Leadership development in governments of the United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Developing the next generation of leaders in government is seen as a strategic challenge of national importance in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This article examines the wicked nature of the UAE’s leadership development challenge, identifying patterns of complexity, uncertainty, and divergence in the strategic intentions underlying current leadership development efforts. It then explores the potential impact of re-framing leadership development programmes for government employees using the concept of ‘public leadership’. Responding to calls in the literature for situated and context-sensitive explorations of leadership, it draws upon recent empirical research and literature to conceptualise public leadership for the UAE before identifying three potential contributions: an orientation towards collective, public values; a connection into needed skills frameworks; and access to innovations in the design of public leadership development interventions. The article concludes that the re-framing of ‘public leadership’ has the potential to help make substantial progress on the UAE’s strategic leadership development challenge, but is not a silver bullet. Further research on both the concept, and its impact if adopted for leadership development programmes, will be required.

Keywords

Public leadership leadership development United Arab Emirates wicked problem re-framing

Introduction

The need for more leadership in government is seen as a strategic challenge of national importance in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This article examines the wicked nature of the UAE’s leadership development challenge, and explores the potential contribution of re-framing leadership development programmes for government employees using the concept of ‘public leadership’.

Academic interest in public leadership has burgeoned in recent years, exploring it as contingent upon its specific, bounded context (Brookes and Grint, 2008; Dinh et al., 2014, Getha-Taylor et al., 2011). This growing literature can be loosely termed the ‘contemporary public leadership perspective’. In parallel, and intertwined with the development of public leadership, many recent studies in leadership development have taken a relational, social and situated perspective, encouraging leadership development alongside leadership research to become more context-sensitive (Edwards et al., 2013; Kempster and Stewart, 2010). Animated by these complimentary perspectives, I aim to address the question: how might re-framing government leadership development programmes with the concept of public leadership contribute to the UAE’s strategic leadership development challenge? The article proceeds in three steps. First, I examine the UAE’s strategic leadership development challenge through the lens of ‘wicked problems’. Next, I explore the potential value of re-framing leadership development programmes in government using the concept of public leadership. Finally, I offer some conclusions and suggestions for further research.

Leadership development as a wicked problem

In a recent study, an élite sample of senior officials identified ‘developing the next generation of leaders’ as a strategic challenge for UAE governments (Mathias, 2017). Formal leadership development was consistently seen as part of the solution, yet diagnoses of the nature of the challenge varied. In order to understand the challenge more deeply, I explore it through the lens of ‘wicked problems’. The concept of wicked problems was first articulated over forty years ago (Churchman, 1967; Rittel and Webber, 1973); recently, scholars have sought to define wicked problems for the public sphere in the twenty-first century. Wicked problems are defined as unstructured, cross-cutting, overlapping and relentless (Weber and Khademian, 2008), intractable, politically and socially constructed (Newman and Head, 2015) characterised by complexity, disputation and discontinuity (Head and Alford, 2015; Roberts, 2000). Head (2008) offers a useful heuristic, defining wicked problems as a combination of the problem’s complexity, uncertainty around risks and the consequences of actions, and divergence in viewpoints and strategic intentions. I adopt Head’s heuristic to examine some main characteristics of the UAE’s strategic leadership development challenge.

Complexity

Developing the next generation of leaders is a national policy concern and a strategic challenge for both federal and local governments across the UAE (WAM, 2016a, WAM, 2016c). Three key dimensions of the challenge can be identified in recent research: leader numbers; values; and skills.

First, UAE governments need to recruit or appoint sufficient people to formal leadership positions within government organisations. The UAE has a population of approximately nine million people, of which nationals are estimated to constitute just 16% (c. 1.4 million) (UN Data, 2015). Facing such an imbalance in the population, it is considered a matter of national interest for Emiratis to hold leadership positions in organisations across all sectors in order to retain control. To illustrate, the Dubai government alone, as one of seven local governments in the federal UAE, encompasses 47 public bodies (Dubai Smart Government, 2016). As a result, a significant proportion of the Emirati population is needed to fill senior and strategic posts in government organisations (Green, 2015).

Second, calls for leadership are normative, expressing an aspiration for certain qualities in senior post-holders rather than simply a desire for posts to be filled. Mathias (2017) identifies concerns about both the values and the skills of the next generation of UAE public leaders. Current leaders view many in the younger generation as holding individualistic values that are in conflict with the collectivist orientation required of public servants. Young Emiratis, conditioned by a generous welfare state and localisation policies, have high expectations in terms of financial rewards and rapid promotion. These expectations are pinpointed by some as symbolic of the clash of values between the younger generation and public leadership:

I rather have you learn, develop, be well prepared to the next stage. And this is what we tend to see in the younger generation. They’re eager to, you know, to be a CEO in five years, which is an issue. (Senior government leader. Unpublished interview by author. Tape recording. Dubai, 10 October, 2015).

