Administrative Leadership: Understanding the

Administrative

Leadership:

Understanding

the

Preferred

Leadership Roles of the Ethiopian Civil Service Managers

Paper for the 20th International Research Management (IRSPM) Panel on Leadership Hong Kong 13-15 April 2016

Adare Assefa MITIKU

ab

on

Public

*, Annie HONDEGHEM a, and Steve

TROUPIN a

Society

a

KU Leuven Public Governance Institute, Belgium

b

Ambo University, Ethiopia *Corresponding author: E-mail address: [email protected]

KU LEUVEN PUBLIC GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES PARKSTRAAT 45 BUS 3609 - B-3000 LEUVEN - BELGIE TEL: 0032 16 32 32 70 FAX: 0032 16 32 32 67 E-mail: [email protected]



www.publicgov.eu



Abstract Using Q-methodology, we examined what leadership roles the Ethiopian civil service managers would preferably embody in their setting. Based on the Q-sorts of 51 managers from federal civil service organizations covering a broad range of public policy and service fields, we found three distinct archetypes of role preferences. We labeled them as the change agents, affective leaders, and result-oriented realists. This implies that such contextually chosen perspectives, if considered in designing management training and development programs, recruitment, and promotion of managers, could prove productive. The viewpoints are examined in more detail and briefly contrasted with leadership literature. We conclude the article by outlining the directions for future research.



Keywords: Administrative Leadership, Public sector leadership, Leadership roles, Qmethodology, Ethiopia INTRODUCTION In theory, the beginning of a modern public administration in Ethiopia dates back to the imperial reign (-1974) (Paulos, 2001). A good account of modernism goes to his Majesty Emperor Haile-Selassie’s regime (1930-1974). However, the imperial administration, in general, has ignored the interest of the majority of the population (Koehn, 2001). A strong commitment and desire to solve this problem has instigated the post-revolution administration (1974- ) in Ethiopia. Yet, the ‘’post revolution Ethiopia provides scant evidence of public service in the interests of the masses, although there are areas of improvement relative to the Haile Selassie era’’ (Ibid:1072). The Dergue regime (1974-1991) accounts in large part for poor public service records encountered in post-revolution Ethiopia. During Dergue, Ethiopia was rather known for a cockpit of myriad problems: famine, border disputes, ethnic conflict, civil war, military dictatorship, unemployment, among others. Moreover, the inherited political and administrative values from the predecessor reign were relegated. More specifically, professionalism and meritocracy in personnel management, at all levels, was downplayed (Paulos, 1997). As a result, ‘the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front’ (EPRDF) (1991- ) has inherited ‘’a weak public administration and poorly functioning state agencies’’ (World Bank, 2013: ii). The EPRDF government, to ensure political stability and to enhance economic growth, has made incredible strides in reforming the country’s public administration. 1

These reform initiatives are multi-dimensional in nature and broad in scope. It begins with ‘Structural Adjustment programs(SAPs)’ followed by ’Comprehensive Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP)’ and ‘Public Sector Capacity Building Program (PSCAP)’ (Alemayehu, 2001; MoCB, 2004; Paulos, 2001; World Bank, 2013; Getachew & Common, 2007). In all of these reform phases, due concerns have been given to the civil servant capacity building as there has been a need to match competency with ongoing reform programs. Explicitly leadership development (Alemayehu, 2001; Paulos, 2001; Berhanu & Vogel, 2006; Getachew & Common, 2007; Solomon, 2013, Apaza, 2014), constitutes one of the biggest components of the reform programs and is considered as its flagship. That is, the government has underscored the importance of a competent leadership in the civil service to implement the reform programs and to deliver the desired performance outcomes. Van Wart (2003) noted that the importance of leadership is unquestionable regardless of the context. The extent of differences that leaders can make, however, is philosophical and debatable. Some assert that leaders make a ‘great difference’ and others assert the effect of leaders as only modest; still others relate it to the levels at which leadership occurs and so forth. No matter what, it is certain that leadership is always challenging, and as the public sector environment is changing, it becomes even more challenging (Van Wart, 2003; Raffel et al., 2009; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011; Ingraham & Van Slyke, 2006; Quinn et al., 1990; Morse & Buss, 2007; Denhardt & DeLeon, 1995). Considering the complex and ever-changing reality of public sector environment, extensive works have been done to understand the role of public sector leadership( see e.g. Van Wart, 2012; Fairholm, 2007; Ingraham et al., 2004; Fernandez et al., 2010; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; Brown & Gioia, 2002; Bass, 1985). The question though is whether these understandings embrace the roles of public sector leaders in Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular. It is a question because like many other developing countries (Kiggundu et. al., 1983; Nzelibe, 1986), the conceptualization of what Ethiopian public sector leaders do or fail to do is an unaccountably neglected area of systematic academic inquiry. Leadership is often indirectly discussed as an explanatory factor for limited success or failure, in examining 2

the puzzles related to the implementations of the reforms. Similarly, it raises the issue of transferability of management concepts and practices across nations, which is usually controversial. On transferability issues, scholars have been arguing from ‘’convergence, divergence, universality and situational perspectives’’ (Hafsi & Farashahi, 2005:84). According to Hafsi and Farashahi, these differences emanate from the methodological vagueness; mixing the concern for practices with the concern for theories. They acknowledged the variation in practices, but ‘’a widespread applicability of Westernbased concepts of general management and organizational theories to developing countries’’ (Ibid: 505). We deal with administrative leadership, a practice strongly influenced by much wider settings: the cultural setting, political system, administrative reform trajectories and global pressures or environmental shifts (Van Wart et al., 2015; Van Wart, 2013; Kee et al., 2007; Cox, Buck, & Morgan, 1994). Settings shape an individual’s perceptual filter (Cox, Buck, & Morgan, 1994). Thus, using Q-methodology, an approach reasonably like ‘‘grounded-theory’’ (Van Eijk & Steen, 2013:6), we inductively studied the subject beginning with a straightforward question of ‘what leadership roles the Ethiopian civil service managers would preferably embody in their setting?’ Q-methodology is suited to embrace life as lived by the actors themselves (Brown, 1996). In this specific case, Q-methodology allows the managers to conceptualize their definitions or preferences of leadership roles. Understanding the Ethiopian civil service managers’ preferred leadership roles has a significant pragmatic relevance as it informs the recruitment and promotion of managers. Likewise, it aids the leadership training and development programs in discerning what worth to focus on. Its contribution to the theoretical knowledge base in the field by adding specificity and nuance to existing understandings of public sector leadership in the context of Africa in general and to an embryonic literature on administrative leadership in Ethiopia, is an addition. The balance of this article continues with a brief review of generic leadership literature, keeping an eye on the evolution of management thoughts. Then, we describe the methodology used in this study; we present the data and report on the findings. Lastly, we offer a conclusion and propose possible areas for a future research agenda. 3

SETTING THE SCENE: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In this study, we briefly present the literature on roles and responsibilities of leaders in a public organization setting. It should, however, be noted that these reviews do not completely summarize a large volume of research on the subject. It rather highlights the key findings of some research to set the scene for our study (for more exhaustive reviews of the literature on leadership in a public organization setting, see Van Wart, 2012, & 2013). The management models have been evolving since the beginning of the twentieth century (Quinn et al., 2011). According to Quinn et al (2011:1-12) the advent of these models can be categorized over four periods: from 1900-1925-the rational goal model and the internal process model, from 1926-1950- the human relation model, from 1951-1975- the open system model, from 1976-1999 ‘both-and’ assumption and since 2000 emphasis has been directed towards complexity, ambiguity and paradox involved in leading a complex and ever-changing organizational environment. The advent of these models corresponds with the changing situations of the century. Accordingly, the climate, the means-ends theory, the action imperative and emphasis of each model differs; (1) the rational goal model requires the leaders to focus on ‘’goal clarification, rational analysis and action taking’’; (2) the internal process model demands the leaders to focus on the controlling side of the organization: defining responsibility, measurement, documentation and the like; (3) the human relation model focuses on collaboration: ‘’participation, conflict resolution and consensus building’’, (4) the open system model focuses on continual adaptation and innovation and demands the leaders to focus on ‘’political adaptation, creative problem-solving, innovation, change management’’ and so forth, and (5) the ‘both-and’ assumption and an era of complexity, ambiguity and paradox demands the leaders to play a wide repertoire of roles depending on what the situation demands. Bass (1985) provides a universal theoretical framework with his ‘full-range Leadership theory’. It embraces the need for both of ‘transactional’ and ‘transformational’ leadership characteristics asserting their importance to heighten performance. It ‘’provides insight into the duality that leaders face in current organizational settings’’ (Trottier et al., 2008:321). The transactional element comprises three behaviors (i) contingent reward (involves clarification of roles and 4

exchanges ‘psychic’ and ‘material rewards’ for service provided); (ii) passive management-by-exception (encompasses behaviors that intervene only after problems have occurred), and (iii) active management-by-exception (dictates close monitoring of performance and takes corrective actions as problem occurs). The transformational leadership embraces four behaviors (1) Idealized influence (denotes leaders attributes that cause the led to emulate their leaders; it stimulates their confidence,loyalty,etc.); (2) inspirational motivation (refers to leaders attributes that motivate followers, for instance, via ‘articulating an appealing vision’); (3) Individualized consideration (requires leaders to identify and satisfy the needs of each follower); and (4) intellectual stimulation (includes leaders behavior that encourages followers to view and solve the problems from new angles). Fairholm (2007:105-124), in his work titled ’Trans-leadership: linking influential theory and contemporary research’, attempted to link the Burns’s (1978) ‘transactional and transforming leadership theory’ with the Bass’s (1985) ‘transformational leadership theory’. In so doing, he focused on ‘change’ and begins the first paragraph with, “leadership is about change”. To understand the various mechanisms involved in leading changes, he looked at leadership as ‘a triad of trans-leaderships’ (1) ‘transactional leadership’ (focuses on operational efficiency and effectiveness and reflects the general notion that administration is about planning, controlling, decisionmaking, and so forth); (2) ‘transformational leadership’ (emphasizes changing formations, structures and the actors among others); and (3) ‘transforming Leadership’ (focus on the people side of the work and emphasizes a moral endeavor as it encourages friendly relationships between a leader and the follower). Likewise, Ingraham et al (2004:154-156) have made a brief review of earlier studies on leadership and proposed four broad models of leadership styles (i) a ‘hierarchical/command/control model’ (leaders have ‘power-over’ not ‘power-with’ the led); (ii) ‘transactional leadership’ (emphasizes the leader-led exchange rewarding an appropriate behavior or discouraging behavior and activities not deemed productive); (iii) ‘transformational leadership’ (deals with the leaders behavior to deal with changes), and, (IV) ‘integrative leadership' (claims that leadership is a function of both leader and teams attributes).

