Leadership of Political Policy Entrepreneurs: a Comparison of Transactional and Transformational Styles

Abstract

Policy changes owe its allegiance to both transactional and transformational styles of leadership of policy entrepreneurs; putting a question, which style brings better result. To do so, overall policy changes in India during NDA rule of 2014–2019 was taken into study scope, focusing only on political policy entrepreneurs. Multiple stream framework was used in this study. The qualitative data helped in designing the questionnaire, which consequently got filled by 158 respondents. The results established the positive and significant relationship of both the styles with policy changes. However, the transformational leadership behavior is more preferable to transactional in influencing policy changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Ahearne, J. (2006). Notes from a French perspective. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 12(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aukes, E., Lulofs, K., & Bressers, H. (2018). Framing mechanisms: The interpretive policy entrepreneur’s toolbox. Critical Policy Studies, 12(4), 406–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakir, C., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017). Contextualizing the context in policy entrepreneurship and institutional change. Policy and Society, 36(4), 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). The role and impact of the multiple streams approach in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 221–227.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Birkland, Thomas A., & Schwaeble, Kathryn L. (2019). Agenda setting and the policy process: Focusing events. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.165.

  11. Brasil, F. G., & Capella, A. C. N. (2017). Translating ideas into action: Brazilian studies of the role of the policy entrepreneur in the public policy process. Policy and Society, 36(4), 504–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cairney, P. (2018). Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chow, A. (2014). Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and national education curriculum policy in Hong Kong. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 4(2), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Christopoulos, D. C. (2006). Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: A network perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 757–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Crowley, J. E. (2003). The politics of child support in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dionne, S., Yammarino, F., Atwater, L., & Spangler, W. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuchs, D. (2017). Windows of opportunity for whom? Commissioners, access and the balance of interest in European environmental governance. Social Sciences, 6(3), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares: Regression and structural equation models. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Green, J. F. (2017). Policy entrepreneurship in climate governance: Toward a comparative approach. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1471–1482.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Using partial least squares path modeling in international advertising research: Basic concepts and recent issues. In S. Okazaki (Ed.), Handbook of research in international advertising (pp. 252–276). London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., & Rijke, J. (2011). Learning and action alliances for the integration of flood risk management into urban planning: A new framework from empirical evidence from The Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(5), 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives in international industrial organizational psychology (pp. 535–625). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under-parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. John, P. (2006). Explaining policy change: The impact of the media, public opinion and political violence on urban budgets in England. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 1053–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Raney, H. L., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jung, D. I., Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2(4), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kingdon, John W. (1984, 1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (1st and 2nd eds.). New York: Harper Collins.

  34. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lewis, J. M. (2006). Being around and knowing the players: Networks of influence in health policy. Social Science & Medicine, 62(9), 2125–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Maltby, T. (2013). European Union energy policy integration: A case of European Commission policy entrepreneurship and increasing supranationalism. Energy Policy, 55, 435–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Manor, J., & Duckett, J. (2017). The significance of political leaders for social policy expansion in Brazil, China, India and South Africa. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 55(3), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Maor, M. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs in policy valuation processes: The case of the coalition for environmentally responsible economies. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1401–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McBeth, M., Jones, M., & Shanahan, E. (2014). The narrative policy framework. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 225–266). Chicago, IL: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Meijerink, S. & Huitema, D. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: Lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecology and Society, 15(2), Art 21.

  42. Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs and problem framing: The case of climate change. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1362–1377.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Othman, J., Lawrence, J., & Mohammed, K. A. (2012). Review of factors that influence leadership styles among top management in small and medium size enterprises. International Business Management, 6(3), 384–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Owens, S. (2010). Learning across levels of governance: Expert advice and the adoption of carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 394–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Raines, S. S., & Prakash, A. (2005). Leadership matters: Policy entrepreneurship in corporate environmental policy making. Administration and Society, 37(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rawat, P., & Morris, J. C. (2016). Kingdon’s “streams” model at thirty: Still relevant in the 21st century? Politics & Policy, 44(4), 608–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ringle, C. M., de Souza Bido, D., & da Silva, D. (2014). Structural equation modelling with the smartpls. Brazilian Journal of Marketing, 13(2), 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schneider, A., Ingram, H., & deLeon, P. (2014). Democratic policy design: Social construction of target populations. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 105–150). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schuhrer, S. (2018). Identifying policy entrepreneurs of public sector accounting agenda setting in Australia. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(4), 1067–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shearer, J. C. (2015). Policy entrepreneurs and structural influence in integrated community case management policymaking in Burkina Faso. Health Policy and Planning, 30, ii46–ii53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Simanjuntak, I., Frantzeskaki, N., Enserink, B., & Ravesteijn, W. (2012). Evaluating Jakarta’s flood defence governance: The impact of political and institutional reforms. Water Policy, 14(4), 561–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stefes, C. H. (2010). Bypassing Germany’s reforms tau: The remarkable rise of renewable energy. German Politics, 19(2), 148–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Svensson, P. (2019). Formalized policy entrepreneurship as a governance tool for policy integration. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(14), 1212–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wong, K. K.-K. (2013). Partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) techniques using smartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Zikmund, W. G. (1994). Business research methods (4th ed.). New York: The Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zohlnhöfer, R. (2009). How politics matter when policies change: Understanding policy change as a political problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Santap Sanhari Mishra.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

None.

Informed Consent

None.

Conflict of Interest

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mishra, S.S. Leadership of Political Policy Entrepreneurs: a Comparison of Transactional and Transformational Styles. Public Organiz Rev (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00508-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Policy entrepreneurs
  • Transformational
  • Transactional
  • Leadership
  • Policy changes
  • India