, 2002). This may be particularly so since, as Van Wart (2003) points out, part of the reason for the omission of research on the subject of administrative leadership is due to the circumstance of contextual complexity in other words the difficulty of distinguishing between the varying nuances of leadership and administrative positions. One needs tight conceptualizations and empirical operationalization in order to do so. Whilst in a general stance, we may see 'leaders' as sharing the same tonal content, empirical research points out differences. The leader of paid employees, for instance, would have very different duties and expectations (and consequently responsibility) than the leader of a volunteer organization, and so forth. Issues of contextual complexity also apply to otter concepts such as mission. (Baliga & Hunt, 1988). The act of observation is also a factor in that the very act of the observer may affect the end-results (Kiel, 1994). It is for this reason that Sherman and colleagues (2002) are correct in pointing out that quantitative research is important in that scientific research can expend the field and base it on a more reliable and authoritative footing. Whilst Van Wart (2003) argues that it is hard to analyze the concept of "leadership" scientifically and objectively being that it is a subjective concept, others insist that quantitative research could help us in many ways not least being to better deal with philosophical and major debates that have shaped leadership paradigms and research agendas. One of these debates continues to be the proper focus of the leader, namely whether it should be technical performance, development of their employees, or organizational alignment.

Definitions and perspective of leadership have gone through various paradigms from the great man theories that debated whether leaders were born or made, to transformational leadership that asserted that (Schein, 1985). Seen in another way, the developing argument was whether leadership was trait vs. situational/contextual. Leadership philosophy and debate touched on the following themes: Great Man; that leadership is innate (Pre-1900); Trait;...

The leader takes a visionary position and inspires others to follow (1978-present); Servant; that the leader is a servant to the public (1977-present); and finally Multifaceted (1990s-present) - that leadership may consist of many components but that true leadership consists first and foremost of only one: and that is of viewing the client as raision d'etre of all of one's activities.
Administrative leaders do have a responsibility to make the best use of the position they are in. They are the subject matter experts in the area in which they have been hired to perform in. If leadership does not come from the public administrator, whom is it supposed to come from? GAO? The President? They are too busy and/or do not have the intimate knowledge of the complex nature of the missions of the agencies and organization in question. This is why the administrative state was formed (and grew) in the first place.

It is because of issues such as corruption, equality, democratic, and competence that administrators must also be held accountable to the people. It is the people who will hold them in check and make of the service a true democratic ideal.