5

Kouzes and Posner (2003:9) attempted to identify ‘’what leaders do to get extraordinary things done in the organizations’’ through an intensive empirical study asking thousands of respondents about their ‘’personal-best leadership experience’’. In doing so, they did not focus on famous leaders but on what ordinary leaders in all contexts do. In this process, they found five major practices of exemplary leadership. Moreover, they assert that these five practices, each composed of two ’commitments or behaviors’ that demonstrate what leaders do to accomplish each of these practices. They summarized them as follow. The practices and commitments of exemplary leaders are Model the way (find your voice by clarifying your personal values and set the example by aligning actions with shared values); inspire a shared vision (envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities, and enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations); challenge the process (search for opportunities by seizing the initiative and by looking outward for innovative ways to improve; and experiment and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from experience); enable others to act (foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships; and strengthen others by increasing self-determination and developing competence); and encourage the heart (recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence; and celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of community) (Kouzes & Posner, 2003: 15; see also Kouzes & Posner 2007, 2010).

Fernandez et al (2010:309) inductively developed the concept of ‘integrated leadership’, from the ‘leadership, generic management, and public administration literature’. According to Fernandez et al (2010:310-312), integrated leadership embraces five leadership roles that leads to improved performance (i) ‘task-oriented leadership’ (emphasizes a concern for goal accomplishments, group and individuals role clarifications, monitor compliance with rules and procedures, provide feedback, etc.); (ii) ‘relations-oriented leadership’ (embraces behaviors that ‘’reflect concern for the welfare of subordinates and a desire to foster good interpersonal relations among organizational members’’); (iii) ‘change-oriented leadership’ (is primarily concerned with changes and adaptation to those changes); (IV) ‘diversity-oriented leadership’ (leaders understand and appreciate racial and demographic diversity,among others); and (V) ‘integrity-oriented leadership’ (foster ‘’strong demands for legality, fairness, and equitable treatment of employees and service recipients’’ and so forth). More recently, Van Wart (2013:561), in his work on ‘’Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of Leaders’’, has made an extensive review of the overarching theories of leadership, and categorized them along five dimensions: (1) 6

Leading for results (leaders strongly expect results and encourage developmental education and training); (2) leading followers (leaders ensure that ‘’followers have what they need to do the job: directions and training, encouragement and support, participation […] ’’); (3) leading organizations (leaders ‘’facilitate change—both the mission and vision, as well as the values and culture’’); (4) leading system (requires leaders to foster self-operating systems); and (5) leading with values (entails leaders to demonstrate ‘’integrity,[…] emphasize the positive, and lead through service, spirit, sacrifice, and sustainability’’). In summary, the research on the conceptualization of the roles of leaders in the public sector is enormous; and over periods its perceptions is branched off in many directions, including distributive (Brown & Gioia, 2002), entrepreneurial (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993), authentic (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), integrative (Ingraham et al., 2004), affective leaders (Newman et al., 2007) leadership. There are, as well, various interpretations for each conceptualization. Distributive leadership, for instance, is branched off and includes: ‘informal leadership’, ‘followership’, ‘substitute for leadership’, ‘super-leadership’, ‘self-leadership’, ‘team leadership’, and ‘network leadership’; each with a distinct focus, though there are overlaps (Van Wart, 2012:92). Although these immense works on the roles of public sector leaders undoubtedly are relevant, a question arises as to whether the range of possible conceptualizations suggested by scholars holds true for public sector managers in Ethiopia. We, therefore, argue for studying the public sector managers’ role conceptualizations in the context of Ethiopia. To do this, we used Q-methodology. The Q-methodology and the steps followed in the present study are outlined in the next section.

METHODS Q-Methodology Q-methodology ‘’is designed to study subjectivity’’ (Brown et al., 1999:602). Qmethodology, however, ‘’ does not deny objectivism, such as modern science. Nor is it mere subjectivism, a philosophy of mind. It is a mathematical-statistical key to what everyone calls ‘mind’ […] (Stephenson, 1993-1994:1). It is suited to measure life as lived from the actor and is ‘’typically passed over by quantitative procedures’’ (Brown, 1996:561). It conjoins the strength of both qualitative and quantitative research 7

approaches. It is the linchpin between the two (Watts & Stenner, 2005; Hutson & Montgomery, 2011). Q-methodology requires respondents to rank-order statements (called Qsample) from their individual point of view in ‘’a quasi-normal distribution from most agree to most disagree’’(Stephenson, 1953). Each of the responses of the respondent is called a Q-sort. Subsequently Q-sorts are factor analyzed and the results represent groups of participants with common preference for the subject (Van Exel & de Graaf, 2005). Scholars have since been noted the relevance of Q-methodology to understand the viewpoints of administrators (see e.g. Brown, 1980); it is quite appropriate for the leadership research (see e.g. Owusu-Bempah, 2014). In support of these propositions, researchers have used Q-methodology to investigate wide varieties of issues: leadership for collaboration (Sullivan et al., 2012), leadership conceptualizations amongst local government IT professionals (Tufts & Jacobson, 2010), administrative role and responsibility (Selden et al., 1999), perceived roles of local recreation administrators (Zimmermann & Allen, 2009), evaluation of leadership development (Militeello and Benham, 2010) and so forth. In this article, we used Q-methodology to understand what leadership roles the managers of the Ethiopian federal civil service organizations would preferably exemplify in their setting. The next sections describe the steps we have followed in performing our Q methodological study.

Defining the Concourse In Q, the concourse is ‘’the flow of communicability surrounding any topic’’ (Brown, 1993:94). A concourse can be developed through ‘’interviewing people; participant observation[…]and scientific literature, like papers, essays, and books’’ (Van Exel & de Graaf, 2005:4) among others. A ‘concourse’ is not limited to ‘words’. Thus, approaches such as ‘’collections of paintings, pieces of art, photographs, and even musical selections’’ (Brown, 1993:94) can also be used to develop concourse. In practice, depending on the nature of the study, either of the approaches or a mix of them can be used. It should, however, be noted that ''the level of the discourse dictates the sophistication of the concourse’’ (Ibid:94). The concourse for this study was developed in two phases. First, a semistructured interview is conducted with managers (ranging from lower to top level) 8

from diverse Ethiopian federal civil service organizations. The interviewees were asked three interrelated questions: (1) whether they differentiate management from leadership or a manager from a leader; (2) how they think of themselves (as a manager or a leader and why?); and finally (3) how they view and conceptualize their leadership roles in their context? Although we are interested in the response to the third question, we used the first two as warm up questions and also informed our understanding of the former. As they share their views on these topics, ‘probing questions’ were deliberately posed to extend their reactions. The interviews took a minimum of 30 minutes but concluded as they wish to. In each of the visited organizations, managers were informed on the objective of the interview and only those who were willing to partake were interviewed. However, in Q-methodology, the interviewees are required to have a profound knowledge of the subject under investigation, either based on their position or academic qualification or other ways (Brown 1980). To ensure this, we have used the ‘snowball approach’. We arbitrarily tried to begin the interview with the human resource director office or asked her/him to nominate another person who s/he thinks is well-informed on the theme under the study. When an interview with a respondent was over, s/he was asked to nominate the next knowledgeable person for an interview. We have continued this process until the issues that emerged from the interviews differed from one person to another; we stopped when the input was saturated. In the process, we have interviewed 40 individuals and this resulted in a compilation of 86 useable statements. Second, we have extracted a list of 36 standard statements from Quinn and his fellow researchers representing eight roles of an ideal manager based on the Competing Value Framework(CVF): innovator, broker, mentor, facilitator, monitor, co-ordinator, director and producer (Quinn et al., 1990). Moreover, we have reviewed selected articles and books on administrative leadership (see the literature review section) and generated another 56 statements. In sum, the process to define the concourse resulted in 178 statements, which in our view, was a sophisticated pool of perspectives to select our Q-sample from. The next section presents the development of the Q-sample. 9

Selecting the Q-Sample Although fundamental, the procedures to select the Q-sample from the concourse, remain “more an art than a science’’ (Brown, 1980: 186). The general 'rule of thumb’ is to select statements that characterize the perspectives in the concourse (Van Eijk & Steen, 2013; Brown, 1980; Durning & Brown, 2007). To do so, researchers often use some form of structures (Van Exel & de Graaf, 2005). Some use a matrix to ‘’ensure a roughly equal balance between the substantive argument of a statement and its argumentative style’’ (Sullivan et al., 2011:48; see also Van Eijk & Steen, 2013); and others impose a theoretical model on the concourse (see e.g. Selden et al., 1999). For the present study, we followed this last approach as the Competing Value Framework (CVF) is used as a general framework to select the representative miniatures from the concourse (see Fig. 1). The CVF is built on two dimensions: ’Flexibility-Control’ on the ‘Y’ axis and ‘Internal-External’ on the ‘X’ axis. The former underscores ‘organizational preference for structure' and the later describe the ‘organizational focus’. These two dimensions define four quadrants, which represent a management model each and two roles that address distinct requirements in the organizational arena (see fig-1).

