emergent change and employee willing- ness to change, which is according to the theoretical expectations. However, in the low bureaucracy model, a significant interaction effect does exist. When change processes take on more emergent characteristics, the transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors becomes a crucial condition for creating employee support. Without a transformational leadership role of direct supervisors, an emergent change approach is negatively related to employee willingness to change. The presence of transforma- tional leadership behavior results in a positive relationship be- tween an emergent change approach and the willingness of employees to implement change. While planned change ap- proaches rely on the leadership of senior managers to be enacted (Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996), emergent processes of change are more bottom-up and devolved. Such change processes there- fore rely more on the leadership behavior of lower level managers (Borins, 2002; Van der Voet et al., 2013). In the literature on organizational change, planned change is as- sumed to be more appropriate for highly bureaucratic organiza- tions (e.g.Coram & Burnes, 2001; Weick & Quinn, 1999). In their study of organizational change in six Australian federal agencies, Stewart and Kringas (2003)indeed find that top-down approaches are most applied. In this study, the effectiveness of planned and emergent change processes was examined. The results of this study indicate that both planned and emergent processes of change are viable options for bureaucratic organizations. This could indicate that a combination of both planned and emergent change may be an effective approach to organizational change in bureaucratic organizational settings. This result is coherent with Ryan et al. (2008), who have argued that planned change should be supplemented with other change strategies. Several authors (for exampleBeer & Nohria, 2000; Sminia & Van Nistelrooij, 2006) discuss the simultaneous application of both planned and emergent approaches to change. In a highly bureaucratic organiza- tion, an organizational change may require the top-down activa- tion of employees by a top-management intervention, after which a bottom-up process may be initiated in which employees are involved in establishing the exact course of action. The data do not support hypothesis 3. Emergent change in itself was not found to be significantly related to employee willingness to change in the low bureaucracy model. In this situation, emergent change can only be an effective approach to change when combined with a transformational leadership style of direct supervisors. Most of the research concerning planned and emergent change is qualitative. In this study, planned and emergent change were measured with a quantitative measurement scale. The only available measure in the literature is proposed byFarrell (2000). However, both the reliability and validity of the measurement instrument has proven to be insufficient. First, the internal consis- tency of the scale for planned change is below the generally ac- cepted Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70. Even after dismissing several items, as is also done by the original author, the internal consis- tency remains below .70. Second, one of the items of the scale of emergent is poorly formulated as it loads on both the factor of planned and emergent change in a factor analysis. Third, the valid- ity of both scales is questionable, as the items do not encompass the full concepts of planned and emergent change. The scale for planned change includes items that account for the top-down, management-driven en controlled nature of planned change, but misses items that account for the clearly formulated objectives (By, 2005), the desired future state (Burnes, 1996, 2004) and the emphasis on the resolution of conflict (Burnes et al., 2009). The measure for emergent change is based entirely on aspects of orga- nizational learning and environmental adaptation, and misses as- pects of the local, bottom-up, participative nature of emergent change (Bamford & Forrester, 2003) and its emphasis on improving organizational capability (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Weick, 2000). A first recommendation for future research is therefore to improve the available measures for planned and emergent change by elab- orating on the conceptual range of the measures and testing the consistency of the measure in a confirmatory factor analysis. Fol- low-up research based on a mixed mode approach may prove especially fruitful. The combined application of qualitative and quantitative research methods may contribute to the formulation of quantitative measures, informed by an earlier qualitative step. Mixed method research may thus result in the creation of better, more informed quantitative measures and more resonance be- tween qualitative and quantitative research on change management. Another limitation of this study concerns the internal validity of the results. Both dependent and independent variables were mea- sured on the employee level. Therefore, the relationships between the variables may be partly due to the method of data collection (Meier & O’Toole, 2012; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Causal inferences are based on theory, rather than observed temporal sequence. A second recommendation for future research is therefore to measure concepts on multiple levels in the organi- zational hierarchy and among different groups of respondents, as well as using a longitudinal research design. Because this study is based on a case-based design, the study’s results may not be sta- tistically generalized beyond the case that was studied. Similar to most of the change management literature, generalizing results is difficult because of organizational, historical and contextual differences. Future research concerning change management in public organizations should thus emphasize analytical rather than statistical generalization (Yin, 2009). J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 379 Despite these limitations, this study has shown that the specific characteristics of public organizations may have important impli- cations for effectiveness of different change approaches and lead- ership. Another recommendation for future research is therefore to devote more attention to the research of contextual factors influencing the effectiveness and appropriateness of different ap- proaches to change. A possible direction for future research could be the influence of the complex and political environment of public organizations on the implementation and leadership of organiza- tional change. Conclusion The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness and spec- ificity of change management in a public organization. The study assessed to what extent employee willingness to change is ex- plained by transformational leadership and different change ap- proaches. Moreover, the study examined to what extent these relationship were affected by the bureaucratic organizational struc- tures that typically characterizes public organizations. The results indicate that both the planned and emergent approach to change are effective ways of bringing about change in a bureaucratic con- text. The transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors contributes little to planned processes of change. However, trans- formational leadership is crucial in emergent processes of change, but only in a non-bureaucratic context. Although the literature on change management mostly emphasizes the leadership of senior managers, the leadership role of direct supervisors should not be overlooked during organizational change in public organizations. Appendix A. Measures Centralization(Aiken and Hage, 1968; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Pandey and Wright, 2006) 1. There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision. 2. A person who wants to make his own decision would be quickly discouraged here. 3. Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer. 4. I have to ask my boss before I do almost anything. 5. Any decision I make has to have my boss’ approval. Formalization(Desphande and Zaltman, 1982; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993) 1. I feel that I am my own boss in most matters. (R) 2. A person can make his own decisions without checking with anybody else. (R) 3. How things are done around here is left up to the person doing the work. (R) 4. People here are allowed to do almost as they please. (R) 5. Most people here make their own rules on the job. (R) 6. The employees are constantly being checked on for rule violations. 7. People here feel as though they are constantly being watched to see that they obey all the rules. Red tape(Pandey and Scott, 2002) 1. If red tape is defined as burdensome administrative rules and procedures that have negative effects on the organization’s effectiveness, how would you assess the level of red tape in your organization? Planned change(Farrell, 2000) 1. Emanates from senior management.+ 2. Occurs through company-wide change programs. 3. Occurs through changing individual knowledge and attitudes.+ 4. Occurs in an unplanned fashion.+ (R) 5. Occurs through a systematic process of well-managed events. 6. Is monitored through regular progress survey. Emergent change(Farrell, 2000) 1. Occurs through continually learning about our environment. 2. Occurs by encouraging employees to understand and adapt to changing circumstances in our environment. 3. Is part of an ongoing process of adapting to our environment. 4. Is a slow process, which emerges over time.+ 5. Is about matching the organizations’ capabilities to the business environment. Transformational leadership(Podsakoff et al., 1990) My direct supervisor… Articulating vision 1. Is always seeking new opportunities for the organization 2. Inspires others with his/her plans for the future. 3. Is able to get others committed to his/her dream. Provide appropriate model 1. Leads by ‘‘doing,’’ rather than simply by ‘‘telling.’’ 2. Leads by example. 3. Provides a good model for me to follow. Foster acceptance goals 1. Fosters collaboration among work groups. 2. Encourages employees to be ‘‘team players.’’ 3. Gets the group to work together for the same goal. 4. Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees. High performance expectancy 1. Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us. 2. Insists on only the best performance. 3. Will not settle for second best. Individual support 1. Acts without considering my feelings. (R) 2. Shows respect for my personal feelings. 3. Behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs. 4. Treats me without considering my personal feelings. (R) Intellectual stimulation 1. Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways. 2. Asks questions that prompt me to think. 3. Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things. 