1
Which leadership style is emphasized during a change implementation phase in a public- sector context?
by
Jelle van de Putte S2567954
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc Business administration track: Change management
July 23 2018
Supervisor: dr. M.H.F. Ridder de van der Schueren Co-assessor: dr. C. Reezigt
Word count:
13.165 (excl. appendices)
2
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to investigate which leadership style is emphasized by change leaders during the implementation of a change in a public sector context. Which leadership style is
emphasized during the implementation of a change is still an underdeveloped concept in the current literature. A qualitative single case study approach was selected in order to capture the inner meaning of the respondents. Interviews were conducted among 16 public sector change leaders who were responsible for implementing a change. This data is compared to the management style that the local government emphasizes in order to triangulate the data. Results show that change leaders do not emphasize a one-size-fits-all leadership style during the implementation of a change in the public sector. The leadership style that the change leaders emphasize is situational and contextual dependent.
In addition, the value-based leadership styles had a preference of the respondents. Almost all respondents incorporated aspects of the participatory leadership style and of the transformational leadership into their own unique leadership style. A starting point when implementing a change in the public sector should be a combination of both value-based leadership styles. In order to commit recipients towards the change and that the recipients directly bring about the change and take ownership over the transformation.
Key words: Leadership style, no-one-size-fits-all leadership, participatory leadership, transformational leadership, change implementation, public-sector
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 2
INTRODUCTION ... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 6
Leadership style ... 6
Transactional leadership ... 7
Transformational Leadership ... 8
Change implementation ... 9
Leadership styles and change implementation ... 10
METHODOLOGY ... 14
Case selection... 14
Data collection ... 15
Data analysis ... 16
RESULTS ... 18
Authoritarian leadership style ... 18
Participatory leadership style ... 19
Laissez-faire leadership style ... 19
Transactional leadership style ... 20
Transformational leadership style ... 21
Combination of leadership styles ... 22
Overview results of emphasized leadership styles ... 23
Additional findings ... 23
DISCUSSION... 25
Summary findings ... 25
Link with the literature & theoretical implications ... 26
Limitations & future research... 28
Managerial implications ... 29
Conclusion ... 30
REFRENCES ... 31
Appendix I: Government & size ... 37
Appendix II: Interview questions ... 37
Appendix III: categorization of codes ... 38
4
INTRODUCTION
An important factor for successful organizational change is the existence of dynamic and effective leadership in an organization (Northouse, 2013). According to Todnem by (2005), there should be no hesitation in acknowledging the importance of organizations to align to the environment in order to survive. However, it is hard to accomplish a successful organizational transformation and it puts substantial pressure on the change leaders to perform (Cawsey et al, 2012). Leadership and organizational change are strongly connected concepts that complement each other (Parry, 2011).
However, they are often studied as two separate concepts (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018). A starting point of this paper will be the analysis of the two concepts as separate variables. In order to integrate the concepts later into one concept of change leadership.
Leadership is a topic which is strongly embedded in the management theory literature and researched on in multiple settings (Osland & Turner, 2011:458). However, it is hard to define leadership because there is an extensive variation among the definitions used for the concept (Counts et al., 1995). This paper will analyze the concept of leadership from multiple perspectives to have a broad perspective of the concept. The definitions differ extensively and to illustrate this aspect this paper will start with two examples of definitions of leadership. First, Johns & Saks (2008: 299) state that leadership is about influencing persons to achieve the goals of the organization. Second, Summerfield (2014) conducted an extensive review of the concept of leadership and came up with the simple definition “make things better”. These definitions differ substantially, although they have some common characteristics.
However, it is difficult to state one definition that covers the whole concept. An attempt to combine both definitions will be the starting point of leadership in this paper. Therefore, leadership is setting towards a specific goal and influencing persons to improve aspects of the organization.
Leadership is in each organization different, and it might be difficult to find appropriate leadership skills across different contexts. Private organizations have to deal with different contingencies than public organizations (Poole et al, 2006). Public is the Latin word for people, and it is coherent that public organizations have to improve aspects for the society (Guralnick, 1980). Public organizations are more progressive and could, therefore, ask for a different type of leadership. In addition, Boyne (2002) stated that is the case that leadership in public-sector organizations differs from leadership in private organizations. The question that arises is: which aspects of leadership are relevant in public- sector organizations? Public organizations have to deal with more political issues, a wide variety of aspects that are on the public agenda, and the subjective nature of defining when a project is a success (Rose & Cray, 2010). A lot of changes are coerced by the government, and public organizations need to adapt to the circumstances it faces (Ashworth et al., 2009). To illustrate, public-sector organizations need to cope and implement laws which are coerced by a higher authority. This forces public
organizations to change their organization.
5
Organizational change is often defined and conceptualized beforehand. After this process is accomplished, the change needs to be implemented in the organization. According to Sonenshein (2010), the implementation of a transition is one of the most important aspects of organizational change. Cummings & Worley (2015:193) stated that implementing a change is the actual move from a current state into the desired state. The implementation of a change is not as simple as it looks, still, seventy percent of all changes fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Sirkin, 2005:110). A successful organizational change is tough to accomplish, there is no difference in the area where the organization operates in. More specifically,
Isett et al. (2013)
addressed that the implementation of a successful change in the public sector is tough to achieve. When implementing a change, it is preferable to show leadership that is in line with the change that has to be accomplished.Several researchers paid attention to how leaders implement the change in a private sector context (Battilana et al., 2009; Sheard et al., 2011). Moreover, how managers lead the implementation phase of a change is still an underdeveloped concept in the public-sector context (Kuipers et al., 2014). This research aims to focus on identifying which leadership style is relevant in the change implementation phase in a public-sector context. This has led to the following research question:
Which leadership style is emphasized during a change implementation phase in a public-sector context?
The current literature is missing a framework of which leadership style is emphasized during the implementation of a change in the public sector. This research tries to fulfill this gap by investigating which leadership style is emphasized during the implementation of a change in the public sector. The theoretical relevance of this research is twofold. First, this research provides insights in which leadership style has the best fit during the implementation phase of a change in the public-sector (Kuipers et al., 2014). Second, this research will add a framework to the current literature based on empirical data (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018). This research will be relevant for managers because they can identify which leadership style has the best fit during the implementation phase of a change in the public-sector context. Data for this study will be collected by conducting semi-structured interviews to get in-depth answers about which leadership style has the best fit during the implementation of a change in the public sector.
