The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers, or Enterprising Leaders? Some Evidence About Innovative Public Managers
Abstract
One element of the debate over New Public Management concerns public‐sector entrepreneurship. Critics see entrepreneurs as people prone to rule breaking, self‐promotion, and unwarranted risk taking, while proponents view them as exercising leadership and taking astute initiatives. This article examines two samples of the best applications to the Ford Foundation—Kennedy School of Government innovation awards, one between 1990 and 1994 and the other between 1995 and 1998, to see whether they are more consistent with the critics' or proponents' views. The second sample closely replicates the first, and the evidence from both strongly supports the proponents' views. Innovators are creatively solving public‐sector problems and are usually proactive in that they deal with problems before they escalate to crises. They use appropriate organizational channels to build support for their ideas. They take their opponents seriously and attempt to win support for their ideas through persuasion or accommodation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
DE VRIES, H., BEKKERS, V., & TUMMERS, L. (2016) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12209 · Cited by 1,214
Digitally-induced change in the public sector: a systematic review and research agenda
Haug, N., Dan, S., & Mergel, I. (2024) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917 · Cited by 266
How smart can government be? Exploring barriers to the adoption of smart government
Schedler, K., Guenduez, A. A., & Frischknecht, R. (2019) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-180095 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Borins, S.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 498-507
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2043460714
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.