dunoon rethinking leadership

Rethinking Leadership in the Public Sector

Don Dunoon

Ateneo School of Government

1 | P a g e

RETHINKING LEADERSHIP

FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Don Dunoon

Director

New Futures Pty Ltd

Australian Journal of Public Administration 61(3): 3-18,

September 2002

(Reproduced with the kind permission of the National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia)

Leadership and management are best thought of as a matter of competencies. Or are

they? The paper challenges the current orthodoxy in Australia on this question, and

suggests that leadership and management need to be regarded as reflecting

opposing values. The paper also distinguishes between charismatic and collective

forms of leadership, and proposes the latter as likely to be of greater value in a public

sector context. A challenge for public sector organisations is how to strike and

maintain a suitable balance between management for ongoing operations and

leadership for deep-reaching change. Strategies for developing collective leadership

capability are suggested.

Leadership is a topic attracting mixed reactions in the Australian context, and in the public sector in

particular. At one level, there is recognition of the need for leadership if public sector organisations

are to be better able to respond to the changing expectations of political and community

stakeholders (Mellors 1996; Barrett 1997). Yet one also senses an ambivalence surrounding

leadership, sometimes expressed through questions such as: Is it leadership that we need or better

management? Doesn't a focus on leadership imply an uncritical acceptance of corporate models?

Isn't there a danger of maverick leaders hijacking or distorting government agendas? Staff might ask,

won't an emphasis on leadership reinforce the power of existing elites?

This paper contends that, to deal effectively with the more difficult and contentious issues they face,

public sector organisations do require leadership, but of a type somewhat different from

conventional models. Referred to here as learning-centred leadership, the approach involves

fostering the conditions under which people, working together, are better able to create new

visions, productively deal with underlying issues, generate fresh insights and change work place

cultures. Learning is seen not as an end in itself but in terms of building the capability of

organisations, groups and individuals for effective action.

The development of such capability requires a reassessment of the meaning of leadership. This has

two aspects. First, there is a need to examine the relationship between leadership and

management. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in Australia, this paper takes the view that

leadership and management are different and this is a difference of consequence. It is suggested

that in this country there has been a tendency to view leadership through a management lens, with

public sector organisations tending to over emphasise management at the expense of leadership.

One impact is a disproportionate focus on operational aspects and crisis management as distinct

from building capability to be effective tomorrow (AbeII 1999).


Don Dunoon


2 | P a g e

The second aspect of reappraising leadership is to consider the values and assumptions underlying

leadership practices and development programs (Heifetz 1994). Leadership can mean many

different things, and unless underlying meanings are made transparent there is a potential that

leadership development efforts may be only partially effective or even counter productive.

The paper reviews established concepts of transformational leadership and distinguishes learning-

centred leadership from charismatic approaches to transformation. Learning-centred leadership is

proposed as a frame through which leadership can be viewed, rather than as a specific program or

methodology. The approach, in a public sector context, is concerned with increasing the capacity of

organisations to implement the priorities of government effectively, achieve cultural change and

deal productively with difficult and emerging issues.

Implications for leadership practice and development are discussed, with a focus as much on

organisational as individual development. Three key areas are proposed for attention by individual

agencies: the development of an infrastructure to support collaborative leadership, clarification of

supportive organisational values, and the development of skills, particularly in conversing

productively about difficult issues. It is recognised, though, that the development of leadership

capability, no matter which approach is followed, is problematic.

The Need for Leadership

It is difficult to discuss the need for leadership before exploring the meaning of the term, so for the

moment the reader is asked to accept the proposition that leadership is concerned with deep-

reaching change, particularly when shifts in underlying assumptions and beliefs are required. As

Behn (1998) points out, without leadership by managers, public sector organisations would be

unable to achieve what governments require of them. He points to factors underscoring a need for

leadership including the possibility of ambiguous or unclear directions from government, the danger

of capture of agencies and programs by sectional interests and the need to deal with organisational

dysfunction, such as when parts of an organisation are pursuing conflicting agendas.

While the need for leadership at top management levels in establishing policy and directions might

be accepted, subsequent implementation is often seen as a relatively technical, linear matter - more

a question of effective management than leadership. However, as Beer and Eisenstat (2000)

suggest, implementation efforts frequently go awry, and for reasons which could be avoided. They

identify six sources of implementation error: top-down or laissez-faire senior management style,

unclear strategy and conflicting priorities, an ineffective senior management team, poor vertical

communication, poor cross functional coordination and inadequate down-the-line leadership skills

and development. Later in this paper it will be suggested that creating the conditions under which

these sorts of problems are less likely is itself a leadership challenge.

Many of the problems that government organisations - and governments - face are messy and ill

defined with different possible interpretations and pathways for action. The terms 'wicked

problems' (Harmon and Mayer 1986:11) and 'adaptive problems' (Heifetz 1994:8) have been used to

describe such problems, the main characteristic of which is that there is no technically correct

answer waiting to be found. Contemporary examples include balancing the needs of salinity

management and farmers, reconciling development and heritage values in urban areas and dealing

with youth homelessness. Part of the leadership challenge in working with such issues is to harness


Don Dunoon


3 | P a g e

and integrate the knowledge and expertise of diverse people and groups, to make explicit and

scrutinise underlying assumptions and to build common ground and momentum for change.

Without leadership, the likely outcomes are reactive decision-making and unsatisfactory

compromises that leave the deeper issues largely unchecked.

Achieving cultural change is another leadership challenge facing public sector managers. One

example is the need in the health services to create a more open culture in relation to

acknowledging and dealing with clinical errors and to gain greater involvement of clinicians in

quality improvement efforts (Leap 1994; Wilson et at. 1995). In relation to place management

initiatives, Walsh (2001) observed: 'improving responses to local communities will require attention

to issues of culture and relationships and an end to compartmentalised mentalities and behaviour in

the public service at all levels'. Cultural change is always difficult, particularly in cases like those

described where behaviour is based on deep beliefs and assumptions that may have been shaped

over decades, if not generations. There are many intricacies for leadership in culture change,

including dealing with strongly held emotions, encouraging people to question what has been taken

as given and not least the fact that change leaders may be steeped in the same culture themselves

(Schein 1992). While one is wary of over simplifying highly complex issues, it is difficult to see how

such changes could come about in the absence of positive leadership.

Organisations may state that they are already focusing attention on leadership and its development,

and no doubt in various ways they are, perhaps with great success in some cases. The intention here

is not to diminish these efforts or to suggest that present approaches are 'wrong'. Rather the aim is

to encourage reflection on the values and assumptions underpinning those approaches and to open

up possibilities for enhancing what is presently being done. One area where some reappraisal could

be useful is in the relationship between leadership and management.

Leadership and Management - A Question of Competencies?

