HOW PUBLIC SERVICE LEADERSHIP IS STUDIED: AN EXAMINATION OF A QUARTER CENTURY OF SCHOLARSHIP
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12199 |
doi: 10.1111/padm.12199
HOW PUBLIC SERVICE LEADERSHIP IS STUDIED: AN
EXAMINATION OF A QUARTER CENTURY OF
SCHOLARSHIP
CARRIE CHAPMAN, HEATHER GETHA-TAYLOR, MAJA HUSAR HOLMES,
WILLOW S. JACOBSON, RICARDO S. MORSE AND JESSICA E. SOWA
This exploratory study surveys the public service leadership literature from a selection of leading
public administration journals over a 25-year period (1987–2012). Patterns in methods used to study
public leadership are explored, along with how those methods vary across settings within the public
service sector and the treatment of leadership in the analysis. While the number of empirical studies
of public service leadership has grown, the diversity of theoretical approaches, methods and mea-
sures challenges the ability to synthesize ndings in order to advance the knowledge base on this
topic. This article provides a map of leadership studies within the eld of public administration over
time and offers prescriptions for future research.
INTRODUCTION
In most elds of study there are core concepts that are both centrally important to the eld
and subject to continuing debate and controversy. In public administration (PA), the topic
of leadership is such a concept, with discussions of the importance of and challenges asso-
ciated with leadership in public service repeatedly surfacing throughout the development
of the eld (Getha-Tayloret al. 2011; Van Wart2013a). While leadership in general has been
difcult to study and measure, the increasingly complex scope of PA has made this more
challenging, resulting in a fragmented approach to the study of public service leadership.
In decrying the challenges associated with leadership studies, Van Wart (2003, p. 225)
called on PA scholars ‘to discipline ourselves to create models that are powerful enough
to handle the complex leadership phenomenon and then to harness them in our research’
in order to ‘produce better science’ as well as provide useful insight to practitioners.
While numerous studies recognize the importance of leadership in PA research and
practice, many scholars acknowledge the continuing tensions and challenges associated
with understanding leadership, both theoretically and empirically.This complexity raises
questions as to how well scholars have answered Van Wart’s call (Van Wart 2003, 2013a,
2013b; Van Slyke and Alexander 2006).
The concept of public leadership raises many theoretical questions for scholars, includ-
ing the difference in leadership across sectors (the perennial public/private debate), how
leadership operates at different levels of administrative hierarchies, the appropriatevalues
that should be embodied by public leaders and leadership in cross-jurisdictional settings,
including public–private partnerships or networks (Vinzantand Crothers 1998; Terry 2003;
Crosby and Bryson 2005; Anderson 2010; Crosby 2010; Ospina and Foldy 2010; Currie et al.
2011).
When considering how to evaluate and understand public service leadership,
Getha-Taylor et al. (2011) provide three lenses to frame existing research. The rst
Carrie Chapman and Jessica E. Sowa are in the School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver,USA; Heather
Getha-Tayloris in the School of Public Affairs and Administration, University of Kansas, USA; Maja Husar Holmes is in
the Department of Public Administration, WestVirginia University, USA; and WillowS. Jacobson and Ricardo S. Morse
are in the School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
Public Administration Vol.94, No. 1, 2016 (111–128)
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
112 CARRIE CHAPMAN ET AL.
lens addresses the character of public leadership as it reects the changing perceptions
of governance itself. The second focuses on the function of public leadership, including
the need for accountability, collaboration, entrepreneurial initiatives and strategic action.
The third lens reects the boundaries or jurisdiction of public leadership, expanding
the focus of study. These three lenses highlight the multiple frames to understand the
complexity associated with leadership, including the how, the what and the why of
leadership scholarship. In addition to these theoretical differences that pervade the
knowledge base, questions surrounding the empirical study of public leadership remain
prominent, including challenges related to methodology and instrumentation (Van Slyke
and Alexander 2006).
This article examines these continuing challenges through a study of leadership research
in a selection of leading PA journals over a 25-year period (1987–2012). The focus of this
article is public service leadership, a term that denotes a focus on leadership in and for pub-
lic service. This term is used interchangeably with public leadership, which in some cases
is inclusive of political leadership (the realm of elected ofcials and some high-level politi-
cal appointees). Public leadership is examined broadly to include the exercise of leadership
in, as well as across, organizations working together to address shared problems and pro-
duce public value. This is broader than administrative leadership, which focuses solely
on the people and processes involved in leading, managing and guiding government and
nonprot agencies (VanWart 2013b, p. 521). Thus our working denition of public leader-
ship includes administrative leadership as well as collaborative (or what Van Wart terms
‘community’) leadership (Van Wart 2013b, p. 527), but not the realm of political ofcials.
Using a database of leading generalist PA journals, this article explores the overarching
question of how public leadership is studied within the PAresearch community as guided
by the following research questions:
1. The ‘how’ of studying public leadership: what are the patterns in methods used to
study public leadership?
2. The ‘where’ of studying public leadership: what is the variation in methods across
jurisdictions of public leadership (sector based, level of government and setting
locus)?
3. The ‘what’ of studying public leadership: what is the extent to which leadership is
the main focus of study?
This article is organized in four sections. A brief review of continuing theoretical ques-
tions associated with the study of public leadership is presented, with a particular focus on
the larger methodological questions remaining. The data and methods are then presented.
The two nal sections present the ndings from the analysis of the selected leadership jour-
nal articles, explore the implications of these ndings for the continuing study of public
leadership and raise questions concerning the nature of this research within the elds of
PA and public management. The aim of this article is to providea map of leadership stud-
ies over time to provide a strong grounding to assist in intentional and strategic future
studies of public leadership.
PUBLIC LEADERSHIP – THE HOW, THE WHERE, AND THE WHAT
The how
The methodological challenges associated with the empirical assessment of public
leadership have been a topic of consistent discussion in the literature (Van Slyke and
Public Administration Vol.94, No. 1, 2016 (111–128)
© 2015 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial