Juhtimine avalikus sektoris on oma selgete nüansierisustega võrreldes näiteks erasektoriga. Siinviidatu leidis aga oma koha peamiselt põhjusel, et avaliku juhtimise kontekst Eestis ja Bangladeshis on mitmes aspektist sarnane. Lisaks võiks see lugu huvi pakkuda tudengitele, kel mõtlevad interpretivismi ja fenomenoloogilise uuringu peale.

Kontekstiks:

The research holds that public sector leadership (PSL) is concerned with the non‐elected public officials (Talbot, 2010). Talbot’s suggestion is that PSL framework refers to what is generally known as ‘core executive’ of governments–a concept borrowed from Weller et al. (1997). The research uses public sector leadership, public leadership, public service leadership, bureaucratic leadership and administrative leadership interchangeably (Van Wart, 2003; Van Wart, 2013, p. 527).

Tuttav tunne?

The Bangladeshi PSL roles of centralisation, hierarchism, elitism, authoritarianism, formalism (Mollah, 2014; Tahrima & Jaegal, 2012) seem archaic, when the new agenda for change requires PSL to show strong commitment to better public service delivery. Thus, the old belief system is in contradiction with the new belief system, leading to change and dilemma.

Ettevõtlikkus avaliku juhtimise arsenalis ja juhtide vastutus:

The key agents for bringing the development agenda into public organisations are the administrative leaders–entrepreneurs who have formal responsibilities for initiating change processes delegated by political leaders (Naschold, 1995; Rouban, 1995). […] It is the PSL who is primarily responsible for the implementation of the conflicting agenda of reforms in a volatile condition.

Autorid seavad eesmärke:

The study’s research questions were as follows: how do public sector leaders conceive of their leadership style? how do public sector leaders respond to public sector reform initiatives? What sorts of leadership dilemmas are experienced by the public sector leaders? How do public sector leaders deal with dilemmas?

Siin ilmutab ennast relatsioonilisus, mida näiteks Eestis üsna varjamatult võib kohata: keskharidusega poliitikud ei ole huvitatud PhD ettevalmistusega ametnikest, sest need räägivad “liiga keeruliselt”. Oleks vaja lihtlausetega.

The study of PSL is therefore crucial in the public sector, because progress in political leadership depends on the bureaucrats who implement government policies.

Dilemmad …

[T]his process has… implications for the relationship between government and citizen. It restricts citizens to a passive consumption of politics, excluding them from playing a creative and productive role in civic life. An individualised and commodified form of citizenship is taking hold in which communal and discursive elements are lost.

Vihjed uurimismeetoditest:

This research was concerned with the lived experience of the public sector leaders or their life world, an approach called phenomenology (van Manen, 1997). […] This study considers human experience to be framed in terms of descriptions of life experiences because “we live in our stories, not statistics” (Gilbert, 2002, p. 223).

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Especially, the entrepreneurial attributes of PSLs helped propel innovative policy changes. Power relationship dilemma, arising out of politicisation of bureaucracy and bureaucratisation of politics usually results in symbiotic relationship between politicians and bureaucrats.

Masud, M., & Hossain, M. R. (2021). Interpreting lived experiences: The dilemmas of public sector leaders. Public Administration and Development.