PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR NOTES SEMESTER 2 2017

LECTURER: FRED KOITA

UNIT 1

INTRODUCTION

This unit has three primary aims.

The first is to equip you the student with the theoretical perspectives and assumptions underlying public sector organisational behaviour. Classical approaches, which you have studied in earlier courses of public management are briefly discussed and their relevance to the modern-day public administration briefly covered.

The second aim is to synthesise some of the many ideas and voices calling for the reaffirmation of democratic values, citizenship, and service in the public interest as the normative foundations for the field of public administration.

The third aim is to provide a framework to organise those ideas around principles, giving them a name, a mantle, and a voice that we believe has been lacking. This unit is a call to think about and act on our values. It is intended as a challenge for us to think carefully and critically about what public service is, why it is important, and what values ought to guide what we do and how we do it.

Upon completion of this unit students must be able to;

define public sector organisational behaviour identify major trends in the development of organisational behaviour and

management thinking explain values and assumptions of organisational behaviour in the

public sector explain the main approaches to organisation, structure and management evaluate the relevance of these different approaches to the present-day

management of organisations

explain the paradigm shift towards New Public Service and behaviour in public sector organisation management and practice

1. Organizational behavior Versus Public Sector Organizational behavior.

Organisational behaviour is the study of how people act, think, and feel in organised settings.The roots of the field go back thousands of years. Since the 1900s, major perspectives on organisational behaviour have included scientific management, the human relations approach, and the contingency approach.

Managing people in the 21st century is also about embracing something—change. In many ways, the manager’s job is still the same—to motivate, inspire, and influence, among other things. Quite different today are the increasing complexity of the work environment and the breakneck pace of change. The complex variety of social, demographic, and technological change makes managing people more challenging than ever.

Public Sector Organisational behaviour (POB), on the other hand, is a newly emerging concept in the literature of organisation behaviour. It goes a step further and asserts that the management of organizational behaviour in the public sector must, in fact, consider an additional level of analysis—that which concerns governance in the public interest. In public service, we must be concerned not only with leading and motivating others but also with doing so in a manner that is consistent with democratic values and the public interest.

2. Major trends in the development of organizational behavior and management thinking.

The very first trend in the context of organisational behaviour and management thinking is the theory .

The second dimension is that of actual behaviour as relationships are made between management theories and practice though behaviour.

Once the theory, practice and behaviour intersect,knowledge develops.

The third trend is the historical understanding of management and behaviour so as to draw comparisons between earlier management approaches and contemporary dimensions of management and organisational behaviour.

3. Main approaches organisation, structure and management

3.1 Classical approach examined

The classical writers (also variously known as the formal or scientific management writers–although scientific management is really only a part of the classical approach) were concerned with improving the organisation structure as a means of increasing efficiency. They emphasised the importance of principles for the design of a logical structure of organisation. The classical writers (also variously known as the formal or scientific management writers–although scientific management is really only a part of the classical approach) were concerned with improving the organisation structure as a means of increasing efficiency. They emphasised the importance of principles for the design of a logical structure of organisation.

Their writings were in a normative style and they saw these principles as a set of ‘rules’ offering general solutions to common problems of organisation and management. Mooney and Reiley set out a number of common principles which relate to all types of organisations. They place particular attention on:

the principle of co-ordination – the need for people to act together with unity of action, the exercise of authority and the need for discipline;

the scalar principle – the hierarchy of organisation, the grading of duties and the process of delegation; and

The functional principle – specialisation and the distinction between different kinds of duties.

3.1.1 Scientific Management

A number of principles has been set by the scientific management to guide management.

These principles are usually summarised as:

the development of a true science for each person’s work; the scientific selection, training and development of the workers; co-operation with the workers to ensure work is carried out in the

prescribed way; and The division of work and responsibility between management and the

workers.