Third, the Mathias (2017) study uncovered concerns about a skills gap in the public leadership pipeline: the strategic environment for UAE governments is described as dynamic, with new challenges constantly generated by shifts in the social, political and economic context – challenges such as the evolving demographic mix of the UAE, diversification of the economy and regional instability. In this context, senior public leaders voiced concern that future government leaders should be able to monitor the strategic landscape for both threats and opportunities. However, as one succinctly articulated, the current pipeline of government leaders (broadly identified as those currently in middle management roles) “…are micro-leaders, they are not macro-leaders” (Senior government leader. Unpublished interview by author. Tape recording. Dubai, 13 October, 2015).

Mathias (2017) also finds that the future generation of leaders is perceived to have inadequate skills in other core areas. Public leadership is seen as demanding stronger communication skills, more engagement with stakeholders, more coordination with partners, and greater skill in motivating teams – as well as the traditional public administration skills of policy development and financial management. All are seen as worrying skills gaps in the next generation of UAE public leaders, but with different skills emphasised by different leaders.

Divergence in strategic intentions

Leadership development in UAE governments is connected to three national strategies, which afford vital contextualisation: localisation; youth engagement; and government transformation. All three are high priority for national leaders, but stakeholders often view leadership development through a greater commitment to one strategic intention over others (for an illustration of this, see Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government (2016)).

Like many countries in the Arabian Gulf, the UAE is committed to a strategy of localisation, replacing foreign workers with nationals in their domestic labour markets. Government organisations have taken the lead in offering opportunities to nationals to join the workforce, with considerable success. As a result however, government is today described by critics as ‘bloated’ and ‘saturated’ (Al-Waqfi and Forstenlechner, 2012; Dedousis and Rutter, 2015). Localisation has also driven government organisations to offer jobs to Emiratis without appropriate qualifications or experience, exacerbating development needs (Biygautane, 2016). At the same time, the financial incentives, benefits and hours available from government mean that it persists as the preferred employment destination amongst nationals (Hertog, 2012).

Youth engagement is a parallel priority to localisation and also influences strategic thinking and action around leadership development in government. In recent years, the UAE, like other countries in the Middle East and North Africa, has seen an increase in its youth population to over 30%, compared to nearer 20% in Western countries, which has put significant strain on its education system and labour market (Hassan et al., 2016). Youth alienation is associated with both poorer social and economic outcomes, as well as an increased risk of violent extremism (Veenkamp and Zeiger, 2014), risking instability. To increase engagement, UAE governments have launched a raft of initiatives including the UAE National Agenda for Youth, which explicitly identifies leadership development as part of the solution to youth engagement:

“…the National Agenda for Youth aims to empower [young people] to play a role in developing the country, as well as provide them with opportunities to sharpen their skills and unleash their leadership potential”

(Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, quoted in (WAM, 2016b), author’s emphasis).

Last, leadership development for government employees is also tightly associated with the Prime Minister’s agenda of government transformation, which explicitly targets delivering the UAE “the best government in the world” (John, 2013: para 4). The approach contained in this vision is strongly managerial, drawing on private sector/New Public Management frameworks such as quality management, performance management and performance improvement as the mechanisms to achieve ‘excellent’ public services (Rahman and Said, 2015). Indeed, the Dubai government, which forms the crucible for many governmental reforms in the UAE, has explicitly modelled itself on a private company (Salama, 2017). Lionisation of private sector practices has led to leadership in government being articulated and judged in terms of customer service, effectiveness and efficiency.

Uncertainty

The presence of multiple strategic intentions renders leadership development in UAE governments simultaneously high priority and ambiguous in terms of the ends to be achieved. Further uncertainty is evident in the debate surrounding the central plank of the current response: formal leadership development programmes.

Time-limited formal (non-academic) leadership development programmes are the most common form of leadership development intervention for UAE government employees in the UAE.¹ They have however been critiqued for failing to locate leadership in their public context. Al Dabbagh and Assad (2010) argue that these programmes and others in the Arab world encourage the building of individual competencies and a ‘personal brand’ over collectivist ideas of the public and civic responsibility. Similarly, a recent panel of senior executives in charge of leadership development across UAE governments concluded that, to date, their programmes had focussed too exclusively on technical competencies and that a priority is now to focus on the values and behaviours needed of government leaders (Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government, 2016).

