Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how stewardship of public service renewal and reform is changing and influencing contemporary public leadership. Design/methodology/approach – The literature is reviewed to close the gap between theory and international practice. New evidence from innovation awards, scenario building, surveys, and interviews help demystify leadership dynamics. Findings – International stakeholders remain unconvinced about the role of leadership and claim that public service behaviour cannot be predicted. Scholars maintain that collaborative leadership prevails in thought and practice over the transformational leadership of the New Public Management era. Innovation and stewardship are particularly important aspects of values-based leadership in times of uncertainty. Emerging evidence and patterns of stewardship in public service renewal and reform confirm that “where leaders stand depends upon where they sit”. Research limitations/implications – Leadership practice is running ahead of theory. Research does not differentiate the roles and impact of leaders at the centre, front, and middle of government. Action research is needed to fill knowledge gaps and make the business case for leadership development. Practical implications – Role, capacity, and ethical considerations frame the implications for public leaders. Middle managers play a strategic role in networking government for change. Good governance depends upon developing their strategic leadership competencies and values. Social implications – In turn, where nations stand on the economic ladder depends upon strategic development of their public service. Turning individual competence into organizational capacity requires institutional change. Originality/value – Leaders in the middle are increasingly instrumental as change makers and disciples of reform in today's networked government. Harnessing their leadership capabilities is integral to stewardship of public service renewal and reform.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".