See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267210953

Collaborative Leadership Development for

Local Government Officials: Exploring

Competen....

Article  in  Public Administration Quarterly · January 2013

CITATIONS

11READS

410

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interlocal Cooperation View project

Ricardo Stuart Morse

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

27 PUBLICATIONS   336 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ricardo Stuart Morse on 17 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENTFOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS:EXPLORING COMPETENCIES AND PROGRAMIMPACT

HEATHER GETHA-TAYLORThe University of Kansas

RICARDO S. MORSEThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

ABSTRACT

The increased emphasis on collaborative governance across the field ofpublic administration necessitates a rethinking of what the corecompetencies of public managers are and how they might bedeveloped. The traditional model of leadership development, focusingon leading within bounded hierarchy and via command-and-controlmust be moderated with an additional focus on collaborative problem-solving, working in flattened structures, and incentivizing behavior innew ways. This article reviews relevant literature along with theexperience of two local govemment leadership programs to explorecontent and training approaches needed to prepare local govemmentleaders for collaborative governance. Qualitative and quantitativesurvey findings indicate that program content should specificallyaddress collaboration competency development. Further, trainingevaluation strategy should allow for processing and reflection:immediate reaction surveys should be supplemented with a long-termevaluation strategy. Finally, while scholarly literature recommendsnon-traditional, peer-learning activities for collaborative leadershipdevelopment, this research offers mixed support. The programexamples and associated research findings highlight the importance of astrategic approach to training that reflects emerging leadership needs.

72 PAQ SPRING 2012

INTRODUCTION

One hundred years after Frederick Taylor's seminal work. ThePrinciples of Scientific Management (1911), it is worthwhile toobserve how much the concept of leadership has evolved. Corethemes of motivation, performance, and human interaction havedeveloped and become more sophisticated (Yukl, 2010). "Greatman" or "trait" theories have been replaced by more complex,interactive theories of leadership. However, the traditional notionof leadership focusing on hierarchical leaders and followersremains dominant in popular conceptions of leadership and inprograms that seek to develop leaders.

What characterized leadership in 20th-centuryorganizations shaped by Taylor's scientific management paradigmcontrasts with emerging, contemporary organizational priorities ofthe 21st century. Today's leadership context, particularly in thepublic sector, is interorganizational. In public administration inparticular, this shift corresponds with an emerging collaborativegovernance paradigm that is reorienting the field away from afocus on hierarchy, toward a focus on networks and partnershipsthat cross traditional boundaries (Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh,2012). This new focus highlights the need to develop leadershipcompetencies that extend beyond traditional, hierarchical,managerial functions (Morse, 2008; Sullivan, Williams 8L Jeffares,2012).

While it is important to understand how the definition ofleadership has transformed over time, it is equally important toconsider the connected task oí developing leaders. lies and Preece(2006) highlighted this need by noting that public leadershipdevelopment programs must expand their efforts to build thecompetencies that create value both within organizations andbeyond. Considering how these competencies align withleadership training components is necessary to assess training gapsand opportunities for improvement. The transition from leadingwithin organizations to leading beyond them places new demandson leadership development programs. Drawing upon the growingbody of literature on collaborative competencies, as well as theliterature on leadership development, along with experiences anddata from two local government leadership developmentprograms, this article addresses the call to develop leaders who

PAQ SPRING 2013 73

can achieve results both within traditional organizationalstmctures and also across organizational and sectoral boundaries.

This article utilizes program-specific information to offerinsights and respond to the question presented in Getha-Taylor,Holmes, Jacobson, Morse and Sowa (2011, p. i92): "Whichprograms, strategies, and curricula are most appropriate to buildand nurture leadership skills for public leadership 'acrossboundaries'?" To this end, three related questions of interest areexplored: 1) What additional leadership competencies are requiredof local govenmient managers for collaborative governance? 2)Which programmatic components are best suited to developcollaborative competencies? 3) What are the most appropriatemethods to evaluate the expected outcomes of collaborativeleadership development programs?

The article is organized accordingly. First, we reviewliterature on collaborative leadership and collaborativecompetencies and examine arguments calling for the developmentof those competencies in public leaders. Next, we consider howtraining curricula should adapt to develop collaborativecompetency development. We present insights from localgovemment executive development programs in North Carolinaand Kansas and examine data collected from program participantsto consider which programmatic components are best suited todevelop collaborative leadership competencies. We then tum tothe question of how to evaluate program impact on collaborativecompetency, again utilizing data from the two programs beingstudied. Finally, we conclude with a discussion ofthe implicationsof this research and offer advice for others engaged in trainingpublic sector executives.

COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP ANDCOLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES

The transformation of govenmient-centered problem solving toboundary-sparming collaborative govemance illustrates both thepromise and the challenge of 21st century public leadership.Complex problems and resource interdependence highlight theinadequacies of traditional organizational stmctures and also the

74 PAQ SPRING 2012

need for new forms of leadership. Leadership has been identifiedas a critical element in collaborative effectiveness and an elementof capacity for joint action (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006;Emerson & Smutko, 2011). Working effectively across boundariesrequires new paradigms, transformed cultures and supportivetraining. As noted by Marsh (2010), "the number one challenge forpublic, not-for-profit and for-profit organizations is leadingbeyond boundaries'^ (p. 546, emphasis added).

Understanding the ways in which public organizationscultivate leaders who can successfully address the complexchallenges of the 21st century is a priority across all levels ofgovemment (U.S. Govemment Accountability Office, 2006).Regrettably, as Light (2011) points out, leadership is still mostlytaught using the "great-man theory" although the reality of publicleadership today rests on a foundation of "collective" leadership.While traditional models of leadership development help clarifythe challenges of leading within organizational boundaries, thedemands associated with working across organizational and sectorboundaries to address shared challenges requires new leadershipparadigms (Linden, 2010; Sullivan, Williams, & Jeffares, 2012).Connected to this, the ways in which we define public leadershipand associated competencies requires innovative trainingtechniques that also reflect the transformation of govemance(Morse & Buss, 2008).

