This study investigates the effects of optimal rule control on recruitment and selection practices in public organizations. Although rules are argued to constrain organizational practices and organizational performance, there is limited knowledge about the relationship of optimal rule control to recruitment and selection practices from a managerial perspective. By conducting a study with survey responses from 1,000 public frontline managers, combined with administrative data, this article investigates how optimal rule control is associated with the formation of recruitment objectives and selections based on values and cultural fit. Findings indicate a positive relationship between optimal rule control and the formation of recruitment objectives and selections based on fit. Unexpectedly, managerial tenure does not seem to moderate the association between optimal rule control and recruitment and selection practices. The study contributes to the public human resource management literature by focusing on the influence of organizational rules on human resource practices.
AllenM. R.EricksenJ.CollinsC. J. (2013). Human resource management, employee exchange relationships, and performance in small businesses. Human Resource Management, 52(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21523
2.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A. (2014). Task complexity, organization size, and administrative intensity: The case of UK universities. Public Administration, 92(3), 656–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12078
3.
AsseburgJ.HombergF.VogelR. (2018). Recruitment messaging, environmental fit and public service motivation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(6), 689–709. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-08-2017-0217
4.
BettinP. J.KennedyJ. K. (1990). Leadership experience and leader performance: Some empirical support at last. Leadership Quarterly, 1(4), 219–228.
5.
BévortF.ThorsenS. M. L. (2022). HRM in Denmark in the light of the corona pandemic. The HR function in a new and strengthened position? The Cranet project 2021 (In Danish)
6.
BlomR.BorstR. T.VoornB. (2020). Pathology or inconvenience? A meta-analysis of the impact of red tape on people and organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 623–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20924117
7.
BoonJ.VerhoestK. (2018). By design or by drift: How, where, and why HRM activities are organized in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(1), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15626775
8.
BoselieP.Van HartenJ.VeldM. (2019). A human resource management review on public management and public administration research: Stop right there. . .before we go any further. . . Public Management Review, 23(4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1695880
9.
BozemanB. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Prentice Hall.
10.
BreaughJ. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.003
11.
BreaughJ. A.StarkeM. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26(3), 405–434.
12.
CableD. M.EdwardsJ. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822
13.
ChoudhuryE. H. (2007). Workforce planning in small local governments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X06297464
14.
CourseyD. H.PandeyS. K. (2007). Content domain, measurement, and validity of the red tape concept: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 342–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731506290269
15.
DeHart-DavisL. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007
16.
DeHart-DavisL. (2009). Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun004
17.
DeHart-DavisL.DavisR. S.MohrZ. (2015). Green tape and job satisfaction: Can organizational rules make employees happy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 849–876. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu038
18.
DeHart-DavisL.PandeyS. K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007
19.
DonatellaP.TagessonT. (2020). CFO characteristics and opportunistic accounting choice in public sector organizations. Journal of Management and Governance, 25(2), 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09521-1
20.
EsteveM.BoyneG.SierraV.YsaT. (2012). Organizational collaboration in the public sector: Do chief executives make a difference?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 927–952. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus035
21.
FeeneyM. K. (2012). Organizational red tape: A measurement experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus002
22.
GeorgeB.PandeyS. K. (2017). We know the yin—But where is the yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17698189
23.
GeorgeB.PandeyS. K.SteijnB.DecramerA.AudenaertM. (2021). Red tape, organizational performance, and employee outcomes: Meta-analysis, meta-regression, and research agenda. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 638–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13327
24.
Gould-WilliamsJ. S.MostafaA. M. S.BottomleyP. (2015). Public service motivation and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 597–622.
25.
GravierM.RothC. (2020). Bureaucratic representation and the rejection hypothesis: A longitudinal study of the European Commission’s staff composition (1980–2013). Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz001
26.
HambrickD. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.
27.
HambrickD. C.MasonP. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
28.
HattkeF.HenselD.KaluczaJ. (2019). Emotional responses to bureaucratic red tape. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13116
29.
HattkeF.VogelR.ZnanewitzJ. (2017). Satisfied with red tape? Leadership, civic duty, and career intention in the military. Public Management Review, 20(4), 563–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1335341
30.