3.1.2 The relevance of Scientific Theory

The principles of Taylor’s scientific approach to management appear still to have relevance today. We can see examples of Taylorism alive and well, and management practices based on the philosophy of his ideas. The strict routine, training based on detailed procedures, uniformity, clearly specified tasks, detailed checklists and close control in airline industry, police and military sectors suggest close links with scientific management.

Practices such as work study and methods, payment by results, management by exception and production control still find prominence in Namibian public and private sectors. The concept of Six Sigma (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, and Control) can also be related to Taylor’s quest for ‘systematic management’.

We need to study the scientific management and bureaucracy as part of classical approaches so as to make comparisons between earlier approaches and modern-day practices.

Many of the earlier ideas are of continuing importance to the manager and later ideas on management tend to incorporate earlier ideas and conclusions.

3.2 Bureaucracy

A type of business structure popular among governments and public administrations that were influenced by the thinking of Max Weber. Although often associated with excessive paperwork in modern times, a bureaucratic organization was originally intended to have a hierarchical or pyramidal structure to help achieve the most rational and efficient operation at the lowest cost .

The term ‘bureaucracy’ has common connotations with criticism of red tape and rigidity.

However in the study of organisations and management it is important that the term should not be necessarily seen in a depreciative sense, but as applying to certain structural features of formal organisations.

The four main features of bureaucracy are summarised by Stewart as follows;

Hierarchy of authority, system of rules and impersonality. Specialisation applies more to the job than to the person undertaking the

job. This makes for continuity because the job usually continues if the present job-holder leaves.

Hierarchy of authority makes for a sharp distinction between administrators and the administered or between management and workers. Within the management ranks there are clearly defined levels of authority. This detailed and precise stratification is particularly marked in the armed forces and in the civil service.

System of rules aims to provide for an efficient and impersonal operation. The system of rules is generally stable, although some rules may be changed or modified with time. Knowledge of the rules is a requisite of holding a job in a bureaucracy.

Impersonality means that allocation of privileges and the exercise of authority should not be arbitrary,(bias) but in accordance with the laid-down system of rules.

Reflection:As a social scientist how do you recognise that there is existing bureaucratic components in an organisation?

3.3 Relevance of Bureaucracy in the Public Sector

Green argues that, although bureaucracies are becoming less and less the first-choice format for organisational shape, there is still a place for bureaucracy in parts of most organisations and especially public sector organizations such as parastatals, local authorities and universities.The use and implementation of tried and tested rules and procedures help to ensure essential values and ethics, and that necessary functions are run on a consistent and fair basis. E. G Decentralisation process in Namibia that need to be consistent.

ReflectionDo you think Bureaucracy is an important aspect in the Namibian Public Sector?

3.4 Contemporary solution to bureaucracy

Bureaucracies allowed people with knowledge to control ignorant workers. Now, new structures are needed as knowledge spreads.’

Ridderstrale suggests four specific ways in which high-performing organisations have responded to increasingly complex knowledge systems by developing organisational solutions which depart from the traditional bureaucratic model:

More decentralised and flatter structures in order for that quick decisions to be taken near to where the critical knowledge resides. Flatter structures can be achieved by increasing the span of control and reducing layers from the top or removing layers of middle management;

The use of more than a single structure in order that knowledge may be assembled across the boundaries of a traditional organisation chart. If people have less permanent places in the hierarchy they are more readily able to move across functional and geographical borders;

Converting companies into learning organisations and giving every employee the same level of familiarity with personnel and capabilities. Successful companies develop a detailed inventory of core competencies. In order fully to exploit current knowledge, managers need to know what the company knows;

The broader sharing of expertise and knowledge, which may be located in the periphery where little formal authority resides. Managers need to share principles to ensure coordination and to encourage ‘lowest common denominators’ and the development of ‘tribal’ qualities through shared ownership and rewards, common norms, culture and values.

