The influence of regulative contents, stakeholders, and formalization on managerial autonomy perceived at the front line

References

• Act No. 409. 2013. “Lov om forlængelse og fornyelse af kollektive overenskomster og aftaler for visse grupper af ansatte på det offentlige område.” Accessed 24 July 2020. www.retsinfo.dk
   Google Scholar
• Aghion, P., and J. Tirole. 1997. “Formal and Real Authority in Organizations.” The Journal of Political Economy 105 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1086/262063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amirkhanyan, A. A., K. J. Meier, and L. J. O’Toole. 2017. “Managing in the Regulatory Thicket: Regulation Legitimacy and Expertise.” Public Administration Review 77 (3): 381–394. doi:10.1111/puar.12591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, L. B., S. Boye, and R. Laursen. 2018. “Building Support? The Importance of Verbal Rewards for Employee Perceptions of Governance Initiatives.” International Public Management Journal 21 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1080/10967494.2017.1329761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, R., G. Boyne, J. Law, and R. Walker. 2012. Strategic Management and Public Service Performance. England, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Antonakis, J., and L. Atwater. 2002. “Leader Distance: A Review and A Proposed Theory.” The Leadership Quarterly 13 (6): 673–704. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach, T. 2018. “Administrative Autonomy of Public Organizations.” In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, edited by A. Farazmand, 171–179. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20928-9.
   Google Scholar
• Bach, T., K. Verhoest, and J. Wynen. 2020.“The Interaction of Administrative Tradition and Organisational Characteristics: The Case of Agency Personnel Management Autonomy.” International Review of Administrative Sciences. January. doi:10.1177/0020852319889674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, N., and J. Van Reenen. 2011. “Human Resource Management and Productivity.” Handbook of Labor Economics 4: 1697–1767. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02417-8.
   Google Scholar
• Bray, M., J. W. Budd, and J. Macneil. 2020. “The Many Meanings of Co-Operation in the Employment Relationship and Their Implications.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 58 (1): 114–141. doi:10.1111/bjir.12473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, D., and G. A. Krause. 2015. “Transactional Authority and Bureaucratic Politics.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (1): 5–25. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2006. “Agentification and Regulatory Reforms.” In Autonomy and Regulation – Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, edited by T. Christensen and P. Lægreid, 8–47. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2007. “Regulatory Agencies– The Challenges of Balancing Agency Autonomy and Political Control.” Governance 20 (3): 499–520. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00368.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, H., and K. Tijdens. 2013. “Working Time Flexibility Components and Working Time Regimes in Europe: Using Company-Level Data across 21 Countries.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (7): 1418–1434. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.712544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coggburn, J. D. 2000. “The Effects of Deregulation on State Government Personnel Administration.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 20(4): 24–40. h ttps :/ /d oi.or g/10 .1177/ 0734371 X00 0200 0404 
   Google Scholar
• Crosby, B. C., and J. M. Bryson. 2018. “Why Leadership of Public Leadership Research Matters: And What to Do about It.” Public Management Review 20 (9): 1265–1286. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1348731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danish Ministry of Education. 2014. “Improving the Public School.” Accessed 24 June 2020. https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/publikationer/engelsksprogede/2014-improving-the-public-schools.pdf
   Google Scholar
• DeHart-Davis, L., and S. K. Pandey. 2005. “Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (1): 133–148. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanders, A. 1970. Management and Union. London, United Kingdom : Faber & Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, R. E. 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P. 2005. “Instructional Leadership and the School Manager: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away.” Leadership and Policy in Schools 4 (3): 221–239. doi:10.1080/15700760500244793.
   Google Scholar
• Hambrick, D. C., and S. Finkelstein. 1987. “Managerial Discretion: A Bridge between Polar Views of Organizations.” In Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw, 369-406, Vol. 9. Greenwich: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, N. W. 2017. “Folkeskolelærernes Arbejdstid og partssamarbejdet.” FAOS Forskningsnotat 158, FAOS, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., S. Link, and L. Woessmann. 2013. “Does School Autonomy Make Sense Everywhere? Panel Estimates from PISA.” Journal of Development Economics 104 (September): 212–232. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, E. J., J. G. Grzywacz, S. Allen, V. L. Blanchard, C. Matz-Costa, S. Shulkin, and M. Pitt-Catsouphes. 2008. “Defining and Conceptualizing Workplace Flexibility.” Community, Work & Family 11 (2): 149–163. doi:10.1080/13668800802024678.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. 2000. “Paradoxes of Public-Sector Managerialism, Old Public Management and Public Service Bargains.” International Public Management Journal 3 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1016/S1096-7494(00)00032-5.
