See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281926467

Leadership competencies for a global public service

Article  in  International Review of Administrative Sciences · July 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0020852315576706

CITATIONS READS

11 1,149

1 author:

Tim A. Mau
University of Guelph
25 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Paul Barker and Tim A. Mau. Public Administration in Canada: Brief Edition (2nd ed.) (Toronto: Nelson) View project

Two Special Issues in the International Journal of Public Leadership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tim A. Mau on 19 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International
Review of
Administrative
Articles Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
0(0) 1–20
Leadership competencies ! The Author(s) 2015
for a global public service Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315576706
Tim A. Mau ras.sagepub.com
University of Guelph, Canada

Abstract
The notion of a global public service has been put forth in the literature as a means of
addressing a number of policy issues that can no longer be addressed by a nation-state
in isolation. This article sets out to address whether it is possible to formulate and
implement a leadership competency model that could be used to select, develop and
reward these global public servants and, if so, what leadership competencies they would
require. Evidence will be drawn from both the literature on the competencies required
for global managers/leaders as well as various public sector leadership competency
models. It is argued that more thought needs to be given to how a leadership compe-
tency framework might be fruitfully employed to buttress such a cadre of individuals.

Points for practitioners

Public services around the world have been embracing the use of leadership compe-
tency models as part of their human resources management frameworks for the past
few decades. This research examines a number of the various models that have been
employed with the intent of identifying key competencies that would be more universal
in nature. Additional research needs to be conducted to ensure that such models reflect
the distinctiveness of the public sector.

Keywords
public sector, leadership competencies, global public service

Introduction
With the progression of globalization has come the realization that for many public
policy issues autonomous state action is insufficient. Whether it is dealing with
climate change, poverty, terrorism or various epidemics, a global approach to
governance may be necessary (Benner et al., 2004), one that ultimately rests on

Corresponding author:
Tim A. Mau, Department of Political Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Email: tmau@uoguelph.ca

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

2 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

the adoption of a global public service with professional expertise that transcends
national borders. As Auluck and Levin (2009: 50) argued:

From the ‘global warming’ crisis to bloodshed in West Asia, in Africa and elsewhere,
the world has witnessed the failure of heady unilateralism and the inability of nation-
states . . . to address and resolve these crises single-handedly. This provides the
rationale for the establishment and development of a special cadre – global public
servants – to support solutions to these challenges.

The purpose of this article is not to determine whether devising a global public
service is feasible or how it would be structured, although these are important
considerations and there is considerable ambiguity about the concept. Rather, it
will explore a much narrower series of questions. Firstly, assuming that a cadre
of global public servants is a useful concept to further advance global governance,
is it possible to formulate and implement a leadership competency model that could
be used to select, develop and reward these individuals? Secondly, what leadership
competencies would be required? In answering this latter question, evidence will be
drawn from both the global managers/leaders competency literature as well as the
public sector leadership competency models that have been adopted by various
states.
The aim of this research is to contribute to the expanding public sector leader-
ship literature, particularly the sub-set dedicated to the debate regarding whether
public leaders are born or made (Orazi et al., 2013; Van Wart, 2003, 2013). A key
component of that literature examines the implementation of individual leadership
competencies and although it has ‘‘progressed substantially’’ in the past decade
with ‘‘adequate competency frameworks . . . being designed and updated by gov-
ernments around the world’’, it has been suggested nonetheless that ‘‘the academic
community can contribute more’’ (Van Wart, 2013: 533, 537). To that end, this
article will undertake a comparative analysis of several national public sector lead-
ership competency models to determine how they might be modified to guide the
hiring, training and promotion of global public servants.
While public administration scholars should be striving to illuminate the con-
cept of a global public service, this article argues that more thought needs to be
given to how a leadership competency framework might be fruitfully employed for
these individuals. Elsewhere it has been argued that governments needed to utilize
public sector leadership competency models with caution (Mau, 2009). Given the
huge diversity across the globe in terms of the values and cultures of the inter-
national organizations and nation-states involved in global governance, not to
mention the discernable differences in the political institutions and state civil
society relations of those states, it is an admonition that takes on even greater
importance in this context. Embracing a universalistic approach to create a generic
set of leadership competencies for a global public service is clearly problematic.
Therefore, further research is required to ascertain whether such an approach
might be feasible.

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mau 3

The article begins by setting the context or establishing the need for a global
public service. It then explores the emergence of leadership competencies in the
public sector. The perceived advantages and limitations of leadership competency
models will be identified prior to examining a number of models that have been
adopted by various nation-states to strengthen their public sector human resource
management (HRM) regimes. This will provide the basis for identifying and out-
lining a potential leadership competency model that might be adopted for a global
public service.

The concept of and need for a global public service

Globalization, which has resulted in a deepening integration of people,
economies and political institutions, has led scholars to question whether traditional
forms of governance remain relevant. Unilateral actions by autonomous state
actors, for example, are clearly insufficient for dealing with issues such as a financial
crisis brought about by reckless capitalism as was witnessed in 2008; the ravages of
war and the associated displacement of people; the human suffering and destruction
of infrastructure resulting from environmental disasters; the impacts of global cli-
mate change; international criminal and terrorist networks; poverty; and inter-
national health pandemics. It is the existence of these wicked problems and the
inability of any single organization or state to resolve them that provides the impetus
for exploring the administration of global governance (Fraser-Moleketi, 2005: ix).
The first challenge is to understand what is meant by global governance.
Cabrera (2011: 2) defines it as ‘‘purposive and continuing coordination among
actors in the global system to address specific problems’’, noting that it is not
merely nation-states that constitute the significant actors, but also international
organizations, non-governmental organizations, transnational lobbies and activist
groups as well as various professional networks. Whether or not progress towards a
world state is an inevitability in the next century or two (Wendt, 2011), there are
palpable historical forces that have given rise to a move towards global governance.
First, many issues confronting states are now global in nature; second, the legit-
imacy of the nation-state is being questioned, with a blurring of the boundary of
the public and private sectors; and finally, there has been a reconceptualization of
how we think and act (Müller and Lederer, 2005).
Global governance, then, is an offshoot of the concept of governance, which
emerged to describe the shifts that were occurring at the level of the nation-state in
response to some of the administrative reforms brought about as a result of new
public management (NPM). In other words, there was a ‘‘hollowing out of the
state’’ (Rhodes, 1994), such that many core state activities were devolved to a
variety of civil society actors. Policy formulation and delivery, therefore, were no
longer the exclusive domain of the state; instead, the state increasingly refrained
from ‘‘rowing’’ or the service delivery function (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) leav-
ing it to different non-state actors, sometimes in partnership with government, to
step into the breach.

