Public managers implement various types of external interventions, such as documentation requirements that hold public professionals accountable to legal protocols. Motivation crowding research finds that controlling perceptions of external interventions may reduce motivation and negatively influence performance. Thus, the way that managers build support for external interventions is crucial. This article investigates whether professional development leadership (PDL) is part of the answer, distinguishing between general PDL and intervention-specific PDL. Associations between nurses’ perceptions of documentation requirements and their managers’ exercise of PDL are analyzed in a multi-level dataset with 177 head nurses and 598 of their nurse employees at Danish public hospitals. Results show that PDL is significantly related to nurses’ supportive perceptions of documentation requirements. This finding is only robust across both manager and employee-reported PDL for intervention-specific PDL, suggesting that PDL is relevant for support-building efforts and that we would benefit from distinguishing between general and intervention-specific leadership.
AdcockR.CollierD. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.
2.
AndersenL. B.BoyeS.LaursenR. (2018). Building support? The importance of verbal rewards for employee perceptions of governance initiatives. International Public Management Journal, 21(1), 1–32.
3.
AndersenL. B.KristensenN.PedersenL. H. (2015). Documentation requirements, intrinsic motivation, and worker absence?International Public Management Journal, 18(4), 483–451.
4.
AndersenL. B.PallesenT. (2008). Not just for the money? How financial incentives affect the number of publications at Danish Research Institutions. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 28–47.
5.
AndersenL. B.PedersenL. H. (2012). Public service motivation and professionalism. International Journal of Public Administration, 53(1), 46–57.
6.
AndersenS. C.JakobsenM. (2016). Policy positions of bureaucrats at the front lines: Are they susceptible to strategic communication?Public Administration Review, 77(1), 57–66.
7.
AntonakisJ.FenleyM.LiechtiS. (2011). Can Charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(3), 374–396.
8.
BelléN. (2015). Performance-related pay and the crowding out of motivation in the public sector: A randomized field experiment. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 230–241.
9.
BerlinI. N. (1969). Resistance to change in mental health professionals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 39(1), 109–115.
10.
BertelliA. M. (2006). Motivation crowding and the federal civil servant: Evidence from the U.S. internal revenue service. International Public Management Journal, 9, 3–23.
11.
BoyneS. O. (2017). Importance of documentation and best practices in case notation. University of Miami. Miller School of Medicine. Power Point Presentation.
12.
BozemanB.FeeneyM. K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research. M. E. Sharpe.
13.
BuschP. A.HenriksenH. Z.SæbøØ. (2018). Opportunities and challenges of digitized discretionary practices: A public service worker perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 35, 547–556.
14.
CecchiniM.HarritsG. S. (2022). The professional agency narrative. Conceptualizing the role of professional knowledge in frontline work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32, 41–57.
15.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
16.
DeHart-DavisL. (2009). Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 361–384.
17.
FreidsonE. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic on the practice of knowledge. The University of Chicago Press.
18.
FreyB. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
GeorgellisY.IossaE.TabvumaV. (2011). Crowding out intrinsic motivation in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 473–493.
21.
GrønC. H. (2018). Perceptions unfolded: Managerial implementation in perception formation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(6), 710–725.
22.
GrønC. H.BroL. L.AndersenL. B. (2019). Public managers’ leadership identity: Concept, causes, and consequences. Public Management Review, 22(11), 1696–1716.
23.
HopeK. R.Sr. (2003). Employee perceptions of leadership and performance management in the Botswana public service. Public Personnel Management, 32(2), 301–312.
24.
HsiaoC. (2003). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge University Press.
25.
JacobsenC. B.AndersenL. B. (2015). Is leadership in the eye of the beholder? A study of intended and perceived leadership practices and organizational performance. Public -Administration Review, 75(6), 829–841.
26.
JacobsenC. B.AndersenL. B.BøllingtoftA.EriksenT. L. M. (2022). Can leadership training improve organizational effectiveness? Evidence from a randomized field experiment on transformational and transactional leadership. Public Administration Review, 82, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13356.
27.
