This academic paper argues for a new theory of public leadership based on three principles: authentic leadership, transformational leadership, and distributed leadership. It summarizes research showing that while effective leadership is important for public organizations, traditional views of limiting leadership's role have hindered the field. The paper proposes incorporating principles of authentic leadership to ensure leaders act in accordance with democratic values, transformational leadership to develop skilled public workers, and distributed leadership to address today's complex public organization structures. It analyzes a survey finding support for applying these modern leadership theories in the public sector. The paper calls for further research on how these principles relate to improved public organization performance and outcomes.

1. ■ Academic Paper
Modern leadership principles for public
administration: time to move forward
Dana S. Kellis1,2* and Bing Ran1
1 Penn State Harrisburg, Public Affairs, Middletown,
Pennsylvania, USA
2 Pinnacle Health, Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
USA
The historical aversion to effective leadership in American
public administration literature imposes a troubling
controversy over the appropriateness of nonelected public
leaders being allowed to exercise the authority and
capability to make decisions regarding the direction, focus, and
intensity of their organizational efforts. Using
principles from distributed, transformational, and authentic
leadership theories, we propose a new public leadership
theory that addresses the emerging unique characteristics of the
public sector and test this theory using three
administrations of the Federal Human Capital Survey. Results
show strong support for the application of these
theories in the public service. We advocate for the research and
teaching of modern leadership of these theories in
the public administration field. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
In the current context of recurrent crisis in the public

2. sphere, the challenge of defining, finding, and
supporting adequate leadership neither has been
greater nor has been more pressing. Domestic and
global recession, sovereign debt crises, multiple
armed conflicts, and global environmental and
natural disasters each challenge the capacity of
public managers to respond effectively. In many of
these crises, the inadequate leadership of some
public managers highlighted the importance of
understanding what constitutes effective public
leadership. For example, inadequate leadership
played a significant role in the Challenger and
Columbia Space Shuttle Disasters (Levine et al.,
1992; CAIB, 2003; Lambright, 2008). Failed federal,
state, and local leadership figured prominently in
the inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina
(Committee and USHS, 2006; Menzel, 2006; Waugh
and Streib, 2006; Lester and Krejci, 2007). Shortcom-
ings of leadership were also instrumental in the
Federal Home Loan Bureau’s role in the recent
housing crisis (Hoffmann and Cassell, 2002; Hoffmann
and Cassell, 2005; Cassell and Hoffmann, 2009).
Despite these unprecedented demonstrations of
the risks and consequences of inadequate leadership
capacity in public organizations, the profession of
public administration (PA) has not fully embraced
leadership as a fundamental element of successful
practice. For much of its history, the field of PA
has struggled to identify the appropriate role of
leaders and managers in carrying out the affairs of
government. The debate encompasses the distinc-
tions between administration, politics, and values
in a constitutional democracy (Wilson, 1887; Taylor,
1947; Waldo, 1948; Selznick, 1949; Appleby, 1973)
and has evolved to questions of privatization versus

3. accountability (Hood and Jackson, 1991; Rhodes,
1994; Peters and Pierre, 1998). Two opposing schools
of thought exist among PA scholars regarding the
role of leadership in the public sector. Advocates of
market-based approaches to public services delivery
believe that these result in greater levels of efficiency
and accountability (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000).
Public interest advocates, on the other hand, point
out the shortcomings of economic individualism
(Bozeman, 2007) and believe public servants should
receive direction from politicians, courts, and legisla-
tors. Regardless of their philosophical underpin-
nings, PA authors warn that strong leadership poses
a danger to the democratic process (Bertelli and Lynn,
2006; Warner and Hefetz, 2008) and worry that
empowered leaders may succumb to moral hazards
such as shirking, opportunism, self-aggrandizement,
*Correspondence to: Dana S Kellis, Penn State Harrisburg,
Public
Affairs 777 W. Harrisburg Pike w160a Olmstead Bldg,
Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17057, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Public Affairs
Volume 13 Number 1 pp 130–141 (2013)
Published online 12 November 2012 in Wiley Online Library
(www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.1453
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
or self-promotion (Donaldson, 1990; Cook, 1998;
Terry, 1998; Fairholm, 2004).

4. The reluctance of the PA field to develop and
embrace strong leadership models is reflected by a
significant gap in the development and progression
of general and public leadership theories (Olshfski
and Jun, 1989; Rost, 1990; Senge, 1990; Bennis
et al., 1994; Nalbandian, 1994; Chemers, 1997; Pearce
and Conger, 2003; Trottier et al., 2008). Despite good
evidence that effective leadership plays a key role in
the success of public endeavors, new approaches to
the process of leadership in the general literature,
including shared, transformational, and authentic
or values-based leadership theories, have seen less
investigation or application to public settings. Calls
for research efforts to better define the structure,
tools, processes, and functions of leadership in the
public sector (Olshfski and Jun, 1989) have been
lacking in regard to the public application of the
new leadership approaches (Wright, 2011).
In this paper, we argue for the establishment of a
public leadership theory that is supported by three
tenets, the principles of authentic, transformational,
and distributed leadership, to better equip public
managers to function in a crisis-laden complex
constitutional democracy. We then use data from
the Federal Human Capital Survey to examine
outcomes of effective leadership as they relate to
the principles of authentic, transformational, and
distributed leadership. We conclude the paper by
arguing that a leadership theory constituted by
these three tenets of leadership approaches can
provide a strong foundation for developing leader-
ship roles and expectations in the public service.
We call for further investigation into the association
of these principles with the performance of public
organizations at federal, state, and local levels and

5. their usefulness in predicting changes in measurable
departmental outcomes.
THREE TENETS OF PUBLIC LEADERSHIP
A common thread in recent PA leadership research
has been leaders’ difficulty functioning effectively
in the complex environments that characterize the
modern public service, especially when faced with
a crisis or other organizational challenge. Riccucci
and Getha-Taylor (2009) refer to these complex
public service environments as the ‘new normalcy,’
a term that reflects the challenges public leaders face
in balancing operational priorities with unantici-
pated emergent needs, particularly in the setting of
markedly constrained resources and an increased
focus on performance (Ingraham, 2005). Although
effective leadership will be a crucial determinant of
public organizations’ success in adapting to their
changing environments (Hennessey, 1998; Ingraham,
2005), traditional approaches to public leadership are
increasingly ineffective (Chrislip and Larson, 1994).
Ashby’s law of requisite variety (1958) predicts that
straightforward management and lower-level leader-
ship skills will be inadequate in this ‘new normalcy’
that requires public leaders to effectively identify
and support the public’s interests (Jaques, 1976;
Avolio et al., 2000; Kellerman and Webster, 2001).
A number of leadership ideas and innovations
from the general leadership literature have been
developed to reflect and address these new require-
ments for leadership and whose application to the
public service should be considered (Trottier, et al.,
2008; Fernandez et al., 2010). Three of them are

6. especially of importance to address the unique
challenges faced by public managers and should
be incorporated into an overarching public leader-
ship theory: the core democratic values of modern
public leaders; a transformational focus on enfran-
chising, developing, and retaining the highly skilled
knowledge-based professional workforce; and the
distributed nature of public leadership positions
that characterizes today’s public service. A new
public leadership theory supported by these three
key tenets recognizes the increasingly complex
structures and interrelationships within and between
public organizations, the increased levels of complex-
ity, and the added constraints of a democratic system
with ambiguous goals in which public leaders must
grapple with, and the different legal underpinnings
and different core values compared with their
nonpublic colleagues. Combining these three areas
of emphasis into a single leadership theory provides
a solid foundation upon which public managers can
be trained, upon which they can exercise leadership,
and upon which expectations of leadership outcomes
can be based.
The first tenet of the new public leadership theory
focuses on the authentic values of leaders. Being the
most central quality for leaders, authentic values
constitute an essential component of leadership in
the public sphere, forming a bridge between discre-
tion without which effective leadership is unlikely
and accountability that is essential for democracy.
As public leaders function in a dynamic and com-
plex leadership environment, to maintain demo-
cratic principles, they must negotiate between the
Scylla and the Charybdis of discretion and account-
ability. Adequate discretion is the lifeblood of

7. leadership. It forms the substrate upon which lead-
ership processes give birth to change and progress.
However, as the public bureaucracy increases in size
and complexity, the likelihood increases that public
leaders may abuse their discretionary latitude
when they encounter opportunities to design or
implement policy that disregards or contravenes
the public will (Fung, 2007). Increased access to
government officials as granted by the Administra-
tive Procedure Act (1946) allows interest groups
to collaborate directly with leaders thus poten-
tially circumventing public interest (Stewart, 1975).
Redford (1969) uses the term ‘overhead democracy’
Modern leadership principles 131
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
to describe the flow of power from the electorate
to their elected representative, and thence to strictly
supervised appointed heads of administrative depart-
ments, thus implying discretion is ‘antidemocratic.’
Bertelli and Lynn (2003) support Redford’s conten-
tion that restricting managerial discretion in favor of
close supervision enhances democratic principles.
This idea is further supported by the diminished
democracy theory, which holds that the price of main-
taining national sovereignty and integrated inter-
national markets is decreased influence by the polity
(Bezdek, 2000; Skocpol, 2004).
Leader discretion may still be compatible with