3.5 Values & Assumptions of Organisational Behaviour in the Public Sector

There are a number of assumptions and values that underlie the study of organisational behaviour and that will guide our analysis of the field in the context of public service. In other words, the field of organisational behaviour is fundamentally based on certain assumptions about the nature of people and behaviour. These assumptions are just that they are simply things we assume or assert about human behaviour that allow us to interpret what people do and why they do it and then to act accordingly ourselves.

Recognising these assumptions and the values is important in understanding how the perspective of organisational behaviour can inform attitudes in the public sector setting.

The first such assumption is that human behaviour is purposeful. That means that a great deal of what we do involves behaviour that is intended to accomplish some purpose. That does not mean that all behaviour is goal-oriented, at least not in the conscious sense. Some actions or behaviour may be involuntary, and certainly the consequences of our behaviour can be unintended. However, in terms of organisational behaviour, voluntary goal-directed behaviour is seen as critical to achieving organisational effectiveness. The field of organizational behaviour, in turn, assumes that voluntary and purposeful behaviour can be influenced by the behaviour of others and through the practices of management.

The second assumption is that behaviour is not random or accidental—rather, it is caused. The study of organizational behaviour looks for the backgrounds and causes of human behaviour. It assumes that, by studying behaviour and patterns of interaction, we can gain perceptions into ways of thinking about and influencing the behaviour of others.

The third assumption is that behaviour can be changed through learning. When people change how they think, they frequently change how they act. Although human learning is not directly observable (because it takes place within the mind of the individual), organisational behaviour is based in part on the idea that people will change their behaviour in response to their experiences and knowledge. Furthermore, behaviour that has favourable consequences or is otherwise reinforced probably will be repeated.

The fourth assumption is that people should be valued simply as humans aside from their contributions to organizational goal attainment. Treating humans with respect and dignity is an important value in its own right. Organizational behaviour is fundamentally grounded in the idea that improvements to organizational processes, structure, and performance require “managing through people.” Although approaches that ignore or disrespect people may get results in the short-term, they do not build responsible, engaged, and civic-minded employees or citizens. And in the long term, they are unlikely to be all that effective anyway.

The final assumption that guides our exploration of organizational behaviour in the public sector is that public service is about serving others. There is nothing wrong with meeting our own needs and priorities at work, but in the public service, the needs of others take precedence. We are in the public service to serve others—our country, our community, our fellow citizens (including our employees and coworkers)—and not ourselves. Public servants are people whose motivations and rewards are more than simply a matter of pay or security. They want to make a difference in the lives of others and to serve the public. To be both effective and responsible, organizational behaviour in the public sector always must be attentive to the special calling of public service.

3.6 The New Public Service and Behaviour

There are a number of practical lessons that the New Public Service suggests for those in public administration. These lessons are not mutually exclusive, rather they are mutually reinforcing. We will outline these ideas here, and then discuss each one briefly.

Denhardt & Denhardt (2009) emphasise seven (7) principles necessary in public service organisation and practice and vital for contemporary public sector.

These are: To Serve Citizens, Not Customers : The public interest is the result of a dialogue about shared values rather than the aggregation of individual self-interests. Therefore, public servants do not merely respond to the demands of “customers,” but rather focus on building relationships of trust and collaboration with and among citizens.

To Seek the Public Interest: Public administrators must contribute to building a collective, shared notion of the public interest. The goal is not to find quick solutions driven by individual choices. Rather, it is the creation of shared interests and shared responsibility.

To Value Citizenship over Entrepreneurship : The public interest is better advanced by public servants and citizens committed to making meaningful contributions to society than by entrepreneurial managers acting as if public money were their own.

Think Strategically, Act Democratically: Policies and programs meeting public needs can be most effectively and responsibly acachieved through collective efforts and collaborative processes.

To Recognize that Accountability Isn’t Simple: Public servants should beat ten tive to more than the market; they should also attend to statutory and con stitutional law, community values, political norms, professional standards, and citizen interests.

To Serve Rather than Steer: It is increasingly important for public servants to use shared, value-based leadership in helping citizens articulate and meet their shared interests rather than attempting to control or steer society in new directions

To Value People, Not Just Productivity: Public organisations and the networks in which they participate are more likely to be successful in the long run if they are operated through processes of collaboration and shared leadership based on respect for all people.

UNIT 2An Organisational Theory Approach to the public sector

Contribution of an interdisciplinary view to Public Administration

Policy, Politics and Political Economy are among the main disciplines that serve today as core sources of knowledge in the study of public administration. Describe the contribution of Sociology, Culture and Community, Policy, Politics and Political Economy and; Management and Organisation to Public Administration Identity. (25)

Three main disciplines, introduced earlier in this unit that serve today as core sources of knowledge in the study of public administration can be distinguished.

(1)Policy analysis, Political science, and Political Economy ;

(2) Sociology, Cultural studies, and Community studies;

(3)Management and Organisational studies.

5.1 Policy, Politics, and Political Economy.

Public policy is the action taken by government to address a particular public issue. Local, state, central, and international government organizations all craft and implement public policy to protect and benefit their populations.

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government.

The political approach to public administration was depicted by Rosenbloom (1998) as stressing the values of representativeness, political responsiveness, and accountability to the citizenry through elected officials. These values are considered necessary requirements of democracy, and they must be incorporated into all aspects of government and administration.

Whereas, Political economy refers to the study of production, buying, and selling and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth.

Sociology, culture and Community

Studying public management is a social issue in itself. In this case sociology can be defined as a study of human social life, groups and societies and how they interact with one another.

For Example; A university’s public administration degree program prepares a student for a career in public service and teaches him about social issues, economic development and sustainability using government systems to create change and empower communities.

Culture As refered to Art. 19 of the Namibian constitution.

Culture includes basic assumptions as to what is right and what is wrong for a certain organisational community, norms and beliefs of employees, unseen social rules and accepted codes of behavior, as well as tradition, language, dress, and ceremonies with common meaning to all organisational members. All these distinguish “us” from “them”, promote group cohesiveness, and improve common interests.

Culture can be perceived from an essential distinction between inside and outside cultural environment.

However a clear distinction must be drawn between inside and outside cultural environments.

An outside cultural sphere incorporates informal activities and behaviours of small groups as well as of larger social units which interact with the administrative system.

Included in this category are customers, groups, private, organizations, not-for profit volunteering organizations, and citizens at large. Meanwhile, culture in its broad context constantly affects the operation of bureaucracies as well as political systems that interact with them. E.G the epupa project that have failed due to cultural norms and beliefs.

In addition several ethical considerations should be included under any sociological understanding of the public sector.

Ethical dilemmas are frequent in public administration and relate to cultural aspects, to norms, and most importantly to the individual behavior of public servants.

3. Management and Organisation studies

The third cornerstone of public administration is based on knowledge from management (such as Planning, organising, leading, controlling & coordinating) and organizational sciences.

A managerial definition of public administration proclaims that it is the executive function in government or a management specialty applied in public systems.

However, when the environment started rapidly to change, people also starts behaving towards those changes organizations had to change as well. Modern societies have become more complex, flexible, and dynamic.

7. Public Sector Organisational Behaviour: Quo Vadis

The public needs a better bureaucracy, more flexible, working efficiently and effectively, moving quickly toward objectives, and at the same time responding to the needs of the people without delays a nd with maximum social sensitivity, responsibility, and morality.

The public also expects good and skillful administrators, versed in the mysteries of quality services and effective management.

Only they can produce better “public goods” and deliver them to all sectors of society in minimum time and at minimum cost.

Today scholars and practitioners believe that modern public administration decidedly benefits, and will continue to benefit, from the seminal inputs of social and cultural motives and mainly from the impact of managerial and organizational theory.

In keeping with these, modern societies question the current obligations of public personnel toward citizens, and urge them to put people and social values first.

UNIT 3MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL, CHANGE INNOVATION & DEVELOPMENT

In this unit, I introduce you to the concepts that deal with change. Change occurs for many reasons. Sometimes the change is simply advantageous – a new technology promises greater efficiency. Other times, there is no choice but to change, as and when governmental policies, regulations, and at times laws dictate how business needs to be done. As public managers, we soon realise that it is not enough to have a good idea – we must make our ideas work and work perfectly.

1. Why Change Occur: Forces for Change

Pierce, Gardner & Dunham describe organisational change as “the movement of an organisation from its current state to some future and hopefully more effective state” (p. 628). Organisational change does not occur spontaneously, but take place when the forces encouraging and in favour of change become more powerful than those resisting and against change. Most organisations face an incredible number of factors that “invite” them to change.

1.1 Technological ForcesWe live in the age of technological change. Virtually all organisations employ a variety of technologies to produce their goods and services. The public sector is no exception. Significant advancements in technologies continually compel organisations to change. As noted above, technological changes can be shaped by internal and/or external environment. Regardless of the source, changes brought about by technology can have an impact on management practice and organisational design.

1.2 Employee Needs and ValuesMore than ever, managers are recognising the importance of considering the needs and values of their members. Many of today’s workers are leaning less toward financial rewards and more toward quality of life alternatives (social needs). Hence the advent of flexible working hours, the compressed work week, and on-site child care facilities. Changes in employees’ needs and values can be an extremely important force driving organisational change.

1.3 Social ForcesThe general public is another strong force for change, sometimes simply by altering their interests for products and types of services they may demand. Changing public tastes and demands may require organisations to shift their marketing, sometimes their image and level of service delivery, but always the way they do business. At other times, social pressures go beyond indicating what is desirable and define what is acceptable.

1.4 Business and Economic ForcesThe inflation rate, gross domestic product, money supply, interest rates, and competition – all exert tremendous pressures on organisations. Extremely high interest rates overwhelmed governments, for example, causing public sector to restrict expansion, reduce borrowing to finance new ventures.

1.5 Organisational ForcesOften the organisation itself is the primary force behind change. The issue of organisational and institutional change is accorded relatively light treatment in practical development situations. There is little grasp of the issue and not even the language to articulate organisational change issues. One of the most intractable challenges that Namibia face is that of finding experts, be they national or international, that have skills in mentoring and facilitation.

2. REACTION TO CHANGE

Organisational inertia could be one of the reactions to change in the public sector setting. Organisational inertia is the tendency of organisations to maintain the status quo, and is a common cause of their decline and subsequent demise. Resistance to change can and often does lower an organisation’s effectiveness and reduces its chances of survival. Researchers of organisational inertia and resistance to change note that change gets thwarted at three levels:

First, at the organisational level. Control orientated management practices and mechanistic organisations emphasise stability,

consistency, and predictability. Research clearly suggests that mechanistic organisations resist change, while organic organisations are significantly more receptive to change and adaptable to dynamic environmental conditions.

Second, at the group level: Groups often develop strong norms that specify and govern appropriate roles. Strong group norms often promote resistance to change, simply because change means that a whole new set of norms, roles, and relationships need to be developed.

Finally, at the individual level. As individuals, organisational members anticipate, notice, and react to change. Their reactions can range from quite positive and supportive, to quite negative and very resistant.

3.1 The Reasons behind OurReactions to Change.

Reactions to change may be motivated by the following reasons: 3. Perceptions of Value. When we conclude that a proposed change will

cause us to lose something of value, we have vested interest in resisting it. The more we expect to gain from change, the more we support it. The converse is also true.

4. Understanding the Change. We all fear the unknown, so we are less likely to support change if we don’t understand it. If we are confused about the implications of change, we usually assume the worst and react accordingly.

5. Trust in the Initiators. If our trust in management is low, our first reaction is to ask, what is really going to happen and how is this going to harm me? When we don’t trust the initiators of change, virtually any change tends to be received negatively. When trust is high, we are more likely to support change.

