Intersectionality provides a critical analytic lens for expanding our knowledge of leadership in public organizations as well as highlighting barriers to leadership opportunities. By emphasizing multiple and simultaneous dimensions of social inequality—most commonly gender, race, class, and sexuality—intersectionality reveals the unique experiences of individuals who occupy multiple marginalized social categories. We reviewed literature on public leadership spanning the past 25 years to obtain a sense of whether and how scholars in public administration currently interpret and apply an intersectional perspective to leadership inquiries. We find that a majority of the research we reviewed relied upon a single dimension of social inequality—gender. We identify the contributions made by research that did apply intersectionality’s core concepts as well as the missed opportunities by neglecting it as an analytic tool. We conclude with an agenda for future research that includes a discussion of intersectionality’s methodological challenges and recommendations for overcoming those challenges.

No abstract

This article asks whether and how transformational leadership in the public sector can influence the use of normative public values in organizational decisions. We focus on transformational leadership's influence on three core normative public values (representation, equity, and individual rights). The extent to which public organizations and their employees emphasize normative public values in their decision-making can signal important messages to external stakeholders about respect for and responsiveness to all citizens, valuing citizens from different walks of life equally, and respect for constitutionally guaranteed rights. We propose a model in which transformational leadership has a direct influence (infusing) and an indirect influence (convincing others) on employee use of public values in organizational decision-making. Empirical tests provide support for the proposed model, with the indirect influence (convincing others) providing a stronger impetus. The article concludes with a discussion of the results and implications.

This article addresses an important question: do nonprofit organizations have an advantage over public organizations in fostering individual–organizational value congruence? The authors argue that nonprofit organizations do have an advantage. This is because institutional differences between the two sectors become manifest through nonprofit status and the extent of external control, which influences the organization and the individual. External control and sector status (nonprofit versus public) determine the extent of centralization, organizational goal ambiguity, and work autonomy. In turn, these three organizational characteristics shape individual–organizational value congruence. Although the results provide support for the nonprofit advantage thesis, it is worth noting that organizational effects on individual–organizational value congruence are more powerful. Indeed, the results suggest that managerial and organizational actions, compared with sector status, are more likely to influence individual–organizational value congruence.

No abstract