Most, if not all, Australian jurisdictions have developed competency frameworks for their senior

executives (Morley and Vilkinas 1997). While their approaches vary somewhat, these frameworks

generally share an implicit assumption that leadership and management at senior levels are much

the same thing, or at least cannot usefully or meaningfully be distinguished. Perhaps the most

authoritative support for this view comes from Enterprising Nation, report of the Industry Task Force

on Leadership and Management Skills, better known as the Karpin Report (Industry Task Force

1995). Drawing on the findings of specially commissioned research (Craig and Yetton 1995), the task

force took the view that, rather than trying to distinguish between leadership and management, 'the

more pertinent questions centre around the broad areas of competence that managers in the new

structures require' (Industry Task Force 1995:135).

In their research report for the task force, Craig and Yetton noted (1995:1185) that thousands of

leadership studies had failed to discern any traits, behaviours or qualities that could be reliably used

to set leaders apart from others and to form the basis of leadership selection and development.

They further concluded (1995:1213) that 'since the search for the leadership panacea has failed

everywhere else, it seems a bit pointless to try and find or develop specifically Australian leaders ...

However, there is a whole range of theories and techniques that have been shown to improve

organisational performance. These all deal with managerial competencies'.


Don Dunoon


4 | P a g e

While management competency frameworks have their value, for example in providing a structure

to guide processes such as selection or 360-degree feedback, one would be wary of relying too

heavily on them. Ultimately, any framework reflects the biases and assumptions of its creators. A

review of the various SES frame works in terms of their underpinning - and perhaps implicit theories

- of leadership could be a useful research project.

In the writer's view, Craig and Yetton and - by extension the Industry Task Force - have erred in

conceptualising leadership as being primarily a matter of the characteristics and behaviours of

individual 'leaders'. They correctly recognised that there is more to organisational effectiveness than

focusing on the potential and actions of high calibre individuals, and this apparently led them to play

down the contribution of leadership. Perhaps for this reason, the Task Force on Leadership and

Management Skills focused mainly on management (Sheldrake 1997).

A more useful approach may be to conceptualise leadership, not in terms of the attributes of

individuals, but as a mode or action quite distinct from management, as advocated by Harvard

professor John Kotter (1990). Kotter argued that leadership and management, are two sides of a

coin; leadership being about coping with change while management is about ensuring stability and

continuity. Kotter saw both leadership and management as necessary with organisations needing to

find and maintain a suitable balance between the two modes. Organisations need to develop leader-

managers with capability in both domains, while recognising that some individuals will have

preferences for management and others for leadership. Similar distinctions between leadership and

management have been made by other authors including Bennis and Nanus (1985:217-18)

Before developing the contention that the distinction between leadership and management is one

of consequence for the public sector, it is necessary to consider further the meaning of leadership

and management and, in particular, to critically assess the values and assumptions implicit in each.

It is important to acknowledge at this point a potential danger in creating a bi-polar distinction

between leadership and management, in that too much may be made of the difference (Barker

1997). The ability to hold leadership and management apart is necessary if organisations and

individual executives are to be able to consider what leadership means to them, in their context,

and how much of their effort is being devoted to leadership. Equally, the distinction between

leadership and management must be a soft or 'permeable' one, recognising that both leadership

and management are required, that there is a degree of overlap between them, that many or most

managers probably do some of each, and that different balances between leadership and

management may be required at different levels of the hierarchy (with senior managers focusing

more on leadership).

It is also important to recognise the realities of leading and managing in contemporary public sector

environments, among them intense pressures for achieving results, maintaining accountability,

using resources efficiently and responding quickly to changes in direction or priorities. In order to

enable a clear assessment of the values implicit in leadership and management, however,

consideration of the effects of these public sector realities is head over until later in the paper.

The Management Mode of Operating

According to Kotter (1990), management - as a manner of operating rather than a formal role or set

of roles - is concerned with such aspects as planning and budgeting, organising and staffing, and


Don Dunoon


5 | P a g e

controlling and problem solving. Management, from his perspective, is concerned with predictable

and orderly operations.

Extending Kotter's view, the focus of management, as distinct from leadership, can be seen as being

on ongoing concerns, such as delivering results for customers or clients, solving routine problems,

improving business processes and ensuring control and account ability through monitoring,

measuring and reporting on performance. The emphasis is on rational analysis (Barker 1997) and the

'harder', more explicit aspects of organisation such as plans, policies, tasks, service level agreements

and the like.

This is not to say that the management way of working is simply concerned with tangibles and not

with people. Management is sometimes described as 'getting things done through people'. This can

take different forms, on a continuum from a directive approach to a more empowering style.

The directive approa.ch relies on formal authority and implies unilateral decision making, although

desirably informed by consultation with those affected. Directive approaches can be necessary in

situations where external circumstances dictate a particular response, or where unpopular decisions

need to be taken. Consider, for example, the local government council in which top executives

decide, after consultation, that the only resources for an important service enhancement can come

from a reduction in over time for a group of staff. As the staff are opposed to such a decision, the

only way it can be taken is by direction - although desirably with the reasoning made explicit.

A problem with directive approaches, however, is that they can be at odds with the need to build

staff commitment to change and improvement. If used excessively, such approaches can encourage

a self-fulfilling logic among senior executives, that they need to act decisively as staff are not 'on

side'.

In a more empowering approach to management, the strategy involves clarifying directions,

assigning responsibilities, allocating resources, ensuring people have the skills and other supports

needed, and holding them accountable for results (Quinn and Spreitzer 1997). However, as these

authors suggest, such an approach is likely to place little emphasis on the development of people in

ways that enable them to contribute fully as members of the organisation. Moreover, as the

management mode implies a strong operational orientation, problem solving is likely to be confined

to task or technical matters, where reaching agreement on a solution is relatively straightforward.

An empowerment-oriented management style, by itself, is unlikely to create the conditions

necessary for dealing with the deep and multifaceted issues implied in cultural change.

Take the example of two departments, one responsible for maintenance and one for operations, in

a state infrastructure agency. The departments are in continual conflict and relations between them

are poor. A particular conflict arises around the introduction of a new business system. Top

managers are able to get the departments together to resolve this issue, but after this it is business

as usual: the underlying tensions continue to bubble away with adverse effects on productiveness.

Dealing effectively with deeper issues, such as between the departments, implies the need for an

organisation to be capable of handling disagreement or contention constructively (Goss et al. 1993).

This requires an organisational tolerance for differing perspectives, a respect for the contribution of

others and processes to help the protagonists find common ground. When there is contention there


Don Dunoon


6 | P a g e

is threat and discomfort, and these are at odds with the values of stability, control and predictability

central to the management mode.

