Incorporating Organizational Ambidexterity in the Public Sector Through Servant Leadership
This chapter aims to contribute toward a better understanding of servant leadership in a public administration context. We explore how servant leadership can contribute toward greater organizational ambidexterity, allowing public institutions to simultaneously achieve bureaucratic efficiency and increased innovation in response to an unprecedented changing environment. This coincides with Robert Greenleaf’s original appeal for servant responsibility in an ever-increasing bureaucratic society, such as to safeguard the institutions’ first and foremost obligation to serve, and ultimately their long-term viability.
KeywordsServant leadership Public administration Organizational ambidexterity Bureaucratic efficiency Innovation
- Aagaard, P. 2011. Organizational Ambidexterity: How to Be Both Innovative and Efficient in the Public Sector. Clips 5 (11): 1–14.Google Scholar
- Adler, P. 2013. The Collaborative, Ambidextrous Enterprise. Universia Business Review 40: 34–51.Google Scholar
- Alexiev, A.S., J.J.P. Jansen, F.A.J. Van den Bosch, and H.W. Volberda. 2010. Top Management Team Advice Seeking and Exploratory Innovation: The Moderating Role of TMT Heterogeneity. Journal of Management Studies 47 (7): 1343–1364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00919.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Asag-Gau, L., and D. Van Dierendonck. 2011. The Impact of Servant Leadership on Organisational Commitment Among the Highly Talented: The Role of Challenging Work Conditions and Psychological Empowerment. European Journal of International Management 5 (5): 463–483.Google Scholar
- Bryson, J.M., K.B. Boal, and H.G. Rainey. 2008. Strategic Orientation and Ambidextrous Public Organizations. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process: A Reflection on the Research Perspective of Raymond Miles and Charles Snow, no. December:1–24.Google Scholar
- Burgess, N., K. Strauss, G. Currie, and G. Wood. 2015. Organizational Ambidexterity and the Hybrid Middle Manager: The Case of Patient Safety in UK Hospitals. Human Resource Management 54: s87–s109.Google Scholar
- Carmeli, A., and M.Y. Halevi. 2009. How Top Management Team Behavioral Integration and Behavioral Complexity Enable Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Contextual Ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly 20 (2). Elsevier Inc.): 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Collins, J. 2001. Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review 79 (1): 66–76.Google Scholar
- Freedom House. 2017. Freedom in the World 2017 – Populists and Autocrats: The Dual Threat to Global Democracy, 28. https://doi.org/10.2307/20040588.
- Gibson, C.B., and J. Birkinshaw. 2004. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Management 47 (2): 209–226.Google Scholar
- Greenleaf, R.K. 1977. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
- Greenleaf, R. 2002. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
- Hood, C. 1996. The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W.
- Jansen, J.J.P., D. Vera, and M. Crossan. 2009. Strategic Leadership for Exploration and Exploitation: The Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamism. Leadership Quarterly 20 (1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008. Elsevier Inc.
- March, J. 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational. Learning 2 (1): 71–87.Google Scholar
- Patterson, K. 2003. Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model. Regent University.Google Scholar
- Pearce, C.L., and H.P. Sims. 2002. Vertical Versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6 (2): 172–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-26184.108.40.206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Peterson, C., and M.E.P. Seligman. 2004. In Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, ed. American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tushman, M., and E. Romanelli. 1985. Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation. Research in Organizational Behaviour 7: 171–222.Google Scholar
- Tushman, M.L., C. O’Reilly, and B. Harreld. 2013. Leading Strategic Renewal: Proactive Punctuated Change Through Innovation Streams and Disciplined Learning. Harvard Business School: 1–42.Google Scholar
- Weber, M. 1946. Bureaucracy, ed. H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. New York. https://archive.org/stream/frommaxweberessa00webe/frommaxweberessa00webe_djvu.txt.