Examining the Nature and Significance of Leadership in Government Organizations

Author(s): Tracey Trottier, Montgomery Van Wart and XiaoHu Wang

Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2008), pp. 319-333
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: [Link]
Accessed: 16-10-2017 21:34 UTC

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 support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

American Society for Public Administration, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Tracey Trottier
Indiana University South Bend
Montgomery Van Wart
California State University
XiaoHu Wang
University of Central Florida

Examining the Nature and Significance of Leadership in Essays on

Leadership in
Government Organizations Organizations

Though the mainstream organizational literature has known theories, the "full range" leadership theory Tracey Trottier is an assistant professor
in the School of Public and Environmental
advanced in the last 20 years with the integration of of Bernard Bass. Bass first proposed his theory in Affairs at Indiana University South Bend.
transformational and distributed leadership theories, 1985 in the book Leadership and Performance She received her doctorate in public affairs

as well as genuine attempts at comprehensive models, Beyond Expectations. Unlike some of the other major from the University of Central Florida. Her

research interests are leadership in public

the public sector literature has lagged, especially in transformational models proposed in this period organizations, public management,

utilizing large-scale empirical studies. This study takes that used longitudinal case studies (Bennis and organizational behavior, and community

advantage of a very large government data set to test Nanus 1985; Burns 1978; Tichy and Devanna based research.
E-mail: ttrottie@[Link]
the utility of one of the best known theories, the full 1986), Bass's model was one of the first to use sur
range" leadership theory of Bernard Bass. It addresses vey research in a rigorous way. Bass's theory initially Montgomery Van Wart is a professor

three important research questions: How inclusive is had six elements and was later expanded to eight by and chair at California State University, San
Bernardino. As a scholar, he has more than
Bass's operational definition of leadership? How much Bass himself and by others (Avolio, Waldman, and 50 publications to his credit. His book on
of an impact do Bass's leadership competencies have Yammarino 1991; Bass 1998; Bass and Avolio 1990) leadership, The Dynamics of Leadership:

on follower satisfaction? Finally, how important is using a factor analysis based on a questionnaire Theory and Practice (M. E. Sharpe, 2005),

was designated an Outstanding Academic

transformational leadership compared to transactional called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Title for 2005 by Choice. His recent books
leadership in government settings? The results indicate Eight factors are not many when considering the on leadership include a new textbook,

that Bass's broad definition of leadership comes quite complexity of the leadership phenomenon, yet Leadership in Public Organizations: An
Introduction, and an edited volume (with
close to capturing what federal employees perceive to numerous studies have supported its ability to Lisa Dicke), Administrative Leadership in
be effective leadership. The relationship between good explain leader effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck, and the Public Sector (part of the ASPA Classics

leadership in an organization and follower satisfaction Sivasubramaniam 1996). Of course, the theory's series).
E-mail: mvanwart@[Link]
is also presented as an important outcome in the federal elegance also makes it prone to a number of
government. Finally, both transactional and transfor weaknesses that will be identified later. XiaoHu Wang teaches public adminis

mational leadership are perceived as important in the tration courses at the University of Central

Florida, specializing in performance

federal government, although transformational leader We examine three research questions in this study. management and financial management.
ship is considered slightly more important even after First, how inclusive is the operational definition of He is also interested in methodological

shifting one important factor, individualized consider leadership in the full range theory of Bernard Bass? issues in public administration research. His

ation, back to the transactional model. This requires some discussion of philosophical posi
recent book is titled Performance Analysis

for Public and Nonprofit Organizations

tions about what leadership is and some detailing of (Jones and Bartlett, forthcoming).

Though the mainstream organizational literature Bass's theory. The major critiques of his theory are E-mail: xwang@[Link]

has advanced in the last 20 years with the inte briefly reviewed.
gration of transformational and distributed
leadership theories, as well as genuine attempts at com Second, how much of an impact do Bass's leadership
prehensive models, the public sector literature has competencies have on follower satisfaction? The study
lagged (Bennis, Parikh, and Lessem 1994; Chemers specifies that follower satisfaction is an outcome of
1997; Nalbandian 1994; Pearce and Conger 2003; effective leadership. Why is it important? When con
Rost 1990; Senge 1990; Terry 1995; Terry 1993). trolling for the many other variables that one would
Recent attention to the study of organizational leader expect to have an effect on satisfaction, such as pay
ship in the public service has pointed out several critical and intrinsic enjoyment of the work, where does
weaknesses, including the need for better articulation of leadership stack up?
leadership models in these settings and empirical test
ing of those models (Van Wart 2003, 225). Third, just how important is transformational leader
ship compared to transactional leadership in govern
This study takes advantage of a very large govern ment settings? Most analysts agree that both the
ment data set to test the utility of one of the best instrumental elements of leadership (also called

Leadership in Government Organizations 319

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 transactional leadership or sometimes simply Especially common in the 1960s was the idea that
management) and the transformational elements are leadership is some combination of task- and people
important for leadership effectiveness. A number of oriented behaviors (Blake and Mouton 1964;
subtle, and a few not so subtle biases typified Hersey and Blanchard 1969). However, the defini
researchers advocating transformational variables in tions of most researchers have become somewhat
leadership research for nearly 20 years (Yukl 2002). more sophisticated and have expanded over time.
When correcting for those biases and attempting to As Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership
present a more balanced definition of transactional explains,
and transformational characteristics, what is the
perception of their relative importance? This is a The earlier definitions identified leadership as
fascinating question given the generally stolid and a focus of group process and movement,
inflexible notions that the public has of the federal personality in action. The next type consid
service versus the much more entrepreneurial, ered it as the art of inducing compliance. The
flexible, innovative, and transformational perceptions more recent definitions conceive leadership in
of some observers and researchers (Bellone and Goerl terms of influence relationships, power differ
1992; Doig and Hargrove 1987; Gardner 1990; Kiel entials, persuasion, influence on goal achieve
1994; Lewis 1980; National Commission on the ment, role differentiation, reinforcement,
Public Service 1990). initiation of structure, and perceived attribu
tions of behavior that are consistent with
The relevant literature is reviewed first, with a focus what the perceivers believe leadership to be.
on Bass's full range leadership model, the difference Leadership may involve all these things.
that leadership makes to follower satisfaction, and (Bass 1990, 19)
the degree to which transactional leadership is more
or less important than transformational leadership. Contemporary researchers interested in the broad
The methodology section discusses how the data view of leadership and who develop operational
were collected and how Bass's definition of leader definitions are challenged to cover many of these
ship was measured and evaluated. Next, the findings elements without providing excessively long,
of the study are presented to answer the three key laundry-list definitions that are comprehensive but
research questions raised in this study. The article lack coherence.
concludes with implications for researchers and
practitioners. Bass's Full Range Leadership Model
Bass's expanded operational definition of leadership
Literature Review includes eight types of leadership: laissez-faire, passive
Leadership has existed for as long as people have inter management by exception, active management by
acted, and it is present in all cultures no matter what exception, contingent reward, individualized consider
their economic or social makeup. Leadership is not ation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and
only a human quality; it is found in primitive forms inspirational motivation (1996a). Figure 1 defines
in many animal species, from low-level vertebrates these concepts.
such as chickens to higher-level primates such as
gorillas and whales. Through observation and experi Bass's operational definition explicitly covers a number
mentation, especially conducted in the animal's own of the aspects discussed in the Handbook of Leadership
natural setting, it can be deduced that there exists a and implicitly covers most of them. In his operational
clear hierarchy or "pecking order" of leadership and definition, leaders are implicitly the center of group
that leadership grants privileges to those who have it processes; personality is pronounced in all of his four
(Bass 1990). Is (individual consideration, idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation);
Although leadership is an age-old concept, it re influence and persuasion processes are explicit and
mains a complex term that researchers and scholars vary from sanctions (management by exception) to
grapple with continuously. One of the main reasons rewards (contingent reward) to inspiration (inspira
is the extensive number of definitions for this term. tional motivation); goal achievement is especially
It is commonly quipped that there are nearly as explicit in his outcome interest (performance beyond
many definitions of leadership as there are research expectations); initiation of structure is explicit in his
ers and commentators (Stogdill 1974, 7). Some transactional leadership elements (particularly man
researchers and commentators rely on narrow defi agement by exception and individualized consider
nitions for ease of communication (e.g., leadership ation); and follower perceptions are implicit in the
is the act of getting other people to do what they effectiveness that leaders must demonstrate in a num
would not otherwise willingly do) (Bennis 1959) or ber of styles. Although Bass does not focus on some
specific research interests (e.g., the investigation of elements, such as role differentiation or power differ
power relationships) (French and Raven 1959). entials, the theory is still relatively comprehensive in

320 Public Administration Review March | April 2008

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Laissez-Faire Leadership (LF)
Leaders avoid intervening or accepting responsibility for follower actions._

_+_
Trans
Managem
met.
Management by exception, active (MBE-A): Monitors follower performance and takes
corrective action when deviations occur.
Contingent reward (CR): Clarifies what needs to be done and exchanges psychic and
_material rewards for services rendered._

_+_
Trans
Individu
Idealized
as role m
Intellect
perspec
Inspirat
_provid

Figure 1
Note: Accord
leadership (r
substantial a

transformational leadership and transactional leader

terms of
formation
ship are not ends on a single continuum but rather
field. are leadership patterns that all leaders possess and
use in differing amounts. For exceptional perfor
Theories such as Bass's full range leadership model mance, transformational leadership behaviors need
(1985), which includes transactional and transforma to augment transactional leadership behaviors (Bass
tional leadership approaches, are an important part of and Avolio 1993). Therefore, according to Bass, the
the leadership research. Bass's model presents research best performance is the result of using both transac
ers with a theory that can be empirically tested and tional and transformational leadership behaviors
provides insight into the duality that leaders face in with subordinates.
current organizational settings.
The full range theory of leadership is a cumulative
Burns (1978) is credited with suggesting there is a model (a hierarchy of relations) that works in a some
dichotomy in leadership?transactional leadership what similar way to the motivational theories of
and transformational leadership. Yet whereas Burns Maslow (1954) and Herzberg (1966). Theoretically
saw these as distinct leadership styles, Bass (1985, and ideally, lower-level factors?termed laissez-faire
1996a) suggested that the relationship between these and transactional leadership?constitute the
styles or approaches is more complex and that both basics of the leadership function, while higher-level
transformational and transac factors?transformational lead
tional leadership are necessary. ership?constitute advanced or
Bass developed the Full Range high-performing leadership.
In his book Leadership and Leadership Model based on his Transactional elements include
Performance beyond Expectations belief that transformational passive and active management
(1985), Bass outlines the by exception, in which leaders
leadership and transactional
beginnings of his theory of make sure that underperforming
leadership are not ends on a workers are corrected and
leadership, in which both trans
actional and transformational single continuum but rather are developed. It also includes con
leadership are needed to en leadership patterns that all tingent reward, in which leaders
hance performance. Bass devel leaders possess and use in use performance management
oped the full range leadership and reward structures to moti
differing amounts.
model based on his belief that vate employees to complete their

Leadership in Government Organizations 321

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 half of the exchange bargain optimally. Transforma For example, how can one predict what will happen
tional elements are conceptualized by the four I's, when transformational elements are well represented
in which followers perceive personalized support, a but transactional elements are virtually absent?
role model whom they can trust, a sense of vision, Second, there is a bias toward executive and heroic
and stimulation to change as needed. Bass also notions of leadership, which is especially noticeable
includes laissez-faire leadership as a relatively in the universal prescription for inspirational moti
insignificant aspect of time management, but more vation or idealized influence. The follower or distrib
often a practice that is antithetical to effective uted aspects of leadership are not well articulated in
leadership practice (the absence of oversight and Bass's model. Third, some of the roles commonly
initiative). In sum, according to Bass, good leaders associated with leadership are not incorporated into
avoid laissez-faire attitudes, accomplish the the model (Javidian and Waldman 2003). This is
managerial functions of structuring the work most noticeable in the lack of emphasis on external
environment and reward system as efficiently as roles, noted by Mintzberg (1973) as the figurehead,
possible (sometimes by delegation in senior liaison, spokesperson, entrepreneur, and negotiator
positions), and spend as much time as possible on roles. Working with and developing followers may
transformational aspects. be an important role for leaders, but some people do
not construe leadership so narrowly (House 1996;
Although we adopt Bass's factor analysis as a given Hunt 1996). Fourth, like most theories emphasizing
here, we make three modifications. First, we drop transformational elements, Bass's work weakly
laissez-faire leadership from our analysis because it is specifies situational variables. Although the universal
regarded as nonleadership and therefore unnecessary approach of the theory works relatively well at the
for our study. Second, we combine the two types of macro level by "averaging" ideal behaviors, Bass's
management by exception because they are theoreti theory fails to provide detailed explanations of
cally much smaller and less pronounced in compari concrete contexts for theory or prescriptions for
son to other effective leadership practices (Bass teaching. Fifth, not all studies confirm Bass's factor
1996a, 738). They may be conceptually separate, but analysis. Although most researchers agree that the
they are similar enough to clump together, as in the transactional and transformational elements
original version of the theory (Bass 1985). Third, we are clearly distinguished (Lowe, Kroeck, and
place individualized consideration among the trans Sivasubramaniam 1996), not all agree on the
actional factors. As Yukl notes, "Although clothed in conceptual clarity of the specific transformational
different jargon, some of the new' wisdom reflects elements. Finally, there is a bias toward including as
themes that can be found in theories from the 1960s. much in the transformational side of the equation
For example, the importance of developing and as possible, most noticeably individualized
empowering subordinates echoes the emphasis on consideration, which had long been a linchpin of
power sharing, mutual trust, teamwork, participa transactional theories (Van Wart 2005, 349).
tion, and supportive relationships by writers such as
Argyris (1964), McGregor (I960), and Likert Leadership-Follower Satisfaction Relationship
(1967)" (2002, 262). Nearly all the transactional Leadership has a variety of outcomes, and follower
theorists include individual consideration as one of satisfaction is one. To make a determination about
the elements of leadership (Fiedler 1967; House and whether the revised Bass model makes a difference in
Mitchell 1974) or even place a major emphasis on it the federal setting, an analysis of employee outcomes
(Blake and Mouton 1964, 1965; Hersey and in necessary. Follower satisfaction was chosen be
Blanchard 1969, 1972; House 1971) because it cause it could be studied with indicators from the
substantially increases satisfaction and performance 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey and because
in day-to-day settings and reduces turnover satisfaction is an important employee outcome.
(Neider and Schriesheim 1988). Although individual Because followers are so critical to the success of
consideration enhances transformational leadership, contemporary organizations (Peters 1994; Peters and
in which change is prominent (Kouzes and Posner Austin 1985), their satisfaction is both a vital pro
1987), we nonetheless feel that a more balanced cess measure for an organization, as well as an end
approach can be achieved by placing it with the result in itself.
transactional cluster.
Studies have consistently found that employee satis
Despite its wide acceptance as a substantial contri faction affects both short- and long-term productivity
bution for its logical appeal, Bass's full range theory (Barnard 1938; Follett 1933; Roethlisberger and
of leadership has received a substantial amount of Dickson 1939), yet ironically, contemporary research
critique, which should be kept in mind when using has generally provided weak or inconsistent support
it for research or teaching purposes (Yukl 1999). for this intuitive contention (see Locke 1983
First, there continues to be some conceptual ambi for a good discussion of the limitations of inferring
guity about how the subtypes of leadership interact. performance from satisfaction data). Nonetheless, the

