Mayors’ leadership roles in direct participation processes – the case of community-owned wind farms

• Date: 09 July 2018
• Published date: 09 July 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2017-0182
• Pages: 617-637
• Author: Franziska Wallmeier,Julia Thaler
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

Mayors’leadership roles in direct

participation processes –the case

of community-owned wind farms

Franziska Wallmeier

Department of Business Administration, Public and Nonprofit Management,

Business School, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, and

Julia Thaler

Department of Business Administration and Public Management,

Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

Abstract

Purpose –The design of participation processes influences their effectiveness. In light of processes which include

both mandated and non-mandated direct participation and take place in collaboration with other actors, adequate

leadership roles are an indispensable but challenging process element. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how

mayors exercise leadership roles in such processes and how this relates to effective participation processes.

Design/methodology/approach –Applying a qualitative comparative case study design (n¼7), this

study investigates mayors’leadership roles relative to other actors’roles in the process of establishing a

community-owned wind farm. Data collection relied on 21 semi-structured interviews, triangulated with

documentary analyses and nine field-level expert interviews.

Findings –Findings reveal mayors’exclusive roles of guarantor, formal convener, facilitator, and sponsor

based on authority. Mayors’various shared roles relate primarily to non-mandated participation. Mayors face

tensions in their role exercise due to citizens’expectations and their personal involvement. They experience a

positive impact of shared leadership on the effectiveness of the participation process.

Practical implications –Mayors need to exercise specific leadership roles relative to other actors to

effectively manage participation processes. Adequate role exercise relates to sensitization and mobilization

for the issue, weakened opposition, and project adjustment to citizen demands. A strategic approach to

process design can support mayors in their leadership efforts.

Originality/value –This paper adds to the knowledge on mayors’leadership roles in participation

processes and concretizes tensions and effectiveness of collaborative leadership. The paper reflects on the

inference of findings for administrators as compared to mayors.

Keywords Case study, Citizen participation, Leadership roles, Community energy

Paper type Research paper

Introduction and research objective

Due to its link to effectiveness, the design of participation processes has become a focal

point for research and practice. Public managers must be equipped with knowledge on “[h]

ow to design participat[ion] processes to achieve desirable outcomes”(Bryson et al., 2013,

p. 23), such as meeting legal requirements or higher quality policies. Process design relates

to questions of input (who participates, when, why, how) and transformation (leadership

roles, sequencing of activities) (Roberts, 2004) and thereby influences both process and

outcome levels of participation processes (Bryson et al., 2013).

Adopting adequateleadership roles in directparticipation processes hasbeen proven to be

a success factorfor public managers: from a collaborativegovernance perspective,the roles of

sponsor,champion, facilitator, and convenerare in particular referredto as crucial for effective

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 31 No. 5, 2018

pp. 617-637

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-07-2017-0182

Received 6 July 2017

Revised 24 November 2017

26 January 2018

Accepted 6 February 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

This research project was supportedby the German Academic Exchange Service. The authors are grateful

for comments received by the anonymous reviewers and at the 75th Academy of Management Meeting

(2015), the 18th International Research Society for Public Management Conference (2014) and the 36th

European Group of Public Administration Conference (2014). Finally, the authors thank their colleagues for

helpful suggestions.

617

Mayors’

leadership

roles

leadership in direct participation processes (Bryson et al., 2013; Nabatchi and Amsle r, 2014).

In that sense, direct participation processes are an extreme case of collaborative governance,

where differentactors lead collaborativeprocesses to achieve particularoutcomes (Ansell and

Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012). In this line of thinking, authors call for a shift from

managerial roles of administration to the named collaborative roles to enable administrative

systems and processes for effective participation (King et al., 1998).

For public managers’traditional administrative roles, “the central component of

administering is decision-making”(Harmon and Mayer, 1986, p. 35). This component,

however, clashes with the characteristics and normative ideal of participation processes of

power sharing and decision making by individuals beyond the administrator and elected

officials (Roberts, 2004). Thus, a shift of traditional to collaborative leadership roles is a

difficult endeavor for public managers. Public managers are confronted with role

conflicts which “pull them in different directions –from being an efficient, responsive

professional to being colearners and stewards of public trust”(Roberts, 2004, p. 343).

This is particularly true when looking at current practices of direct participation and

mayors’roles.

Such current practices cover (legally) mandated participation, such as public hearings

and non-mandated participation opportunities, such as informational events or roundtables.

Public managers increasingly apply non-mandated participation opportunities in addition

to legally mandated participation. This in return challenges existing administrative

procedures and the application of established behaviors (Bryson et al., 2013; Nelson and

Svara, 2015). In particular, in times of collaborative governance, the involvement of public,

private for-profit (market), and nonprofit (civil society) actors (Aylett, 2013; Emerson et al.,

2012) intensifies the discussion on leadership roles fulfilled by public managers in direct

participation processes.

Although diverse research on roles for public managers exists, especially in collaborative

public management research, there is little knowledge on how mayors as public managers

exercise their leadership roles in participation processes. The role of public managers has

become more multi-facetted: “[public] managers may even be directly elected by the

population on a political mandate”(Lane and Wallis, 2009, p. 107). Therefore, this study

investigates two focal research questions:

RQ1. How do mayors as public managers act in participation processes characterized by

both mandated and non-mandated forms of participation, such as by exercising

specific leadership roles relative to other actors?

RQ2. How does role exercise relate to the effectiveness of participation processes?

To address these research questions, the authors first review existing knowledge about

leadership roles in direct participation processes. Second, using a qualitative comparative

case study design on a novel partnership form in the highly contested arena of community

energy, this study analyzes mayors’roles across seven cases. In particular, five key findings

on role exercise, role patterns (collaborative leadership and role sharing), experienced effects

and effectiveness are presented. This paper concludes with a discussion on role exercise and

implications for theory and practice.

The research objective is exploratory in nature. The resulting contributions are twofold.

First, this micro-level perspective provides insights into the management of citizen

participation by focusing on mayors’leadership roles. This study integrates traditional

administrative with collaborative leadership roles and thereby enhances the administration-

participation debate (Pedersen and Johannsen, 2016). This knowledge leads to practical

implications for mayors and public managers supporting them in their daily challenging

work. Second, the research design accounts for influencing factors of participation processes

to enable inferential generalizability of findings. By keeping context (Nabatchi and

618

IJPSM

31,5