4. Has ideas that have challenged me to reexamine some of the basic assumptions of my work Willingness to change 1. I intend to try to convince employees of the benefits the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotter- dam will bring. 380J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 2. I intend to put effort into achieving the goals of the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam. 3. I intend to reduce resistance among employees regarding the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam. 4. I intend to make time to implement the changes and develop- ments within Urban Development Rotterdam. + Indicates item is not included in the analysis (R) Indicates item is reversed in the analysis References Ackroyd, S., Kirkpatrick, I., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Public management reform in the UK and its consequences for professional organization: A comparative analysis. Public Administration, 85(1), 9–26. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1968). Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure.American Sociological Review, 33(6), 912–930. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation.Sociology, 5(1), 63–82. Allison, G. (1979). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.),Classics of public administration. Belmont: Wadsworth [1992]. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 57–80. Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s.Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2003). The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality: How does problem solving matter? Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 359–374. Bamford, D. R., & Forrester, P. L. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment.International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5), 546–564. Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J., & DePalma, J. A. (2006). On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2), 182–206. Bass, B. M. (1985).Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press . Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (Eds.). (2000).Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press . Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 733–753. Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector.Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 467–476. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference?Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122. Boyne, G. A. (2006). Strategies for public service turnaround: Lessons from the private sector?Administration & Society, 38(3), 365–388. Boyne, G. A., Farrell, C., Law, J., Powell, F., & Walker, R. M. (2003).Evaluating public management reform: Principles and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bozeman, B. (1993). A theory of government red tape.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273–303. Bozeman, B., & Scott, P. (1996). Bureaucratic red tape and formalization: Untangling conceptual knots.The American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 1–17. Burke, W. W. (2010).Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications . Burnes, B. (1996). No such thing as…a ‘‘one best way’’ to manage organizational change.Management Decision, 34(10), 11–18. Burnes, B. (2004). Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction.International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24(9), 886–902. Burnes, B. (2009). Organizational change in the public sector: The case for planned change. In R. T. By & C. Macleod (Eds.).Managing organizational change in public services: International issues, challenges and cases. London and New York: Routledge . Burnes, B. (2011). Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we do about it? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 445–450. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961).The management of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press . By, R. T. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical review.Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380. Chustz, M. H., & Larson, J. S. (2006). Implementing change on the front lines: A management case study of West Feliciana Parish hospital.Public Administration Review, 66(5), 725–729. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research.Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145–169. Coram, R., & Burnes, B. (2001). Managing organizational change in the public sector: Lessons from the privatization of the Property Service Agency.The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(2), 94–110. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590. Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19–34. Desphande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors affecting the use of market research information: A path analysis.Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 14–31. DeVellis, R. F. (1991).Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage . Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content, context and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation studies.The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 607–630 . Dewar, R. D., Whetten, D. A., & Boje, D. (1980). An examination of the reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage scales of centralization, formalization, and task routineness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 120–128. Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change.Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 80–88. Farnham, D., & Horton, S. (1996).Managing people in the public services. London: Macmillan . Farrell, M. A. (2000). Developing a market-oriented learning organization.Australian Journal of Management, 25(2), 201–222. Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2007). Under what conditions do public managers favor and pursue organizational change?The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 324–341. Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector: An agenda for research and practice.Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176. Gill, R. (2002). Change management – or change leadership?Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 307–318. Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1970).Social change in complex organizations. New York: Random House . Hall, R. H. (1996).Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall . Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcome-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness.Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712–725. Hennessey, J. T. (1998). ‘‘Reinventing’’ government: Does leadership make a difference?Public Administration Review, 58, 322–332. Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. (2007). Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change.Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 942–951. Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of change and transformational leadership on employees’ commitment to change: A multilevel study.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346–357. Herscovitch & Meyer (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487. Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership.Change Management Journal, 5(2), 121–151 . Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2010). Emperors with clothes on: The role of self- awareness in developing effective change leadership.Journal of Change Management, 10(4), 369–385. Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behaviors of successful change leaders.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309–335. Isett, K. R., Glied, S. A. M., Sparer, M. S., & Brown, L. D. (2012). When change becomes transformation: A case study of change management in Medicaid offices in New York city.Public Management Review, 15(1), 1–17. Jaworski, J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences.Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992).The challenge of organizational change. New York: The Free Press . Karp, T., & Helgø, T. I. T. (2008). From change management to change leadership: Embracing chaotic change in public service organizations.Journal of Change Management, 8(1), 85–96. Kickert, W. J. M. (2007).Public management reforms in countries with a Napoleonic state model: France, Italy and Spain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kickert, W. J. M. (2010). Managing emergent and complex change: The case of the Dutch agencification.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(3), 489–515 . Kickert, W. J. M. (2013). The specificity of change management in public organizations: Conditions for successful organizational change in Dutch ministerial departments.The American Review of Administrative Sciences. doi: 10.11770275074013483871 [Advanced online publication] . Klarner, P., Probst, G., & Soparnot, R. (2008). Organizational change capacity in public services: The case of the world health organization.Journal of Change Management., 8(1), 57–72. Kline, P. (1999).The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.Kotter, J. P. (1996).Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W. J. M., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van der Voet, J. (2013). Managing change in public organizations: A review of the literature J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382 381 between 2000 and 2010.Public Administration.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ padm.12040[advanced online publication]. Liguori, M. (2012). The supremacy of the sequence: Key elements and dimension in the process of change.Organization Studies, 33(4), 507–539. Liu, Y. (2010).When change leadership impacts commitment to change and when it doesn’t. A multi-level multi- dimensional investigation(Doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology. March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958).Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.McNulty, T., & Ferlie, E. (2004). Process transformation: Limitations to radical organizational change within public service organizations.Organization Studies, 25(8), 1389–1412. Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. Jr, (2012). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/ mus057[advanced online publication]. Metselaar, E.E. (1997).Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO(Doctoral dissertation). Free University of Amsterdam. Mintzberg, H. (1979).The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall . Moon, M. J. (1999). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter?Public Administration Review, 59(1), 31–43. Moon, M. J., & Bretschneider, S. (2002). Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results in a simultaneous equation model and implications.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 273–291. Morgan, G. (1996).Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Ongaro, E. (2010).Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing . Pandey, S. K., & Scott, P. G. (2002). Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553–580 . Pandey, S. K., & Wright, S. K. (2006). Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity and public manager’s role ambiguity.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 511–532. Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination.The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 80–109. Pettigrew, A. M., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992).Shaping strategic change: Making change in large organizations: The case of the National Health Organization. London: Sage Publications . Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697–713. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259–298. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leadership behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. Pollitt, C. (2000). Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public sector reform.Public Management, 2(2), 181–199. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004).Public management reform. A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press . Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2009). The impact of change process and context on change reactions and turnover during a merger.Journal of Management, 36(5), 1309–1338. Rainey, H. G. (2003).Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–469. Robertson, P. J., & Seneviratne, S. J. (1995). Outcomes of planned organizational change in the public sector: A meta-analytic comparison to the private sector. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 547–557. Rusaw, A. C. (2007). Changing public organizations: Four approaches.International Journal of Public Administration, 30(3), 347–361. Russ, T. L. (2008). Communicating change: A review and critical analysis of programmatic and participatory implementation approaches.Journal of Change Management, 8(3–4), 199–211. Ryan, N., Williams, T., Charles, M., & Waterhouse, J. (2008). Top-down organizational change in an Australian government agency.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(1), 26–44. Seijts, G. H., & Roberts, M. (2011). The impact of employee perceptions on change in a municipal government.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(2), 190–213 . Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schraeder, M. (2007). Organizational change content, process and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions.Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 211–229. Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership.Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257–283. Sminia, H., & Van Nistelrooij, A. (2006). Strategic management and organization development: Planned change in a public sector organization.Journal of Change Management, 6(1), 99–113. Spicker, P. (2012). Leadership: Perniciously vague concept.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(1), 34–47. Stewart, J., & Kringas, P. (2003). Change management-strategy and values in six agencies from the Australian public service.Public Administration Review, 63(6), 675–688 . Stewart, J., & O’Donnell, M. (2007). Implementing change in a public agency: Leadership, learning and organizational resilience.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(3), 239–251. Thomas, P. G. (1996). Beyond the buzzwords: Coping with change in the public sector.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 62(1), 5–29. Tummers, L. G., Steijn, A. J., & Beckers, V. J. J. M. (2012). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement public policies: Content, context and personality characteristics.Public Administration, 90(3), 716–736. Van der Voet, J., Groeneveld, S. M., & Kuipers, B. S. (2013). Talking the talk or walking the walk? The leadership of planned and emergent change in a public organization.Journal of Change Management.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14697017.2013.805160[advance online publication]. Walker, R. M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 591–615 . Weick, K. E. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.).Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press . Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development.Annual Review Psychology, 30, 361–386. Yin, R. K. (2009).Case study research: Design and methods(4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage . Zorn, T. E., Page, D. J., & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on change-oriented communication in a public sector organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 515–566. 382J. van der Voet / European Management Journal 32 (2014) 373–382
Case Study: Organizational Structure & Culture Assignment Instructions Overview In this Case Study, you will apply the Statesmanship model discussed in Module 1: Week 1 to a real, specific publi
Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure Matter? Author(s): Bradley E. Wright and Sanjay K. Pandey Source: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART , Jan., 2010 , Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 2010), pp. 75-89 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20627893 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms JPART 20:75-89 Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure Matter? Bradley E. Wright University of North Carolina at Charlotte Sanjay K. Pandey University of Kansas ABSTRACT This study contributes to our understanding of leadership in public sector organizations by investigating the effect of organizational structure on the transformational leadership practices of municipal chief administrative officers. Using data from a national survey of senior managers in local government, the findings of this study suggest a number of possible explanations for why public sector organizations exhibit higher levels of transformational leadership than what scholars traditionally expect. Our findings suggest that the structure of these organizations may not be as bureaucratic as commonly believed and that some bureaucratic characteristics had little, if any, adverse affect on the prevalence or practice of transformational leadership behaviors. In particular, although organizational hierarchy and inadequate lateral/upward communication were associated with lower transformational leadership, no relationship was found between transformational leadership behaviors and two types of organizational red tape. Contrary to expectations in the mainstream leadership literature, however, the use of performance measurement by municipal organizations was associated with a significant increase in reported transformational leadership behaviors. Although the importance of leadership has been widely recognized in the public management literature (Fernandez 2005; Hennessey 1998; Moynihan and Ingraham 2004; Van Slyke and Alexander 2006; Van Wart 2005yf D W O H D V W R Q H U H Y L H Z R I W K L V O L W H U D W X U H K D V X U J H G W K H I L H O G W o adopt and empirically test more contemporary theoretical models from the mainstream leadership literature (Van Wart 2003yf ‘ H V S L W H W K H O L P L W H G D W W H Q W L R Q S X E O L F P D Q D J H P H Q t scholars have given such theories, one of the most popular mainstream leadership theories has been frequently used to make strong and often pessimistic claims regarding the poten tial value of leadership in public organizations. In particular, transformational leaders are expected to be both less common and less effective in public sector organizations than An earlier version of this article was presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (2008yf L n Anaheim, CA. We thank three anonymous reviewers for the journal for making valuable suggestions. Data analyzed in this article were collected under the auspices of the NASP-IV, a project supported in part by the Institute for Policy and Social Research and the Department of Public Administration at the University of Kansas. Naturally, this support does not necessarily imply an endorsement of analyses and opinions reported in the article. Address correspondence to the author at [email protected] doi:10.1093/jopart/mup003 Advance Access publication on April 30, 2009 ? The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 76 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory private sector organizations because the former are thought to rely more on bureaucratic control mechanisms (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell 1997; Pawar and Eastman 1997; Shamir and Howell 1999yf W K D W S U R Y L G H L Q V W L W X W L R Q D O V X E V W L W X W H V I R U O H D G H U V K L S / R Z H * D O H n Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996yf & R Q W U D U W R W K H V H H [ S H F W D W L R Q V K R Z H Y H U P H W a analyses have consistently found that transformational leadership behavior is at least as common and effective in public organizations (Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio 2002; Lowe, Galen Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996yf . There are a number of potential explanations for this discrepancy between mainstream leadership theoretical expectations and empirical observation. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is that government organizations are generally not as bureaucratic as main stream leadership theorists assume. Several recent studies suggest that, on average, government organizations exhibit only moderate levels of bureaucratic control mechanisms such as centralization, formalization, and routinization (Boyne 2002; Pandey and Wright 2006; Wright 2004yf 7 K D W V D L G H P S L U L F D O U H V H D U F K L Q Y H V W L J D W L Q J S X E O L F D Q G S U L Y D W H V H F W R r differences suggests that public sector organizations are often more bureaucratic in terms of formalization in some areas, most notably in purchasing and human resource management (Boyne 2002; Pandey and Scott 2002; Rainey and Bozeman 2000yf ( Y H Q V R L W U H P D L Q s uncertain as to whether such differences adversely affect leadership practices. Thus, a sec ond explanation for the discrepancy between theory and observation may be that the reliance on bureaucratic control mechanisms does not adversely affect either the prevalence or effectiveness of transformational leadership. In fact, regardless of whether the common stereotype of bureaucratic government organizations is correct, it is important to test whether bureaucratic characteristics inhibit transformational leadership in the public sector because public organizations vary on the degree to which they use such mechanisms. Given the potential impact of these relation ships, surprisingly little research has investigated the organizational and contextual influ ences on the emergence and effectiveness of transformational leadership. This study will address this need by testing the degree to which the characteristics of public sector organ izations hinder the emergence of transformational leadership. LITERATURE REVIEW Transformational Leadership First conceptualized by a political scientist (Burns 1978yf W U D Q V I R U P D W L R Q D O O H D G H U V K L S K D s become one of the most prominent theories of organizational behavior. In contrast to lead ership based on individual gain and the exchange of rewards for effort, transformational leaders motivate behavior by changing their followers’ attitudes and assumptions. To direct and inspire individual effort, these leaders transform their followers by raising their aware ness of the importance of organizational outcomes thereby activating their higher order needs and inducing them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organiza tion. Although such leadership was originally expected to be distinct from, and more ef fective than, reward or transaction-based leadership, empirical findings have consistently suggested that successful leaders augment their use of beneficial transactional behaviors with more transformational ones (Bass and Riggio 2006yf . Leading by transforming followers and their commitment to the organizational mission requires a number of conditions to be met. First, leaders must inspirationally motivate employ ees by clearly articulating an appealing vision of the organization’s mission and future. Creating This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 77 a vision, however, is not enough. Transformational leaders must also encourage and facilitate their followers to work toward that vision. Thus a second, but closely related, condition is that the leader becomes a source of idealized influence, functioning as a role model (modeling behaviors consistent with the stated visionyf D Q G E X L O G L Q J H P S O R H H F R Q I L G H Q F H D Q G S U L G H L Q W K e organization. Similarly, a third condition is that they must help followers achieve the mission by intellectually stimulating them to challenge old assumptions about organizational problems and practices. In using these three factors?inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and intellectual stimulation?transformational leaders essentially direct, inspire, and empower their employees.1 Research has not only validated the existence of trans formational leadership but also has consistently linked the practice of these transformational leadership behaviors with employee performance and satisfaction (Bass and Riggio 2006yf H Y H Q L Q J R Y H U Q P H Q W ‘ X P G X P / R Z H D Q G $ Y R O L R / R Z H * D O H Q . U R H F N D Q d Sivasubramaniam 1996; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008; Wofford, Lee Whittington, and Goodwin 2001yf D Q G Q R Q S U R I L W ( J U L D Q G + H U P D Q f organizations. It should be noted that this emphasis on mission may make transformational leadership particularly useful in public and nonprofit organizations given the service and community oriented nature of their missions. Consistent with transformational leadership’s emphasis on the motivating potential of organization mission, a key tenet of the literature on public employee motivation (Perry and Porter 1982; Perry and Wise 1990; Rainey and Steinbauer 1999; Weiss 1996; Wright 2007yf L V W K D W W K H P R U H H Q J D J L Q J D W W U D F W L Y H D Q G Z R U W K Z K L O H W K e mission is to people, the more the agency will be able to attract support from those people, to attract some of them to join the agency, and to motivate them to perform well in the agency” (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999, 16yf ( Y H Q Z L W K W K L V F R Q Y H U J H Q W H P S K D V L V R Q P L s sion, there is a growing recognition that more work is needed to build a better understanding of how organizational conditions may encourage or discourage such practices (Moynihan and Pandey 2007; Paarlberg and Perry 2007yf . Organizational Structure Influences on Transformational Leadership Although a considerable amount of empirical research has investigated the prevalence and con sequences of transformational leadership (Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio 2002; Lowe, Galen Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996yf Y H U O L W W O H K D V I R F X V H G R Q L W V D Q W H F H G H Q W V , Q S D U W L F X O D U , very little is known about the organizational conditions that may facilitate or hinder the emer gence or effectiveness of transformational leadership behaviors. Nonetheless, scholars have used the underlying theory to suggest a number of potential relationships between the orga nizational structure (or contextyf D Q G W U D Q V I R U P D W L R Q D O O H D G H U V K L S % D V V D Q G 5 L J J L R ; Howell 1997;Pawar and Eastman 1997; Rainey and Watson 1996; Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993; Shamir and Howell 1999yf 2 Q H F R P P R Q W K H P H D P R Q J W K H V H W K H R U L H V L V W K D W W U D Q V I R r mational leadership requires employees (both leaders and followersyf W R K D Y H D F H U W D L Q G H J U H e of flexibility in how they define and perform their work. The increased control and associated feelings of responsibility in their work facilitates both the ability of employees to be intrin sically motivated by their work as well as the development of the confidence necessary to achieve it (Conger and Kanungo 1988; Thomas and Velthouse 1990yf . l Although the most common conceptualization of transformational leadership included diagnosing and evaluating the needs of each follower as a fourth dimension (individualized considerationyf Z H I R O O R Z W K H D S S U R D F K R I V R P H U H F H Q t work that has reclassified this aspect of leadership as more transactional than transformational (Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008yf . This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 78 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory If flexibility and discretion is necessary for transformational leadership, then it is not surprising that so many scholars suggest that the elaborate control systems associated with mechanistic or bureaucratic organizations should hinder both its emergence and effective ness (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell 1997; Pawar and Eastman 1997; Rainey and Watson 1996; Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993; Shamir and Howell 1999yf % G H I L Q L W L R Q W K L V I R U m of organization is meant to emphasize leadership through rational-legal, as opposed to char ismatic, means (Weber 1948yf 7 K H G H V L U H I R U V W D E L O L W S U H G L F W D E L O L W D Q G H T X L W L Q E X U H D u cratic organizations results in a reliance on structural mechanisms to limit individual discretion and promote uniformity in how employees interpret and respond to work situa tions or tasks. Structural characteristics associated with such strong situations include hi erarchical distribution of authority, stringent formalization through rules and regulations, and a reliance on downward (and limited upward and/or lateralyf F R P P X Q L F D W L R Q + R Z H O l 1997; Shamir and Howell 1999yf 6 X F K V W U X F W X U D O F K D U D F W H U L V W L F V K L Q G H U E R W K W K H Q H H G D Q d potential for transformational leadership. First, they reduce the need for leadership by using organizational design features to provide sufficient cues to guide employee behavior (Shamir and Howell 1999yf 6 H F R Q G W K H D O V R U H G X F H W K H S R W H Q W L D O W R H [ H U F L V H O H D G H U V K L S E y restricting the leader’s ability to act in novel ways or provide an appealing vision by reinterpreting organizational objectives in ways that are more congruent with employee values (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell 1997; Shamir and Howell 1999yf & R Q V L V W H Q W Z L W h this expectation, high levels of centralization and formalization have been found to alienate employees from their work by inhibiting the expression of individual differences, motives, and attitudes (Aiken and Hage 1966; DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005yf . Although the structural characteristics of bureaucratic organizations are commonly expected to impede transformational leadership, very few studies have empirically tested this assumption. Recent studies of firefighters in the United States and public sector employees in Australia have, however, found that formalization and centralization decreases the likelihood that organizational leaders will exhibit transformational leadership behavior (Rafferty and Griffin 2004; Sarros et al. 2002yf $ O W K R X J K W K H U H L V O L P L W H G V X S S R U t for the adverse effects of centralization and formalization on transformational leadership, the effects of other bureaucratic structural characteristics such as weak lateral/upward com munication are largely unanalyzed. In an attempt to better understand these relationships, we propose to test the following hypotheses: H2 The more hierarchical an organization’s authority structure, the lower the reported practice of transformational leadership behaviors. H2 The weaker the lateral/upward communication in an organization, the lower the reported practice of transformational leadership behaviors. H3a b The greater organizational formalization (measured as [3 a] procurement red tape and [3b] human resource red tapeyf W K H O R Z H U W K H U H S R U W H G S U D F W L F H R f transformational leadership behaviors. In addition to these more traditional bureaucratic mechanisms, other characteristics associated with public sector organizations may also influence the emergence and ef fectiveness of transformational leadership. In particular, it has been recently suggested that the limited use of performance measurement and lack of managerial discretion needed to link rewards to performance are key issues that require greater attention when trying to understand leadership in public organizations (Van Slyke and Alexander 2006yf . This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 79 Public sector organizations are, for example, typically viewed as having ambiguous and hard-to-measure performance goals as well as weak relationships between extrinsic re wards and employee performance (Wright 2001yf $ O W K R X J K W K H V H H [ S H F W D W L R Q V K D Y H Q R t been sufficiently tested, existing research is mixed. Although sector-based differences in organizational goal complexity or ambiguity have not been consistently found (Boyne 2002; Rainey and Bozeman 2000yf D I H Z V W X G L H V K D Y H V K R Z Q W K D W S X E O L F V H F W R U R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q s have a weaker relationship between extrinsic rewards and performance (Porter and Lawler 1968; Rainey 1983yf 1 H Y H U W K H O H V V E R W K R I W K H V H F R Q G L W L R Q V D U H Q R W R Q O H [ S H F W H G W R Y D U y across public organizations but also support the use of transformational leadership behaviors. The use of performance measurement and rewards are often intertwined. If perfor mance is not easily measured, it is difficult to establish clear reward contingencies that allow managers to link extrinsic rewards with performance. The resulting lack of clear goal-reward contingencies can encourage leaders to rely more on person (rather than po sitionyf S R Z H U V Z K L F K V H U Y H D V W K H I R X Q G D W L R Q R I W U D Q V I R U P D W L R Q D O O H D G H U V K L S 7 K X V V H Y H U D l scholars have suggested that organizations are less conducive to transformational leader ship when they have clear and specific goals that allow objective or highly consensual ways of measuring performance (Howell 1997; Shamir and Howell 1999yf , Q V W H D G L W L V H [ S H F W H d that greater ambiguity in the criteria for evaluating the organization’s performance can support transformational leadership by providing leaders with greater latitude to define organizational expectations and vision in ways that best inspire their employees (Shamir and Howell 1999yf $ G P L W W H G O W K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O S H U I R U P D Q F H P D n agement and leadership might depend on whether the organization views performance management as just a reporting requirement to fulfill or a learning opportunity to question existing practices and convince others of the legitimacy of certain outcomes (Moynihan 2005ayf ( Y H Q L I D Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V O H D G H U V K L S W D N H V W K H I R U P H U Y L H Z W K H F R Q W L Q X H G H [ L s tence of financial and personnel control systems that emphasize compliance and error avoidance” effectively limits their discretion and undermines their ability to use perfor mance measures in this way (Moynihan 2006, 84yf & R Q V L V W H Q W Z L W K W K H V H H [ S H F W D W L R Q V D Q d in partial contradiction with Hypothesis 3b aboveyf Z H K S R W K H V L ] H : H4 The more an organization’s structure impedes the establishment of extrinsic reward-performance contingencies (here measured as human resource red tapeyf , the higher the reported practice of transformational leadership behaviors. H5 The use of organizational performance measures will decrease the reported transformational leadership behaviors. METHODS AND ANALYSES Data Collection The data for this study were collected in Phase 4 of the National Administrative Studies Project (NASP-IVyf 1 $ 6 3 , 9 L V D P X O W L P H W K R G V W X G D N H S D U W R I Z K L F K L V D V X U Y H D d ministered to a nationwide sample. The theoretical population of interest for NASP-IV was comprised of senior managers (both general and functionalyf L Q 8 6 O R F D O J R Y H U Q P H Q t jurisdictions with populations over 50,000. The general managers included the city manager and assistant/deputy city managers. Functional managers included in the study headed key departments, namely Finance/Budgeting, Public Works, Personnel/HR, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Community Development. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 80 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory The sample design and construction for the NASP-IV study were aided by the Inter national City/County Management Association (ICMAyf , & 0 $ L V Z L G H O U H J D U G H G D V W K e authoritative source of information about U.S local government jurisdictions and profes sionals serving in these jurisdictions. Based on the study criteria, ICMA compiled a list with contact details of potential respondents (ICMA was not able to provide e-mail addresses because of its policy not to share e-mail addressesyf % H J L Q Q L Q J Z L W K W K H L Q L W L D O O L V W S U R Y L G H d by ICMA, the NASP-IV team used publicly available information to gather basic infor mation about each jurisdiction’s chief administrative officer (tenure and genderyf . These efforts resulted in 3,316 individuals in the study sample. Each respondent in the study sample received an initial letter through U.S. mail which introduced the study and provided details on how to participate in the study. Each potential respondent was directed to the study Web site and provided a secure study participation code. After the initial letter via U.S. mail, multiple methods were used in follow-up efforts to contact the respondents?e-mail, fax, and phone calls. When the study concluded 1,538 of the 3,316 had responded, for a response rate of 46.4yb $ V R X U I R F X V Z D V R Q W K H O H D G H U V K L p behavior exhibited by the chief administrative officer, we did not want to rely on self-reports of transformational leadership by chief administrative officers themselves. Therefore, the responses of city managers were excluded which reduced the number of observations to the 1,322 responses from functional and deputy/assistant managers. Of these 1,322 respondents, 16.7yb Z H U H J H Q H U D O P D Q D J H U V G H S X W R U D V V L V W D Q W f and the rest managed specific city departments and/or functions. This distribution of functional specialization of respondents closely matched the distribution of functional specializations in the sample. The mean age was 50 with an interquartile range of 9 (25th percentile being 46 and 75th percentile being 57yf $ V H [ S H F W H G D V L ] D E O H P D M R U L W Z H U H P D O H byf Z K L W e (85.4yb f, highly educated (more than 60yb Z L W K J U D G X D W H G H J U H H V f, and well compensated (64yb Z L W K V D O D U L H V R Y H U f. Because we want to test the effect of organizational structure and context on trans formational leadership, we aggregate responses by organization. At least one response was received from 489 of the 529 local governments in the sampling frame. In order to reduce potential bias associated with the perspective of any single respondent, the study sample was reduced to the 205 local governments for which at least three responses (excluding responses from the chief administrative officeryf Z H U H U H F H L Y H G D Q G D F K L H I D G P L Q L V W U D W L Y e officer was identifiable.2 Table 1 provides basic demographic information about the chief administrative officers (gender and position tenureyf D Q G O R F D O J R Y H U Q P H Q W Q X P E H U R I H m ployees and populationyf I R U E R W K W K H V W X G V D P S O H D Q G W K H V D P S O L Q J I U D P H 1 R V L J Q L I L F D Q t difference (p > .05yf Z D V I R X Q G E H W Z H H Q W K H V H W Z R J U R X S V V X J J H V W L Q J W K D W W K H V W X G V D P S O e may be representative of the overall sampling frame. Wherever possible, the study variables were measured using multiple item measures that have been tested and validated in earlier studies (see the Appendix for specific wording and sourcesyf , Q D Q H I I R U W W R P L Q L P L ] H V X U Y H O H Q J W K D Q G P D [ L P L ] H V X U Y H U H V S R Q V H W U D Q s formational leadership was measured using a small set of items selected specifically for this study. Items were selected from four socialized charismatic leadership subscales (vision, role modeling, inspirational communication, and intellectual stimulationyf G H Y H O R S H G E y House (1998yf W K D W G H S L F W W K H W K U H H W U D Q V I R U P D W L R Q D O G L P H Q V L R Q V L Q V S L U D W L R Q D O P R W L Y D W L R Q , 2 This latter criterion resulted in the exclusion of many cities with mayor-council form of government. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 81 Table 1 Chief Administrative Officer and Organization Characteristics for Local Governments in the Target Population Study Sample Nonstudy Sample Chief Administrative Officer Gender Male (yb f 87.3 88.7 Female (yb f 12.7 11.3 Position tenure Mean 6.58 7.49 SD 6.44 6.72 Local governments Number of employees Mean 1,133 1,120 SD 1,510 3,245 Population (2000 censusyf Mean 143,568 150,060 SD_176,039_292,209 idealized influence, and intellectual stimulationyf S U H Y L R X V O G H V F U L E H G 2 Q H L W H P Z D V W D N H n from each of three subscales (Intellectual stimulation, role modeling, and inspirational communicationyf Z K H U H D V W Z R L W H P V Z H U H V H O H F W H G I U R P W K H Y L V L R Q V F D O H E H F D X V H R I W K e underlying importance transformational leadership places on organizational goals and vi sion. Although this five-item measure represents items from four different subscales (House 1998yf W K D W U H I O H F W W K H W K U H H G L P H Q V L R Q V R I W U D Q V I R U P D W L R Q D O O H D G H U V K L S D I D F W R U D Q D O V L V R f these items extracted only one factor that explained nearly 76yb R I W K H L U Y D U L D Q F H D Q G L s consistent with previous findings that suggest that the transformational dimensions may be best characterized as a single factor (Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999yf . Consistent with previous studies analyzing subordinate reports of transformational leadership behaviors, the variables in this study were created by averaging responses from each organization (Bommer, Rubin, and Baldwin 2004; Judge and Bono 2000yf 7 R K H O p control for the effects of chief administrative officer characteristics on leadership behavior, the gender and tenure of the chief administrator were included in the model. In addition, we attempted to isolate the effects of hierarchy from that of organizational size by controlling the number of employees working for city government. RESULTS Table 2 provides the univariate and bivariate statistics of the study measures. All multiple items measures achieved an acceptable level of reliability (ranging from 0.78 to 0.92yf Z L W K W K H H x ception of the measures of lateral/upward communication and performance measurement. Es timates of internal reliability for these two measures were not analyzed and reported because they represent a formative (rather than reflectiveyf P H D V X U H Z K H U H H D F K V F D O H L W H P U H S U H V H Q W s a different type of communication or performance measurement and, therefore, can make a unique contribution to the construct’s measurement (Law and Wong 1999; Law, Wong, 3 Although transformational and charismatic leadership are often discussed as separate theories in the literature, conceptual and empirical evidence suggests a considerable degree of overlap that exists between these theories and their measures (Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999; Hunt 1999; Yukl 1999yf . This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 82 o o I g O ? .05yf $ O V R X Q V X S S R U W H G Z D V + S R W K H V L V Z K L F K W H V W H G D Q D O W H U Q D W L Y H W K H R U H W L F D l This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 84 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory expectation for the relationship between managerial discretion in human resource decisions and their leadership; that the lack of extrinsic reward-performance contingencies would require leaders to rely more on transformational practices to motivate and direct their em ployees. Overall, however, this study could not support either relationship as the presence of human resource red tape neither decreased (Hypothesis 3byf Q R U L Q F U H D V H G + S R W K H V L V f transformational leadership. Finally, in direct contradiction with Hypothesis 5, the use of organizational performance