While organisations in which the management mode dominates often declare values like respect,

trust and diversity, the experience of people in the organisation is likely to be that actual practice

falls a good way short of the stated values. Unless managers and staff believe that the stated values

really do drive behaviour, they are likely to be pessimistic about the organisation's ability to deal

with its problems, and mistrust, cynicism, blame and the avoidance of threatening issues can figure

strongly. Changing these dynamics is a leadership issue.

Perspectives on Leadership

While many leadership frameworks can be found in the academic and practitioner literatures, the

attention here is towards approaches that can be broadly described as transformational, drawing on

the ideas of Burns (1978). Burns emphasised transformational leadership as a process of mutual

influence in which leaders inspire followers by recognising and responding to their more noble

needs:

The transforming leader looks for possible motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher

needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of transforming

leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers

into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents (Burns 1978:4).

His stress on the higher needs is in keeping with a public sector emphasis on ethical conduct and

probity, and precludes the actions of charismatic but malevolent or narcissistic individuals being

considered as 'leadership'.

Two approaches to transformational leadership can be identified. The first might be termed

charismatic transformation (Stace and Dunphy 1994) and emphasises the individual leader as the

agent of transformation or deep change. The second approach, referred to here as learning-centred

leadership, reflects a more collectivist view of leadership, and emphasises processes such as

dialogue and other forms of reflective conversation to build shared understandings and momentum

for change. A distinction needs also to be drawn between leadership and formal authority (Heifetz

1994). A good deal of the so-called leadership by some people in positions of authority might more

accurately be described as management behaviour.

Much of the popular leadership literature takes a charismatic transformational stance. The emphasis

tends to be on the individual leader as defining and articulating a compelling vision for the future, as

engaging and inspiring staff towards the desired direction, and as building alignment of people,

structures and systems to support the vision. The leader's role as coach, facilitator and supporter of

people is commonly emphasised, as are contemporary social values such as trust, respect and

diversity. Examples broadly falling within this school of thought include the works of Kouzes and

Posner (1987), Tichy and Devanna (1990) and Dess and Picken (2000).

While not denying that some organisations, including in the public sector, may have achieved

dramatic change under charismatic chief executives, a number of issues arise with such an approach

to leadership. The possibility exists that the leader's vision, or the strategy for implementation, may

be flawed or out of step with government priorities. The 'aura' surrounding the leader may reflect a


Don Dunoon


7 | P a g e

cult of personality, making it difficult - or at least risky - for others to criticise the leader's views or to

offer contending ideas. As a result charismatic leaders may not receive the feedback necessary to

prevent problems arising; for example, differences of view around vision or implementation may be

suppressed or masked (Morrison and Milliken 2000). An excessive focus on the leader may inhibit

the development of a depth of leadership capability in the organisation, potentially leaving it

vulnerable in the event of new challenges arising or the leader's voluntary departure or contract

termination. While leaders seek the 'buy-in' and commitment of staff, it may be that what staff offer

is compliance, in the sense of making all the right noises in public but privately switching off or even

rebelling. Although leadership is necessary in public sector organisations, the charismatic

perspective is of limited utility as a general model - notwithstanding that some individuals may

demonstrate charismatic qualities and behaviours to good effect.

Perhaps a fear of some of the aspects of the charismatic style contributes to ambivalence towards

leadership, as suggested in the introduction, with concerns such as the maverick leader

reinterpreting government policy to suit their own agenda, or the ego-driven leader preoccupied

with self-promotion. If organisations do not have a viable alternative concept of leadership to the

charismatic approach, they can find themselves caught between an understanding that they need

leadership and their fear of leadership. The response may be a top-down management style with

declarations upholding leadership-related values. Employees may also find themselves in a bind.

They can see the contradictions between espoused values and actual practice. Yet they remain silent

because of the perceived threat involved in raising these issues with senior management {Argyris

1990). This dynamic can fuel resentment, frustration and a disengagement with the organisation - all

of which make organisational goals harder to achieve.

Learning-centred Leadership

To begin with, a qualification: the term learning-centred leadership is used here to enable a contrast

to be drawn with charismatic leadership. The intention is not to imply that there is one best way or

style of leadership but rather that there are differing underlying values, and that perhaps the core

values of learning-centred leadership are, generally speaking, more helpful to public sector

organisations than those of charismatic transformation.

The conceptual basis of learning-centred leadership comes from organisational learning theory,

reflecting the contributions of scholars such as Argyris (in many publications, for example,

1990,1991), Senge (Senge 1990; Senge et al. 1994) and Dixon (1994). Following the publication of

Senge's The Fifth Discipline in 1990, 'the learning organisation' was something of a fad in this

country, including in public sector organisations, in the early to mid 1990s. At the time there was a

tendency by consultants and practitioners to focus on quick fixes and simple prescriptions, and

when these failed to deliver the desired results the learning organisation went the way of all fads.

However, organisational learning theory is much more than a fad and has a significant history dating

back over 25 years (Senge, quoted in Fulmer and Keys 1998).

The following definition from Dixon (1994:5) may help to convey something of the nature of

organisational learning:

[Organisational learning is] the intentional use of learning processes at the individual,

group and system level to continually transform the organisation in a direction that is

increasingly satisfying to stakeholders.


Don Dunoon


8 | P a g e

The intentional use of learning processes implies that learning is not just a haphazard affair but

something that needs to be consciously worked at. Dixon (1994:5) emphasises learning as a

'dynamic process of the construction and reconstruction of meaning'. She adds that 'learning

concerns the processes the organisation uses to gain new understandings or correct the current

understanding; it is not the accumulated knowledge of the organisation'.

Leadership from an organisational learning perspective is to do with creating the conditions under

which organisational members, jointly and individually, can better make sense of, or interpret,

issues and opportunities they face that are not purely of a technical nature, and then take effective

action. Leadership, from this standpoint, is essentially about capacity building (Heifetz 1994).

Leaders at all levels can contribute to developing the capacity of others in the system for getting to

the core issues beneath apparent problems, generating and testing ideas about what might be

achieved, and mobilising energy for action. The challenge of leadership development becomes one

of developing a 'leadership ecology' in which leadership is a valued mode of operating throughout

the organisation (Fulmer and Keys 1998).

One key leadership capability is in helping others to make meanings clear. This involves enabling

people to recognise what they may take for granted and generate new ways of seeing, and helping

them to apply these understandings in action. When people are able to frame problems differently,

they open possibilities for acting that otherwise could well have been outside their field of view. In

this sense of assisting people to reframe issues and opportunities and identify viable pathways for

action, learning-centred leadership is transformational. However, the transformation occurs not so

much through individuals responding to the appeal of a charismatic individual, but through

processes that executives and others design, nurture and model.