Flexiblity Human Relation Model

Open System Model

Mentor

Innovator

Facilitator Internal

Broker External

Monitor Coordinator

Producer Director

Internal Process Model

Rational Goal Model

Control Figure 1: The Competing Value Framework Source: Adapted from (Quinn et al., 1990, 2011) To select the Q-sample we first have distributed the statements over the four models they typify on CVF. Then next, we allocated them to the two roles defined in the model. The exercise enabled us to weed out both duplicate and ambiguous statements.

10

It also forced us to rephrase some of them, as needed. To select the final list, due concerns was given to representativeness, simplicity and meaning clarity of the statements. Equal care was also made to include statements generated by the interviews because they represent views in the research setting. We also have deliberately included some of the context specific statements (e.g. statement 34 in Appendix A) to the list. By ‘context specific’ statements, we mean statements that are either not itemized or implicitly stated in the generic leadership literature. We thus have used the CVF as a general framework, not the strict definitions of roles, to select our Q-sample from the concourse. The process enabled us to arrive at a reasonably small yet broadly representative Q-sample consisting of 50 statements (see Appendix A). Next, the statements are randomly numbered and translated to the participants (the federal government) working language-Amharic. For Q-sorting, both the English and Amharic version of the statements was printed on a Q-sort deck or separate cards. We needed both versions to avoid misunderstanding that the respondents can read in either language. It solved the issue of linguistic preference too.

The P-sample selection and Q sorting procedures In the present study, the P-sample was the managers in the Ethiopian federal civil service organizations covering a broad range of public policy and service fields. In the Ethiopian civil service, director or manager (the naming may differ from one organization to the other) is a top civil service position. In their organizations, however, they are considered as middle-level managers because the political appointees are on the top of the structure. Team leader/coordinator is the next management position. Thus, the P-sample covers individuals at the director and the team leader positions. In Q-methodology, the selection of the p-sample is not random as participants are selected because of ‘’theoretical (persons are chosen because of their special relevance to the goal of the study) or pragmatic (any one will suffice) considerations’’ (McKeown & Thomas, 2013:31; see also Brown 1980). In our case, a mix of these concerns was taken into account. A ‘snowball approach’ was used to contact knowledgeable persons and being a manager at the visited federal civil service organization was a condition to take part in the study. In sum, 51 managers have 11

participated in the Q-sorting exercise out of which 37 were top civil servants (35 directors/managers/process owners and 2 advisors to the Minister) and 14 were team leaders/coordinators1 (see Appendix B).

The Q-sorting exercise was done at each participant’s place of work or at their respective organizations. We provided each of them with a Q-deck- separate cards and scoresheet (see Fig. 2).

Most Disagree -3 (3) -

-2 (6) -

-1 (9) -

Neutral 0 (14) -

1 (9) -

2 (6) -

Most Agree 3 (3) -

Figure 2 Scoresheet-Quasi-normal distributions of Q-sorts Next, an explanation was given as to how to do the sorting exercise. We provided the Q-sorters with 50 cards (the Q-sample) arbitrary numbered from 1 to 50. First, they were instructed to divide the cards into three clusters: agree, neutral, disagree. Next, they were asked to begin with ‘the disagree cluster’ and select three cards they least prefer and write their number under -3 column. They continued with the next disagreeable six and nine cards and wrote their ID under -2 and -1 column respectively. In doing this, there may be not enough cards in the ‘disagree category’ to fulfill the requirement, or more cards may remain in hand. In the former case, the sorters selected 'the least preferred' statements from the neutral column, and in the latter, they placed the remainder in the neutral column. Second, they followed the same procedure 12

with the ‘most agree or preferred cluster’ as they selected the three 'most preferred' statements, followed by the next six, and nine and write their ‘numbers’ under column +3,+2, +1 respectively. Then again if the cards remaining to satisfy the requirement were not enough, they selected 'the most preferred statements' from the neutral category, or if more cards remained in hand, they placed them into a ''neutral pile''. Finally, they wrote the numbers of all the remaining cards (must be 14) under column 0. In deciding the ‘kurtosis of distribution’, we followed the advice of Van Exel & de Graaf, (2005:6): the kurtosis of the distributions depends on the controversiality of the topic:’the involvement, interest or knowledge of the respondents is expected to be low, […] the distribution should be ‘steeper’ in order to leave more room for ambiguity, indecisiveness or error in the middle of the distribution

Because the Ethiopian civil service managers have been blamed for leadership competency gaps (see Alemayehu, 2001; Paulos, 2001; Solomon, 2013; Apaza, 2014), we used a comparatively steeper distribution from +3 (Most Agree) to -3 (Most Disagree). Following the Q-sorting exercise a brief dialogue was made with the Q-sorters to ask them to explain the statements they most agree (most prefered) and disagree with (least prefered), and to create a forum to enable them raise any issues and comments related to the subject under investigation. The exercise opens a door for tapping subjective experiences of the respondents further (Brown, 1980; Selden et al.,1999), and facilitate the interpretation of factors during the analysis phase (Exel & de Graaf, 2005). Finally, we have asked additional demographic factors including the age and gender of the participants, their level of education, their years of service in the civil service and current position. Of the 51 completed sorts, 14 were completed by women and 37 were provided by men. In terms of the educational level, 47% of the participants hold a Masters degree, 51% hold a Bachelor degree, and only one person completed Diploma courses2. The majority of the age of the participants is between 45-60 years (47%) followed by those within 30-45 years (45%) and those between 18-30 (6%); only one person is more than 60 years old. Their years of experience in the civil service

13

varies from 5 to 38 years, and their years of service in the current position ranges from 1 to14 years (see Q-Sorters ID in Table 1). The following section presents data, analysis and interpretations of the findings of the study.

Analysis: interpretation of factors To analyze the data, first the correlation matrix amongst all Q-sorts of participants was computed. The result conveys the extent of (dis)similarity in opinion among the individual Q sorters. Next, using PQMethod-2.35 (Schmolck and John Atkinson, 2014)3, we have factor-analyzed the matrix with a ‘QCENT’ and ‘QVARIMAX’4. The factor-analytic results indicate how many different perspectives are in evidence (Brown, 1980; Durning & Brown, 2007). In our case all managers who considerably load on a factor hold a similar viewpoint of the perspective signified by that factor. Our analysis results in two factors. The second factor was bipolar. Watts and Stenner, (2012:133) described ‘bipolar factors’ as ‘’ factors defined by both positively and negatively loading Q-sorts’’. In Q, such polarization indicates ‘’presence of internal conflict when the factor involves the self’’ (Brown, 2002, in Goldstein & Goldstein, 2005:48). In such instances, it is necessary to interpret the viewpoint associated with both ends. If the emerged bipolar factor is defined by ‘’several Q-sorts at both ends’’, splitting up a factor to represent each pole is more recommendable than just reporting a factor using the negative to define the positive end (Brown, 1980:253). In our case, 11 individuals have loaded on the bipolar factor, out of which eight load on the negative and the remaining three load on the positive side (see Appendix C). As many Q-sorts define both poles, splitting each to separate factor ‘’sounds perfect’’ (Susan E. Ramlo, personal communication, August 10, 2015). Thus, separating the bipolar factor5 each to a single factor, we finally chose a three-factor solution for this study (see Table 1). 14

Table 1: Factor Loading for 51 Q-sorts with an ‘X’ Indicating a Defining Sort

a

No. 1

Q-sort ID* D22B4-6M

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

D28P4-6M T16P3-4M T30B4-6M D20B3-4M T15B4-6M T30B4-6M T15P3-4M D27B3-4F D21P3-4M D21B4-6M D25P4-6M D28P4-6M D15D4-6F D12B3-4F D34B4-6M D28P4-6M D10P3-4M T29P4-6M D27P4-6F D27B4-6M D27P3-4F T27B4-6M D30B4-6M D20B3-4F D22P4-6M T7B3-45F T20P3-4F T6B1-3M D18B3-4M D25B4-6M D15P3-4M D19B3-4F D37P4-6F D24P4-6M T5P1-3F T6P1-3M A19P3-4M D25P4-6M M13B3-4M M22B3-4F M21B3-4M D18B3-4M D15B3-4F D14P3-4M A38B6M D30P4-6M M33B4-6F T18P3-4M

Factor I

b

0.5873X 0.5754X 0.3971X 0.5280X 0.5513X 0.5608X 0.3749X 0.3644X 0.6342X 0.2094 0.4248X 0.3465X 0.1784 0.4898 0.4611X 0.4910X 0.6171X 0.3582 0.3179X 0.2519 0.5667X 0.3500X 0.2793X 0.5079X 0.2535 0.3148 0.3788X 0.3330 -0.0603 0.4212X 0.4851 0.4851 0.4714X 0.3500X 0.3694 0.5335X 0.3683X 0.5762X 0.5450X 0.1247 0.6123 0.1327 0.6151X 0.6119X 0.3345X 0.5304X 0.5442X 0.3586 0.6486X