However, particularly at the local level, governmentsacross the nation are faced with severely limited resources andincreased demand for services (Okubo, 2010). Rising demand forcritical local services such as public safety and health services willrequire job growth, a priority that will undoubtedly be challengedby budgetary constraints (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Giventhese conflicting forces of increased demand and decreasedcapacity, public employees are stressed while resources fortraining and development are constrained. Thus, understandinghow best to stretch limited resources for improved impact is apriority.

Scholarship and practice illustrate the ways in whichleadership must adapt to changing mandates, expectations andclimates. So too should leadership development adapt accordingly.The traditional model of leadership development, focusing on

PAQ SPRING 2013 75

leading within bounded hierarchy and via command-and-controlmust be moderated with an additional focus on collaborativeproblem-solving, working in flattened stmctures, and incentivizingbehavior in new ways. As public managers work acrossboundaries to solve complex public problems, the ways in whichthey lead will be influenced by this changing context. Conflictresolution, engaging the public, and balancing ethical prioritieswill all be influenced by the new landscape of public leadership(O'Leary, Bingham, & Choi, 2009).

The study of leadership and leadership development isoften considered generically and broadly to span organizations andsectors (Yukl, 2010). Notably absent from such treatments is afocus on leadership development at the local govemment level.Yet, it is at this level where the exercise of public leadership (orthe lack thereof) is perhaps most evident to citizens. Further, it isat this level, where leadership is needed most acutely given theservice demands and prevailing negative perceptions ofgovemment (Saad, 2011). This article addresses this challenge byexamining two separate efforts designed to cultivate leadershipskills in local govemment managers by integrating traditionalleadership development models with contemporary contentdelivery approaches and specific inclusions of collaborativecontent. We first tum to the question of what leadershipcompetencies are associated with this emerging collaborativegovemance paradigm.

CONSIDERING EMERGING LEADERSHIPCOMPETENCIES AND COLLABORATIVE SKILLS

Understanding of competencies for public leadership is beginningto catch up with our knowledge of collaborative management andgovemance. For instance, Getha-Taylor's (2008) federal study ofhigh performers found that the most significant competencies forcollaborative effectiveness are (a) interpersonal understanding, (b)teamwork and cooperation, and (c) team leadership. These resultsare signiflcant and contrast with the U.S. Office of PersonnelManagement (0PM)'s Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs).0PM identifies (a) political savvy, (b) negotiating/influencing, and(c) partnering as critical competencies for building coalitions.Comparing competency dimensions reveals a shared emphasis on

76 PAQ SPRING 2012

team leadership in both Getha-Taylor's (2008) findings and inOPM's list. However, OPM's emphasis on organizationalawareness and partnering do not emerge as significant in the studyfindings. Instead, interpersonal understanding andteamwork/cooperation were identified as keys to collaborativeeffectiveness (Getha-Taylor, 2008).

Morse (2008) examined the question of collaborativecompetencies by comparing what the literature on collaborativeleadership identifies as competencies to an exhaustive list ofcompetencies for "public service leadership" (meaning,administrative leadership or leadership in public organizations)identified by Van Wart (2005). The competencies associated withcollaborative leadership were presented in terms of "attributes,skills, and behaviors," similar to how Van Wart organizescompetencies in his work. Attributes include systems thinking anda sense of mutuality. Skills include strategic thinking andfacilitation. Behaviors include stakeholder identification, issueframing and facilitating mutual learning processes.

Other scholars in public administration have givenattention to the identification of strategies and relatedcompetencies for collaborative govemance. One example is arecent book on networked govemment, which is closely alignedwith conceptions of collaborative govemance (Koliba, Meek, &,Zia 2011). The authors' strategies for network management aresimilar to the other works of collaborative competencies. Thesestrategies include oversight; mandating; providing resources;negotiation and bargaining; facilitation; participatory govemance /civic engagement; brokering; boundary-spanning and systemsthinking. Bingham, Sandfort and O'Leary (2008), similarlyoutlined what they refer to as the "capabilities" of "collaborativepublic managers." Included in their list are items such as networkdesign, meeting facilitation, conflict management, and evaluatingoutcomes.

Perhaps the most exhaustive work to date on collaborativecompetencies is the result of a working group of the UniversityNetwork for Collaborative Govemance' (UNCG), which createdthe "LTNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies" (Emerson &Smutko, 2011). In 2009, the working group conducted anextensive review of numerous sources of competencies for

PAQ SPRING 2013 77

leadership and collaboration including the OPM Executive CoreCompetencies, the Intemational City/County ManagementAssociation (ICMA), the Cooperative Extension System, and theCentre for Innovative and Entrepreneurial Leadership in BritishColumbia. This work is the most extensive and thoroughexamination to-date on competencies specifically for collaborativegovemance. Table 1 presents a summary of the competencies list.

Table 1UNCG Collaborative Competencies (Emerson & Smutko, 2011)

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT(1) Strengthening Collaborative Leadership (e.g. collaborativeleadership styles, entrepreneurialism and risk-taking)(2) Planning, Organizing and Managing for Collaboration (e.g.process design, designing govemance structures, engagingstakeholders)PROCESS(3) Communicating Effectively(4) Working in Teams and Facilitating Groups

. (5) Negotiating Agreement and Managing ConflictANALYTICAL(6) Applying Analytic Skills and Strategic Thinking (e.g. situationassessment, understanding political and legal context of collaboration)(7) Evaluating and Adapting ProcessesKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT(8) Integrating Technical and Scientific Information(9) Using Information and Communication TechnologyPROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY(10) Maintaining Personal Integrity and Professional Ethics

While the "leadership and management" category includesmuch of what is unique about leadership in collaborative contexts,and other categories may apply more broadly to generic leadership(e.g. communications skills or integrity), we find that the UNCGwork is consistent with what the other research on leadershipcompetencies for collaborative govemance. In addition to what wemight call traditional leadership attributes and skills we see a newemphasis on situation assessment and what might be termed as"process " and "design " skills.

78 PAQ SPRING 2012

Table 2Collaborative Competences by Phases of Collaboration (MorseStephens, 2012)

Assessment

Issue analysis

Environmentalassessment

Stakeholderidentification

Strategic thinking

Initiation

Stakeholderengagement

Political/communityorganizing

Building socialcapital

Process design

Deliberation

Group facilitation

Team building andgroup dynamics

Listening

Consensus-building

Interest-basednegotiation

Meta-Competencies

Collaborative mindset

Passion for creating public value

Systems thinking

Implementation

Developing actionplans

Designinggovemancestructures

Public engagement

Networkmanagement

Conflict resolution

Performanceevaluation

Openness and risk-taking

Sense of mutuality and connectedness

Humility or measured ego

There is certainly nuance and ambiguity to be found inany distillation of collaborative competencies versus traditionalcompetencies. Table 2 (above) offers a synthesis of the resourcesmentioned here, along with many others, presented by Morse andStephens (2012), organizing the competencies along broad phasesof collaborative govemance processes. At the core there is a set ofbehaviors (and related attributes and skills, what Morse andStephens term "meta-competencies") that revolves aroundunderstanding and identifying stakeholders, convening them,designing appropriate processes for them, facilitating agreementsamongst them, designing appropriate govemance arrangements foragreements reached, and keeping them together to implement whatis decided. Working with extemal stakeholders in this fashion isclearly a different set of activities and requisite competencies thangoal-oriented organizational leadership. An important research

PAQ SPRING 2013 79

question emerges: how should training curriculum adapt toemphasize these emerging collaborative competencies?

Table 3PELA Participant's (2007-2010) Baseline, Self-ReportedCompetencies (n=92 )

Statement

I am widely trusted

I pursue work with energy and drive

I put the public good first

I convene stakeholders and secure agreement forcollective community action

I find multiple champions for change

I build constituent support and citizen coalitions

I identify the fall spectrum of knowledgeholders andstakeholders

I enlist different groups and organizationsappropriately to address issues or problems

MeanNormed

Score

.90

.85

.89

.67

.67

.63

.71

.71

One natural question at this point is whether current publicleaders already have these competencies at a comparable level tomore traditional public leadership competencies. There arenumerous calls for developing this new set of competencies inpublic (administrafive) leaders, based on an assumption that theirskill-set is by-and-large intra-organizational. Data from the PublicExecutive Leadership Program (PELA) (discussed in more detailbelow), suggests that the assumptions are correct. PELAparticipants from four cohorts (2007-2010) were asked to fill out aself-assessment based on a list of statements. Some of thequestions had to do with leadership generieally while others weremore closely aligned with specific collaborative competencies. As

80 PAQ SPRING 2012

a selection from these questions displayed in Table 3 (above)demonstrates, scores on explicitly collaborative governance-related statements scored lower than those with more 'generic'leadership qualities.

DEVELOPING COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES—THE EXPERIENCE OF TWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

While there is an emerging agreement on the nature of thisexpanded set of competencies, it remains to be seen how best todevelop those in others. Day (2000) chronicled the evolution ofcontemporary leadership development, including the refining ofmethods to address changing leadership needs. He stated,"Developing individual leaders without concem for reciprocalrelations among people or their interactions within a broader socialcontext ignores the research demonstrating that leadership is acomplex interaction between individuals and their social andorganizational environments" (Day, 2000, p. 605).

As part of this transition. Day (2000) noted the importanceof action (project-based) learning and peer developmentopportunities (mentoring, networking) as part of contemporaryleadership development programs. Bingham, Sandfort andO'Leary (2008) also argue that collaborative public managementrequires both new methods and revised content that balances theneed for knowledge and the need for application. They submit thatthe new competencies required for effective collaborativemanagement are best learned through "active and experientiallearning" (p. 283).

What is shared across these recommendations is a focuson adult learning theory. As Berman, Bowman, West and VanWart (2010) note, this theory "emphasizes the extensiveexperiences of adults, interest in self-improvement and problemsolving, and preferences for active participation and exercise ofsome control in learning," (p. 279). Thus, traditional models ofinstruction are less suited to the needs of adult learners. As notedby Mezirow (1997), it is only through critical reflection, engagingwith new groups, experiencing other cultures that we can begin tobecome self-aware and transform "interpretations, beliefs, andhabits of mind or points of view," (p. 7). Adult learners need to

PAQ SPRING 2013 81

master new content, but they must also consider the ways theirown assumptions infiuence that process. Moreover, they mustleam to recognize other frames of reference and leam to work withothers to solve problems and accomplish shared goals.

In the context of public management specifically,Denhardt (2001) considers the various developmental needs andmanagerial skills that are most relevant to students andpractifioners. A key component of Denhardt's (2001) analysiscenters on the development of "interpersonal" skills that rest on anunderstanding of others as well as personal self-refiection. Thistreatment considers the various ways of developing these criticalneeds, including the value of traditional, classroom-styleinstmction as well as experiential leaming opportunities. Thisfocus helps to illustrate Kolb's (1984) experiential leaming cycle,which includes experience, observation, abstraction andexperimentation. Contemporary approaches that illustrate thecycle components are expected to contribute to improved leamingoutcomes as a result.

While these recommendations together speak to the valueof nontraditional training methods that refiect adult leaming theoryand experiential leaming, this investigation presents anopportunity to test these recommendations in practice and respondto the question: which programmatic components are best suitedto develop collaborative competencies?

This study draws on comparative data from two localgovemment leadership development programs to answer thesequestions. Both programs highlight competencies that fall outsidethe sphere of traditional (organizational) leadership. The twoprograms also utilize emerging training and developmentapproaches that emphasize adult leaming theory and contemporaryinstmctional models. The programs are presented below andsummarized in Table 4.

The Public Executive Leadership Academy (PELA)The Public Executive Leadership Academy (PELA) is a two-week, residential leadership program mn by the UNC School ofGovemment for local govemment managers and departmentheads. Its development was a direct response to demand from localgovemment managers in North Carolina for their own senior-level

82 PAQ SPRING 2012

leadership program. The program was launched in 2005 and hasbeen offered annually since then. The average cohort size is 25.

PELA is distinctive for its focus on "communityleadership" and consideration of local govemment managers as"change agents" in their communities (Stenberg, Upshaw, &Warner, 2008). This focus on community (or collaborative)leadership reflects specific direction from the North Carolina Cityand County Management Association (NCCCMA), whoserepresentatives initially approached the School of Govemmentabout developing such a program. Leading across boundaries wasviewed as an emerging, critical competency for local govemmentleaders.

Representatives from NCCCMA and ICMA worked withSchool of Govemment faculty to design the program, and thecommunity/collaboration focus emerged from those interactions.Additionally, regional focus groups were held with municipal andcounty managers from across North Carolina to ascertain theirmajor challenges and issues, what they feel they needed to managethose issues, priorities for training programs, and program designpreferences (Stenberg, Upshaw, 8c Wamer, 2008). Severalcollaborative govemance-related themes prominently emerged inthese discussions, including specifically intergovemmentalrelations and citizen engagement. Skills identified includedfacilitation, conflict resolution, collaborative decision-making, andcommunication. These results were consistent with trends in thefield identified by Nalbandian (1999) and the competencies citedabove.

PELA was designed around these collaborativecompetencies and advertised as a mid-to- senior level leadershipprogram focused on community leadership (as opposed to otherprograms' focus on organizational leadership). Modules onsituation assessment, stakeholder analysis and engagement, groupfacilitation, group decision-making and creativity form the core ofPELA's curriculum. The skill development components areframed within several context-setting sessions on the changingnature of local govemance, community values and social equity.Additionally, a 360-degree assessment on "community leadershipcompetencies" (filled out by participants and their colleagueswithin their organization as well as in the community) is used to

PAQ SPRING 2013 83

help participants identify areas of strength and neededimprovement. Concepts and skills are applied throughout and afterthe program in a "community change project" identified andspearheaded by participants.

Supervisory Leadership Training (SLT)The Kansas Supervisory Leadership Training (SLT) program is athree-day session designed by the University of Kansas's PublicManagement Center (PMC) specifically for mid-level publicmanagers. The PMC is the "professional development arm" of theUniversity of Kansas' School of Public Affairs andAdministration. The PMC manages a variety of professionaldevelopment programs, including the Certified Public Managerprogram, the Emerging Leaders Academy, and customized coursesas requested.

The SLT program focuses on the theme of "supervisor asleader" and emphasizes skill development related to managing therelationship with followers. To this end, the program offers acurriculum of diverse supervisory topics that span individualleadership development (including leadership styles) traditionalorganizational challenges (such as conflict management, coachingand performance appraisal) as well as emerging leadershippriorities (including collaboration). Content is delivered via avariety of instmctional tools and techniques, including: lecture,multi-media presentations, self-assessments, group discussions,scenarios and (optional) follow-up peer consultations.

While the SLT program is available for cities throughoutKansas, this investigation centers on data collected from sessionsoffered in 2010-2011 for managers from a single Kansas city. Thecity's mid-level managers (total of 167 at the start of program)were all enrolled in the SLT program. Eight SLT sessions werescheduled over the course of nine months to averageapproximately 20 participants at each training session. Programcoordinators managed enrollment to ensure a diverse group at eachsession, representing various city departments, to enhancenetworking and collaboration.

84 PAQ SPRING 2012

Table 4Program Comparisons

Programgoals

Cohort

Time inresidence

Framework

Trainingtopics

Methods

Innovativeapproaches

PELAPrepare local govemmentmanagers to lead acrossboundaries and act as

community change agentsSenior and mid-level

managers(Average class size: 25)

Two weeks (two one-weeksessions separated by a

month)Community leadership,

leading across boundaries

Facilitation, conflictresolution, collaborative

decision-making,communication.

intergovernmental relations.citizen engagementLecture, discussion.

scenario analysis, groupactivities, simulation/role

play360 degree assessments.

learning teams, communitychange project

SLTPrepare local govemment

managers to lead within andacross boundaries

M id-leve I managers(Average class size: 20)

Three days

Supervisors as leaders,relationship-based

leadershipLeadership styles, managing

change, coaching andmotivation, performance

management, teamwork andcollaboration

Lecture, discussion.scenario analysis, group

activities

Self-assessment, peerleaming applications

We now turn to data collected from program participantsto explore how local govemment managers understand thischanging landscape and the resulting demands in terms ofindividual competencies. Further, we explore the extent to whichthese programs and the methods employed impact participants'confidence in working in collaborative contexts.

EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF PELA AND SLT

Regrettably, as a result of the economic recession, funding fortraining has been restricted (Ammons & Fleck, 2010) oreliminated altogether (Johnson, 2010) in many local governments.Especially in a time of constrained resources, the investment ofscarce dollars into training programs is scrutinized. As a result.

PAQ SPRING 2013 85

evaluation of training outcomes is critical. Local govemmentswant to see the impact of training dollars, but this can represent adifficult request.

As Berge (2008) finds, training evaluation is complicatedby a host of challenges, including conflicting goals for the trainingexperience and "antiquated" evaluation methods. While improvedperformance may be an expected end goal of participating in atraining program, the value of other related outcomes, includingindividual leaming and competency development may be lost inthe process.

Traditionally, training evaluation centered on immediatereactions to the training experience. According to Kirkpatrick andKirkpatrick (2006), this "level one" evaluation can indicate thelevel of satisfaction with the training experience, but is insufficientto illustrate training impact. Rather, program evaluators need tomove beyond immediate reactions and evaluate higher-orderoutcomes, including leaming, behavior and results.