A learning-oriented approach to leadership may also avoid or minimise some of the problems

associated with the charismatic approach. The prospect of the maverick leader is likely to be less of

a problem if leadership responsibility is widely distributed and ideas are contestable. For the same

reasons, there is less likelihood of egocentric individual leaders being able to impose their ideas on

others. As with the distinction between leadership and management, however, it is important that

the line between charismatic and learning-centred leadership not be too heavily drawn. Building

learning-centred leadership capability implies the need for individuals to take leadership roles. To

the extent that individuals may demonstrate some charismatic qualities, such as a high degree of

self-confidence and enthusiasm, this may have some positive effects in inspiring others.

To bring the analysis to a more applied level, leadership is considered at each of the three levels

proposed by Dixon (1994).

Leadership in Enabling lndividual-level Learning

Fostering learning at the individual level is not just a matter of supporting and coaching people in

acquiring new skills and knowledge. This is arguably a management challenge, in line with the focus

on operational aspects. The leadership challenge implies such aspects as working with people to

assist them to become more self-aware, to clarify their assumptions and goals, and to identify

realistic strategies for moving forward. Such processes have been termed generative coaching

(Murphy 1995).


Don Dunoon


9 | P a g e

Managers operating mainly in the management mode are likely to see their role as analysing and

problem solving, and providing advice, assistance and solutions. From a learning-centred leadership

perspective, the challenge is to keep the other person in charge of their own learning and assist

them to achieve deeper insights into the problems they face, so that they might better identify and

implement action strategies. This is not a matter of trying to change people's personalities or

interfering in matters better left private; rather it is about the tough challenge of engaging with

another's work-related thinking processes in ways that minimise defensive reactions and build

capacity for productive action.

As an example, a middle manager works with a team leader in a human services agency to assist

them to deal with a conflict between two staff. The team leader assumes the problem is caused by a

'personality clash' between the two staff. The middle manager inquires into the thinking behind this

explanation in ways that minimise threat to the team leader while encouraging reflection. After

some deliberation the team leader comes to their own conclusion that the underlying problem is to

do with an unresolved issue about perceived unfair treatment in favour of one of the workers. They

now feel in a position to discuss the conflict with the workers at this level, and are confident about

being able to handle the conflict productively.

This is a leadership intervention since it operates at the level of underlying assumptions rather than

business as usual. The middle manager's role is not to solve the problem but to assist the team

leader remain in control of their own learning and improve the prospect that they will be able to

handle similar situations effectively in future.

Leadership in Enabling Group-level Learning

Leadership in this context entails assisting a group to move beyond competitive or dysfunctional

dynamics in order that they may achieve more creative and deeper understandings of the issues

they face and build new insights as the basis for action. The key process here is dialogue (Senge

1990; Ellinor and Gerard 1998), an approach to conversation for enabling a group to discover shared

meaning. A dialogue is a quiet, reflective conversation in which differing perspectives are

encouraged, people tend to feel listened to and valued and there is a sense of collaboration,

working together to build a common understanding. However, it is a mistake to think of dialogue

simply as 'nice talk'. Paradoxically, the dialogue process enables difficult issues to be tackled more

directly and conflicting viewpoints to be aired. Leading organisational development scholar Edgar

Schein (1993) observed, 'All problem-solving groups should begin in a dialogue format to facilitate

the building of sufficient common ground and mutual trust, and to make it possible to tell what is

really on one's mind'.

As powerful as it is, dialogue is somewhat counter-cultural in most public sector and business

organisations. It requires a suspension of judgment, a temporary letting go of outcomes, attention

to process, and a willingness to talk issues through quietly - all of which can be against the grain of

day-to-day organisational life. Accordingly, building capability for, sponsoring and supporting

dialogue are key leadership challenges.

Leadership in Enabling System-Ievel Learning

Leadership at this level is about creating the conditions under which a system or part of a system

may increase its ability for effective performance. While a range of strategies may be applied to

foster system-level learning, one is an action learning process, in which groups of staff work on key


Don Dunoon


10 | P a g e

organisational or business problems while simultaneously advancing their individual and joint

learning.

Royal Dutch Shell is one organisation to have made extensive and effective use of such processes. In

the words of one of the company's managing directors, Steve Miller: 'Change your approach to

strategy, and you change the way a company runs. The leader becomes a context setter, the

designer of a learning experience - not an authority figure with solutions' (Pascale 1999).

The notion of the senior executive leadership function as context setting is some way removed from

concepts of charismatic leadership. In organisations emphasising collective leadership, top

managers still play an important leadership role, but the emphasis is more on helping others

understand what is important, clarifying meanings and shaping the way the organisation responds

to stakeholder pressures. A key capability from the learning-centred perspective is an understanding

of organisational development and dynamics and an ability to influence these productively. To

succeed in collaborative leadership, top managers need also to have a deep belief in the value of

leading with people, not just 'from the front'. Of utmost importance is the notion of top executives

as 'lead learners' (Negroni 2000). This implies that the executive is appropriately open to the ideas

of others and capable of seeing issues from multiple points of view, as well as being able to

recognise and question their own assumptions.

Four Domains of Learning-centred Leadership

While there are undoubtedly many ways in which learning-centred leadership could be

conceptualised, the four-dimension framework, as sketched in Table 1, is suggested as a useful lens.

The framework is not proposed as comprehensive, more as indicative of some of the key areas of

effectiveness and required capabilities. A fuller articulation of the framework than is possible here

would differentiate senior and middle management leadership roles and would point to more

specific capabilities, including personal capabilities, within each of the domains.

Table I: Four Dimensions of Learning-centred Leadership

Strategic Leadership

Working with others to: understand changing external and internal environments, clarify a

preferred future (whether for the organisation or a particular program or initiative), engage

with 'current reality' (Senge 1990), build momentum to achieve the vision, and develop

alliances internally and externally.

Leadership for Knowledge Creation

Enabling people of diverse perspectives/backgrounds to integrate what they know, generate

novel perspectives and achieve deeper understandings about the underlying nature of

difficult problems facing the organisation, as well as strategies for dealing with those

problems.


Don Dunoon


11 | P a g e

Values-based Leadership

Clarifying and articulating values to guide staff in decision-making; creating a climate in

which values-related issues (such as ethical dilemmas) are discussed openly and in which

gaps between espoused values and the values being enacted can be explored. Personally

acting in ways that model the values espoused.

Developmental Leadership

Working with individuals and groups so as to strengthen their capacity for effective action.

Acting as coach, mentor and facilitator in ways that enable open and relatively safe

exploration of underlying assumptions and beliefs.

