Balancing Managerialism and Autonomy: A Panel Study of the Link Between Managerial Autonomy, Performance Goals, and Organizational Performance

References

• Ammons, D. N., & Roenigk, D. J. (2015). Performance management in local government: Is practice influenced by doctrine? Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 514–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1006461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammons, D. N., & Roenigk, D. J. (2020). Exploring devolved decision authority in performance management regimes: The relevance of perceived and actual decision authority as elements of performance management success. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1657918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, L. B., Boesen, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2016). Performance in public organizations: Clarifying the conceptual space. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, L. B., Boye, S., & Laursen, R. (2018). Building support? The importance of verbal rewards for employee perceptions of governance initiatives. International Public Management Journal, 21(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2017.1329761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, L. B., Brewer, G. A., & Leisink, P. (2021). Stakeholders, public value(s), and public service performance. In P. Leisink, L. B. Andersen, G. A. Brewer, C. B. Jacobsen, E. Knies, & W. Vandenabeele (Eds.), Managing for public service performance: How people and values make a difference (pp. 25–44). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, S. C., & Moynihan, D. P. (2016). Bureaucratic investments in expertise: Evidence from a randomized controlled field trial. The Journal of Politics, 78(4), 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1086/686029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angrist, J., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arcia, G. K., MacDonald, K., Patrinos, H. A., Porta, E. (2011). School autonomy and accountability. System assessment and benchmarking for education results (Report No. 94450). SABER, World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21546
   Google Scholar
• Aulich, C., Batainah, H., & Wettenhall, R. (2010). Autonomy and control in Australian agencies: Data and preliminary findings from a Cross-National Empirical Study. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00679.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barankay, I., & Lockwood, B. (2007). Decentralization and the productive efficiency of government: Evidence from Swiss cantons. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bezes, P., & Jeannot, G. (2018). Autonomy and managerial reforms in Europe: Let or make public managers manage? Public Administration, 96(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birdsall, C. (2017). The synthetic control method for comparative case studies: An application estimating the effect of managerial discretion under performance management. International Public Management Journal, 20(1), 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1121178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjørnholt, B., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2015). Contracting and performance in agencies: A question of control, dialogue or autonomy? Public Organization Review, 15(4), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-014-0286-7
   Google Scholar
• Boon, J., & Wynen, J. (2017). On the bureaucracy of bureaucracies: Analysing the size and organization of overhead in public organizations. Public Administration, 95(1), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 2), i253–i277. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruns, B., Filmer, D., Patrinos, H. A. (2011). Making schools work: New evidence on accountability reforms (Report No. 60050). World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/483221468147581570/Making-schools-work-new-evidence-on-accountability-reform
   Google Scholar
• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. (2009). The performance and competitive effects of school autonomy. Journal of Political Economy, 117(4), 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1086/605604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bruijn, H. (2010). Managing professionals. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Epton, T., Currie, S., & Armitage, C. J. (2017). Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(12), 1182–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000260
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galiani, S., & Perez-Truglia, R. (2013). School management in developing countries. In P. Glewwe (Ed.), Education policy in developing countries. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1972459
   Google Scholar
• Gao, J., Chan, H. S., & Yang, K. (2021). Gaming in performance management reforms and its countermeasures: Symposium introduction. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(2), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.1894187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 369–406). JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F64–F98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A. (2006). School resources. In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (pp. 865–908). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7494(00)00032-5
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 375–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90036-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoque, K., Davis, S., & Humphreys, M. (2004). Freedom to do What you are told: Senior Management Team Autonomy in an NHS Acute Trust. Public Administration, 82(2), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00398.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houlberg, K., Andersen, V. V., Bjørnholt, B., Krassel, K. K., & Pedersen, L. H. (2016). Country background report – Denmark. OECD review of politics to improve the effectiveness of resource use in schools (Project No. 10932). KORA - Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research.
   Google Scholar
• Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2014). Impact of performance management in public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, M. L., Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D. P., & van Loon, N. (2018). Making sense of performance regimes: Rebalancing external accountability and internal learning. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx001
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Nie, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krause, T., & van Thiel, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice Hall.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004272622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madeira, R. A. (2012). The effects of decentralization on schooling: Evidence from the Sao Paulo State’s education reform [Working Paper No. 2012-26, Department of Economics, FEA-USP]. University of São Paulo.
   Google Scholar
• Maggetti, M., & Verhoest, K. (2014). Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314524680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcotte, D. E. (2007). Schooling and test scores: A mother-natural experiment. Economics of Education Review, 26(5), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 3), i283–i299. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K., Andersen, S. C., O’Toole, L. J., Favero, N., & Winter, S. C. (2015). Taking managerial context seriously: Public management and performance in U.S. and Denmark schools. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.972485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melo, A. I., Sarrico, C. S., & Radnor, Z. (2010). The influence of performance management systems on key actors in universities. The case of an English university. Public Management Review, 12(2), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719031003616479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966–1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 52–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90045-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikkelsen, M. F., & Kjer, M. G. (2020). Autonomy is taken not given. How networking matters for managerial autonomy [Unplublished manuscript]. VIVE – the Danish Center for Social Science Research.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00557.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Creating desirable organizational characteristics: How organizations create a focus on results and managerial authority. Public Management Review, 8(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500518899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2011). Public management: Organizations, governance, and performance. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Painter, M., & Yee, W.-H. (2011). Task matters: A structural-instrumental analysis of the Autonomy of Hong Kong government bodies. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010380451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (2016). Managerialism redux? Financial Accountability & Management, 32(4), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, R., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2014). Are performance management practices associated with better outcomes? Empirical evidence from New York Public schools. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(3), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012468058
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317748357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., & Lægreid, P. (2010). Organizing public sector agencies: Challenges and reflections. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations proliferation, autonomy and performance (pp. 276–297). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Roness, P. G., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., & Barbieri, D. (2009). Investigating the ‘NPM-ness’ of agencies in Italy and Flanders. Public Management Review, 11(3), 345–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, R. M., Boyne, G. A., & Brewer, G. (2010). Public management and performance: Research directions. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, W., & Yeung, R. (2019). Testing the effectiveness of “managing for results”: Evidence from an education policy innovation in New York City. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J., & Barker, V. L. (2015). Managerial discretion: An empirical review and focus on future research directions. Journal of Management, 41(1), 99–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314554214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, A. L. (2011). Assessing the core and dimensional approaches: Human resource management in public, private, and charter schools. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(2), 251–280. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576350202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. (2011). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Southwestern.
   Google Scholar
• Wynen, J., & Verhoest, K. (2016). Internal performance-based steering in public sector organizations: Examining the effect of organizational autonomy and external result control. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynen, J., Verhoest, K., Ongaro, E., & van Thiel, S. (2014). Innovation-oriented culture in the public sector: Do managerial autonomy and result control lead to innovation? Public Management Review, 16(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.790273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto, K. (2006). Performance of semi-autonomous public bodies: Linkage between autonomy and performance in Japanese agencies. Public Administration and Development, 26(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yesilkagit, K., & van Thiel, S. (2008). Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-008-0054-7
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar