Mainstream Leadership Has Received Abundant

Mainstream leadership has received abundant attention within the last few decades. Categories of leaders that have been discussed extensively include leadership by those in policy positions as well as those working in community-settings. Unfortunately, administrative leadership within organizations has received little attention and Van Wart (2003), therefore, observes that more research should be dedicated to this topic. This is all the more important since assessing and researching topics connected to leadership theory will determine the best way to conduct business or administrate employees or people.

One such author who addressed this topic was Moore (1995). He advised that public managers could use many of the same methods used in the private sector in order to improve their performance and receive more value for their performance. Moore's "bottom-up and "top-down" levels of his strategic triangle aid managers to do so. Although nothing very different from other approaches, Moore's (1995) key point was that managers should consistently analyze and review their performance and focus on satisfying their customers by creating value-infused products.

Intention to customer and focus on value necessitates the ability to be flexible, attuned to external changes, and optimally able to deal with and to help organization deal with change. Satisfying the customer involves marshalling the available resources in order to most effectually do so.

Moore's arguments are also similar to those of Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) who insist that the role of the public administrator is to, rather than 'administrate' and 'manage' as per the literal implications of the terms, assess what the public needs and act as servant to their good. Government belongs to the citizens, and it is the citizens who should steer us. Using the concept of the 'new public Government' as their base (i.e.

A system of leadership that, has recently developed with a distinct characteristic unique to itself), Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) emphasized that attention should rather be deflect to, what they called, 'New Public Service.' This means that managers or administrators should (a) serve rather than steer; (b) recognize that the public interest should be the aim not the by-product of their policies and/or service; (c) Think strategically but act democratically involving citizens within formulation and implementation of their decisions; (d) serve citizens, not customers.

Rather than objectifying their people and treating them in a consumer-style manner, the government should realize that the are dealing with humans rather than with consumers of their services; (e) Accountability isn't; simple in that public servants who should be attentive to numerous variables aside from the market, and these include statutory and constitutional law, community values, citizen interests, political norms, and professional standards. Focusing on all of these and more make a competent public servant; (f) value people, not just productivity.

Seeing people as individuals and involving them in one's decision will generate affectivity; (g) Value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship. Realize that public program and services do not belong to you but rather should be used for the good of the community as whole, in order to make meaningful contributions. These seven guidelines will transition the new public Government' from governing and imposing their administrative role to becoming 'New Public Service' where the pubic is uppermost and becomes the be-it and end-it-all of their efforts.

Denhardt and Denhardt's (2000) treatise can be effectively applied to all individuals in managerial / leadership / administrative positions. The client-oriented stance as well as viewing the consumer as individual rather than object can be pragmatic in another way in that some of the foremost researchers on leadership skills have observed that beginning managers often lack interpersonal skills and capacity for dealing with people (e.g. Sherman et al., 2002). Seeking to genuinely address the client's needs can simultaneously provide the manager with the crucial interpersonal skills.

Moore's (1995) framework is helpful for managers but in order for normative leadership to be best performed and defined, you need quantitative measurements (Sherman et al., 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; that leadership depends on traits (1900-1948); Contingency; that leadership is formed by environment / circumstances / context (1948-80's); Transformational; that leadership transforms individuals and social systems.

The leader takes a visionary position and inspires others to follow (1978-present); Servant; that the.