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

4 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

What does the administration of global governance entail? Duggett (2005) is

clear that global governance does not refer only to the UN, although certainly that
organization has a key role to play in any global governance regime.
For Argyriades (2005), a common thread linking states in various regions of the
world is the recognition of a need for greater integration and cooperation in the
face of the forces of globalization. Addressing the question of who will administer
global governance, he points to a number of relevant populations: public admin-
istrators serving a particular nation-state; the staff of various non-governmental
organizations (NGOs); those employed by different regional organizations, such as
the EU, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or Organization of
American States (OAS); and finally, the personnel of different global organizations
like the UN, World Trade Organization or the World Bank.
Regrettably, however, the concept of the global public servant remains rather
nebulous. It has been suggested that a Global Public Service Academy be estab-
lished for training these public servants, but it is not entirely clear how they would
be deployed other than the suggestion that it would be ‘‘based on regional and
national needs’’ and that ‘‘consideration must be given to the priority needs of
developing countries’’ (Auluck and Levin, 2009: 57). It seems, therefore, that some
of these global public servants would be deployed to provide expertise to the
bureaucracies of individual nation-states. For example, if the Indian, South
African or Jamaican public services were grappling with an administrative issue,
then presumably those states could call upon the expertise available in the global
public service to help resolve it.
But they would also be in high demand for appointments in the regional and
global organizations identified above. These global public servants are more than
likely to be trained as generalist administrators so as to facilitate their transferabil-
ity between international organizations. As such, they could conceivably be a tre-
mendous asset because many of these organizations presently have their own
prescribed and specialized functions, which often means that these staff members,
with their narrow technically-oriented educational qualifications, are often myopic
in their outlook and fail to protect the global common good. Even when the leaders
of these organizations come together to collaborate, there is a tendency for organ-
izational representatives to protect their turf rather than to think more collectively
in terms of designing a unified approach for solving some of these global problems.
In short, public servants contributing towards global governance need to transcend
organizationally-bound mindsets and embrace what Gosling and Mintzberg (2003:
58) referred to as a ‘‘worldly mind-set’’, that is to say ‘‘getting into worlds beyond
our own – into other people’s circumstances, habits and cultures – so that we can
better know our own world’’. It is presumed that a cadre of global public servants
would be well positioned to enhance the effectiveness of these international organ-
izations by bringing a much broader perspective to the problems at hand.
The concept of a global public service suggests an elitist model: after all, if
individual governments across the world are committed to recruiting the best
and the brightest to fill the ranks of their state bureaucracies (Shim, 2001),

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mau 5

then a global public service, charged with the task of providing policy advice and
administrative support to nation-states and international organizations grappling
with exceedingly complex problems, would similarly require extraordinarily
talented individuals. As the next section of the article reveals, many governments,
following the lead of prominent private sector organizations, have adopted
leadership competency models as a means of developing and maintaining high-
performing public sectors.

Public sector innovation: embracing leadership

competency models
Many public sector reform initiatives over the past several decades have been
inspired by developments in the private sector. The most obvious example was
the worldwide adoption of NPM with its emphasis on the adoption of private
sector business principles. Ultimately, the managerialist approach of NPM, with
its emphasis on innovation, results-based accountability and leadership, provided a
strong rationale for governments to explore the use of leadership competencies to
foster high-performing organizations. Moreover, at the same time the NPM para-
digm was becoming firmly entrenched in a number of Western industrialized
democracies in the 1990s, competency-based leadership models were taking hold
in the private sector.
Confusion can sometimes emerge when discussing competencies because the
term has been used to mean very different things. Essentially, four schools of
thought can be identified: competencies can be viewed as representing either spe-
cific expertise or accomplishment; they can represent the capacity of organizations;
at times competencies refer to specific behaviours contributing to excellence; and
finally, competencies have signified a minimal level of job proficiency (Lodge and
Hood, 2005). For the purpose of this article, ‘‘Competency manage-
ment . . . involves identifying the competencies that distinguish high performers
from average performers in all areas of organizational activity and using this
framework as the foundation for the recruitment, selection, training and develop-
ment, rewards and other aspects of employee management’’ (Horton, 2000: 354).
While it is possible to utilize leadership competencies for just one or two of these
functions, they are thought to be most effective when adopted across the full range
of HRM activities.
The genesis of the competency-based management movement can be traced to
the pioneering work of David McClelland in the early 1970s. His research sug-
gested that it was possible to identify personality traits or competencies that could
predict – even better than IQ or aptitude tests – enhanced job performance.
Importantly, once the behaviours that separated average from exceptional
performers were identified they could be taught to others (Bolden and Gosling,
2006). Despite the implications of McClelland’s work, it was not until the 1990s
that competency-based management became pervasive in private sector organiza-
tions. By that time, however, the use of leadership competency models was