   Google Scholar
• Houlberg, K., V. N. Andersen, B. Bjørnholt, K. K. Krassel, and L. H. Pedersen. 2016. Country Background Report– Denmark. OECD Review of Politics to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools. Copenhagen: KORA.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, T. S. 2019. “Searching for Managerial Discretion: How Public Managers Engage Managerialism as a Rationalization for Increased Latitude of Action.” Public Management Review 21 (3): 315–333. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1473475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, T., and S. Van Thiel. 2019. “Perceived Managerial Autonomy in Municipally Owned Corporations: Disentangling the Impact of Output Control, Process Control, and Policy-Profession Conflict.” Public Management Review 21 (2): 187–211. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1473472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen, J. 2014. Collective Labour Law (Den Kollektive Arbejdsret). 3rd ed. Copenhagen: Djøf Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lonti, Z. 2005. “How Much Decentralization?: Managerial Autonomy in the Canadian Public Service.” The American Review of Public Administration 35 (2): 122–136. doi:10.1177/0275074004272622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review 32 (4): 298–310. doi:10.2307/974990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyness, K. S., J. C. Gornick, P. Stone, and A. R. Grotto. 2012. “It’s All about Control: Worker Control over Schedule and Hours in Cross-National Context.” American Sociological Review 77 (6, November): 1023–1049. doi:10.1177/0003122412465331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggetti, M. 2007. “De Facto Independence after Delegation: A Fuzzy-Set Analysis.” Regulation & Governance 1 (4): 271–294. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00023.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggetti, M., and K. Verhoest. 2014. “Unexplored Aspects of Bureaucratic Autonomy: A State of the Field and Ways Forward.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 80 (2): 239–256. doi:10.1177/0020852314524680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mailand, M. 2016.“Proactive Employers and Teachers’ Working Time Regulation: Public Sector Industrial Conflicts in Denmark and Norway.” Economic and Industrial Democracy. August. doi:10.1177/0143831X16657414.
   Google Scholar
• Marsden, D. 1999. A Theory of Employment Systems: Micro-Foundations of Societal Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., and L. J. O’Toole. 2003. “Public Management and Educational Performance: The Impact of Managerial Networking.” Public Administration Review 63 (6): 689–699. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., and L. J. O’Toole. 2011. “Comparing Public and Private Management: Theoretical Expectations.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl_3): i283–99. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur027.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J., and K. J. Meier. 2015. “Public Management, Context, and Performance: In Quest of a More General Theory.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (1): 237–256. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ospina, S. M. 2016. “Collective Leadership and Context in Public Administration: Bridging Public Leadership Research and Leadership Studies.” Public Administration Review 77 (2): 275–287. doi:10.1111/puar.12706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. USA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., J. Birchall, and K. Putnam. 1998. Decentralising Public Service Management. Hampshire: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, J., and S. Hutchinson. 2007. “Front-line Managers as Agents in the HRM Performance Causal Chain: Theory, Analysis and Evidence.” Human Resource Management Journal 17 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2007.00022.x.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, H. G. 2014. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. 5th ed. San Fransisco, United States: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. 2014. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th ed. California, United States: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1997. Administrative Behavior. New York, United States: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Six, F. 2013. “Trust in Regulatory Relations.” Public Management Review 15 (2): 163–185. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.727461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Russel Sage Foundation/ Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Walle, S. 2019. “Explaining Variation in Perceived Managerial Autonomy and Direct Politicization in European Public Sectors.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 85 (4): 627–644. doi:10.1177/0020852317748357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wart, M. 2013. “Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary Challenges of Leaders.” Public Administration Review 73 (4): 553–565. doi:10.1111/puar.12069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandaele, K. 2016. “Interpreting Strike Activity in Western Europe in the past 20 Years: The Labour Repertoire under Pressure.” Transfer 22 (3): 277–294. doi:10.1177/1024258916658804.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., B. G. Peters, G. Bouckaert, and B. Verschuere. 2004. “The Study of Organisational Autonomy: A Conceptual Review.” Public Administration and Development 24 (2): 101–118. doi:10.1002/pad.316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., P. Roness, B. Verschuere, K. Rubecksen, and M. MacCarthaigh. 2010. Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies. England, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. M. 2018. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 7th ed. Cambridge, MA, United States: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynen, J., and K. Verhoest. 2015. “Do NPM-Type Reforms Lead to a Cultural Revolution within Public Sector Organizations?” Public Management Review 17 (3): 356–379. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.841459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynen, J., K. Verhoest, E. Ongaro, and S. Van Thiel; network, in cooperation with the C. 2014. “Innovation-Oriented Culture in the Public Sector: Do Managerial Autonomy and Result Control Lead to Innovation?” Public Management Review 16 (1): 45–66. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.790273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yesilkagit, K., and S. Van Thiel. 2008. “Political Influence and Bureaucratic Autonomy.” Public Organization Review 8 (2): 137–153. doi:10.1007/s11115-008-0054-7.
   Google Scholar