6. Agreement with the Change. It is amazing that organisations planning change often fail to assess who is likely to agree with the introduction of a change and who is apt to disagree. It is clearly logical to expect that those who think the change is a good idea will

be more likely to support it than those who feel the change is a bad idea.

7. Personal Feelings. Our personal characteristics affect whether we will

support or resist change. For example, if we lack confidence in our skills required by the change, we will probably be resistant. Cynicism is another key element in our reactions to change.

1. A CHALLENGE TO ORGANISATIONAL ASSUMPTIONSAssumptions are built into any organization that is so much part of the working of the organisation that they are rarely stated, and, because of that, rarely challenged. They are part of the unconscious everyday expectations within which people operate. Into the traditional management and organisation of public services were built:

The assumption of self- sufficiency - that where a public organization is responsible for a function, it will normally carry out that function itself, directly employing the staff required to do so. The result has been very large public sector organization.

The assumption of direct control - that control over the activities of a public organisation is best exercised through continuous supervision through an organisational hierarchy.

The assumption of uniformity - that where a service is provided it should be provided on a uniform basis within the jurisdiction of the organisation.

The assumption of accountability upwards - that the accountability of the public servant to those who receive a service is through the political process.

The assumption of standardised establishment procedures - that staffing policies require the application of standardized practices throughout the service.

However, the assumptions set out above and the administrative and professional cultures in which they are embedded are all challenged by the recent changes:

The assumption of self-sufficiency is challenged by the use of a variety of agencies, by the development of the enabling and regulatory role, and by contracting out.

The assumption of direct control is challenged by control through specification expressed in contract agreements, by performance targets and by the development of competitive and trading relations.

The assumption of uniformity is challenged by the growing variety of

providers, and by the emphasis on choice.

The assumption of accountability upwards is challenged by acceptance of accountability to the customer. Regulators and inspectors act as the customer's agent.

The assumptions of standardized staffing procedures are challenged by an emphasis on motivation and by new pay structures.

Major Techniques for Developing Support for ChangeIn understanding of above, let us examine seven (7) techniques that are necessary for developing support for change. Education and Communication. It is a simple phenomenon that education

and communication make a difference. People need to know – indeed they may have a right to know – what the change is, when it is to be introduced, how it will be introduced, why it is necessary, and how they will be affected.

Participation and Involvement . Education and communication give employees information. Participation and involvement, on the other hand, ask employees for information. There are two reasons for doing this: (1) to elicit information from members that might help improve the quality or effectiveness of a change, and (2) to increase the likelihood that employees will accept the change and become committed to its success.

Task Support . Organisations can help their members make a change more effective through tools, materials and advice. An individual who lacks some of the skills required to operate a new computer system, for example, might be offered training. Providing support of this nature can enhance an employee’s of this nature can enhance an employee’s self-efficacy and thereby increase their work motivation and level of performance. The provision of appropriate support can make the difference between a failed and successful change effort.

Provision of Emotional Support . When change is imminent, emotional support is extremely important and a caring organisation to its members is essential. It is natural for employees to be concerned about potential personal losses and to fear that they may be unable to work effectively under the change. Emotional support can come in the form of individual counselling or group discussions. In the majority of cases, however, emotional support comes primarily from one’s immediate supervisor and peers.

Provision of Incentives. People often support or resist a change because

they believe they will personally gain or lose something. Management can emphasise the potential for personal gain by providing incentives when the change is implemented. People are more likely to support a change that benefits them personally and are more likely to resist a change that costs them something.

Manipulation and Co-optation . Manipulation is the systematic control or distortion of information. Thus, the initiators of change provide information that makes a change appear positive, while information that might discourage support is withheld or distorted. Some managers believe that it is perfectly acceptable to provide only part of the information related to a change as long as the change information selectively provided accurate. Co-optation is a special type of manipulation, which, on the surface, resembles participation. Instead of having a genuine interest in employee input, those initiating the change are merely trying to nurture support for their efforts. Thus, employees might be asked to get involved, creating the impression of participation when in reality their ideas are neither wanted nor given serious consideration.

