Advertisement

An Investigation of Leadership Styles During Adoption of E-government for an Innovative City: Perspectives of Taiwanese Public Servants

  • Pei-Hsuan HsiehEmail author
  • Wen-Sung Chen
  • Chi-Jui Lo
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 8)

Abstract

The governments of many countries are now striving to use technology to move official services to the Internet, thereby enabling citizens to enjoy more convenient access. The Taiwanese government has expended significant effort toward adopting technologies for establishing e-government. In Taiwan, all governmental units are non-profit service providers, and all personnel, including e-government leaders, are public servants whose performances do not influence salaries and positions. However, the existing literature contains no in-depth investigations of the important roles played by e-governmental leaders, also the public servants, who direct adoption of online services. This study, therefore, investigates public servants’ styles of leadership as perceived by subordinates during the process of developing an e-government. This study also explores the influence on perceptions from subordinates’ demographic variables, such as age, educational level, gender, and years of service. As a result, this study finds that the e-governmental leaders in Taiwan function better from a transformational style of leadership. However, the public servants’ educational levels have a significant impact on perceptions of direct supervisors’ styles of leadership. Finally, this study suggests encouraging subordinates to participate in on-the-job training to increase abilities and opportunities for undertaking more challenging tasks.

Keywords

E-government Innovative cities Leadership styles Public servants 

References

  1. Alawadhi, S., & Scholl, H. J. (2013, 7–10 January). Aspirations and realizations: The smart city of Seattle. Paper presented at the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-46, pp. 1695–1703), Wailea, HI, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Chourabi, H., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Leung, S., Mellouli, S., et al. (2012). Building understanding of smart city initiatives. In H. J. Scholl, M. Janssen, M. Wimmer, C. Moe, & L. Flak (Eds.), Electronic government (Vol. 7443, pp. 40–53). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anthopoulos, L., & Fitsilis, P. (2013). Using classification and roadmapping techniques for smart city viability’s realization. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11(1), 326–336.Google Scholar
  4. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation impacting the bottom line. Group & Organization Management, 13(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the weMultifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto: Mind Garden.Google Scholar
  9. Berman, E., Wang, C. Y., Chen, C. A., Wang, X., Lovrich, N., Jan, C. Y., et al. (2013). Public executive leadership in east and west: An examination of HRM factors in eight countries. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(2), 164–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biederman, I. (1972). Perceiving real world scenes. Science, 177, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolívar, M. P. R., Muñoz, L. A., & Hernández, A. M. L. (2010). Trends of e-government research: Contextualization and research opportunities. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 10, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyce, S. J., & Pollatsek, A. (1992). Identification of objects in scenes: The role of scene background in object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 531–543.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, M. E., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chortatsiani, E. (2003). Product development in financial services: Picking the right leader for success. In J. Tidd & F. Hull (Eds.), Service innovation: Organizational responses to technological opportunities and market imperatives (pp. 231–270). London: Imperial College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chowdhury, H. G., Habib, M. W., & Kushchu, I. (2006). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. Paper presented at the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-45, pp. 2289–2297), Maui, HI, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Daniel, S., & Doran, M. A. (2013, 17–20 June). geoSmartCity: Geomatics contribution to the smart city. Paper presented at the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 65–71), Quebec City, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Dargan, L., & Shucksmith, M. (2008). Leader and innovation. Sociologia ruralis, 48(3), 274–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Den Hartog, D. N., Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 70(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46(4), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (1997). Using film to teach leadership in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(1), 107–115.Google Scholar
  21. Fountain, J. E., Bertucci, G., Curtin, G. G., Hohlov, Y. E., Holkeri, K., Jarrar, Y., Kang, J., Lanvin, B., Noveck, B.S., Obi, R., Stone, L., Walji, A., Larsfalten, C., & Fayad, R. (2011). The future of government: Lessons learned from around the world. http://works.bepress.com/jane_fountain/92. Accessed 23 May 2015.
  22. Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Towards a smart State? Interagency collaboration, information integration, and beyond. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 17(3), 269–280.Google Scholar
  23. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Aldama-Nalda, A. (2013, 7–10 January). Making a city smarter through information integration: Angel network and the role of political leadership. Paper presented at the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS 2013, pp.), Wailea, Maui, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham, S., & Aurigi, A. (1997). Virtual cities, social polarization, and the crisis in urban public space. The Journal of Urban Technology, 4(1), 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenwood, P. E., & Nikulin, M. S. (1996). A guide to chi-squared testing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Haberman, S. J. (1978). Analysis of dispersion of multinomial response. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 568–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hahm, S. D., Jung, K., & Moon, M. J. (2013). Shaping public corporation leadership in a turbulent environment. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 178–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Hegarty, S. F. (1978). Film perception under ordinary viewing conditions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho, T. K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-Government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(2), 317–341.Google Scholar
  32. Huang, C., & Wu, J. (2007). Assessing the Impacts of E-Government. Executive Yuan RDEC, 31(1), 76–85.Google Scholar
  33. Isaksen, S., & Tidd, J. (2006). Meeting the innovation challenge: Leadership for transformation and growth. England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, D. (1998). Government—Leadership in a connected world. Futurist, 32(8), 15–15.Google Scholar
  35. Katz, J., & Halpern, D. (2013). Political and developmental correlates of social media participation in government: A global survey of national leadership websites. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klooster, P. M., Visser, M., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2008). Comparing two image research instruments: The Q-sort method versus the Likert attitude questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference, 19(5), 511–518.Google Scholar
  37. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  38. Larry, S. (2008). Online leadership assessments. Journal of Property Management, 73(4), 14–14.Google Scholar
  39. Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2014). Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Government Information Quarterly, 31(S1), S93–S105.Google Scholar
  40. Maccoby, M. (2000). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 57–59.Google Scholar
  41. Molinari, F. (2012, 14–15 June). Innovative business models for smart cities: Overview of Recent Trends. Paper presented at the 12th European Conference on eGovernment (ECEG 2012, pp.483–492), Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  42. Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  43. Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 282–291), College Park, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Ndou, V. (2004). E-government for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 18(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  46. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), 513–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Puccio, G. J., Murdock, M. C., & Mance, M. (2007). Creative leadership—Skills that drive change. California: SAGE publications.Google Scholar
  48. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2002). Management. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scholl, H. J., & Scholl, M. C. (2014, 4–7 March). Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice. Paper presented at the iConference 2014 (pp. 163–176), Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  51. Scholl, H. J., Kubicek, H., Cimander, R., & Klischewski, R. (2012). Process integration, information sharing, and system interoperation in government: A comparative case analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. VanRullen, R., & Thorpe, S. J. (2001). The time course of visual processing: From early perception to decision-making. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 13(4), 454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weerakkody, V. (Eds.). (2013). E-government services design, adoption, and evaluation. Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. West, D., Noveck, B. S., & Sirianni, C. (2009). Innovation in government: How to make the public sector faster, smarter and more connected. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2009/6/17 %20public%20sector%20tech/20090617_innovation.pdf.
  55. Yiu, C. (2012). The big data opportunity: Making government faster, smarter and more personal. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/the%20big%20data%20opportunity.pdf.
  56. Zhao, F., Collier, A., & Deng, H. (2014). A multidimensional and integrative approach to study global digital divide and e-government development. Information Technology and People, 27(1), 38–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan
  2. 2.China University of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations