Innovación y modelos emergentes de liderazgo en la gestión pública. Revisión sistemática
Innovation and emerging leadership models in public management. A systematic reviewContenido principal del artículo
El liderazgo público innovador es crucial para la transformación de servicios públicos contemporáneos. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las dimensiones clave y competencias requeridas para un liderazgo público innovador. La metodología es de enfoque cualitativo, mediante una revisión sistemática de 18 estudios (2019-2024) de Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Central, JSTOR, EBSCO y Google Scholar. Se identificaron seis dimensiones: liderazgo transformacional adaptativo, colaborativo en ecosistemas, digital e inteligente, ético y transparente, para la innovación y experimentación, y de servicio público. Los resultados evidencian que el liderazgo efectivo requiere competencias híbridas integrando visión estratégica, habilidades relacionales, inteligencia digital, compromiso ético y orientación a valor público. Se propone el Modelo Integral de Liderazgo Público Innovador (MILPI) articulando niveles individual, organizacional y sistémico. Se concluye que los programas de desarrollo deben incorporar enfoques experienciales, mentorías estructuradas y aprendizaje continuo para fortalecer capacidades ante retos actuales del sector público.
Innovative public leadership is crucial for the transformation of contemporary public services. This study aims to analyze the key dimensions and competencies required for innovative public leadership. The methodology employs a qualitative approach, using a systematic review of 18 studies (2019-2024) from Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Central, JSTOR, EBSCO, and Google Scholar. Six dimensions were identified: adaptive transformational leadership, collaborative leadership in ecosystems, digital and intelligent leadership, ethical and transparent leadership, leadership for innovation and experimentation, and public service leadership. The results demonstrate that effective leadership requires hybrid competencies integrating strategic vision, relational skills, digital intelligence, ethical commitment, and a public value orientation. The Comprehensive Model of Innovative Public Leadership (MILPI) is proposed, articulating individual, organizational, and systemic levels. The study concludes that development programs should incorporate experiential approaches, structured mentoring, and continuous learning to strengthen capacities in the face of current public sector challenges.
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Cómo citar
Referencias
Alford, J., y Head, B. W. (2020). Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634
DOIGoogle Scholar
Ansell, C., y Gash, A. (2021). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030
DOIGoogle Scholar
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., y Torfing, J. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272
DOIGoogle Scholar
Ansell, C., y Torfing, J. (2021). Public governance as co-creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector and rejuvenating democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108769129
DOIGoogle Scholar
Avolio, B., y Gardner, W. (2020). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
DOIGoogle Scholar
Bellé, N. (2019). Leading for inclusion: A systematic literature review of inclusive leadership in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(1), 98-109. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12954
DOIGoogle Scholar
Boin, A., Lodge, M., y Luesink, M. (2020). Learning from the COVID-19 crisis: An initial analysis of national responses. Policy Design and Practice, 3(3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1823670
DOIGoogle Scholar
Bolden, R., Hawkins, B., Gould, J., y Reason, B. (2019 ). Exploring leadership: Individual, organizational, and societal perspectives. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0-19-875849-7. URL: https://www.oup.com/academic/product/exploring-leadership-9780198758495
Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., y Goodin, R. E. (Eds.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001
DOIGoogle Scholar
Capano, G., Howlett, M., Jarvis, D. S., Ramesh, M., y Goyal, N. (2020). Mobilizing policy (in)capacity to fight COVID-19: Understanding variations in state responses. Policy and Society, 39(3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1787628
DOIGoogle Scholar
Crosby, B. C., y Bryson, J. M. (2020). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-1-119-64635-2.URL: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Leadership+for+the+Common+Good%3A+Tackling+Public+Problems+in+a+Shared+Power+World-p-9781119646358
De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., y Tummers, L. (2019). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
DOIGoogle Scholar
Emerson, K., y Nabatchi, T. (2020). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., y Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
DOIGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Araoz, C., Groysberg, B., y Nohria, N. (2019). The definitive guide to recruiting in good times and bad. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 74-84. URL: https://hbr.org/2009/05/the-definitive-guide-to-recruiting-in-good-times-and-bad
Gil-García, J. R., Dawes, S. S., y Pardo, T. A. (2020). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 22(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1588355
DOIGoogle Scholar
Gronn, P. (2020). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451.DOI: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0
DOIGoogle Scholar
Hassan, S., Wright, B. E., y Yukl, G. (2014). Does ethical leadership matter in government? Effects on organizational commitment, absenteeism, and willingness to report ethical problems. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12201
DOIGoogle Scholar
Head, B. W., y Alford, J. (2020). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration y Society, 47(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601
DOIGoogle Scholar
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., y Linsky, M. (2019). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Review Press. ISBN: 978-1-4221-0575-3. URL: https://www.hbr.org/product/the-practice-of-adaptive-leadership/an/10312-HBK-ENG
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press. ISBN: 978-0-674-51858-1. URL: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674518581
Hood, C., y Dixon, R. (2020). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central government. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198296980.001.0001
DOIGoogle Scholar
Iqbal, Q., Ahmad, N. H., y Nasim, A. (2020). A moderated-mediation study of mentoring and innovative work behavior among public sector employees. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 229-246. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muz034. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz034
DOIGoogle Scholar