What unites these four dimensions is that they involve processes of collaborative inquiry into

underlying assumptions and differing conceptions of reality. This means colleagues working together

to deal with deep problems, handle the conflict and threat that arises, and devise and implement

new solutions and strategies. The leadership task is to create the context and environment in which

such inquiry can occur, to contribute as appropriate, to facilitate and support the process, and to

enable the insights gained to stimulate new action.

The leadership process here is subtle. An executive needs to be able to sponsor and orchestrate

joint inquiry simultaneously, as with a dialogue process, but also contribute as a colleague alongside

others at different levels in the organisation. Particular challenges include how to advocate one's

views while at the same time being open to the views of others, and how to guide and shape the

inquiry process without taking too much control. The leadership role in collaborative inquiry

involves interpreting and possibly reframing the contributions of others, recognising and developing

important but perhaps only partly formed ideas, creating syntheses from diverging viewpoints and

extending the range of ideas considered. These capabilities are not suggested as replacing those in

the various senior executive capability frameworks (Morley and Vilkinas 1997) but a learning-

centred leadership perspective may imply a need for some modification of those frameworks.

The process emphasis in each of the dimensions of the learning-centred leadership framework is in

marked contrast to the focus on tangibles in many public sector organisations. For example,

strategic leadership deals with - among other things - the process of creating shared vision and using

vision to propel action in the desired direction. In many organisations, however, 'creating a vision

statement' is a mechanical exercise that emphasises the statement per se rather than the process of

arriving at the statement and using it to enable change. Not surprisingly, vision has become a

management cliché. The same applies with leadership for knowledge creation. The focus here is on

the leadership process of integrating and building knowledge by bringing together different

perspectives. In some organisations, however, the focus is on the stock of explicit knowledge, that

which can be captured and documented in databases, rather than the knowledge creation process

(Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).


Don Dunoon


12 | P a g e

This focus on process may seem problematic in outcomes-driven public sector organisations. After

all, the contemporary focus on outcomes is in part a response to what was seen as a preoccupation

with internal bureaucratic processes as ends in themselves. The challenge here is different. As

Langer (1989:5) puts it, 'every outcome is preceded by a process'. The challenge for leadership

practitioners, from a learning-centred perspective, is to be more explicit and open about their

'theories of action'. These are the implicit beliefs that executives hold about the processes by which

their plans and actions will bring about the outcomes they desire.

Take, for example, the case of a newly arrived head of a branch in a service delivery agency. Part of

her performance agreement involves making significant changes to the product and service delivery

methods of the branch. In conversation with the writer, she observes that most of the branch staff

have 'been here too long' and are 'resisters', and that she will need to 'drive change through'. A

process perspective on leadership would suggest that the manager needs first to reflect on her

assumptions about what she means by resisters, why these people are resisters, what specifically it

is they are resisting about her plans and actions, what other explanations there might be for their

observed behaviour and what all this means in terms of strategies she might adopt. A more mindful

conception of resistance might enable the executive to see the issues from the point of view of

different staff and perhaps even recognise that her own actions in 'driving change' are feeding into

the reactions she finds problematic.

A learning-centred, process-oriented perspective on leadership offers promise in dealing with the

implementation issues identified by Beer and Eisenstat (2000), including poor communication

laterally as well as vertically, and ineffective senior teams. A process perspective encourages people

to think more dynamically about what is really going on, and to test their assumptions and analyses

openly. To take the issue about vertical communication, a process perspective on leadership invites

inquiry into what is occurring in the organisation such that people feel unable to communicate

openly up and down the line. How does the problem look to people at different levels, including

one's own? What underlying factors, including possibly undiscussed or undiscussable issues, are

driving the responses of people in different parts of the organisation? There may be strongly

divergent and heated views on these issues, but leadership involves assisting others to develop

more grounded, testable analyses of the problems they face.

Leadership and Management Reconsidered

Now that management and leadership have been reviewed, and learning-centred leadership has

been differentiated from the charismatic variety, we are in a position to return to the question of

the relationship between leadership and management, and whether the distinction between them

is of consequence to the public sector. The discussion so far has suggested that the essence of the

distinction lies in differences in underlying values. Table 2 summarises some of these values.

Table 2:

Values underlying Management and Learning-centred Leadership

Values underlying Management Perspective

Values Underlying Learning-centred

Leadership

Outcomes, accountability Process before outcomes


Don Dunoon


13 | P a g e

Control, stability, order

Analysis, deductive logic

Measurement, monitoring

Leadership as province of individuals

Current operations

Avoidance of threat and conflict

Deep change, transformation

Creativity, insight, emotional awareness

Development, inquiry

Collective and individual leadership

Capacity building

Embrace of diversity, contention and

uncertainty

It needs to be emphasised, as Kotter (1990) has done, that both leadership and management are

necessary; it is not a matter of regarding one as more important than the other. The question is

whether there tends to be an imbalance between them and, if so, what are the causes and the

implications.

Kotter (1990) argues that most people are over-managed and under-Ied. This writer's experience,

from discussions concerning leadership and management balance with hundreds of Australian

public sector managers in workshop settings, is in line with Kotter's dictum. These managers not

only tend to regard their organisations as over emphasising management at the expense of

leadership, but report that in their own work they are driven overwhelmingly by management

imperatives.

One danger of an over emphasis on management is that managers will focus on doing what they

already do, although perhaps with an eye to fine-tuning and continuous improvement. Building

capacity for achieving effective implementation, for dealing with contentious issues and for

achieving cultural change, however, might require that they do some quite different things as well.

Examples could include identifying and exploring emerging issues, building a widely understood and

shared strategic agenda, finding ways to create new knowledge by integrating the perspectives of

diverse specialties, creatively exploring new ways to introduce and implement change, and building

external relationships. Many agencies might respond along the lines of 'we do these things already'.

The question is how well they do them, and whether they devote enough attention to these issues.

An example might illustrate the point. The SES group in a development workshop in one agency

were asked to nominate the significant emerging issues that the agency would need to engage with

over the next three years. The assembled group had no trouble in brainstorming a list of several

issues. When asked what action the group was currently taking in relation to these issues, the

collective response was 'none'.

An organisation focusing too strongly on management is at risk of failing to deal effectively with the

major issues it faces. The danger is that the organisation is caught up in reacting to events and

managing crises, and is unable to give due attention to the deeper or more long-term matters. In

such organisations important problems often fester unresolved or are the subject of organisational

politics and perhaps patch-up or mediocre decisions. There can be much wasted effort in circling

around the issues rather than dealing with them directly.

Why the Over Emphasis on Management Values?

If, as has been suggested, management is to do with ensuring stability and continuity and leadership

is concerned with deep change and transformation, a fundamental tension arises between the two.

The potential exists that decision-makers operating chiefly from the control-oriented values of


Don Dunoon


14 | P a g e

management will seek to 'reign in' any leadership-oriented efforts to break out of existing moulds or

question basic assumptions. By Kotter's (1990) definition, the change that is synonymous with

leadership is threatening to the status-quo orientation of management.