measurement was found to increase (not reduceyf W K H G H J U H H W o which municipal chief administrative officers were reported to exhibit transformational leadership behaviors (p < .05yf . One limitation of this study is its use of cross-sectional data to test claims of causality. As a consequence, the causality direction may be reversed. Transformational leadership may be the cause (rather than the productyf R I D Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V O R Z H U X V H R I K L H U D U F K y or greater use of lateral/upward communication and performance measurement. In attempt to strengthen confidence in the causal direction tested here, the model was also estimated for only jurisdictions where the chief administrative officers had less than 2 years of tenure. Such new leaders are less likely to have sufficient time and resources to change or establish these characteristics of their organization. Although the resulting sample size was small enough to substantially reduce the statistical power of the tests (n = 42yf W K H U H V X O W V Z H U e similar to that found with the full sample. Transformational leadership behavior was still associated with greater use of lateral/upward communication and organizational perfor mance measures (p < .05yf D O W K R X J K Q R O R Q J H U D I I H F W H G E R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O K L H U D U F K 7 o gether, these two factors explained nearly one-quarter (adjacent R2 = .24yf R I W K H Y D U L D Q F H L n reported transformational leadership behaviors. Conclusion This study contributes to our understanding of public sector organizations and leadership by looking at the relationship between transformational leadership practices and organizational characteristics. In particular, this study not only supports previous findings regarding the prevalence of transformational leadership practice in public organization but also suggests a number of possible explanations for why public sector organizations exhibit higher levels of transformational leadership than the mainstream management literature seems to expect. First, although transformational leadership behaviors are expected to be hindered by the bureaucratic structure of public sector organizations, our study of local governments contributes to a growing set of empirical findings that suggest public organizations are not always highly bureaucratic (Pandey and Wright 2006; Wright 2004yf $ O W K R X J K F R Q V L G H r able variation exists in the degree to which public organizations exhibit strong situational characteristics, on average, such organizations were only found to be characterized by mod erate degrees of hierarchical distribution of authority, formalization or red tape, organiza tion performance measures, and reliance on downward (and limited upward or lateralyf communication (table 2yf $ O W K R X J K W K L V V W X G R Q O L Q F O X G H V O R F D O J R Y H U Q P H Q W R U J D Q L ] a tions, which may be less bureaucratic and more innovative by nature, previous studies have found that other types of public organizations often do not fit the common bureaucratic stereotype (Boyne 2002; Pandey and Wright 2006; Wright 2004yf ( Y H Q V R I X W X U H V W X G L H s should attempt to validate these findings in other types of government organizations. A second set of findings concern the relationships between these organizational characteristics and transformational leadership. Here the findings were more inconsistent. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 85 Although some bureaucratic characteristics seem to reduce the practice of transformational leadership behaviors, others do not. In particular, although the greater reliance on hierarchical authority and weaker lateral/upward communication were both associated with a lower preva lence of transformational leadership behaviors, the presence of human resource or procurement red tape seemed to have no effect. Together, these findings partially support transformational leadership’s need for flexibility while simultaneously suggesting that the type or level of flexibility required may be more within the purview of leaders of public sector organizations. For example, the findings that transformational leadership behaviors are not adversely affected by organizational rules and red tape may be fortunate as such procedural constraints are often established by authorities outside the agency in order to protect citizens and avoid inap propriate use of public resources. In contrast, although hierarchical decision making and communication were found to adversely affect transformational leadership, the genesis of these characteristics can often be found within the organization itself and, as a result, may be easier for the organization’s leadership to change. A growing literature suggests not only why leaders should (Kim 2002; Pandey and Garnett 2006; Pandey and Wright 2006yf but also how they can (Garnett 1994; Lawler 1986; Moss and Sanchez 2004yf X V H D E U R D G U D Q J e of communication and empowerment practices within their organizations. Future research should continue to investigate these relationships and better establish their causal sequence using longitudinal and experimental designs. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that the transformational leadership behaviors within an organization may not be that affected by constraints imposed by external authorities. In addition, in direct contradiction with expectations, an organization’s use of perfor mance measures was found to be associated with significant increases in a chief admin istrative officer’s use of transformational leadership behaviors. Although inconsistent with the expectations of the mainstream leadership literature, this finding is consistent with rel evant expectations and findings regarding transformational leadership in the public sector (Rainey and Watson 1996yf 2 Q H S R V V L E O H H [ S O D Q D W L R Q I R U W K L V I L Q G L Q J L V W K D W S H U I R U P D Q F e measures may help leaders clearly articulate their vision of the organization’s mission (Rainey and Watson 1996yf R U H Y H Q E X L O G H P S O R H H F R Q I L G H Q F H D Q G S U L G H L Q W K H R U J D Q L ] D W L R n by measuring the impact of their work (Wright and Pandey 2007yf & R Q V L V W H Q W Z L W K W K L s explanation, Yang and Pandey (2009yf I R X Q G W K D W P D Q D J L Q J I R U U H V X O W V 0 ) 5 f activities can increase employee commitment not only by improving communication and organiza tional goal clarity but also by reducing (rather than increasingyf F H Q W U D O L ] D W L R Q D Q G U R X W L n ization. Although MFR is often characterized as a way for elected officials to assert additional oversight and policy control over agencies, in practice some organizations have been able to use MFR to reshape their agency’s culture “by making it mission-based and emphasizing the central role that employees played in achieving this mission” (Moynihan 2005b, 234yf 7 K L V X V H D Q G L W V H P S K D V L V R Q F R P P X Q L F D W L R Q D Q G P L V V L R Q P R W L Y D W L R Q D U H F R n sistent with the fundamental tenets of transformational leadership. In addition, to maximize follower satisfaction and performance, leaders must utilize both transactional and trans formational practices as latter are only expected to augment (not replaceyf W K H H I I H F W L Y e use of contingent rewards (Bass and Riggio 2006yf 7 R W K H H [ W H Q W W K D W 0 ) 5 K H O S V G H I L Q H , measure, and monitor employee performance, then it also provides leaders with a stronger foundation for guiding behavior and performance through the use of organizational re wards. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Taken as a whole, these findings challenge the strong and pessimistic a priori expectations fostered by mainstream (or genericyf P D Q D J H P H Q W O L W H U D W X U H D E R X W W K H S U R V S H F W V R I W U D Q V I R U P a tional leadership in the public sector. The study also adds to a growing consensus in public management scholarship that “management matters” and that public organizations and their leaders can overcome structural constraints (e.g., Andrews et al. 2009; Ingraham, Joyce, and Donahue 2003; Moynihan and Pandey 2005; Pandey, Coursey, and Moynihan 2007; Rainey and Steinbauer 1999yf , Q J U D K D P – R F H D Q G ‘ R Q D K X H f argue that leadership can per form an integrating function and overcome structural constraints arising from specific man agement subsystems or ” silo-like ” subsystems that operate with little coordination. Andrews et al. (2009yf V K R Z W K D W F H Q W U D O L ] D W L R Q V H I I H F W R Q S H U I R U P D Q F H L V P H G L D W H G E W K H V W U D W H J L c orientation of the organization. Similarly, Pandey, Coursey, and Moynihan (2007yf K D Y e shown that bureaucratic red tape’ s negative effect on organizational performance is mitigated by developmental culture. Our research findings for transformational leadership, taken to gether with other recent research, makes the case that structural constraints in the public sector do not necessarily stand in the way of superior performance and/or leadership. Appendix: Study Measures Transformational leadership3 (adapted from House 1998yf The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager clearly articulates his/her vision of the future The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager leads by setting a good example. The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager challenges me to think about old problems in new ways. The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager says things that make employees proud to be part of the organization. The Chief Administrative Officer/City Manager has a clear sense of where our organization should be in 5 years. Weak lateral/upward communication3 (Pandey and Garnett 2006yf Upward communication about problems that need attention is adequate. (Ryf Lateral communication about work-related problems is adequate. (Ryf Low-performance measurement use (adapted from Brudney, Ted, and Wright 1999yf Please indicate the extent (coded 1 [Not at all] through 6 [Fully]yf W R Z K L F K R X U R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q K D s implemented each of the following: Benchmarks for measuring program outcomes or results. (Ryf Systems for measuring customer satisfaction. (Ryf Obtaining an external review of organizational performance. (Ryf Hierarchical authority structure (Bozeman 2000yf Please assess the extent of hierarchical authority in your organization: (Please enter a number between 0 and 10, with 0 signifying few layers of authority and 10 signifying many layers of authority.yf Human resource red tape3 (adapted from Pandey and Scott 2002; Rainey 1983yf Personnel rules make it hard to remove poor performers from the organization. Personnel rules on promotion make it hard for a good employee to move up faster than a poor one. Pay structures and personnel rules make it hard to reward a good employee with higher pay here. Personnel rules make it hard to hire new employees. Procurement red tape3 (adapted from Pandey and Garnett 2006yf Rules and procedures governing purchasing/procurement in my organization makes it difficult for managers to purchase goods and services. Due to standard procedures, procurement is based more on the vendor’s ability to comply with rules than on the quality of goods and services. Rules governing procurement make it hard to expedite purchase of goods and services for a critical _project._ Note: R, reverse worded. aResponses on a 5-point agree/disagree scale coded 1 (Strongly Disagreeyf W K U R X J K 6 W U R Q J O $ J U H H f. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 87 REFERENCES Aiken, Michael, and Jerald Hage. 1966. Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. American Sociological Review 31:497-507. Andrews, Rhys, George A. Boyne, Jennifer Law, and Richard M. Walker. 2009. Centralization, orga nizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19:57-80. Avolio, Bruce J., Bernard M. Bass, and Dong I. Jung. 1999. Reexamining the components of transfor mational and transactional leadership using multifactor leadership questionnaire MLQ-Form 5X. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72:441-462. Bass, Bernard M., and Ronald E. Riggio. 2006. Transformational leadership, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bommer, William H., Robert S. Rubin, and Timothy T. Baldwin. 2004. Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 15: 195-210. Boyne, George A. 2002. Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies 39:97-122. Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brudney, Jeffrey L., Hebert F. Ted, and Deil S. Wright. 1999. Reinventing government in the American States: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review 59:19?30. Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Conger, Jay A., and Rabindra N. Kanungo. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review 13:471?82. DeHart-Davis, Leisha, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:133-48. Dumdum, Uldarico R., Kevin B. Lowe, and Bruce J. Avolio. 2002. Meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, eds. Bruce J. Aviolio and Francis J. Yammarino. New York: JAI Press. 35-65. Egri, Carolyn P., and Susan Herman. 2000. Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal 43:571?604. Fernandez, Sergio. 2005. Developing and testing an integrative framework of public sector leadership: Evidence from the public education arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:197-217. Garnett, James L. 1994. Communicating for results in government: A strategic approach for public managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hennessey, Thomas J. 1998. Reinventing government: Does leadership make a difference? Public Administration Review 58:522?32. House, Robert J. 1998. Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach: Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, interclass correlations. In Leadership: The multiple level approaches contemporary and alternative, eds. Fred Dansereau and Francis J. Yammarino. London: JAI Press. Howell, Jane M. 1997. Organization contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership. Kellogg Leadership Studies Monograph. Center for Political Leadership and Participation. College Park, MD: Univ. of Maryland. Hunt, James G. 1999. Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly 10:129-44. Ingraham, Patricia W., Philip G. Joyce, and Amy K. Donahue. 2003. Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Judge, Timothy A., and Joyce E. Bono. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:751-65. This content downloaded from 162.237.20ff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 88 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Kim, Soonhee. 2002. Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review 62:231^11. Law, Kenneth S., and Chi-Sum Wong. 1999. Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: An illustration using thej ob perception and job satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management 25:143-60. Law, Kenneth S., Chi-Sum Wong, and William H. Mobley. 1998. Toward a taxonomy of multidimen sional constructs. Academy of Management Review 23:741?55. Lawler, Edward E. 1986. High-involvement management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lowe, Kevin B., K. Galen Kroeck, and Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly 7:385-425. Moss, Sherry E., and Juan I. Sanchez. 2004. Are your employees avoiding you? Managerial strategies for closing the feedback gap. Academy of Management Executive 18:32-44. Moynihan, Donald P. 2005a. Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review 65:203?16. -. 2005b. Why and how do state governments adopt and implement “managing for results” reforms? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:219-43. -. 2006. Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review 66:78?90. Moynihan, Donald P., and Patricia W. Ingraham. 2004. Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance information use. Administration & Society 36:427?53. Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:421-39. -. 2007. The role of organizations in fostering Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review 67:40-53. Paarlberg, Laurie, and James L. Perry. 2007. Values management: Aligning individual values and or ganizational goals. American Review of Public Administration 37:387-408. Pandey, Sanjay K., David H. Coursey, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2007. Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multi-method study. Public Performance and Management Review 30:398-425. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity and the public manager’s role ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:511?32. Pandey, Sanjay K., and James L. Garnett. 2006. Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review 66:37?51. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Patrick G. Scott. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12:553?80. Pawar, Badrinarayan S., and Kenneth K. Eastman. 1997. The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review 22:89-109. Perry, James L., and Lyman W. Porter. 1982. Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations. Academy of Management Review 7:89-98. Perry, James L., and Lois R. Wise. 1990. The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50:367-73. Porter, Lyman W., and Edward E. Lawler. 1968. Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey Press. Rafferty, Alannah E., and Mark A. Griffin. 2004. Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly 15:329-54. Rainey, Hal G. 1983. Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structure, goals, and individual roles. Administration & Society 15:207?42. Rainey, Hal G., and Barry Bozeman. 2000. Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical re search and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:447-70. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Wright and Pandey Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector 89 Rainey, Hal G., and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9:1-32. Rainey, Hal G., and Steven A. Watson. 1996. Transformational leadership and middle management: Towards a role for mere mortals. International Journal of Public Administration 19:763?800. Sarros, J. C, G. A. Tanewski, R. P. Winter, J. C. Santora, and I. L. Densten. 2002. Work alienation and organizational leadership. British Journal of Management 13:285?304. Shamir, Boas, and Jane M. Howell. 1999. Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 10:257?83. Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4:577-94. Thomas, Kenneth W., and Betty A. Velthouse. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “inter pretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review 15:666-81. Trottier, Tracey, Montgomery Van Wart, and XiaoHu Wang. 2008. Examining the nature and significance of leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review 68:319?33. Van Slyke, David M., and Robert W. Alexander. 2006. Public service leadership: Opportunities for clarity and coherence. American Review of Public Administration 36:362?74. Van Wart, Montgomery. 2003. Public sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review 63:214-28. -. 2005. Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practice. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Weber, Max. 1948. In Max Weber: Essays in sociology, trans, and eds. Hans H. Gerth and Charles W. Mills. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Weiss, Janet A. 1996. Public management and psychology. In The state of public management, eds. Donald F. Kettl and H. Brinton Milward. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Wofford, Jerry C, J. Lee Whittington, and Vicki L. Goodwin. 2001. Follower motive patterns as situ ational moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues 13:196-211. Wright, Bradley E. 2001. Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11:559-86. -. 2004. The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognition theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14:59-78. -. 2007. Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public Administration Review 67:54-64. Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. What makes mission matter? Mission valence, public service motivation and human resource outcomes. Presented at the 9th National Public Management Research Conference, Tucson, AZ, August 8?13, 2008. Yang, Kaifeng, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2009. How do perceived political environment and administrative reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19:335-60. Yukl, Gary. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly 10:285?305. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:27:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Case Study: Organizational Structure & Culture Assignment Instructions Overview In this Case Study, you will apply the Statesmanship model discussed in Module 1: Week 1 to a real, specific publi