15

Factor II 0.1375

c

0.2304 0.1750 0.0815 -0.1053 0.3900 0.1745 0.2586 0.3125 0.4072X 0.0985 0.2125 0.0823 -0.5832 0.1927 -0.4249 0.3156 -0.3836 0.1114 -0.0923 0.1650 0.2334 0.1742 0.2483 0.1302 -0.4597 0.1253 0.6406X 0.1156 0.2560 -0.5831 -0.5831 -0.1844 0.2249 -0.6441 -0.4637 -0.1367 0.2216 0.1471 0.0943 -0.6778 0.2846X 0.2488 0.0379 0.1209 -0.0036 0.2980 -0.5228 -0.6271

Factor III -0.1375 0.2304 -0.1750 -0.0815 0.1053 -0.3900 -0.1745 -0.2586 -0.3125 -0.4072 -0.0985 -0.2125 -0.0823 0.5832X -0.1927 0.4249 -0.3156 0.3836X -0.1114 0.0923 -0.1650 -0.2334 -0.1742 -0.2483 -0.1302 0.4597X -0.1253 -0.6406 -0.1156 -0.2560 0.5831X 0.5831X 0.1844 -0.2249 0.6441X 0.4637 0.1367 -0.2216 -0.1471 -0.0943 0.6778X -0.2846 -0.2488 -0.0379 -0.1209 0.0036 -0.2980 0.5228X 0.6271

50 51

D28B4-6M D25P3-4M Defining Variables Correlation between Factors 1 2

0.6406X 0.6601X 35

0.2447 -0.6126 3

-0.2447 0.6126 8

0.4100

0.4906 -0.2666

a

The Q-sort ID in this table contains demographic information; the first letter represents the sorters position (D= Director, A= Advisor to the Minister, M=Manager/head/process owner, T= Team Leader), the third letter represents the sorters qualification (P=Post graduate degree-master’s degree, B= Bachelor degree, D=Diploma), the last letter depicts the gender of the sorters (M=Male, F=Female). The first numerical part of the ID represents the sorters self-reported years of service in the civil service, and the second set of numbers represents self-reported age of the sorters (1-3= 18-30], 3-4=30-45], 4-6=45-60], and 6=>60 ). We entered the data according to the chronological order of the Q-sorters detail in Appendix B.

b Loadings greater than or equal to .3 are shown in bold face indicating statistical

significance.

c Three individuals defined factor II. The loading of the third person is small (see Q-

sorter # 42). This loading is small because an absolute value of more than 0.3 loading is often statistically deemed significant. Besides, compared to factor I and III, the factor is defined by less number of individuals. In Q, however, this is less important provided that the established factor is theoretically significant. That is, ‘’[a]s a general principle Q emphasizes the former while forgoing sole reliance on the latter’’ (McKeown & Thomas, 2013:54).

In Q-methodology, ‘’interest does not primarily center on which persons group together in the factors; rather, it is in gaining access to those belief and preference systems that underlie the factors’’ (Durning & Brown, 2007:546). Four pieces of information informed our interpretation of the factors. First, ‘a statements factor score’‘’a normalized weighted average statement score (Z-score) of respondents that define that factor’’ (Van Exel and de Graaf 2005: 9) (see Appendix D); second, the ‘factor array', ‘’a single Q-sort configured to represent the viewpoint of a particular factor’’ (Watts and Stenner, 2012:140) (see Appendix E); third, the 'distinguishing' statements (see Appendix E for statements with Q-sort values presented in brackets); and finally, the end Q-sort exercise dialogue with the participants that significantly load on a given factor. The following section presents the study results and discusses its implications.

16

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section presents the research findings and discussions of its implications. Before we proceed further, however, it is worth to mention that the findings of this study provide only a 'sighting shot’ about the managerial leadership role conceptualization of the Ethiopian civil service managers. This is so because Qmethodology does not tell how prevalent a given perspective is in a total population, but gives assurance about the perspectives it reveals exist (Selden et al., 1999; Danielson, 2009). Attempts to generalize the Q-findings, call for extending the study with a traditional survey research (see Van Eijk & Steen, 2013; Danielson, 2009). With this remark, we now turn to present the findings and discuss its implications. As shown in Table 1, three distinct groups of leadership role conceptualizations have emerged. Using the basic statistical outputs (the normalized factor score, the factor array, the distinguishing statements (see Appendix E, F, & G respectively) and a post Q-sort discussion with sorters; we labeled these roles as (I) Change Agents, (II) Affective leaders, and (III) Result-Oriented Realists. We now begin with the presentation and discussions of each of these factors. The key statements defining each factor are presented in the discussions. And Appendix E presents the complete set of statements.

Factor I: Change agents Factor I managers view leaders as individuals with a change-oriented mentality, pioneers who are determined and take charge of changes (see Table 2 for key statements defining this factor). In Q-study, although the selection of participants is not for generalizations (Danielson, 2009), the factor-analytic result indicates that the majority of our sample has preferred this role (see Table 1). Change agents conceptualize leaders as individuals who facilitate changes and are determined to bring the desired change results (# 20 and 44). They also put emphasis on their ability to think and act strategically (#48) and provide visions and drive necessary for change (# 38). Likewise, they underscore creating a learning environment through ‘modeling the way’ and setting small wins (# 35). They too consider leading and teamwork to ‘walk a talk’ and attention for getting results (# 29 & 22) as a prelude to any successful organizational change efforts. These views match the practices of exemplary leadership 17

(Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2007, 2010) and leaders’ quality to leading changes (see Kotter, 1996). They also accentuate the responsibility of leaders to create a team spirit (# 10), involve the followers in decision making and maintain a good relationship with them (# 26 & 32). These last views respectively parallel the Bass’s (Bass, 1985) ‘inspirational motivation’ and ‘individualized consideration’ dimensions of transformational leadership. Both of these attributes motivate the followers to transcend the standards in an attempt to bring about desired change results. Although the change agents underscore managers in a leadership behavior dimension aiming at change, they place a lower priority on activities such as clarifying the need to achieve unit goals, keep eyes on what goes in the unit, and compare plans and reports to detect discrepancies (# 5,9, 27, 4,8). Sustaining stability through preserving existing structures, procedures and maintaining tight logistical control and close supervision of followers (# 46 & 33) refutes with their view and, hence ranked lower. They have also downplayed the role of leaders as emphasizing on fixing problems, crises and scandals after the followers have failed to carry out their duties properly (# 13). Leaders, if they extensively play such a role, ‘’create fear and intimidation and discourage initiatives and creativity’’ (Van Wart, 2012:84; see also Bass, 1985). More importantly, the change agents disagree with remaining neutral from any political interest (# 39). This view seems quite important in the ‘’highly politicized environment of African management’’ as in Africa, leaders political sensitivity is among the requisites for them to lead well (Leonard, 1984:16). Establishing effective links with the political leadership is a road to success (Leonard, 1988). Thus, this group recognizes the need for political backing to achieve the intended objective. Indeed, being in civil service, engagement in politics is inevitable because ‘’politics is defined by the process involved’’ (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011:162). As a result, even public servants in a Westminster-type systems, though they may remain ‘neutral’ and scrupulously avoid ‘party politics’, nevertheless frequently engage in ‘political’ processes […] in order to improve the chances of success for policies and programmes with which they are associated (Ibid:162).

The comments from discussion made with the managers in this category highlight these views.

18

I view leaders as changers, visionary and influential individuals who organize efforts of followers and other inputs towards attaining the chosen set of ends.

In the changing situations that we are currently grappling with, I believe, creating a team spirit shall be on the top of the management responsibilities. That is because leaders alone can do nothing, but they are followers (as a group) who determine the performance of a unit/organization.

Given the wide repertoire of roles that managers play in the changing situation of the public sector environment, it is critical that s/he has to trade-off the time spent on routine activities such as objective clarification, keeping track of what goes in the units and so on and focus more on strategic and critical ones.

It is not possible for the civil servant to remain politically neutral; is what we, as a manager, expected to accomplish do not serve the political interest? Similarly, attainment of the desired results requires negotiation for resources which in one way or the other is engagement in the political process.

It should, however, be clear that there is a difference between the role of leaders as ‘innovator’ and ‘broker.' The former deals with ‘changes’ and adaptation to those changes; and the latter is about creating new efforts and influencing those outside the unit or the organization to get support to bring about changes (Quinn et al., 2011). The view of factor I managers exemplifies more of the ‘innovator’ than the broker role of leaders. For instance, the responsibilities of leaders to exercise upward influence (# 19, 24, 36 see Appendix E) are not highly rated by this group of managers. It, therefore, raises a concern that limited consideration to the role of leaders as a broker may restrict the leaders from playing the change agent role to the fullest. Table 2: Key statement for Factor I (Change Agents) SN (#)

Statement

4 5 8

Check for errors and mistakes ‘Clarify the need to achieve unit goals’ Compare plans and reports to detect discrepancies to take timely remedial action and to learn lessons for future accomplishments. Continually clarify the unit’s purposes, priorities and directions Create a ‘team spirit’ to enhance the commitment of subordinates for the effective accomplishment of the activities and attain the desired outcomes Emphasize on fixing problems, crises and scandals after the subordinates have failed to carry out their duties

9 10 13

The role of leaders is to;

19

Factor I

Factor II

Factor III

(-3) -2 -2

-2 -1 -1

-3 1 -2

(-1)

-3

3

(3)

3

0

(-3)

0

-2

20 22 26 27 28 29 32 33 35 38 39 44 46 48

properly ‘Facilitate change, both the vision and mission, as well as the values and culture’ Focus on results, not the protocol, for example, the employee physical presence in the office ‘Involve the subordinates in decision making and value their diverse views and opinions’ Keep track of what goes on in the unit Know their people and the prevailing culture of their organization and act accordingly Lead and work as a part of the team: Yes, we are expected to ‘walk the talk’! Maintain good relationship with subordinates: Yes, leader alone can do nothing; s/he has to win the heart of the subordinates Maintain tight logistical control and supervise the subordinates Model the way set the example and plan small wins Provide vision and drive necessary for change Remain neutral from any political interests and to monitor compliance with the rules and regulations provided to him/her Seek to have extraordinary capabilities, persistence and determination to bring about change Sustain job security/stability through preserving existing structures, procedures and close supervision of the subordinates Think and act strategically

(2)

0

-1

(1)

-2

3

2

2

1

-2 -2

-3 -2

-2 -1

2

-2

2

2

3

0

(-3)

0

-3

2 (3) -2

0 0 1

2 0 -2

(3)

1

1

-2

-3

-2

(2)

0

0



Note: Distinguishing statements for a factor at statistical significance level of P < .05 ; and significance at P < .01 are presented in brackets. Appendix E presents the summary of these statements.

Factor II: Affective leaders In contrast to managers loading on factor I, managers ascribing to factor II are concerned with the ‘relationship taxonomy’ of leadership. They predominantly focus on improving the way leaders relate to and engage with their followers (for defining statements see Table 3). Similar to change agents but in contrast to result-oriented realists (see factor III) affective leaders, value creating a ‘team spirit’, involve the followers in decision making, and maintain a good relationship with them (# 10, 26 & 32)6. They also attach much weight to building a ‘common stake’ in organizations’ purposes so as to improve the interdependence and commitment of followers to attain the desired set of ends (# 43). Equal and fair treatment of the employees regardless of their ethnic groups, religion or belief and the like (# 21) is a priority too. Likewise, 20

affective leaders strive to walk in their employees shoe as they understand the stress the followers are under. For example, they discern the influence of outer social problems on the employees’ performance and help them in devising the ways out (# 49). Kindliness and helpfulness to followers based on a strong belief in God or Allah (# 34) is a distinguishing feature of this group of managers. They discuss key differences among the group members to facilitate consensus and to enable them constructively work together, and encourage effective communications (# 11, 12). Lastly, they pinpoint the strengths and weakness of the employees and arrange for training and development, coach, share experiences, and knowledge, and provide guidance (# 23, 7). Remarkable in this group of managers is that they do not seem to feel that much concern is needed for continually clarifying the unit’s purposes, priorities and directions (# 9); keeping track of what goes in the unit (# 27); checking for errors and mistakes (# 4). They also attach little weight on the responsibility of leaders to focus on the results and encourage achievement orientation in the unit (# 22, 15). This last view presents a concern that the interest of this group of managers on people and relationship management only may threaten the achievement of both the individuals and the organization outcomes. The dialogue with the managers loaded on factor II highlights the people and relationship management as a guide to actions of leaders.

Creating a team spirit and encouraging discussions and reflections among the followers enable them complement each other’s strengths and compensated for each other’s weakness, and work for the shared goal of the organization and the team as a group.

I believe that leaders shall handle uplifting the followers to a better position via arranging developmental education and training, coaching and sharing experiences and knowledge because s/he is better placed to take such actions.

For me, leaders should step into their followers shoe and understand their emotions, stress they are under, caringly approach each employee and maintain a very good relationship with them: if these qualities exist, the others are add-ons.

It is the responsibility of the employees to understand the purpose, priorities and directions of the unit s/he is hired to work in. The role of leaders is to motivate employees and developing their job competence. And there do not seem to be a need for leaders to worry about the performance of the employees, which if s/he fails to perform, may result in the possibility of losing her/his job.

Affective leaders share some characteristics of ‘Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory’ (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 995), which descends from ‘Vertical Dyad Linkage’ (VDL) 21

theory (see e.g. Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). The ‘LMX theory’ focuses on the relationship taxonomy of leadership. The critical question of interest, therefore, is how effective leader-led relationship develops into good relationship and mutual understanding between them and elicits superior performances. The Affective leaders also exhibit the reminiscent ideals of ‘country club management’ in the Blake and Mouton's (1964 in Van Wart, 2012) grid theory. The country club management pays thoughtful attentions to people concern, which in turn creates a ‘’comfortable, friendly organization and work tempo’’; it places low concern to goal accomplishment though (Ibid: 61). Similarly, the affective leaders’ views share some commonality with the ‘’human relation model’’ quadrant of the CVF (Quinn et al., 2011:15). The human relation model portrays ‘‘involvement results in commitment’’. Values such as ‘’participation, conflict resolution and consensus building’’ exemplifies commitment. Moreover, ‘’managers are emphatic and open to employee opinions’’. In the circumstances when the performance of the employees declines managers go for ‘’a developmental perspective and look for a complex set of motivational factors’’ (Ibid: 8). The responsibility of leaders to pay attention to the relationship with the follower is central to the contemporary transformational leadership models or leading changes in organizations (See e.g. Bass, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2007, 2010; Kotter, 1996). Table 3: Key statements for factor II (Affective Leaders) SN Statement (#) The role of leaders is to; 4 7 9 10 11 12

Check for errors and mistakes Coach the subordinates, share experiences and knowledge, and guidance as the latter learns Continually clarify the unit’s purposes, priorities and directions Create a ‘team spirit’ to enhance the commitment of subordinates for the effective accomplishment of the activities and attain the desired outcomes Discuss key differences among group members to facilitate consensus and to enable them work together constructively Effectively communicate both within the organization and with external parties 22

Factor I

Factor II

Factor III

-3 1

-2 2

-3 0

-1

(-3)

3

3

(3)

0

-1

(3)

-3

0

(1)

-1

15 21 22 23 26 27 28 32 34 43 49

Encourage performance excellence or achievement orientation in the unit Focus on the equitable and fair treatment of the employees, irrespective of their ethnic group, religion, and so forth Focus on results, not the protocol, for example, the employee physical presence in the office Identify the key capability differences among the subordinates, and accordingly arrange for training and developmental education Involve the subordinates in decision making and value their diverse views and opinions Keep track of what goes on in the unit Know their people and the prevailing culture of their organization and act accordingly Maintain good relationship with subordinates: Yes, leader alone can do nothing; s/he has to win the heart of the subordinates ‘Maintaining a positive attitude with a strong sense of faith in God and helping others’ Seek to improve ‘subordinates commitment and interdependence through a common stake in organization purpose’ Understand the possible impact of basic external social problems on the subordinates’ performance and help them in devising ways out

0

(-1)

3

1

2

1

1

(-2)

3

1

2

1

2

2

1

-2 -2

(-3) -2

-2 -1

2

3

0

-1

(1)

-1

1

2

1

-1

(2)

-1

Note: Distinguishing statements for a factor at statistical significance level of P < .05 ; and significance at P < .01 are presented in brackets. Appendix E presents the summary of these statements.

Factor III: Result-oriented realists Factor III managers view the role of leaders based on the thought that clear direction leads to optimum results (for key statements see Table 4). Result oriented realists put emphasis on clarifying the overall picture (the units’ purpose) and ensure that the units deliver on stated goals (# 9, 42, 5). They too emphasize clarifying the role of employees and give clear directions and guidance (# 6) to enable them to know where the organization is heading and satisfy the expectations. In so doing, they cause the employee to care about getting the jobs done or produce results, not only the protocol, for instance, the mere presence of the employee at the workplace (# 22). They also encourage performance excellence or achievement orientation in the unit, modeling the way and set a good example for others to follow (# 15, 35). Similarly, they 23

strive to maintain a highly coordinated and well-organized unit; endeavor to create a productive work environment; and lead and work as a part of the team to walk a talk (# 30, 17, 29). Although the result-oriented realists yield the above view, they did not load high on the leaders acting as the individual responsible for facilitating consensus among the followers (# 11). Equally, little importance is attached to showing compassion and concern when dealing with them (# 45). Indeed, any of the views related to the relationship taxonomy of leadership is not loaded high by this group of managers. It calls for attention that singular emphasis on achievement (push for the result) may ultimately reduce employee motivation to stretch for higher accomplishments. A reasonable balance between the push and pull (motivation and synergy) behaviors is required. Likewise, tight logistical and employee control (# 33) is given lower concern. Abstention of leaders from the tasks performed by employees but fixing the problem as it occurs (# 13) is against their view and hence ranked low. The exit discussion and dialogue with the factor III managers reveal role clarification and result orientation as a guide to responsibilities of leaders.

Leading without the concern for the result is nonsense, I believe. Leaders should focus on the performance of the employees in terms of the result/outcome achieved. They should not, for example, mind about the presence of the employees around the workplace. Though attendance is where all begins, due concern shall be paid to the baggage the employees bring to the work, their contribution; and this must be why organizations shall pay them.

