Leadership and Emotional Intelligence

individual variables are focused on constituency interests; structural considerations are
focused on coalition building; and environmental needs are concentrated on interest
group activity. Since the Federal government especially is accountable to taxpayers, it is
critical that methodologies for ascertaining return on investment (or value) be articulated
in terms of developing current and future leaders. Leadership development is therefore a
byproduct of these equities. Bryson and Kelly (1978) noted:
There appears to be a connection between [a leader’s] stage in leadership
development and vulnerability to challenges. If one is prepared ... presumably
one would be less vulnerable. Or, if one were challenged, presumably one would
be in a better position to weather the storm. (p. 716)
Decades later, weathering the political storm is viewed as a tenet in effective
public sector leadership development programs (O’Leonard, 2011; Turner, 2007). Public
sector organizations are, at their core, political systems. Adversarial relationships can
arise based on the resultant dynamics. Structurally, centralization was believed to
actually incite conflict among leaders (Bryson & Kelley, 1978). This leads to a
processual arrangement in which “the pattern of succession in the leadership hierarchy is
up the hierarchy one step at a time, although in the private sector this would hold less
frequently” (Bryson & Kelley, 1978, p. 719). Promotions tend to rely on a sequential
advancement through pre-defined leadership tiers, and it is highly infrequent that leaders
springboard over one tier in a single position move. As such, leader development
programs typically mirror the reality of career mobility.
Several public sector reports provided important insights on the need to balance
the public sector’s political atmosphere with workforce development needs. For example,