Ten propositions about public leadership

Abstract

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.

Leadership for public value: Political astuteness as a conceptual link

“…There is a growing literature on public leadership (e.g., Chapman et al ; Tummers and Knies ; Orr and Bennett ; Ospina ; Crosby and Bryson ; Hartley ). However, few contributions explicitly link leadership with public value other than Benington and Turbitt (), Hartley () and Morse (). This is somewhat surprising given the growth of academic and policy interest over the last two decades in each of the concepts of public leadership and public value.…”

“…This symposium highlights that leadership for public value can be exhibited by citizens and social groups (Brown and Head ; Hartley et al ), social enterprises, charities, and civil society organizations (Ayres ; Teasdale and Dey ), and also by private corporations (Andrews ) as well as by public organizations. Public leadership is not only about leadership from within public organizations but is about leadership which impacts on the public (Hartley ). Alford (), among others, points out that ‘public’ is best defined by who benefits rather than solely by who contributes.…”

Public sector leadership: An emerging subfield with tremendous research potential

“…Although scholars have identified many potential research trajectories to explore, a number of overlapping themes are discernible. One would be the need to undertake more longitudinal studies; this would enable researchers to track the career path of public servants in order to determine how they alter their behaviour and leadership style over time (Hartley ; Orazi, Turrini and Valotti ; Getha‐Taylor et al ).…”

“…There is also widespread recognition of the need for more comparative studies of administrative leadership (Hartley ; Van Wart ; Orazi, Turrini and Valotti ). As noted earlier, so much of the leadership literature, including that related to the public sector, is American‐centric.…”

“…Further research is required to address this deficiency. Second, related to this notion of shared leadership, there is a need to foster research related to what Hartley (: 209) has dubbed “dual leadership,” which includes, but is not limited to, the interaction between political and administrative leaders (e.g., ministers and deputy ministers).…”