The first section of this paper will introduce the concepts with an extensive literature review. Followed by the methods of how this research is conducted, the third section analyses the results of the data and this research will be concluded with a discussion section.
6
LITERATURE REVIEW
Leadership styleA leadership style is an important concept of how you can influence members of an organization (Wu, 2009). A leadership style could be defined as a “combination of attitude and behavior, which leads to certain regularity and predictability in dealing with group members” (Randeree & Chaudhry, 2012).
Therefore, the attitude and behavior that a leader shows could play an important role in how a change is implemented. Historically, three different categories of leadership styles were developed (Singh &
Karunes, 2000). The first category is “do as I say”, which is associated with an authoritarian style of leadership (Singh & Karunes, 2000). This leadership style is directive and the managers make decisions by themselves (Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2005). The recipients follow the direction that the leader has provided (Cheng et al. 2004) and fulfill the requirements that are provided beforehand. This style is associated with authority, power, and relies on the leader. Furthermore, the personal
characteristics of the leader are important, and the leader carries the whole process as a visionary leader (Goleman, 2000). This style can be defined as a task-oriented leadership style. The second category is “let us do”, which is a participatory approach (Singh & Karunes, 2000). According to Kezar (2001), the participatory leadership has the following characteristics: (1) leadership is
associated with a team or group instead of an individual; (2) interrelationship with the group/team are essential and are part of a broader perspective in the organization; (3) the employees are empowered by the manager;(4) aspects of positional leadership, as well as non-positional leadership, are
applicable to this style; (5) learning is an important aspect of this participatory approach. A participatory leadership style is almost contradictory to the authoritarian leadership style. This leadership style is characterized by collaboration, learning, and empowerment. This style can be defined as an interpersonal-oriented style. The third category is “do as you wish/like” (Singh &
Karunes, 2000), which is associated with the laissez-faire leadership style. This style could be defined as “Exhibits frequent absence and lack of involvement during critical junctures” (Eagly et al., 2003).
Laissez-faire leaders are passive leaders and Deluga (1990) has provided some characteristics of this particular leadership style: (1) leaders do not provide guidance to recipients; (2) recipients have a lot of freedom; (3) recipients are empowered to make decisions of the organization; (4) recipients will fully expand their power and influence over the organization. To conclude, in this leadership style the responsibility moves from the leader to the recipients. The recipients are self-organizing and provide their own directions. This third style could be defined as a passive leadership style.
Over the last decade, plenty of other leadership styles were developed (Singh & Karunes, 2000). These leadership styles have some common ground in the three historical categories. The historical styles who were developed by Lewin et al. (1939), seem still to be appropriate in the current era. This reason for this is that these leadership styles lie the emphasis on the interrelation between context, person, and
7
behavior (Liden & Antonakis, 2009). The extensive variation among the leadership styles indicates that there are various styles of leadership. The relevance of the different styles in particular situations depends also on the alignment between the leadership style and context (Burnes, 2014:509).
Moreover, how do we know which leadership style is relevant in a public-sector context? In the situations of organizational change most transformations are coerced by the legislation of the
government (Act, 1999). When a change is coerced by a higher authority, the leader does not have to show a lot of creativity (Rondeax, 2006). In situations where creativity is low, the transactional leadership style could be applicable in changing the organization (Burnes, 2014:519). Van der Voet (2016) suggests that transactional leadership style could be relevant in a public-sector context. On the other hand, the transactional leadership is part of a continuum which has on the other side the
transformational leadership style. The transformational leadership style could be the best fit for situations where the organization operates in a dynamic environment and where the focus in on accomplishing a change (Burnes, 2014:510). In addition, most leadership models are proven to be invalid due to the complex and dynamic environment they operate in (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018). This could imply that the transformational leadership style will be the best fit during the implementation phase in the public sector, because of the dynamic environment. The transformational- and
transactional leadership styles are seen as two dominant leadership styles in the literature (Bass &
Avolio, 1993). Therefore, this paper will examine not only the authoritarian-, participatory- and laissez-faire leadership style but also the role of the transactional- and transformational leadership style in the implementation phase in a public-sector context.
Transactional leadership
In the past, academic research focused frequently on transactional elements of leadership (Paarlberg &
Lavigna, 2010). This type of leadership concentrates on early management practices and does not emphasize on the interrelationship with recipients (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010). It could be argued that a transactional leadership style is something from the past because it has a heavy task-oriented focus.
However, Pieterse et al. (2010) stated that transactional leadership could still be relevant in a directive organizational transformation. Transactional leadership appears according to Whittington et al. (2009) when a leader transfers something like political, economic or psychological value to a recipient. This transfer is based on performance targets, and it is stated beforehand when the performance targets are met. The purpose is to make sure that the leader and recipient have common ground among the goals for the recipient, however, it is not necessary to engage in a relationship with each other (Whittington, 2009). The relationship is based on the task that has to be performed, and there does not have to be personal involvement of the leader with the recipient. Moreover, transactional leaders acknowledge the needs and desires of recipients. These needs and desires are translated into fitting work roles and performance targets. (Jung, 2001). Leaders have negotiations with the recipients in advance in order to
8
motivate them to the targets that have to be accomplished (Vito et al., 2014). Leaders use relative positional power in this process in order to make sure that organizational benefits are captured and that the new work roles and performance targets will positively influence the organization (Vito et al., 2014). This process of negotiation can also aim to motivate recipients towards these specific targets and new work roles.
Judge & Piccolo (2004) made a distinction between three components of transactional leadership.