322 Public Administration Review March | April 2008

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
general level of satisfaction does have an indirect but have a greater impact on perceived effectiveness in
important effect on motivation by allowing workers to different sectors. Their research indicates that moni
focus on the intrinsic enjoy toring and facilitating roles have
ment of the work (rather than more of an impact on perceived
strife), encouraging followers to Studies have consistently found leadership effectiveness in the
achieve group goals, and greatly that employee satisfaction public sector. Second, does trans
diminishing dysfunctional formational leadership seem to
affects both short- and long-term make as much of a difference in
activity, such as work slow
productivity, yet ironically,
downs or even sabotage (Locke the public sector as it does in the
1983; Romzek 1990). contemporary research has private sector? Third, does the level
generally provided weak or of transformational leadership
Numerous studies have linked inconsistent support for this desired by followers vary over time
leadership behaviors with satis intuitive contention. as circumstances shift such as
faction. Kim (2002) suggests demand for organizational change
that a leaders use of a more from the environment? This re
participative management style will result in higher search seeks to provide one assessment of the first
levels of satisfaction among his or her employees. question, some comparisons for the second question,
Jaussi and Dionne (2004) also determined that leader and, related to the third, a benchmark for future
ship plays a part in subordinate satisfaction, especially research.
if leaders behave in unconventional ways. Some stud
ies have asserted that "consideration" behaviors by a Aspects of transformational leadership have long been
leader have a stronger relationship to follower satisfac recognized as important in public sector administra
tion than does task or initiating-structure behavior tive settings (Jenkins 1947; Selznick 1957; Stone
(Judge, Piccolo, and Hies 2004). Contingent reward 1945, 1981; Corson and Paul 1966), even they are
behavior has also been demonstrated to have a though poorly articulated in formal leadership theory.
positive relationship with subordinate satisfaction Transformational leadership theory evolved rapidly in
(Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov 1982). This relationship the late 1970s and 1980s because the organizational
may be attributable to the fact that reward fulfillment universe shifted dramatically, elevating transformation
is a basis for satisfaction, especially if the subordinate and thus requiring a new culture of dynamism rather
finds value in the reward (Porter and Lawler 1968). than stability. As Rosabeth Moss Kanter notes suc
cinctly, "change requires leadership" (1983, 125).
Transactional versus Transformational Certainly, the shift in the global economy profoundly
Leadership Debate affected many of the Westminster governments (e.g.,
As soon as transformational leadership was introduced New Zealand and Great Britain) in the 1980s with a
as a major type of leadership necessary for any com wave of "New Public Management" (Hood 1991) and
prehensive conceptualization (Burns 1978), a debate affected the U.S. public sector as dramatically in the
began raging about the relative importance of transac 1990s (Van Wart and Berman 1999).
tional, managerial, and instrumental aspects of leader
ship, on one hand, and transformational, charismatic, As previously discussed, the transformational school
and visionary elements, on the other (Bass 1985; of leadership has claimed elements of what has long
Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Conger and Kanungo 1987, been a part of the transactional literature: consider
1998; Kouzes and Posner 1987; Schein 1985). In ation and basic follower support. This study places
particular, the new transformational school has been follower support back into transactional leadership
eager to prove the overriding importance of transfor because the augmentation effect that Bass asserts
mational characteristics or even to assert that transac theoretically allows for this dual role. Good contin
tional elements are not a true form of leadership at all gent reward management should be in place in order
(e.g., Kotter 1990; Zaleznik 1977). Although the to build high-performance systems utilizing transfor
shrillness of the transactional versus transformational mational leadership competencies.
debate has subsided, the fundamental question
remains interesting and varied. Methodology

First, what is the relative importance in governmental Data

settings? (Rainey and Watson 1996). For example, To answer the research questions in this study, an anal
Hooijberg and Choi (2001) conducted a study of ysis of federal survey data was conducted. Data for this
private and public sector employees to see whether the analysis were obtained from the U.S. Office of Person
generic theories of leadership in the current literature nel Management (OPM). In 2002, the OPM con
could explain differences in these sectors. They linked ducted the Federal Human Capital Survey "to assess
leadership roles comprising different behaviors from the presence and extent of conditions that characterize
the competing values framework to see which would high performance organizations" (2003, 2). The survey