8. democratic principles if there is adequate account-
ability, but this can be problematic as well. Bovens
(2005) refers to accountability as the sine qua non
of democratic governance, explaining that public
leaders are the agents of electorate principals that
hold them accountable for effective and efficient
performance of electoral mandates (Prezeworksi
et al., 1999). Adequate accountability serves to
legitimize the public service (Bovens, 2005), protects
it from corruption and other destructive behavior
(Rose-Ackerman, 1999), and helps to improve
its performance through learning (Aucoin and
Heintzman, 2000). Nevertheless, in the excess,
accountability may result in worse performance
(Adelberg and Batson, 1978; Tetlock et al., 1989) as
government leaders become overly rigid, subject to
scapegoating, and become more focused on being
held accountable than on performing the task at
hand. Schneider (1999) posits a direct correlation
between the power of target groups and the degree
of accountability to which public servants providing
service are held, such as relatively lax accountability
of prison workers for their treatment of inmates.
Public leaders have traditionally been subject to
Weberian vertical accountability in which they
are accountable to their direct supervisor in the
bureaucratic chain of command (Bovens, 2005), a
relationship increasingly supplanted by horizontal
accountability to constituents. For example, media
coverage holds public leaders at all levels of govern-
ment bureaucracy accountable directly to the
public for their actions and decision. Public–private
partnerships and other cooperative relationships
between multiple levels and divisions of government
reside outside the bounds of vertical bureaucratic
control and require more innovative horizontal

9. approaches to accountability such as contracting or
citizen-based oversight (McQuaid, 2010). New public
management-inspired privatization initiatives for the
provision of public services have been particularly
challenged to establish accountability (Mulgan,
2000; Trebilcock and Iacobucci, 2003; McQuaid, 2010).
Authentic leadership theory, a prototypical values-
based leadership theory, creates a democratic space
between discretion and accountability by focusing
on and requiring transparency and consistency
between a leader’s values, ethics, and actions (Chan
et al., 2005). Authentic leaders that have clarity of
understanding regarding their personal values and
ethical reasoning are inclined to develop positive
psychological states and are known for their integrity
(Gardner et al., 2005). They are ‘moral agents who
take ownership of and responsibility for the end
results of their moral actions and the actions of their
followers’ (Hannah et al., 2005, p. 47). As moral
leaders, they analyze moral issues through deonto-
logical (rules, laws, duties, norms), teleological
(utilitarian, consequence), and areteological (inherent
virtuousness) lenses. Authentic leaders have a deeper
understanding of and a greater ability to explain their
moral self in leadership events as the result of a
higher level of complex cognitive ability and of core
moral beliefs (Hannah, et al., 2005). Democracy and
democratic values are protected far better by the
internal moral compass of an authentic leader than
could be hoped for by the external imposition of
rules, laws, or values by politicians or the polity. By
focusing on the development and recognition of a
strong internal value system and accompanying
moral behavior, authentic leadership allows for the

10. greater discretion and lower levels of account-
ability encountered in modern public leadership
environments.
The second tenet of the new public leadership
theory extends first to the dyadic relationship
between leaders and followers and focuses on public
workers’ development and value as described by
transformational leadership theory. First proposed
as a counterweight to transactional leadership by
Burns (1978), it has been the subject of a large
volume of research and development. On the basis
of four relational leadership concepts, including
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intel-
lectual stimulation, and individual consideration,
transformational leadership recognizes the influence
of leaders’ relationships with their followers along
these four axes on outcomes of organizational initia-
tives. Bass expanded transformational leadership
framework to a ‘full range’ theory that includes
transactional leadership styles of laissez faire,
passive management by exception, active manage-
ment by exception, and contingent reward, and
transformational leadership styles of individualized
consideration, idealized influence, intellectual stimu-
lation, and inspirational motivation (Bass, 1996).
Trottier et al. (2008) showed that Bass’s expanded
concept of the transformational leadership accur-
ately describes federal employees’ perception of
effective leadership. Transformational leaders exert
a strong effect on the ways in which workers
view their job (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006), as well
as their engagement in change initiatives (Detert
and Burris, 2007). It is associated with improved
performance in both public and private contexts.
Considered a form of neo-charismatic leadership

11. by some authors, it combines the observed benefits
of traditional trait-based leadership (charisma) with
132 D. S. Kellis and B. Ran
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
those of relational leadership to form an approach
to leadership often studied in the public service
literature, although this association is not constant
in the literature (Colbert et al., 2008; Jung et al.,
2008; Ling et al., 2008).
The third tenet of public leadership theory further
extends leadership to the distributed and networked
nature of modern public organizations. The infra-
structure underlying delivery of public services
grows increasingly complex, often involving mul-
tiple partnerships, departments, levels of govern-
ment and networks at any given time. Schneider
(2002) uses the term ‘radix’ to describe public,
nonprofit, and private organizations operating in
this complex environment and functioning as
flexible value chains and support activities for
customers. Characterized by structures such as
teams, alliances, contingent workers, and outsour-
cing arrangements and nonvertical power relation-
ships, radix organizations reflect the complexity
that public organizations have assumed, such as
outsourcing arrangements of various services and
ambiguous power and authority infrastructure
(Schneider and Ingram, 1993; Schneider, 2002). Such

12. ambiguity requires new approaches to leadership
that transcend hierarchical traditions in favor of
more collaborative and interactive approaches. For
example, far from the hierarchical structure of trad-
itional PA or new public management-inspired
market-based direct contracting for services, public
managers increasingly find themselves in networks
within and between different levels of government,
in relational contracts with private and nonprofit
entities and in partnerships with private and
nonprofit entities that have ambiguous lines of
authority and accountabilities (Osborne, 2010). These
networks, contracts, and partnerships transcend
political jurisdictions, require expertise well beyond
what elected politicians or the general electorate
possess, and are tasked with accomplishing crucial
mission objectives. Leadership in such institutions is
shared and distributed between the various compo-
nents’ leaders, such that each individual leader must
collaborate with other leaders in the network to bring
about significant organizational change. This distrib-
uted nature of leadership is incorporated into stake-
holder, shared, and integrated leadership theories.
Stakeholder or collaborative leadership theory
recognizes that organizational hierarchy has become
less important than interorganizational relationships
defined in multiple manners such as contracting
and alliances (Schneider, 2002) and that one person
is unlikely to possess all of the skills, knowledge,
and expertise needed by modern public organiza-
tions (Chrislip and Larson, 1994), thus creating a need
for public leaders to bring together diverse internal
and external stakeholders to address public concerns
(Chrislip and Larson, 1994; Freeman, 2000). It
emphasizes stakeholder value as the fundamental

13. aim of the organization as opposed to shareholder
value and suggests that organizations must include
both internal and external stakeholders when making
strategic decisions (Freeman, 1984).The theory also
has a value basis as it requires leaders to act equitably
and ethically when resolving conflicting priorities
between different stakeholders (Evan and Freeman,
1988; Yukl, 2006). One form of stakeholder leadership
is shared leadership theory, which further charac-
terizes leadership as a process in which individuals,
teams, or organizations exert influence on their envi-
ronment. Cox et al. (2003) describe shared leadership
as a ‘collaborative, emergent process of group inter-
action through an unfolding series of fluid, situation-
ally appropriate exchanges of lateral influence.’
Shared leadership does not call for a succession of
individuals to function as the group leader. Rather,
it places them simultaneously in the position of
sharing the influence and direction of the team or
organization. Shared leadership helps improve the
morale and satisfaction of employees in public as well
as private organizations (Sweeney, 1996; R. Denhardt,
1999). Kim (2002) confirmed a positive relationship
between job satisfaction and shared leadership in
local government agencies. Improved job satisfaction,
in turn, has been linked to lower absenteeism and
turnover (Pierce et al., 1991; Eby et al., 1999). Choi
(2009, p. 94) examined shared leadership in public
organizations and found that public employees often
participate in leadership in specific situations,
concluding that ‘organizational crisis, information
technology, innovative culture, and hierarchy of
position are significantly associated with shared
leadership’ in public organizations.
Essentially, the distributed nature of this tenet of

14. the new public leadership theory proposes that
public leaders are most effective when they focus on
organizational stakeholders, including employees
within their organization, citizens being served, part-
nering institutions involved in providing, or creating
the service, in addition to the leadership hierarchy in
their own organization. It encourages public leaders
to share leadership among these stakeholders as
required by the various contexts and circumstances
that arise, thereby creating a leadership process
rather than vesting all leadership responsibilities
and activities in a single person.
In summary, we propose a new public leadership
theory that combines salient features of authentic,
transformational, and distributed leadership theories;
proposing effective leadership in the public sector is
networked and often nonhierarchical, is based on
core values, and is more effective when utilizing
transformational rather than transactional principles.
These three tenets provide a basis for research into
leadership of a modern public sector characterized
by ambiguous boundaries between public, private,
and nonprofit organizations working in partnerships,
contracts, and collaboratives with unclear lines of
authority and accountability. It acknowledges the
existence and importance of a knowledge-based
Modern leadership principles 133
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa

15. public service motivated by individualized intellec-
tual and inspirational influence rather than by more
prescriptive managerial approaches. It calls for strong
leadership in the public sector by transcending the
barriers of limited accountability and discretion,
placing the onus for appropriate orientation and
focus of leaders on their internal compass rather than
external regulations. Preliminary studies of each of
these individual theories suggest that they add value
to the public service; however, no study to date
has considered these three aspects of leadership
combined as part of a unified approach to leadership
in the public sector. To fill in this gap in literature, we
used the Federal Human Capital Surveys adminis-
tered in 2006, 2008, and 2010 to examine the utility
of a comprehensive public leadership theory com-
prised of these three tenets.
FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEYS: AN
EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF THE THREE
TENETS
To examine the importance of the three tenets of
new public leadership theory in the public service,
we used data from the Federal Human Viewpoint
Survey (formally known as the Federal Human
Capital Survey) conducted biannually by the Office
of Personnel Management. This survey is used to
‘gauge the impressions of our civil servants and
seek out those areas where agencies are doing well
and where improvement is needed’ (Hager, 2008).
It is a ‘tool that measures employees’ perceptions
of whether and to what extend conditions character-
izing successful organizations are present in their
agencies’ (OPM, 2008). The OPM randomly selects

16. over 400 000 individuals from among all full-time
permanent employees in participating federal agen-
cies to participate in these surveys. They are con-
ducted principally via the internet, although paper
copies of the survey are provided to individuals
lacking internet access. Employees are contacted
multiple times if needed to encourage completion
of the survey. The data are weighted to reflect under
or over representation of different response groups,
and response rates then undergo ‘raking’ to adjust
for demographic inequalities.
The leadership focus as well as the extensive
nature of this survey in terms of both the number
of federal employees and the number of public
organizations that participated in the survey makes
it an ideal source of information to examine the
different aspects of a new public leadership theory.
A number of authors have used some portion of this
data to investigate leadership in public organiza-
tions. Trottier et al. (2008) used the 2002 survey to
show the relative effectiveness of transformational
leadership as compared with transactional leader-
ship approaches. Fernandez et al. (2010) used 2006
survey data to establish a link between integrated
leadership and federal agency PART scores. Yang
and Kassekert (2010) used 2006 survey to show a
strong correlation between ratings by employees
and job satisfaction. Although these cross-sectional
researches on individual administration of the
survey has established a good indicator between
leadership and its effectiveness, what is missing yet
in literature is a longitudinal analysis of the effects
of the modern leadership principles comprised of
the salient features of authentic, transformational,

17. and distributed leadership theories.
For the purposes of this study, we used data from
the 2006, 2008, and 2010 surveys. Survey data was
obtained from the OPM website and included
results of the surveys for 45 Federal departments
in 2010 and 2008 and for 43 in 2006. The total data
points are 697 177 (263 475 for 2010, 212 223 for
2008, and 221 479 for 2006). The data consist of the
number of individuals in each department who
selected ‘strongly agree,’ ‘agree,’ ‘neither agree nor
disagree,’ ‘disagree,’ or ‘strongly disagree’ for each
question. Although each survey contained approxi-
mately 75 questions, we restricted our analysis to
the 55 questions that were common to all three of
the surveys. To obtain a score for each department
for each question, responses were weighted, with
‘strongly agree’ weighted 100, ‘agree’ weighted 80,
‘neither agree nor disagree’ weighted 60, ‘disagree’
weighted 40, and ‘strongly disagree’ weighted 20.
These weights were multiplied by the number of
individuals selecting that response, and the summa-
tion of the results was divided by the total number
of responses to obtain a total score.
To delineate the dependent variable, three catego-
ries of outcomes of effective leadership were identi-
fied (Appendix I). These categories include job
outcomes (five survey questions), organizational out-
comes (three survey questions), and leader outcomes
(two survey questions). Job outcomes were derived
from questions in which respondents ranked their
overall satisfaction with their current positions.
Organizational outcomes were calculated from ques-
tions in which respondents indicated their perception
of their respective organization’s effectiveness and

18. success in achieving their designated mission. Leader
outcomes were measured from questions in which
respondents rated their leaders’ effectiveness in
directing the organization and in meeting the respon-
dents’ expectations for appropriate leader behavior.
A combined outcomes score was obtained as an
additional dependent variable by combining the
results of all three outcome categories into a single
outcomes measure.
The three predictor question categories (Appendix I)
included transformational leadership (17 questions),
distributed leadership (four questions), and values-
based leadership (10 questions). These categories
correspond to the subcomponents of the new public
leadership theory of transformational leadership,
distributed leadership, and authentic leadership.
134 D. S. Kellis and B. Ran
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
Performing a backward elimination stepwise regres-
sion analysis of these predictive categories with the
outcomes measures yielded the following results
(Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, all three leadership
approaches were predictive of important aspects of
outcome measurements in these surveys. Transfor-
mational leadership was predictive of organizational
and leader-based outcomes in all three surveys as

19. well as when the three surveys were combined.
Distributive leadership approaches were predictive
of organizational outcomes in all three surveys and
of job-based outcomes in 2008 and 2010. Values-
based leadership was predictive of all three outcome
measures (job, organizational, and leader) when the
three surveys were combined but was only predictive
of leader-based outcomes in 2006 and 2008 and of
job-based outcomes in 2006.
Predictive models for organizational and leader-
based outcomes had Pearson coefficients of 80 or
greater for all three surveys, suggesting strong
predictive values for the models. Job-based outcome
measures had Pearson coefficients between 48 and
62, which, although not as robust as the other out-
come measures, support the predictive models.
Factor analysis is shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Cronbach’s alpha is greater than 0.9 for all predic-
tive factors, suggesting strong reliability for these
factors’ measures (Carmines and Zeller, 1979).
Intrayear correlations between the factors for each
year’s surveys are positive and strong, supporting
the claim of construct validity for the surveys.
Interyear correlations are less strong, suggesting
analysis using combined data from the three
surveys is less robust.
DISCUSSION
This analysis of the Federal Human Capital Survey
results over a period of 6 years (three surveys) pro-
vides strong support for the new public leadership
theory and its application to the Federal workforce.
Outcomes or impact of leadership activities identi-

20. fied by the survey (job, organization, and leader)
were predicted by a leadership model that includes
authentic, transformational, and distributed leader-
ship. For the overall model, transformational and
values-based leadership were most significantly
correlated with overall outcomes. However, consid-
ering each survey and each outcome separately
provided a more complex picture.
Job-related outcomes for all three surveys com-
bined were best predicted by values-based leader-
ship alone, which was also the case for the 2006
survey. However, in both 2008 and 2010, distributed
leadership scores were the only predictive factor for
job-related outcomes. Transformational leadership
did not predict job-related outcomes in either the
combined results nor in any of the individual
surveys. This trend from a predictive effect of
values-based leadership in 2006 to a distributed
leadership effect in 2008 and 2010 was also seen
for the other individual outcome measures.
Leader outcomes were predicted by values-based
leadership variables in both 2006 and 2008 along with
transformational leadership effects but not in 2010,
when only transformational leadership was predic-
tive of leader outcomes. Interestingly, the combined
outcomes had a significant but negative association
with distributed leadership. This suggests the possi-
bility that Federal employees view leaders exercising
distributed leadership skills negatively or indicative
of weak or ineffective leadership as opposed to more
traditional approaches to leadership. The association
with transformational leadership styles indicates
that Federal employees place significant value on

21. personal development and engagement in the
various areas by their leaders.
Organizational outcomes were significantly corre-
lated with values-based leadership in the combined
results but only with transformational and distribu-
ted leadership variables in the individual 2010, 2008,
and 2006 surveys. This suggests that the Federal
workforce places a value on distributed leadership
in the organizational setting, seeing the involvement
of a broader base of employees in leadership activities
as beneficial for their respective organizations,
perhaps because they perceived this greater involve-
ment as more effective in achieving organizational
goals and mission. Similarly, transformational leader-
ship skills were positively associated with orga-
nizational outcomes in all three surveys, again
suggesting that the Federal workforce perceived
individual development and engagement as benefi-
cial in achieving organizational goals.
Values-based leadership assumed diminishing
importance as a predictor of outcome measures over
the course of the three surveys. In 2006, three of the
four outcome measures were significantly predicted
by values-based leadership scores, whereas in 2010,
none of the outcome measures were associated with
values-based leadership. Conversely, in 2006, only
one of the four outcomes measures was significantly
associated with distributed leadership as a pre-
dictor, whereas in 2008 and 2010, three of the four
outcome measures were associated with distributed
leadership. This drift away from values-based lead-
ership towards distributed leadership as predictors
of the overall outcomes; job-based and leadership-
based outcomes over the course of the three surveys

22. raises important questions. It is possible that the
workforce perceived a strong values basis for their
respective leadership regardless of their perception
of the individual outcomes. Alternatively, it is
possible that the workforce changed their percep-
tion of the importance of values in their leaders in
favor of a greater expectation for distributed leader-
ship approaches.
Modern leadership principles 135
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
Ta
bl
e
1
R
eg
re
ss
io
n
an
al
ys
is
of
su
rv

23. ey
re
su
lt
s
C
at
eg
o
ry
o
f
o
u
tc
o
m
es
C
o
m
b
in
ed
re
su
lt
s
o

24. f
th
re
e
su
rv
ey
s
R
es
u
lt
s
o
f
20
06
su
rv
ey
R
es
u
lt
s
o
f
20
08
su
rv

25. ey
R
es
u
lt
s
o
f
20
10
su
rv
ey
A
ll
o
u
tc
o
m
e
m
ea
su
re
s
co
m
b
in
ed

26. T
L
:
y
es
(1
.1
45
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
T
L
:
y
es
(0
.9
67
;
p
=
0.
01
3)
T
L
:
y

27. es
(0
.9
01
;
p
=
0.
09
)
T
L
:
y
es
(1
.4
02
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
D
L
:
n
o
D
L

28. :
n
o
D
L
:
y
es
(1
.6
88
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
D
L
:
y
es
(0
.7
31
;
p
=
0.
00
7)

29. V
B
:
y
es
(1
.1
19
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
V
B
:
y
es
(1
.3
64
;
p
=
0.
00
1)
V
B
:
n

30. o
V
B
:
n
o
R
2
=
85
.2
R
2
=
87
.0
R
2
=
70
.0
R
2
=
83
.5
Jo
b
-r
el

31. at
ed
o
u
tc
o
m
e
m
ea
su
re
s
T
L
:
n
o
T
L
:
n
o
T
L
:
n
o
T
L

32. :
n
o
D
L
:
n
o
D
L
:
n
o
D
L
:
y
es
(1
.3
79
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
D
L
:
y

33. es
(0
.9
82
;
p
=
0.
48
6)
V
B
:
y
es
(0
.9
88
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
V
B
:
y
es
(1
.0

34. 41
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
V
B
:
n
o
V
B
:
n
o
R
2
=
61
.9
R
2
=
48
.6
R
2
=
36

35. .2
R
2
=
48
.2
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
o
u
tc
o
m
e
m
ea
su
re
s
T
L
:
y
es
(1

36. .7
65
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
T
L
:
y
es
(2
.1
33
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
T
L
:
y
es
(1
.8
15
;
p

37. =
0.
00
0)
T
L
:
y
es
(1
.3
15
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
D
L
:
n
o
D
L
:
y
es
(1
.4
43

38. ;
p
=
0.
00
1)
D
L
:
y
es
(1
.8
18
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
D
L
:
y
es
(2
.0
01
;
p
=
0.

39. 00
0)
V
B
:
n
o
R
2
=
91
.7
V
B
:
n
o
R
2
=
88
.8
V
B
:
y
es
(1
.6
56

40. ,
p
=
0.
00
1)
V
B
:
n
o
R
2
=
86
.2
R
2
=
66
.5
L
ea
d
er
o
u
tc
o
m
e

41. m
ea
su
re
s
T
L
:
y
es
(1
.9
7;
p
=
0.
00
1)
T
L
:
y
es
(1
.6
83
;
p
=
0.

42. 01
1)
T
L
:
y
es
(1
.6
54
;
p
=
0.
04
3)
T
L
:
y
es
(3
.3
10
;
p
=
0.
00
0)
D

43. L
:
n
o
V
B
:
y
es
(1
.6
74
,
p
=
0.
00
4)
D
L
:
n
o
R
2
=
61
.9
V
B
:

44. y
es
(2
.0
75
;
p
=
0.
00
3)
D
L
:
n
o
R
2
=
82
.2
V
B
:
y
es
(2
.4
73
;
p

45. =
0.
00
2)
D
L
:
n
o
R
2
=
80
.0
V
B
:
n
o
R
2
=
87
.2
T
L
,
tr
an
si

46. ti
o
n
al
le
ad
er
sh
ip
;
D
L
,
d
is
tr
ib
u
te
d
le
ad
er
sh
ip
;
V
B
,
v
al
u
es

47. -b
as
ed
le
ad
er
sh
ip
.
‘Y
es
’:
si
g
n
ifi
ca
n
t
co
rr
el
at
io
n
o
f
p
re
d
ic
to
r

48. w
it
h
o
u
tc
o
m
es
m
ea
su
re
.
‘N
o’
:
co
rr
el
at
io
n
o
f
p
re
d
ic
to
r
w
it

49. h
o
u
tc
o
m
es
n
o
t
si
g
n
ifi
ca
n
t.
136 D. S. Kellis and B. Ran
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
Descriptive statistics for values-based leadership
support the former conclusion. Responses to the
values-based leadership questions were not signifi-
cantly different in any of the three surveys (2010 vs
2006, p = 0.097; 2010 vs 2008, p = 0.962; 2008 vs 2006,
p = 0.121). However, responses to values-based lead-
ership questions were significantly higher (more
positive) than responses to transformational leader-
ship questions in all three surveys (2010 mean value

50. responses were 73.6 compared with mean transform-
ational responses of 71.6, p = 0.000; 2008 mean value
responses of 73.55 compared with mean transform-
ational leadership values of 67.79, p = 0.000; and
2006 mean value responses of 72.5 compared with
mean transformational leadership values of 67.19,
p = 0.000) and were significantly higher than distribu-
ted leadership responses in 2010 (p = 0.001). In other
words, respondents gave uniformly highly positive
marks to values-based leadership questions in each
of the three surveys, reflecting a strong expectation
for values-based leadership regardless of their per-
ception of their job, organization, or leadership
effectiveness.
The importance of distributed leadership was
also manifested in each of the three surveys. In each
survey, the scores for distributed leadership were
significantly higher than those for transformational
leadership. In 2010, the mean for distributed leader-
ship was 71.6 compared with a mean of 68.7 for
transformational leadership, p = 0.000. In 2008, the
mean for distributed leadership was 72.6 versus a
mean for transformational leadership of 67.8,
p = 0.000. In 2006, the mean for distributed leader-
ship was 72.3 versus a mean for transformational
leadership of 67.2, p = 0.000. As with values-based
leadership, this implies a high expectation for and
perception of distributed leadership independent
of the performance of the organization, leadership,
or job satisfaction measures.
These results provide strong support for the com-
bination of authentic, transformational, and distrib-
uted leadership approaches into a single cohesive

51. leadership theory for the public service. Using
survey respondents’ perceptions of their jobs,
organizations and leaders as indicators of success
of different leadership styles showed highly signifi-
cant correlation of these three tenets with improved
performance of public organizations. The only com-
parative approach to leadership used in this study
was ‘contingent reward,’ in which employees are
rewarded for achieving certain outcomes or behav-
iors. In contrast to the findings by Trottier et al.
(2008), no correlation was found with any of the
outcome measures and this leadership approach.
Interestingly, these authors conducted their investi-
gation using the 2002 Federal Human Capital
Survey and found that both transactional and
transformational leadership approaches provided a
strong basis for predicting different organizational
outcomes. It is possible that continued evolution of
the public service over the ensuing decade resulted
in a lower efficacy of transactional leadership.
If this were the case, it would give further support
to our contention that as the public service evolves
into a collection of radix organizations, different lead-
ership styles and approaches will become necessary.
Traditional hierarchical production-oriented public
organizations may have been well-served by transac-
tional leadership styles, but today’s complex public
organizations with ambiguous boundaries, diverse
and often unclear expectations of performance, and
Table 2 Factor correlation
Factor 2010 TL 2010 DL 2010 VB 2008 TL 2008 DL 2008 VB
2006 TL 2006 DL 2006 VB

52. 2010 TL 1.000
2010 DL 0.867 1.000
2010 VB 0.889 0.932 1.000
2008 TL 0.862 0.856 0.887 1.000
2008 DL 0.659 0.882 0.827 0.882 1.000
2008 VB 0.727 0.864 0.904 0.925 0.953 1.000
2006 TL 0.522 0.468 0.552 0.594 0.457 0.543 1.000
2006 DL 0.476 0.423 0.538 0.603 0.495 0.595 0.862 1.000
2006 VB 0.415 0.417 0.507 0.555 0.488 0.570 0.912 0.912
1.000
TL, transformational leadership; DL, distributed leadership;
VB, values-based leadership.
Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s
alpha for each of the predictive factors
Factor Mean
Standard
deviation
Cronbach’s
alpha
2010 TL 71.27 2.94 0.9671
2008 TL 71.16 2.90 0.9608
2006 TL 70.65 2.68 0.9572
2010 DL 71.64 2.70 0.9145
2008 DL 72.60 2.76 0.9129
2008 DL 72.25 2.50 0.9040
2010 VB 73.58 2.91 0.9546
2008 VB 73.55 3.15 0.9208
2006 VB 72.54 2.91 0.9508
TL, transformational leadership; DL, distributed leadership;
VB,

53. values-based leadership.
Modern leadership principles 137
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
shifting concepts of accountability and discretion are
better served by a new approach to leadership as is
proposed by the new public leadership theory.
Although these results provide strong confirma-
tory evidence of the utility of the new public leader-
ship theory, significant opportunities remain to
delve further into the mechanisms and implications
of this theory. For instance, a number of Federal
departments are outliers from either an outcome
perspective or from the perspective of correlating
various leadership approaches with specific out-
comes. It would also be valuable to use outcomes
measures independent of the surveys to confirm the
effect of the theory, such as PART scores and
employee turnover. A third area of potential research
would be to test other leadership approaches in
public settings to compare their relative utility in
explaining successful or unsuccessful organizational
and/or employee outcomes.
There are, however, some potential limitations of
the current study. The empirical portion of this study
is based on responses to a questionnaire that has
remained relatively consistent over the period
examined by this study. Nevertheless, respondents

54. answering to questions could have conceivably been
influenced by environmental or political factors not
covered by the study. High values of Cronbach’s
alpha for each of the predictive variables suggest a
reasonable degree of internal validity for the use of
these variables. Some have posited that causality
cannot be established through nonexperimental
research methods such as questionnaires (Stone-
Romero, 2009). Examples of problems with question-
naire-based research include common method bias,
in which survey respondents supply both the predic-
tive as well as the outcome variables, acquiescence
effects in which respondents either agree or disagree
with Likert inventories, and low response rates
(Bryman, 2011). These difficulties are mediated to an
extent by the large size of the Human Capital survey
samples, the high response rates obtained, the diver-
sity of the respondents (i.e., originating from multiple
federal departments, bureaus, and centers), and the
longitudinal nature of this study using multiple
administrations of the survey over a period of several
years. Few disagree that an experimental approach to
studying public leadership would be more robust;
the logistical difficulties involved in such an under-
taking would, however, be considerable.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of our discussion and findings, we call
for further research and development of a new public
leadership theory comprised of the transformational,
distributed, and values-based leadership principles
to the field of PA. The highly complex environment
facing many public organizations cannot be success-
fully managed using traditional leadership techniques.

