Using a well-grounded theory of organizational citizenship behavior, this study attempts to extend the meaning of the good soldier syndrome beyond its common boundaries of the business sector. We follow Bettencourt's (2004) conceptualization and model of changeoriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to explain why and how public employees engage in activities targeted at changing and improving the public work environment and its job processes even when no formal rewards are offered in return. We extend Bettencourt's model and demonstrate its usefulness and contribution to public administration organizations, focusing especially on leadership behavior, leader-member exchange relations, and perceptions of organizational politics in public agencies. A field study of 217 public personnel in a large public health care organization yields interesting findings, demonstrating the uniqueness of change-oriented OCB over classical OCB measures (individual and organizational), the general positive effect of leadership on OCB and the moderating effect of perceptions of politics in this relationship. Implications of the findings are developed and discussed in the context of modern public administration.

No abstract

No abstract

What lessons can we learn from 40 years of policy entrepreneurship scholarship on policy entrepreneurs’ strategies and defining characteristics? While scholars have offered important insights, many questions remain open. This article systematically reviews 229 articles that were published between 1984 and 2017. Our findings provide (i) an analysis of policy entrepreneurship characteristics by sector, policy domain, individual/group, government layer, and geographical spread, (ii) an empirically based identification and classification of policy entrepreneurship strategies, and (iii) a statistical analysis of the relationship between policy entrepreneurs’ characteristics and strategies. We conclude with an agenda for future studies that will continue to examine new theoretical approaches that advance our understanding of the role that individuals and small groups play in the policy process.

Purpose: Most writings on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) to date have focused on analysis at the individual level and paid less attention to other analytical frameworks at the group level (i.e., team, unit, or organization). This article approaches OCB from the less conventional perspective of group-level activities and uses it to develop and validate a scale of Group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior (GOCB) in the education system. Data Collection: Data were collected from a survey of 206 Israeli teachers and their principals at 13 schools. Findings: The scores were found to be statistically valid and demonstrated a high degree of reliability. In addition, two intra-factors (GOCB-I [group-level OCB toward individuals] and GOCB-O [group-level OCB toward the organization]) that are quite similar to those suggested in previous OCB literature emerged as key components. Conclusions: The advantages of the group-level scale over other individual-level scales are explored and discussed in detail. The article ends with theoretical and practical implications for future studies that may focus on the “good platoon syndrome” of educational and other administrative systems rather than merely on the “good soldier syndrome.” The authors elaborate on the potential reconstruction of group-level measures of OCB that can enrich studies on organizational climate, culture, and social norms. Finally, the authors argue that their results as well as those suggested in previous research may direct future studies to develop the idea of “organizational citizenship climate” in the educational system and beyond.

No abstract

No abstract

New Localism has attracted growing interest among both researchers and practitioners who deal with local governance. Although most research on the subject has emphasized institutional and national points of view, this study aims to elucidate public opinion toward a governmental policy that for some fundamentally contradicts and for others goes hand in hand with the principles of New Localism: namely, an end-case scenario under which the central government neutralizes failing local authorities. Following Ford's (Ford, Richard T., 1999, Law's territory (A history of jurisdiction), Michigan Law Review 97:843-930) pioneering work "Law's Territory (A History of Jurisdiction)," we suggest a model that predicts the members of the public, based on individual-and community-level characteristics, who are likely to support the neutralization approach and further test the model using a field study of 1,321 residents of Israeli local authorities. Our analyses identified two individual-level factors (satisfaction with local services and social trust) and three community-level characteristics (socioeconomic status, ethnic majority versus minority population, and previous history of neutralization) that influence whether individuals are likely to support or oppose the neutralization approach. Implications of the findings are developed and discussed. INTROduCTION The justification for local government and localism is well rooted in theoretical and practical concepts of pluralism, diffusion of powers, responsiveness to local needs, efficiency of local services, opportunity for political participation, and the democratic right to elect, be elected to, and fill local executive roles (Jones and Stewart 1983; Mill 1991; Pratchett 2004). Subsidiarity is a more recent justification that has been integrated into national policies throughout the Western world (Council of Europe 1985, art. 4; Pratchett 2004). However, as we will show in this article, some dimensions of localism act as a double-edged sword. More specifically, the granting of legal status to organic jurisdictions-distinct social and political communities-may be aimed not