Leadership in Government Organizations 323

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 is considered the most sizable survey that has ever been Table 1 lists the 24 survey items used to measure these
completed of federal government employees to date leadership behaviors in this study. Several criteria were
(OPM 2003). It was electronically distributed to a used in selecting these items. First, the leadership
stratified random sample of federal government literature and Bass's full range leadership model pro
employees in federal agencies between May and August vided the guidelines for item selection. For example,
2002. The stratification was based on employees' agen Bass's concept of management by exception was mea
cies and positions (executives, managers/supervisors, sured by responses to the statement, "Information
and nonsupervisors/team leaders). The survey was collected on my work unit's performance is used to
distributed to 208,424 employees who worked in improve my work unit's performance." When using
agencies within the executive branch of the federal this type of leadership behavior, leaders "intervene
government, both in the United States and abroad. A with negative feedback or disciplinary action when
51 percent response rate was realized, with 106,742 employee performance falls too far below standards"
surveys being returned (OPM 2003). Of those that (Bass 1985, 136). Thus, the collection of performance
were returned, 100,657 were considered usable for the data can be used to determine when to intervene.
analysis in this study. The data from these surveys were Similarly, the survey item "In my organization, leaders
obtained and converted to an SPSS file for analysis. generate high levels of motivation and commitment in
the workforce" was used to measure inspirational
In the survey, questions covered a wide array of issues, motivation. Bass proposes that inspirational leadership
including strategic alignment, strategic competencies occurs when "leaders behave in ways that motivate
(talent), leadership, performance culture, learning and inspire those around them by providing meaning
(knowledge management), personal experiences, job and challenge to their followers' work" (1985, 5).
satisfaction, compensation and benefits, and family
friendly flexibilities. Demographic items were also Second, the items selected should be relatively reliable.
asked of the survey participants, including the agency Multiple items selected to measure the same concept
the respondent worked for, the agency subunit, super should have internal consistency?they should be at
visory status, gender, and race. least associated. Association-based Cronbach's alpha
was used to test reliability of measures. The alpha
In the survey, participants were given an identification values are also shown in table 1. An alpha value above
and password and asked to log in to the survey Web 0.700 is preferred, and all the alpha values in this
site. Accommodations were made for those employees study exceed this except for the measure of manage
who needed or preferred paper versions of the survey ment by exception, which has a value of 0.661. How
and for employees with disabilities. In addition, par ever, alpha values lower than 0.700 have often been
ticipants were protected under Public Law 93-579, used in the literature to measure concepts of manage
the Privacy Act of 1974, which makes the giving of rial behaviors not frequently measured before
any personal information voluntary. Participants were (Dangayach and Deshmukh 2005; Nunnally 1978).
also notified that individual responses would be confi Moreover, the use of the measure was necessary
dential and that the agencies they worked for would because the selection of items was limited by the
only receive aggregate data, which would not allow for survey and there were no alternative measures to
the identification of specific responses (OPM 2002). replace it (Berman 2001).

Measurement Composite indices were created in the study.

The Federal Human Capital Survey addressed organi The indices for the six leadership dimensions used
zational performance, leadership, and employee satis (management by exception, contingent reward,
faction. It included 118 individual question items, individualized consideration, idealized influence,
many of which were used to measure the concepts in inspiration motivation, and intellectual stimulation)
this study. The following discussion establishes the were created by combining the relevant indicators
operational definitions of the variables in the study shown in table 1 and dividing by the total number
and the specific measures that were used. of indicators for that index. The transactional
leadership index was created by combining all the
The study measured six leadership dimensions: man indicators of management-by-exception, contingent
agement by exception, contingent reward, individual reward, and individualized consideration and
ized consideration, idealized influence, inspirational dividing by the total number of indicators. The
motivation, and intellectual stimulation. It also mea transformational index was created by combining
sured transactional and transformational leadership all the indicators of idealized influence, inspirational
behaviors, which were set forth by Bass and updated motivation, and intellectual stimulation and dividing
by Bass and associates (Avolio, Waldman, and by the total number of indicators. The combined
Yammarino, 1991; Bass 1985, 1996b, 1998; Bass and leadership index was created by combing all the
Avolio 1990). These are combinations of the foregoing indicators of the six separate leadership dimensions
six leadership dimensions. and dividing by the total number of indicators.

324 Public Administration Review March | April 2008

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Table 1 Measuring Leadership Behaviors Based on the Bass Model

Measurements Mean SD
Managemenf by Exception (Cronbach's alpha = .66
Information collected on my work unit's performance
In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor
I have enough information to do my job well. 3.78

Contingent Reward (Cronbach's alpha = .913) 3.35

Selections for promotions in my work unit are based
Awards in my work unit depend on how well emplo
High-performing employees in my work unit are
Employees are rewarded for providing high quality pr
My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my per
Discussions with my supervisor/team-leader about m
How satisfied are you with the recognition you receiv

Individualized Consideration (Cronbach's alpha = .90

My supervisor supports my need to balance work and
My talents are used well in the workplace. 3.54 1.2
Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit provide em
their leadership skills.
Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit encourage
I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in
My job makes good use of my skills and abilities. 3.
How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisi

Idealized Influence (Cronbach's alpha = .813) 3.36 1

My organization's leaders maintain high standards of
Complaints, disputes or grievances are resolved fairly

Inspirational Motivation (Cronbachs alpha = .847)

In my organization, leaders generate high levels of m
Employees have a feeling of personal empower

Intellectual Stimulation (Cronbach's alpha = .815) 3.3

Supervisors/team leaders are receptive to change. 3.29
Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 3.19 1.166
I feel encouraged to come up with new and better wa

Transactional Leadership (Cronbach's alpha = .947)

A composite of all the indicators included in Managemen
Individualized Considera tion.

Transformational Leadership (Cronbach's alpha = .91

A composite of all the indicators included in Idealized Inf
Intellectual Stimulation.

Combined Leadership (Cronbach's alpha = . 966) 3

A composite of all the indicators included in Managemen
Individualized Consideration, Idealized Influence, Inspira

Note: All items are measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree," except the last item in "Contingent
Reward" and the last item in "Individualized Consideration," which are measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1= "very dissatisfied" to 5 = "very satisfied."

The study also measured perceived leadership effec mendation for others. Three survey items were used in
tiveness and follower satisfaction. Perceived leadership measurement: "Considering everything, how satisfied
effectiveness was indicated by an overall assessment of are you with your job?" "Considering everything, how
leadership results perceived by the employees. Two would you rate your overall satisfaction in your organi
items were used to measure perceived leadership effec zation at the present time?" and "I recommend my
tiveness and create a composite index: "I hold my organization as a good place to work." A composite
organization's leaders in high regard" and "Overall, index including all three items was created to measure
how good a job do you feel is being done by your follower satisfaction. The index had a relatively high
immediate supervisor/team leader?" A test of internal level of internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.881).
reliability showed that the index variable was relatively
reliable to measure leadership effectiveness In addition, several demographic and other organiza
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.731). tional variables were measured and controlled through
a multivariate statistical model examining the impact
Follower satisfaction is an outcome of leadership. In of leadership on satisfaction. These control variables
this study, it was operationalized to include three included the gender and ethnicity of the responder,
dimensions of a follower's satisfaction: satisfaction with the supervisory status of the responder, and the
the job, satisfaction with the organization, and recom respondent's satisfaction with other organizational

