Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating Organizational Ambidexterity in the Public Sector Through Servant Leadership

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Practicing Servant Leadership

  • 2794 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Borgatti, S.P., and P.C. Foster. 2003. The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology. Journal of Management 29 (6): 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00087-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.L., and K.M. Eisenhardt. 1997. The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Based Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 1–34.

    Article  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 

  • Cannaerts, N., J. Segers, and E. Henderickx. 2016. Ambidextrous Design and Public Organizations: A Comparative Case Study. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29 (7): 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-12-2015-0210.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Correia de Sousa, M.J., and D. van Dierendonck. 2014. Servant Leadership and Engagement in a Merge Process under High Uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change Management 27 (6): 877–899. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, R.S., and M. Bocarnea. 2005. Development of the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26 (8): 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510633692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler. 2006. New Public Management Is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.

    Article  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.

  • Konczak, L.J., D.J. Stelly, and M.L. Trusty. 2000. Defining and Measuring Empowering Leader Behaviors: Development of an Upward Feedback Instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60 (2): 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Largacha-Martínez, C. 2011. What Is Your Calling? SEMCO’s Invitation to Participatory Management. In Humanistic Management in Practice, 215–230. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., U. Stettner, and M.L. Tushman. 2010. Exploration and Exploitation within and across Organizations. Academy of Management Annals 4 (1): 109–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003691287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational. Learning 2 (1): 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J.A., C.M. Brotheridge, and J.C. Urbanski. 2005. Bringing Humility to Leadership: Antecedents and Consequences of Leader Humility. Human Relations 58 (10): 1323–1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705059929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C.A., and M.L. Tushman. 2008. Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, G.A., and M.L. Tushman. 2011. Organizational Ambidexterity in Action. California Management Review 53 (4): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., and M. Tushman. 2013. Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future. The Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (4): 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palm, K., and J. Lilja. 2017. Key Enabling Factors for Organizational Ambidexterity in the Public Sector. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 9 (1): 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-04-2016-0038.

    Article  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/10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Raisch, S., and J. Birkinshaw. 2008. Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management 34 (3): 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russel, R. 2001. The Role of Values in Servant Leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 22 (2): 76–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., and T. Umans. 2015. Organizational Ambidexterity at the Local Government Level: The Effects of Managerial Focus. Public Management Review 17 (6). Routledge): 812–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.849292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.K., M.L. Tushman, W.K. Smith, and M.L. Tushman. 2005. Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science 16 (5): 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.K., A. Binns, and M.L. Tushman. 2010. Complex Business Models: Managing Strategic Paradoxes Simultaneously. Long Range Planning 43 (2–3). Elsevier Ltd.): 448–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N., J. Swart, and H. Maylor. 2013. Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 15 (3): 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M.L., and C.A. O’Reilly. 1996. Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review 38 (4): 8–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852.

    Article  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 

  • Van Dierendonck, D. 2011. Servant Leadership : A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management 37 (4): 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dierendonck, D., and I. Nuijten. 2011. The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. Journal of Business and Psychology 26 (3): 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1946. Bureaucracy, ed. H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. New York. https://archive.org/stream/frommaxweberessa00webe/frommaxweberessa00webe_djvu.txt.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Miguel Martinez de Castro Pinto Luz

  2. Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal

    Milton Sousa

Authors
  1. Miguel Martinez de Castro Pinto Luz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Milton Sousa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Dirk van Dierendonck

  2. School of Business and Leadership, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA

    Kathleen Patterson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Martinez de Castro Pinto Luz, M., Sousa, M. (2018). Incorporating Organizational Ambidexterity in the Public Sector Through Servant Leadership. In: van Dierendonck, D., Patterson, K. (eds) Practicing Servant Leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75644-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation