This article considers the nature and role of leadership in three ideal types of public management innovation: politically‐led responses to crises, organizational turnarounds…
Abstract
This article considers the nature and role of leadership in three ideal types of public management innovation: politically‐led responses to crises, organizational turnarounds engineered by newly‐appointed agency heads, and bottom‐up innovations initiated by front‐line public servants and middle managers. Quantitative results from public sector innovation awards indicate that bottom‐up innovation occurs much more frequently than conventional wisdom would indicate. Effective political leadership in a crisis requires decision making that employs a wide search for information, broad consultation, and skeptical examination of a wide range of options. Successful leadership of a turnaround requires an agency head to regain political confidence, reach out to stakeholders and clients, and to convince dispirited staff that change is possible and that their efforts to do better will be supported. Political leaders and agency heads can create a supportive climate for bottom‐up innovation by consulting staff, instituting formal awards and informal recognition for innovators, promoting innovators, protecting innovators from control‐oriented central agencies, and publicly championing bottom‐up innovations that have proven successful and have popular appeal.
Details
Keywords
The public sector has traditionally been considered inhospitable to innovation, particularly innovations initiated by middle managers and front‐line staff. Unlike the private…
Abstract
The public sector has traditionally been considered inhospitable to innovation, particularly innovations initiated by middle managers and front‐line staff. Unlike the private sector, the public sector is characterized by asymmetric incentives that punish unsuccessful innovations much more severely than they reward successful ones, by the absence of venture capital to seed creative problem solving, and by adverse selection by innovative individuals against public service careers. A growing body of evidence based on applications to innovation awards reveals that, despite this inhospitable environment, frontline public servants and middle managers are responsible for many innovations. In addition, some public sector organizations have consistently produced a large number of innovations. Draws on this evidence to suggest ways of enhancing public sector organizations’ capacity for innovation.
Details
Keywords
Lawrence R. Jones, Kuno Schedler and Riccardo Mussari
So much has been written about public management and administrative reform in the past decade that in developing the approach for this book we wondered whether there was anything…
Abstract
So much has been written about public management and administrative reform in the past decade that in developing the approach for this book we wondered whether there was anything new to say. As is the case for most professionals working in our field, we recognize that the topic of New Public Management has been worked over very thoroughly. New public management is no longer “new” and, therefore, we believe in the future it is better to use the words public management change or innovation when speaking and writing about emerging initiatives in the public sector. And, as most in our field also understand, the topics receiving significant attention at present are networking and a set of issues related to what is termed “governance.” Research on networking has been on-going since at least the 1970s. Many issues related to networks and networking remain unresolved so that continued dialogue in this area is constructive. Renewed attention to governance (versus government) appears to have emerged in the public management dialogue and literature in the past five years or so.