These components elaborate on specific characteristics of the transactional leadership style. First, contingent reward defines to what extent the leader establishes constructive transactions or exchanges with recipients. The leader formulates expectations and sets rewards for achieving the targets. These rewards can be for example ‘work for pay’ or ‘time off ‘(Vito et al., 2014). Rewards for exceptional work will significantly influence the motivation of the recipients (Raziq, 2018). Contingent reward is, therefore, one of the most important aspects of transactional leadership. The second and third
component Judge & Piccolo (2004) define are ‘management by exception - active’ and ‘management by exception – passive’. Management by exception is the extent to which the leader corrects the recipient based on results. Therefore, in the active variant, a recipient is corrected at an early stage, and the recipient is frequently monitored. The passive variant does not act in advance; the leader waits until problems occur and then corrects the recipient. Management by exception is an act which is solely done by the leaders, recipients do not influence this process (Whittington et al., 2009). The transactional leadership style is heavily criticized because this leadership style provides no opportunity for recipients to show creativity (Amabile, 1996). However, in the public-sector setting, transactional leadership could still be relevant due to the coercing legislation from the government. The question that arises is if transactional leadership is still appropriate in a public-sector context, or do leaders use more innovative ways to cope with legislation?
Transformational Leadership
The transformational leadership style is a style which is heavily grounded in the literature and studied on in multiple settings (Diaz-Saenz, 2011). The transformational leadership style is contrasting to the transactional leadership style. In the transformational leadership style, the focus lies on how leaders can engage, motivate, and commit recipients towards the provided direction of the leader (Burnes, 2014:511). The transformational leadership style was first investigated by Burns (1978) and further elaborated on by Bass (1999). The author revised the definition of the transformational leadership style, which is: “Transformational leadership is moving the follower beyond immediate self-interest through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation or individualized consideration. It elevates the follower’s level of majority and ideals as well as concerns for achievement, self-actualization, and the well-being of others, the organization, and society” (Bass,
9
1999). This definition is still accurate nowadays, however, the definition does not provide characteristics of how you can be a transformational leader.
Rafferty & Griffin (2004) improved the definition into five distinctive characteristics, which are: (1) The leadership style is based on a vision. A leader provides a vision and sets a direction for the recipients. The leader envisions this idealized vision to recipients and makes sure that they have the possibility to identify with this vision. (2) Inspirational communication. A leader tries to inspire and motivate recipients towards the vision and change. This leader emphasizes this with verbal as well as non-verbal communication. With this inspirational communication, the leaders try to commit the recipients towards the vision (3) Concern for recipients. A leader takes the opinion of the recipients into account and adjusts ideas. When this does not correspond with the opinion of the recipients, their opinion will be considered. (4) Think of problems in new ways. When problems occur during the change, the transformational leader is able to think about innovative ways of dealing with problems.
Furthermore, the transformational leader is able to make tough decisions when this is necessary. (5) The transformational leader values the effort and achievement of recipients. The leader critically reflects to the recipients what their achievement is. However, this is always done in a setting where the recipient is valued and appreciated. The transformational leadership style is a style which is valued for its visioning and commitment. According to Ospina (2017) can the transformational leadership be effective in the public sector context. This could be due to the envisioning of recipients and concern for recipients. However, is the transformational leadership emphasized during the implementation of a change in the public sector?
Change implementation
When a change is designed, the approach is selected, and performance measures are defined, then the implementation of the change will start. Change implementation means to bring about the change, finish and accomplish the change (Wallace, 2007: 31). The implementation of a change seems easy to accomplish because the change is figured out thoroughly. Nevertheless, this stage is often challenging because the change needs to be incorporated into the routines and working roles of an organization.
Kotter’s eight-step model is acknowledged in the literature for the implementation process of organizational change (Brisson-Banks, 2010) and is, therefore, a fundamental concept in the implementation of a change. However, this model is also criticized because each implementation setting is different; each setting has to deal with different contexts and unique characteristics (Pollack
& Pollack, 2014). The authors stated that the use of the eight-step model is more complicated in practice, it is almost never a process of linear steps. This aspect is also applicable to the similar change implementation models; this could be an indicator why implementing a change in an organization often fails. Armenakis & Stanley (2009) stated that failure of the change could also be a temporal obstacle that has to be overcome. Change leaders should be more confident about the change and have
10
to adapt the change plan if this is necessary. However, Todnem By (2007) stated that it is hard for practitioners to implement a change because of the contradiction among the different concepts and models. To conclude, it is hard to implement a change and various aspects could be influencing the failure rate of change projects. If the approaches and contexts are organizational dependent, academic researchers should take a look at concepts in the change implementation phase that are stable, which are leaders and employees. Leaders are responsible for the change, have to institutionalize it, and be willing to adept changes during the implementation of the transformation (Cummings & Worley, 2015:552). Leaders could make a difference in the implementation phase and acceptance of a change.
(Battilana et al., 2010) indicates three important aspects for leaders in the change implementation stage: (1) inform and communicate to employees about the need to change; (2) mobilize others to support the change; (3) evaluate the change implementation regularly. These aspects do not differ for private and public organizations. However, Abrahamson & Lawrence (2001) highlights that leaders play a significant role in bringing about a change in the public-sector.
Leadership styles and change implementation
Which leadership style is emphasized in the change implementation phase in a public sector is still an underdeveloped concept in the current literature (Kuipers et al., 2014). This research will try to elaborate on which leadership style is relevant to the change implementation process in the public sector. It is important to identify which leadership style is relevant in a public-sector context because seventy percent of the transformations of organizations fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Sirkin, 2005:110). A leader can make a difference in how the change is implemented (Holten & Olof Brenner, 2015) and it will help managers to know which leadership style is most effective during the implementation of a change. The relationship between the five different leadership styles and change implementation is an underdeveloped concept in the current literature. However, the relationship is already known among similar concepts and can, therefore, predict which leadership style is fitting during the implementation of a new change.
Chin (2015) acknowledges that the authoritarian leadership category still exists in the public administration setting. However, the authoritarian leadership style is associated with a negative organizational performance (Chin-Yi et al., 2017). This is due to the fact that employees experience that they do not have much influence over decisions and this style will negatively influence their role perception (Zhang & Yun-Hui, 2017). In addition, Burnes & Todnem By (2012) stated that the authoritarian leadership style is neglected in situations of organizational change due to the fact that it is not appropriate to coerce employees into a certain direction without taking the values of the
employees into account. With a negative influence on organizational performance and the rejection in situations of organizational change, it could be implied that the authoritarian leadership style is not
11
emphasized during the implementation of a change in a public-sector context. This has led to the following proposition:
P1: Managers will not emphasize an authoritarian leadership style when implementing a change in a public-sector context.
According to Chin (2015), public organizations are transitioning from authoritarian leadership to a more participatory leadership style. In the management literature, the participatory leadership style is seen as a more effective style than the authoritarian style Muijs (2011). This is due to the fact that this category is more collaborative, and it inspires employees instead of coercing them (Burnes & Todnem By, 2012). Utilizing a participatory approach in an environment, enables employees to be involved in the whole process and gives them the feeling that they are part of the decision process (Raziq, 2018) and leads to higher organizational performance (Pradhan et al., 2018). In situations of organizational change, the more participatory leadership styles are seen as an efficient way to gain commitment from employees toward the change (De Poel et al, 2012). The view on the participatory leadership style is therefore rather positive than negative in situations of organizational performance as well as in
situations of organizational change. This could imply that public sector organizations will emphasize a more participatory leadership style during the implementation of a change in a public-sector context.
Which has led to the following proposition:
P2: Managers emphasize a participatory leadership style when implementing a change in a public-sector context.
The view on the laissez-faire leadership style is rather negative because this leadership style is
associated with a lack of leadership (Vito et al., 2014). Yang (2015) stated that there are some positive aspects on emphasizing a laissez-faire leadership style. For example, employees feel relatively
committed towards the organization and become more creative in situations when this style is emphasized (Zareen et al., 2014). However, Vinger & Cilliers (2006) stated that leaders are not emphasizing the laissez-faire leadership style in situations of organizational change. This overall negative view on laissez-faire leadership and the fact that leaders do not emphasize the laissez-faire leadership style in situations of organizational change has led to the following proposition:
P3: Managers will not emphasize a laissez-faire leadership style when implementing a change in a public-sector context.
The roots of transactional leadership lie in the authoritarian leadership style category. Which could imply that the view of the transactional leadership style during the implementation of a change could
12
be negative rather than positive. However, an important aspect of change leadership is the contextual fit between the leadership style and the change that is enhanced (Burnes & Todnem By, 2012). A context which fits the transactional leadership style is one that adjusts current processes and where specific goals have to be accomplished (Gersick, 1994). The implementation of laws is coerced to public organizations and has specific societal goals that have to be accomplished. Governments make laws and introduce this top-down to public organizations (Ashworth et al, 2009). Public organizations have to cope with this top-down change and it seems appropriate to emphasize a transactional
leadership style in such particular situations. Which has led to the following proposition:
P4: Managers will emphasize a transactional leadership style when implementing a change in a public-sector context when the change is top-down introduced by a higher authority.
In other organizational settings has the transformational leadership style proven to be more efficient to motivate employees and leads to greater organizational performance (Wang et al. 2011), In addition, the transformational leadership style has a positive influence on recipient well-being (Barling et al, 1996), and organizational citizenship behavior (Monninghoff, 2008). In the public administration setting there has been some support for the relationship of transformational leadership and
organizational performance (Sun & Henderson, 2017). These positive implications of organizational performance, citizenship and public administration performance outlines that it could be due to these facts that change leaders emphasize the transformational leadership style during the implementation of a change in the public sector. Which has led to the following proposition:
P5: Managers will emphasize a transformational leadership style when implementing a change in a public-sector context.
This literature review has provided an overview off which leadership style(s) could be relevant during the implementation of a change in the public sector. Figure 1 provides an overview of the literature study and the stated propositions. Where the proposition is that the authoritarian leadership is not emphasized during the implementation of change in a public sector context.
13
14
METHODOLOGY
The concept of leadership during the change implementation process in a public-sector context is an underdeveloped concept in the current literature (Kuipers, 2014). To find out which leadership style is relevant in a public-sector context a qualitative approach will be used to find in-depth answers about which style could be relevant in the change implementation phase. An explorative qualitative research approach can elucidate on what the inner meaning of the respondents is and how this opinion is formed (Gephart, 2004) The goal of this research is to reveal new patterns that will provide new insights instead of testing the variables (Corbin & Strauss, 2008:12). The result of this research will be theory development on which leadership style is emphasized during the change implementation phase in a public-sector context. This research will be conducted according to the concepts of reliability and validity of Golafshani (2003). Who applied the concepts to qualitative research approach
measurements and restated the terms as trustworthiness, quality, and rigor. These concepts help to meet quality standards of qualitative research. This will be elaborated in the case selection, data collection, and data analysis.
Case selection
This research will be a single case study and all the respondents will be compared with each other. For this research 16 managers were selected who were responsible for implementing a change in a public- sector context. They were all change leaders and were in charge of at least eight people. The
implementation of a change in organization had to be forced by the government due to legislation because this is an important aspect for one of the propositions. In addition, 16 different local
governments were selected. Local governments often have to deal with coerced laws and have to cope with this in a proper way. For example, the Netherlands introduced three new laws in 2015 which were decentralized to public organizations by the government. These laws are for youth services, job- and payment requirements, and care for people who are chronically ill or elderly people who need homecare (Rijksoverheid, 2018). That is why local governments make a justifiable case for this research. To make sure that the respondents do not have other personal factors that have to be
considered it is tried to select respondents who are as diverse as possible. An overview of the diversity among the respondents is provided in table I; which also contains additional information about the respondents. The respondents were anonymized and given a code according to their job description.
This in order to improve the trustworthiness and quality of this research.
Table 1: Diversity among respondents
Code Gender Age Years of employment
Number of recipients
Function Size of government*
PA1 Female 37 9 ±100 Policy advisor 4
15
PM1 Female 56 13 ±29 Program manager 5
PA2 Female 41 3,5 ±25 Policy employee “society” 4
IM1 Male 28 1 ±150 Implementation manager 5
TL1 Female 36 2,5 ±37 Team leader 4
TL2 Male 51 15 35 Team leader: Youth & Care 4
LH1 Female 56 2 16 Team Leader HRM 2
PA3 Female 53 3 ±25 Policy advisor elderly care 3
TL3 Male 34 3 43 Department leader care 4
PM11 Female 38 5 32 Public Manager 4
TL4 Female 39 8 40 Team leader 4
PM2 Male 46 10 2-60 Project manager 4
PA4 Male 52 20 8 Policy advisor/ project leader 4
TL5 Female 56 10 26 Team leader Social domain 5
PM3 Female 59 4 55 Project manager transformation 4
PM4 Male 62 7 230 Manager social domain 5
*based on the classification of CBS (2018)
As can be seen are the respondents quite diverse, however, most respondents are female. Female leadership is quite different than male leadership (Eagly et al., 2003). Therefore, will the results of both genders be compared in order to see if there are any differences in the data. This will be
elaborated in the discussion section. The size of the government is determined by the classification of the CBS (2018). Who is keeping a track record over the size of the governments in the Netherlands. In appendix I, there is a description of the numbers in relation to the size of the government.
Data collection
For this research were two different types of data collected. Primary data is collected through the use of interviews and secondary data is collected through the use of internal documents of the
governments. These two types are chosen to prevent instrument bias and to create triangulation (Yin, 2003), which builds on the rigor and quality of the research.
Primary data is collected through the use of semi-structured interviews. Eleven face-to-face interviews were conducted, and five interviews were conducted with the telephone. Questions were developed beforehand and when they were probed to the interviewees they responded immediately to the questions. The researcher probed questions on the spot which was dependent on the answer of the interviewees. However, the questions that arose during the interview were in line with the research questions and encouraged the interviewee to give an in-depth answer about the topic. The questions that were asked can be found in appendix II. To make sure that the interviewer was not influencing the
16
interviewee in any direction the questions at the beginning of the interview where very broad, where the questions at the end where more specific. This was in order to prevent the interviewer bias (Kvale, 1994). Interviews were conducted in an environment which was not heard by others in order to make sure that the respondents felt comfortable answering the questions. Which helped the interviewees to elaborate on the topic in a reliable environment. In addition, to make sure that the same results appear with other local governments an extensive variation of 16 local governments were picked to elaborate on the topic. This great variation helps the replicability and improves the quality of this research. The interviews were conducted and recorded with an audio recorder. These raw materials where
transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed.
Secondary data is collected by analyzing internal documents and this information is compared to the interviews that were conducted. Almost all governments stated a style of management in their coalition agreement. This management style is compared to the data of the interviews and helped to triangulate the research. Furthermore, one government shared specific leadership roles from a specific workshop with the researcher. This is also compared to the leadership style which is emphasized by the local government (which is unfortunately not provided in the other file).
The concept trustworthiness is further dived into credibility, dependability and transferability (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Credibility is hard to capture in qualitative research, however, with the use of triangulation it is tried to view the data from multiple perspectives, another researcher checked the codes in order to judge the quality of the coding process. Which helped to improve the credibility. Dependability is tried to accomplish according to a peer review of the data of multiple researchers (Rolfe, 2004). Transferability is hard to accomplish but is tried to be as specific as possible in the context of the study and to minimalize influence of the researcher.
Data analysis
The data is analyzed according to the grounded theory approach of Corbin & Straus (2008:163). This is an iterative approach, therefore, the analyzing process started rapidly after the first interview was conducted. The transcribed interviews were coded and to this at an early stage helped to improve the quality during the later interviews. Deductive codes were developed based on the literature and inductive codes showed up during the interviews. The transcribed interviews were analyzed in Atlas.ti and the analyzing process was as followed: first, the transcribed files were red from the beginning till the end. This was an important step to get an indication of how the interviewee felt and what they tried to state during the interview. Some notes were taken to reflect on some important points during the interview. Second, the transcribed interviews were labelled with the codes. The codes and quotes were translated by the researcher from Dutch to English and a description of these particular codes can be found in the other file under the name first-order-codes. This process is according to Corbin & Strauss
17
(2008) called open coding. During the coding process some notes were taken in order to identify some potential relationships. However, the relationships were discovered during the axial coding process (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In this process codes were linked together and categorized into several themes. These categories were linked together into new theory. The overview of this process can be found in the codebook, which is stated in appendix III. This research and the coding process were checked by another researcher and her feedback was incorporated in the codes to improve the rigor and quality of this research (Rolfe,2004).
18
RESULTS
This section highlights the results of the primary and secondary data that is collected. First, the results of the different leadership styles. Second, additional information that emerged during the interviews will be highlighted and third, a summary provides an overview of which leadership style is
emphasized by the respondents. Strong quotations are used in order to prove the strength of the emphasized leadership style during an implementation phase in a public-sector setting.
Authoritarian leadership style
Most change leaders state that they did not emphasize the authoritarian leadership style during a change implementation in a public-sector context. The change leaders highlight this because they taught that this coercing style would not help to implement a change in a proper way. However, when they start implementing the change several leaders lied the focus on the task that has to be
accomplished. TL3 stated: “First, I have to be sure that all tasks of the legislation are correctly implemented in the organization”. When the tasks were implemented, which was according to multiple change leaders easy to accomplish, the focus would be on other leadership styles that are more appropriate. There was a particular situation were the authoritarian leadership style occurred and this was during a merger between multiple governments. Power games occurred during this merger and in this situation, the change leader lied the focus on the authority. An example of this power game was provided by LH1: “When I do a task I will do it my way. Then a game occurs, and I state to the other one: It is fine when you do not agree with me. Nevertheless, then I resign and then you can try it yourself”. This particular example provides an example of the authority and power games during the implementation. Moreover, this was an exception in the results. The characteristics of the authoritarian style were not mentioned plenty by the respondents. Some leaders stated that they sometimes
emphasized the authoritarian leadership style during the implementation. This was on specific occasions and always when they taught that this was necessary to successfully implement the change.
TL4 stated this: “sometimes I had to be very directive because a team needs that. But that is not what I prefer as a leader” and PM2 stated: “On the moment that I have the feeling that we are not going in the right direction. Then I jump in and I will become more directive”. This is a sign that this style only occurs when the implementation goes according to the change leader in the wrong direction. Several change leaders stated that they tried to emphasize the authoritarian leadership style in the past;
however, they taught that is was not effective. The following quote of TL2 highlights this aspect: “It is not because I am the leader that I have to come up with a solution. We quitted with the aspect that a leader takes a decision on its own.”. The authoritarian leadership style is emphasized on some
occasions during the implementation in a public-sector context. However, this style is not dominant by one of the change leaders.
19 Participatory leadership style
The participatory leadership style is the most dominant style for five respondents during the implementation of the change. In addition, aspects of the participatory leadership style are incorporated in the leadership style of every change leader. One of the most important aspects according to the change leaders is the focus on the group. PM1 stated: “We are as local governments specially organized in teams. These teams are based on knowledge of the legislation or expertise. We are looking in depth at what the citizens want. You cannot look at only one legislation anymore, it has to be much wider than that with this decentralization”. In line with the focus on the group is the collaboration with the group. Most change leaders elaborated on the fact that collaboration is an important aspect to them. PA1 highlights: “We have implemented the change based on collaboration.
We have tried to get the best out of it. Really, collaboration is a keyword for us”. The focus lies for most leaders on the group process and on working together with the group. Within this directive change, which legislation is, recipients are empowered to take their own decisions. TL5 states:
“Recipients are empowered to take responsibility for their own decisions” and TL2 highlights “they have a lot of freedom; however, I trust my employees in what they are doing”. With the empowerment of the employees during the implementation, the focus is mostly on the recipients. Which is coherent in an implementation phase because they have to bring about the change. The change leaders state that the focus is on the learning aspect of the recipients. This is facilitated by brainstorm sessions,
coaching, and feedback. TL1 elaborates that “We have had some training with the groups and we have exchanged our knowledge with other local governments. Where we have worked on exchanging experiences with each other”. With a successful implementation, it is necessary for the employees to take ownership over the transition. The change leader should facilitate the ownership transition and the possibility to routinize the change into their daily routines. TL5 highlights this by: “You have to make sure that recipients think about: what does this mean to me? What does it mean for our team and how can I contribute to the situation?”. Ownership transition can be established by involvement of the recipients in an early stage of the implementation. By setting up meetings with the group to make sure that they understand how to bring about the change. LH1 stated: “We organize a lot of meetings, so you make sure that recipients know what is expected of them”. The participatory leadership style is, therefore, a common style during the implementation of a change in the public sector.
Laissez-faire leadership style
The laissez-faire leadership style is not a dominant style during a implementation of a change in a public-sector setting. However, multiple characteristics of the laissez-faire style are emphasized by change leaders. The most important aspect is that the change leaders give a lot of freedom to the recipients. Moreover, this freedom is bounded by political aspects of the local government. TL2 endorses this: “As long as it is a decision that does not harm the government, then it is fine when it is
20
done differently”. Change leaders would like to give a lot of freedom to the recipients. Nonetheless, they are bounded by the mandate of the government. They are in the lead in the decision-making process and the recipients have to cope with this mandate of the city council. An exceptional statement was made by TL5: “However, it might even be legitimate to go beyond these boundaries”. Who elaborates that it might be appropriate to go beyond the boundaries of the mandate and that the recipients have to expand their freedom. This freedom comes with empowerment for the employees.
Some recipients are even decision empowered because they had to deal with specific cases, which demands specific knowledge from the recipients. PM4 stated: “the team is autonomous, they are empowered in the way how they do it. They can have their own decision making”. With this specific knowledge, it could be difficult for a leader to judge and control the work that recipients have to do.
LH1 endorses this: “You are the specialists and have the knowledge about care. I am more process- and financially oriented within the government”. The laissez-faire leadership style is not emphasized in the implementation of a public sector change because most respondents experienced boundaries from the local government. Nevertheless, when the change is implemented, the recipients have to deal with specific public sector circumstances and are specialists in the field. Which leaves space to expand their freedom within these boundaries. The laissez-faire leadership style is partially emphasized during a implementation of a change in the public sector.
Transactional leadership style
The transactional leadership style is not emphasized in a change implementation phase in the public sector. This is specifically the case because the characteristics of a public-sector do not create an environment where they talk about targets. LH1 under scribes: “We do not have targets, that is what you do in private organizations. In local governments, you talk more about the challenges that you face”. Public sector organizations talk more about the societal impact and sometimes set a target towards the improvement of the society. PM3 highlights: “We set goals towards societal impact, however, we are not judged according to meeting these targets”. It is more goal setting and visioning than meeting specific targets. The context of the public-sector does not facilitate this focus. However, local governments have bonuses for exceptional performance. Most local governments do this in the form of financial compensation. IM1 states: “A lot has to be done during the implementation of three new laws in the organization. We have rewarded employees who were involved in this process. We rewarded these employees for their contribution”. Moreover, this is mostly done randomly, and it is subjective when someone gets this bonus. PA3 states: “team leaders decided when an employee gets a bonus. They know how the employees performed”. The organizational culture of all organizations did not encourage it to be rewarded for exceptional individual performance. With this important
organizational culture in all organizations, it is coherent to say that recipients are not monitored and controlled frequently. Most organizations have the data for judging individual performance, however, they do not have a follow-up on the data. They discuss this with recipients when they perform worse
21
compared to direct recipients. Moreover, this is mostly done to help the employee and the focus lies on the learning aspect. PM11 states: “On the base of results we do not judge an employee, I see the results, and when they differ from other recipients then you talk about this with the employee”.
Therefore, the transactional leadership style is not emphasized during a implementation of a change in the public sector.
Transformational leadership style
The transformational leadership style is a dominant leadership style for three change leaders when implementing a change in the public sector. Furthermore, almost all change leaders have some aspects of the transformational leadership in their personal style of leadership during an implementation of a change. Multiple change leaders start with creating a vision of the change. This vision highlights the aspect of the legislation that has to be incorporated into the organization. PM1 states: “We started by creating a vision, where do we want to be, especially where can we make a difference for the citizens”.