55. The public managers of tomorrow will need these
skills and insights to carry out their public service
mandates. We demonstrated a strong correlation
between the tenets of the new public leadership
theory and positive organizational outcomes as mea-
sured by the Federal Human Capital Survey over
a period of 6 years. Our findings provide strong
support for the concept of a combined values-based,
transformational, and distributed approach to public
leadership. We predict that public leaders are most
effective in meeting the expectations of public service
employees and thereby able to obtain greater orga-
nizational efficacy when they combine authentic
values-based leadership with a willingness and
ability to share leadership responsibilities with
internal and external stakeholders, and an ability to
effectively engage individual employees through
intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation,
idealized influence, and individual consideration.
REFERENCES
Adelberg S, Batson CC. 1978. Accountability and helping:
when needs exceed resources. Journal of Peronsality and
Social Psychology 36: 343–350.
Administrative Procedure Act, PL 79–404 C.F.R. 1946.
Appleby PH. 1973. Big Democracy. Alfred A. Knopf:
New York.
Ashby WR. 1958. Requisite variety and its implications
for the control of complex systems. Cyberneticaq 1(2):
83–99.
Aucoin P, Heintzman R. 2000. The dialectics of account-
ability for performance in public management reform.

56. International Review of Administrative Sciences 65: 45–55.
Avolio BJ, Kahai S, Dodge GE. 2000. E-leadership: impli-
cations for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership
Quarterly 11(4): 615–668.
Bass BM. 1996. Is there universality in the full range
model of leadership? International Journal of Public
Administration 19(6): 731–761.
Bennis W, Parikh J, Lessem R. 1994. Beyond Leadership:
Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology. Blackwell:
Cambridge.
Bertelli AM, Lynn LE. 2003. Managerial responsibility.
Public Administration Review 63: 259–268.
Bertelli AM, Lynn LE. 2006. Madison’s Managers: Public
adminsitration and the constitution. Johns Hopkins
University Press: Baltimore.
Bezdek BL. 2000. Contractual welfare: Non-accountability
and diminished democracy in local government contracts
for welfare-to-work services. Fordham Urban Law Journal
28: 1560–1610.
Bovens M (Ed.). 2005. Public Accountability. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Bozeman B. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counter-
balancing Economic Individualism. Georgetown University
Press: Washington DC.
Bryman A (ed.). 2011. Research Methods in the Study of
Leadership. Sage: London.

57. Burns JM. 1978. Leadership. Harper & Row: New York.
CAIB. 2003. Columbia Accident Investigation Board
Report. Administration, N.A.A.S.: Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://caib.nasa.gov/ [21 May 2010].
Carmines EG, Zeller RA. 1979. Reliability and Validity
Assessment. Sage: London.
138 D. S. Kellis and B. Ran
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
http://caib.nasa.gov/
Cassell MK, Hoffmann SM. 2009. Not all housing GSEs
are alike: an analysis of the federal home loan bank
system and the foreclosure crisis. Public Administration
Review 69(4): 613–622. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.
02010.x
Chan A, Hannah ST, Gardner WL (eds). 2005. Veritable
Authentic Leadership: Emergence, Functioning and Impacts.
ElSevier: New York.
Chemers M 1997. An Integrative Theory of Leadership.
Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.
Choi S 2009. The emergence of shared leadership from
organizational dimensions of local government. Inter-
national Journal of Leadership Studies 5(1): 94–114.
Chrislip DD, Larson CE. 1994. Collaborative Leadership:
How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference.

58. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Colbert A, Kristof-Brown A, Bradley B, Barrick M. 2008.
CEO transformational leadership: the role of goal
importance congruence in top management teams.
Academy of Management Journal 51(1): 81–96.
Committee, USHS. 2006. A Failure of Inititiative. U.S.
Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
Cook BJ. 1998. Politics, political leadership, and public
management. Public Administration Review 58(3): 225–230.
Cox JF, Pearce CL, Perry ML. 2003. Toward a model of shared
leadership and distributed influence in the innovation
process: How shared leadrship can enhance new product
development team dynamics and effectiveness. In Shared
Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership,
Pearce CL, Conger JA (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks; 48–76.
Denhardt RB. 1999. The future of public administration.
Public Administration and Management 4(2): 279–292.
Denhardt RB, Denhardt JV. 2000. The new public service:
serving rather than steering. Public Administration
Review 60(6): 549–559.
Detert JR, Burris ER. 2007. Leadership behavior and
employee voice: is the door really open? Academy of
Management Journal 50(4): 869–884.
Donaldson L 1990. The etheral hand: organizational
economics and management theory. Acadmey of Manage-
ment Review 15(3): 3394–3401.
Eby LT, Freeman DM, Rush MC, Lance CE. 1999. Motiva-

59. tional bases of affective organizational commitment: a
partial test of an integrative theroetical model. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72(4): 463–483.
Evan WM, Freeman RE. 1988. A stakeholder theory of the
modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Ethical
Theory and Business, Beauchamp T, Bowie N (eds.).
Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 75–93.
Fairholm MR. 2004. Different perspectives on the practice of
leadership. Public Administration Review 64(5): 577–590.
Fernandez S, Cho Y, Perry J. 2010. Exploring the link between
integrated leadership and public sector performance.
The Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 308–323.
Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach. Pitman: Boston.
Freeman RE. 2000. Business ethics at the millennium.
Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1): 169–180.
Fung A (ed). 2007. Democratizing the Policy Process. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Gardner WL, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO. 2005. Authentic
Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects and
Development. Elsevier: New York.
Hager M. 2008. Federal Human Capital Survey. http://
www.fhcs.opm.gov/2008/ [21 May 2010].
Hannah ST, Lester PB, Vogelgesang GR. (eds). 2005. Moral
Leadership Explicating the Moral Component of Authentic
Leadership. Elsevier: New York.

60. Hennessey JTJ. 1998. “Reinventing” government: does
leadership make the difference? Public Administration
Review 58(6): 522–532.
Hoffmann S, Cassell M. 2002. What are the federal home
loan banks up to? Emerging views of purpose among
institutional leadership. Public Administration Review
62(4): 461–470.
Hoffmann SM, Cassell MK. 2005. Understanding mission
expansion in the federal home loan banks: a return to
behavioral-choice theory. Public Administration Review
65(6): 700–712. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00499.x
Hood C, Jackson M. 1991. Administrative Argument.
Dartmouth: Aldershot.
Ingraham PW. 2005. Performance: promises to keep and
miles to go. Public Administration Review 65(4): 390–395.
Jaques E 1976. A General Theory of Bureaucracy. Halsted
Press: New York.
Jung D, Wu A, Chow C. 2008. Towards understanding the
direct and indirect effects of CEOs’ transformational
leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly
19(5): 582–594.
Kellerman B, Webster S. 2001. The recent literature on
public leadership reviewed and considered. The Leadership
Quarterly 12: 485–514.
Kim S 2002. Participative management and job satisfaction:
lessons for management leadership. Public Administration
Review 62(2): 231–241.

61. Lambright W 2008. Leadership and change at NASA:
Sean O’Keefe as administrator. Public Administration
Review 68(2): 230–240. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.
00858.x
Lester W, Krejci D. 2007. Business “not” as usual: the
national incident management system, federalism, and
leadership. Public Administration Review 67: 84–93. DOI:
10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00817.x
Levine AL, Shafritz JM, McCurdy HE, Lambright WH,
Logsdon JM. 1992. The future of the U.S. Space program:
a public administration critique. Public Administration
Review 52(2): 183–186.
Ling Y, Simsek Z, Lubatkin M, Veiga J. 2008. Transfor-
mational leadership’s role in promoting corporate
entrepreneurship: examining the CEO-TMT interface.
Academy of Management Journal 51(3): 557–576.
McQuaid RW. (ed). 2010. Theory of Organizational Partner-
ships: Partnership Advantages, Disadvantages and Success
Factors. Routledge: New York.
Menzel DC. 2006. The Katrina aftermath: a failure of
federalism or leadership? Public Administration Review
66(6): 808–812. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00649.x
Mulgan R 2000. Comparing accountability in the public
and private sector. Australian Journal of Public Adminis-
tration 59(1): 87–97.
Nalbandian J 1994. Reflections of a “pracademic” on the
logic of politics and administration. Public Administration
Review 54(6): 531–536.