Janowski, T. (2021). Implementing sustainable development goals with digital government: Aspiration-capacity gap. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101476
DOIGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., y Pitelis, C. N. (2020). Organizational governance adaptation: Who is in, who is out, and who gets what. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0459
DOIGoogle Scholar
Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., y Edelenbos, J. (2019). The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01826.x
DOIGoogle Scholar
Kolthoff, E., Huberts, L., y van den Heuvel, H. (2019). The ethics of new public management: Is restoring trust and integrity the answer? Administration y Society, 39(4), 451-479. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707300703
DOIGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., y Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
DOIGoogle Scholar
Lynn, L. (2020). Public management: Old and new. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928622
DOIGoogle Scholar
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Picazo-Vela, S., y Luna, D. E. (2019). Creating public value through digital government: A conceptual model for digital transformation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101421. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421
DOIGoogle Scholar
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., y Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
DOIGoogle Scholar
Mergel, I., Ganapati, S., y Whitford, A. B. (2020). Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13202
DOIGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
O'Flynn, J. (2021). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00545.x
DOIGoogle Scholar
Osborne, S. P. (2021). Public management research over the decades: What are we writing about? Public Management Review, 23(12), 1760–1777. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1957490
DOIGoogle Scholar
Ospina, S. M. (2017). Collective leadership and context in public administration: Bridging public leadership research and leadership studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315618791
DOIGoogle Scholar
Ospina, S. M., y Foldy, E. G. (2010). Building bridges from the margins: The work of leadership in social change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008
DOIGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., y Recascino Wise, L. (2020). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 181-205. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mui028
DOIGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C., y Bouckaert, G. (2020). Public management reform: A comparative analysis into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Randall, M. L., y Coakley, M. E. (2020). Examining the dimensionality and relevance of three popular measures of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1298-1315. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1298
DOIGoogle Scholar
Riccucci, N. (2020). Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003105206
DOIGoogle Scholar
Salminen, A., y Lehto, T. (2020). Public accountability and governance dilemmas. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, y T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 407–421). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0021
DOIGoogle Scholar
Scholta, H., Lindgren, I., Juell-Skielse, G., y Melin, U. (2021). Dynamics of public e-service development: A practice-based process model. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101585
DOIGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, R. W., Pogge, C., y Gillis, S. (2020). Defining and measuring leadership effectiveness. Military Medicine, 175(1), 1-7. URL: https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-09-00203
DOIGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, E., y Torfing, J. (2020). Enhancing political leadership through collaborative policymaking: Lessons from a Danish case study. Policy y Politics, 48(4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15902674179492
DOIGoogle Scholar
Sun, Z., y Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare systems. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 368-383. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.003
DOIGoogle Scholar
Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248
DOIGoogle Scholar
Torfing, J., y Ansell, C. (2022). Co-creation: The new kid on the block in public governance. Policy y Politics, 50(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16337036061938
DOIGoogle Scholar
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., y Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration y Society, 51(5), 795–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057
DOIGoogle Scholar
Tummers, L., y Knies, E. (2019). Measuring public leadership: Developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Administration, 94(2), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12224
DOIGoogle Scholar
Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., y Musheno, M. (2019). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056
DOIGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Z., Gnan, L., y Heres, L. (2021). Research note: Empirically assessing public leaders' ethical competence—The public leadership ethics competence (PLEC) questionnaire. Public Integrity, 20(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1297993
DOIGoogle Scholar
Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Winne, S., y Alkema, K. (2020). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544-562. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014
DOIGoogle Scholar
Van Laar, C., Derks, B., y Ellemers, N. (2020). Motivated control of prejudiced responses of majority group members: Increased stereotyping of out-group members who violate cherished democratic values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 368-388. DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000047
DOIGoogle Scholar
Van Wart, M. (2020). The future of leadership and its development for the public sector. In R. F. Durant (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 689–712). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238958.003.0029
DOIGoogle Scholar
Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., Timeus, K., Tonurist, P., y Tummers, L. (2020). Changing public service delivery: Learning in co-creation. Policy and Society, 36(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1323711
DOIGoogle Scholar
Williams, I., y Shearer, H. (2020). Appraising public value: Past, present and futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367–1384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01942.x
DOIGoogle Scholar
Wirtz, B., y Müller, W. (2019). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1549268
DOIGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., y Pandey, S. K. (2020). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02496.x
DOIGoogle Scholar
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y., y Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577
DOIGoogle Scholar