The content of government leadership development programmes has also been censured for uncritically drawing on Western resources: programmes “tend to be based on Western leadership theories, and predominantly utilize Western leadership development approaches” (Kamali et al., 2015: para.1), and are often outsourced to Western training providers (Al-Dabbagh and Assaad, 2010) despite the fact that that cultural congruence is known to influence the effectiveness of leadership development (Mameli, 2013). Finally, the prominence of formal leadership development programmes can also be questioned. Leadership development strategies ideally encompass self-study and structured experiences alongside formal training and education (Van Wart, 2012). Anecdotally, however, the majority of government leadership development programmes in the UAE remain classroom- based with only some, such as the UAE Government Leaders Programme, embracing innovations such as field trips and expert seminars (Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government, 2016). These criticisms reflect an uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of the current approach to leadership development.

The strategic challenge of leadership development can thus be understood as a wicked problem. It is a complex mismatch between the numbers of appropriately skilled and motivated Emiratis to fill the formal leadership posts across UAE governments, and the numbers, skills and values of the next generation of Emiratis aspiring to fill those posts; yet the dimensions of that mismatch are viewed differently by different stakeholders. Moreover, the strategic intentions underpinning leadership development also vary across stakeholders, with localisation, youth engagement, or government transformation as three key competing priorities. In addition, there is evidence of uncertainty surrounding the focus, content and design of current leadership development programmes stemming from concerns about their institutional and cultural fit for a government in the Arab world.

Re-framing: public leadership development

Re-framing has been identified as one key response to wicked problems (Australian Public Service Commission, 2012; Grint, 2008). How problems are framed constrains not only how people understand problems, but also what they do in response (Rein and Schön, 1996). Frames selectively emphasise certain aspects of a situation by drawing different boundaries around it and by foregrounding some aspects over others (Termeer et al., 2015). Head and Alford (2015) observe that what counts as a problem and what counts as a solution are firmly framed by both institutional history and by stakeholder perspectives. Moreover, there is also typically a close two-way affiliation between how people view a problem and their action preferences (Head, 2014). Narrow frames can constrain the ideas and action options available. Re-framing however opens set ways of thinking, creating space for innovation (Rith and Dubberly, 2007). So how might re-framing leadership as public leadership help make progress on the wicked problem of leadership development in UAE governments?

The concept of UAE public leadership

In recent years, writing about leadership has become an industry that “continues, erroneously, to presume that leaders are all-important, that followers are unimportant, and that context is other than central” (Kellerman, 2013: 135). Simply put, leaders themselves have received too much attention. Scholars from a range of perspectives have sought to redress this imbalance. For government practitioners and scholars, the recently-emerged contemporary public leadership perspective is particularly relevant. The shared aim is to understand leadership in government and the public sphere, seeing it as shaped by its specific, bounded context, grappling with questions about the nature of public leadership and what makes it different to broader organisational leadership, and leadership in the private sector. A sufficient body of evidence and argument on the distinctiveness of public leadership has emerged for some to declare it a significant field in its own right (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2011). In this perspective, public leadership is understood to be the full range of activities engaged in by senior post-holders in government organizations to influence others’ actions, values and beliefs. Public leadership is thus relational and situated. It is:

“An interactive process between those we call leaders, the people who choose (or feel forced) to be led by them, and the environment in which their interaction takes place” (t’Hart, 2014: 10).

The UAE is a federal monarchy of seven Emirates founded in 1971, characterised by Arab–Muslim cultural heritage combined with a large expatriate population, and rapid economic development fuelled both by oil wealth and recent economic diversification. Government plays a crucial steering role in all aspects of society, and government departments, agencies and public corporations have been established to oversee and implement centrally defined strategies: Mathias, 2017 offers a first articulation of public leadership for this context. Here, public leadership refers to leadership involving senior government executives below the level of the royal rulers; while predominantly administrative, UAE public leadership cannot be fully disentangled from political leadership as the protagonists are appointed by and close to the centralised source of power, the ruling Sheikhs.

United Arab Emirates public leadership is situated institutionally within the federal Sheikhly monarchy. Power is centralised and senior public leaders locate their roles as nested in followership of royal rulers; the purpose of leadership is framed in terms of the delivery of change strategies that are set out by the respective rulers, and improving outcomes for society. They do so within a complex and shifting strategic environment, in which social and economic changes are driven by fast-paced, globalised trends. UAE public leadership is distinguished from leadership in the private sector by this purpose and by the socially-orientated values required, of service to Their Highnesses and to the community – though public leaders are expected to embrace managerial values too. These twin sets of values also shape the bureaucratic rules that characterise government organisations, and which public leaders must master (Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government, 2016).

United Arab Emirates public leadership combines managerial and relational practices. UAE public leaders primarily describe their day-to-day activities in terms of management practices – such as leading change, communicating, alignment, developing strategies and running the organisation – though operate routinely across multiple arenas within and beyond their own agencies (Mathias, 2017). They must combine strong managerial competencies with relational practices that enable them to work across multiple arenas. These relational practices include some rooted in traditional Emirati culture, such as the perceived need to inspire others as a role model, and to build long-term relationships with one’s peer cohort of Emirati leaders. These twin demands can be understood as a response to the parallel logics of Western management systems and traditional social structures at play, with the result that “successful leaders seem to play dual roles as work and social leaders” (Abdalla and Al-Homoud, 2001: 525).