62. Olshfski D, Jun JS. 1989. The leadership environment of
public sector executives. Public Administration Review
49(2): 134–135.
OPM. 2008. What is the FCHS? http://www.fhcs.opm.
gov/2008/What/ [8 May 2010].
Osborne SP. 2010. The New Public Governance. Routledge:
London.
Pearce CL, Conger JS. 2003. Leadership: Reframing the Hows
and Whys of Leadership. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Peters BG, Pierre J. 1998. Governance without govern-
ment? Rethinking public administration. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2): 223–243.
Piccolo RF, Colquitt JA. 2006. Transformational leadership
and job behaviors: the mediating role of core job
characteristics. Academy of Management Journal 49(2):
327–340.
Pierce JL, Rubenfeld SA, Morgan S. 1991. Employee
ownership: a conceptual model of process and effect.
Academy of Management Review 16(1): 121–144.
Modern leadership principles 139
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
http://www.fhcs.opm.gov/2008/
http://www.fhcs.opm.gov/2008/
http://www.fhcs.opm.gov/2008/What/
http://www.fhcs.opm.gov/2008/What/

63. Prezeworksi A, Stokes SD, Manin B. 1999. Deomcracy,
Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Redford E 1969. Democracy in the Administrative State.
Oxford University Press: New York.
Rhodes RAW. 1994. The hollowing out of the state: the
changing nature of the public service in Britain. Political
Quarterly 65(2): 138–151.
Riccucci N, Getha-Taylor H. 2009. Managing the “New
normalcy” with values-based leadership: lessons from
admiral James Loy. Public Administration Review 69(2):
200–206.
Rose-Ackerman S 1999. Corruption and Government:
Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge University
Press: New York.
Rost JC. 1990. Leadership for the Twenty-First Centruy.
Praeger: New York.
Schneider AL. 1999. Public private partnerships in the
US prison system. American Behavioral Scientist 43(1):
192–208.
Schneider M 2002. A stakeholder model of organizational
leadership. Organization Science 13(2): 209–220.
Schneider A, Ingram H. 1993. The social construction of
target populations. American Political Science Review
87(2): 334–346.

64. Selznick P 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. UC Berkley
Press: Berkley.
Senge P 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice
of the Learning Organization. Doubleday Currency:
New York.
Skocpol T 2004. Diminished Democracy: From Membership
to Management in American Civic Life. University of
Oklahoma Press: Norman, Ok.
Stewart RB. 1975. The reform of administrative law.
Harvard Law Review 88: 1667–1813.
Stone-Romero EF. (ed). 2009. Implications of Research
Design Options for the Validity of Inferences Derived from
Organizational Research. Sage: London.
Sweeney K 1996. A shared leadership model for human
services program management. International Journal of
Public Administration 19(7): 1105–1120.
Taylor FW. 1947. Scientific Management. Harper & Row:
New York.
TerryLD.1998.Administrativeleadership,neo-managerialism,
and the public management movement. Public Adminis-
tration Review 58(3): 194–200.
Tetlock PE, Skitka L, Boettger R. 1989. Social and cognitive
strategies for coping with accountability: conformity,
complexity and blstering. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 57: 632–640.
Trebilcock MJ, Iacobucci EM. 2003. Privatization and
acccountability. Harvard Law Review 116: 1422–1453.

65. Trottier T, Wart M, Wang X. 2008. Examining the nature and
significance of leadership in government organizations.
Public Administration Review 68(2): 319–333. DOI: 10.1111/
j.1540-6210.2007.00865.x
Waldo D 1948. The Administrative State: A Study of the
Political Theory of American Public Administration (2 ed).
Holmes and Meier: New York.
Warner ME, Hefetz A. 2008. Managing markets for public
service: the role of mixed public-private delivery of city
services. Public Administration Review 68(1): 155–166.
Waugh WLJ, Streib G. 2006. Collaboration and leadership for
effective emergency management. Public Administration
Review 66: 131–140. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00673.x
Wilson W 1887. The study of administration. Political
Science Quarterly 2(2): 197–222.
Wright BE. 2011. Public administration as an interdisci-
plinary field: assessing its relationship with the fields
of law, management and political science. Public
Administration Review 71(1): 96–101.
Yang K, Kassekert A. 2010. Linking management reform
with employee Job satisfaction: evidence from federal
agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 20(2): 413–436.
Yukl G 2006. Leadership in Organizations (6 ed). Pearson-
Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NF.
APPENDIX I: SURVEY QUESTION
CATEGORIES FOR THE VARIABLES

66. 1. Job outcomes
a. My work gives me a feeling of personal
accomplishment
b. I like the kind of work I do.
c. The work I do is important
d. Considering everything, how satisfied are
you with your job?
e. Considering everything, how satisfied are
you with your pay?
2. Organization outcomes
a. The skill level in my work unit has improved
in the past year
b. My agency is successful in accomplishing its
mission
c. Considering everything, how satisfied are
you with your organization?
3. Leader outcomes
a. I have a high level of respect for my organiza-
tion’s senior leaders
b. How satisfied are you with the policies and
practices of your senior leaders?
4. Transformational leadership categories
a. Promotions in my work unit are based on

67. merit
b. In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with
a poor performer who cannot or will not
improve
c. In my work unit, differences in performance
are recognized ina a meaningful way
d. Awards in my work unit depend on how
well employees perform their job
e. Creativity and innovation are recognized
f. Pay raises depend on how well employees
perform their jobs
g. How satisfied are you with the recognition
you receive for doing a good job?
h. I am given a real opportunity to improve my
skills in my organization.
i. I have enough information to do my job well
j. I have sufficient resources to get my job done
k. My talents are used well in the workplace
l. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection
of my performance
m. My supervisor supports my need to balance
work and other life issues
n. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit
support employee development
140 D. S. Kellis and B. Ran

68. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
o. How satisfied are you with the training you
receive for you present job?
p. I know how my work relates to the agency’s
goals and priorities
q. My training needs are assessed
r. I feel encouraged to come up with new and
better ways of doing things
s. In my organization, leaders generate high
levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce
t. Managers communicate the goals and prior-
ities of the organization.
u. Managers review and evaluate the organiza-
tion’s progress toward meeting its goals and
objectives.
v. How satisfied are you with the information
you receive from management on what’s
going on in your organization?
w. My workload is reasonable
x. Physical conditions allow employees to

69. perform their jobs well
5. Distributed leadership
a. How satisfied are you with your involvement
in decisions that affect your work?
b. Employees have a feeling of personal em-
powerment with respect to work processes
c. Employees in my work unit share job knowl-
edge with each other.
d. The people I work with cooperate to get the
job done
6. Values-based leadership
a. My organization’s leaders maintain high
standards of honesty and integrity
b. Managers/supervisors/team leaders work
well with employees of different backgrounds.
c. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor.
d. Policies and programs promote diversity in
the workplace
e. Employees are protected from health and
safety hazards on the job
f. My organization has prepared employees for
potential security threats
g. Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and

70. coercion for partisan political purposes are
not tolerated.
h. Prohibited practices are not tolerated
i. I am held accountable for achieving results
j. I can disclose a suspected violation of any law,
rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.
Modern leadership principles 141
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 13,
130–141 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
Copyright of Journal of Public Affairs (14723891) is the
property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
73
ISSN 1712-8056[Print]
ISSN 1923-6697[Online]
www.cscanada.net
www.cscanada.org

71. Canadian Social Science
Vol. 9, No. 4, 2013, pp. 73-77
DOI:10.3968/j.css.1923669720130904.2552
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental
Culture
Leadership in Public Sector: A Discussion from Theoretical and
Practical
Aspects
ZENG Zhihong[a],*; CHEN Wei[b]; ZENG Xiaoying[c]
[a]Lecturer. School of Political Science and Public
Management,
Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
[b]Lecturer in School of Culture and Social Development al
Studies,
Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
[c]Graduate. School of Political Science and Public
Management,
Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
*Corresponding author.
Received 15 March 2013; accepted 6 June 2013
Abstract
Leadership is a critical component of good public
governance (OECD, 2001). Effective leadership can bring
greater efficiency and quality of service for the organization
as well as the increase in personal satisfaction at work.
Moreover, it can develop innovation and ability to adapt to
the external environment for government. Therefore, there
is a great need to improve the quality of leaders. Effective

72. leadership is determined by both heredity and environment.
This paper goes on to prove leadership in public sector can
be learned from theoretical and practical aspects. As for the
theoretical aspects, some innate traits, such as personality
can only explain 30% of the leadership effectiveness, and
even some personal traits, such as problem solving skill,
expertise can be learned. Environment plays the most
important role in the leadership of public sector. Emergence
and leadership behaviors can contribute to leadership
effectiveness. So a lot of leadership development programs,
such as formal training, mentoring, and feedback can be
used to cultivate leadership.
Key words: Leadership; Public sector; Theoretical;
Practical
ZENG Zhihong, CHEN Wei, ZENG Xiaoying (2013).
Leadership in
Public Sector: A Discussion from Theoretical and Practical
Aspects.
Canadian Social Science, 9 (4), 73-77. Available from:
http://www.
cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/j.css.192366972013090
4.2552
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/j.css.1923669720130904.2552.
If leaders are born not made, and if no one can teach anyone
else
to improve – let’s start investigating leadership in the biology
lab
rather than in the business world (Doh, 2003).
(Steve Stumpf, Professor, 2002, quoted in Doh, 2003, p.55).
INTRODUCTION
Are leaders in public sector born or made? Does
heredity or environment contribute more to leadership