JacobsenC. B.HvidtvedJ.AndersenL. B. (2014). Command and motivation: How the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 790–806.
28.
JacobsenC. B.JakobsenM. L. (2018). Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in public services. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 24–36.
29.
JakobsenM.JensenR. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.
KaufmanH. (1977). Red tape: Its origins, uses and abuses. Brookings Institution.
32.
KeiserL. R.MeierK. J. (1996). Policy design, bureaucratic incentives, and public management: The case of child support enforcement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(3), 337–364.
33.
KelmanS. (2015). Letter from the editor: Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–20.
34.
KumarS.KantS.AmburgeyT. L. (2007). Public agencies and collaborative management approaches: Examining resistance among administrative professionals. Administration & Society, 39(5), 569–610.
35.
LundC. S. (2021) Faglig ledelse i offentlige organisationer: Et multi-level studie af relevans og forudsætninger blandt afdelingssygeplejersker og sygeplejersker [Professional development leadership in public organizations: A multi-level study of causes and consequences among head nurses and nurses]. Politica, 53(4), 335–357. English abstract on page 454.
36.
LundC. S. (2022). Professional development leadership in public organizations: A refined conceptualization. Public Personnel Management, 51(4), 516–537.
37.
LundC. S. (2024) Professional development leadership: Scale development and validation. Administration & Society, 56(4), 389–418.
38.
LundC. S.AndersenL. B. (2023). Professional development leadership in turbulent times. Public Administration, 101, 124–141.
39.
MayP. J. (2007). Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(4), 634–663.
40.
MikkelsenM. F.JacobsenC. B.AndersenL. B. (2015). Managing employee motivation: Exploring the connections between managers’ enforcement actions, employee perceptions, and employee intrinsic motivation. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 183–205.
41.
MillerG. J.WhitfordA. B. (2007). The principal’s moral hazard: Constraints on the use of incentives in hierarchy. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 17(2), 213–233.
42.
MøllerA. M. (2018). Organizing knowledge and decision-making in street-level professional practice. A practice-based study of Danish child protective services [PhD thesis]. Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Copenhagen.
43.
MosherF. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University Press.
44.
NoordegraafM. (2016). Reconfiguring professional work: Changing forms of professionalism in public services. Administration & Society, 48(7), 783–810.
45.
OstromE. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48(1), 3–25.
46.
PandeyS. K.MoynihanD. P. (2006). Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: Testing the moderating role of culture and political support. In BoyneG. A.MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.WalkerR. M. (Eds.), Public services performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 130–151). Cambridge University Press.
47.
PedersenL. B.AndersenM. K.JensenU. T.WaldorffF. B.AndersenC. B. (2018). Can external interventions crowd in intrinsic motivation? A cluster randomized field experiment on mandatory accreditation of general practice in Denmark. Social Science & Medicine, 211(2018), 224–233.
48.
PerryJ. L. (2017). The 2017 John Gaus award lecture: What if we took professionalism seriously?PS: Political Science & Politics, 51, 93–102.
49.
Rabe-HeskethS.SkrondalA. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. Stata Press Publication.
50.
RaelinJ. A. (1986). The clash of culture. Harvard Business School Press.
51.
SchillingA.WerrA.GandS.SardasJ.-C. (2012). Understanding professionals’ reactions to strategic change: The role of threatened professional identities. The Service Industries Journal, 32(8), 1229–1245.
52.
SchottC.van KleefD.NoordegraafM. (2016). Confused professionals? Capacities to cope with pressures on professional work. Public Management Review, 18, 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1016094
53.
ThomsenM. K.JensenU. T. (2019). Service professionals’ response to volunteer involvement in service production. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 220–239.
54.
TummersL. (2011). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 555–581.
55.
van der VoetJ.KjeldsenA. M. (2021). Leading change in a complex public sector environment. In PeterL.AndersenL. B.BrewerG. A.JacbosenC. B.KniesE.VandenabeeleW. (Eds.), Managing for public service performance: How people and values make a difference (pp. 199–218). Oxford University Press.
56.
WeibelA.RostK.OsterlohM. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector: Benefits and (Hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387–412.
57.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