This research presents an opportunity to evaluate thehigher-order outcome of individual leaming and address relatedquestions including: "What skills were developed or improved?What attitudes were changed?" (Kirkpafrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006,p. 42). This speaks to a broader research question: what are themost appropriate methods to evaluate the expected outcomes ofcollaborative leadership development programs? As discussed inKirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006), surveys and self-awarenessreflections can provide insights on these questions, which togetherspeak to the broader goal of building capacity for improvedcollaborative performance.

MethodsThis investigation presents original quantitative and qualitativedata to explore collaborative leadership training and outcomes.The quantitative analysis centers on the Kansas SupervisoryLeadership Training program evaluation. The methodologyadopted is the switching replications approach (Trochim &Donnelly, 2007) that allows for members of a single group (mid-level managers from a single city) to act as treatment and controlgroups. For the purposes of this investigation, treatment isparticipation in the leadership development program. Individuals

86 PAQ SPRING 2012

in the treatment group completed the training as of March 2011. Asurvey was administered following the March training and endedprior to the start of the April training session. Members of thecontrol group had not completed the training session as of March2011.

The switching replications methodology is particularlywell suited for this research as it allows equality in programparticipation (i.e., all are able to receive the benefits of the"treatment") and by spacing out the participation over time,equivalent comparison groups are created in the process (Trochim& Donnelly, 2007). Substantial qualitative data was also obtainedfrom interviews with a sample of PELA participants from the firstfive years of the program (n=49). The insights from theseinterviews shed light on the long-term impact of training andprovide avenues for further investigation.

FindingsPELA program evaluation questions served as a framework for theSLT leadership evaluation and were included items in the SLTsurvey. PELA evaluation data from the first two years revealedstatistically significant increases on all dimensions amongprogram participants (Stenberg, Upshaw, & Warner, 2008).^ TheSLT program evaluation offered an opportunity for comparison byutilizing the same questions for a control and treatment group.This investigation revealed significant differences between thegroups on two dimensions: self-awareness and value of publicservice. Considered together, the data suggest that leadershiptraining can have both long-term benefits for participants (PELAevidence) and that those who participate in similar programsillustrate significantly higher levels of self-awareness andcommitment to public service (SLT data).

PAQ SPRING 2013 87

Table 5SLT Survey Responses

Survey Question

1.1 know myself as aleader.

2.1 take a broad,systematic view of issuesaffecting my community.

3.1 engage keystakeholders in creating avision for my community.

4.1 encourage teamwork,cornmunity building,partnerships, andcollaborative problemsolving acrossjurisdictions and sectors.

5.1 develop and honelistening andcommunication skills.

6.1 assess risks anddevelop strategies tominimize negativeconsequences.

7.1 facilitate change toimprove the quality of lifein our community.

8.1 celebrate the dignityand worth of publicservice.

Mean

4.04

3.78

3.43

3.86

3.84

4.06

3.75

3.81

TreatmentGroupn=62

4.12

3.85

3.46

3.88

3.85

4.03

3.82

3.95

ControlGroupn=60

3.89

3.65

3.36

3.81

3.81

4.10

3.63

3.60

Sig.

.025*

.109

.511

.579

.746

.458

.127

.013*

Unlike the PELA program responses that illustratedsignificant differences on all measures, the SLT program (which is

PAQ SPRUNG 2012

focused on supervisory leadership skills with a secondary focus oncollaboration) illustrates an impact on only two measures (seeTable 5 above). This finding suggests that if collaboration is anemerging leadership requirement, a more extensive focus will benecessary in training sessions in the future and that an extendedtime frame may be more appropriate for evaluating the leadershiptraining outcomes. The difference between three and ten days ofintensive training is certainly significant. The SLT results seem toindicate that a short program can help raise awareness ofleadership concepts but is unlikely to result in immediatebehavioral changes (questions 2-7).

Besides the PELA evaluation questions, the SLTevaluation survey included 14 additional questions related tocollaboration. The results (see Table 6) reveal that generally, thosewho participated in the training indicate stronger agreement withquestions related to the value of collaboration. Two itemsdistinguish the treatment and control groups. First, those whoparticipated in the training session illustrate a significantdifference in regard to the perception of collaboration as arequirement for getting the job done. They are more likely torecognize collaboration as a work requirement. Second, those whoparticipated in the training session illustrate a significantdifference in regard to the value of collaboration. They are morelikely to agree that collaboration is worth the extra effort involved.This finding is particularly interesting given the short duration ofSLT and that the collaborative competency element is only aportion of the overall program. One might surmise that moreprolonged exposure to collaborative competency training wouldyield even stronger results, which seem to be the case based oninterviews of PELA participants several months after they finishedthe program.

PAQ SPRING 2013 89

Table 6SLT Survey, Collaboration-related Questions

Survey Question

1. Collaboration within our organization iscritical to achieving our vision, values, andmission.

2. Collaboration within the City needsimprovement.

3. Improved partnerships withorganizations and individuals outside ofour organization would help us meet ourgoals.

4. My job requires me to collaborate withother departments frequently.

5. A significant amount of my work weekis spent on collaborative efforts.

6.1 would describe my previouscollaborative experiences as positive.

7. We achieve improved results when wework collaboratively.

8. Collaboration is worth the extra effortinvolved.

9. I can trust the people I collaborate withto do a good job.

10.1 rely on collaboration to get the jobdone.

11. Collaboration will be even morenecessary in the future.

12. I actively seek the input of others tomake better decisions.

13. The input of my peers matters to mewhen making important decisions.

14. The input of my supervisors matters tome when making important decisions.

Mean

4.16

3.67

3.68

4.09

3.50

4.15

4.20

3.82

3.73

4.14

3.98

4.01

4.04

TreatmentGroupn=62

4.22

3.70

3.70

4.20

3.59

3.93

4.20

4.29

3.82

3.75

4.14

4.03

4.03

4.03

ControlGroupn=60

4.05

3.60

3.63

3.89

3.35

• 3.89

4.05

4.05

3.81

3.70

4.13

3.89

3.97

4.05

Sig.