73. effectiveness? Does the public organization can develop
leadership among civil servants? Great bodies of scholarly
and practitioner research focus on those questions. To
begin with, the definition of leadership in public sector
will be introduced and discussed. Then, according to
the definition, this paper will prove that leadership in
public sector can be learned from theoretical and practical
aspects. In theoretical aspect, effective leadership in
public sector is shaped not only by personal traits and
characteristics, but also by the situation leaders confront
with and their appropriate leader behaviours and
styles. In practical aspects, some practices of leadership
development, such as training, leadership feedback, and
mentoring program will be introduced. Finally, this paper
concludes that leadership in public sector is the outcome of
innate characteristics and environment, and leadership can
be learned by effective developmental programs.
1. THE DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP IN
THE PUBLIC SECTOR
In today’s increasingly competitive and more complex
external environment, the success of an organization is
often determined by the presence of effective leaders
with a broad business perspective (Elmuti, Minnis &
Abebe, 2005). Rosenbach (2003) defines leadership as a
process of the leader and followers engaging in reciprocal
influence to achieve a shared purpose. In other words,
leadership is about getting people to work together to
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental
Culture
Leadership in Public Sector: A Discussion from Theoretical and
Practical Aspects

74. 74
make things happen that might not otherwise occur, or to
prevent things from happening that would ordinarily take
place. How to cultivate more public officials who can draw
others into high spirits of public service geared to the needs
of contemporary society, and thereby provide better services
to government and citizens (OECD, 2001)? Administrative
leadership is the process of providing the results required
by authorized processes in an efficient, effective, and legal
manner; a process of developing/supporting followers
who provide the results; a process of the organization’ s
adjusting to its environment, especially to the macro-level
changes necessary, and realigning the culture as appropriate
(Montgomery Van Wart, 2003). So, to conclude, leadership
in public sector is a group concept, a process of affecting, a
power of public spirit, a movement to common goals, and a
direction to organisation development.
2. LEADERSHIP CAN BE LEARNED -----
FROM THEORETICAL ASPECTS
A historical review on the theoretical and empirical
literature dealing with the concept of leadership reveals
a variety of approaches that have developed over the
years (Schmid, 2006). One of the approaches, which
prevailed in the literature from 1930 to 1950, was the
traits approach (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Zaccaro,
2007). This approach focused on personal attributes of
leaders, assuming that leaders are born rather than made
(Schmid, 2006). Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) also argue
that there are some traits that make leaders different from
non-leaders, such as height, weight, and physique are
heavily dependent on heredity, whereas others such as
knowledge of the industry are dependent on experience
and learning. Zaccaro et al. (2004) define leader’s traits

75. as relatively coherent and integrated patterns of personal
characteristics, reflecting a range of individual differences
that foster consistent leadership effectiveness across a
variety of group and organizational situations.
3. INNATE CHARACTERS ARE NOT THE
POINT
The innate trait most frequently mentioned in the
literatures is the personality (Andersen, 2006; De Hooghi,
2005). There are streams of researches examine the
relationship between the personality and the leadership
effectiveness. Andersen states (2005) that the relationship
between personality traits and leader behaviour exists,
as there is a relationship in general between personality
and behaviour for all individuals and all professions.
And De Hoogh et al. also argue (2005) that subordinates
evaluations of charismatic leader behaviour can be
positively related to perceived effectiveness only under
dynamic work conditions. This finding is consistent
with other researches that find charismatic leadership is
likely to be more effective under conditions of challenge
and change (e.g., Howell & Avolio, 1993; Shamir &
Howell, 1999), or under conditions of high environmental
uncertainty (Waldman et al., 2001).
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) contend that character
as a leadership attribute consists of six elements: drive,
desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence,
cognitive ability, and knowledge of business. Zaccaro
(2007) argue in his latest research that qualities which
distinguish leaders from non-leaders are far ranging and
include not only personality attributes but also motives,
values, cognitive abilities, social and problem solving
skills, and expertise. Cognitive abilities, personality and
motives as well as values belong to distal attributes,

76. while social appraisal skills, problem solving skills
and expertise and tacit knowledge belong to proximal
attributes (Zaccaro et al., 2004).
Plomin and Daniels (1987, p. 1, cited in Avolio, 2007)
suggested that behavioural-genetics research shows that
genetic differences among individuals can not explain
more than half of the variance for complex traits. Many
scholars agree that although there are some natural talents
beneficial in leadership effectiveness, other significant
aspects of knowledge, skills and abilities that make up an
effective leader can be learned (Rosenbach, 2003; Doh,
2003; Connaughton et al., 2003; Avolio, 2007). Evidence
from behavioural genetics leadership research suggests
that 30% of the variance in leadership style and appearance
can be accounted for by genetic predispositions, while
the remaining variance can be attributed to non-shared
environmental influences such as individuals exposed
to varying opportunities for leadership development
(Arvey, et al., 2006; Taggar et al., 1999). Zaccaro et al.
(2006) agree with this opinion, they state that the timing
of assignments, relative to emerging leader performance
requirements, also will determine their efficiency in
shaping the development of particular leader traits.
Actually, among the traits researches this paper
has mentioned before, Kirpatrick and Locke in 1991
have pointed out that the cognitive ability, the desire to
lead and the drive is either hard to learn or difficult to
judge. However, the knowledge of the industry and self-
confidence can be developed through experience and
training, and honesty is also something can change in the
formal organizational culture (Kirpatrick & Locke, 1991).
Day (2000) and Zaccaro et al. also show (2006) that
proximal attributes are more flexible and susceptible to
continuous and systematic intervention.

77. 4 . S I T U AT I O N P L AY S A R O L E I N
LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE
It seems reasonable to suggest that traits interact with
the situation and, therefore, that the relationship between
one’s traits and leadership emergence will vary as a
75 Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental
Culture
ZENG Zhihong; CHEN Wei; ZENG Xiaoying (2013).
Canadian Social Science, 9 (4), 73-77
consequence of the nature of the situation (Avolio, 2005;
Vroom & Jago, 2007). In contrast with the little empirical
evidence relate leadership emergence with individual
dispositions leaders, there are certain types of events can
trigger leadership emergence and cultivate its development
(Avolio, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004). For example,
Banmrind shows (1991) that children who were exposed
to an authoritarian parenting style and were shown later
in life to have higher achievement orientation, self-
confidence, internal locus of control, and self-efficacy. In
sum of many leadership literatures, there appears to be
some consensus that not all traits are fixed with regard to
their impact on leadership development, emergence, and
success (Avolio, 2005). Moreover, traits themselves may
evolve over time and change depending on the dynamic
exchange between the leader, follower, and environment
(Avolio, 2005; Vroom & Jago, 2007; Zaccaro, 2007).
So, traits, including the innate characteristics, such as
personality, cognitive ability, are not either/or but a matter
of degree in shaping leadership effectiveness, emergence,
and development (Avolio, 2005).

78. Leadership was assumed to be a general personal
trait independent of the context in which the leadership
was performed (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Many years ago,
Cronbach (1957, cited in Vroom & Jago, 2007) identified
two distinct disciplines of psychology. One of these,
represented by experimental and social psychology,
was concerned with the effects of external events on
behaviour. The second was concerned with measurement
of individual differences. Neither discipline was capable
of explaining behaviour by itself. People, including
leaders, are affected by their environment as well as by
fairly stable characteristics that predispose them to certain
kinds of behaviour.
In all, leadership is potentially influenced not only
by the leaders’ dispositions but also by the situations
that leaders confront. For example, leadership skills
and expertise are likely to be more closely bound and
constrained by situational requirements, especially in
crisis. Individuals with particular kinds of skills and
expertise can, indeed, be leaders in one situation but not in
others that require very different knowledge and technical
skill sets (Dubrin, 2007). So, leadership’s emergence is
the outcome of certain traits and situation.
So, from the theoretical aspects, leadership in public
sector can be learned. First, although some personal traits
are quite difficult to change, proximal traits of leaders,
such as problem-solving skills and social-appraisal skill
can be learned; Second, the significance of leadership
appearance depends on the environmental factors, in
which individuals can cultivate the appropriate behaviours
and demanding ability of leadership.
However, if leadership can be learned, how could it be