The second step is to explicitly formulate goals for the implementation. The vision helps to work toward a specific goal, which in the case of the public sector is an improvement for the citizens. These goals need to be visually represented to the recipients in order to see the greater perspective that they have to achieve. PM1 states: It is about the visualization of the goals. You have to be as concrete as possible. That is the higher goal that we are working for. When you wake an employee up in the middle of the night he should be able to state the goal of what you want to achieve”. It is important for the recipients that they know what the intended effect is of the legislation. What are the underlying assumptions and how this can be achieved. When the vision and the goals are clear, the vision and goals should be operationalized. Setting up meetings where the leader envisions the goals and stimulates recipients to develop a common sense of how this should be operationalized, helps in working toward a common vision. TL1 states: “This is where we want to go, and we discussed the vision with the employees. What are the opportunities and threats? We are trying to get everybody involved by working in small groups and get more support of the employees”. By participating in these groups, the change leader tries to influence, coach, motivate and connect people towards the goals and vision. However, it was not always possible to commit every recipient toward the vision. Sometimes the change leader has to make a difficult decision in order to not lose the overall perspective. TL4 states: “I had to let multiple employees go because they could not move towards the transition. That is where you have to stand for as well”. These aspects fit into the transformational leadership style and multiple respondents elaborate that this leadership style fits decent in an implementation of an organizational change in the public sector.
22 Combination of leadership styles
The next leadership style emerged during the interviews and is an important aspect of this research.
Eight respondents state that they use a combination of multiple leadership styles during an implementation of a change and that it depends on the situation which leadership style is most effective. The group is divided into two subgroups. The first group directly states that it is situational dependent which leadership style is most effective during the implementation. The second group is using a mix of several leadership styles during the implementation and indirectly state that it depends on the situation which leadership style is most effective.
The first group, who directly state that it is situational dependent which leadership style they think is most effective elaborates on reasons why they think it is situational dependent. First, they think it lies in the context that they operate in. TL4 states: “One team is very autonomous, where the other team who works in a different context needs a different approach”. Second, it can be dependent upon the size of the team. TL4 states: “I have one team which has many recipients, this needs a different type of leadership than when it is a very small team”. Third, it can also be because the history of the team and the organizational culture are different. PA2 elaborates that: “In our government, it might be team dependent. That lies in the history and culture of that particular team”. Fourth, another reason for the situational dependent leadership style lies in the individual learning of the recipients. PM2 states: “It starts with making contact and getting a connection with the individual. When you are connected to the individual than you might use different styles to influence that person. It might either be on focused on power, it might also be focused on reasoning and convincing”. Fifth, it also may lie in the
leadership traits that a leader possesses. PA3 states: “The leadership style differs for each team leader that we have. It is dependent upon the person that is the leader of the team”.
The second group indirectly state that it depends upon the situation which leadership style they think is most effective. It was not possible to determine a dominant style for these respondents and that is why the assumption is that they emphasize a mix of leadership styles. An overview of which combination of leadership styles both groups emphasize is provided in table 2.
Table 2. Mix of leadership styles Code Authoritarian
Leadership style
Participatory Leadership style
Laissez-faire Leadership style
Transformational Leadership Style
PA2
Ö Ö
LH1
Ö Ö Ö
TL3
Ö Ö Ö
23
TL4
Ö Ö Ö
PM2
Ö Ö Ö
PA4
Ö Ö Ö
PM3
Ö Ö Ö Ö
PM4
Ö Ö Ö Ö
Overview results of emphasized leadership styles
An overview of the dominant leadership styles and aspects of the additional leadership style that the respondents emphasize is provided in table 3. As can be seen is the mix of multiple styles the most dominant leadership style, followed by the participatory leadership style, and finally is the
transformational leadership style dominant by three respondents during a implementation of a change in a public-sector context. Aspects of the laissez-faire leadership style and the authoritarian leadership style were combined with the dominant- or mix of leadership styles.
Table 3. Overview results of the emphasized leadership style during the change implementation
Code: Dominant leadership style: Aspects of:
PA1 Participatory leadership style Transformational- and laissez-faire leadership style PM1 Transformational leadership style Participatory leadership style
PA2 Mix of multiple leadership styles See table 2
IM1 Transformational leadership style Participatory leadership style TL1 Participatory leadership style Transformational leadership style TL2 Participatory leadership style Transformational leadership style
LH1 Mix of multiple leadership styles See table 2
PA3 Participatory leadership style Laissez-faire leadership style
TL3 Mix of multiple leadership styles See table 2
PM1 Participatory leadership style Transformational leadership style
TL4 Mix of multiple leadership styles See table 2
PM2 Mix of multiple leadership styles See table 2
PA4 Mix of multiple leadership styles Participatory leadership TL5 Transformational leadership style Participatory leadership style
PM3 Mix of multiple leadership styles See table 2
PM4 Mix of multiple leadership styles See table 2
Additional findings
During the interviews, some data indicated that the leadership style was influenced by the city council, which emphasized a certain style to the administrative staff. Multiple respondents state that the
leadership style that the city council emphasizes is the authoritarian leadership style, and this bothers
24
the respondents. PA2 states: I think that the leadership style is top-down when there is no trust. The top-down style is more from the city council to me, instead of from the organization to the team leader”. In addition, TL4 highlighted: “the leaders of the city council are very directive.” This authoritarian style of management is not in line with the style which they formulated in the coalition agreement. There they stated that is has to be a participatory leadership style. Which makes the style incongruent in how they formulated it and what they show in practice.
25
DISCUSSION
Summary findingsThe aim of this research was to find which leadership style is most emphasized by change leaders during the implementation of a change in a public-sector context. The most important finding of this research is that change leaders in the public sector mostly enhance a mix of multiple leadership styles.
Most change leaders combine multiple leadership styles into one unique leadership style that fits the internal organization and external environment that they operate in. However, it can be seen that the participatory leadership style is emphasized during the implementation of a change in the public sector. Participants indicated five times that participatory leadership was their dominant leadership style and it was also used by other participant that used in their mix of leadership styles. An explanation of this phenomenon is that during the implementation the recipients are the most important asset. They have to bring about the change and have to take ownership of the transition.