Coercion. Often the most powerful and quickest technique for developing support, at least on a short-term basis, is coercion. The principle underlying the use of coercion is very simple: “Do this or else.” For coercion to work, organisational members must believe that resistance to a change would result in punishment or the loss of something of value to

them. Coercion can be effective, and sometimes it is necessary when change must be implemented quickly to avoid great loss.

Unit 4 Leadership in the Public Sector.

The world has experienced profound changes in the early years of the 21st century. Countless challenges have forced leaders in the public sector into ‘uncharted (new) territory’ and literally redefined what it takes to succeed. These challenges raised key questions to be addressed by a comprehensive new study of leadership today:

What are the pressing challenges for leaders in the 21st century? How must leadership change to keep pace? What key leadership practices are still important? What new practices have emerged in response to shifting priorities?

An in-depth and widely applicable definition can describe leadership as “the process of influencing self, others and organisations, through growth and change, towards achieving results and fulfilling a vision or purpose”.

The first critical element of this approach to leadership is that of “process”. This implies continuity, inputs, outputs, and the possibility of continuous improvement. Far too many of our “leaders” having attained the “position power” associated with leadership, disengage from the notion of process, stop learning and improving, and ultimately pave the way for their inevitable obsolescence in today’s dynamic environment.

The second key element is that of “influencing”. This is one of the commonly misunderstood core dimensions of leadership. The issue of influence is not just about the style of the leader but also about the style of those (s) he wishes to lead. It is about the relationship and the full range of “influencing tools” honed and developed by the leader.

2. New Dimension of Leadership Styles:

(1)Transformational and (2)Transactional leadersTransformational leaders are understood to be visionaries and catalysts of change that sell their ideas and successfully reshape and reinvent their organisations. transformational leadership model has been a good fit with the dominant emphasis in the public sector during the past two decades

on reinventing and reforming government to make it more business like and efficient. Leaders are called transformational when they succeed in moving their organisations in new directions and achieving measurably better results and outcomes.

Burns’s (1978) classic work on transformational leadership presents a compelling and important moral interpretation of leadership. In his book, Burns described two types of leadership: transactional and transformational.

(2) Transactional leadership, he said, involves a series of exchanges between leaders and followers. In this type of leadership, the leader and follower come together in a relationship that advances the interests of both, but there is no deep or enduring (lasting) link between them. They are simply self-interested participants in an exchange process.

The focus here, however, is on the second kind of leadership that Burns (1978) called transforming or transformational.

Unlike transactional leadership, transformational leadership requires the leader to understand and support the needs of followers, seeking higher level needs and engaging followers as whole persons.

The result of transformational leadership is “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents”.

In fact, Burns defines transformational leadership as a process in which “leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation”.

3.Building a model of Public Transformational Leadership

1. The values and morals of both the leader and follower are elevated through the relationship; both parties become mobilized, inspired, uplifted. It is only this form of leadership, he says, that has the capacity to move groups, organizations, even societies toward the pursuit of higher purposes.

2. Burns further advocates for, ‘end values’ (such as liberty, equality, justice and community) lie at the heart of transformational leadership, which seek fundamental changes in society, such as the enhancement of individual liberty and the expansion of justice and of equality of opportunity.

3. Burns, also advocate for democratic citizenship which is a process in which citizens develop a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, and a moral bond with their community.

4. It is suggested that in public administration the leaders and followers, or participants in the process, must include citizens and public servants at all levels of the organizational chart.

5. The model also draws from normative public administration theory to consider such factors as the public interest, collaboration, constitutional values, citizenship, democratic values, networks of relationships, multiple layers of accountability, and a view of public administration as part of the governance process.

.