The picture that emerges from the Mathias, 2017 study is of day-to-day UAE public leadership bearing many characteristics consistent with the broader contemporary public leadership perspective: the environment for public leadership being fast-changing, shaped by international dynamics that are to a significant degree outside the control of national governments. Citizens continue to turn to government to resolve complex challenges generated by these trends (Bennis, 2007), which challenge not just the technical and managerial competences of leaders but also the values and norms of the societies they serve (Brookes and Grint, 2010; Schwella, 2008). Management practices and skills are crucial to responding effectively, but are on their own insufficient, especially when operating beyond one’s own team and agency (Broussine, 2003; Kelman et al., 2013; O’Flynn, 2007). Instead, contemporary public leadership takes place across multiple arenas, which require leaders to adapt their skills and behaviours (Hartley, 2012; Stansfield, 2016).

There are of course differences too, generated by the UAE’s institutional and cultural context. With formal powers concentrated into the institution of monarchy, there is less room for subordinate public leaders to shape strategic vision and a greater emphasis on them as managerial leaders delivering the vision articulated at the top; monarchy however also simplifies – and perhaps sharpens – formal accountability upwards to Their Highnesses. Further, the peer cohort arena emerges as a key expression of local cultural preferences for long-term, in-group relationships. Public leaders’ contribution to leading the community is implicit, captured in the recognition of the need to act as a role model – a stark contrast to the more active community leadership role promoted in the contemporary public leadership perspective, which frames the purpose of public leadership as facilitating the collective definition of publicly valuable outcomes, and facilitating their delivery (Benington and Hartley, 2009; Heifetz, 1994; Moore, 1995). Finally, the social values that permeate UAE public leadership reflect an ongoing tension common to Arab governments between administrative values, perceived as introduced from the West, and cultural values based on commitment to family, clan, religion, region, politics and geography (Jabbra and Jreisat, 2009; Obeidat et al., 2012).

Some implications of re-framing public leadership development

What then can a frame of public leadership offer that might help UAE government leadership development programmes respond to the wicked problem of leadership development? I propose three implications with the potential to inspire radical innovation in how public leadership development programmes are designed and delivered in the UAE.

1. Public leadership emphasizes collective public values

The framing of public leadership can bring public values to the fore, in three ways. First, by situating leadership in the context of serving the rulers and society, public leadership demands attention to the public purpose and values of government. The contemporary public leadership perspective has developed in recognition of the special context of government; while there are undoubtedly practices that can be adapted from the private sector, government is distinguished by its public purpose and values. Public leadership further asserts an important role for leadership development in addressing the link between values and outcomes (Getha-Taylor et al., 2011). Leadership development interventions in the UAE, then, may benefit from the public leadership perspective’s conscious consideration of the values expected of public leaders. Such emphasis may help to mitigate concerns about the values being brought into government by the next generation. Althaus suggests modern public services should “not try to impose strict conformity so much as awareness of an underlying heritage” (Althaus, 2016: 17) which can inform the values and professional conduct of public servants. While a shift to emphasise public values is likely to be welcomed (Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government, 2016), greater clarity and collective definition of those public values and notions of public good are needed (Al-Dabbagh and Assaad, 2010).

Second, public leadership also logically demands attention to public governance, the norms, conventions and regulations that support decision-making in government, from the perspective of maintaining a country’s constitutional values in the face of changing problems and environments (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011). Framing public leadership in the context of good governance can remind public leaders that leadership is but one element within the ‘whole system’ of the public sector that contributes to successful outcomes (Liddle, 2010). T’Hart (2014) warns that paying too much attention to leaders and leadership risks inattention to the structures and processes of governance. The human foibles and human weaknesses of individual leaders are instead best contained within a “resilient institutional fabric” (t’Hart, 2014: 187), which public leadership development programmes might specifically address. Moreover, teaching aspirant public leaders about public governance can also equip them practically with a stronger understanding of the processes and mechanisms vital to steering change in government.

Third, the concept of public leadership as defined here encourages a conscious shift in thinking from the traits of leaders to the shared relational processes of leadership (Al-Dabbagh and Assaad, 2010). Programmes that in their design and content suggest “that it is all about ‘you’ – your drive, your skills, your attitudes, your self-confidence, your communication, your aura, your humility” (t’Hart, 2014) logically only address one element of the leadership equation. Instead, a relational interpretation of public leadership provokes a fundamental rethink of what leadership development might entail:

“We need to stop thinking of the leadership development unit of analysis as a single person and see it instead as the system which works across a leadership issue. This is where the momentum and big wins are possible” (Jackson and Smolovic Jones, 2012: 38).