Leadership in Government Organizations 325

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 dimensions that influence follower satisfaction, such (Bennis and Nanus 1985) and the need for compli
as pay, benefits, career path, personal fulfillment of ance and rule-based mentality in much of the federal
their job, the physical conditions, organizational system would likely diminish this capacity (Howard
training, workplace flexibilities, coworkers, and 1994). Before we get to the question of what is most
organizational communications. important for leadership effectiveness or follower
satisfaction from a theoretical perspective, based on the
Findings data, we can definitely say that federal managers excel
Before empirically examining the comprehensiveness at transactional leadership (3.47) over transformational
of the Bass theory or its predictability in terms of leadership (3.27) competencies. A paired sample Mest
follower satisfaction, it is interesting to see just how shows that the difference is statistically significant at
well federal managers are perceived to perform in the .01 level (t = 135.97, p < .0005) with a sample of
different leadership competencies. For example, on 82,703.
average, do federal workers perceive their leaders to be
stronger at transactional or transformational How Comprehensive Is Bass's Full Range Theory
competencies? of Leadership in a Federal Setting?
Despite some of the critiques of the full range theory
First, the descriptive statistics in table 1 show that above, the findings suggest that the amount of per
federal managers are perceived to be about average? ceived leadership effectiveness captured by Bass's six
3.0 to 3.6?or slightly above average on a strictly variables is quite high?about 70 percent?when
numerical basis. One competency seems to stand out comparing his mid-level constructs to an overarching
as the best: individual consideration. Given the culture assessment of leadership effectiveness. The proportion
of emphasizing "individual development plans" and of explained variances (R2) for the transactional, trans
management by objectives in federal training programs formational, and combined leadership factors can be
for many decades, this is not surprising. However, found in figure 2. Although not as high as Bass him
federal managers are weakest at inspirational self has asserted (Bass 1985), the finding compares
motivation?generating high levels of motivation and favorably with other popular frameworks such as
feelings of empowerment and ownership of work Kouzes and Posner's (1987) 10 leadership practices
processes. Given nearly fifteen years of total quality using a critical incident methodology. The results are
management and reinventing government initiatives, consistent with other empirical researchers who have
this is a bit surprising. Nonetheless, inspirational moti found that charismatic (Javidian and Waldman 2003)
vation is not easy to achieve for any bureaucratic leader or transformational elements (Hennessey 1998) must

Management by Exception -.
(P = .033)
'os i _._I
I ^
- \
Contingent Reward X
1 (P = .H7) | _\>_
H I - R2=.650
I Individualized Consideration -1 I-^--1
(P = .201) \
_I Z N. I
p2_ 7n< ^^ Perceived Leadership
_^J_ "~% Effectiveness
_A_ / I_
Idealized Influe

| (P = .397) -1 /
*| g R2 = .709
Inspirational Motivation I _
? (P = .181) /
a -
08
H Intellectual Stimulation
(p=.043) -'

Figure 2 Relationship of Leadership Behaviors to Perceived Leadership Effectiveness

* Betas are obtained from the model that includes six leadership behavior dimensions as individual variables and controls for supervisory sta
tus only. R2 values are from models that include the individual leadership behavior dimensions (transactional, transformational, and combined
leadership) and controls for supervisory status only.

326 Public Administration Review March | April 2008

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 be included in a comprehensive operational definition violation of linearity and heteroskedasticity was de
of leadership in public sector settings. Also included tected. The model has a slight sign of multicollinear
in the figure are the standardized coefficients (betas) ity; the six leadership dimensions are associated, as
for each of the six factors, which indicate the relative expected. Nevertheless, the test of tolerance statistics
ranking that followers assign to each. Idealized influ detects no serious violation of model assumption of
ence is ranked first, individualized consideration sec multicollinearity (Pallant 2005).
ond, inspirational motivation third, and contingent
reward fourth. The low beta and ranking of intellec Table 2 presents statistics that specify the impact of
tual stimulation (.043 and fifth place) was not antici individual variables on follower satisfaction. All vari
pated and will be discussed later; the last-place ables in the model, except benefits, are statistically
ranking of management by exception is anticipated by significant at the <.001 level. More than 70 percent
Bass's theory. of variance of follower satisfaction is explained by the
model that includes leadership and other variables,
A significant amount of the variance of leadership suggesting the model is specified correctly and con
effectiveness is not explained, and it may be interesting cepts in the model are measured well. To examine
and useful to speculate about what is missing from relative impact of these individual variables on
Bass's operational definition. First, diligence, persever follower satisfaction, standardized coefficients are
ance, and efficient management may be poorly cap presented in a descending order.
tured by the six categories (Howard and Bray 1988;
Stogdill 1974). As Kouzes and Posner opine, "getting This analysis highlights the prospective role of leaders
extraordinary things done in organizations is hard in maintaining follower satisfaction. Three factors are
work" (1987, 239). Second, technical competence virtually tied for second place: leader motivation and
(OPM 1997, 1999; Rankin 2001) and generic man empowerment, individual consideration by leaders,
agement competencies such as human resource man and the ability to trust leaders. Leadership competen
agement and information technology (Neider and cies that are more instrumental, such as contingent
Schriesheim 1988; OPM 1997, 1999) are not incor reward (matching rewards and recognition to perfor
porated in this study. Many studies have demon mance) and managing by exception (e.g., getting
strated that although these characteristics rarely lead feedback on job performance and disciplining poor
to perceptions of great leader performers), have a relatively low
ship, their absence in leaders can ranking and effect on satisfaction
be problematic in many instances of followers. The change orienta
The change orientation of
(McCall, Lombardo, and Mor tion of leaders (intellectual stim
leaders (intellectual stimulation)
rison 1988). Third, style range ulation) actually has a slightly
and versatility are poorly cap actually has a slightly negative
negative correlation, which is not
tured by this universal model. It
correlation, which is not
surprising given the unsettling
is well known that transforma surprising given the unsettling nature of change, even when it is
tional leaders may flourish in one nature of change, even when it well done.
setting, only to flounder in an is well done.
other as the rise and fall of cor
How Important Is
porate executives amply testifies; Transactional Compared to
this has also been documented in the public sector Transformational Leadership in the Federal
(Roberts and Bradley 1988). Having demonstrated Setting?
that Bass's definition holds up fairly well in a federal The question about the relative importance of trans
setting as a macro-level operational definition, we now actional and transformational leadership can be an
explore the effect of leadership on satisfaction. swered in several ways. First, respondents ranked
transformational leadership variables as slightly more
How Much Effect Does the Full Range Leadership important in terms of their overarching concept of
Model Have in a Federal Setting? leadership effectiveness (see figure 2). The three trans
It should be noted that many factors affect follower formational variables together accounted for 70.9
satisfaction, in addition to leader effectiveness. Clas percent of the variance of perceived leadership effec
sic variables in this regard are managerial status, pay, tiveness, while transactional variables accounted for
benefits, career path, personal fulfillment of the job, 65 percent. This slight edge is maintained when the
physical conditions, training, workplace satisfaction, relationship is examined in the case of follower
supervisory status, gender of respondent, ethnicity, satisfaction (see figure 3). The three transactional
and coworkers. Therefore, all of these variables, along variables accounted for 70.7 percent, while the
with the leadership variables, were included in a transformational variables accounted for 72.5
multiple regression model to examine the impact of percent. The importance of these data is not which
leadership on follower satisfaction. Tests of model type of leadership has the edge, however, but that
assumption were conducted and no consequential transformational leadership has such a large role in

Leadership in Government Organizations 327

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Table 2 Regression Model of Follower Satisfaction in Descending The third way to look at the transactional versus trans
Order of Standardized Coefficients
formational issue is by each of the major variables
All Variables Affecting
studied in this case. Table 3 summarizes the relative
Follower Satisfaction ranking of individual factors using the mean averages
(in descending order, Unstandardized Standardized in table 1 and the standardized coefficients in figure 2
disregarding sign) Coefficients Coefficients and table 2. In both followers' perceptions of what it
Personal fulfillment of job .277** .253 takes to be an effective leader, or what it takes to
Inspira tional motiva tion .152** .172
Individualized consideration . 194* * .170 enhance follower satisfaction, three leadership factors
Idealized influence .157** . 170 stand out: individualized consideration, idealized
Career path .083** .097 influence, and inspirational motivation. Though these
Communication .070** .082
three factors are virtually tied in terms of contributing
Pay .067** .067
Coworkers .055** .049 to follower satisfaction, the ranking is quite clear in
Supervisor/manager status -.094** -.046
terms of effectiveness. First and foremost, effective
Executive status -.154** -.027
leaders must be trustworthy, followed by being con
Physical conditions .020** .023 siderate of followers' individual needs and talents, and
Con tingen t reward .023** .022
Management by exception .022** .018 finally being able to instill motivational enthusiasm
Workplace flexibilities .021** .018 and a sense of empowerment. While it can be seen in
Organizational training .015** .015
Intellectual stimulation -.013** -.012 table 3 that federal managers are, in fact, strong in the
Gender of respondent -.016** -.008 first two elements, they are relatively weak in instilling
Ethnicity of respondent -.016** -.007
enthusiasm and a sense of empowerment. Federal
Benefits .004 .004
Adjusted R2 .736 managers tend to be slightly stronger at the other
transactional factors?management by exception
** Significant at the < 001 level. and contingent reward?than followers indicate is
Leadership factors in italics.
important for effectiveness or satisfaction. The same
is true for the one low-ranked transformational item,
intellectual
the perceptions of federal workers after stimulation.
correcting
some of the biases of transformational researchers by
placing individual considerationThus,
in when
the transactional
examining Bass's six leadership factors
cluster. However, as table 1 indicates, federal
from three perspectives, we workers
see that neither transac
tionalin
actually rank their leaders higher nor transactional
transformational factors clearly predomi
leadership factors (3.47) than transformational
nate, although transformational factors
factors have an
(3.27). edge in followers' perceptions of importance. If

Management by -.
Exception
73 i
I -;-1 0 Contingent
k >v
2 Reward X_

? ! - R2=.707
| Consideration
Individualized
>.
-1 I-^
_ i. >< I
_ R =.721 _\
_A_ / I_
Idealized /
73 Influence l /
c i _ I-1
g
1
Inspirational
I ~~ L_
\
gO Motivation Lr
?_ \
H Intellectual
Stimulation

Figure 3 Relationship of Leadership Behaviors to Follower Satisfaction

* Controls for gender, ethnicity, supervisory status, pay satisfaction, benefit satisfaction, career path satisfaction, personal fulfillment of the
job, physical work conditions, organizational training, coworkers, and communication. These regression models are based on three composite
leadership dimensions: transactional, transformational, and combined leadership behaviors.

328 Public Administration Review March | April 2008

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Table 3 Comparison of the Factor Ranking of Leadership Behaviors

Ranking of Ranking of Standardized Coefficient Ranking of Standardized Coefficient

Leadership Factor the Mean for Leadership Effectiveness for Follower Satisfaction
Management by exception 5 6 5
Contingent reward 3 4 4
Individualized consideration 1 2 1/2/3*
Idealized influence 2 1 1/2/3*
Inspirational motivation 6 3 1/2/3*
Intellectual stimulation 4 5 6

* Inspirational motivation was .002 greater than individualized consideration and i

ficients is based on their signs and directions.

individualized consideration were

One method reunited
of testing under
Bass's theory was to use follow the
ers' conceptualization
rubric of transformational leadership, of leader effectiveness
the scale as a de would
pendent variable
tip heavily in that direction. and to examine bothreward
Contingent the variance is an
important factor in termsexplained
of perceived leadership
and the relative weighting of the factors.
effectiveness, but it is lessBass's
sodefinition
in termsholds up veryof follower
well in terms of leader satis
faction. Management by exception
ship effectiveness fromis a significant
followers' perceptions, ac but
relatively small factor, as counting
one for would
more than 70
expect
percent of thein
variance.
terms of
Idealized influence is the mostbut
shaping effectiveness and satisfaction, important factor, but
surprisingly,
intellectual stimulation is inspirational
very motivation,
low. Followers do not
individualized consideration,
and contingent
perceive leaders' receptivity reward are also important
to change and the (in that reward
ing of creativity and innovation
order). As predicted
to by Bass's
be theory,
major management
determi
by
nants of change; indeed, a exception
changehas a relatively modest impact, but contrary
orientation actually
to his theory,
has a slightly negative correlation with intellectual stimulation has a miniscule
satisfaction.
impact rather than athis
Although followers may perceive substantialto
one. be quite low
in their priorities, superiors and the public's proxies
(e.g., elected executives and legislators)
How significant of an effect doesmight
leadership havebe
to likely
follower satisfaction?
to place it very high, but this is beyond It has an enormous
theeffect.
scopeThe of
the study. six leadership factors are statistically significant in a
model predicting follower satisfaction, and three of
Discussion and Conclusion
the six leadership factors exceed standard satisfaction
Despite an enormous amount of
areas such as discussion
pay, promotion, coworkers, and about
working
leadership in public agencies,
conditions,there has
and only personal been
fulfillment relatively
of the job
little broad-scale empirical analysis.
exceeds This with
them. This is in agreement studyfindings ofuses
the data from the 2002 Federal
Buckingham and Coffman
Human (1999; seeCapital
also Kim 2002) Sur
vey to assess three major but at some variance with the
leadership retention/turnover empiri
questions
cally. How well does the operational
literature, which does not definition
generally highlight the for
Bass's well-known full range
importance theory
of leadership to hold up,
this degree (e.g., how
Fottler,
Shewchuk, and O'Connor
much of an impact does leadership 1998). This
have onmay be attrib
follower
satisfaction, and can one get
utable a sense
to the ofstudies
fact that these the onlyrelative
examine the
importance of transactional
impactand transformational
of the employee-supervisor relationship, not
leadership behaviors? the numerous indirect influences that leadership has
on the climate, working environment, and overall
culture.
Descriptively, federal managers range from 3.0 to 3.6
on a five-point scale when evaluating them using
The study also examines
Bass's six leadership competencies orthe transactional or transfor
factors. The
transactional competencies are
mational management
leadership by excep
debate in government settings,
tion, contingent reward,which
and individualized
are traditionally consider
more constrained, even in an
ation (this last factor being placed
increasingly with
results-oriented transactional
and entrepreneurial
environment.
competencies for this study). The On average, transformational leader
transformational
competencies are idealizedship
influence, inspirational
is slightly more important in terms of both per
motivation, and intellectual stimulation.
ceptions of leader effectiveness and In terms of
follower
specific performance, then, federal
satisfaction managers
in the federal are
case, despite the substantial
generally about average on four
conceptual of
expansion theseleadership
of transactional factors? for
each approximately 3.3. Federal managers
this study. Effective didhas
public sector management
substantially better on individualized
always depended to some degree consideration
on transformational
(3.6) and substantially poorer
leadership on intellectual
behaviors (e.g., Selznick 1957), but stimula
it
tion (3.0). seems likely that these characteristics have been

Leadership in Government Organizations 329

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 emphasized since the 1990s with downsizing, pressure -. 1996b. A New Paradigm of Leadership: An
for results, devolution of authority, and increased use Inquiry into Transformational Leadership.

of market strategies (e.g., weakening of civil service Alexandra, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for
the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
rules). However, on average, federal managers are
evaluated as better transactional leaders, and fall -. 1998. Transformational Leadership: Industrial,

down noticeably in one key transformational area: Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ:

inspirational motivation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1990. The

Additional research can test and contextualize these Implications of Transactional and Transformational
findings. Examples of such research include follow-up Leadership for Individual, Team, and
studies with future OPM data to study longitudinal Organizational Development. In Research in
trends, broad-scale examination of the nature and Organizational Change and Development, edited
effects of leadership in state and local governments, by W Pasmore and R. W Woodman, vol. 4,
and studies that focus on some of the major situ 231-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
ational aspects of leadership (hierarchy, organizational -. 1993. Transformational Leadership: A
type, degree of organizational stress, gender, culture) Response to Critiques. In Leadership Theory and
in public settings. Research: Perspectives and Directions, edited by

Martin M. Chemers and Roya Ayman, 49-80.

In sum, we can say with confidence that Bass's San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
blended transactional and transformational model of
Bellone, Carl J., and George Frederick Goerl. 1992.
leadership does capture well the major elements of Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and
what followers perceive to be important and that very Democracy. Public Administration Review 52(2):
good leadership seems to depend even more on trans 130-34.
formational elements than transactional, even when
Bennis, Warren. 1959. Leadership Theory and
individual consideration is placed on the transactional Administrative Behavior: The Problems of
side of the model. The answer to the question about
Authority. Administrative Science Quarterly 8(2):
whether leadership is significant in government orga 125-65.
nizations, using the follower satisfaction affect as a Bennis, Warren, and Burt Nanus. 1985. Leaders:
proxy, is a resounding yes. In practical terms, then,
Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper &
the selection and grooming of leaders has room for Row.
substantial improvement in the federal case. Leaders
Bennis, Warren, Jagdish Parikh, and Ronnie Lessem.
need not only the traditional technical and managerial
1994. Beyond Leadership: Balancing Economics,
skills of the past but also well-honed transformational
Ethics, and Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
competencies emphasizing mission articulation, vi Business.
sion, and inspirational motivation. Although revised
Berman, Evan M. 2001. Essential Statistics for Public
OPM competency models (1999) have reflected an
Managers and Policy Analysts. Washington, DC:
increased transformational emphasis, descriptive
CQ Press.
empirical data (as well as our theoretical analysis)
Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. 1964.
reveals that more needs to be done by federal agencies
The Managerial Grid: Key Orientations for
in this regard.
Achieving Production through People. Houston,
TX: Gulf.
References
Argyris, Chris. 1964. Integrating the Individual and the
-. 1965. A 9, 9 Approach for Increasing
Organizational Productivity. In Personal and
Organization. New York: Wiley.
Avolio, Bruce J., David A. Waldman, and Francis J. Organizational Change through Group Methods,
edited by Edgar H. Schein and Warren G. Bennis,
Yammarino. 1991. Leading in the 1990s: The Four
Is of Transformational Leadership. Journal of 165-83. New York: Wiley.

European Industrial Training 15(4): 9-16. Buckingham, Marcus, and Curt CofFman. 1999. First,
Break All the Rules: What the Worlds Greatest
Barnard, Chester I. 1938. The Functions of the
Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Managers Do Differently. New York: Simon &
Press. Schuster.

Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New

Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. York: Harper & Row.
-. 1990. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Chemers, Martin M. 1997. An Integrative Theory of

Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Applications. New York: Free Press. Conger, Jay A., and Rabindra N. Kanungo. 1987.
-. 1996a. Is There Universality in the Full Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic
Range Model of Leadership? International Journal Leadership in Organizational Settings. Academy of
of Public Administration 19(6): 731-61. Management Review 12(4): 637-47.

330 Public Administration Review March | April 2008

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 -. 1998. Charismatic Leadership in -. 1996. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership:
Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Lessons, Legacy, and a Reformulated Theory.
Publications. Leadership Quarterly 7(3): 323-52.
Corson, John J., and R. Shale Paul. 1966. Men Near House, Robert J., and Terence. R. Mitchell. 1974.
the Top: Filling Key Posts in the Federal Service. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Journal of
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Contemporary Business 3: 81-98.
Dangayach, G. S., and S. G. Deshmukh. 2005. Howard, Ann, and Douglas W. Bray. 1988.
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Managerial Lives in Transition: Advancing Age and
Implementation: Evidence from Indian Small and Changing Times. New York: Guilford Press.
Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Journal of Howard, Philip K. 1994. The Death of Common Sense:
Manufacturing Technology Management 16(5): How Law Is Suffocating America. New York:
483-96. Random House.
Doig, Jameson W., and Erwin C. Hargrove, eds. Hunt, James G. 1996. Leadership: A New Synthesis.
1987. Leadership and Innovation: A Biographical Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Jaussi, Kimberly S., and Shelley D. Dionne. 2004.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Unconventional Leader Behavior, Subordinate

Fiedler, Fred E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Satisfaction, Effort, and Perception of Leader

Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Effectiveness. Journal of Leadership and

Follett, Mary Parker. 1933. Mary Parker Follett? Organizational Studies 10(3): 15-26.
Prophet of Management: A Celebration of Writings Javidian, Mansour, and David A. Waldman. 2003.
from the 1920s. Ed. Pauline Graham. Boston: Exploring Charismatic Leadership in the Public
Harvard Business School Press, 1996. Sector: Measurement and Consequences. Public
Fottler, Myron D., Richard M. Shewchuk, and Administration Review 63(2): 229-42.
Stephen J. O'Connor. 1998. Relative Importance Jenkins, William O. 1947. A Review of Leadership
of Job Attributes for the Recruitment and Studies with Particular Reference to Military
Retention Decisions of Health Care Executives. Problems. Psychological Bulletin 44: 54-79.
International Journal of Organizational Theory and Judge, Timothy A., Ronald F. Piccolo, and Remus
Behavior 1(2): 223-47. Hies. 2004. The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of
French, John, and Bertram H. Raven. 1959. The Consideration and Initiating Structure in
Bases of Social Power. In Studies in Social Power, Leadership Research. Journal of Applied Psychology
edited by Dorwin Cartwright, 150-67. Ann Arbor: 89(1): 36-51.
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1983. The Change Masters.
Research. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gardner, John W. 1990. On Leadership. New York: Kiel, L. Douglas. 1994. Managing Chaos and
Free Press. Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for
Hennessey, J. Thomas. 1998. Reinventing Managing Change, Innovation, and Organizational
Government: Does Leadership Make the Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Difference? Public Administration Review 58(6): Kim, Soonhee. 2002. Participative Management and
522-32. Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management
Hersey, Paul, and Kenneth H. Blanchard. 1969. Life Leadership. Public Administration Review 62(2):
Cycle Theory of Leadership. Training and 231-41.
Development Journal 23(1): 26-34. Kotter, John P. 1990. A Force for Change: How
-. 1972. The Management of Change. Training Leadership Differs from Management. New York:
and Development Journal 26(2): 20-24. Free Press.

Herzberg, Frederick. 1966. Work and the Nature of Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1987. The
Man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing. Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary
Hood, Christopher. 1991. A Public Management Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco:
for All Seasons? Public Administration 69(1): Jossey-Bass.
3-19. Lewis, Eugene. 1980. Public Entrepreneurship: Toward
Hooijberg, Robert, and Jaepil Choi. 2001. The a Theory of Bureaucratic Political Power.
Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Leadership Effectiveness Models: An Examination Likert, Rensis. 1967. The Human Organization:
of Leadership in a Private and a Public Sector Its Management and Value. New York:
Organization. Administration & Society 33(4): McGraw-Hill.
403-31. Locke, Edwin A. 1983. The Nature and Causes of Job
House, Robert J. 1971. A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and
Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly Organizational Psychology, edited by Marvin D.
16(3): 321-28. Dunnette, 1297-1349. New York: Wiley.

Leadership in Government Organizations 331

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Lowe, Kevin B., K. Galen Kroeck, and Nagaraj Roberts, Nancy C, and Raymond Trevor Bradley.
Sivasubramaniam. 1996. Effectiveness of 1988. Limits of Charisma. In Charismatic
Correlates of Transformational and Transactional Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational
Leadership. Leadership Quarterly 7(3): Effectiveness, edited by Jay A. Conger and
385-425. Rabindra N. Kanungo, 253-75. San Francisco:
Maslow, Abraham. 1954. Motivation and Personality. Jossey-Bass.
New York: Harper. Roethlisberger, Fritz J., and William J. Dickson.
McCall, Morgan W., Jr., Michael M.. Lombardo, and 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge,
Ann M. Morrison. 1988. The Lessons of Experience: MA: Harvard University Press.
How Successful Executives Develop on the Job. Romzek, Barbara S. 1990. Employee Investment and
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Commitment: The Ties That Bind. Public

McGregor, Douglas. 1960. The Human Side of Administration Review 50(3): 374-82.
Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rost, Joseph C. 1990. Leadership for the Twenty-First
Mintzberg, Henry. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Century. New York: Praeger.
Work. New York: Harper & Row. Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational Culture and
Nalbandian, John. 1994. Reflections of a Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
"Pracademic" on the Logic of Politics and Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leadership in Administration: A
Administration. Public Administration Review Sociological Lnterpretation. Evanston, IL: Row,
54(6): 531-36. Peterson.
National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art
Commission). 1990. Leadership for America. and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. York: Doubleday/Currency.
Neider, Linda L., and Chester A. Schriesheim. 1988. Stogdill, Ralph M. 1974. Handbook of Leadership: A
Making Leadership Effective: A Three-Stage Survey of Theory and Research. New York: Free
Model. Journal of Management Development 7(5): Press.
10-20. Stone, Donald C. 1945. Notes on the Government
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. Executive: His Role and His Methods, Public
New York: McGraw-Hill. Administration Review 5(3): 210-25.
Pallant, Julie. 2005. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by -. 1981. Innovative Organizations Require
Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Innovative Managers. Public Administration Review
Windows. 2nd ed. New York: Open University 41(5): 507-13.
Press. Terry, Larry D. 1995. Leadership of Public
Pearce, Craig L., and Jay A. Conger, eds. 2003. Shared Bureaucracies: The Administrator as Conservator.

Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Terry, Robert W 1993. Authentic Leadership: Courage
Peters, Tom. 1994. The Pursuit of WOW! Every Persons in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guide to Topsy-Turvy Times. New York: Vintage Tichy, Noel M., and Mary Anne Devanna.
Books. 1986. The Transformational Leader. New York:
Peters, Tom, and Nancy Austin. 1985. A Passion for Wiley.
Excellence: The Leadership Difference. New York: U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 1997.
Random House. MOSAIC: Occupational Study of Federal Executives,
Podsakoff, Philip M., William D. Todor, and Richard Managers, and Supervisors. Washington, DC: Office
Skov. 1982. Effects of Leader Contingent Reward of Personnel Management.
and Noncontigent Reward and Punishment -. 1999. High-Performing Leaders: A
Behaviors on Subordinate Performance and
Competency Model. Washington, DC: Office of
Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal Personnel Management.
25(4): 810-21. -. 2002. Federal Human Capital Survey 2002.
Porter, Lyman W, and Edward E. Lawler. 1968. [Link] [accessed November 23,
Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, 2004].
IL: R.D. Irwin. -. 2003. What Federal Employees Say: Results
Rainey, Hal G., and Steven A. Watson. 1996. from the 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey.
Transformational Leadership and Middle [Link] [accessed
Management: Towards a Role for Mere Mortals. November 23, 2004].
International Journal of Public Administration Van Wart, Montgomery. 2003. Public Sector
19(6): 763-800. Leadership Theory: An Assessment. Public
Rankin, Neil. 2001. Raising Performance through Administration Review 63(2): 214-28.
People: The Eighth Competency Survey. -. 2005. Dynamics of Leadership in Public
Competency and Emotional Intelligence 2: Service: Theory and Practice. Armonk, NY: M.E.
2-23. Sharpe.

332 Public Administration Review March | April 2008

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Van Wart, Montgomery, and Evan M. Berman. 1999. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1):
Contemporary Public Sector Productivity Values: 33-48.
Narrower Scope, Tougher Standards, and New -. 2002. Leadership in Organizations. 5th ed.
Rules of the Game. Public Productivity and Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Management Review 22(3): 326-47. Zaleznik, Arthur. 1977. Managers and Leaders: Are
Yukl, Gary A. 1999. An Evaluative Essay on Current They Different? Harvard Business Review 55(5):
Conceptions of Effective Leadership. European 67-78.

Get Your Own Copy of PAR!

A subscription to PAR is a valuable benefit of membership in the American Society for Public
Administration (ASPA), the international network of practitioners and scholars dedicated to excellence
in public service.

Visit [Link] for information on joining ASPA!

Leadership in Government Organizations 333

This content downloaded from [Link] on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]