|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
Innovation, or the adoption of an existing idea for the first time by a specific organization (Rogers, 1995), has long been lauded as a vital step for keeping organizations on the cutting edge of work processes and technology. It is most commonly thought of as the domain of the private sector, as profit-seeking firms work to maximize market advantages. However, innovation in the public sector is also the subject of extensive discussion by politicians, public administration practitioners, academics, and political pundits. Along with efficiency and creativity, innovation has been advocated as a means for public bureaucracies, governmental and nongovernmental, to transform themselves into flexible, more responsive units that work more efficiently and serve their constituencies (and taxpayers) more effectively.
In addition to the discourse on the potential benefits of innovation to public organizations is a parallel debate in the public administration literature over the appropriateness of the role of "bureaucratic entrepreneurs" in championing innovation and ensuring that it is successfully integrated into the structure and daily activities of public organizations and agencies. The idea of a "public entrepreneur" as innovation "champion" has both its supporters and opponents. Some have embraced entrepreneurship as an appropriate way of introducing innovation to public bureaucracies and enhancing the operation of government and nonprofit agencies (Behn, 1998; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Peters, 1996; Roberts & King, 1996, among others). (1) Others have condemned it with equal fervor over concerns about the accountability of entrepreneurs for their independent activities (deLeon & Denhardt, 2000; Gawthrop, 1999; Goodsell, 1993; Moe, 1994; Terry, 1998, among others). In short, cynics of public entrepreneurship perceive it as incompatible with democratic values and not suitable for use in public bureaucracies. (2)
This research does not try to resolve this controversy but simply acknowledges that the innovation introduced in the health care networks studied here provides an excellent context for examining the process of innovative change in the public sector, and the role of public entrepreneurs in the process. Utilizing detailed data from surveys of respondents ill two distinct, local networks we provide an empirically referenced profile of actors in the same policy domain who are "entrepreneurial" to varying degrees. As we will explain later, this permits us to more systematically probe whether the characteristics and behaviors of those who are more entrepreneurial are truly different from those who are less entrepreneurial or not entrepreneurial at all. Previous studies have done a good job illustrating, with descriptive case studies, the roles key individuals can play in supporting or opposing specific policy innovations in their communities. The present study builds on this solid foundation to examine, empirically, the full array of actors in a policy domain and the extent to which they are viewed by other domain actors as key to policy success or failure. In doing so, we also systematically categorize and operationally define the key variables from the literature on public entrepreneurship and empirically model their relationships.
The Concept of Public Entrepreneurship
No innovation of significant magnitude can be introduced into a stable policy, domain without "champions" who advocate its introduction and use and who directly and indirectly motivate others to accept the innovation. Schumpeter (1939) referred to these proponents of innovation as "entrepreneurs." The conventional description of an entrepreneur is a solitary' person who possesses specific qualities (some of them innate) that enable that individual to be successful in convincing the public and their colleagues of the value of a new instrument, method, or idea. While the term was originally used to refer to innovators in the private sector, the concept of the "entrepreneur" has been rightfully applied by social scientists to individuals in the public sector Elected officials, bureaucratic employees, nonprofit managers, and private citizens are all fully capable of encouraging and using innovation to modify the way that public entities operate and can be instrumental in fostering change among their colleagues and friends.
The breadth of the public entrepreneur literature in public administration, nonprofit management, and political science is undeniably extensive. A sizable portion of it has focused on historical and biographical treatments of a select few legislators and bureaucrats regarded as leaders or entrepreneurs. A good example of such work is an edited volume by Doig and Hargrove (1987a). Among the personalities whose accomplishments are chronicled in that text are Admiral Hyman Rickover of the U.S. Navy (Lewis, 1987), Gifford Pinchot of the U.S. Forest Service (Cooper, 1987), and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara of the Kennedy Administration (Shapley, 1987). Other scholars have more generally considered the entrepreneurial work of elected officials or nonelected bureaucrats, such as staff members of U.S. Senate committees (Price, 1971), U.S. senators (Walker, 1977), state attorneys general (Spill, Licari, & Ray, 2001), or elected members of local governing boards for public organizations (Gabris et al., 1999). Indeed, Borins's (2000) review of applications for Ford Foundation/Kennedy School of Government innovation awards shows that entrepreneurs who are initiators of new innovations come from all strata of the public sector from politicians and agency heads down to middle managers and frontline staff of bureaucratic departments. (3) Sapat (2004) found a similar range of entrepreneurs in her study of environmental innovation adoption by state agencies.
It is noteworthy, too, that the concept of "entrepreneur" in the public arena has even been extended to persons outside of government such as members of interest groups (Borins, 2001; Kingdon, 2002), private citizens interested in particular social causes (Waddock & Post, 1991), and public administration faculty (Feiock & Carr, 2000). (4) The concept is clearly applicable to those in the nonprofit sector as well. For the purposes of this paper, a public entrepreneur is any elected official, bureaucratic employee, nonprofit manager, or private citizen who is perceived by his/her colleagues and friends to be instrumental in fostering innovative change to modify the way that public entities operate.
Personal Attributes and Public Entrepreneurship
Doig and Hargrove (1987b) list a number of skills that they see as vital for a true public entrepreneur, such as the ability to identify new missions for their organizations, recognizing areas of organizational weakness, and motivating group members, among others. (These skills, and other personal attribute variables discussed below, are summarized in Table 1.) Nyhan (2000) and Page (2003) maintain that public entrepreneurs must take advantage of collaboration and encourage participatory and inclusive decision-making processes that engender trust in their work settings. Meanwhile, Gabris and others (1999) see great value in public entrepreneurs who are willing to take on risk and are capable of convincing others to accept it as well. When it comes to expertise in a specialized area, Miller and Moe (1983), Weissert (1991), and Kingdon (2002) all find that public entrepreneurs employ it as a resource to boost their reputations and build their influence. In contrast, Lambright (1994), Borins (2000), and Mintrom (2000) conclude that persuasiveness, the liberal use of rhetoric, and proficiency in coalition building are keys to a public entrepreneur's success.
Besides specific skills that may enhance an individual's entrepreneurial achievements, previous research considers the influence of various personal qualities and behaviors upon an individual's emergence as a public entrepreneur. (5) For example, power and influence with other actors (Lambright, 1994), persistence in pushing for change (Borins, 2000; Drucker, 1985; Kingdon, 2002; Weissert, 1991), a positive attitude toward an innovation and consistency in highlighting its value (Kelman, 2005), enthusiasm concerning the use of technology (Corder, 2001), the disposition to weather setbacks that may interrupt the process of innovation (Light, 1998), and personal credibility (Gabris et al., 1999) are all crucial hypothesized elements of the temperament of a successful entrepreneurial agent of change. In addition, Chubb and Moe (1990), Osborne and Gaebler (1992), and Lonti and Verma (2003) propose that openness by entrepreneurial leaders to being more inclusive, encouraging teamwork, and authorizing others to participate in decision-making and management activities can prove successful in encouraging innovation. Carnevale (2001, p. 230), in an essay reviewing seven texts concerning leadership, innovation, and organizational change, zeroes in on several primary variables (spirit, faith, trust, intuition, judgment, and character) that "have large roles in whether innovation will be realized in organizations." Again, like the numerous studies of public entrepreneurs that are cited in this article, Carnevale's review highlights personal qualities that appear to be imperative for successful innovation in a public organization. Nonetheless, it is equally important to note that a great majority of the traits described thus far are extremely difficult to precisely quantify from mere observation of innovative public entrepreneurs at work.
In contrast to these more abstract characteristics ascribed to entrepreneurs, Schneider and Teske, with Mintrom (1995) develop a general profile of local public entrepreneurs from a survey of city clerks and describe their various demographic and personality characteristics, such as age, education, race, self-assuredness, and level of energy. (6) Mitchell (2001) does the same in...
|