In this view, leadership development programmes must be sensitive to the reification of the individual leader, and instead locate leadership in its rich inter-personal context. In the UAE, achieving this shift while preserving respect for royal rule may not be an easy task. Even in the predominantly Western literature however, few go as far as Kellerman (2012) in declaring the leader-centric model obsolete. Drawing on Day’s now-famous distinction, a better balance is instead advised between leader development – drawing on traditional, individualistic conceptions of leadership and aiming to improve the capabilities of individuals – and leadership development – which views leadership as emergent from relationships and thus aims to strengthen social capital (Hartley and Hinksman, 2003). In practice this may mean programmes shift attention to developing whole teams, rather than just individuals (Benington and Hartley, 2009).

2. Public leadership connects into needed skills frameworks

One dimension of the UAE’s leadership development challenge is a skills gap, with the next generation of leaders perceived as needing to master in particular strategic assessment on the one hand and collaborative working on the other, in response to the increasing complexities of the dynamic, globalised environment. These new development needs are already identified by key public leadership scholars and frameworks are offered to support them.

More public leaders in the UAE need to be able to strategically assess external trends, threats and opportunities. This need is identified by public leadership scholars: Hartley and Benington (2010) suggest that the ability to read the external system and wider socio-economic conditions, as well as internal organisational dynamics, is vital to leaders’ ability to anticipate problems, not just solve them. The public leadership perspective offers an array of tools and processes tailored to strategic analysis in context of government: for example, Moore’s (1995) strategic triangle, or Van Wart’s (2012) strategic assesment framework, integrated into his model for leadership in public organisations. Other options are offered in the connected public policy field (e.g., Dunn, 2015). Advocates of entrepreneurial public leadership suggest these skills should preferably be developed hand-in-hand with organisational capacity and assessment so that leaders can identify challenges proactively and to take the initiative to translate their strategic insight into workable action (Borins, 2000; Bouckaert and de Vries, 2013; Bowerman and Van Wart, 2014).

Secondly, in this environment of complexity, UAE public leaders like their counterparts elsewhere must cooperate with others outside their own organisations to achieve government targets; in fact, collaboration across the public sector, with private partners and internationally is common. Rich scholarship is emerging on collaborative public leadership, which considers how leadership works across arenas in which power, knowledge and legitimacy are dispersed across individuals and sectors (Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Morse, 2008; Vangen and Huxham, 2003). Beyond organisations, both the individual competencies required and the processes of leadership can be quite different to those deployed in traditional, hierarchical bureaucracies. Again, an array of models tailored to the development of collaborative public leaders is afforded in the works of contemporary public leadership scholars. For example, Morse and Buss (2008) offer an approach to nurturing collaborative leaders by challenging and re-framing individuals’ paradigms, character, and motives in readiness for cooperative working. They also bring a new emphasis on situation assessment, plus the spectrum of skills to lead, design and manage collaborative initiatives (see also Vangen, 2017; Vangen et al., 2015; Wilkins et al., 2016).

The frame of public leadership thus affords access to frameworks that directly speak to skills needs identified as part of the UAE’s strategic leadership development challenge. It further orientates those designing leadership development programmes towards a literature that contains an array of additional conceptual tools that may be of use when tailoring public leadership programmes to specific development needs. For example, concepts such as emotional intelligence and political astuteness may be useful for those learning about leadership beyond formal authority relationships, where understanding the goals, interests and values of partners is important (Hartley and Benington, 2011). Similarly both the concept and practice of critical reflexivity – the ability to question one’s own assumptions, values, and actions and examine their impact on others (Cunliffe, 2004; Pedersen and Tangkjær, 2013) – may be invaluable to those aiming to enhance strategic assessment capacity.

3. Public leadership connects into innovations in programme design

Perhaps most radically, the design of public leadership development programmes is diverging from the traditional classroom model. One innovation proposed is to redesign the structure and content of development interventions around the purposes or challenges in hand, only then locating the leader within those efforts (Kempster and Stewart, 2010; Jackson and Smolovic Jones, 2012; t’Hart, 2014). This approach puts the purpose of public leadership at the centre, and resists the convenience of organising development programmes around individuals or agencies. Instead, development interventions are designed to support all those collaborating on a particular policy or challenge, with interventions delivered in real-time, using the real situation as the teaching material – and even doing so outside the confines of the classroom.