.184

,544

.049*

.176

.686

.186

.042*

.956

.690

.920

.296

.603

.884

90 PAQ SPRING 2012

Both PELA and SLT include peer group consultation aspart of their programs. The inclusion of this pedagogical approachis based on the premise that group collaboration, as part of theprogram, will lead to improved leaming outcomes in terms ofcollaborative competencies. While the peer groups (called"leaming teams") are a mandatory part of PELA, the SLTevaluation effort allows participants to (voluntarily) engage in peergroups to collaboratively examine organizational challenges(referred to as "leadership apps"), consider decisions jointly, andaddress shared managerial concems. This presents an opportunityto investigate the ways in which a contemporary instructionalmethod (peer group consultation) influences attitudes aboutcollaboration.

The results from this investigation (Table 1, below) aremixed and surprising. White those who participate in peer groupswere significantly more likely to agree that collaboration is worththe extra effort involved, mean responses indicate that they weresomewhat less likely to agree that the input of their peers matterswhen making important decisions. This observation (though notstatistically significant) is somewhat surprising as group work isintended to help participates better appreciate the benefits ofcollaboration firsthand. Group leaming to develop collaborativecompetencies is thus worth additional investigation. For instance,considering the format and duration of these activities mayindicate opportunity for adjustments.

PAQ SPRING 2013 91

Table 7SLT Survey, Peer Group Versus

Survey Question

1. Collaboration within our organizationis critical to achieving our vision, values,and mission.

2. Collaboration within the City needsimprovement.

3. Improved partnerships withorganizations and individuals outside ofour organization would help us meet ourgoals.

4. My job requires me to collaborate withother departments frequently.

5. A significant amount of my work weekis spent on collaborative efforts.

6.1 would describe my previouscollaborative experiences as positive.

7. We achieve improved results when wework collaboratively.

8. Collaboration is worth the extra effortinvolved.

9.1 can trust the people I collaborate withto do a good job.

10.1 rely on collaboration to get the jobdone.

11. Collaboration will be even morenecessary in the future.

12. I actively seek the input of others tomake better decisions.

13. The input of my peers matters to mewhen making important decisions.

14. The input of my supervisors mattersto me when making important decisions.

No Peer

Mean

4.16

3.67

3.68

4.09

3.50

3.92

4.15

4.20

3.82

3.73

4.14

3.98

4.01

4.04

Group

PeerGroup

Follow-up(n=51)

4.18

3.68

3.70

4.10

3.50

3.91

4.20

4.31

3.81

3.64

4.04

3.97

3.93

3.91

No PeerGroup

Follow-up(n=71)

4.13

3.65

3.65

4.07

3.50

3.92

4.09

4.09

3.82

3.82

4.23

3.98

4.07

4.15

Sig.

.678

.841

.714

.862

.956

.948

.332

.057*

.904

.184

.148

.990

.200

.094

92 PAQ SPRING 2012

As noted previously, the role of reflection and self-assessment is considered a way to examine individualdevelopment. For the purposes of this investigation, the SLTsurvey provided an opportunity for participants to indicate theirpersonal level of effectiveness related to collaboration. For thosewho perceive themselves as above average in terms ofcollaborative ability, they are significantly more likely to indicatethe importance of developing listening and communication skills,which can be considered an emerging competency area forleadership development (see Table 8).

Table 8SLT Survey, Differences in Collaborative Ability

Self- Self-Assessment: Assessment:

Above Average Below AverageCollaboration Collaborative

Question Ability Ability Sig.

I develop and honelisteningandcommunicationskills.

Connected to this point, there exists a strong positiverelationship between individual self-assessment of collaborativeskills and questions related to two emerging leadershipcompetencies: self-awareness ("I know myself as a leader,"correlation coefflcient: .347**) and listening/communication ("Idevelop and hone listening and communication skills," correlationcoefficient: .490**). This relationship exists among treatmentgroup members but is not illustrated among control groupmembers, suggesting a training impact.

Qualitative data collected from interviews of forty-ninePELA participants from the first flve cohorts also supports, at leastsomewhat, the idea that collaborative competencies can bedeveloped in executive leadership development program settings.Participants were asked which aspects of the program participantsvalued most and what impact the program has had on them with at

PAQ SPRING 2013 93

least one, and up to four, years of time passing after theirparticipation. The interview data found PELA participantsmaintaining very positive impressions of their experience andalmost uniformly saying it was a beneficial investment of theirtime with real impacts on how they lead in their organizations andcommunities.

Questions regarding what participants felt they gainedfrom the program and how they perceived their leadership hadchanged yielded some interesting insights into what participantsvalue most. The strongest theme from these questions has to dowith participants feeling they understand different points of viewbetter, are better listeners, and generally "deal with people better."Participants consistently cited a change in how they view andappreciate others, implying that their style is less directive andmore relation-based, consistent with working in collaborativesettings. Additionally, there are many references to "seeing the bigpicture." Another dominant theme was recognition by participantsthat their facilitation skills have been improved and utilized.

While specific mention of interorganizationalcollaboration was not a prominent theme from the interviews,there were some specific mentions of note in response to "has yourleadership changed as a result of PELA, and if so, how?" Thefollowing comments illustrate participants' feelings of changes intheir leadership orientation toward collaborative govemance:

"I can more effectively lead through collaboration.""Able to view issues from ... the community's frame ofmind.""More aware of the shared aspect of leadership withshareholders.""More in tune with how to engage the public with projectsbefore those projects are too far along.""Meeting facilitation; more effective meetings."

While these statements are not generalizable, they do reflectrecognition by program participants of changes in their leadershiptoward a more collaborative approach, again suggesting thatcollaborative competencies can be developed or enhanced throughleadership development programs.

94 PAQ SPRING 2012

In short, the interview data strongly suggests congruencebetween participant's self-reported "take-aways" and the intent ofthe course to develop collaborative competencies consistent withthe changing nature of public leadership. The data confirms thatparticipants appreciate and recognize the importance ofdeveloping those collaborative skills. It also confirms thatexperiential leaming methods, including case studies, role-playingactivities, and applied leaming projects are effective tools fordeveloping those skills in leamers.