When they do not implement it in a decent way the change could be labeled as a failure. In addition, the context of the public sector is one where they want to improve the society. This characteristic is already leading towards a participatory leadership style. Furthermore, the transformational leadership style is also relevant during an implementation of a change in the public sector. In the transformational leadership, it is all about inspiring, gaining commitment, and motivating the recipients to bring about the change. This motivational and inspiring aspect might be the reason why managers choose to emphasize this particular leadership style. In this style, change leaders try to motivate the recipients in what the need is to change and what the goal is what they want to achieve. The overall goal is an important aspect in the public-sector because it could be the reason why most recipients work for the public sector. To conclude our findings, a research framework can be found in figure 2: Where can be seen that the participatory- and transformational leadership are emphasized during the implementation of a change in the public sector. The transformational- and participatory leadership were also linked together because of the overlapping codes and complementary aspects of both styles. Furthermore, the transformational- and participatory approach were also linked to the combination of leadership styles.
This shows that it is also possible that the styles are interrelated during the implementation of a change in the public sector.
26 Link with the literature & theoretical implications
According to (Chin-Yi, 2017), The authoritarian leadership style leads to a negative organizational performance. Which indicates that managers do not emphasize the authoritarian leadership according to this negative performance. In addition, Burnes & Todnem By (2012) stated that the authoritarian leadership style is neglected in situations of organizational change. This research confirms the view that managers do not emphasize the authoritarian leadership style during a implementation of a change in the public sector. Some characteristics of the authoritarian leadership style are incorporated into the different mix of multiple leadership styles, however, most respondents stated that this style is not appropriate in getting recipients committed to the change. This extends the research of Aquino et al.
(1999) who stated that authoritarian leadership does not motivate the recipient to work significantly harder for the organization. This leads to confirmation of the first proposition:
“Managers will not emphasize the authoritarian leadership style when implementing a change in a public-sector context.”
The participatory leadership style is according to De Poel et al. (2012) an appropriate way to get the commitment from the employees to the change. In addition, Youssef (2000) stated that recipients are
27
committed to the organization, experience a higher level of job satisfaction, and have a higher performance when the leader emphasizes a participatory leadership style. Which could implicate that this leadership style will be emphasized by practitioners. This research confirms that change leaders emphasize a participatory leadership style during the implementation of change in the public sector.
Which is in line with the research of Maddock (2011), who acknowledges the impact of participatory leadership in the public sector. The focus on collaboration and gaining commitment make the fact that managers choose to emphasize the participatory leadership style. However, this research also
highlights that it is situational dependent which leadership style should be emphasized. Which could be the participatory leadership style during the implementation, nevertheless, this has to be fitting to the situation which the change leader faces. This is a confirmation of the research of Newman Rubin (2014) who state that there is no one-size-fits-all leadership style. Due to the fact that the participatory leadership style is occurring in all mixes of leadership styles and five respondents who had this style as dominant, it can be argued that change leaders in the public context emphasize a participatory leadership style during an implementation of a change. The following adjusted proposition can be stated:
“Managers emphasize a participatory leadership style (in a collaboration with other styles) when implementing a change in a public-sector context.”
The expectation was that the laissez-faire leadership style was not the dominant leadership style during the implementation of a change. Vinger & Cilliers (2006) state that managers do not emphasize the laissez-faire leadership style during organizational change. This research shows that some aspects of the laissez-faire leadership style are incorporated in the mix of leadership styles or are partially emphasized next to a dominant leadership style. Especially the aspects of the freedom with certain boundaries and empowerment of the employees are visible in the mix of leadership styles during the implementation, which is not in line with Vinger & Cilliers (2006). However, the laissez-faire was never the most dominant leadership style during the implementation of change in a public-sector context. Therefore, the following adjusted proposition can be stated:
“Managers partially emphasize aspects of the laissez-faire leadership style in combination with other leadership styles when implementing a change in a public-sector context.”
The characteristics of the transactional leadership style do not fit the public sector. Change leaders state that people working for the government do not work with targets. They work for the values of the citizens and not for bonuses. This is in line with the research of (Maddock, 2012) who states that people in the public sector work for values. In addition, implementing the laws is seen as an easy transition with specific goals. However, the process of implementing the laws was fuzzy and complex.
28
It was not possible during the implementation to provide specific goals for specific tasks. Therefore, the following adjusted proposition can be stated:
“Managers do not emphasize a transactional leadership style when implementing a change in a public-sector context when the change is top-down introduced by a higher authority.”
According to the theory of Sun & Henderson (2017), there is partial proof that managers emphasize the transformational leadership style in a public administration setting. This research confirms that some managers emphasize the transformational leadership style during a implementation of a change.
Several respondents stated that they use aspects of the transformational leadership style. However, the transformational leadership style was not the most dominant style of most respondents. It could be therefore not be confirmed that they emphasize the style in all settings. This research stated that the strength of the transformational leadership style lies in combination with other leadership styles, especially with the participatory leadership style. Which is in line with the research of Newman Rubin (2014). This has led to the following adjusted proposition:
“Managers use aspects of the transformational leadership style (in a collaboration with other styles) when implementing a change in a public-sector context.”
As stated above the most important finding is that there is no-one-size-fits-all leadership style. Most respondents state that they use aspects of multiple leadership styles and incorporate this into their own unique leadership style. Newman & Rubin (2014) confirmed that it is the case that there is no-one- size-fits-all leadership style. Furthermore, Ketter (2009) states that leadership is moving toward a new era by stating that there is no-one-size-fits-all leadership model. According to this author, there is no best leadership style for all leaders and recipients. This is in line with the results of this research, which also states that there is no-one-size-fits-all leadership style. This has led to the following proposition:
“Managers combine multiple leadership styles during the implementation of a change in the public sector, they fit the leadership style to the situation that they face”
Limitations & future research
This study has several limitations first, this study is conducted in a setting were most change leaders were working in the social domain. Specific institutions require specific roles and it can be stated that the participatory leadership style is grounded in the social domain. This can be a reason why the participatory leadership is (partially) emphasized by all respondents. Second, is the fact that most respondents were females. Although, the results are compared with their male counterparts and not
