Advertisement

Leadership with Political Astuteness for Public Servants: And Why It Matters

Living reference work entry
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter argues that political astuteness for public leaders and managers really matters because it enables them to navigate the dual demands of having a nuanced and detailed understanding of informal and formal politics in order to work with a range of stakeholders over complex and contested public policy and services, but also refraining from being party political. This chapter explores these tensions by examining the construct, the theory, and the empirical evidence about leadership with political astuteness. It draws on highlights from three literatures and a large cross-national empirical project based on a survey and interviews, as well as other studies to unpack what is meant by political astuteness and to present an evidence-based framework of the key skills or capabilities which underlie effective political astuteness. The chapter notes that capabilities on their own are insufficient to be effective because the job demands and the organizational and institutional context create constraints and expectations. The chapter also examines the ethics of political astuteness and argues, perhaps counterintuitively, that political astuteness enables public leaders to maintain an ethical approach to their work. Overall, political astuteness can be used for constructive purposes and is predominantly seen as legitimate by public leaders and managers. Addressing complex problems and challenges, with multiple stakeholders where there are diverse and sometimes competing interests, values, and goals, requires leadership beyond technical, rational management. Political astuteness matters too.

Keywords

Politics Political astuteness Political savvy Leadership Leaders Ethics Capabilities Political skills 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aberbach, J., and B. Rockman. 1988. Image IV revisited: Executive and political roles. Governance 1 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford, J., J. Hartley, S. Yates, and O. Hughes. 2016. Into the purple zone: Deconstructing the politics/administration dichotomy. American Review of Public Administration 47: 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, R., G. Boyne, and J. Law. 2008. Organizational strategy, external regulation and public service performance. Public Administration 86 (1): 185–203.Google Scholar
  4. Asmeron, H., and E. Reis. 1996. Democratization and political neutrality. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baddeley, S., and K. James. 1987a. Owl, fox, donkey or sheep: Political skills for managers. Management Education and Development 18 (1): 3–19.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1987b. From political neutrality to political wisdom. Politics 7 (2): 35–40.Google Scholar
  7. Benington, J., and M. Moore. 2011. Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Block, P. 1987. The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Boyatzis, R. 2006. Leadership competencies. In Inspiring leaders, ed. R. Burke and C. Cooper, 119–131. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, D. 2008. You stab my back, I’ll stab yours: Management experience and perceptions of organization political behaviour. British Journal of Management 19: 49–64.Google Scholar
  11. Butcher, D., and M. Clarke. 1999. Organizational politics: The missing discipline of management? Industrial and Commercial Training 31 (1): 9–12.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2008. Smart management: Using politics in organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Cheng, K., C. Hui, and W. Cascio. 2017. Leniency bias in performance ratings: The big-five correlates. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 521.Google Scholar
  14. Demir, T., and C. Reddick. 2012. Understanding shared roles in politics and administration: An empirical study of council-manager relations. Public Administration Review 72: 526–536.Google Scholar
  15. Dickinson, H., H. Sullivan, and G. Head. 2015. The future of the public service workforce: A dialogue. Australian Journal of Public Administration 74 (1): 23–32.Google Scholar
  16. Doldor, E. 2017. From politically naïve to politically mature: Conceptualizing leaders’ political maturation journey. British Journal of Management 28 (4): 666–686.Google Scholar
  17. Ferris, G., D. Treadway, R. Kolodinsky, W. Hochwater, C. Kacmar, C. Douglas, and D. Frink. 2005. Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management 31 (1): 126–152.Google Scholar
  18. Ferris, G., B. Ellen, C. McAllister, and L. Maher. 2019. Reorganizing organizational politics research: A review of the literature and identification of future research directions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6: 299–323.Google Scholar
  19. Gandz, J., and V. Murray. 1980. The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal 23 (2): 237–251.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, A., and B. Jenkins. 1995. From public administration to public management: Reassessing a revolution? Public Administration 73: 75–99.Google Scholar
  21. ‘t Hart, P., and A. Wille. 2006. Ministers and top officials in the Dutch core executive: Living together, growing apart? Public Administration 84 (1): 121–146.Google Scholar
  22. Hartley, J. 2017. Politics and political astuteness in leadership. In The Routledge companion to leadership, ed. J. Storey, J. Hartley, J.-L. Denis, P. ‘t Hart, and D. Ulrich. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2018. Ten propositions about public leadership. International Journal of Public Leadership 14 (4): 202–217.Google Scholar
  24. Hartley, J., and J. Benington. 2010. Leadership for healthcare. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hartley, J., and C. Fletcher. 2008. Leadership with political awareness: Leadership across diverse interests inside and outside the organization. In Leadership perspectives: Knowledge into action, ed. K. James and J. Collins. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  26. Hartley, J., and S. Manzie. 2020. “It’s every breath we take here”: Political astuteness and ethics in civil service leadership development. Public Money and Management.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1777704.
