Individuals’ values in the context of NPM-based reforms are a central theme in studies of public professional organizations. While organization studies mainly focus on “professional” values, research on public administration primarily addresses the issue of “public” values. This article brings these two research streams together in order to investigate the relationship between two sets of individual values—commitment to performance-based management and normative publicness—in the context of French public universities. It draws on a quantitative survey of academics involved in university governance. The study demonstrates that a positive attitude towards performance-based management is negatively correlated with commitment to university publicness; furthermore, it delineates different groups within the academic profession—according to professional status, managerial position within the organization, and the department’s reputation and ability to generate revenues—which have differing attitudes regarding performance-based management and university publicness.
AldridgeR.StokerG. (2002). Advancing a public service ethos. London, UK: New Local Government Network.
2.
AlvessonM.RobertsonM. (2006). The best and the brightest: The construction, significance and effects of elite identities in consulting firms. Organization, 13, 195–224.
3.
AMUE (2012). Guide relatif au fonctionnement et à la gestion des universités, Les dossiers de l’agence.
4.
AndersenL. B.Beck JørgensenT.KjeldsenA. M.PedersenL. H.VrangbækK. (2012a). Public value dimensions: Developing and testing a multi-dimensional classification. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 715–728.
5.
AndersenL. B.JørgensenT. B.KjeldsenA. M.PedersenL. H.VrangbækK. (2012b). Public values and public service motivation conceptual and empirical relationships. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 292–311.
6.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A.WalkerR. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 301–319.
7.
AntonsenM.JorgensenT. B. (1997). The “publicness” of public organizations. Public Administration, 75, 337–357.
8.
AustJ.MusselinC. (2014). The reconfiguration of the French university landscape as an indirect consequence of the Shanghai rankings, or how rankings indirectly affect the design of higher education systems. 30th EGOS colloquium, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, July 3–5.
9.
AranyaN.FerrisK. R. (1984). A reexamination of accountant’s organizational professional conflict. The Accounting Review, 119, 1–15.
10.
AranyaN.PollockJ.AmernicJ. (1981). An examination of professional commitment in public accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6, 271–280.
11.
ArnaboldiM.LapsleyI.SteccoliniI. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31, 1–22.
12.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
13.
BecherT. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, UK; Bristol, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press.
14.
BelorgeyN. (2010). L’hôpital sous pression. Enquête sur le “nouveau management public.”Paris, France: La Découverte.
15.
BergA. M. (2006). Transforming public services-transforming the public servant?International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19, 556–568.
16.
BeverungenA.HoedemaekersC.VeldmanJ. (2014). Charity and finance in the university. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25, 58–66.
17.
BezesP.DemazièreD.Le BianicT.ParadeiseC.NormandR.BenamouzigD.PierruF.EvettsJ. (2012). New public management and professionals in the public sector: What patterns beyond opposition. Sociologie du Travail, 54, e1–e52.
18.
BoitierM.RivièreA. (2013). Freedom and responsibility for French universities: From global steering to local management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26, 616–649.
19.
BouckaertG.HalliganJ. (2006). Performance and performance management. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 443–460). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
20.
BourdieuP. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
21.
BourdieuP. (2010). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
BozemanB. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
23.
BozemanB. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counter-balancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
24.
BozemanB. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can learn from one another: Publicness theory as a case-in-point. Organization Studies, 34, 169–188.
25.
BozemanB.MoultonS. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 363–380.
26.
BreretonM.TempleM. (1999). The new public service ethos: An ethical environment for governance. Public administration, 77, 455–474.
27.
BroadbentJ.LaughlinR. (1998). Resisting the “new public management”: Absorption and absorbing groups in schools and GP practices in the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11, 403–435.
28.
CampbellD. T. (1963). Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions. In KochS. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science, vol. 6 (pp. 94–172). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
29.
CavalluzzoK. S.IttnerC. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 243–267.
30.
ChaitR. (2002). The academic revolution revisited. In BrintS. (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 293–321). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
Chatelain-PonroyS.Mignot-GérardS.MusselinC.SponemS. (2014). The impact of recent reforms on the institutional governance of French universities. In ShattockM. (Ed.), International trends in university governance: Autonomy, self-government and the distribution of authority (pp. 67–88). London, UK: Routledge.
32.
ChevaillierT. (2001). French academics: Between the professions and the civil service. Higher Education, 41, 49–75.
33.
ChungT. K. J.HarrisonG. L.ReeveR. C. (2009). Interdependencies in organization design: A test in universities. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 21, 55–73.
34.
ClarkW. (2006). University charisma and the origin of the research university. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
CooperD. J.RobsonK. (2006). Accounting, profession and regulation: Locating the sites of professionalism. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 415–444.
36.
CrewsonP. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 499–518.
37.
CroftC.CurrieG.LockettA. (2015). Broken “two-way windows”? An exploration of professional hybrids. Public Administration, 93, 380–394.
38.
DeemR.HillyardS.ReedM. (2007). Knowledge, higher education and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
39.
DeHart-DavisL.MarloweJ.PandeyS. K. (2006). Gender dimensions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 66, 871–885.
40.
DenisJ.-L.FerlieE.Van GestelN. (2015). Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration, 93, 273–289.
41.
DenisJ.-L.LamotheL.LangleyA. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 809–837.
42.
DobbinsM.KnillC.VögtleE. M. (2011). An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance. Higher Education, 62, 665–683.
43.
DonahueJ. D. (2008). The warping of government work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
DoorenW. V.BouckaertG.HalliganJ. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
45.
Du GayP. (1994). Making up managers: Bureaucracy, enterprise and the liberal art of separation. The British Journal of Sociology, 45, 655–674.
46.
Du GayP. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
47.
Du GayP. (2000). In praise of bureaucracy. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
48.
Du GayP. (2005). The values of bureaucracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
Du GayP (2008). “Without affection or enthusiasm”: Problems of involvement and attachment in “responsive” public management. Organization, 15, 335–353.
50.
EspelandW.SauderM. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40.
51.
FerlieE.GherartyK. J. (2007). Professionals in public service organizations: Implications for public sector “reforming.” In FerlieE.LynnL. E.PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 422–446). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
52.
FerlieE.PettigrewA.AshburnerL.FitzgeraldL. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
54.
FreidsonE. (1986). The changing nature of professional control. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 1–20.
55.
FreyB. S.HombergF.OsterlohM. (2013). Organizational control systems and pay-for-performance in the public service. Organization Studies, 34, 949–972.
56.
FryarA. H. (2012). What do we mean by privatization in higher education? In SmartJ. C.PaulsenM. B. (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 521–547). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
57.
GeorgellisY.IossaE.TabvumaV. (2011). Crowding out intrinsic motivation in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 473–493.
58.
GiauqueD. (2015). Attitudes toward organizational change among public middle managers. Public Personnel Management, 44, 70–98.
59.
GleesonD.KnightsD. (2006). Challenging dualism: Public professionals in “troubled” tomes. Sociology, 40, 277–295.
60.
GoodeW. J. (1957). Community within a community: The professions. American Sociological Review, 22, 194–200.
61.
GreenwoodR.HiningsC. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022–1054.
62.
GumportP. (1993). The contested terrain of academic program reduction. The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 283–311.
63.
GumportP. (2002). Universities and knowledge: Restructuring the city of intellect. In BrintS. (Eds.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 47–81). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
64.
HairJ. F.HultG. T. M.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
65.
HardingNLeeH.FordJ. (2014). Who is “the middle manager”?Human Relations, 67, 1213–1237.
66.
HardyC. (1990). “Hard” decisions and “tough” choices: The business approach to university decline. Higher Education, 20, 301–321.
67.
HayesD.WynyardR. (2002). The Mcdonaldization of higher education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
68.
HenkelM. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London, UK and Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
69.
HenkelM. (2011). Reconstructing collective academic identities in the UK: Moving beyond the European-Anglo-Saxon dichotomy? In HalvorsenT.NyhagenA. (Eds.), Academic identities—academic challenges? American and European experience of the transformation of higher education and research (pp. 64–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
70.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69, 3–19.
71.
HoodC. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 93–109.
72.
HvidmanU.AndersenS. C. (2014). Impact of performance management in public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 35–58.
73.
JarvisC. B.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffP. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.
74.
JorgensenT. B.BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society, 39, 354–381.
75.
JustR. E.HuffmanW. E. (2009). The economics of universities in a new age of funding options. Research Policy, 38, 1102–1116.
76.
KallioK.-M.KallioT.-J.TienariJ.HyvönenT. (2015). Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations, 69, 685–709.
77.
KimS. (2012). Does person-organization fit matter in the public-sector? Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and work attitudes. Public Administration Review, 72, 830–840.
78.
KimS.VandenabeeleW.WrightB. E.AndersenL. B.CeraseF. P.ChristensenR. K.… De VivoP. (2013). Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invariance. Journal of Public administration Research and Theory, 23, 79–102.
79.
KirpD. (2004). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
80.
KleinmanD. L.VallasS. P. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30, 451–492.
81.
Knorr CetinaK. (2009). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
82.
KoehnD. (1994). The ground of professional ethics. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
83.
KrückenG.MeierF. (2006). Turning the university into and organizational actor. In DroriG.MeyerJ.HwangH. (Eds.), Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change (pp. 241–257). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
84.
LabiancaG.FairbankJ. F.ThomasJ. B.GioiaD. A.UmphressE. E. (2001). Emulation in academia: Balancing structure and identity. Organization Science, 12, 312–330.
85.
LaneJ. E. (2000). New public management. London, UK: Routledge.
86.
LazegaE. (2001). The collegial phenomenon. The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
87.
LeblebiciH.SalancikG. R.CopayA.KingT. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 333–363.
88.
Le GrandJ. (2003). Motivation, agency and public policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
89.
LeichtK.-T.FennelM.-L. (2001). Professional work. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
90.
MacfarlaneB.ChengM. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 67–78.
91.
MarginsonS. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53, 307–333.
92.
McMahonW.-W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
93.
MeekV. L.GoedegebuureL.SantiagoR.CarvalhoT. (Eds.) (2010). The changing dynamics of higher education middle management. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
94.
MertonR. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
95.
MeyerR.HammerschidG. (2006). Public management reform: An identity project. Public Policy and Administration, 21, 99–115.
96.
MeyerR. E.Egger-PeitlerI.HöllererM. A.HammerschidG. (2014). Of bureaucrats and passionate public managers: Institutional logics, executive identities and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92, 861–885.
97.
MeynhardtT.GomezP.SchweizerM. (2014). The public value scorecard: What makes an organization valuable to society?Performance, 6, 2–9.
98.
Mignot-GérardS. (2006). Echanger et argumenter: Les dimensions politiques du gouvernement des universités françaises. Paris, France: Institut d’études politiques.
99.
Mignot-GérardS. (2012). Le gouvernement d’une université face aux investissements d’avenir: Entre réactivité et résistances. Politiques et Management Public, 29, 519–539.
100.
Mignot-GérardS.MusselinC. (2002). More leadership for French universities, but also more divergences between the presidents and the deans. In DewatripontM.Thys-ClémentF.WilkinL. (Eds.), European universities: Change and convergence (pp. 123–146). Bruxelles, Belgium: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
101.
MillerP.PowerM. (2013). Accounting, organizing, and economizing: Connecting accounting research and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 557–605.
102.
ModellS. (2003). Goals versus institutions: The development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector. Management Accounting Research, 14, 333–359.
103.
MohrmanK.MaW.BakerD. (2008). The research university in transition: The emerging global model. Higher Education Policy, 21, 5–27.
104.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
105.
MooreM. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
106.
MoynihanD. P. (2010). A workforce of cynics? The effects of contemporary reforms on public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 13, 24–34.
107.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 40–53.
108.
MusselinC. (2013). How peer-review simultaneously empowers the academic profession and university managers: Evolution of the relationships between the state, the universities and the professiorate. Research Policy, 42, 1165–1173.
109.
MusselinC. (2017). La grande course des universités. Paris, France: Presses de Sciences Po.
110.
MusselinC.BarrierJ.BoubalC.SoubironA. (2012). Liberté, responsabilités et centralisation. Rapport: Ecole supérieure de l’Education nationale.
111.
OsborneD.GablerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
112.
OsterlohM. (2010). Governance by numbers: Does it really work in research?Analyse and Kritik, 2, 267–283.
113.
Owen-SmithJ.PowellW. W. (2001). Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work, 10, 109–140.
114.
ParadeiseC.ThoenigJ.-C. (2013). Academic institutions in search of quality: Local orders and global standards. Organization Studies, 34, 189–218.
115.
ParadeiseC.ThoenigJ.-C. (2015). In search of academic quality. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
116.
ParkerL. (2011). University corporatisation: Driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 434–450.
117.
ParkerL. D. (2013). Contemporary university strategising: The financial imperative. Financial Accountability & Management, 29, 1–25.
118.
ParsonsT. (1954). The professions and social structure. In ParsonsT. (Ed.), Essays in sociological theory (pp. 34–49). Glencoe: Free Press.
119.
PerryJ.RaineyH. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organizational theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182–201.
120.
PerryJ. L.HondeghemA. (Eds.) (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
121.
PerryJ. L.HondeghemA.WiseL. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70, 681–690.
122.
PerryJ. L.WiseL. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367–373.
123.
PollittC. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19, 346–363.
124.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
125.
PowerM. (1997). The audit society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
126.
RabovskyT. M. (2014). Using data to manage for performance at public universities. Public Administration Review, 74, 260–272.
127.
RaynerJ.WilliamsH.-M.LawtnA.AllinsonC.-W. (2011). Public service ethos: Developing a generix measure. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 27–51.
128.
ReedM. I. (1996). Expert power and control in late modernity: An empirical review and theoretical synthesis. Organization Studies, 17, 573–597.
129.
RingleC. M.WendeS.BeckerJ.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.com
130.
RhoadesG.SpornB. (2002). Quality assurance in Europe and the US: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43, 355–390.
131.
RhodesR. (1994). The hollowing of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. The Political Quarterly, 65, 138–151.
132.
RutgersM. R.OvereemP. (2014). Public values in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 806–812.
133.
SalancikG. R.PfefferJ. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453–473.
134.
SantiagoR.CarvalhoT.AmaralA.MeekV. L. (2006). Changing patterns in the middle management of higher education institutions: The case of Portugal. Higher Education, 52, 215–250.
135.
SauderM.EspelandW.-N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.
136.
SauermannH.StephanP. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24, 889–909.
137.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
138.
SmithD. (2008). Academics or executives? Continuity and change in the roles of pro-vice-chancellors. Higher Education Quarterly, 2, 340–357.
139.
SousaC. A. A.de NijsW. F.HendriksP. H. J. (2010). Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations. Human Relations, 63, 1439–1460.
140.
SpekléR. F.VerbeetenF. H. M. (2014). The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 25, 131–146.
141.
StokerG. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?American Review of Public Administration, 36, 41–57.
142.
SuddabyR.GendronY.LamH. (2009). The organizational context of professionalism in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 409–427.
143.
SummersG. F. (1970). Attitude measurement. Chicago, IL: Rand MacNally.
144.
TalbotC. (2007). Performance management. In FerlieE.LynnL. E.PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 491–517). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
145.
TapperT.PalfreymanD. (2000). Oxford and the decline of the collegiate tradition. London, UK; Portland, OR: Woburn Press.
146.
TeelkenC. (2015). Hybridity, coping mechanisms, and academic performance management: Comparing three countries. Public Administration, 93, 307–323.
147.
ThomasR.DaviesA. (2005). Theorizing the micropolitics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, 26, 683–706.
148.
ThomasR.LinsteadA. (2002). Losing the plot? Middle managers and identity. Organization, 9, 71–93.
149.
TownleyB. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18, 261–285.
150.
van BockelJ.NoordegrafM. (2006). Identifying identities: Performance-driven, but professional public managers. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19, 585–597.
151.
VandenabeeleV.Wan de ValleS. (2008). International differences in public service motivation: Comparing regions across the world. In PerryJ. L.HondeghemA. (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 223–244). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
152.
Van Der WalZ.De GraafG.LasthuizenK. (2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86, 465–482.
153.
VerbeetenF.-H. M.SpekléR.-F. (2015). Management control, results-oriented culture and public sector performance: Empirical evidence on new public management. Organization Studies, 36, 953–978.
154.
WalkerR. M.DamanpourF.DeveceC. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 367–386.
155.
WildavskyA. B. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
156.
WilliamsG. (2004). The higher education market in the United Kingdom. In TexeiraP.JongbloedB.DillD.AmaralA. (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric of reality (pp. 241–269). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic.
157.
WilliamsI.ShearerH. (2011). Appraising public value: Past, present and futures. Public Administration, 89, 1367–1384.
158.
WinterR. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31, 121–131.
159.
WitesmanE.WaltersL. (2013). Public service values: A new approach to the study of motivation in the public sphere. Public Administration, 92, 375–405.
160.
YlijokiO.-H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education, 45, 307–335.
161.
YokoyamaK. (2006). The effect of the research assessment exercise on organizational culture in English universities: Collegiality versus managerialism. Tertiary Education Management, 12, 311–322.
162.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
