O’Leonard (2011) noted in the Bersin and Associates report Learning and Development
in the Federal Sector that public sector training programs might be dependent on political
appointees, who rotate frequently. The political climate was an essential variable that
caused a reduction in learning and development expenditures across the Federal
government by 7% in 2010. Although structured leadership development needs to focus
on soft skills (e.g., coaching and motivating), balancing that need with development
being a long-term investment can lead to intolerance for not seeing near-term value
(O’Leonard, 2011).
Developing public sector leaders. The public sector has a distinctly political
dimension (Bryson & Kelley, 1978; Rourke, 1992). This section addresses how
development programs have materialized within the political environment. Vigoda-
Gadot and Meisler (2010) addressed the relationship between EI and public sector
organizational politics. Leaders need to understand the emotions and their meaning as
assigned by stakeholders (e.g., citizens); to use emotions in rational-based decision
making; and to be attuned to emotional expressions during public activities (Vigoda-
Gadot & Meisler, 2010). Increasingly, governmental power is exercised through civil
servant decisions and actions (Rourke, 1992). In a related vein, Parry and Proctor-
Thomson (2003) noted an inherent public sector tension between transactional leadership
realities (e.g., bureaucracy and civil service) and transformational leadership desires (e.g.,
innovation and flexibility). Innovation and entrepreneurship need to be investigated
empirically, which formed the purpose of the Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2003) study.
Relationships were surveyed between (a) culture, individual leadership and
backadmin
(backadmin)
#1