HaysS. W.SowaJ. E. (2010). Staffing the bureaucracy: Employee recruitment and selection (CondreyS. E., Ed., 3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
31.
HoffmanB. J.WoehrD. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person–organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.08.003
32.
HoulbergK.EjersboN. (2020). Municipalities and regions: Approaching the limit of decentralization? In Munk ChristiansenP.ElklitJ.NedergaardP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Danish politics (pp. 141–159). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198833598.013.10
33.
JacobsonW. S. (2010). Preparing for tomorrow: A case study of workforce planning in North Carolina municipal governments. Public Personnel Management, 39(4), 353–377.
KaufmannW.TaggartG.BozemanB. (2019). Administrative delay, red tape, and organizational performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(3), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1474770
36.
KragtD.GuenterH. (2018). Why and when leadership training predicts effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(3), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-11-2016-0298
37.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
38.
LadnerA.KeufferN.BaldersheimH. (2016). Measuring local autonomy in 39 Countries (1990–2014). Regional & Federal Studies, 26(3), 321–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2016.1214911
39.
LavignaR. J.HaysS. W. (2004). Recruitment and selection of public workers: An international compendium of modern trends and practices. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 237–253.
40.
LeisinkP.SteijnB. (2008). Recruitment, attraction, and selection. In PerryJ. L.HondeghemA. (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 118–135). Oxford University Press.
41.
LinosE.RieschN. (2019). Thick red tape and the thin blue line: A field study on reducing administrative burden in police recruitment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13115
42.
LøkkeA.-K. (2021). Recruitment and selection: Still a model employer? In SteijnB.KniesE. (Eds.), Research Handbook: HRM in the public sector (pp. 77–90). Edward Elgar Publishing.
43.
McCleanE.CollinsC. J. (2011). High-commitment HR practices, employee effort, and firm performance: Investigating the effects of HR practices across employee groups within professional services firms. Human Resource Management, 50(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20429
44.
MessersmithJ. G.PatelP. C.LepakD. P.Gould-WilliamsJ. (2011). Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024710
Op de BeeckS.WynenJ.HondeghemA. (2016). HRM implementation by line managers: Explaining the discrepancy in HR-line perceptions of HR devolution. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(17), 1901–1919. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1088562
48.
PandeyS. K. (2021). The psychological process view of bureaucratic red tape. In KniesE.SteijnB. (Eds.), Research handbook human resource management in the public sector (pp. 1–21). Edward Elgar Publishing.
49.
PandeyS. K.CourseyD. H.MoynihanD. P. (2007). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multimethod study. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 398–425. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576300305
50.
PemerF.BörjesonL.WerrA. (2020). The role of chief executive tenure for public organizations’ hiring of management consultants. Governance, 33(2), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12422
51.
PloyhartR. E. (2016). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32(6), 868–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306293625
52.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
53.
PynesJ. E. (2004). The implementation of workforce and succession planning in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 33(4), 389–404.
RitzA.WaldnerC. (2011). Competing for future leaders: A study of attractiveness of public sector organizations to potential job applicants. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(3), 291–316.
56.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
57.
SeldenS.IngrahamP.JacobsonW. (2001). Human resource practices in state government: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 598–607.
58.
SievertM.VogelD.FeeneyM. K. (2020). Formalization and administrative burden as obstacles to employee recruitment: Consequences for the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x20932997
59.
SpectorP. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
60.
StazykE. C. (2012). Crowding out public service motivation? Comparing theoretical expectations with empirical findings on the influence of performance-related pay. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 252–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x12453053
61.
Van LoonN. M. (2017). From red tape to which performance results? Exploring the relationship between red tape and various dimensions of performance in healthcare work units. Public Administration, 95(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12294
62.
VilladsenA. R.WulffJ. N. (2018). Is the public sector a fairer employer? Ethnic employment discrimination in the public and private sectors. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(4), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2016.0029
63.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it (1st ed.). Basic Books.
64.
WrightP.NishiiL. H. (2013). Strategic HRM and organizational behaviour: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. In PaauweJ.GuestD.WrightP. (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges (pp. 97–110). Wiley.