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

6 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

considered to be a virtual necessity for both improving individual job performance

and ensuring organizational effectiveness. The use of competency models for lead-
ership development ultimately became the sine qua non of private sector manage-
ment practices (Conger and Ready, 2004).
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that many governments around the
world are now implementing leadership competency models. While the concept of
competencies may be relatively new in public administration (Lodge and Hood,
2005), there is no denying that it is now fully entrenched in the public sector.
Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, The
Netherlands, South Africa and the UK among others have formally adopted lead-
ership competency models in recent years (Brans and Hondeghem, 2005; Hood and
Lodge, 2004; Horton, 2000; Mau, 2009). Nonetheless, many aspects of competency-
based management are not new. Certainly in the cases of the US (Ingraham and
Getha-Taylor, 2005: 792 795) and Canada (Mau, 2009: 323 326), both of which
have long histories of relying on a merit system for public sector appointments, there
are obvious antecedents to the more recent focus on leadership competency models.
But even when focusing on the modern vernacular of leadership competency frame-
works, the US government, with the adoption of its executive core qualifications
(ECQs) for the senior executive service in 1979 – pre-dating both NPM and the
widespread private sector fascination with competency-based management – was
actually a pioneer (Ingraham and Getha-Taylor, 2005).
As has been argued elsewhere (Mau, 2009), many of the public sector leadership
competency frameworks that have emerged have been too liberal in their adaptation
and refinement of analogous models from the private sector. It is important to main-
tain a distinctive public leadership brand1 and public sector leadership competency
models that cannot be readily differentiated from one that might be utilized by IBM
or GE fail to accomplish that objective. Notwithstanding the similarities between
managing and leading in the public and private sectors, it is crucial not to lose sight of
the fact that manifestations of these phenomena differ rather fundamentally because
much of what is done in government simply is not amenable to the bottom-line
economic considerations that drive private sector organizations, and public servants
have to manage and lead in a highly politicized environment, which makes their jobs
more ambiguous and challenging than those of their private sector counterparts.
The next section of the article considers recent attempts to construct global
leadership competency models for those working in private sector corporations.
Just as the public sector has learned from the private sector experience with lead-
ership competency models, the hope is that efforts to formulate leadership compe-
tencies for global managers can be equally instructive when exploring the concept
of the global public service.

Global leadership competencies

Globalization has not only impacted the policy capacity of states; it has also engen-
dered fundamental transformation in the realm of business. Business is increasingly

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mau 7

operating on a global scale. We have witnessed a transformation to a borderless

world with people, goods and capital now moving freely across the globe.
Corporations are no longer wedded to an individual nation-state; rather, they
increasingly must deal with global employees, customers, suppliers and even
creditors (Javidan and House, 2001). This has given rise to new challenges for
business leaders irrespective of ‘‘whether their primary operation environment is
domestic, international or global’’ (Jokinen, 2005: 200). In effect, to succeed in this
environment organizations now require competent global managers and leaders.
According to a survey of a group of Fortune 500 firms, this is the single most
important factor for business success; unfortunately, however, competent global
leaders were also thought to be in rather short supply (Javidan and House, 2001).
Many scholars, therefore, have been attempting to build upon some of the
earlier work on leadership competencies with the objective of identifying the know-
ledge, skills, abilities and behaviours that would constitute effective global leader-
ship. However, as Jokinen (2005: 204) notes, ‘‘Many authors share the view that
although the increasing need for global leaders is clear, the specific competencies of
these leaders are far from clear’’. Some scholars even suggest that the notion of a
global manager is misguided. Baruch (2002), for example, argues that the requisites
for being an effective global manager are largely the same as those for any good
conventional manager. What matters instead is the ability to have a global mindset,
or the ability to appreciate different customs and cultures.
Kets de Vries and Florent-Treacy (2002) and Heames and Harvey (2006) came
to the same conclusion. In the first instance, outstanding domestic leaders were
thought to share many of the same characteristics as global leaders – excellent
relational skills; curiosity; emotional intelligence; communication skills; energy
and resiliency; high tolerance for ambiguity, frustration and uncertainty; capacity
to learn and adapt; willingness to take risks; sense of humor; the ability to envision
a compelling future while empowering and energizing staff members – but global
leaders were able to ‘‘retain these capabilities even when they find themselves in
completely unfamiliar situations’’ (Kets de Vries and Florent-Treacy, 2002: 305).
The second study involved a comparative analysis of Chester Barnard’s five key
competencies for the 20th century manager/executive with McCall and
Hollenbeck’s list of global leader/executive competencies for the 21st century,
which was derived from interviews with over 100 global leaders. Heames and
Harvey (2006) found strong parallels between the five competencies, but noted
two key points of divergence for the global leaders: firstly, 21st century leaders
require a stable personal life; and secondly, they need to possess both honesty and
integrity and foster these characteristics in others. Chris Bartlett, professor emeri-
tus at Harvard, effectively captured this sentiment by arguing there is no longer any
need to place the qualifying word ‘global’ in front of manager: ‘‘Today . . . we all
simply operate in a global environment’’ (cited in Hanna, 2011: 1).
Nonetheless, there are those who have attempted to identify the requisite
competencies required to be a successful global manager. It is not practical to
summarize all of the literature on global leadership competencies in this article

