short essay

Theory to Practice

Montgomery Van Wart is professor at

California State University, San Bernardino.

He is also a senior research fellow at the

University of Leuven and visiting professor

at Rutgers University. His books include

Leadership in Public Organizations

(2nd ed., M. E. Sharpe, 2012), Dynamics

of Leadership in Public Service (2nd

ed., M. E. Sharpe, 2011), and Changing

Public Sector Values (Garland, 1998). He

has published numerous articles in Public

Administration Review and elsewhere

on administrative leadership. He is associate

editor of Public Performance and

Management Review.

E-mail: [email protected]

Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary Challenges of Leaders 553

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 73, Iss. 4, pp. 553–565. © 2013 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12069.

Donald P. Moynihan, Editor

Montgomery Van Wart
California State University, San Bernardino

Leadership theories and the academic literature can some-
times seem diffi cult for practitioners to understand because
of complex conceptualizations, obscure terms, and its
enormousness. Yet taken as a whole, the literature makes
a great deal of sense and has much to off er. Indeed, the
truths are often quite simple, elegant, and straightforward.
Th e purpose of this article is to review the major fi ndings
of the organizational leadership literature and to identify
the important overarching insights, specifi cally those of
particular importance to today’s leaders in administrative
positions in the public sector, where an evolving context
constantly reconfi gures age-old challenges.

Leadership theories, and the academic literature related to those theories, can sometimes seem diffi cult for practitioners to understand because
of complex conceptualizations, obscure terms, and
their sheer numbers. Taken as a whole, however, the
literature makes a great deal of sense and has much to
off er. Indeed, the truths are often quite simple, ele-
gant, and straightforward. Th e purpose of this article
is to review the major fi ndings in the literature on
organizational leadership and to identify the overarch-
ing insights, especially those of particular importance
to contemporary leaders in administrative positions
in the public sector because of their diff erent context
(Anderson 2010; Hooijberg and Choi 2001).

In this article, we will concentrate on leaders in the
public sector with career administrative positions,
generally occupying civil service positions. Th at is, the
focus is organizational leadership in the public sector
rather than political or policy-
making leadership. For the
purpose of this article, we will
address leadership at all levels,
from supervisors to executives,
as well as leadership as a process
rather than a function solely of
individuals.

After a discussion of the challenge of defi ning leader-
ship, the fi rst purpose of this article is to provide a

frame for what is constant in leadership and what is
new in leadership. Th e second purpose of the article
is to present fi ve well-recognized theories of leader-
ship, along with their bodies of related literature (Van
Wart 2012; Yukl 2002). For the sake of simplicity,
those overarching theories of leadership are labeled as
follows:

1. Classical management and role theory
2. Transactional leadership theory
3. Transformational leadership theory
4. Horizontal or collaborative leadership theory
5. Ethical and critical leadership theory

Each of these broad theories includes a variety of
valid theoretical domains and perspectives.1 Also,
each of the theories of leadership has been associated
with major research eras or heydays, but all of them
have continued to evolve and to be used in research,
education, and training as other theories have risen
to prominence. In this article, we will focus both on
the latest research fi ndings and on those aspects of the
literature that have best endured the test of time.

We will explain a broad lesson in each of the fi ve
leadership theories, then off er two to four insights.
All are widely agreed-upon insights from researchers
in the topic area. In the main, taking advantage of
the lessons of the leadership literature takes an ability
to use one’s talents eff ectively, to learn from both
good and bad experiences, to thoroughly understand
one’s current situation, and to establish a sense of

character and competence
that others trust—no small
order (Phillips and Loy 2008).
Understanding the lessons of
leadership is important in order
that those aspiring to leadership
may identify their strengths
and weaknesses and improve

themselves, as well as leadership in their organiza-
tions. Nonetheless, understanding alone is only the
fi rst step to eff ective leadership, and that fi rst step is,

Lessons from Leadership Th eory and the Contemporary
Challenges of Leaders

Th e focus is organizational
leadership in the public sector
rather than political or policy-

making leadership.

554 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013

(Rost 1991). While this type of analysis can be highly enlightening,
it can easily overwhelm the practitioner and even other academics.
Much leadership research works in very specifi c leadership situations
that are carefully controlled so that the problem of excessive uni-
versalism is avoided and the innumerable situations studied provide
a highly nuanced picture for a specifi c area such as administrative
leadership. However, both the narrowness of the study and the
terminology of the academic style make it diffi cult for practitioners
to use, which is reason for a bridging article like this.

Th e answer for practitioners is often to decide what perspective they
want to adopt for their concrete purpose and be explicit about the
assumptions adopted. For example, is the purpose of study to help
individuals build better leadership skills from a relatively managerial
perspective, mentoring aspect, or organizational change approach?
Or is the purpose of study to examine how systems function eff ec-
tively or how they are integrated into the overall environment? Th at
is, does one want to adopt the perspective that individuals add up
to systems of leadership, or that leadership is a system composed of
individuals? Th e diff erence is not trivial. Th is is the level of analy-
sis issue. Another particularly important aspect of leadership is
whether one is more interested in explaining how leadership is (i.e.,
descriptive) or should be (i.e., prescriptive). Still another example of
defi nition and focus decisions is the level of activity analyzed, such
as tasks, behaviors, or style patterns, which may make an enormous
diff erence depending on whether one is adopting an overarching
leadership philosophy or providing contextualized feedback to a line
supervisor.

Th is article provides a relatively instrumental framework by look-
ing at fi ve levels of analysis that are roughly equivalent to the fi ve

theories described earlier: getting results,
leading followers, leading organizations,
leading systems, and leading with values. It
provides both descriptive analysis of leader-
ship practices and trends but also extends the
prescriptive recommendations of best practice
from both eff ectiveness and value-based per-
spectives. Th ere are other equally valid ways of
examining the fi eld of administrative leader-
ship (e.g., through power, gender, culture,
various postmodern and critical perspectives,
etc.) that space does not allow.

The Old and the New in Leadership Theory
Leadership is constantly changing because of new contexts, tools,
conceptualizations, and concerns, as illustrated by the diff ering
situational demands on leadership. While abstract principles may
remain consistent, the more practical and operational aspects gener-
ally vary substantially and are vitally important for leaders if they
are to lead eff ectively. Sometimes genuinely new aspects of organi-
zational life develop; for example, communication patterns have
been fundamentally diff erent in the last quarter century because
of the Internet. Leadership and communication are inextricably
intertwined, so the types of communication skills that leaders need
change, as well as their concomitant responsibilities (Kouzmin and
Korac-Kakabadse 2000). Sometimes the practices in organizations
shift substantially over time. For a variety of reasons, including the
education of the workforce, the rise of technology, and the thinning

generally, the easiest. Mastering the many lessons of leadership is
challenging, but those hoping to become eff ective leaders should
be able to meet the challenges and enjoy doing so.

The Challenge of Defi ning Leadership: Where You Sit
Is How You Defi ne It
Everyone feels that they know leadership “when they see it,” and
everyone can talk about it impressionistically. Trading impressions,
however, ultimately is not very useful beyond superfi cial discus-
sions because leadership is a complex set of processes that is diffi cult
to perform successfully. Further, there are fundamentally diff erent
types of leadership, such as social movement leadership, political
leadership, and organizational leadership. Even when examin-
ing organizational leadership, the diff erences between underlying
ideal models of private and public sector leadership are signifi cant,
though they share much in common, too. Th us, to be able to dis-
cuss leadership coherently with others and to be able to use it eff ec-
tively for hiring, development, promotion, evaluation, and a host
of other pragmatic functions, it is necessary to make fundamental
distinctions, expose assumptions, defi ne terms, and have some basic
mental models of leadership that are context specifi c.

