Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of boxes
- Notes on contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction: knowledge and performance – theory and practice
- 2 Knowledge from inspection: external oversight and information to improve performance
- 3 How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the dynamics of performance information
- 4 Citizens, users or consumers: the voice of the public and its influence on improving performance
- 5 Competition and choice: the place of markets in connecting information and performance improvement
- 6 The role of corporate governance and boards in organisational performance
- 7 Change at the top: connecting political and managerial transitions with performance
- 8 The role of leadership in knowledge creation and transfer for organisational learning and improvement
- 9 Process Improvement and Lean Thinking: using knowledge and information to improve performance
- 10 Using evidence: how social research could be better used to improve public service performance
- 11 Absorptive capacity: how organisations assimilate and apply knowledge to improve performance
- 12 Knowing through doing: unleashing latent dynamic capabilities in the public sector
- 13 Conclusions: a puzzle, three pieces, many theories and a problem
- Index
- References
7 - Change at the top: connecting political and managerial transitions with performance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of boxes
- Notes on contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction: knowledge and performance – theory and practice
- 2 Knowledge from inspection: external oversight and information to improve performance
- 3 How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the dynamics of performance information
- 4 Citizens, users or consumers: the voice of the public and its influence on improving performance
- 5 Competition and choice: the place of markets in connecting information and performance improvement
- 6 The role of corporate governance and boards in organisational performance
- 7 Change at the top: connecting political and managerial transitions with performance
- 8 The role of leadership in knowledge creation and transfer for organisational learning and improvement
- 9 Process Improvement and Lean Thinking: using knowledge and information to improve performance
- 10 Using evidence: how social research could be better used to improve public service performance
- 11 Absorptive capacity: how organisations assimilate and apply knowledge to improve performance
- 12 Knowing through doing: unleashing latent dynamic capabilities in the public sector
- 13 Conclusions: a puzzle, three pieces, many theories and a problem
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
There is relatively little research that systematically assesses how changes in political or managerial leadership contribute to public service performance, and even less on the question of how the effectiveness of these leaders is related to their use of performance information. This gap in knowledge is surprising because the idea that new leadership can transform the performance of public services has not only been seen as theoretically important for a long time, it has also become a popular policy nostrum in recent years. Local authorities have increasingly tried to recruit new (and, by assumption, better) political and managerial leaders. The idea of effective leadership has been a key theme of recent UK initiatives, with many new bodies with leadership in their titles, including a Leadership Centre for Local Government, a National College for School Leadership and a Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Moreover, leadership is now a key competency for senior civil servants. The common denominator of these reforms is an attempt to improve the leadership capacity in local government, health bodies, education and other public services to improve the services these organisations provide.
Debates on the need for better leadership in UK local government reflect a longstanding concern with the ‘calibre’ of councillors and officers (Dearlove 1979). The basic argument is that the succession of political and managerial elites may reinvigorate public service providers and their performance (Boyne and Dahya 2002; Boyne 2003).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Connecting Knowledge and Performance in Public ServicesFrom Knowing to Doing, pp. 128 - 144Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, and (2006). ‘Performance Failure in the Public Sector: Misfortune or Mismanagement?’, Public Management Review 8(2): 273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1990). ‘From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision’, Organizational Dynamics 18(3): 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006). Madison's Managers: Public Administration and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
(2003). ‘Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research Agenda’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(3): 367–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). ‘Executive Succession and the Performance of Public Organizations’, Public Administration 80(1): 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2008). Does Public Service Performance Affect Top Management Turnover? Public Services Programme Discussion Paper 0802. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
, , and (2009a). ‘Democracy and Government Performance: Holding Incumbents Accountable in English Local Governments’, Journal of Politics 71(4): 1273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2009b). ‘Party Control, Party Competition and Service Performance’, Cardiff University: typescript.
, , and (2009c). ‘Managerial Succession and Organizational Success: When Do New Chief Executives Make a Difference?’, Cardiff University: typescript.
, , and (2010a). ‘Does Political Change Affect Senior Management Turnover? An Empirical Analysis of Top-Tier Local Authorities in England’, Public Administration 88(1): 136–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2010b). ‘Does Public Service Performance Affect Top Management Turnover?’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
, , and (2010c). ‘Top Management Turnover and Organizational Performance: A Test of a Contingency Model’, Public Administration Review.
(1996). ‘Research on Leadership Selection and Training: One View of the Future’, Administrative Science Quarterly 41(2): 241–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1941). ‘Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government’, Public Administration Review 1(4): 335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1940). ‘Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility’, Public Policy 1: 3–24.Google Scholar
and (1977). ‘The Population Ecology of Organizations’, American Journal of Sociology 82(5): 929–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). ‘Network Stability: Opportunities or Obstacles?’, Public Organization Review 4(2): 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). ‘The Effects of Managerial Succession on Organizational Performance’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(4): 585–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). ‘The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Leadership Effectiveness Models: An Examination of Leadership in a Private and Public Sector Organization’, Administration & Society 33(4): 403–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). ‘Performance and Electoral Support for Incumbent Local Government’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(4): 567–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991). Time, Chance, and Organizations: Natural Selection in a Perilous Environment (2nd edn.). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
and (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Really Need to Know?Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
and (2001). ‘Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks: A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3): 271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). ‘Public Management and Organizational Performance: The Effect of Managerial Quality’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(4): 629–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A Governance Perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
(1997). ‘The Positive Theory of Public Bureaucracy’, in (ed.), Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–80.Google Scholar
(2010). ‘The Role of Leadership’, in , and (eds.) Public Service Improvement: Theories and Evidence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). ‘The Bureaucrat Who Fell Under a Bus: Ministerial Responsibility, Executive Agencies and the Derek Lewis Affair in Britain’, Governance 12(2): 201–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1988). ‘Executive-Level Transition: Toward a Conceptual Framework’, Public Productivity Review 12(1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2005). ‘Leadership Succession and Organizational Performance: Integrating the Common-Sense, Ritual Scapegoating and Vicious-Circle Succession Theories’, Leadership Quarterly 16(2): 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1950). ‘Leadership, Membership and Organization’, Psychological Bulletin 47(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). British Local Government into the 21st Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988). ‘Environmental Structure and Theories of Strategic Choice’, Journal of Management Studies 25(6): 521–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). ‘Modern Bureaucratic Theory’, in (ed.), Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, pp. 429–54.Google Scholar
and (1994). Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by