Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relational Leadership: An Analytical Lens for the Exploration of Co-production

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes

Abstract

In this chapter, we develop a conceptual framework for the exploration of leadership in the co-production processes. Our analytical perspective draws on relational leadership theory for developing a framework in which context, motivations and power are the key variables. These variables are then applied to two different analytical frames which support the analysis of levels and stages of co-production. Our model integrates relational leadership variables with individual, group and societal levels of co-production and the co-production cycle. This combination provides a powerful framework for the rigorous analysis of leadership in co-production processes. We use a case study of a small town in Germany to illustrate how leadership emerges and evolves as professionals and citizens co-produce strategy, physical improvements and services.

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford, J. 2002. Why Do Public-Sector Clients Coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration and Society, 34, 32–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. 2014. The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review, 16, 317–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. & O’flynn, J. 2012. Rethinking Public Service Delivery, London, Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. & Boyne, G. A. 2010. Capacity, Leadership and Organisational Performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review, 70, 443–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M., Paulsen, N. & Tee, E. Y. 2012. Extending Relational Leadership Theory: The role of affective process in shaping leader-follower relationships. In: Uhl-Bien, M. & Ospina, S. M. (eds.) Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A dialogue among perspectives. Charlottesville, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. 1990. From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellé, N. 2014. Leading to Make a Difference: A field experiment on the performance effects of transformational leadership, perceived social impact and public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 109–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A. & Harvey, J. A. 2003. Distributed Leadership, Nottingham, National College of School Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolden, R. 2011. Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolden, R., Petrov, G. & Gosling, J. 2008. Developing Collective Leadership in Higher Education, London, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 846–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. & Loeffler, E. 2007. The Public Governance Implications of User Co-Production of Public Services: A case study of public services in Carrick, UK, Paper given to the ASPA Annual Conference in Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. & Loeffler, E. 2012. From Engagement to Co-Production: How users and communities contribute to public services. In: Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. & Verschuere, B. (eds.) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. & Loeffler, E. 2016. User and Community Co-production of Public Services: What does the evidence tell us? International Journal of Public Administration, 39, 1006–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T. & Honingh, M. 2015. Distinguishing Different Types of Co-production: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76, 427–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brudney, J. L. & England, R. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Co-Production Concept. Public Administration Review, 43, 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. 2014. A Relational Perspective on Public Sector Leadership and Management. The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 10, 4–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe, A. L. & Eriksen, M. 2011. Relational Leadership. Human Relations, 64, 1425–1449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G. & Lockett, A. 2007. A Critique of Transformational Leadership: Moral, professional and contingent dimensions of leadership within public services. Human Relations, 60, 341–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dachler, H. & Hosking, D. M. 1995. The Primacy of Relations in Socially Constructing Organizational Realities. In: Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H, and Gergen, K. J. (ed.) Management and Organization: Relational alternatives to individualism. Aldershot: Avebury/Ashgate Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, J. V. & Denhardt, R. B. 2015. The New Public Service: Serving, not steering, London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G. P. & Turnbull, S. 2013. A Cultural Approach to Leadership Development Evaluation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15, 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. 1991. The Society of Individuals, Oxford, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E. 2012. Concluding discussion. In: Teelken, C., Ferlie, E. & Dent, M. (eds.) Leadership in the Public Sector: Promises and pitfalls. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E. & Ongaro, E. 2015. Strategic Management in Public Services Organizations, London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., Mcgivern, G. & Buchanan, D. 2012. Respond and Deliver? Change leadership in complex organisations. In: Teelken, C., Ferlie, E. & Dent, M. (eds.) Leadership in Public Services: Promises and pitfalls. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T. & Honingh, M. 2014. Restoring Trust Through the Co-Production of Public Services: A theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16, 424–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fledderus, J. & Honingh, M. 2016. Why People Co-Produce within Activation Services: The Necessity of Motivation and Trust. An investigation of selection biases in a municipal activation programme in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 69–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskin 2003. A Choice Blend: What volunteers want from organisation and management, London, Institute for Volunteering Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronn, P. 2002. Distributed Leadership as a Unit of Analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, D. M. 2007. Not Leaders, Not Followers: A post-modern discourse of leadership processes. In: Shamir, B., Pillai, R., Bligh, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (eds.) Follower-Centred Perspectives on Leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, D. M. 2011. Telling Tales of Relations: Appreciating relational constructionism. Organization Studies, 32, 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, D. M., Shamir, B., Ospina, S. M. & Uhl-Bien, M. 2012. Exploring the prospects for dialogue across perspectives:. In: Uhl-Bien, M., & Ospina, S. M. (ed.) Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A dialogue among perspectives. Charlotte, NC: New Information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H. 2000. The Genesis of Values, Cambridge, Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E., Taylor-Gooby, D., Bovaird, T., Hine-Hughes, F. & Wilkes, L. 2012. Making Health and Social Care Personal and Local: Moving from mass production to co-production, Birmingham, Governance International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macbeath, J., Oduro, G. K. T. & Waterhouse, J. 2004. Distributed Leadership in Action: A study of current practice in schools, Nottingham, National College for School Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P. & Thomas, J. C. 2013. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73, 786–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A. & Sicilia, M. 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The who, when and what of co-production. Public Administration Review,77, 766-776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. 2010a. Delivering Public Services: Time for a new theory? Public Management Review, 12, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (ed.) 2010b. The New Public Governance? New perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ospina, S. & Foldy, E. G. 2016. Collective Dimensions of Leadership. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy and Governance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2202-1.

  • Ospina, S., Foldy, E. G., El Hadidy, W., Dodge, J., Hofmann-Pinilla, A. & SU, C. 2012. Social Change Leadership as Relational Leadership. In: Uhl-Bien, M., Ospina, Sonia, M. (ed.) Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A dialogue among perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ospina, S. M. 2017. Collective Leadership and Context in Public Administration: Bridging public leadership research and leadership studies. Public Administration Review, 77, 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. A. 2017. Enhancing Co-Production or Muddying the Waters? The devil is in the details. IIAS Study Group on Co-production. Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. 2011. Public Management Reform, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, C., Payne, A. E. & Howlet, S. (eds.) 2010. Volunteering and Society in the 21st Century, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlappa, H. 2016. Doing Things Differently: Co-producing responses to urban shrinkage. In: Neill, W. B. V. & Schlappa, H. (eds.) Future Directions for the European Shrinking City. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlappa, H. 2017. Co-producing the Cities of Tomorrow: Fostering collaborative action to tackle decline in Europe’s shrinking cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24, 162–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P. 2006. Distributed Leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. 2007. Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, T. P. S. & Van Eijk, C. J. A. 2015. ‘Why Is This Citizen Layman Entering My Domain?!’ The effect of autonomy, organizational support, and red tape on public professionals’ openness towards co-production. IIAS Conference on Production. Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, L., Ryan-Collins, J. & Boyle, D. 2008. Co-Production: A manifesto for a growing core economy, London, New Economics Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teelken, C., Ferlie, E. & Dent, M. (eds.) 2012. Leadership in the Public Sector, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tortzen, A. 2015. When Municipalities Lead Co-production: Lessons from a Danish case study. Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja, 4, 292–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuurnas, S., Stenvall, J. & Rannisto, P.-H. 2016. The Impact of Co-Production on Frontline Accountability: The case of the conciliation service. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Haar, D. & Hosking, D. M. 2004. Evaluating Appreciative Inquiry: A relational constructionist perspective. Human Relations, 57, 1017–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. 2014a. Why People Co-Produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16, 358–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, C. J. A. & Steen, T. P. S. 2014b. Why People Co-Produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16, 358–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. 2016. Why Engage in Co-Production of Public Services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanleene, D., Verschuere, B. & Voets, J. 2015. Co-Producing a Nicer Neighbourhood: Why do people participate in community development projects? Paper presented at the IIAS Study Group on Co-production. Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wart, M. 2003. Public Sector Leadership Theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review, 63, 214–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wart, M. 2013. Administrative Leadership Theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Administration, 91, 521–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R. & Masal, D. 2015. Public Leadership: A review of the literature and framework for future research. Public Management Review, 17, 1165–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, P., A. 2015. What is Democratic Leadership? In: Griffiths, D., & Portelli, J. (eds.) Key Questions for Educational Leaders. Burlington, ON: Word and Deed Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, P. A. 2016. Authority, Power and Distributed Leadership. Management in Education, 30, 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, P. A., & Woods, G. J. 2013. Deepening Distributed Leadership: A democratic perspective on power, purpose and the concept of self. Leadership Education, 2, 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hertfordshire Business School, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK

    Hans Schlappa & Yassaman Imani

  2. Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

    Tatsuya Nishino

Authors
  1. Hans Schlappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yassaman Imani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tatsuya Nishino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Schlappa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Elke Loeffler

  2. INLOGOV, School of Government, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Tony Bovaird

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schlappa, H., Imani, Y., Nishino, T. (2021). Relational Leadership: An Analytical Lens for the Exploration of Co-production. In: Loeffler, E., Bovaird, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53705-0_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation