This article presents an empirical study of the effect of middle manager quality on organizational performance. Using 6 years of data from more than 1,000 Texas school districts, the author finds that quality middle managers positively impact performance. In exploring the relationship between quality middle and upper managers, she finds that their interaction leads to improved organizational performance. This article makes two contributions to the public management literature. First, it introduces a measure of middle manager quality that allows researchers to explore the ways middle managers affect organizational performance. Second, the findings reveal that public management research has underestimated the impact of management.
AikenM.HageJ. (1968). Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review, 33, 912-930.
2.
BeamG. (2001). Quality public management: What is it and how it can be improved and adapted. Chicago, IL: Burnham.
3.
BertelliA. M.LynnL. E.Jr.(2003). Managerial responsibility. Public Administration Review, 63, 259-268.
4.
BillgerS. M. (2007). Principals as agents? Investigating accountability in the performance and compensation of school principals. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61, 90-107.
5.
BloomN.Van ReenenJ. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 22, 1351-1408.
6.
BoyneG.DahyaJ. (2002). Executive succession and the performance of public organizations. Public Administration, 80, 179-200.
BrehmJ.GatesS. (2008). Teaching, tasks and trust: Functions of the public executive. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
BrewerG. A. (2005). In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 505-527.
10.
BrewerG. A. (2006). All measures of performance are subjective: More evidence on U.S. federal agencies. In BoyneG. A.MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr.WalkerR. M. (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on management and measurement (pp. 35-54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BurtlessG. (1996). Does money matter?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12.
ChaseG. (1979). Implementing a human service program: How hard will it be?Public Policy, 27, 385-435.
13.
CohenS.EimickeW. (2002). The effective public manager (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
CurrieG.ProcterS. J. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution: The case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1325-1356.
15.
Educational Research Service. (2008-2009). National survey of salaries and wages in public schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.
16.
EhrenbergR. G.ChaykowskiR. P.EhrenbergR. A. (1988a). Are school superintendents rewarded for performance? In MonkD. H. (Ed.), Micro-level school finance: Issues and implications for policy (pp. 337-364). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
17.
EhrenbergR. G.ChaykowskiR. P.EhrenbergR. A. (1988b). Determinants of the compensation and mobility of school superintendents. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41, 386-401.
18.
FernandezS. (2005). Developing and testing an integrative framework of public sector leadership: Evidence from the public education arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 197-217.
19.
FloydS. W.WooldridgeB. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 465-485.
20.
GujaratiD. N. (2002). Basic econometrics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21.
HanushekE. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. In BurtlessG. (Ed.), Does money matter? (pp. 43-73). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
22.
HayesW. (2004). So you want to be a principal?Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
HedgesL. V.GreenwaldR. (1996). Have times changed? The relation between school resources and student performance. In BurtlessG. (Ed.), Does money matter? (pp. 74-92). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
24.
HillG. C. (2005). The effects of managerial succession on organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 585-597.
25.
JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.). (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
26.
KellermannsF. W.WalterJ.LechnerC.FloydS. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31, 719-737.
27.
KettlD. F. (1990). The peril-and prospects-of public administration. Public Administration Review, 50, 411-419.
28.
LandauJ. (1995). The relationship of race and gender to managers’ ratings of promotion potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 391-400.
29.
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
LumsdenG. J. (1982). How to succeed in middle management. New York, NY: AMACOM.
31.
LynnL. E.Jr.(1996). Public management as art, science and profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
32.
LynnL. E.Jr.HeinrichC. J.HillC. J. (2001). Improving governance, A new logic for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr.(2002). Public management and organizational performance: The effect of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 629-643.
34.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr.GoerdelH. (2006). Management activity and program performance: Gender as management capital. Public Administration Review, 66, 24-36.
35.
MintzbergH. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
MorganD.BaconK. G.BunchR.CameronC. D.DeisR. (1996). What middle managers do in local government: Stewardship of the public trust and the limits of reinventing government. Public Administration Review, 56, 359-366.
37.
NonakaI.TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
O’TooleL. J.Jr.MeierK. J. (1999). Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 505-526.
39.
PounderD. G. (1988). The male/female salary differential for school administrators: Implications for career patterns and placement of women. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 5-19.
40.
RaineyH. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
RaineyH. G.SteinbauerP. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 1-32.
42.
RaineyH. G.WatsonS. A. (1996). Transformational leadership and middle management: Towards a role for mere mortals. International Journal of Public Administration, 19, 763-800.
43.
RiccucciN. (1996). Unsung heroes: Federal execucrats making a difference. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
44.
RiccucciN. (2005). How management matters: Street level bureaucrats and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
45.
SchneiderM.TeskeP.MarschallM. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
SergiovanniT. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
47.
SimonH. A. (1948). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Free Press.
48.
SmithW. F.AndrewsR. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49.
StoneJ. A. (1985). Determinants of administrators’ salaries in public schools: Differences for men and women. Economics of Education Review, 4, 105-109.
50.
TallericoM. (2000). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 18-43.
51.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
52.
WalkerR. M.BrewerG. A. (2008). An organizational echelon analysis of the determinants of red tape in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 68, 1112-1127.
53.
WalkerR. M.EnticottG. (2004). Using multiple-informants in public administration: Revisiting the managerial values and actions debate. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 417-434.
54.
WeilP. A.KimballP. A. (1996). Determinants of salaries earned: Comparisons of Black and white healthcare managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 657-678.
55.
WenglinskyH. (1997). How educational expenditures improve student performance and how they don’t. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
56.
WilkinsV. M. (2006). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 17, 77-94.
57.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
58.
WinterS. C.MayP. J. (2001). Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 675-698.
59.
WooldridgeB.FloydS. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 231-241.