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

8 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

and indeed some of this work has been reviewed elsewhere (Jokinen, 2005).
However, a number of studies will be examined in the hope that this knowledge
might inform a similar undertaking in the public sector. For Hollenbeck and
McCall, the global leader must possess seven competencies: (1) open mindedness
and flexibility; (2) value-added technical and business skills; (3) cultural interest
and sensitivity; (4) resilience, resourcefulness, optimism and energy; (5) ability to
deal with complexity; (6) have a stable personal life; and (7) to possess and engen-
der honesty and integrity (cited in Heames and Harvey, 2006). Another study
reported the six most commonly identified global leadership competencies cited
by global leaders themselves: (1) communication skills; (2) motivation to learn;
(3) flexibility; (4) open-mindedness; (5) respect for others; and (6) sensitivity
(Bueno and Tubbs, 2004). That was a more straightforward listing of competencies
than some of Tubbs’ other work where he and a colleague proposed a taxonomy of
seven leadership meta-competencies (understanding the big picture; attitudes are
everything; leadership, the driving force; communication, the leader’s voice; innov-
ation and creativity; leading change; and teamwork and followership), which were
underscored by 50 specific leadership competencies (Tubbs and Schulz, 2006).
Sheppard et al. (2013) identified a number of leadership competencies required
to cope effectively with the three key themes (global ethics, global tempo and
global risk) and associated issues (bribery/corruption/corporate social responsibil-
ity; virtual teams/climate change/data confidentiality; terrorism/pandemics/natural
disasters/financial crises) that confront 21st century leaders. In their conceptual
model, leaders need to be ethical, moral, compassionate and authentic; they need
to be decisive decision-makers, provide intelligent stewardship, be globally strategic
and have a cross-cultural perspective; finally, they need to be transformative,
innovative and proactive.
The remaining scholarship reviewed here shares a common feature: these studies
identify competency models that distinguish between a group of core competencies
and a secondary set of skills or behaviours that are thought to be relevant to being
an effective global leader. For example, Jokinen (2005) offers an integrative frame-
work, comprising 13 competencies, for consideration. She identified a number of
‘‘core global leadership competencies’’, including self-awareness, engagement in
personal transformation and inquisitiveness. Her model then includes what she
calls the ‘‘desired mental characteristics of leaders’’. Optimism, self-regulation,
social judgement skills, empathy, motivation to work internationally, cognitive
skills and acceptance of complexity were all placed in this cluster. Her final cat-
egory, ‘‘desired behavior competencies of global leaders’’, makes reference to social
skills, networking skills and knowledge.
Brownell (2006) has suggested that global leaders are characterized by two sets
of competencies: common competencies, which are the foundational skills and
knowledge that can be mastered by most people through either a formal business
curriculum or some other training and development process, and distinctive com-
petencies, which relate to individual characteristics and are more complex in nature
and therefore difficult to achieve. The former competencies are necessary but

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mau 9

insufficient for effective global leadership. The author does not provide a complete
listing of what would be classified as the common competencies, but does refer to
effective communication, human relations skills and team effectiveness. She dedi-
cates far more attention to outlining the distinctive competencies, which require
development over an extended period of time and can only be assessed in real-life
job settings.
There are seven unique competency clusters in her model, each with two or more
competencies: (1) intercultural (cultural sensitivity; cultural intelligence; global
mindset); (2) social (emotional intelligence (EQ); empathy; self-control); (3) cre-
ativity/resourcefulness (breakthrough thinking; innovativeness; synergistic orienta-
tion); (4) self-knowledge (self-efficacy; self-reflective); (5) positive outlook (vision;
passion; optimism); (6) responsiveness (flexible; agile; opportunistic); and (7) deci-
sion-making (decisive; sound judgment; intuitive). At the heart of this model is the
‘‘distinctive competency of character – the core dimension that influences other
aspects of leader behaviour’’ (Brownell, 2006: 321). Global leaders must be beyond
reproach; they must be trustworthy and demonstrate the highest levels of integrity.
A final feature of the model is that the distinctive competency requirements are
influenced by context. In other words, certain distinctive competencies will take on
greater priority in different contexts. For example, decision-making competencies
will be prioritized in an organization characterized by high task complexity, while
one with a weak organizational culture will place a premium on positive outlook
competencies.
The final model to be considered has a similar bifurcation of competencies: there
are the five essential capabilities of effective managers, which are necessary for
effective leadership irrespective of whether the setting is local or global, and
there are a series of pivotal capabilities that are pertinent for those managers
working in a global (and not exclusively domestic) role (Dalton et al., 2002).
Whether managing in a local or global setting, a manager must have the ability
to manage people, action and information, cope with pressure and possess core
business knowledge. However, the behaviours and knowledge associated with each
of these roles will be different for the global manager. In addition to these essential
capabilities, global managers must be versed in four pivotal capabilities: (1) inter-
national business knowledge; (2) cultural adaptability; (3) perspective-taking; and
(4) ability to innovate. For each of these pivotal capabilities there is a list of
associated behaviours that define the successful global manager.
Based on this review of the literature on global leadership competencies it is
difficult not to draw the same conclusion that others have proffered, namely that
while the need for such leaders is palpable, there is very little consensus regarding
the competencies that are emblematic of success for global leaders (Jokinen, 2005).
Nevertheless, a couple of key issues do emerge. The first is the widespread recog-
nition of the importance of cultural understanding for global leaders. This is what
some scholars have referred to as the global mindset. While globalization has meant
that we live in an increasingly interconnected world, that ‘‘does not mean cul-
tural differences are disappearing or diminishing’’ (Javidan and House, 2001: 291).

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

10 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Even Baruch (2002), who questions the concept of the global manager, concedes
that managers need to have a real appreciation of local customs and culture. The
second is the emphasis on the need for global leaders to be men and women of the
highest moral and ethical character. While this has always been a condition of
effective leadership, the fact that so many leading figures in business, politics and
government have suffered from ethical lapses in recent years serves to accentuate
the need for global leaders to model the way for others in this regard.
These points have particular relevance for how a leadership competency model
might be created for a global public service. Before considering them further, how-
ever, the next section of the article provides a brief overview and comparative
analysis of the public sector leadership competency models that have been adopted
in various countries.

Leadership competencies for a global public service

Table 1 provides an overview of the public sector leadership competency models
that have been implemented by seven different governments. With the exception of
South Africa, these are models that have been adopted in Western industrialized
democracies, which is somewhat problematic. It would have been advantageous to
analyze a much broader range of pre-existing competency models from less
developed countries in Africa and Asia and the emerging democracies in post-
communist Europe since their cultures and political systems are very different
from those of the nation-states sampled here. This might have revealed a
number of pertinent leadership competencies that are not part of these models.
Auluck and Levin’s (2009: 54) cautionary note is especially relevant: ‘‘The specific
competencies required of those forming part of the global public service corps need
careful consideration, taking into account national and regional specificities and
sensitivities as a means of minimizing the risk of imposing a culturally specific and
dangerously one-sided monopoly on the requirements’’. This limitation notwith-
standing, a review of these models should prove to be insightful for contemplating
the formulation of a leadership competency model for a global public service.
Without undertaking a detailed consideration of each model, what conclusions
can be drawn about them that might prove to be instructive for the creation of a
global public service leadership competency model? The first observation is that
while there is obvious overlap between the models, with a number of analogous
competencies such as the ability to mobilize and engage people, think and act
strategically and produce results, there is also notable variation in both the content
and complexity of the models. For example, the Canadian model, with only four
competencies, is elegant in its simplicity, whereas both the Australian and Dutch
models have in excess of 20 competencies. Several of the models organize the
competencies into a smaller number of clusters, presumably to make the models
easier to remember and thus more practical from an HRM perspective.
Two models (US and South Africa) have certain competencies (fundamental com-
petencies and process competencies respectively) that are to be evaluated against

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

 Table 1. Public sector leadership competency models
AUSTRALIA
Mau

Senior Executive
Leadership Capability
Framework (2001) UNITED STATES CANADA UNITED KINGDOM NEW ZEALAND NETHERLANDS
& Integrated Executive Core Key Leadership Civil Service SOUTH AFRICA Chief Executive Competencies
Leadership Qualifications Competencies Competency SMS Competency Competency for Senior
System (2004) (2006) Model (2004) Framework (2012) Framework (2011) Profile (2009) Managers (2000)

Shapes Strategic Leading Change Strategic Setting Direction Core Competencies Strategic Coherent
Thinking (Creativity & Thinking (Strategic Cluster) (Strategic capability Leadership Governance
(Inspires a Sense Innovation; External (Innovating (Seeing the big and leadership; (Develop long range (Vision on the future;
of Purpose & Awareness; Flexibility; through analysis picture; Changing People management strategies and plans) Target orientation;
Direction; Focuses Resilience; Strategic and ideas) and improving; Making and empowerment; Network skills;
Strategically; Harnesses Thinking; Vision) effective decisions) Programme and Binding leadership)
Information & project management;
Opportunities; Shows Fundamental Financial management;
Judgment; Intelligence Competencies Change management)
& Common Sense
Cultivates Productive Building Engagement Engaging People Process Personal and Interpersonal
Working Relationships Coalitions (Mobilizing (People Cluster) Competencies Interpersonal Behaviour
(Nurtures Internal & (Partnering; people, (Leading and (Knowledge management; Skills (Listening;
External Relationships; Political Savvy; organizations communicating; Service delivery (Highly developed Interpersonal
Facilitates Cooperation Influencing/ and partners) Collaborating and innovation; personal and sensitivity;
& Partnerships; Values Negotiating) partnering; Building Problem solving and interpersonal skills) Flexible behaviour;
Individual Differences capability for all) analysis; Client orientation Development of
& Diversity; Guides, Fundamental and customer focus; collaborators)

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mentors & Develops Competencies Communication)
People)
Achieves Results Results Driven Management Delivering Results Operating Operational
(Builds Organizational (Accountability; Excellence (Performance Skills Effectiveness
Capacity & Customer (Delivering through Cluster) (Create focus and (Initiative;
Responsiveness; Service; Decisiveness; action (Achieving commercial get things done) Control;
Marshals Professional Entrepreneurship; management, outcomes; Delivering Delegation;
Expertise; Steers Problem-Solving; people manage value for money; Fast interplay)
& Implements Technical Credibility) ment Managing a quality
Change & Deals with and financial service; Delivering
Uncertainty; Ensures Fundamental management) at pace)
Closure & Delivers Competencies
11

on Intended Results)
(continued)
 Table 1. Continued
12

AUSTRALIA
Senior Executive
Leadership Capability
Framework (2001) UNITED STATES CANADA UNITED KINGDOM NEW ZEALAND NETHERLANDS
& Integrated Executive Core Key Leadership Civil Service SOUTH AFRICA Chief Executive Competencies
Leadership Qualifications Competencies Competency SMS Competency Competency for Senior
System (2004) (2006) Model (2004) Framework (2012) Framework (2011) Profile (2009) Managers (2000)

Exemplifies Personal Leading People Values and ***Civil Service Acting with Governance
Drive and Integrity (Conflict Management; Ethics Values Honour Sensitivity
(Demonstrates Public Leveraging Diversity; (Serving with Honesty, integrity, and Integrity (Environmental
Service, Professionalism & Developing Others; integrity and impartiality (Role model the awareness;
Probity; Engages Team Building) respect) and objectivity are ethics, standards Governance
with Risk & Shows at the heart of and behaviours set affinity;
Personal Courage; Fundamental everything that public out in the Standards Integrity;
Commits to Action; Competencies servants do of Integrity and Dedication)
Displays Resilience; Conduct)
Demonstrates Self-
Awareness & a
Commitment
to Personal Development)
Communicates Business Acumen Organizational Problem
with Influence (Financial Management; Positioning Skills Solving
(Communicates Clearly; Human Capital (Understand the (Information
Listens, Understands & Management; political analysis;

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Adapts to Audience; Technology Management) and organizational Judgment;
Negotiates Persuasively) context within Conceptual
Fundamental Competencies which they work) flexibility;
Resoluteness)
Courage Impact
(Do not shirk (Oral presentation;
responsibility Self-confidence;
and take the lead on Convincing
contentious issues) power;
Tenacity)
International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)
 Table 1. Continued
Mau

AUSTRALIA
Senior Executive
Leadership Capability
Framework (2001) UNITED STATES CANADA UNITED KINGDOM NEW ZEALAND NETHERLANDS
& Integrated Executive Core Key Leadership Civil Service SOUTH AFRICA Chief Executive Competencies
Leadership Qualifications Competencies Competency SMS Competency Competency for Senior
System (2004) (2006) Model (2004) Framework (2012) Framework (2011) Profile (2009) Managers (2000)

Energy and Drive Resilience

(Demonstrate energy (Energy;
and drive for better Stress resistance;
results) Performance
motivation;
Learning capacity)
5 core capability 5 ECQs with 28 overall 4 competencies 3 clusters with 5 core competencies 7 competencies 7 clusters with 4
clusters with 22 competencies, 6 of 10 overall with 5 distinct process competencies for
overall competencies which are deemed to competencies, with competencies, all of each cluster
be fundamental values underpinning which are applied (28 overall
competencies all competencies against each of the competencies)
(interpersonal core competencies
skills, oral
communication,
integrity/honesty, written
communication, continual
learning and public

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

service motivation)

Source: Australia, 2004; Canada, 2005; Hondeghem and Vandermulen, 2000; NZ, 2009; South Africa, 2011; UK, 2012; US, 2006.
13
14 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

each of the specified core competencies. Moreover, most of the models are very
generic. In the case of New Zealand, the model is overtly based on competency
profiles provided by Lominger International, a private consultancy firm that cus-
tomizes generic competencies for its clients. But there is very little in any of these
models that would suggest that they were designed with the intent of building a
public leadership brand, which should be the ultimate purpose of these competency
frameworks (Mau, 2009). Surprisingly, only the Canadian and newly revised
British leadership competency models put public service values and ethics front
and centre. This is problematic. Any leadership competency model for a global
public service must recognize the distinctiveness of working in the public sector and
focusing on traditional public service values and ethics would be an obvious way to
do that. Such a model must also explicitly recognize that there is a qualitative
difference between international and national civil services. As Mathiason (2007:
69) explains:

Managing and working in an international secretariat is not like working in a national

government or private business. The multinational culture, complex environment, and
difficult tasks make international work a particular challenge. International organiza-
tion managers cannot be judged by the same criteria used to appraise a CEO or a
prime minister because the secretariats are not the same as other public organizations.

Notably, in Table 2, Auluck and Levin (2009) outlined a series of competencies

for a global public service. They identified a total of 24 competencies, split between
11 baseline competencies that all public servants, irrespective of whether they

Table 2. Global public service competencies

Basic competencies Global public service competencies

Strategic thinking Commitment to the principles of global public good

Leadership Designing and delivering citizen-centred services
Policy planning and Commitment to equality, inclusivity, diversity and the
implementation principles of empowerment
Resource management Problem analysis and problem solving
Employee engagement Commitment to sustainable development
Service and systems innovation Managing crises and managing in crisis
and improvement Institutional development and capacity building
Managing stakeholders Collaborative working; cross-cultural co-operation
Change management Negotiation/listening skills/capacity to influence
Political astuteness Cultural sensitivity
Communication Emotional intelligence/pragmatism
Integrity Psycho-social stability
Specific technical expertise
Source: Auluck and Levin (2009: 55).

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mau 15

worked in a state-specific or global public service, would be required to possess and

an additional 13 specific competencies that would be essential for those individuals
seeking employment as part of this cadre of new public servants. Of particular
interest is their global public service competency of negotiation/listening/capacity
to influence since leaders in international organizations have a limited ability to
give orders and must rely instead on their ability to convince governments and civil
society actors to follow their guidance (Mathiason, 2007: 71). The authors are to be
commended for beginning the dialogue on this important issue, and in enumerating
their list of prospective competencies have provided a useful starting point for
contemplating how a leadership competency framework might be successfully
applied to a global public service.
However, their competency framework can be criticized on a number of fronts.
First, it suffers from one of the commonly cited weaknesses of such models, namely
that they often contain far too many competencies making it impossible for any
leader to be assessed favourably against them (Conger and Ready, 2004). The US
public sector leadership model, with only four more competencies than Auluck and
Levin have outlined, has been referred to as a ‘‘super-human list of ECQs’’ (Getha-
Taylor, 2010: 117), which ‘‘also contain seriously conflicting expectations’’
(Ingraham and Getha-Taylor, 2005: 802). Second, aside from the competencies
of ‘‘commitment to the principles of global public good’’ and ‘‘cultural sensitivity’’,
which are obviously critically important for those who will be working in different
countries with radically different societal and institutional values and cultures from
their own, it is difficult to discern why most of the global public service compe-
tencies are identified as basic competencies. After all, public servants working in
any state bureaucracy should be committed to designing and delivering high-qual-
ity citizen-centred services. This holds true for virtually all of the other global
competencies.
The final section of the article will consider the perceived benefits and limitations
of competency models, which will provide a basis for answering one of the key
questions guiding this research: is it possible to formulate and implement a
leadership competency model for the global public service?

Competency models: panacea or red herring?

Leadership competency models are ubiquitous in both the private and public
sectors. HRM professionals have championed them as a means of making better
talent management decisions: from identifying and selecting suitable employees, to
designing and delivering training and development programs, to rewarding
individuals for superior job performance. If created and used appropriately, lead-
ership competency models have unmistakable advantages. For Conger and Ready
(2004: 43), the benefits are clarity, consistency and connectivity: by adopting com-
petency models, ‘‘organizations [can] set clear expectations about the types of
behaviors, capabilities, mind-sets, and values that are important to those in lead-
ership roles’’. They connect a number of interrelated human resources practices

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

16 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

such as performance management, compensation, recruitment and succession

planning. For individual employees, the benefit of having a clearer and fairer selec-
tion and assessment process is evident. Furthermore, by having clear standards for
expected behaviour, employees can more effectively engage in self-development
(Hollenbeck et al., 2006). For Intagliata et al. (2000: 13), ‘‘competencies are a
critical lever to produce leadership brand within an organization’’. This is due to
the fact that competencies can be measured and learned and guide direction; they
can also integrate management practices, and be used to distinguish and differen-
tiate the organization.
However, competency models are not a panacea; as several scholars have noted,
they do have their limitations. Many leadership competency models are too
complicated, too conceptual and focus too much on past or present needs,
rather than the skills, knowledge and behaviours that will be required in future
to lead successfully (Conger and Ready, 2004; Ingraham and Getha-Taylor, 2005;
Intagliata et al., 2000). As Hood and Lodge (2004: 329) wrote: ‘‘Indeed, in none of
the cases did the competency frameworks seem to reflect a real vision of anticipated
future demands on upper-level civil servants’’. Furthermore, there is a need to
continually update and revise competency models to reflect the changing nature
of the work undertaken by organizational leaders. Mansfield (1996) has suggested
that competency models likely have a shelf life of less than two years. While many
of the public sector leadership models in Table 1 have been updated since they were
first conceived (Mau, 2009), most of them are now probably outdated.
As stated previously, these public sector leadership models are all too generic.
This is a criticism levelled against the use of such models in private sector
organizations (Intagliata et al., 2000), but it takes on even greater importance in
the context of the public sector. It is natural to find overlap in the requisite com-
petencies between nation-states given that all public servants engage in very similar
work. Furthermore, given the similarities of managing and leading in the public
and private sectors, it is not unexpected that some of the competencies identified
for public servants would mirror those of their private sector counterparts.
However, several of these models are virtually indistinguishable from a model
that might be utilized in a private sector corporation and many of them
(New Zealand being the notable exception) fail to adequately capture the essence
of providing management and leadership expertise in a highly politicized environ-
ment. As Ingraham and Getha-Taylor (2005) argued, political skills should be
reflected in the competency models for government organizations.
Other shortcomings associated with the competency approach have been iden-
tified. One issue relates to construct validity. In other words, is it possible to
operationalize a competency so that it can be observed and measured? Markus
et al. (2005) indicate that this is often a problem; studies document disagreement
between managers, staff and even experts when asked to provide operational def-
initions of competencies. A second concern has been raised over the lack of valid-
ation of competency models. Third, to what extent does the adoption of a
competency framework contribute to improved performance at both the individual

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mau 17

and organizational levels? Questions have been raised as to whether such models
are effective (Markus et al., 2005). It may also be the case that there are compe-
tencies that cannot be measured or observed reliably. How can the use of a
competency model recognize the ‘‘extraordinary and unpredictable things’’ that
successful executives often do (Briscoe and Hall, 1999: 45)?
When focusing on a leadership competency model for a global public service the
challenge of ensuring its effectiveness is even more formidable. Referring to the
global manager, Baruch (2002: 41) stated,

There is no consistent way to characterize a global manager. A variety of relevant

factors make it inappropriate to suggest specific attributes such as a set of job skills,
personality traits, or cultural origin. A wide set of contingencies makes it impossible to
specify the overall propensity of success of a manager managing abroad.

It is difficult not to be equally sceptical with respect to the application of a

leadership competency model for a global public service. A generic, or universal-
istic, approach is certainly doomed to fail given the unique cultural and political
circumstances with which global public servants would be faced, not to mention the
diverse range of jobs that they would be tasked with undertaking. If a leadership
competency model can be developed for the global public service it would assuredly
need to be situationalist. Such an approach recognizes that ‘‘competencies are
deeply influenced by organizational culture, social interaction, and the unique
way people make sense of their jobs within organizations . . . they share the
perspective that competencies are idiosyncratic situated constructs’’ (Capaldo
et al., 2006: 430).

Conclusion
Irrespective of their limitations, leadership competency models have been widely
used in both the private and public sectors. They first garnered attention in the
early 1970s, but it was about two decades later before they became an integral
component of the HRM practices of private sector corporations. It is now difficult
to find a leading company that has not implemented a leadership competency
model as a means of recruiting, hiring, training and rewarding their human
talent. The public sector, with a long history of innovating using developments
from the private sector, was quick to follow suit. Leadership competency models
are now a mainstay of public services across the globe.
Recently, a few scholars have explored the concept of the global public service as
a means of addressing some of the complex, multifaceted problems that have
emerged with globalization. In this new world order, all states are impotent to
act alone in the face of wicked policy problems like global terrorism, climate
change, health pandemics and economic crisis. But the challenges confronting
developing states are especially acute since they often lose their most talented
people to better opportunities elsewhere in the world. Therefore, the notion of

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

18 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

having a cadre of some of the world’s best and brightest minds, who are committed
to the ideals of public service and are waiting to be deployed anywhere on the
planet, either to a nation-state’s public bureaucracy or any one of a number of
international organizations contributing to good governance, is certainly appeal-
ing. At present, the concept is underdeveloped but it is definitely one that merits
further reflection by scholars and practitioners alike to determine how to garner the
political will needed to make the global public service a reality and how it might
operate in practical terms.
This article contributes to that important debate by providing a preliminary
analysis of the latest developments in competency management research – the
quest for a global leadership competency model – and existing public sector lead-
ership competency models and how they might be adapted to formulate a suitable
framework for a global public service. The conclusion derived from this research is
that extreme caution should be utilized. It is probably too much to ask that a
generic competency model be formulated that could apply to all employees work-
ing in a global public service. Doing so would minimize the critical importance of
context, which would be foolhardy and probably render the model useless. After
all, these global public servants would be deployed to a wide range of governmental
and non-governmental institutions in a plethora of nation-states, each with their
own unique societal and organizational cultures, and operating within the
constraints imposed by the institutional structures of radically different political
systems. It is hard to envision how a generic leadership competency model would
work in these circumstances. However, a situationalist approach to formulating a
global public service leadership competency model, while more time-consuming
and expensive to develop and implement, may have some promise. Much work
remains to be done, but hopefully this research marks the beginning of renewed
efforts to engage in fruitful discussion of the global public service and the leader-
ship competencies required of its members.

Note
1. Intagliata et al. (2000) argue that few organizations have successfully used such models to
help solidify a leadership brand.

References
Argyriades D (2005) Administering global governance. In: Fraser-Moleketi G (ed.) The
World We Could Win. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. xix–xxxi.
Auluck R and Levin R (2009) Developing global public servants for good governance and
sustainable development. In: Pagaza IP and Argyriades D (eds) Winning the Needed
Change. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 48–63.
Australia. Australian Public Service Commission (2004) The Integrated Leadership System.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Baruch Y (2002) No such thing as a global manager. Business Horizons 45(1): 36–42.
Benner T, Reinicke W and Witte JM (2004) Multisectoral networks in global governance.
Government and Opposition 39(2): 191–210.

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

Mau 19

Bolden R and Gosling J (2006) Leadership competencies. Leadership 2(2): 147–163.

Brans M and Hondeghem A (2005) Competency frameworks in the Belgian governments.
Public Administration 83(4): 823–837.
Briscoe JP and Hall DT (1999) Grooming and picking leaders using competency frame-
works. Organizational Dynamics 28(2): 37–52.
Brownell J (2006) Meeting the competency needs of global leaders. Human Resource
Management 45(3): 309–336.
Bueno C and Tubbs S (2004) Identifying global leadership competencies. Journal of
American Academy of Business, Cambridge 5(1/2): 80–87.
Cabrera L (2011) Introduction. In: Cabrera L (ed.) Global Governance, Global Government.
New York: SUNY Press, pp. 1–25.
Canada. Canada Public Service Agency (2005) Key Leadership Competencies. Ottawa: CPSA
and Public Service Commission.
Capaldo G, Iandoli L and Zollo G (2006) A situationist perspective to competency man-
agement. Human Resource Management 45(3): 429–448.
Conger J and Ready D (2004) Rethinking leadership competencies. Leader to Leader 32
(Spring): 41–47.
Dalton M, Ernst C, Deal J and Leslie J (2002) Success for the New Global Manager. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Duggett M (2005) Defining terms and delineating the debate in global governance.
In: Fraser-Moleketi G (ed.) The World We Could Win. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp.
xi–xvii.
Fraser-Moleketi G (2005) The world we could win. In: Fraser-Moleketi G (ed.) The World
We Could Win. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. vii–x.
Getha-Taylor H (2010) Identifying collaborative competencies. Review of Public Personnel
Administration 28(2): 103–119.
Gosling J and Mintzberg H (2003) The five minds of a manager. Harvard Business Review
81(11): 54–63.
Hanna J (2011) The death of the global manager. Harvard Business School. Available at:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6761.html (accessed 22 March 2015).
Heames J and Harvey M (2006) The evolution of the concept of the ‘executive’ from the 20th
century manager to the 21st century global leader. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies 13(2): 29–41.
Hollenbeck GP, McCall MW Jr and Silzer RF (2006) Leadership competency models.
Leadership Quarterly 17: 398–413.
Hondeghem A and Vandermeulen F (2000) Competency management in the Flemish and
Dutch civil service. International Journal of Public Sector Management 13(4): 342–353.
Hood C and Lodge M (2004) Competency, bureaucracy, and public management reform.
Governance 17(3): 313–333.
Horton S (2000) Competency management in the British civil service. The International
Journal of Public Sector Management 13(4): 354–368.
Ingraham PW and Getha-Taylor H (2005) Common sense, competence, and talent in the
public service in the USA. Public Administration 83(4): 789–803.
Intagliata J, Urlich D and Smallwood N (2000) Leveraging leadership competencies to
produce leadership brand. Human Resource Planning 23(3): 12–23.
Javidan M and House R (2001) Cultural acumen for the global manager. Organizational
Dynamics 29(4): 289–305.

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

20 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Jokinen T (2005) Global leadership competencies. Journal of European Industrial Training

29(3): 199–216.
Kets de Vries MFR and Florent-Treacy E (2002) Global leadership from A to Z.
Organizational Dynamics 30(4): 295–309.
Lodge M and Hood C (2005) Symposium introduction. Public Administration 83(4):
779–787.
Mansfield RS (1996) Building Competency Models. Human Resource Management 35(1): 7–
18.
Markus L, Cooper-Thomas H and Allpress K (2005) Confounded by competencies? New
Zealand Journal of Psychology 34(2): 117–126.
Mathiason J (2007) Invisible Governance. Bloomfield CT: Kumarian Press.
Mau TA (2009) Is public sector leadership distinct? In: Raffel J, Leisink P and Middlebrooks
A (eds) Public Sector Leadership. Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. 313–339.
Müller P and Lederer M (2005) Introduction. In: Lederer M and Müller P (eds) Criticizing
Global Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–19.
New Zealand. State Services Commission (2009) New Zealand Public Service Chief Executive
Competency Profile.
Orazi D, Turrini A and Valotti G (2013) Public sector leadership. International Review of
Administrative Sciences 79(3): 486–504.
Osborne D and Gaebler T (1992) Reinventing Government. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Rhodes RAW (1994) The hollowing out of the state. Political Quarterly 65(2): 138–151.
Sheppard J-A, Sarros J and Santora J (2013) Twenty-first century leadership. Management
Decision 51(2): 267–280.
Shim D-S (2001) Recent human resources developments in OECD member countries. Public
Personnel Management 30(3): 323–347.
South Africa. Department of Public Service Administration (2011) Senior Management
Service Handbook.
Tubbs S and Schulz E (2006) Exploring a taxonomy of global leadership competencies and
meta-competencies. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 8(2): 29–34.
United Kingdom. Civil Service Human Resources (2012) Civil Service Competency
Framework, 2012–2017.
United States. OPM (2006) Guide to Senior Executive Service Qualifications. Washington:
US OPM.
Van Wart M (2003) Public sector leadership theory. Public Administration Review 63(2):
214–228.
Van Wart M (2013) Administrative Leadership Theory: A reassessment after 10 years.
Public Administration 91(3): 521–543.
Wendt A (2011) Why a world state is inevitable. In: Cabrera L (ed.) Global Governance,
Global Government. New York: SUNY Press, pp. 27–64.

Tim A. Mau is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the

University of Guelph. He has published broadly on a variety of topics in public
administration, particularly in the area of public sector leadership. He is a co-editor
of the book (with OP Dwivedi and Byron Sheldrick), The Evolving Physiology of
Government: Canadian Public Administration in Transition (Ottawa: Ottawa
University Press, 2009) and Perspectives on Governance and Society (Jaipur:
Rawat Publications, 2013).

Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com by guest on July 17, 2015

View publication stats