Internationally, key institutions are innovating the design of interventions in this way. For example, Harvard’s Kennedy School runs an Innovation Field Laboratory (Harvard Kennedy School, 2016) and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government’s Towards Strategic Leadership programme centres on a live case study (Yates, 2016). Both engage participants in live, real-world public problems with the dual aim of making progress on the problem in hand, and enhancing participant learning. Theories, frameworks and models drawn from the academic literature are deployed in support of these aims, with structured space for reflection built in. Participants work together, and collaborate with professionals and citizens, to propose and/or implement improvements. Designed in this way, public leadership development becomes more collaborative and practical, supported by conceptual knowledge. The structure also contains an implicit reminder to participants that they are subordinate to the shared, public, mission.

Conclusion

Re-framing leadership development as public leadership development is thus argued to open up connections to a valuable set of ideas and practices that could help UAE governments to make progress on the wicked problem of developing the next generation of leaders. Specifically, the framing of public leadership can help to address current leaders’ concerns about the value orientations and skills of those in the pipeline, and as such increase the overall number of Emiratis equipped for future public leadership roles. It can also connect designers of programmes to innovative, and potentially more impactful, formats of leadership development beyond the classroom.

Re-framing a problem does not of course tame it (Conklin, 2005); the challenge of developing the UAE’s next generation of leaders remains a wicked one. The re-framing of public leadership opens up connections to ideas that help make progress on some aspects of the challenge, but only some, and those ideas must be adopted, implemented, and the impacts of these changes and interventions assessed. Moreover, ambiguity in stakeholders’ expectations of what leadership is, and what it will achieve for them, will persist: as is common in the public sphere, ambiguity and mutability in the outcomes desired presents a shifting terrain for public leaders to interpret and navigate.

Finally, it is fully acknowledged that the discussion of UAE public leadership and its development here is a beginning. Together this article and (Mathias, 2017) afford a first consideration of public leadership in the UAE. More research is needed to expand and test the evidence and conceptualisations presented, and to locate public leadership more firmly in the hybridizing cultural milieu of the modern Arabian Gulf; the public leadership perspective affords a rich set of resources, but each of these must be critically appraised for their applicability to the UAE context before adoption. For example, the perspective demands attention to values, but does not (yet) provide empirical or normative insight into the value sets needed in UAE public leaders. Practically, improving UAE public leadership development rests on improving our collective knowledge about both UAE public leadership and about effective development interventions. I conclude by echoing Al-Dabbagh and Assad (2010) in hoping that in coming years, UAE leadership development programmes can more directly engender more situated and more ‘public’, leadership development practice.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Abdalla

Al-Homoud

(2001) Exploring the implicit leadership theory in the Arabian Gulf states. Applied Psychology 50(4): 506–531.

Al-Dabbagh

Assaad

(2010) Beyond “leader” development: Advancing new leadership development models in the GCC. Dubai School of Government Policy Brief. Available at: http://www.mbrsg.ae/getattachment/8a97bc63-1bcf-4d69-9208-3a6bda57770f/Beyond-Leader-Development-Advancing-New-Leadership (accessed 12 December 2016).

Al-Waqfi

Forstenlechner

(2012) Of private sector fear and prejudice: The case of young citizens in an oil-rich Arabian Gulf economy. Personnel Review 41(5): 609–629.

Althaus

(2016) The administrative sherpa and the journey of public service leadership. Administration & Society 48(4): 395–420.

Australian Public Service Commission (2012) Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Canberra, Australia: Australian Public Service Commission. Available at: http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/tackling-wicked-problems (accessed 7 December 2016).

Benington

Hartley

(2009) “Whole systems go.” Improving leadership across the whole public service system. Propositions to stimulate discussion and reform. Sunningdale Institute, National School of Government. Available at: http://www.systemicleadershipinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wholesystemsgopaper.pdf (accessed 7 December 2016).

Bennis

(2007) The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist 62(1): 2–5.

Biygautane

(2016) The Gulf Cooperation Council’s public sector executive education: Relevance, trends, challenges, and opportunities. In: Lepeley

Von Kimakowitz

Bardy

(eds) Human Centered Management in Executive Education: Global Imperatives, Innovation and New Directions. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.61–81.

Borins

(2000) Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review 60(6): 498–507.

10.

Bouckaert

de Vries

(2013) The need for focused leadership training in turbulent times. In: de Vries

Bouckaert

(eds) Training for Leadership. Brussels: Bruyland, pp.13–28.

11.

Bowerman

Van Wart

(2014) The Business of Leadership: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

12.

Brookes

Grint

(eds) (2010) The New Public Leadership Challenge. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Broussine

(2003) Public leadership. In: Bouvaird

Löffler

(eds) Public Management and Governance. London, UK: Routledge, pp.175–188.

14.

Churchman

(1967) Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science 14(4): 141–142.

15.

Conklin

(2005) Wicked problems and social complexity. In: Conklin

(ed.) Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp.3–40.

16.

Crosby

Bryson

(2010) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 211–230.

17.

Cunliffe

(2004) On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education 28(4): 407–426.

18.

Dedousis

E-V

Rutter

(2015) Workforce localisation and change management: The view from the Gulf. In: Goksoy

(ed.) Organizational Change Management Strategies in Modern Business. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp.301–327.

19.

Dinh

Lord

Gardner

. (2014) Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly 25(1): 36–62.

20.

Dubai Smart Government (2016) Home > Government Entities. Dubai: Dubai Smart Government. Available at: http://www.dubai.ae/en/government/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 28 February 2016).

21.

Dunn

(2015) Public Policy Analysis. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

22.

Edwards

Elliott

Iszatt-White

. (2013) Critical and alternative approaches to leadership learning and development. Management Learning 44(1): 3–10.

23.

Getha-Taylor

Holmes

Jacobson

. (2011) Focusing the public leadership lens: Research propositions and questions in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(Supplement 1): i83–i97.

24.

Getha-Taylor

Morse

(2011) Leadership Development for Local Government Executives: Balancing Existing Commitments and Emerging Needs. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2011 Public Management Research Conference, 4 June 2011, Maxwell School, Syracuse University. Available at: https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/conferences/pmrc/Files/Getha-Taylor_Leadership%20Development%20for%20Local%20Government%20Executives.pdf (accessed 7 December 2016).

25.

Green

(2015) Leadership and Talent Summit. Dubai: Oxford Strategic Consulting. Available at: http://www.oxfordstrategicconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Dubai-Leadership-and-Talent-Summit-Presentation.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).

26.

Grint

(2008) Wicked Problems and Clumsy Solutions: The Role of Leadership. Available at: http://leadershipforchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Keith-Grint-Wicked-Problems-handout.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).

27.

Hartley

(2012) Political leadership and its development. In: Weinberg

(ed.) The Psychology of Politicians. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.97–119.

28.

Hartley

Benington

(2010) Leadership for Healthcare. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

29.

Hartley

Benington

(2011) Recent trends in leadership thinking and action in the public and voluntary service sectors. London, UK: King’s Fund. Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/recent-trends-in-leadership-thinking-action-in-public-voluntary-service-sectors-jean-hartley-john-benington-kings-fund-may-2011.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).

30.

Hartley

Hinksman

(2003) Leadership development: A systematic review of the literature. London, UK: NHS Leadership Centre. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1508/102a61382cbda74e80249375509239ceff3b.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).

31.

Harvard Kennedy School (2016) MLD-621: Innovation field lab: Public problem solving in Massachusetts cities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School. Available at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/teaching-courses/course-listing/mld-621 (accessed 17 January 2016).

32.

Hassan

Dyer

Silver

. (2016) Youth in the Middle East. Available at: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1042278/CIRSSummaryReport15YouthInTheMiddleEast2016.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 22 January 2017).

33.

Head

(2008) Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy 3(2): 101–118.

34.

Head

(2014) Evidence, uncertainty, and wicked problems in climate change decision making in Australia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32(4): 663–679.

35.

Head

Alford

(2015) Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society 47(6): 711–739.

36.

Heifetz

(1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

37.

Hertog

(2012) A comparative assessment of labor market nationalization policies in the GCC. In: Hertzog

(ed.) National Employment, Migration and Education in the GCC. The Gulf Region: Economic Development and Diversification,4. Berlin, Germany: Gerlach Press, pp.100–102.

38.

Jabbra

Jreisat

(2009) Administration of the Arab state: Synthesizing diverse traditions. In: Pagaza

Argyriades

(eds) Winning the Needed Change: Saving our Planet Earth. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, pp.112–126.

39.

Jackson

Smolovic Jones

(2012) Promoting better public services leadership: an appreciative critique. Policy Quarterly 8(3): 34–40.

40.

John

(2013) There is no finish line to our development: Mohammed. Khaleej Times, 12 February 2013. Available at: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/government/there-is-no-finish-line-to-our-development-mohammed (accessed 6 September 2015).

41.

Kamali

Jayashree

Lindsay

(2015) Leadership Development Programs (LDPs): Investigating the impact of contextual and cultural factors on LDP effectiveness in United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Management and Applied Research 2(4): 172–186.

42.

Kellerman

(2012) The End of Leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

43.

Kellerman

(2013) Leading questions: The end of leadership – redux. Leadership 9(1): 135–139.

44.

Kelman

Hong

Turbitt

(2013) Are there managerial practices associated with the outcomes of an interagency service delivery collaboration? Evidence from British crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(3): 609–630.

45.

Kempster

Stewart

(2010) Becoming a leader: A co-produced autoethnographic exploration of situated learning of leadership practice. Management Learning 41(2): 205–219.

46.