Performance measurement requires leaders to let their employees know the purpose of the unit they are working in and expectations from them in advance. Equally leaders need to provide clear direction and guidance and support on what they do not know or do it improperly. These enable the leaders to maximize goal achievement and facilitate objective performance measurement. Because leaders provide needed support and directions, it is now easy to differentiate high performers from under-performers. The differentiation may enable championing the former while the latter may be made to improve their performance or to worse gone through appropriate administrative procedures.



The result oriented realists’ view is in line with the prescriptive ideal (‘authorityobedience’) in the Blake and Mouton's (1964 in Van Wart, 2012) grid theory. The ‘authority-obedience’ perspective places greater concern on the task but less on the supportive factors or people aspect of the organization. For such managers, ‘’efficiency in operation results from arranging condition of work in such a way that human 24

element interferes to a minimum degree’’ (Ibid: 61). The view of this group of managers has some association with the ‘Rational Goal Model’’ quadrant of the CVF (Quinn et al., 2011:15) as well. This quadrant often is referred to as a ‘compete’ quadrant and emphasizes ‘’direction, goal clarity, productivity, and accomplishment’’ as a guide to actions of managers (Ibid: 13). Table 4: Key statement for factor III (Result Oriented Realists) SN Statement (#) The role of leaders is to; 5 6 9 11 13 15 17 22 29 30 33 35 42 45

‘Clarify the need to achieve unit goals’ ‘Clarify expectations from the subordinates, give clear directions and guidance, and ensure compliance’ Continually clarify the unit’s purposes, priorities and directions Discuss key differences among group members to facilitate consensus and to enable them work together constructively Emphasize on fixing problems, crises and scandals after the subordinates have failed to carry out their duties properly Encourage performance excellence or achievement orientation in the unit Endeavor to create productive work environment Focus on results, not the protocol, for example, the employee physical presence in the office Lead and work as a part of the team: Yes, we are expected to ‘walk the talk’! ‘Maintain a highly coordinated and well- organized unit’ Maintain tight logistical control and supervise the subordinates Model the way set the example and plan small wins ‘See that the unit delivers on stated goals’ ‘Show empathy and concern when dealing with employees’

Factor I

Factor II

Factor III

-2 0

-1 -1

(1) (2)

-1

-3

(3)

-1

3

(-3)

-3

0

(-2)

0

-1

(3)

0 1

-2 -2

(2) (3)

2

-2

2

0

-2

(2)

-3

0

(-3)

2

0

2

-1 0

-1 1

(2) (-1)

Note: Distinguishing statements for a factor at statistical significance level of P < .05 ; and significance at P < .01 are presented in brackets. Appendix E presents the summary of these statements.

25

The consensus statements: the convergent pattern for role preferences ‘Consensus statements’ are statements that do not make a statistical distinction across the emerged perspectives (Van Exel & de Graaf, 2005). It reveals the statements the Q-sorters agreed with. As such Q-sorters can ‘’agree positively, negatively or be neutral about the issue’’ (Coogan & Herrington, 2011:27). The analysis revealed some leadership roles on which the managers appear to be neutral. One among this was the managerial duties related to anticipating workflow problems and avoiding crises (#2). They too are nearly neutral about the issues related to maintaining integrity, and fostering interactive communications approaches to promote the common interest of a work group (#47, 25, 14). Similarly the need to encourage the subordinates to create new opportunities, to solve problems in new ways, and to envision a different future and to sell the new ideas to the higher authorities are also the roles on which the managers look to be neutral about (#16, 36). These altogether again seem to speak to the concerns stated under each of the emerged factors that although the ostensible echoes of each perspective are professed, there are overlooked functions that are needed to be performed for full practice of each of the preferred roles. Table 5: Consensus Statements SN Statement /the Q-sample

Factor I

The role of leaders is to;

Factor II

Factor III

2 Anticipate workflow problems, avoid crisis. 0 0 -1 14* Encourage interactive communication patterns and -1 0 0 organizational behaviors that promote the welfare of the entire team. 16 Encourage the subordinates to create new 0 0 1 opportunities, to solve problems in new ways, and to envision a different future. 25 Instill and build trust, understand duty, and keep 0 -1 0 the common good in mind at all times. 36* Persuasively sell new ideas to higher-ups. 0 0 0 47 Tell the truth in public and private situations and 0 1 0 admit mistakes, if they make. Note: Those that do not distinguish between ANY pair of factors. All listed statements are nonsignificant at P>.01, and those flagged with an * are also non-significant at P>.05.

26

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Using ‘Q-methodology’, an approach crafted to study subjectivity, we studied what leadership roles the Ethiopian civil service managers would preferably exemplify in their setting. Based on the Q-sorts of 51 managers from federal civil service organizations covering a wide range of public policy and service fields, we found three distinct characterizations of leadership roles, which we label as the Change agents, the Affective leaders, and the Result-oriented realists. The ‘change agents’ emphasize change and hence is in line with the contemporary transformational leadership models. The ‘affective leaders’ underscore ‘people and relationship management’ as they focus on improving the way leaders relate to and engage with their followers (aspects of leadership that dominated the management literature since the human relation model including the contemporary transformational leadership models). The ‘result-oriented realists’ stress goal accomplishment as the tasks are weighed more than the people aspects of the organizations, which is in line with the ‘rational goal model’ leadership theories. Understanding these contextually preferred leadership roles, if considered in designing the management training and development programs, could prove to be productive. It may inform the recruitment and promotion of managers as well. Likewise, Q-methodology does not tell how common the identified perspectives are in a total population, but assurance about the perspectives it revealed actually exist (Selden et al., 1999; Danielson, 2009; Brown, 1980). Thus, other research may explore the prevalence of the identified roles in the total population. Equally, as context influences administrative leadership (Van Wart et al., 2012; Van Wart, 2013; Kee et al., 2007) and shapes an individual’s perceptual filter (Cox, Buck, & Morgan, 1994; Selden et al., 1999), other studies may also explore the impact of settings (e.g. culture) on the role preferences of the managers. This study also uncovers some issues that call for concerns. The factor I managers’ (the change agents) views mainly encircle on the ‘innovator’ than ‘broker’ role of leaders. The first deals with ‘changes’ and adaptation to those changes; and the second is about creating new efforts and influencing those outside the unit or the organization to get support to bring about changes (Quinn et al., 2011). Limited consideration of the role of leaders as a broker may obstruct the leaders from playing the change agent role to the fullest. Likewise, the factor II managers’ (the affective 27

leaders) little concern for the responsibility of leaders to focus on the results may threaten the achievement of both the individual and the organization outcomes. Finally, the factor III managers (the result-oriented realists) did not place a high priority on any of the statements related to the relationship taxonomy of leadership. Over-emphasis on the results may lead to ineffectiveness as a healthy balance between the concern for tasks and people is warranted. Scholars recognized that effective leadership call for marked behavioral orientations towards change, production and employee orientation (Arvonen & Ekvall, 1999:249), factors which match the change agents, the result-oriented and affective leaders’ views shown up in the present study. Thus, we suggest future research to examine the extent to which these attributes are markedly exhibited by the Ethiopian civil service managers; whether they are entrenched in the leadership training and development programs and the mechanisms in place to utilize the upgraded skills of leaders to achieve the desired organizational outcomes.

Notes 1. As we have used a snowball approach and respected the recommendations of those who have first completed the sorting, a relatively larger numbers of individuals holding top positions have completed the Q-sort. This explains why more men than women participated in our Q-sorting exercise too. However, both do not have an impact on our findings because in Q, given the nonrandom selection of the Q-sample, there is no claim about the representativeness. And Gender/sex does not cause a preference for a particular role or style (see Eagly and Johnson, 1990). 2. In Ethiopia, this qualification refers to 1 to 2 years of higher professional education. 3. PQMethod package is downloaded from http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm 4. In in this study we used the Brown’s (Brown, 1980) ‘QCENT analysis’ instead of ‘the Horst 5.5 centroid factor analysis with iterative solutions for communalities’. We choose Centroid over Principal Component Analysis (PCA) extraction method because the latter assumes that ‘’an individual’s sorts are invariant (correlated at 1.00)’’ that his/her Q-sorts at two different point in time are identical. Centroid, however, considers the indeterminacy of the solution that ‘’one correct solution does not exist among the infinite solutions possible’’. This last assumption is why Q-methodology was designed 28

and hence make ‘’centroid the extraction method of choice’’ (Newman & Ramlo, 2010:510). 5. To split the bipolar factor, the following steps are followed. a. Start with QVARIMAX, 2 factors, loaded in PQROT, and flag factors (use F6 button). b. Save factor numbers as: 1 2 2 (use F8 button). Note that the last two factors are saved as [2 2], indicating the third factor is the copy of bipolar factor 2. c. Reload saved three factors. Use the F2 button, follow the dialog box that it asks: insert the name of PQMethod study [enter], is it the continuation of the previous rotation- chose [‘y’] (yes) then the factors appear as: 1 2 3, the 3rd factor being the replica of the second factor. d. Invert a new factor #3 (copy of previous #2) use F5 button e. Remove all negative flags for factors 2 und 3: Use F7 button then use the up and down arrow on the computer to move the box and click ‘enter’ to remove the negative flags. f. Save factors, use F8 button…. Matrix successfully saved! g. Click F9, Bye, Bye h. Go to the main PQMethod page and choose the number of routine to and enter its number. At this point the routine to run is QANALYZE and enter number ‘7’. This performs the final Q-analysis of the rotated factors. And lastly, i.

Run VIEWLIST, number ‘8’ to view the output file. Done!

6. The statements shared among the factors are interpreted from the view of that specific factor. We do so because in Q interpretation is the sum of how the Q-sorters classified themselves in loading on factors and what meaning the analyst trying to draw out of factors. Thus, ‘’each statement must be considered in the context of its ranking relative to the other statements—relationships that may cause the meaning of a particular statement to differ in two factors even if they placed it at a similar rank’’ (Danielson, 2009:220).

29

REFERENCES Alemayehu, H. (2001). Overview of Public Administration in Ethiopia. CAFRAD—African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development. Tangier.

Apaza, C. (2014). Building Institutional Capacity in Africa: Results and Trends from Ethiopia and Mozambique. PA times, The American Society for Public Administration. http://patimes.org/building-institutional-capacity-africa-results trends-ethiopia-mozambique/

Arvonen, J. and Ekvall, G. (1999). Effective Leadership Style: Both Universal and Contingent? Creativity and Innovation Management. Volume 8, No. 4, PP. 242–250.

Avolio, B. J., and Gardner, W.J. (2005). Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the Root of Positive Forms of Leadership. Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 315–38.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Berhanu, M. and Vogel, E. (2006).Bureaucratic Neutrality among Competing Bureaucratic Values in an Ethnic Federalism: The Case of Ethiopia. Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 205-216.

Brown, S.R., Durning, D. W., and Selden, S. (1999). Q Methodology in Miller, G.J. and Whicker,M.L(eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration. MARCEL DEKKER, INC. pp.599-637.

Brown, M.E. and Gioia, D.A. (2002). Making things click Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline organization. The Leadership Quarterly 13, 397–419.

Brown, S.R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Brown S.R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity.16(3/4): 91-138

Brown, S.R. 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 6: 561 567.

Coogan, J. and Herrington, N. (2011). Q-methodology an Overview. Research in Secondary Teacher Education, Vol.1, No.2. pp.24-28. Cox, R. W., III, Buck, S. J., & Morgan, B. N. (1994). Public administration in theory and practice. New York: Prentice Hall.

Danielson, S.(2009).Q Method and Surveys: Three Ways to Combine Q and R. Field Methods, Vol. 21, No. 3, 219–237,DOI: 10.1177/1525822X09332082.

Dansereau Jr., F., Graen., G. and Haga,J.W. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Role Making Process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13, 46-78.



Denhardt, R. B.,& DeLeon, L. (1995). Great thinkers in personnel management. In J. Rabin, Thomas Vocino,W. Bartley Hildreth, & Gerald J. Miller (Eds.), Classics of public personnel policy (pp. 21-41). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Durning, D.W. and Brown, S.R. (2007). Q methodology and decision making. In Goktug Morcol, ed. Handbook of decision making. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (Taylor and Francis): 537-563.

Eagly, A. H. and Johnson, B. T.(1990).Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin Vol. 108, No. 2, 233-256.

Fairholm, M., (2007). ‘Trans-leadership Linking Influential Theory and Contemporary Research’, in R.S. Morse, T.F. Buss and C.M. Kinghorn (eds), Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 105–124.

Fernandez, S., Yoon, J.C., and James L. P. (2010). Exploring the Link between Integrated Leadership and Public Sector Performance. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 308–23.

Getachew, H.M. & Common, R. (2007). Public sector capacity reform in Ethiopia: a tale of success in two ministries. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 367–380.

Goldstein, D. M., and Goldstein, S.E.(2005). Q Methodology Study of a Person in Individual Therapy. CLINICAL CASE STUDIES, Vol. 4 No. 1, 40-56 DOI: 10.1177/153465010325966.

Graen, G., and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly 6:2, pp. 219-247.

Hafsi, T. and Farashahi, M. (2005).Applicability of Management Theories to Developing Countries: A Synthesis. MIR: Management International Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 483-511.

Hutson, G. & Montgomery, D. (2011). Demonstrating the value of extending qualitative research strategies into Q. Operant Subjectivity, 34, 234-246. Ingraham, P. and D.M. Van Slyke (2006). The Path Ahead for Public Service Leadership, Invited Symposium. American Review of Public Administration, 36,361–94.

Ingraham, P.W., Sowa, J. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2004), “Linking Dimensions of Public Sector Leadership to Performance,.” In P. W. Ingraham & L. E. Lynn (Eds.), The Art of Governance, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, , pp. 152-170.

Kee, J.E., K. Newcomer and S.M. Davis. (2007). ‘Transformational Stewardship: Leading Public-Sector Change’, in R.S. Morse, T.F. Buss and C.M. Kinghorn (eds), Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 154–84. Kiggundu, M. N., Jørgensen, J.J. and Hafsi, T. (1983). Administrative Theory and Practice in Developing Countries: A Synthesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 66-84.



Kohen, P. (2001).).Revolution and Public Service in the Third World, in Farazmand, A. (eds) ,Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration, 2nd (ed). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp.1065-1076.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (2003) The Leadership Challenge: Workbook. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (2010) The Leadership Challenge: Activities Book. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer

Leonard, D.K. (1984). The political Realities of African Management. A paper presented as background material for the AID Workshop on the Evaluation of Management in African Agricultural Development Projects. Institute for Development Binghamton, USA.

Leonard, D.K. (1988). The Secrets of African Managerial Success. Institute of Development Studies (IDS), IDS Bulletin 19.4.

McKeown, B. and Thomas, D.B. (2013). Q Methodology (2nd ed.).Series/ Number 07-66: SAGE Publications.

Militeello,M. and Benham, M. K. P. (2010). Sorting out’ collective leadership: How Q methodology can be used to evaluate leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 620-632.

Ministry of Capacity Building (MoCB) (2004). Public Sector Capacity Building Program Support Project. A Report to World Bank, Report No. AB 616, Addis Ababa.

Morse, R. and Buss, T. (2007). The Transformation of Public Leadership. In Morse, R. and Buss, T. (eds) Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century (3-20). M.E.Sharpe New York. Newman, I. and Ramlo, S. (2010). Using Q Methodology and Q factor Analysis in Mixed Methods Research. In Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie,C. (Eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (2nd edd.) (pp.505-530), SAGE Publications.

Newman, M. A., Guy, M.E., and Mastracci, S.H. (2007). Beyond Cognition: Affective Leadership and Emotional Labor. Leading the Future of the Public Sector: The Third Transatlantic Dialogue University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA.

Nzelibe, C. O.(1986). The Evolution of African Management Thought. International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 16, No. 2, Management and Organization in Africa , pp. 6-16.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T.,(1993). Reinventing Government, Addison-Wesley, New York, New York.



Owusu-Bempah, J. (2014). How Can We Best Interpret Effective Leadership? The Case For Q Method. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3.

Paulos, C. (1997). Administrative capability in the Ethiopian civil service: Problems and prospects. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of Management in Ethiopia, 21-23 November, Addis Ababa.

Paulos,C. (2001). The challenges of the civil service reform in Ethiopia: Initial Observation. EASSRR, vol. XVII, no. 1.

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson,M and Clair, L. (2011), Becoming a master manager: A competing Value Approaches 5eds San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson,M and McGrath (1990), Becoming a master manager: A competency Framework, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Raffel, J., Leisink, P., and Middlebrooks, E. (2009). Introduction. In J. A. Raffel, P. Leisink, P & Middlebrooks, E. (eds) Public sector leadership: International challenges and perspectives (pp. 1-11). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A., and Brudney, J. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration & Society, 31, 171-204.

Solomon Markos (2013). Civil Service Reform in Ethiopia: Issues, Lessons, and Future Directions. International Journal of Public Administration, 36:4, 235-247, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2012.713305. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stephenson,W. (1993/1994). Introduction to Q-Methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 17(1/2), 1-13.

Sullivan, H., Williams, P., and Jeffares, S. (2012).Leadership for Collaboration. Public Management Review, 14:1, 41-66, DOI:10.1080/14719037.2011.589617.

Trottier, T., Van Wart, M. and Wang, X. (2008). Examining the Nature and Significance of Leadership in Government Organizations. Public Administration Review, 68(2): 319-33.

Tufts,S.H. and Jacobson, W. (2010). Visions of leadership: An examination of how IT professionals prioritize leadership attributes. Journal of Information Technology Management Volume XXI, Number 1.

Van Eijk, C.J.A and Steen, T.P.S. (2013). Why People Co-Produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2013.841458.



Van Exel, J. and de Graaf, G. (2005) Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview, Available at http://www.qmethodology.net.

Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: an assessment. Public administration review, 63 (2), 214-228.

Van Wart, M. (2012). Leadership in public organizations: an introduction. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Van Wart M. (2013). Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary Challenges of Leaders. Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, Iss. 4, pp. 553–565.

Van Wart, M., Hondeghem, A., Schwella, E. (2015). Leadership and culture. Comparative models of top civil servant training. Palgrave.

Watts, S. and Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67-91.

Watts, S. and Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. London: SAGE.

World Bank (2013).Ethiopia Public Sector Reform Approach: Building the Developmental State: Review and Assessment of the Ethiopian Approach to Public Sector Reform. Report No: ACS3695, AFTP2, and AFRICA.

Zimmermann, J. M., and Allen, L.R. (2009). Public Recreation Administration: An Examination of the Perceived Roles of Local Recreation Administrators. Administration & Society, Volume 41 Number 4,470-502.



Appendix A The Q-sample (English and Amharic Version) The role of a leader is to: 1. Align the organization with external environment to improve the units/subordinates performance results. 2. Anticipate workflow problems, avoid crisis. 3. ‘Challenge the status quo to bring about change’ 4. Check for errors and mistakes. 5. Clarify the need to achieve unit goals. 6. Clarify what is expected of the subordinates, give clear directions and guidance, and ensure compliance. 7. Coach their subordinates, share experiences and knowledge, and guidance as the latter learns. 8. Compare plans and reports to detect discrepancies to take timely remedial action and to learn lessons for future accomplishments. 9. Continually clarify the unit’s purposes, priorities and directions. 10. Create a ‘team sprit’ to enhance the commitment of subordinates for effective accomplishment of the activities and attain the desired outcomes. 11. Discuss key differences among group members to facilitate consensus and to enable them work together constructively. 12. Effectively communicate both within the organization and with external parties. 13. Emphasize on fixing problems, crises and scandals after the subordinates have failed to carry out their duties properly. 14. Encourage interactive communication patterns and organizational behaviors that promote the welfare of the entire team. 15. Encourage performance excellence or achievement orientation in the unit. 16. Encourage the subordinates to create new opportunities, to solve problems in new ways, and to envision a different future. 17. Endeavor to create productive work environment.

18. Ensure that organizational expectations, rules and regulations are understood and enforced. 19. Exercise upward influence via developing and nurturing both formal and informal networks. 20. ‘Facilitate change—both the vision and mission, as well as the values and culture’ 21. Focus on equitable and fair treatment of the employees, irrespective of their ethnic group, religion etc. . . . 22. Focus on results not the protocol, for example, the employee physical presence in the office. 23. Identify the key capability differences among the subordinates, and accordingly arrange for training and developmental education. 24. Influence decisions made at higher levels. 25. ‘Instill and build trust, understand duty, and keep the common good in mind at all times’ 26. ‘Involve the subordinates in decision making and value their diverse views and opinions’ Þ 27. ‘Keep track of what goes on inside the unit’ 28. Know their people and the prevailing culture of their organization and act accordingly. 29. Lead and work as a part of the team: Yes, we are expected to ‘walk the talk’! 30. Maintain a highly coordinated and well organized unit. 31. ‘Maintain consistency with the principles of public service, commitment to the common good, dedication to the law of land, and other civic virtue’ 32. Maintain good relationship with subordinates: Yes, leader alone can do nothing; s/he has to win the heart of the subordinates. ( ) ( ) ( ) 33. Maintain tight logistical control and supervise the subordinates. : 34. ‘Maintaining a positive attitude with a strong sense of faith in God and helping others’ 35. Model the way, setting the example and planning small wins. 36. Persuasively sell new ideas to higher ups.

37. Provide technical backing, support and advice to subordinates. 38. Provide vision and drive necessary for change. 39. Remain neutral from any political interests and to monitor compliance with the rules and regulations provided to him/her. z 40. Search and experiment with new opportunities and take appropriate degree of risk to attain the intended results. 41. Search for innovations and potential improvements. 42. ‘See that the unit delivers on stated goals’ 43. Seek to improve subordinates commitment and ‘interdependence through a common stake in organization purpose’ 44. Seek to have extraordinary capabilities, persistence and determination to bring about change. 45. ‘Show empathy and concern when dealing with employees’ 46. Sustain job security/stability through preserving existing structures, procedures and close supervision of the subordinates. 47. Tell the truth in public and private situations and admit mistakes, if they make. 48. Think and act strategically. 49. Understand the possible impact of basic external social problems on the subordinates’ performance and help them in devising ways out. 50. Value and celebrate the work and contribution of subordinates.

Appendix B Q-sorters Detail

QSorter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Post

Employer Organization

A/Director, Human Resource Administration Director, Educational Assessment Directorate Team Leader, Plan Program, and Budget Team Leader, Contract, and Claim Director, Training Directorate Team Leader, Planning Department Team Leader, Human resource administration Team Leader, FDI Promotion Director, Regions investment affairs Directorate Director, Human Resource Administration Directorate

xxxd xxx xxx xxx

Management xxx

Director, Planning and Resource Directorate Director, Policy and Legal Affair Directorate xxx Director, Sector Capacity Building Directorate A/Process Owner, Gender, and other Social Affairs Office Director, Human, Resource Training Administration, and xxx Development Directorate Director, Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Director, Reform and Change Directorate Director, Training and Research Directorate xxx Team Leader, Reform and Change Management xxx Directorate Director, Human Resource and Development Directorate xxx

20 21 22

30

Director, Internal Audit Directorate Director, Human resource Development and Administration Directorate Team Leader, Human Resource, and Performance Improvement Directorate Director, Inspection and Regulatory Directorate Director, Internal Audit Department Director, Legal Affair Department Team Leader, Human Resource Department Team Leader, Gender Specialist Team leader, Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate Director, Reform& Change Management Directorate

31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Director, Agriculture Mechanization Directorate Director, Consultancy and Training Directorate Director, Communication Directorate Director, Registrar SME Association and Support Director, Human Resource Coordinator, Study and research team Team Leader, Prosecution

23 24 25 26 27 28 29



xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

38 39 40

Assistant to Director General Director, Marketing Oversight Manager, Marketing and Development Department

41 42 43

45

Manager, Human Resource Management Head, Internal Audit Service xxx Director, Human resource administration and Development Directorate A/Human Resource and Change implementation xxx Directorate Director, Justice system and Reform Program Directorate

46 47 48 49

Advisor to the Minister Director, Legal services, and Support Directorate Head, Ethics, and Anticorruption liaison office Team Leader, Corruption Investigation, and Prosecution

50

Director, Research and Change Management Directorate

51

Director, Human Resource Directorate

44

xxx

xxx xxx xxx

d the names of the employer organizations are omitted to ensure the promised confidentiality in the Qsorting phases of our study.

Appendix C

Positive and Negative Loading on Factor 2, Bipolar factor Factor I .58731X .57542X .39707X .52799X .55129X .56078X .37488X .36439X .63422X .20935 .42476X .34653X .17838 .48980 .46115X .49098X .61710X .35817 .31788X .25194 .56671X .35003X .27927X .50790X .25348 .31478 .37877X .33297 -.06027 .42125X .48509 .48509 .47135X .35003X .36944 .53351X .36827X .57622X .54496X .12468

Factor II .13747 .23035 .17497 .08147 -.10534 .39002 .17449 .25859 .31254 .40725X .09848 .21246 .08229 -.58315X .19274 -.42493 .31557 -.38361X .11137 -.09228 .16504 .23338 .17419 .24826 .13021 -.45972X .12531 .64058X .11565 .25600 -.58314X -.58314X -.18436 .22494 -.64408X -.46374 -.13668 .22163 .14715 .09433





Factor I

Factor II

.61233 .13266 .61511X .61193X .33452X .53036X .54417X .35856 .64857X .64059X .66014X

-.67782X .28460X .24883 .03793 .12093 -.00358 .29803 -.52276X -.62711 .24471 -.61260

Appendix D Normalized factor scores Factor I: Change Agents Statement Number 38 44 10 35 48 29 26 20 32 4 33 13 46 27 39 5 8 28

Z-score 1.623 1.557 1.383 1.304 1.279 1.121 1.057 1.041 0.999 -2.397 -2.383 -2.031 -1.838 -1.229 -1.228 -1.054 -1.051 -0.943

Factor II: Affective leaders

Grid Position 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2



Statement Number 10 11 32 26 21 23 43 7 49 46 27 9 22 17 4 30 29 28





Grid Position

Zscore 2.272 2.052 1.633 1.562 1.422 1.341 1.211 1.071 0.981 -2.111 -1.853 -1.782 -1.471 -1.341 -1.291 -1.211 -1.061 -1.04

3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2





Factor III: Result-Oriented Realists



Statement Number 22 9 15 6 30 17 29 35 42 11 4 33 13 8 39 18 46 27

Zscore 2.302 1.842 1.837 1.769 1.707 1.369 1.366 1.234 1.149 -2.454 -1.754 -1.725 -1.204 -1.148 -1.143 -1.091 -1.063 -0.996

Grid Position 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Appendix E The factor arrays with Q-sort values for each statement Statement Factor Factor Factor Statement Factor Factor Factor Number I II III Number I II III 1 0 -1 0 41 1 1 -1 2 0 0 -1 42 -1 -1 (2) 3 1 (-1) 1 43 1 2 1 4 (-3) -2 -3 44 (3) 1 1 5 -2 -1 (1) 45 0 1 (-1) 6 0 -1 (2) 46 -2 -3 (-2) 7 1 2 (0) 47 0 1 0 8 -2 -1 -2 48 (2) 0 0 9 (-1) (-3) (3) 49 -1 (2) -1 10 (3) (3) (0) 50 1 0 1 11 (-1) (3) (-3) 12 (0) (1) (-1) 13 (-3) (0) (-2) 14 -1 0 0 15 (0) (-1) (3) 16 0 0 1 17 (0) (-2) (2) 18 -1 -1 -2 19 -1 0 0 20 (2) 0 -1 21 1 2 1 22 (1) (-2) (3) 23 1 2 1 24 0 (1) 0 25 0 -1 0 26 2 2 (1) 27 -2 (-3) -2 28 -2 -2 -1 29 2 (-2) 2 30 (0) (-2) (2) 31 0 1 0 32 2 3 (0) 33 (-3) 0 (-3) 34 (-1) (1) (-1) 35 2 (0) 2 36 0 0 0 37 -1 0 -1 38 (3) 0 0 39 -2 (1) -2 40 1 0 0 Note: Distinguishing statements for a factor at statistical significance level of P < .05 ; and significance at P < .01 are presented in brackets.