DISCUSSION

This investigation provided an opportunity to consider threerelated questions that affect both scholarship and practice: 1) Whatadditional leadership competencies are required of localgovernment managers for collaborative governance? 2) Whichprogrammatic components are best suited to develop collaborativeleadership skills? 3) What are the most appropriate methods toevaluate the varied expected outcomes of collaborative leadershipdevelopment programs ?

Our study illustrates two approaches to local govemmentleadership development that yield varied outcomes. PELAparticipant feedback illustrates individual growth on all relevantmeasures over time. Comparatively, data from the SLTparticipants does not illustrate the same pattem. The distinctionsbetween the PELA collaborative leadership development programand the SLT supervisory leadership program are notable, giventhese findings. The PELA program centers exclusively on thedevelopment of collaborative/community leadership skills, whilethe SLT program includes collaboration as a topic area within abroader supervisory skill curriculum. Despite similar instructionalmethods, responses from SLT and PELA participants do notmirror one another. This suggests that if collaboration is indeed acritical leaming objective, training and development curriculumshould be more fully focused on that specific outcome. 'Furthermore, the findings suggest that impact on individuals'collaborative competencies may require more extensive trainingconsidering the PELA program devotes a majority of the 10 daysof programing to collaboration while collaboration skills are onlyone part of a three-day SLT program.

PAQ SPRLNG 2013 95

Second, while innovative program delivery methods areemphasized by the literature, the findings from this research offermixed support for the claim that active (and/or peer) leamingresults in improved collaborative leaming outcomes. While thePELA participants' qualitative feedback speaks to the value ofthese approaches, the SLT data suggests the importance of time ininterpreting outcomes. The PELA feedback offers the benefit ofextended reflection and application of lessons learned, butadditional comparison data is necessary to allow for more nuancedexamination of methods and competency development over time.

Finally, considering the ways in which we evaluateleaming outcomes, particularly those related to collaborativeleadership development, is an ongoing priority. As Kirkpatrick andKirkpatrick (2006) noted, training program evaluation tj^icallycentered on reaction assessments. Both PELA and SLT evaluationapproaches offer improvements on this approach and provideinsights on how best to evaluate outcomes. In the SLT example,we gain insights on the relationship between self-assessment andemerging leadership competencies. While the validity of self-assessment may be questioned (Fox & Dinur, 1988) there isevidence from psychological studies to suggest that self-assessments can serve as predictors of performance (Shrauger &Osberg, 1981). Thus, findings from our investigation suggest thathigher perceptions of collaborative ability may contribute toimprovements related to collaborative leadership skills.

LOOKING AHEAD

There is strong support in the literature for an emerging set ofcompetencies around collaborative govemance that are distinctfrom those traditional leadership competencies rooted in hierarchyand formal authority. Evidence from two leadership developmentprograms discussed here suggests that local govemment leaders dosee deficiencies in these competencies and that programs thatinclude or even focus on these competencies can lead toimprovements in those competencies among participants. Resultsfor the impact of specialized leaming approaches, like the use ofpeer consultation groups, is mixed, suggesting that perhaps theseadditional competencies can be developed in similar fashion asother adult leaming approaches. It also suggests we need more

96 PAQ SPRING 2012

careful study of leadership development programs, their overallimpacts on leadership competencies and behaviors, and thespecific impact of pedagogical tools such as peer groups, role-playing activities, and case studies.

There are a variety of questions that follow thisinvestigation. To begin, this article highlights the ways trainingcurricula can adapt to emphasize collaborative competencies, butfollow-up questions emerge, including: what is the goal ofdeveloping collaborative competencies? Do these competenciesresult in a more collaborative workforce? How can this beassessed at the local govemment level? Also, this article identifiesways to evaluate expected training outcomes, but this effortcentered on leaming outcomes. The additional outcomes ofbehavioral change and organizational results offer avenues forfuture research. For instance, what are the tangible indicators of amore collaborative workforce (improved efficiency, effectiveness,or ethical activity, for instance)? To address these questions,additional research is necessary.

As collaborative govemance continues to coalesce into adominant framework or even paradigm for public administrationgenerally (and local govemment specifically) we need to pay evenmore attention to the leadership development needs of thoseindividuals that enact collaborative govemance. This study is astep in this direction and it is the hope of the authors that otherswill contribute to better understanding "which programs,strategies, and curricula are most appropriate to build and nurtureleadership skills for public leadership *across boundaries'" (Getha-Taylor et al., 2011, p. Í92).

Beyond recommendations for what academic researchmight contribute to developing collaborative competencies, thisstudy also suggests recommendations for practice. Localgovemment leaders should approach leadership training anddevelopment strategically. They should identify specific outcomegoals for training (e.g. goals around better facilitatingcollaboration), then align training content and methods with thosegoals. Furthermore, as part of a strategic approach to leadershipdevelopment, more attention should be paid to evaluating trainingoutcomes meaningfully. Although these are hard fiscal times forlocal govemments, we argue that focusing on leadership

PAQ SPRING 2013 97

development (for collaborative govemance in particular) has neverbeen more important. Effective collaborative leadership may wellbe the key to local govemments surviving, and even thriving,during this long-term fiscal crisis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Chris Silvia for his helpful comments onan early draft of this article along with the constmctive feedbackfrom anonymous reviewers. An earlier version of this article waspresented at the 2011 Public Management Research Conference inSyracuse, New York.

NOTES

1. The University Network for Collaborative Govemance (UNCG)"consists of centers and programs in colleges and universities thatengage in service and scholarship in order to enable citizens andtheir leaders to engage in dialogue, discussion, problem solving,and conflict resolution around public issues." The network'sobjectives include "support [ing] the use of best practices andsystems for collaborative govemance." Seehttp://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/ (accessed May 16, 2012).2. These results were only from the flrst two cohorts of PELA andthe before and after assessment was done retrospectively (meaningthe participants answered both sets of questions after havingcompleted the program). Though the N is too small to generalizefrom, the data suggests that PELA participants generally believedtheir leadership competencies were improved across the board.Additional qualitative data from five cohorts supports thisconclusion.

