Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of some pressing but under-researched aspects of public leadership. Ten propositions about public leadership are set out and these are intended to be thought-provoking and even controversial in order to stimulate researchers to design research which addresses key theoretical and practical questions about leadership in the public sphere. They will also help practitioners navigate an increasingly complex leadership context.

This invited essay uses ten propositions about public leadership, selected from three sources: the leadership literature, the author’s own research and from collaborative research discussions with academics, policy makers and practitioners.

The first proposition argues for distinguishing public leadership from public service leadership given that the former is about leadership of the public sphere. Other propositions concern context; purpose; conflict and contest at the heart of public leadership; leadership with political astuteness; dual leadership; leadership projections; fostering resilience; leadership, authority and legitimacy; and the challenge to researchers to use research designs which reflect the complexity and dynamism of public leadership.

While this essay is primarily addressed to researchers, there are many ideas and concepts which practising leaders will find insightful and useful in their work.

This essay draws on deep experience in undertaking high-quality academic research about public leadership which draws from and feeds into policy and practice. It utilises organisational psychology, public management and political science to create synergies in order to enhance the understanding of public leadership.

Learning and knowledge management (KM) are important though complex elements of multi‐organisational collaborations. Leadership is often considered to be critical in shaping the outcomes of effective collaboration, but what particular form should this take to tackle the particular challenges faced by learning and KM? To what extent do any of the existing models and theories of leadership address learning and KM perspectives? What are the key issues that demand the attention of leaders and leadership processes? This paper draws on a substantial body of disparate and often unconnected literature to explore these complex and under‐researched questions of theoretical and practical enquiry in a public sector context. It concludes with an assessment of the main leadership challenges, the potential of different leadership approaches and some suggestions as to future areas of research.

After examining the nature and significance of ‘integrative’ leadership, a distinction is drawn between five different formal leadership roles. It is suggested that they tend to be associated with different kinds of problem (‘wicked’, ‘tame’ and ‘crisis’). The paper goes on to consider (1) the different leadership competencies required (political, strategic and operational), and evidence of a cause‐effect relationship between an engaging style of leadership and productivity, and (2) evidence of the impact of leadership behaviour on others. Finally, the paper advocates a modified version of the model of leadership development proposed by Bennington and Hartley (2009).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the bibliometric characteristics of papers published in a high impact journal World Psychiatry during the period 2006-2015.

The data for this study were obtained from Thompson Reuters’ “Web of Science”. Publication details were extracted for the journal title “World Psychiatry”. This study covers authorship patterns, annual growth, impact factors, document types, top contributors, international collaborations, highly cited papers and keyword analyses. Software programs such as “Histcite”, “intcoll.exe”, “Pajek” and “Leximancer” were used to analyze the publications.

More than half of the publications were by editorial materials and number of publications from low and middle income countries is very low when compared to proportion of editorial board members. Almost 40 per cent of papers came from the USA and editorial board members had considerable number of papers. Kings College London led the institutions.

Analysis of high impact journals in the field of psychiatry has been carried out in a very few. Hence, the results of this study will be useful to compare with other journals.

The purpose of this study is to gain a broad understanding of public perceptions of the police and violence.

This study uses survey data collected from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,223) by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago. Descriptive, bivariate correlational and multivariate regression analyses of the data were conducted.

Descriptive analyses show the populace is equally concerned about the police use of violence and violence against the police, but bivariate analyses indicate the two types of concern are unrelated, and multivariate regression analyses show that few variables impact both types of concern. Consistent with prior research, young people and racial/ethnic minorities reported greater concerns about police violence than did older adults and Whites, yet neither age nor race/ethnicity impacted concerns about violence against the police. Perceived mistreatment by the police was the only variable which impacted perceptions of police violence and violence against the police in a consistent and cogent manner.

This study is the first to examine public perceptions of the police as both the agents and victims of violence. The results indicate public perceptions of the police are more complex than was previously believed.

This chapter establishes the conceptual and analytic framework for the book. It relates not only to much of the existing work in evolutionary and institutional economics, but also to work in cultural science and cultural semiotics domains as well as in media convergence and transmedia studies. The central concept it first deploys is ‘innovation systems’ as applied in national, regional, international and sectoral contexts. It then builds on the general theory of economic evolution by Kurt Dopfer and Jason Potts and reviews the tools this theory provides to carry out a meso-level analysis of industries co-innovating and converging. It then proposes a new concept – ‘cross-innovation’ – to refer to the emergence of new structures and ‘rules’ at the boundaries of existing industries.

The major purpose is to provide a philosophic basis for the study and practice of educational administration. An explicit assumption is that logical, propositional thought is a desirable prelude to action. Reason, which is defined as an organic harmony of impulses, is related to administration via three levels of discourse: 1) philosophic values (WHY), 2) hypothetico‐deductive theory (HOW), and 3) observed behavior (WHAT). The first level is defined by the discursive thought of the moral philosopher Santayana. His definition of rational ethics provides a foundation for administrative‐organizational theory in general, and the concept of bureaucracy in particular. The second level includes Weber's pure‐type structural model that has rationality as its dominant characteristic. The third level, administrative practice, or praxeology, is portrayed as a derivative of rational thought. Current approaches, including systems analysis and program budgeting, are rooted in the union of the logic of Santayana's ethics and Weber's structural model for human groupings.

This chapter presents a model of innovation in the public elementary schooling system by drawing on ongoing work on an “Educational Innovations Bank” in India, which seeks to make available a freely accessible forum for innovative teachers and a grassroots innovations resource for administrators. How do some teachers in government elementary schools, working in contexts of socioeconomic and educational deprivation, achieve their educational goals in spite of facing the same constraints as thousands of other teachers? What lessons do they offer for policy reform? The answers draw on the social entrepreneurship and workplace innovation literature to first locate the incentive for innovation in the social value that socio-educationally entrepreneurial and innovative behavior of teachers creates. Next, an examination is presented of how this social value leads to learning for an identity of competence, which in turn provides an incentive for further educational innovation. Finally, the evidence is presented to argue for policy entrepreneurship and a formal framework to help in the diffusion, adoption, and adaptation of both the enabling innovations that result from socio-educational entrepreneurship and the in-school or in-class educational innovations. Such a “bottom-up,” peer-learning-based approach to innovations that also “improve” provides a unique way of visualizing educational reform in resource-constrained public educational systems.

Spontaneous inter-organizational learning differs from organizational learning in that the latter relies on conflict occurring within the organization prior to action being taken. Inter-organizational learning suggests that organizations have the opportunity to learn from the experiences of others and proactively establish policies and regulations either preventing or lessening the chances that a similar situation will occur in their organization. The description "spontaneous" is proposed to differentiate serendipitous and intentional opportunities for learning. A public federal level case study is presented in support of spontaneous interorganizational learning.