  27. Hartley, J., C. Fletcher, P. Wilton, P. Woodman, and C. Ungemach. 2007. Leading with political awareness. London: Chartered Management Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Hartley, J., J. Alford, O. Hughes, and S. Yates. 2013. Leading with political astuteness: A study of public managers in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Melbourne: Australia and New Zealand School of Government.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2015. Public value and political astuteness in the work of public managers: The art of the possible. Public Administration 93 (1): 195–211.Google Scholar
  30. Hartley, J., S. Parker, and J. Beashel. 2019a. Leading and recognising public value. Public Administration 97 (2): 264–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hartley, J., A. Sancino, M. Bennister, and S. Resodihardjo. 2019b. Leadership for public value: Political astuteness as a conceptual link. Public Administration 97 (2): 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Head, B., and J. Alford. 2015. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration and Society 47: 711–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hewstone, M. 1989. Causal attribution: From cognitive processes to collective beliefs. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Hickman, G. 2010. Bureaucracy. In Political and civic leadership, ed. R. Couto. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Hochwarter, W.A., C.C. Rosen, S.L. Jordan, G.R. Ferris, A. Ejaz, and L.P. Maher. 2020. Perceptions of organizational politics research: Past, present, and future. Journal of Management.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319898506.
  36. Hood, C. 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2006. Gaming in target world: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review 66 (4): 515–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hood, C., and M. Lodge. 2006. From Sir Humphrey to Sir Nigel: What future for the public service bargain after Blairworld? The Political Quarterly 77 (3): 360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hughes, O. 2017. Public management and administration. 5th ed. London: Macmillan Education UK.Google Scholar
  40. Jenkins, B., and A. Gray. 1983. Bureaucratic politics and power: Developments in the study of bureaucracy. Political Studies 31: 177–193.Google Scholar
  41. Le Grand, J. 2003. Motivation, agency, and public policy: Of knights and knaves, pawns and Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Machiavelli, N. 1981. The prince. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1984. The discourses. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Madison, D., R. Allen, L. Porter, P. Renwick, and B. Mayes. 1980. Organizational politics: An exploration of managers’ perceptions. Human Relations 33 (2): 79–100.Google Scholar
  45. Mangham, I. 1979. The politics of organizational change. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  46. Manzie, S., and J. Hartley. 2013. Dancing on ice: Leadership with political astuteness by senior public servants in the UK. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  47. March, J. 1984. Notes on ambiguity and executive compensation. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies 1 (1): 53–63.Google Scholar
  48. Massey, M. 2019. Persistent public management reform: An egregore of liberal authoritarianism? Public Money and Management 39 (1): 9–17.Google Scholar
  49. Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around organizations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 1985. The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies 22 (2): 133–154.Google Scholar
  51. Perrewé, P., G. Ferris, J. Stoner, and R. Brouer. 2007. The positive role of political skill in organizations. In Positive organizational behavior, ed. D. Nelson and C. Cooper. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Pfeffer, J. 1992. Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public management reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rhodes, R. 2016. Recovering the craft of public administration. Public Administration Review 76 (4): 638–647.Google Scholar
  55. Rittel, H., and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.Google Scholar
  56. Rouleau, L., and J. Balogun. 2011. Middle managers, strategic sensemaking and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies 48 (5): 953–983.Google Scholar
  57. Siegel, David. 2020. “Public Servants and Politics: Developing Political Acuity in Local Government.” Canadian Public Administration, early online,  https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12381.
  58. Sinclair, A. 2005. Doing leadership differently. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sliter, K. 2015. Assessing 21st century skills: Competency modeling to the rescue. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8: 284–289.Google Scholar
  60. Svara, J. 2001. The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review 61 (2): 176–183.Google Scholar
  61. Taylor, F.W. 1911. The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  62. Weber, M. 1922. Economy and society. (English version, University of California Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, W. 1941. The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly 56. Reprinted in 1997 in Classics of public administration, 2nd ed. J. Shafritz, and A. Hyde. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  64. Yates, S., and J. Hartley. 2020. Learning to lead with political astuteness. Working paper. Canberra: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • E. Berman
    • 1
  • Yijia Jing
    • 2
  1. 1.EAESP/Department of Public ManagementFundacao Getulio Vargas (FGV)Sao PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Fudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite entry