98 PAQ SPRING 2012

REFERENCES

Ammons, D. N., & Fleck, T. A. (2010). Budget-balancing tacticsin local government. Chapel Hill, NC: University of NorthCarolina School of Govemment.

Berge, Z.L. (2008). Why it is so hard to evaluate training in theworkplace. Industrial and Commercial Training. 40(7);390-395.

Berman, E.M., Bowman, J.S., West, J.P., & Van Wart, M. (2010).Human resource management in public service:Paradoxes, processes, and problems (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Bingham, L.B, Sandfort, J., & O'Leary, R. (2008). Leaming to doand doing to leam: Teaching managers to collaborate innetworks. In L.B. Bingham & R. O'Leary (Eds.), Big ideasin collaborative public management (pp. 270-285).Ajmonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C, & Stone, M. M. (2006). The designand implementation of cross-sector collaboration:Propositions from the literature. Public AdministrationReview, 66(Supplement), 44-55.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Career guide to industries2010-11 edition: State and local govemment. Retrievedfrom http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs042.htm

Condrey, Stephen E. (Ed.) (2010). Handbook of human resourcemanagement in government (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, B. (2011, May 11). School funds, social services cut inKansas budget compromise. Kansas City Star. Retrievedfromhttp://www.tilrc.org/assests/news/0511 news/0511 state 1 lb.html (October 27, 2011)

PAQ SPRING 2013 99

Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context.The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 581-613.

Denhardt, R.B. (2001). The big questions of public administrafioneducation. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 526-34.

Emerson, K., & Smutko, L.S. (2011). UNCG guide tocollaborative competencies. Portland, OR: PolicyConsensus Initiative and University Network forCollaborative Govemance.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, N., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrativefi^amework for collaborative govemance. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.

Fox, S., & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A fieldevaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41(3), 581-592.

Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifying collaborative competencies.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(2), 103-119.

Getha-Taylor, H., Holmes, M. H., Jacobson, W. S., Morse, R.S., &Sowa, J.E. (2011). Focusing the public leadership lens:Research propositions and questions in the Minnowbrooktradition. Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory, 21(1), Í83-97.

Govemment Accountability Office. (2006). Catastrophicdisasters: Enhanced leadership, capabilities, andaccountability controls will improve the effectiveness ofthe nation's preparedness, response, and recovery system.Washington, DC: Author.

lies. P., & Preece, D. (2006). Developing leaders or developingleadership? The academy of chief executives' programmesin the north east of England. Leadership, 2(3), 317-340.

100 PAQ SPRING 2012

Johnson, K. (2010, October 4). Police training halts as agenciesface budget cuts. USA Today. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-04-cop-training_N.htm

Kirkpatrick, D.L., & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006). Evaluating trainingprograms: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as thesource of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Koliba, C , Meek, J.W., & Zia, A. (2011). Governance networks inpublic administration and public policy. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.

Light, P. (2011, April 25). Filling our "mythic hero" vacuum, andstarting with universities. The Washington Post. Retrievedfrom http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/light-on-leadership/post/fiUing-our-mythic-hero-vacuum-and-starting-with-universities/2011/03/18/AFzCHSjE_blog.html

Linden, R. M. (2010). Leading across boundaries: Creatingcollaborative agencies in a networked world (\st ed.). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Marsh, M. (2010). Leadership and leading: Leadership challenges.In J. L. Perry (Eds.), Jossey-bass reader on nonprofit andpublic leadership. (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning in practice: Insightsfrom community, workplace, and higher education (1sted.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

PAQ SPRING 2013 101

Morse, R.S. (2008). Developing leaders in an age of collaborativegovemance. In R. S. Morse & T.F. Buss (Eds.),Innovations in public leadership development, (pp. 79-100). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Morse, R.S. & Buss, T.F. (Eds.). (2008). Innovations in publicleadership development. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Morse, R.S., & Stephens, J.B. (2012). Teaching collaborativegovemance: Phases, competencies, and case-basedleaming. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 565-584.

Nalbandian, J. (1999). Facilitating community, enablingdemocracy: New roles for local govemment managers.Public Administration Review, 59(3), 187-196.

Okubo, D. (2010). Fiscal sustainability and local govemment.National Civic Review, 99 (4), 34-39.

O'Leary, R., Bingham, L.B., & Choi, Y. (2009). Teachingcollaborative leadership: Ideas and lessons for the field.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16 (4), 565-592.

Saad, L. (2011, September 26). Americans express historicnegativity toward U.S. govemment: Several long-termGallup trends at or near historical lows. Gallup. Retrievedfrom http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/americans-express-historic-negativity-toward-govemment.aspx

Shrauger, J.S. & T.M. Osberg. (1981). The relative accuracy ofself-predictions and judgments by others in psychologicalassessment. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 322-351.

Stenberg, C.W., Upshaw, V.M. & Wamer, D. (2008). From localmanagers to community change agents: Lessons fi-om anexecutive leadership program experience. In R.S. Morse &T.F. Buss (Eds.), Innovations in public leadershipdevelopment, (pp. 101-128). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

102 PAQ SPRING 2012

Sullivan, H., Williams, P. & Jeffares, S. (2012). Leadership forcollaboration: Situated agency in practice. PublicManagement Review, Í4(\): 41-66.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management.New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J.P. (2007). The Research MethodsKnowledge Base (3rd ed). Mason, OH: Atomic DogPublishing.

Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: Anassessment. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 214-28.

Van Wart, M. (2005). Dynamics of leadership in public service:Theory and practice. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Van Wart, M. (2009). An introduction to leadership and some ofthe challenges in the study and teaching of it. Washington,DC: The American Society for Public Administration.

Yukl, G.A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Copyright of Public Administration Quarterly is the property of Southern Public Administration Education

Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

View publication statsView publication stats