Publicness as an antecedent of transformational leadership: the case of Norway
| Author | Dag Ingvar Jacobsen |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852315575000 |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(1) 23–42
Publicness as an antecedent
! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
of transformational leadership:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315575000
the case of Norway
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Dag Ingvar Jacobsen
Agder University, Norway
Abstract
A large number of empirical studies have shown a wide range of positive effects of
transformational leadership, which is arguably the dominating leadership paradigm in the
last two decades. In this study, we ask whether this type of leadership is as common in
public as in private organizations. Through a survey, the leadership style of 2488 leaders
in Norwegian organizations with more than ten employees was mapped out. Focus is
set on whether the occurrence of transformational leadership varies according to an
organization’s publicness. It is hypothesized that the effect of publicness on transform-
ational leadership will be mediated through bureaucratization, centralization,
professionalization, pro-social motivation and gender composition. The study controls
for organization size and task, variables often missing in comparisons of public and
private organizations. The main finding is that publicness has no direct effect on trans-
formational leadership when controlling for main task, organizational size and the
leader’s gender. However, it does affect transformational leadership indirectly through
bureaucratization, professionalization and gender composition. Based on the findings,
more general implications for comparing public and private organizations are discussed.
Points for practitioners
It is often claimed that leadership in the public sector is different from leadership in the
private sector. This study shows that such a claim is an oversimplification. First, there
should be an awareness that leadership does not take place only in the private or public
sector, but also in a myriad of hybrids between the public and the private sectors.
Second, various challenges for leaders may be more strongly linked to basic features
such as task and organizational size, rather than to whether an organization is public or
private.
Corresponding author:
Dag Ingvar Jacobsen, Agder University, Department for Political Science and Leadership, Servicebox 422, 4604
Kristiansand, Norway.
Email: dag.i.jacobsen@uia.no
24
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(1)
Keywords
bureaucratization,
gender
composition,
Norway,
professionalization,
pro-social
motivation, publicness, transformational leadership
Leadership studies over the last three decades have revealed a plethora of positive
consequences of transformational leadership (Avolio and Bass, 1991; Avolio et al.,
2009; Bass, 1985; Northouse, 2013; van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013; Yukl,
2012). As transformational leadership is clearly important for an organization’s
functioning and efficiency (Orazi et al., 2013; Wright and Pandey, 2010), an import-
ant question arises: are transformational leaders less common in public than in
private organizations? Even though the general expectation seems to be that the
answer is ‘yes’ (Bass and Riggio, 2006: 93), empirical studies conclude that trans-
formational leadership is as common in public as in private organizations
(Bass and Riggio, 2006; Lowe et al., 1996; van Wart, 2011).
However, these studies are encumbered with serious weaknesses. First of all,
most studies still rely on a dichotomist distinction between the private and public
sectors, even though it has been vigorously argued that public–private should be
viewed as a dimensional phenomenon rather than as a dichotomy (Bozeman, 2013).
Although the introduction of the concept of publicness has been met with great
interest in the research community, studies combining a focus on the dominating
leadership theories with the concept of publicness are still lacking (Andersen, 2010).
Secondly, it is assumed that the effects of publicness are mediated through both
structural and demographic differences. Most common is the assumption that pro-
fessional bureaucracies are more frequent among public organizations (Mintzberg,
1979), and that this organizational form represents a context affecting both
the need for, and the possibility of, exercising transformational leadership.
Bureaucratization, with its structural characteristics of centralization and formal-
ization, is assumed to limit the possibility for leaders to exercise transformational
leadership (Wright and Pandey, 2010), while stronger professionalization is
assumed to increase the occurrence of transformational leadership styles (Bass
and Riggio, 2006: 95). Less common is the assumption that public organizations’
leaders are different from those of private organizations, displaying a higher pro-
portion of female leaders and leaders more motivated by altruistic motives (Boyne,
2002), and that such leaders more often act as transformational leaders. While
empirical, dichotomist comparisons between public and private organizations
both corroborate and dispute these assumptions (Baarspul and Wilderom, 2011;
Boyne, 2002; Rainey, 2014; Rainey and Bozeman, 2000), there are no empirical
studies on how the eventual effects of publicness on transformational leadership are
mediated by the structural and demographic characteristics of the organization and
the leaders.
Finally, most comparisons between public and private organizations lack
important control variables, most notably size and task. As a rule, public
Jacobsen
25
organizations are larger than private ones (Boyne, 2002). Furthermore, in most
countries, tasks systematically vary between the public and the private sectors as a
result of both market failures (collective goods) and political decisions on what is a
public responsibility (Pesch, 2008). Missing controls for these variables may
result in a confounding in the effect of publicness with the effects of size and
task (Rainey, 2014).
This study aims to address some of the weaknesses associated with studies of
transformational leadership in the public sector. The article is structured as follows.
First, studies on transformational leadership in public sector organizations are
reviewed. Second, the concept of publicness is defined. The third part elaborates
hypotheses on how publicness affects the propensity for leaders to engage in trans-
formational leadership behaviour. In the fourth part, the hypotheses are empiric-
ally scrutinized through an extensive survey conducted in 2011 of 2488 Norwegian
leaders in both the private and the public sectors. Finally, the findings and impli-
cations are discussed.
Transformational leadership
In his overview of leadership research, Yukl (2012: 69) states that: ‘Since the
1980s, much of the research on the effects of leadership behavior has been
based on theories of transformational and charismatic leadership’. Based on the
book by Burns (1978) in which he popularized the concept of transformational
leadership, Bass (1985, 1990) and Avolio and Bass (1991, 2004) elaborated on
what came to be termed the full range model of leadership. Three basic leader-
ship styles were originally detected: transformational, transactional and laissez-
faire leadership. In this study, we focus exclusively on one of these leadership
styles – transformational – as this is the type of leadership style most clearly
associated with positive outcomes such as performance, job satisfaction and com-
mitment (Belle´, 2014; Dvir et al., 2002; Grant, 2012; Jackson et al., 2013; Michel
et al., 2011; Moynihan et al., 2012; Park and Rainey, 2008; Piccolo et al., 2012;
Wright and Pandey, 2010).
Transformational leadership is defined as a form of inspirational leadership
(Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999), in many instances similar to charismatic leadership
(Miner, 2006; van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013; van Wart, 2011). It appeals to
people’s inner motivation, inspiring them to act. Four important activities or elem-
ents constitute transformational leadership: idealized influence (functioning as a
symbol for the collective, instilling pride and a sense of unity), inspirational motiv-
ation (setting visions, using symbols and acts to inspire people), intellectual
stimulation (asking provocative questions, putting forward challenging hypotheses)
and individual consideration (treating people individually). Initially, these forms
were considered as components of transformational leadership, but recent research
has detected a sizeable overlap between them, and empirically they are often trea-
ted as one single dimension (Antonakis et al., 2003; Avolio and Bass, 2004; Michel
et al., 2011; Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2010).
26
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(1)
One main source of inspiration for the elaboration of the theory on transform-
ational leadership was Burns’ book on political leadership (1978). Burns linked
leadership to change, and focused on the role that individual leaders played in a
transformation of the public sector. In later years, the role of individual leaders in
change and transformation of the public sector has been toned down within public
administration research. The focus is rather set on economic, social and cultural
elements, political and ideological change, and pressure from institutionalized
standards (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011). One reason for this is probably the
assumption that public sector organization set stronger limits for leaders’ possibi-
lities to act as change...
To continue reading
Request your trial