Abstract:There are growing pressures for the public sector to be more innovative but considerable disagreement about how to achieve it. This paper uses institutional and organizational analysis to compare three major but different public innovation strategies. The paper commences by confronting the myth that the market-driven private sector is more innovative than the public sector by showing that both sectors have a number of barriers as well as drivers of innovation, some of which are similar while others are sector-specific. The paper then systematically analyses the three strategies for innovation. These are: New Public Management which emphasises market competition; the neo-Weberian state which emphasises organizational entrepreneurship; and collaborative governance which emphasises multi-actor engagement across organizations in the private, public and non-profit sectors. The article concludes that the choice between different strategies for enhancing public innovation is contingent rather than absolute. Some contingencies for each strategy are outlined.

This paper is a systematic review of the literature on organizational learning and knowledge with relevance to public service organizations. Organizational learning and knowledge are important to public sector organizations, which share complex external challenges with private organizations, but have different drivers and goals for knowledge. The evidence shows that the concepts of organizational learning and knowledge are under-researched in relation to the public sector and, importantly, this raises wider questions about the extent to which context is taken into consideration in terms of learning and knowledge more generally across all sectors. A dynamic model of organizational learning within and across organizational boundaries is developed that depends on four sets of factors: features of the source organization; features of the recipient organization; the characteristics of the relationship between organizations; and the environmental context. The review concludes, first, that defining 'organization' is an important element of understanding organizational learning and knowledge. Second, public organizations constitute an important, distinctive context for the study of organizational learning and knowledge. Third, there continues to be an over-reliance on the private sector as the principal source of theoretical understanding and empirical research and this is conceptually limiting for the understanding of organizational learning and knowledge. Fourth, differences as well as similarities between organizational sectors require conceptualization and research that acknowledge sectorspecific aims, values and structures. Finally, it is concluded that frameworks for explaining processes of organizational learning at different levels need to be sufficiently dynamic and complex to accommodate public organizations.

No abstract

There is considerable scholarly writing about the theory and application of public value concepts, but this article explores why there is, by contrast, so little empirical research on public value. The article then goes on to provide a framework and a research agenda for inspiring and guiding new empirical research, based on three different conceptualizations of public value, with researchers needing to be explicit about which approach they are using in order to avoid confusion. While case studies have been used as a research method, the authors suggest a much wider array of potential research methods (depending on the research question) covering both quantitative and qualitative approaches and with a wider variety of designs, including comparative analysis. It is suggested that empirical research is undertaken with a more diverse range of stakeholders of public value, breaking out of the public manager-centric approach. This is an exciting agenda for research, though the paper warns that public value may fade from view unless empirical research is undertaken to test, challenge and extend the scholarly contributions.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of some pressing but under-researched aspects of public leadership. Ten propositions about public leadership are set out and these are intended to be thought-provoking and even controversial in order to stimulate researchers to design research which addresses key theoretical and practical questions about leadership in the public sphere. They will also help practitioners navigate an increasingly complex leadership context. Design/methodology/approach This invited essay uses ten propositions about public leadership, selected from three sources: the leadership literature, the author’s own research and from collaborative research discussions with academics, policy makers and practitioners. Findings The first proposition argues for distinguishing public leadership from public service leadership given that the former is about leadership of the public sphere. Other propositions concern context; purpose; conflict and contest at the heart of public leadership; leadership with political astuteness; dual leadership; leadership projections; fostering resilience; leadership, authority and legitimacy; and the challenge to researchers to use research designs which reflect the complexity and dynamism of public leadership. Practical implications While this essay is primarily addressed to researchers, there are many ideas and concepts which practising leaders will find insightful and useful in their work. Originality/value This essay draws on deep experience in undertaking high-quality academic research about public leadership which draws from and feeds into policy and practice. It utilises organisational psychology, public management and political science to create synergies in order to enhance the understanding of public leadership.