Simplistic defi nitions of leadership abound in “how-to” leadership
books in corporate, political, social, and administrative contexts. A
common perspective in such books is to defi ne leadership by one
important aspect, such as the ability to infl uence others, the ability
to change organizations, the ability to provide a vision, the ability to
create consensus to move forward, the use of emotional intelligence
(Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee 2002), or even the use of common
sense (Cain 1999). A strength of this approach is the focus that it
brings to a complex concept and, when done well, the valid insights
that the reader may be able to apply to his or
her understanding and context. A weakness of
this approach is that it inevitably omits many
leadership roles and may even belittle other
perspectives (Kotter 1990; Zaleznik 1977).

A second approach is to provide a list of
important factors, frequently embedded in
a philosophy that is associated with a spe-
cifi c individual or context. Examples of such
broad-based list approaches include leadership
of Marines, of warriors (e.g., Logan, King,
and Fischer-Wright 2008; Roberts 1985), of
the approach of individual corporate chief executive offi cers and
other executives, and so on. A strength of this approach is the more
holistic perspective and, when well done, the examination of the
principles undergirding leadership. A weakness of the laundry-list
approach is that it is diffi cult to tell how much the specialized con-
text is really typical or generalizable, and thus the reader must make
a large leap to his or her situation. Indeed, both the focused and list
approaches tend to be highly universalistic across sectors, industries,
levels of leadership, and situations.

When academics need to come to terms with the complexity of
defi ning leadership, the problem is often reversed as they try to be
comprehensive or situationally precise. Th ey can easily spend an
entire chapter cataloging defi nitions (Bass 2008) or assert that the
221 extant defi nitions that one researcher found were all defi cient

Th is article provides a relatively
instrumental framework by

looking at fi ve levels of analy-
sis that are roughly equivalent
to the fi ve theories described

earlier: getting results, leading
followers, leading organizations,

leading systems, and leading
with values.

Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary Challenges of Leaders 555

We now turn to the new challenges facing leaders in the context
of broader, enduring patterns of best practices, especially as those
practices have been developing in public sector organizations.

Management Theory: Effective Leaders Understanding
and Accepting the Complexity and Demands
of Their Roles
Management theory is based on the idea that organizations are
systems in which desired goals are achieved through the wise use of
human, fi nancial, technological, and natural resources (Fayol 1930).
Eff ective management requires planning, organizing, staffi ng, direct-
ing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting, among other things
(Gulick and Urwick 1937).

Leaders are not the only factor infl uencing organizational success,
follower happiness, and constituent satisfaction; however, leaders
are generally signifi cant factors and, sometimes, the most important
factor (e.g., Fernandez 2005; Hennessey 1998; Kaiser, Hogan, and
Craig 2008; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008). For example,
in a study using 30,000 respondents, Dull (2010) demonstrated
the strong relationship between trusted leadership and satisfac-
tion, perceived performance, and a sense of freedom in expressing
opinions. Th e literature also points out, however, that leadership
is often romanticized or exaggerated in many circumstances, even
when leaders are perceived to play relatively strong roles (e.g., Kets
de Vries 1988; Waldman et al. 2001); that administrative leaders,
in the public sector in particular, are severely constrained from
making dramatic diff erences (Kaufman 1981; Van Wart 2012); and
that change and organizational success depend on many factors
beyond the leaders themselves (Fernandez, Cho, and Perry 2010).
Leaders have the responsibility of dividing and coordinating work
in complex systems in which distractions, systems deterioration, and
external challenges are constant, even in stable times (Mintzberg
1973). Unstable times and crises increase distractions and challenges
and often require a completely diff erent set of skills (Boin and
Otten 1996; Wheatley 2006). Th e variety of needs and expectations
of followers is enormous and almost insatiable, so ensuring that
well-trained and top-performing followers do not leave because of
poor leadership at any level is important (Buckingham and Coff man
1999). Constituent satisfaction is ever changing, so leaders need to
ensure that those needs are constantly being monitored for quality
and adjustment (Moynihan 2004). Th ere are some important corol-
laries to the fact that leadership is important and challenging.

Leaders strongly expect results. One measure of the challenge of
leadership is in the harsh assessments that we give our leaders. If
leadership were easy, more would be perceived as effective leaders.
Many are perceived as effective administrative leaders, but few as
exceptional leaders. For example, in the data on administrative
leaders in the U.S. federal system, one study showed that the overall
average for leaders was 3.42 on a fi ve-point scale, with fi ve being
high, and with transactional skills being higher than
transformational skills, although followers wanted the reverse
(Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008). Direct supervisors did much
better, at about a 64 percent average rating, but federal executives
hovered around 50 percent (OPM 2008, 2011).

Leadership is diffi cult because leaders play many major roles,
with each role entailing its own competencies, requirements, and

of management in recent decades, organizations use more teams
and have tried more to devolve work as much as possible, includ-
ing coproducing with clients in some cases (Denis, Langley, and
Sergi 2012). Th e fact that leaders lead “fl atter” organizations is
an example of how changing organizations subtly but profoundly
aff ect leadership. Sometimes there are ideological shifts in society
that aff ect notions of how systems should be organized. Since the
early 1980s, the emphasis on increasing types of public services to
compete, compare, and outsource has been immense, and, more
recently, many academics and practitioners have been focusing
on the importance of networking and collaborating in contempo-
rary society. While “hierarchical” skills are not going to disappear
(Gabris and Ihrke 2007), the change in emphasis caused by the new
paradigmatic shifts in the public service are enormous (Heifetz,
Grashow, and Linsky 2009). Sometimes what is new in situational
leadership infl uences the changes in constraints and demands on
leaders in particular contexts; for example, leaders dealing with
disasters face challenges very diff erent from those trying to motivate
others to prepare for disasters (Van Wart and Kapucu 2011).

So, in our times, what primary challenges must public leaders face,
and which of those challenges will shape our research agenda and
the lessons that researchers seek to craft? Th ere are numerous lists
of overarching, contemporary challenges aff ecting public organiza-
tions and their leaders (e.g., Abramson, Breul, and Kamensky 2006;
Cortada et al. 2008; Saner 2001), from which we can discern a
number of trends aff ecting public sector leadership, often in ways
quite diff erent from their private sector counterparts; for example,
while the balance sheets of corporations are at all-time highs, the
stress on public sector organizations around the world is greater
than at any time since the end of World War II. While the phenom-
enon of organizational decline is not new in the public sector, and
while many important lessons are to be learned from that decline
(Bozeman 2010), the Great Recession and the continuing restruc-
turing of our political economy will certainly provide a unique
constellation of factors dissimilar to those that public sector leaders
have confronted in many decades (Pandey 2010). Other challenges
include the marketization of public agencies, heightened employee
cynicism, pension reform, acquisition of new virtual management
skills, and the widespread loss of social consensus, among others.
Table 1 provides a summary of some of the specifi c situational chal-
lenges facing public sector managers today.

Table 1 Contemporary Challenges for Administrative Leadership in the Public
Sector

Leadership Focus Some of the Contemporary Challenges

Leading for
results

• Long-term fi scal stress, need for tough choices
• Globalization and the penetration of higher levels of com-

petition and market values
Leading

followers
• Increased cynicism of employees
• Reduced resources to compensate (e.g., reduced benefi ts

packages)
Leading

organizations
• Technological revolution and the need for virtual manage-

ment and leadership skills
• Redesigning organizations and systems to fi t dramatically

different public demands
Leading systems • Challenges of team-based organizational structures

• Unraveling social consensus
Leading with

values
• Lack of trust in political and administrative systems
• Confusion about which paradigm to follow (e.g., hierarchi-

cal, market-based, or collaborative)

556 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013

and more training in service and have a greater need for worker and
leader continuity, but the new needs fl y in the face of organizational
and demographic trends that discourage loyalty and long-term
relationships and, understandably, contributing to complaints from
hiring managers that good applicants cannot be found despite large
candidate pools because of the breadth of experience and the
technical abilities now commonly required.