Several other factors can be seen as operating to reinforce an over emphasis on management

compared to leadership. The first concerns the unrelenting pressure on managers and staff in the

public sector to achieve more and better results. While a results focus is critical, the achievement of

those results can be compromised if there is not also sufficient attention to the processes and

dynamics of change, as indicated in the earlier example of the new branch manager trying to 'drive

through' change against resistance. Attention to accountability is also vital. The danger is that

managers can interpret this as implying a need for direct control, thereby reinforcing a top-down

management style.

Most public sector managers, at least in the writer's experience, work under considerable time

pressures; there is always more to be done than can be achieved. Under such pressures managers

are likely, this writer suggests, to focus their effort on the more urgent challenges they face.

Important but less urgent issues (Covey 1989:151) such as clarifying organisational values or

developing a shared agenda for the future, are likely to be relegated to second place. These aspects

may only be given attention when they become urgent or when there is a crisis, making a proactive

approach to organisational capability development difficult to achieve.

The management emphasis on achieving tangible results provides feedback and affirmation, which

are powerful rewards in themselves - particularly given the limited scope for incentive pay and other

material rewards in the public sector. While leadership work may bring its own satisfactions, the

organisational benefits can take time to appear, resulting in a lack of immediate reinforcement.

Leadership, with its focus on major change, necessarily involves risk and threat. What if people don't

like our ideas, or don't share our vision? How do we deal with those who have different views, and

especially with those who seem ambivalent about our ideas, or oppose them, yet who may not

indicate the basis of their reactions? Leadership also implies a need to deal with emotional factors

including the fear of one's own response to the reactions of others. To those with a strong bias to

detached, rational analysis this can be a frightening prospect, resulting in procrastination or

complete avoidance.

Another dimension to the threat issue comes from learning-centred leadership having a personal

aspect. The management paradigm, with its emphasis on analysis and tangibles, sees problems as

'out there' and requiring a solution to be found by examination of external factors. Leadership, with

its emphasis on modelling and reflection, requires the manager to ask in effect, 'in what ways might

my behaviour or approach be contributing to the problems that I am engaging with?' Such a

question implies taking personal responsibility for seeing ourselves as part of the system we find

problematic, rather than as separate from it. It is much easier to side step this question and look for

an external cause.

Implications

As well as the factors outlined, other pressures facing public sector managers include operating

within tight resource limits, dealing with multiple competing pressures simultaneously, working with

systems that might reinforce the status quo, and the size and complexity of many government


Don Dunoon


15 | P a g e

organisations. With all of these factors, it might be suggested that a learning-centred conception of

leadership is a romantic ideal for the public sector.

The writer agrees that developing and maintaining a learning-centred approach is difficult in the

public sector, indeed in any setting. It is especially difficult when the priorities of governments call

for sudden changes of direction or decisions likely to be unpopular within the organisation, such as

outsourcing or downsizing. The question in relation to leadership is how to deal with these

difficulties. On the one hand, executives can use such problems to justify a style that is essentially

top-down management, albeit perhaps dressed up with the jargon of leadership. Alternatively, they

can elect to work in a way that specifically recognises the unavoidable tensions between leadership

and management, and seek to reconcile these tensions as best they can. The reconciliation process

requires that managers consciously evaluate the choices they face, rather than deciding implicitly.

This can involve balancing the focus on results and tangibles of management with the process and

values orientation of leadership. Such balancing is not necessarily an either/or matter, a question of

this or that. What is required is that managers take into account the principles of leadership when

working under pressure; for instance, in explaining the thinking behind decisions which may seem to

be at odds with declared values, or explicitly testing assumptions. The more managers can

demonstrate that they are attempting to model leadership while getting on with the business of

managing, the more likely they are to be seen as credible and believable, and to build staff

satisfaction, capability and commitment.

This discussion has focused on the choices facing individual managers. Making such choices and

following through with action will

be much easier for managers if they are operating in an environment that supports the

development of leadership capability.

Building Capability for Learning-centred Leadership

Readers will appreciate that there are many issues that an organisation thinking of pursuing this

path will need to deal with, some of which are summarised in Table 3. Not the least of these issues

is that getting started on the process requires a measure of leadership to begin with. The capability

development process calls for sponsorship by executives with enough self-awareness to appreciate

their own leadership and management style and their impact on others, enough awareness of the

potential benefits of collaborative approaches to commit to the effort and resourcing required, and

enough patience and persistence to maintain the focus under tough conditions until an evaluation

can reasonably be made.

A range of approaches will be required, variously emphasising the development of organisational

and individual capability, though this discussion is concerned mainly with the former. It is suggested

that approaches can usefully be grouped under three headings:

Establishing an infrastructure to support leadership development and practice

Articulating and nurturing values supportive of learning-centred leadership

Developing skills, particularly in reflective conversation

The three broad approaches need to be regarded as mutually reinforcing. Focusing on one without

attention to the others is unlikely to be highly effective.


Don Dunoon


16 | P a g e

Establishing an Infrastructure for Learning-centred Leadership

Infrastructure in this context refers to explicit aspects of the organisation that can provide support

or ‘light scaffolding’ for leadership efforts. Specific aspects include competency frameworks,

meeting structures, budget allocations, business plans, position descriptions and performance

indicators. For example, competency frameworks can be reviewed in terms of their underlying

assumptions about leadership and management. Aspects such as dialogue and mindfulness

(focusing on observable behaviour, avoiding rushing to judgment or attributing motives, reflecting

on one's own assumptions) may need to be given greater attention. Management position

descriptions and team role statements can be reviewed in terms of the balance between

management and leadership aspects.

In high-pressure public sector workplaces, 'the lack of time' is often raised as an inhibiting factor. If

leadership is to be more than rhetoric, time for creating shared understanding must be set aside and

protected. Otherwise, the tyranny of the urgent will soon take over. As well as making time,

structures and supports need to be established that legitimise and encourage this type of activity. As

re-engineering guru Michael Hammer (Hammer and Stanton 1997) observed, 'we need to treat

reflection as a business process'. This implies that leadership- related practices need to have their

place among organisational priorities and to be resourced like other activities.

Table 3:

Some Issues in Building Collective Leadership

How to ensure more attention to leadership in public sector organisations operating under

intense pressures, which tend to reinforce management-related values?

How to reconcile the need for top-down executive decision-making in some circumstances

with the importance in leadership of congruence between stated and enacted values and

modelling of the desired behaviours?

How to gain support for capacity-building approaches to leadership when the outcomes may

be remote in time?

How to encourage executives and others to reflect on their underlying assumptions and

values about leadership?

