Suchergebnisse

Eminently readible, current, and comprhensive, this acclaimed text sets the standard for instruction in.

AbstractEvaluating less than fully successful transformational leaders is difficult. One common method of assessing leadership is to focus on a single temporal narrative. A second approach uses a particular theory, such as transformational leadership, to frame the analysis. The latter, less common strategy is used with the example of Eric Shinseki, who served as both chief of staff of the U.S. Army and as secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The analytic framework used here has six major elements that are specified by 22 factors. Using those factors to evaluate Shinseki's tenure at the VA, he is found to be very poor in only 2 factors but poor in 11, adequate in 6, good in 1, and excellent in only 2. While using a list of factors does not eliminate subjectivity or the challenges of reaching a single assessment, it does clarify the elements of judgment and weighting.

Shortly after his election President Obama nominated former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, Eric Shinseki, to head the beleaguered Department of Veterans Affairs. Despite Shinseki's reputation as a transformational leader, he largely failed to transform the Department of Veterans Affairs, and resigned in early 2014. Montgomery Van Wart writes that Shinseki's example shows how difficult it is to be a transformational administrative leader, and the difficulties there are in evaluating them.

Leadership theories and the academic literature can sometimes seem difficult for practitioners to understand because of complex conceptualizations, obscure terms, and its enormousness. Yet taken as a whole, the literature makes a great deal of sense and has much to offer. Indeed, the truths are often quite simple, elegant, and straightforward. The purpose of this article is to review the major findings of the organizational leadership literature and to identify the important overarching insights, specifically those of particular importance to today's leaders in administrative positions in the public sector, where an evolving context constantly reconfigures age‐old challenges.

A variety of assessments through 2001 discussed the striking neglect of theory related to leadership in public sector organizational settings. For example, Jerry Gabris, Bob Golembiewski, and Doug Ihrke called on the field to 'improve on the emaciated condition of public leadership theory'. My assessment of administrative leadership soon thereafter, while trying to emphasize a recent uptick in volume, was nonetheless that 'the needs are great and the research opportunities are manifold'. My relatively negative assessment has been widely cited and needs to be re‐evaluated a decade later since much progress has been made and the research needs have evolved substantially.