Introduction
For managers from both private and public sectors, the necessity to innovate became one of the hottest topics. The private sector, for instance, provides organizations with the possibility of developing at a fast pace. Moreover, private sector companies started to launch new products and transform their business approaches for the sake of innovations. A vast number of organizations employed the principle of creative destruction so as to be able to develop in harmony with the industry. Nonetheless, Borins (2000) believes that public service innovation may be regarded as a practical triviality. The author of the article sees innovators as proactive individuals who prefer to prevent issues instead of letting them happen. They use a creative approach to solving the problems that are characteristic of the public sector. Borins (2000) also claims that the reviewed sample uses proper organizational strategies that go in line with the core ideas of the public-sector companies.
Main Ideas of the Article
In his article, Borins (2000) dwells on the idea that the majority of the companies within the public sector can be seen as monopolies. Therefore, it is logical to assume that there is virtually no competition and, consequently, no need to innovate. Nonetheless, he stresses the fact that political scientists majorly contributed to the outlooks concerning the failures that occur in the public sector. The author altered the way we should consider the issue of leadership in the public sector. This exposure led to a situation where innovation was seen as a remedy for the critique. Borins (2000) hints at the idea that the constraints imposed by the central agency are aimed at eliminating corruption and banning innovation at the same time. He notes that the experts want to see major public sector companies as bureaucracies that are intended to stay consistent and resist any change or transformation (Borins, 2000). Another important part of the article is the definition of a direct dependency between public sector leadership and innovation. Another covert claim of the author dwells on the types of innovation which are supported by politicians. Borins (2000) supposes that the strategic response to crises is developed by the politicians. Moreover, they are responsible for communicating the vision to the organization. The author of the article expands the knowledge on the idea that research and investigations are the best instruments designed to respond to any type of crisis. Borins (2000) believes that the evaluation of the data should be performed skeptically and all the expectations and suppositions should be tested prior to the implementation. On all the organizational levels, the core objective is to work instantaneously and support all the attempts aimed at implementing innovations.
Conclusion
The author of the article expands our knowledge base in terms of the peculiarities of leadership in the public sector and its inclination toward the implementation of innovations. Additionally, Borins (2000) stated that the risks within the public sector are great while the benefits are small. The author believes that full compliance with the political requirements may impose serious limitations on the innovative options available to the public sector. The thing is, the organizations should be prepared to respond to crises and manage any issues that transpire within the public sector. This social science work provides the reader with a number of examples which hint at the fact that the majority of the problems appear because of the relationship between bureaucratic principles and political leadership. In other words, public sector organizations are bound to experience interactions with politicians while functioning in line with the essential bureaucratic principles.
Reference
Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 498-506.