Transactional Leadership Theory: Leaders Need
to Use a Variety of Styles with Followers
as They Pursue Multiple Goals
Transactional leadership theories have focused on the daily inter-
actions of leaders and their followers. Th e theories emphasize the
operational level, so these theories have tended to be used among
supervisors, but their use among executives is not inappropriate.

Good leaders need to be sure that followers have what they need
to do the job: direction and training, encouragement and
support, participation, achievement-oriented motivation, and
independence after they reach high levels of competence. Based on
expectancy theory (Vroom 1964), leaders need to facilitate the
basics of employee motivation so that followers have the ability to
do the job, the belief that they will succeed, and the feeling that
their efforts will be worthwhile. A number of researchers have
focused on the various needs resulting in differing styles. Hersey and
Blanchard (1972) asserted that leaders need to pay close attention to
the developmental and related psychological states of followers as
they mature and adjust their styles accordingly. They asserted that
workers need and want training and structure when they are new
and inexperienced, therefore making them receptive to a directing
style. As soon as the workers have gained some knowledge and
experience, supervisors will be able to engage in discussions with
them in order to enhance worker understanding and help them
continue to improve. Such discussions lend themselves to a coaching
style. When workers become relatively competent and able to solve
problems on their own, the ideal style is supporting because it
allows substantial freedom with minimal oversight. When workers
are reliably competent and almost entirely self-directed, the ideal
style is delegating. Hersey and Blanchard have come under a good
deal of criticism for their simplicity and lack of empirical support
(e.g., Yammarino et al. 2005), but their development of a logical
series of leader styles was important, and their model continues to
be popular in supervisory training.

A similar but more sophisticated way of looking at followers’ needs
is to emphasize the leader’s role in creating clear paths for followers
in achieving joint goals (House 1996; House and Mitchell 1974).
Based on contingencies, leader will choose to use the styles that will
help his or her followers succeed; for example, in order to avoid
discouraging followers, leaders may use “directive” leadership to

compensate for or to correct one or a combi-
nation of such administrative or operational
weaknesses as unclear job descriptions, a lack
of instructions, or overlapping or unclearly
delineated job responsibilities. It is a leader’s
responsibility to ensure that the requirements
of the job are clearly presented. Th e research-
ers have a number of other prescriptions.
When jobs are diffi cult because of complexity

challenges. A certain continuity of those roles has existed over time
with a focus on and balance of tasks and people (e.g., Blake and
Mouton 1964; Hemphill and Coons 1957), but more recent exami-
nations have also revealed the increasing importance of change (Bass
1985; Ekvall and Arvonen 1991; Fernandez 2008), diversity (Barney
and Wright 1998; McLeod, Lobel, and Cox 1996; Pitts 2005), and
integrity (Colquitt et al. 2001). In a study of U.S. federal manag-
ers, Fernandez, Cho, and Perry (2010) explained how leaders are
expected to perform (or grapple with) fi ve major roles more or less
simultaneously. Th ose roles closely relate to the fi ve foci identifi ed
and explained in the literature that served as an important source of
information for this article. First, leaders must lead in task accom-
plishment by informing, communicating goals, accepting suggestions
and making improvements, and, ultimately, evaluating performance.
Second, leaders need excellent human relations skills so that follow-
ers more easily practice and thereby improve their own leadership
skills so that they ultimately will feel empowered. Th ird, leaders need
to facilitate change by encouraging and rewarding innovation and
creativity. Fourth, given the rise of minorities, ethnic groups, and the
changing roles of women in the workplace, leaders must make leading
in diversity a top priority by making sure that the public workforce
represents the public at large and that people of diff erent backgrounds
are comfortable. Finally, leaders need to lead with integrity, which
includes not only such standard virtues as honesty and selfl essness
but also working hard to discourage and prevent unethical conduct
and to maintain an environment safe for the disclosure of wrongdo-
ing. Because those leadership roles involve greatly diverse functions,
they often involve confl icting values and goals; also, in times of social
unrest and economic stress, of diminishing trust among leaders and
the led, of increasing penetration of markets, and of great and fre-
quent changes, the roles become more diffi cult to fi ll eff ectively.