How to ensure that developing leadership capability is treated as a discipline, like learning a

sport or a musical instrument?

How to deal with the reality that people yearn for 'practical' solutions but that some of the

most powerful approaches are counter-intuitive and require commitment and practice to

produce results?

How to build legitimacy and space for reflection, which is often regarded as people 'not

working'?

How to help executive managers reflect on how their own behaviour may contribute to the


Don Dunoon


17 | P a g e

problems they see?

How to get people elsewhere in the organisation to take responsibility for their contribution

to what is happening, rather than pointing the finger at others?

An executive team in a state government agency realised that its monthly full day meetings were

being taken up largely with information sharing and with routine and operational matters. The team

divided its meeting in half, to enable it to spend 50 percent of each meeting on leadership-related

issues. Another agency with a staff of 500 sets aside one day per month for all managers to explore

common issues together, thereby providing an opportunity for the development of a shared

leadership focus while building understandings and strategies on important issues.

The US Army has a well-known process called After Action Reviews (Baird et al. 1999). This involves

a systematic debriefing process being followed after any significant exercise, incident or project.

Other organisations are using a range of creative methods, including so-called strategic communities

and communities of practice, to ensure they learn effectively from their experience, and that the

knowledge of differing specialists is productively tapped (Cross and Baird 2000; Storck and Hill 2000;

Wenger and Snyder 2000). While public sector organisations would be advised against adopting

these methods uncritically, the models do point to possibilities for adaptation.

Articulating and Nurturing Values

Supportive of Building Organisational and Individual Capability

Statements of organisational values have become almost obligatory for public sector organisations.

Yet such statements, in the writer's experience, are often seen as little more than empty platitudes

by staff. As with vision, the emphasis is often on the statement, rather than on the process of

building the statement and then using it to guide and shape action in the organisation.

Collins and Porras (1994) demonstrated the centrality of working with values as a means of building

high-performing organisations. They compared a set of outstandingly successful companies with

another group of good, but less exceptional, companies. They found that the main differentiating

factor was not visionary leadership or use of the latest management practices, but commitment to a

clear purpose, beyond making money, and core values. The more successful companies were able to

maintain stable values over time while simultaneously cultivating an ethic of change. Interestingly,

in relation to statements, Collins and Porras observed (1994:11), 'Creating a statement can be a

helpful step in building a visionary company, but it is only one of a thousand steps in a never ending

process of expressing the fundamental characteristics'.

The challenge for public sector organisations in working with values is to attend to the subtle,

process aspects, not only to 'the statement'. Working with the subtle aspects involves exploring the

values currently in use in the organisation (values that might be inferred from observable

behaviour), the factors that drive these values-in-use, and possible sources of leverage that would

support behaviour in line with desired values.

Widespread involvement in the values clarification process is essential, in order to build employee

commitment to, and understanding about, working with values. One vital aspect is to make the


Don Dunoon


18 | P a g e

values operational, to specify the kinds of behaviours that would demonstrate the values in action.

Such specification is necessary to deal with ambiguity in the interpretation and application of values,

and to ensure that members of the organisation think through what is involved in applying the

values. For example, Argyris (1990:106) notes that 'respect' can mean deferring to others, or it can

mean attributing to others the competence to deal with their own issues, including emotional

reactions. The second interpretation is in line with building a leadership community, the first is

possibly at odds with it, since deferring to others suggests a holding back from raising tough issues

that might generate emotional reactions. Of course, respect can also mean valuing a person's

unique background and perspective without undue deference.

While organisations will determine values according to their own needs, a focus on learning-centred

leadership implies a need for emphasis on the value of openness, however this is expressed. In the

writer's view, openness implies people believing they are 'able to say what needs to be said, without

setting out to upset or provoke others.

As well as clarifying values, organisations need to make ongoing efforts to ensure that the values are

embedded and reflected in all organisational systems and process. There also needs to be a periodic

testing of the degree to which employees believe the values are being upheld. In the earlier stages

at least, this might be via anonymous employee survey. Finally, senior executives and others need to

be able to deal productively with apparent departures from value-based behaviour, and use these as

opportunities to advance individual and organisational learning.

Developing Skills in Reflective Conversation

Building shared understanding on difficult issues implies the need for conversation. In order that

new synergies can be developed from participants' partial perspectives, such conversations need to

have a reflective dimension to them. Reflective conversation can be understood by thinking about

the problems that tend to bedevil conversations about difficult or strategic issues in the workplace

(Senge 1990). People commonly make little effort to listen to one another - except perhaps to find a

space to jump into the conversation! There is a tendency for participants to compete with one

another through scoring points and defending and justifying their own arguments. Issues that might

result in embarrassment or threat tend to be avoided, ensuring that everyone can save face. The

discussion wanders all over the place with little sign of progressive development. Assumptions are

frequently made but rarely acknowledged and questioned. In such conversations, the prospects for

creative integration of knowledge and for collective learning are minimal.

Some might argue that this is 'just human nature'. In the writer's view, it is possible for people and

groups to improve the quality of their interaction, and thereby extend the possibilities for

transformational thinking and learning. In reflective conversations there is an emphasis on creating

a quieter 'space' for conversation, in which people more truly listen to each other (and to

themselves), differing opinions are seen as a source of data, and participants realise that they have

only a partial hold on the truth. An important leadership role for managers at all levels is to support

and model reflective conversation practices.

Enabling reflective conversation requires the development of infrastructure and organisational

values as discussed, but there are some specific, trainable skills involved. As described by Senge

(Senge 1990; Senge et al. 1994), these skills include advocacy, inquiry and dialogue, which was

introduced earlier.


Don Dunoon


19 | P a g e

Advocacy involves articulating one's own views in ways that are assertive (as opposed to dogmatic)

and reflective. The challenge is to help others gain deeper insights into why we think and feel about

issues the way we do. Highly skilled advocacy is characterised by recognition of one's assumptions,

disclosure of feelings and a willingness to receive feedback from others. Advocacy can be difficult for

people unused to asserting, appropriately, their deeper thoughts and feelings. However, one might

hypothesise that, with some training, just about anyone could become more effective in articulating

their ideas so that others will better understand them.

Inquiry is the process of asking questions in such a way as to enable others to reveal more of what

they know, without putting the person on the defensive. Inquiry is not cross-examination. Rather,

the aim is to assist the other person in making public more of their thinking and feeling through the

use of effective questioning. Skilled inquiry involves the questioner probing deeply while minimising

threat to the other.

Like any discipline, such as golf or piano, the central requirement for developing capability in

reflective conversation is continued practice. Executives can support the development of collective

leadership capability by practising and modelling reflective conversation skills themselves and

encouraging others to do the same. The need for practice represents a huge challenge in many

organisations, where people are impatient for action and results. Often people believe that once

they understand the concept of reflective conversation, they can apply the skills immediately.

Practice in the workplace can seem like a waste of time, but as any musician will testify, high-Ievel

competence is not possible without it.

Conclusion

Learning-centred leadership has been advocated not as a panacea or a prescription but a way of

thinking about leadership that might assist public sector organisations in implementing new

initiatives, in dealing with vexing problems and in achieving cultural change. In its emphasis on the

creation of conditions under which people can make their most effective contribution, the approach

represents a distinct departure from charismatic leadership. It is recognised, however, that

individual leaders can have a dramatic and beneficial effect on organisations. Leadership needs to

exist complementary fashion to management and the challenge for organisations is to develop and

maintain a suitable balance between them. For many organisations, this will entail giving greater

attention to the leadership component, in a disciplined and ongoing manner. The difficulties of

doing so, given the pressures faced by contemporary public sector organisations, should not be

underestimated.


Don Dunoon


20 | P a g e

References

Abell, DF 1999 'Competing Today While Preparing for Tomorrow', Sloan Management Review

40(3):73-81.

Argyris, C 1990 Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn &

Bacon, Boston.

Argyris, C 1991 'Teaching Smart People to Learn', Harvard Business Review May-June:99-109.

Baird, L, P Holland & S Deacon 1999 'Learning from Action: Embedding More Learning into the

Performance Fast Enough to Make a Difference' Organizational Dynamics, Spring 27(4): 19-

32.

Barker, RA 1997 'How can we train leaders if we do not know what Leadership is?', Human Relations

50(4):343-62.

Barrett, PJ 1997 'Leadership from an ANAO Perspective', paper presented to the Australian Bureau

of Statistics SES and Middle Management Group 16 September, http://www.

anao.gov.au/speeches.

Beer, M & RA Eisenstat 2000 'The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and Learning' SIoan

Management Review Summer 41 (4):29-40.

Behn, RD 1998 'What Right Do Public Managers Have to Lead?', Public Administration Review

58(3):209-24.

Bennis, W & B Nanus 1985 Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row, New York.

Burns, JM 1978 Leadership, Harper & Row, New York

Collins, JC & JI Porras 1994 Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Century, London.

Covey, SR 1989 The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Fireside, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Covey, SR 1990 Principle-centred Leadership, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Craig, J & P Yetton 1995 'Leadership Theory, Trends and Training: Summary Review of Leadership

Research' in Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills, Enterprising Nation:

Research Report, Vol. 2, AGPS, Canberra.

Cross, R & L Baird 2000 'Technology is not Enough: Improving Performance by Building

Organisational Memory', Sloan Management Review Spring 41 (3):69-78.

Dess, G & JC Picken 2000 'Changing Roles: Leadership in the 21st Century', Organizational Dynamics

Winter 28(3): 18-34.

Dixon, N 1994 The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively, McGraw-Hill

Developing Organisations Series, London.

Ellinor, L & G Gerard 1998 Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation, John

Wiley, New York.

Fulmer R & JB Keys 1998 'A Conversation with Peter Senge: New Developments in Organizational

Learning', Organizational Dynamics 27(2):33-42.

Goss, T, R Pascale & A Athos 1993 'The Reinvention Roller Coaster: Risking the Present for a

Powerful Future', Harvard Business Review November-December:97-108.

Hammer, M & SA Stanton 1997 'The Power of Reflection', Fortune November 136(10):291-96.

Harmon, MM & RT Mayer 1986 Organization Theory for Public Administration, Little, Brown, Boston.

Heifetz, R 1994 Leadership Without Easy Answers, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA.

Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills 1995 Enterprising Nation: Renewing

Australia's Managers to Meet the Challenges of the Asia-Pacific Century, AGPS, Canberra.

Kotter, JP 1990 'What Leaders Really Do', Harvard Business Review 68(3):103-11.

Kouzes, JM & BZ Posner 1987 The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Langer, EJ 1989 Mindfulness, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.


Don Dunoon


21 | P a g e

Leap, L 1994 'Error in Medicine', Journal of the American Medical Association 272(23): 1851-57.

Mellors, J 1996 'Managing and Leading in the Next Century', Australian Journal of Public

Administration 55(3):83-89.

Morley, K & T Vilkinas 1997 'Public Sector Executive Development in Australia: 2000 and Beyond',

International Journal of Public Sector Management 10(6):401-16.

Morrison, EW & FJ Milliken 2000 'Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a

Pluralistic World', Academy of Management Review 25(4):706-25.

Murphy, K 1995 'Generative Coaching: A Surprising Learning Odyssey' in S Chawla & J Renesch eds

Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace, Productivity Press,

Oregon.

Negroni, P 2000 'The Superintendent's Progress: Moving from "Lone Ranger" to Lead Learner in an

Urban School System' in P Senge, N Cambron-McCabe, T Lucas, B Smith, J Dutton & A Kleiner

Schools That Learn, Nicholas Brealey, London.

Nonaka, I & H Takeuchi 1995 The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford, New York.

Pascale, RT 1999 'Surfing the Edge of Chaos', Sloan Management Review Spring 40(3):83-94.

Quinn, RE & GM Spreitzer 1997 'The Road to Empowerment: Seven Questions Every Leader Should

Consider', Organizational Dynamics Autumn (26):37-48.

Schein, EH 1992 Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Schein, EH 1993 'On Dialogue, Culture and Organizational Learning', Organizational Dynamics

Autumn:40-51.

Senge, P 1990 The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday

Currency, New York.

Senge, PM, C Roberts, RB Ross, BJ Smith & A Kleiner 1994 The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies

and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Nicholas Brealey, London.

Sheldrake, P 1997 'Strategies for Leadership Development: Leadership for the 21st Century',

Training and Development in Australia 24(1):13-17.

Stace, D & DC Dunphy 1994 Beyond the Boundaries: Leading and Recreating the Successful

Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.

Storck, J & P Hill 2000 'Knowledge Diffusion Through Strategic Communities', Sloan Management

Review Winter 41 (2):63-74.

Tichy, NM & MA Devanna 1990 The Transformational Leader, John Wiley, New York.

Walsh, P 2001 'Improving Government's Response to Local Communities - Is Place Management the

Answer?', Australian Journal of Public Administration 60(2):3-12.

Wenger, EC & WM Snyder 2000 'Communities of Practice: The Organisational Frontier', Harvard

Business Review January-February: 139-45.

Wilson, R, W Runciman, R Gibberd, B Harrison, L Newby & J Hamilton 1995 'The Quality in Australian

Health Care Study', Medical Journal of Australia 163(9):458-71.

dunoon rethinking leadership

Documents

industry task

nurturing

organizational

public sector

achieving

public sector

organisational

important