79. learned in the practices? The following paper will discuss
leadership learning process from practical perspective.
5. LEADERSHIP CAN BE LEARNED ------
FROM PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE
Traits theory and situation theory besides, there is another
theory ------ leadership behaviour or leadership style
theory which is broadly applied in leadership development
programs (Arvonen & Ekvall, 1999). One of the popular
streams in behaviour theory is universality theory (Avolio,
2007; Vroom & Jago, 2007). The spokesmen of this theory
describe leadership behaviour in the two broad dimensions
emanating from Ohio and Michigan leadership research
programs; orientation towards employees and relations and
towards production, task and structure (Arvonen & Ekvall,
1999).The standpoint of the universality theories is that the
leaders who are high in both relation and task-orientation
are effective (Vroom & Jago, 2007). This theory also
argues that leaders’ personal traits can not explain
leadership effectiveness, and appropriate leader behaviour,
such as leadership style which are suitable in the situation;
they can also determine leadership effectiveness (Avolio,
2007). So, according to this theory, some behaviours of
leaders which are vital for leadership effectiveness can be
learned by leadership development programs.
Also, Jay Conger, a professor in the London Business
School points out the leadership mainly comprises of
three elements: skills, perspectives, and dispositions
(Doh, 2003). According to him, leadership education
can possibly help teach important leadership skills and
perhaps perspectives like effective oral and written
communicational skills (Doh, 2003). Furthermore, the
survey results from over 500 senior learning professionals
indicate that leadership and development are among
the top training priorities among U.S. profitable or non-

80. profitable governmental organizations, with the need for
experienced managers increasingly recognized as urgent
(Hall, 2005). This is why Academic units are all interested
in leadership development programs.
However, there are many studies find that some
aspects of leadership are part of innate qualities and hence
cannot be effectively acquired through formal teaching
(Doh, 2003). For example, some tacit dimensions of
leadership involve different processes to gain commitment
to a strategy and vision, or the ability of empowering
employees by building relationships and demonstrating
confidence with humility that can never be effectively
addressed by formal classroom training (Elmuti, Minnis
& Abebe, 2005). While Doh (2003) and Gosling and
Mintzberg (2004) state that this kind of leadership
development can be acquired only through practical
experiences like case studies and job training. Taggar et
al. argue that (1999) cognitive ability is often regarded
as a skill (something that has been acquired) rather
than a personality (inborn) trait in leadership research.
Furthermore, most educators agreed that individual
personality traits provided at least part of the basis upon
which leadership skills are built, and such characteristics
reach stability by adolescence (Doh, 2003).
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental
Culture
Leadership in Public Sector: A Discussion from Theoretical and
Practical Aspects
76

81. Most educators of leadership development programs
have similar perspectives on what they think as major
ingredients of an effective leadership education (Elmuti,
Minnis & Abebe, 2005). They suggest particular skills that
can be well taught in order to cultivate potential leaders.
A program that is highly practical and uses techniques
such as coaching, training and mentoring is likely to be
effective leadership education (Gosling & Mintzberg,
2004; Blass & Ferris, 2007). Others believe that skills
such as analytical, communication (both oral and written),
and problem-solving can be successfully developed in a
formal leadership training (Allio, 2005; Elmuti, Minnis &
Abebe, 2005). Political skill is shaped by mentoring and
contextual learning experiences, which, in turn, affect the
flexibility needed for making favourable impressions on
others, adaptation, and fit (Blass & Ferris, 2007).
Dubrin states (2007) that through effective education,
experience and mentoring, combined with feedback and
evaluation, leadership can be developed. His opinion
was consistent with that of Elmuti et al. (2005), and they
demonstrate that in the dynamic business environment,
a multi-stage model built on the fundamental knowledge
and skills to develop more relevant leadership skills
such as conceptual, interpersonal and practical skills
should be used. So, they put much emphasis on coaching,
mentoring and on-the-job training as tools for leadership
development (2005). Furthermore, effective leadership
development programs should not only includes practical
business skills, but also involves in-depth training on
inter-personal and conceptual skills (Elmuti et al., 2005).
Students need to be well prepared to be transformational
leaders that can effectively deliver the vision and mission
to their followers in an organization (Stone et al., 2004).
In addition, leadership education should particularly
integrate ethical education in every facet of the training

82. process and a global perspective should be adopted in
leadership education (Elmuti et al., 2005).
Allio argues (2005) there are three essential steps for
effective leadership development programs: to select the
right candidates, which is also supported by Sansone and
Schreiber-Abshire (2006), to create learning challenges,
and to provide mentoring. Evidence suggests that the
most effective leadership programs will focus on building
self-knowledge and skills in rhetoric and critical thinking
(Allio, 2005).
CONCLUSION
So, leadership in public sector is neither born nor learned.
The most sensible answer is that the traits, ability,
motives, and characteristics required by leadership
effectiveness are caused by a combination of heredity
and environment (Dubrin, 2007). Although there are
some useful innate attributes that are easily associated
with leaders, they can not explain why he is a leader in
this situation but not a leader in that situation, and they
can only account for the small part of different personal
behaviours. So, this paper states that the situation or
environment plays an even more important role in the
emergence and formulation of leadership. Furthermore, a
part of leadership qualities can be successfully acquired
(Rosenbach, 2003; Doh, 2003; Connaughton et al.,
2003), such as the expertise knowledge, the skill for
communication and self-control. So, leadership is partly
innate, partly learned. This paper finally discusses many
useful ways for leadership development in contemporary
leadership literature, such as careful selection, on-the-job
training, mentoring program, and effective feedback. All
in all, leadership is the combination of innate and learned
characteristics; environment and leadership development

83. program both play very important roles in the formation
of effective leadership ability and behaviour.
REFERENCES
Allio, R. J. (2005). Leadership development: Teaching versus
learning. Management Decision, 43(7/8), 1071-1077.
Andersen, J. A. (2006). Leadership, personality and
effectiveness.
The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(6), 1078-1091.
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue,
M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy:
Genetic and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly,
17(1), 1-20.
Arvonen, J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Effective leadership style:
Both universal and contingent. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 8(4), 242-251.
Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/
born. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc..
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for
leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1),
25-33.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F.,
& May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the
process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes
and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Concepts of leadership. In Pierce, J. L. &
Newstrom, J. W. (Eds.). Leaders & the leadership process:
Readings, self-assessments & applications. Homewood, IL:

84. Austen Press.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style
o n a d o l e s c e n t c o m p e t e n c e a n d s u b s t a n c e
u s e . T h e
Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95. DOI:10.
1177/0272431691111004
Blass, F. R., & Ferris, G, R. (2007). Leader reputation: The
role of mentoring, political skill, contectual learning, and
adaptation. Human Resource Management, 46(1), 5-19.
DOI:10. 1002/hrm.20142
Connaughton, S., Lawrence, F., & Ruben, B. (2003). Leadership
d e v e l o p m e n t a s a s y s t e m a t i c a n d m u l t i d i s
c i p l i n a r y
enterprise. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 46-51.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in
context.
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613. DOI:10. 1016/S1048-
9843(00)00061-8
77 Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental
Culture
ZENG Zhihong; CHEN Wei; ZENG Xiaoying (2013).
Canadian Social Science, 9 (4), 73-77
De Hooghi, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopmani, P.
L. (2005). Linking the big five-factors of personality to
charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic
work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(7), 839-865.

85. Doh, J. P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives
from management educators. Academy of Management
L e a r n i n g & E d u c a t i o n , 2 ( 1 ) , 5 4 - 6 7 . D O I :
1 0 . 5 4 6 5 /
AMLE.2003.9324025
Dubrin, A. J. (2007). Leadership: Reasearch finding, practice,
and skills (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
E l m u t i , D . , M i n n i s , W. , & A b e b e , M . ( 2 0 0
5 ) . D o e s
education have a role in developing leadership skills?
Management Decision, 43(7/8), 1018-1031. DOI:10.
1108/00251740510610017
Gibson, J. L., Donnelly, J. H. Jr., Ivancevich, J. M., &
Konopaske, R. (2003). Organizations: Behavior, structure
and processes. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2004). The education of
practicing
managers. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 19-22.
Hall, B. (2005). The top training priorities for 2005. Training,
42(2), 23-29.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and
support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-
business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(6), 891-902. DOI:10. 1037//0021-9010.78.6.891
Kochan, T. A. (2002). Addressing the crisis in confidence in
corporations: Root causes, victims, and strategies for reform.
The Executive, 16(3), 139-141.

86. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits
matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
OECD. (2011). Public sector leadership for the 21st century.
DOI:10. 1787/9789264195035-en
Rosenbach, W. (2003). The essence of leadership. New Zealand
Management, 50(3), 18-20.
Sansone, C., & Schreiber-Abshire, W. (2006). A rare and valued
asset: Developing leaders for research, scientific, technology
and engineering organizations. Organization Development
Journal, 24(3), 33-43.
Schmid, H. (2006). Leadership styles and leadership change
in human & community service organizations. Non-Profit
Management and Leadership, 17(2), 179-194. DOI:10.
1002/nml.142
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and
contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness
of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),
257-283.
S t o n e , A . G . , R u s s e l l , R . F. & P a t t e r s o n ,
K . ( 2 0 0 4 ) .
Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference
in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(4), 349-361. DOI:10.1108/01437730410538671
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership
emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and
outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 899-926.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in

87. leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007), Trait-based perspectives of leadership.
American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-16. DOI:10. 1037/10003-
066X.62.1.6
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and
attributes. In Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R.
J. (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp.101-124). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zaccaro, S. J., Wood, G., & Herman, J. (2006). Developing the
adaptive and global leader: HRM strategies within a career-
long perspective. In Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.),
The human resources revolution: Why putting people first
matters (pp.277-302). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Copyright of Canadian Social Science is the property of
Canadian Academy of Oriental &
Occidental Culture and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.