10 Federalism Research Paper Name University PADM600: Politics & Policy of Public Sector Budgeting Dr. Name Federalism Research Paper The national, state and local levels are all responsible for developing their respective budgets. As you have seen, a significant portion of the arguments surrounding public budgets is founded on fundamental presumptions concerning the function of government and the boundaries of its authority. Similarly, many debates are sparked by assumptions regarding which level of government—local, state, or federal—has been adequately authorized to act on behalf of the people and is in the most advantageous position to do so in each domain. These debates very quickly become public budgeting issues, given that budgets are ultimately the means by which governments act. Because budgeting takes place at all levels of government, from the federal government to state governments and local governments, it is crucial to understand the concept of federalism to understand the politics and policy underlying public finance management. Each tier of government is in charge of its own budget and is responsible for a distinct collection of powers and responsibilities. These tiers of government are also required to adhere to their own spending caps. Because each level of government may have its own priorities and may not always be able to reach a consensus on how to make the most effective use of limited resources, this can sometimes lead to conflict between the various levels of government. Federalism and Limited Federal Government Federalism is a system of government that involves the distribution of power between a central government and subnational entities. This system is one of the types of government structures. The concept of federalism in the United States refers to a political structure in which the federal and state governments work together to accomplish specific goals while maintaining their individual authority. The Constitution gives the federal government authority over some issues, such as taxes and regulating businesses that operate across state lines, while reserving control over other matters to the states individually. This separation of powers ensures that the federal government has only a limited amount of authority and that the individual states are free to experiment with their own forms of democratic rule (Williams, 2014). Both of these benefits come directly from the separation of powers. Federalism is a political theory that helps ensure that the legislative and executive branches of government maintain their political autonomy from one another. The Constitution grants the president the power to veto legislation, and the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution. Because of these safeguards, the government agency cannot gain undue influence over others. A further benefit of federalism is that it helps maintain parity between the central government and the various state governments. The Constitution grants the power to regulate commerce within each state’s borders to both the federal government and the individual states. The states can experiment with new legal and policy frameworks while remaining subordinate to the federal government’s authority, thanks to the separation of powers (Minat & Mostaev, 2020). The politics and policies surrounding the public budget have been significantly influenced by federalism in various ways. One institution that would not exist without federalism is the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is responsible for analyzing the federal budget. As a direct consequence of federalism, an office known as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was established, and its primary responsibility was to draft the president’s proposed budget. Federalism Impact on Federal Level Public Budgeting It is possible that the federalist system will double impact the national government’s spending. The first way federalism affects the process of creating a budget is by adding complexity and fragmentation, both of which can make it more challenging to create and adhere to a reasonable budget. The second way federalism can impact the budget is that it promotes competition between governments, which can lead to an increase in wasteful spending and the duplication of services. Federalism can potentially affect the process of developing and implementing a budget by adding complexity and fragmentation, both of which can make it more challenging to develop and implement a reasonable budget. Introducing yet another level of complication into the process of developing the budget can be an extremely challenging endeavor. This is because the methods of budgeting that are used by the various branches and levels of government are not the same. This may make it more challenging to coordinate and manage the budget and develop and implement an adequate budget (Sloan & Grizzle, 2014). Federalism can have a negative effect on public expenditures by encouraging wasteful spending and the provision of unnecessary services. This is because increased competition between state and local governments can have a negative effect on public expenditures. This is the case due to the cutthroat competition between the various levels of government to obtain the most outstanding possible share of the funding provided by the federal government. Attempts by different levels of government to one-up one another can result in spending money that is not necessary. When at least two distinct levels of government are involved, the same services can be provided twice. Federal Agency Impacts Spending on Public Budgeting The spending of the various federal agencies tasked with implementing and maintaining public-facing programs and services has a significant impact on the federal government’s budget. The amount of money that the federal government spends on its various agencies has a significant impact on the finances of local governments. In the year 2000, the federal government spent a total of $2.3 trillion on its various agencies. This was approximately twenty percent of the total budget for the federal government. This funding takes care of the salaries, benefits, and other expenses that are associated with the operation of federal agencies. In addition, it contributes financially to the provision of public services and programs by the respective organizations. The federal government’s spending on various agencies has a number of different effects on the public finances. To begin with, it has an impact on the total size of the budget for the federal government as a whole. In the year 2000, the proportion of the total federal budget that was allocated to spending on agencies was approximately twenty percent. These expenditures can be linked to either the deficit or the surplus in the federal budget. The surplus may increase if spending reductions are implemented across government agencies (Phaup, 2018). Increasing expenditures at the agency level will result in a more significant deficit. Second, allocating funds to agencies can influence the budgetary priorities of other government departments. The programs and services that federal agencies provide are the ones that do the best job of catering to the needs of the general public. For these initiatives to succeed, sufficient personnel, infrastructure, and other types of materials are essential. The government considers its priorities before deciding how to allot the available funds to the various departments and agencies of the federal government. In order to bring the deficit under control, funding for federal agencies that contribute to it will be reduced. If increasing the surplus is one of the top priorities, then federal agencies that contribute to the surplus will be given more funding. Third, the spending that agencies do affects the distribution of federal funds. Federal agencies oversee and manage programs and services that benefit the public. These services and programs need to have a financial investment, as well as time and effort put into them. The federal government’s priorities decide how its resources are dispersed throughout the government. Cut spending on federal programs that add to the deficit by reducing the amount of money allocated to those programs. If increasing the surplus is a top priority, then those federal departments and agencies that are already contributing to it will receive a more significant portion of the surplus than they are currently receiving (JOYCE, 2012). Fourth, the amount of money that the government spends on its many agencies impacts the amount of money it brings in through taxation. The federal government’s spending on its departments and agencies is financed by tax revenue. The amount of money that the government brings in through taxes is directly proportional to the amount that it spends on its various departments. Tax rates will inevitably rise if the government spends more money on its agencies. Reducing the budgets of federal agencies would have a multiplicative effect on tax rates, which would decrease those rates. Judeo-Christian and Federalism in Public Budgeting The term “federalism” refers to the cooperative relationship between the United States central government and the various state governments. To explain federalism in the simplest terms possible, it is a political structure in which two or more levels of government share authority over the same geographic region. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, the federal government and the state governments both share specific responsibilities. The legislation that is enacted by the federal government of the United States of America has the authority to be enforced everywhere in the country. The government of a given state is responsible for enforcing the laws that affect its citizens and residents (MASSIANI & PICCO, 2013). The concept of federalism refers to a political structure in which separate but equal levels of government (the federal and state levels) work together to accomplish shared goals while remaining separate from one another. In a federal system, power is shared between the national government and the state and local governments at the subnational level. Conclusion In conclusion, appropriations from the federal budget to various departments and agencies affect the economy as a whole. The federal government’s expenditures on various agencies contribute to an increase in the demand for goods and services. If federal spending on agencies is reduced, it is anticipated that consumer demand for goods and services will decrease. It is only logical to assume that an increase in the amount of money the federal government spends on its agencies will be followed by an increase in the amount consumers are willing to spend. References JOYCE, P. (2012). Introduction to Symposium: The Crisis in Federal Budgeting. Public Budgeting &Amp Finance, 32(3), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5850.2012.01019.x MASSIANI, J., & PICCO, G. (2013). The Opportunity Cost of Public Funds: Concepts and Issues. Public Budgeting &Amp Finance, 33(3), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5850.2013.12016.x Minat, V., & Mostaev, Y. (2020). Regional Policy of the Federal Government USA in the 50s–60s of the XX Century. Federalism, (1), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.21686/2073-1051-2020-1-161-174 Phaup, M. (2018). Budgeting for Mandatory Spending: Prologue to Reform. Public Budgeting &Amp Finance, 39(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbaf.12210 Sloan, M., & Grizzle, C. (2014). Assessing the Impact of Federal Funding on Faith-Based and Community Organization Program Spending. Public Budgeting &Amp Finance, 34(2), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbaf.12036 Williams, E. (2014). Federalism, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and Statutes of Repose: Maintaining the Balance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2523636