Verdict Pending: Understanding Leadership Role Identity for North Carolina Judges and Lawyers
| Author | Willow S. Jacobson,Sharon R. Paynter |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018814566 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
Public Personnel Management
2019, Vol. 48(2) 252 –279
Verdict Pending:
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Understanding Leadership
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018814566
DOI: 10.1177/0091026018814566
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm
Role Identity for North
Carolina Judges and Lawyers
Willow S. Jacobson1 and Sharon R. Paynter2
Abstract
This article examines precursors to leadership practice, specifically through the lens
of role identity. The assumption explored is that people are unlikely to engage in the
hard work of leadership if they do not see that challenge as part of who they are
and what they do, especially collaborative or system-level leadership. Role identity
is, then, a critical building block in developing a deeper understanding of leadership
intentions and actions especially in collaborative settings. Multiple judicial players,
termed here “public service lawyers,” are investigated in this single-state case study
that examines individuals’ view of their role and primary focus. Factors are examined
that contribute to the construction of role perception. Results reveal that leadership
training, the position one holds, and motivational orientation all influence the extent
to which public service lawyers develop a view of their role that includes a broader
system or collaborative orientation.
Keywords
leadership, motivation theory, values
Introduction
Scholars and practitioners alike increasingly recognize that no one person, depart-
ment, organization, government, or sector alone can solve the complex problems that
plague society and our communities. Responses to these problems require individuals
1The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA
2East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Willow S. Jacobson, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 3330, Chapel Hill, NC
27599-3330, USA.
Email: Jacobson@sog.unc.edu
Jacobson and Paynter
253
to think beyond their traditional roles and professional responsibilities. Public servants
in particular often must take on new or unconventional leadership opportunities to
address critical issues. Public lawyers and judges are not excluded. The judicial sys-
tem is involved with and impacted by complex societal troubles. Its members are
therefore looked to for both formal and, sometimes, informal action to respond to
these troubles. Public lawyers and judges play key roles in working directly on indi-
vidual cases, in interpreting laws that affect entire populations, and in contributing to
the governance and leadership of the courthouse and court system. They also serve as
vital partners in responding to a range of issues that extend beyond specific cases.
In particular, judicial actors are often front and center with such critical issues fac-
ing society as the opioid epidemic, public safety, “school to prison pipeline,” and
mental health concerns. Although there is an understanding of the legal responsibility
and role for public service lawyers, far less is understood about how these individuals
view their leadership roles outside the courtroom, thus the need for investigating pub-
lic service lawyers’ leadership choices, especially with attention to how they may opt
to participate in developing boundary-spanning and collaborative strategies. Better
understanding when key players opt to take on more expansive and engaged roles is an
important topic not just for judicial actors but for the range of public, nonprofit, and
private sector players whose engagement in collaborative efforts is needed. As such,
understanding how role identity influences individual leadership choices and engage-
ment presents an opportunity for multiple settings and disciplines.
Leadership scholarship within the field of public administration has often focused
on the executive branch, federal agencies, and, recently growing attention has been
given to local government leadership and collaborative or networked leadership. The
practical importance of leadership for public organizations is well recognized, though
scholars acknowledge several obstacles to studying and understanding it, such as
whom to study, what variables to use, and how to access respondents (Getha-Taylor,
Holmes, Jacobson, Morse, & Sowa, 2011; Van Slyke & Alexander, 2006; Van Wart,
2013a, 2013b). Attention to judicial leadership has been limited. Judicial scholars rec-
ognize that roles and capacity among key actors are critical to court and system perfor-
mance yet not well understood. As Gallas (1987) notes, “Our choices to date have
ignored systematic study of a highly relevant unit of analysis: the characteristics of
successful trial court leaders and leadership teams” (p. 41).
Khademian (2002) posits that leadership will be most influential “for those organi-
zations operating in complex environments in which the work of the organization is
distinctive and difficult to assess as to its values” (p. 45)—a description that fits the
ebb and flow of work in the courts. Exploring the impact that leadership can have on
the judicial system is important for understanding how system leaders can implement
change and thereby influence complex public problems. Previous research into the
kinds of leadership problems that exist within the courts includes calls for judicial
actors to recognize the need to take on leadership roles and the important part that
training can play in the development of one’s leadership skills (Zaffrano, 1993;
Zimmerman, 1998). The need for expanded leadership in courts is like that in many
other public institutions. Thus, as in other public settings, leadership practices that
254
Public Personnel Management 48(2)
embrace the collaborative nature of complex public problems are critical for judicial
actors. Within this research, the term “public service lawyers” is used to reference
judges, district attorneys, and public defenders who all hold positions to administer
justice on behalf of the public.
This study examines precursors to leadership practice, specifically through the lens
of role identity. The assumption is that people are unlikely to engage in the hard work
of leadership if they do not see it as part of their identity or responsibility. Role identity
is, then, a critical building block in developing a deeper understanding of leadership
intentions and actions. This article adds to the empirical investigation of how individu-
als self-select for leadership roles by better understanding self and role perception as
antecedents to leadership action.
The nexus between the roles that actors set for themselves and their leadership
views and capacity is examined through two research questions. First, we examine
how public service lawyers both perceive their role and identify their primary focus.
How a public service lawyer develops their view of themselves becomes a critical
antecedent to how they construct their intended leadership actions especially in col-
laborative settings like those found in the public sector. Second, we explore what con-
tributes to role perception. These questions add important insight into understanding
human capital competencies, skills, and leadership approaches within the judiciary.
This article is presented in four main sections. First, the “Leadership and Role
Identity” section provides a brief review of previous scholarship. The study design and
data are described in the “Study Design” section, with the main results presented and
discussed in the “Findings and Discussion” section. The article concludes with recom-
mendations and a call for future research.
Leadership and Role Identity
In reviewing the literature, we begin by identifying the need for leadership and, spe-
cifically, the need for collaborative leadership to solve complex problems. Next, we
examine the concept of leadership emergence with a focus on identity formation. An
individual’s motivational base is associated with identity creation; thus, a review of
motivation research including work on public service motivation (PSM) is presented.
Then, we discuss a process model presented by Jacobsen and Andersen (2015) that
highlights the linkages between leader intent and employee performance and consider
the precursors to their model. Specifically, we review literature on how role identity
serves as an antecedent to leadership intent. Finally, elements of the court setting are
examined, including exploring how collaborative leadership is needed within this
context.
Collaborative Leadership
Leadership is notoriously difficult to identify and measure (Chapman et al., 2016;
Ingraham & Getha-Taylor, 2004; Ingraham, Sowa, & Moynihan, 2004) though recent
work has progressed our understanding of this concept (Fernandez, Cho, & Perry,
Jacobson and Paynter
255
2010; Tummers & Knies, 2016). Despite its measurement challenges, leadership con-
tinues to be identified as a critical determinant for employee performance (Fernandez
et al., 2010; Hassan & Hatmaker, 2015; Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2012; Tummers
& Knies, 2016; Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, & Wu, 2014).
Public leaders operate in an increasingly complex landscape (Frederickson, 2007;
Getha-Taylor et al., 2011; Hubbard & Paquet, 2010). Much existing research focuses
on how leadership in collaborative settings fosters network effectiveness (Burke &
Costello,...
To continue reading
Request your trial