Administrative leadership requires developmental education and
training. The expectations and challenges are so great that most
leaders will derail, be overwhelmed, or stagnate as their jobs evolve
(McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison 1988). Leaders must develop a
variety of skills (discussed later) so that they can fulfi ll their
technical functions and be able to lead in a variety styles well;
furthermore, the more leaders advance in their positions, the more
related experience is necessary so that they can handle their
positions (Jaques 1989). Hunt (1996) described three styles of
leadership—direct, organizational, and systems—based on the
echelon or the stratum of the organization that the leader occupies.
Frontline supervisors are direct leaders who fi rst need the technical
competencies and basic interpersonal skills to perform their jobs
effectively. Mid-level managers run programs and integrate
operations as organizational leaders. Senior managers and executives
operate in systems in which conceptual skills expand as an
understanding of changing markets, distant threats, innovations in
other fi elds, and political interventions become more important; in
addition, contemporary leaders must contend
with leaner and fl atter organizations that
require employees lower in organizations to
have competencies formerly considered more
managerial because they must deal with more
self-management, problem solving, and
customer or client relations on the front line
(Brookes 2011). Low-level employees,
therefore, need more education upon entry

When jobs are diffi cult because
of complexity or change, par-
ticipatory leadership is help-

ful, as is achievement-oriented
behavior when higher standards

are required.

Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary Challenges of Leaders 557

in order to increase productivity and to neutralize negative public
perceptions.

Leaders need to include followers as much as, but no more than,
is necessary in making decisions. For example, Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2011) found that empowerment needs to be wisely
implemented if it is to stimulate instead of discourage innovation.
One of the primary functions of leaders, but certainly not the only
function, is to set the parameters for decision making in their
organizations or units. The research by Vroom and Jago (1988) is
useful in analyzing those parameters. Four types of decision making,
having important ramifi cations, can be used in a variety of
conditions, in order that a decision promote quality, enhance
acceptance, provide for timeliness, and control costs, as well as
provide opportunities for employee development. “Autocratic” or
directive decision making tends to be practical and useful when
timeliness is critical, when dissent among others is likely to be high,
when input is unlikely to enhance decision quality, or when the
decision is routine and participation is likely to be more bothersome
than enhancing. Leaders, on the other hand, should consult with
followers if they need or want substantial input, individually or in
groups, before making decisions. Consultation becomes more useful
when timelines are not as critical, when decision centralization is
important but hearing different viewpoints is useful, and/or when
input is likely to increase decision quality. Joint decision making
occurs when leaders allow groups to make decisions with or without
veto power. Joint decision making generally takes longer but
increases decision acceptance and works well in the absence of
strong discord among employees, and decision quality is worth the
increased group effort. Delegation occurs when a leader allows
others to make decisions and supports them consistently in those
decisions. Transactional leadership theory generally holds that good
leaders promote higher levels of participation and delegation as
groups, units, and workforces are better trained, more closely
aligned, and strongly self-directed. Weak leaders, however, can
overuse joint decision making, waste a lot of time, delegate
responsibilities to employees incapable of managing, or go through
participation but frequently override decisions or disregard input
(i.e., false empowerment).

Providing the proper amount of decision making, with the appro-
priate degree of centralization or decentralization, has always been
a challenge to modern leaders because of the number of decisions
they need to make and because of the diffi culty in …