Enriching Transactional Leadership with Public Values

• Published date: 01 November 2022
• Author: Trang Thu Nguyen,Evan M. Berman,Geoff Plimmer,Andre Samartini,Meghna Sabharwal,Jeannette Taylor
• Date: 01 November 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13495

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Enriching Transactional Leadership with Public Values

Trang Thu Nguyen

1

| Evan M. Berman

2

| Geoff Plimmer

3

|

Andre Samartini

2

| Meghna Sabharwal

4

| Jeannette Taylor

5

1

Vietnam National Academy of Public

Administration

2

Fundaç˜

ao Getúlio Vargas—EAESP

3

Victoria University of Wellington

4

University of Texas at Dallas

5

Yonsei University

Abstract

Past studies raise concerns that generic transactional leadership has low effectiveness

and may reduce intrinsic motivations and commitments in the public sector. This

study introduces public value-focused transactional leadership (PVTL) as transactional

leadership that makes public values central in employee job expectations and

rewards and fills gaps in transformational leadership. A dyadic study finds that man-

agers using public values in transactional leadership have significantly greater leader-

ship effectiveness than managers using only generic transactional leadership. PVTL

has comparable effectiveness as transformational leadership and adds a process for

strengthening motivations through public values. Recommendations are made for

application and further research into this distinctive public sector leadership style.

Evidence for Practice

•Public managers increase the effectiveness of their leadership practice by incor-

porating public values in transactional leadership.

•Incorporating public values is straightforward; it is done by clarifying the public

value realized by task assignments and supporting and recognizing it in task

fulfillment.

•Using public values in transactional leadership is associated with increased com-

munication and understanding between supervisors and subordinates.

•Public-values focused transactional leadership has comparable effectiveness as

transformational leadership and both can be used together for even greater

effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

Generic transactional leadership (TL) is widely used as an

“overarching bedrock of public leadership”(Van Wart 2013,

553), but transactional leadership is also often criticized as

being uninspiring, leading to shallow relationships and

reduced intrinsic motivation (Avolio, Bass and Jung 1999;

Nielsen et al. 2019;Taylor2017). This assessment raises an

important puzzle: why is something so deficient yet used

so widely in so many countries (e.g., Breevaart et al. 2014;

Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri 2011)? And is this assessment

even accurate in the public sector workplace? Studies of

generic TL typically use measures originating from the pri-

vate sector (e.g., Jacobsen and Andersen 2015)andaneed

exists for inquiry into how public values, lying at the heart

of public organizations and their work (Bozeman 2007),

can be used in TL, too. With other studies already linking

public values to increased job meaning and employee

motivation (e.g., Andersen et al. 2012;Yangand

Pandey 2008), incorporating public values in TL may

address the above concerns and further increase TL effec-

tiveness in the public sector.

To date, generic TL theory neither discusses nor mea-

sures any public values aspect (Avolio and Bass 2004;

Trottier, Van Wart and Wang 2008). Public values (PV) are

often broadly and abstractly stated (Andersen et al. 2013;

Jørgensen and Bozeman 2007) which necessitates man-

agement to highlight, clarify and operationalize PV in

employees’work which often is specificin context and pur-

pose (e.g., to conduct inspections). There is nothing inher-

ent in the definition or practice of TL that precludes the

use of public values. TL is an exchange relationship

between leaders and followers that motivates by clarifying

tasks and rewards (Bass and Bass 2009), and leaders can

clarify and highlight public values in public servants’work

and subsequent rewards. This study examines the use of

public values in transactional leadership which it calls

‘public values-focused transactional leadership’(PVTL).

Received: 4 August 2021 Revised: 22 February 2022 Accepted: 24 February 2022

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13495

1058 © 2022 American Society for Public Administration. Public Admin Rev. 2022;82:1058–1076.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar

The main study question is how effective such use

is. Following prior leadership studies, this study uses orga-

nizational commitment (OC) as the outcome measure

because of its well-established association with perfor-

mance (Castaing 2006; Mathieu and Zajac 1990). Dyadic

data are drawn from 412 subordinates and their 78 super-

visors, across 27 different public organizations. Such data

increases triangulation and avoids common method bias.

Our study results show that PVTL is more effective than

generic TL and has at least comparable effectiveness as

transformational leadership. A short-form PVTL construct

is validated that requires only four (4) items be added to

extant TL constructs.

Public values are often studied as part of other leader-

ship styles such as transformational leadership (e.g.,

Wright, Moynihan and Pandey 2012), and at societal

levels. Public values are pervasive in work, in people and

public organizations (Bozeman and Crow 2021). However,

not only are they broadly stated and a bit abstract, public

sector work also involves other values and issues (e.g., red

tape, workplace relations) that compete with PV for atten-

tion and concern (Nabatchi 2018; Perry 2020), and thus

also require highlighting and prioritization. Some public

sector work occurs at arm’s length from citizens and com-

munities (e.g., administrative, regulatory and policy

advice) which further risks the neglect of PV (De Bruijn

and Dicke 2006). For these reasons, highlighting and rein-

forcing PV are necessary public management tasks, and

this study discusses PVTL as an effective and well-suited

leadership style for this purpose.

This study advances the literature on public leadership

by examining the effectiveness of PVTL. Generic, vali-

dated constructs of transactional and transformational

leadership have greatly added to our knowledge

(e.g., Jacobsen and Andersen 2015; Wright, Moynihan and

Pandey 2012), but the field cannot ignore distinctive prac-

tices that arise from its public sector context, as well. This

study is among the first to argue that public values can

and should be used in transactional leadership (TL) and

that doing so requires integration with TL, rather than

considering PV as mere contextual effect of generic TL,

only. This article defines and conceptualizes public

values-focused transactional leadership (PVTL). This is

consistent with recent studies calling for a broader and

richer treatment of TL (Jacobsen and Andersen 2017;

Young et al. 2021) and calls in PV studies for focusing on

the extent that public administration “can actually pro-

vide relevant experiences for individuals and groups”

(Meynhardt 2009:214) and even “promote their

employees’public service motivation (PSM) by highlight-

ing the quality of service they provide and emphasizing

that they are making a difference and contributing to

others through their work”(Miller-Mor-Attias and Vigoda-

Gadot 2021). To assess the use of PV in TL, we use the

technique of ‘combined constructs’(Newman et al. 2016)

which often result in measures with improved explana-

tory power and parsimony. This approach is also used in

other well-known constructs such as workforce engage-

ment and public service motivation (Perry 1996; Vigoda-

Gadot, Eldor and Schobat 2013). Finally, to address con-

cerns about TL leading to shallow relationships, we also

show PVTL increasing communication and psychological

contracts in supervisor-subordinate relationships.

“Every leader-subordinate relationship involves trans-

actions based on exchange and reciprocity to some

degree”(Turner et al. 2002:306) and this study focuses on

these exchanges in furthering public values. This study

has relevance for other research such as increasing mean-

ingful and attractive public sector work (Perry 2020). It

also furthers comparison with transformational leadership

which, unlike generic TL, already invokes PV

(i.e., ‘compelling visions’that implicate PV in the public

sector) and we argue that both are needed. The following

section discusses the theoretical integration of PV in TL

and research hypotheses. We then discuss our study’s

sample and research methods, including statistical evi-

dence about the structure of PVTL. Study results are then

presented, followed by a discussion on how PVTL opens

avenues for research.

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP: ADD PUBLIC

VALUES

Transactional leadership (TL) is defined as the exchange

relationship between leaders and followers that motivates

and guides subordinates towards goals by clarifying tasks

and providing contingent rewards and sanctions (Bass

and Bass 2009; Jensen, Andersen and Jacobsen 2019a). TL

theory includes the use of tangible and intangible

rewards such as positive feedback and praise, and con-

structive agreements that further the commitments and

efforts (Jacobsen and Andersen 2017; Podsakoff,

Podsakoff and Kuskova 2010).

Consensus exists that TL is relatively easy to use which

contributes to its wide use and appeal (Jung and

Avolio 2000; Van Wart 2013). The literature suggests three

principal mechanisms through which TL gains effective-

ness. First, TL clarifies job requirements, roles and perfor-

mance expectations (Trottier, Van Wart and Wang 2008;

Walumbwa, Wu and Orwa 2008), which reduce role ambi-

guity and uncertainty, and guide subordinate efforts. Sec-

ond, constructive agreements in TL provide support for

nuanced and tailored exchanges and individualized con-

sideration. These may involve mutual understandings and

leader support (Bass 1990; Berman and West 2003; Park

and Rainey 2008; Young et al. 2021). Third, the use of both

tangible and intangible, psychological rewards deepens

commitment (Afshari and Gibson 2016; Podsakoff,

Podsakoff and Kuskova 2010). Early formulations of TL

theory (e.g., Bass 1990) include both contingent rewards

and management-by-exception as processes in which

rewards are provided, but much research and meta-

analysis show contingent rewards to be more effective

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 1059