Liddle

(2010) Twenty-first-century public leadership within complex governance systems: Some reflections. Policy & Politics 38(4): 657–663.

47.

Mameli

(2013) Under new management: What the Arab Spring tells us about leadership needs in the Middle East and North Africa. Digest of Middle East Studies 22(2): 377–404.

48.

Mathias

(2017) Public leadership in the United Arab Emirates: towards a research agenda. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30(2): 154–169, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-09-2016-0151

49.

Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government (2016) Policy Council 7. In: Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government (ed.). Dubai: Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government.

50.

Moore

(1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

51.

Morse

(2008) Developing public leaders in an age of collaborative governance. In: Morse

Buss

(eds) Innovations in Public Leadership Development. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp.79–100.

52.

Morse

Buss

(2008) Innovations in Public Leadership Development. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

53.

Newman

Head

(2015) The National Context of Wicked Problems: Comparing Policies on Gun Violence in the US, Canada, and Australia. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 1–14.

54.

Obeidat

Shannak

Masa’Deh

. (2012) Toward better understanding for Arabian culture: Implications based on Hofstede’s cultural model. European Journal of Social Sciences 28(4): 512–522.

55.

O’Flynn

(2007) From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration 66(3): 353–366.

56.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) The policy framework for investment: A tool to mobilise investment to support economic growth and sustainable development. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/investment/toolkit/aboutthetoolkit/PFIweb.pdf (accessed 22 January 2017).

57.

Pedersen

Tangkjær

(2013) Building leadership capacity in the involving network state. Teaching Public Administration 31(1): 29–41.

58.

Rahman

Said

(2015) Public sector performance and leadership in the United Arab Emirates. In: The 3rd international conference on management, leadership and governance: ICMLG2015 (eds Ingley

Lockhart

), pp.224–232. Sonning Common, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

59.

Rein

Schön

(1996) Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy 9(1): 85–104.

60.

Rith

Dubberly

(2007) Why Horst WJ Rittel matters. Design Issues 23(1): 72–91.

61.

Rittel

HWJ

Webber

(1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–169.

62.

Roberts

(2000) Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review 1(1) 1–19.

63.

Salama

(2017) Six leaders and how they helped shape UAE. Gulf News, 2 December 2016. Available at: http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/society/six-leaders-and-how-they-helped-shape-uae-1.1937162 (accessed 12 December 2016).

64.

Schwella

(2008) Administrative reform as adaptive challenge: Selected public leadership implications. Politeia 27(2):, 25–50.

65.

Stansfield

(2016) Clear purpose or sheer survival? National ministerial leadership across multiple arenas. The American Review of Public Administration 46(4): 478–498.

66.

Termeer

Dewulf

Breeman

. (2015) Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Administration & Society 47(6): 680–710.

67.

T’Hart

(2014) Understanding Public Leadership. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

68.

UN Data (2015) United Arab Emirates. Available at: http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=United%20Arab%20Emirates (accessed 13 January 2016).

69.

Van Wart

(2012) Leadership in Public Organizations: An Introduction. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

70.

Vangen

(2017) Culturally diverse collaborations: A focus on communication and shared understanding. Public Management Review 19(3): 305–325.

71.

Vangen

Hayes

Cornforth

(2015) Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Management Review 17(9): 1237–1260.

72.

Vangen

Huxham

(2003) Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39(1) 5–31.

73.

Veenkamp

Zeiger

(2014) Countering violent extremism: Program and policy approaches relating to youth through education, families and communities. In: Lombardi

Ragab

Chin

(eds) Countering Radicalisation and Violent Extremism Among Youth to Prevent Terrorism. Milan, Italy: IOS Press, pp.151–163.

74.

WAM (2016a) Interior minister underlines importance of developing ministry staff’s leadership competencies. Abu Dhabi: Emirates News Agency, 22 May 2016. Available at: http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates/1395295798780.html (accessed 30 November 2016).

75.

WAM (2016b) Mohammed bin Rashid launches UAE National Agenda for Youth. Abu Dhabi: Emirates News Agency, 4 October 2016. Available at: http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates/1395300742764.html (accessed 30 November 2016).

76.

WAM (2016c) Saif bin Zayed stresses importance of developing leadership skills at MoI. Abu Dhabi: Emirates News Agency. Available at: http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates/1395295794824.html (accessed 30 November 2016).

77.

Weber

Khademian

(2008) Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review 68(2): 334–349.

78.

Wilkins

Phillimore

Gilchrist

(2016) Public sector collaboration: Are we doing it well and could we do it better? Australian Journal of Public Administration 75(3): 318–330.

79.

Yates

(2016) Consolidating Victoria’s family violence response system – Insights from Anzsog’s towards strategic leadership program 2015. Victoria, Australia: Australia and New Zealand School of Government.