This paper asks: what influence do various middle management tasks have on organizational performance? We identify five tasks: setting clear goals, communication, participative management, human resources management, and resource distribution, and model their separate and combined influence on objective performance measures. Using a dataset of survey and performance data from 2007–2010 on over 250 public schools in Hawaii, findings show that setting clear goals has a positive, significant impact on performance. After combining these tasks into three general management measures (leadership, management, and resource management), results show that the management dimension is significant. This study adds to the public management literature by focusing on the effect of middle management, and specific management tasks, on performance, in a unionized agency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkkermanA., & TorenvliedR. (2011). Managing the environment: Effects of network ambition on agency performance. Public Management Review, 13, 159–174.
2.
AndrewsR., & BoyneG.A. (2010). Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review, May/June, 443–454.
3.
AndrewsR., BoyneG.A., & WalkerR.M. (2006). Strategy content and organizational performance: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review, 66, 52–56.
4.
AndrewsR. & JohansenM.S. (2012). Organizational environments and performance: A linear or nonlinear relationship?Public Organization Review, 12, 175–189.
5.
BarnardC.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BelléN. (2014). Leading to make a difference: A field experiment on the performance effects of transformational leadership, perceived social impact, and public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 109–136.
7.
BoyneG. (2003). Sources of public improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 367–94.
8.
BrewerG.A. (2005). In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 15, 505–27.
9.
BrewerG. & SeldenS. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 685–712.
10.
ChenC. A., BermanE. M., & WangC. Y. (2014). Middle managers' upward roles in the public sector. Administration & Society, DOI: 0095399714546326.
11.
ChunY.H., and RaineyH.G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 1–30.
12.
CurrieG. & ProcterS.J. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers' strategic contribution: The case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1325–56.
13.
DaleyD.M. (2006). Strategic human resources management. In Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges, 4th ed., ed. RiccucciN.M., 163–736. New York: Pearson Education.
14.
DonahueA.K., SeldenS.C., & IngrahamP.W. (2000). Measuring government management capacity: A comparative analysis of human resources management systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 381–411.
15.
DonahueA.K., JacobsonW.S., RobbinsM.D., RubinE.V., & SeldenS.C. (2004). Management and performance outcomes in state government. In The art of governance, eds. IngrahamP.W. and LynnL.E., 125–151. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
16.
FaveroN., & MeierK. J. (2013). Evaluating urban public schools: Parents, teachers, and state assessments. Public Administration Review, 73, 401–412.
17.
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.
18.
FernandezS., ChoY.J., & PerryJ.L. (2010). Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public sector performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 308–23.
19.
FernandezS. & MoldogazievT. (2013a). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73, 490–506.
20.
FernandezS. & MoldogazievT. (2015). Employee empowerment and job satisfaction in the US federal bureaucracy: A self-determination theory perspective. American Review of Public Administration, 45:4. 375–401. DOI: 10.1177/0275074013507478.
21.
FloydS.W. & WooldridgeB. (1997). Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 465–85.
22.
FriedmanB.A., BobrowskiP.E., & GeraciJ. (2006). Parents' school satisfaction: Ethnic similarities and differences. Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 471–486.
23.
GatenbyM., ReesC., TrussC., AlfesK., & SoaneE. (2015). Managing change, or changing managers? The role of middle managers in UK public service reform. Public Management Review, 17:8, 1124–1145.
24.
GlewD.J., O'Leary-KellyA.M., GriffinR.W., & Van FleetD.D. (1995). Participation in organizations: A preview of issues and proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of Management, 21, 395–421.
25.
GulickL. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In Papers on the Science of Administration, eds. GulickL. and UrwickL., 1–88. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
26.
HorneJ.H. & LuptonT. (1965). The work activities of ‘middle managers’-An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, 2, 14–33.
27.
HuyQ.N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31–69.
28.
IngrahamP.W., JoyceP.G., & DonahueA.K. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
JohansenM.S. (2012). The direct and interactive effects of middle and upper managerial quality on organizational performance. Administration & Society, 44, 383–411.
30.
KimS. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62, 231–41.
31.
LumsdenG.J. (1982). How to Succeed in Middle Management. New York: AMACOM.
32.
LynnL.E., HeinrichC.J.Jr., & HillC.J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33.
MeierK.J. & O'TooleL.Jr. (2002). Public management and organizational performance: The effect of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 629–43.
34.
MintzbergH. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35.
MoeT. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 156–174.
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, 359–66.
37.
MoynihanD.P. & IngrahamP.W. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance-information use. Administration & Society, 36, 427–53.
38.
MoynihanD.P. & PandeyS.K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of governance by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 421–39.
39.
MoynihanD.P., PandeyS.K., & WrightW. (2011). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 143–164.
40.
Nicholson-CrottyS., GrissomJ.A., & Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2012). Governance and the impact of public employee unions on organizational performance. Public Performance and Management Review, 35, 422–448.
41.
NonakaI. & TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
OsborneD.E. & GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial government is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin.
43.
O'TooleL.J.Jr. & MeierK.J. (2011). Public management: Organizations, governance, and performance.Cambridge University Press.
44.
O'TooleL.J.Jr, TorenvliedR., AkkermanA., & MeierK.J. (2013). “Human resource management and public organizational performance: educational outcomes in the Netherlands” In Human resource management in the public sector, eds. BurkeNoblet, and Cooper. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. pp. 270–285.
45.
PerryJ.L., MeschD., & ParrlbergL. (2006). Motivating employees in a new governance era: The performance paradigm revisited. Public Administration Review, 66, 505–14.
46.
PetersT.J. & WatermanR.H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper Collins.
47.
QuinnR.E. & RohrbaughJ. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 5, 122–40.
48.
RaineyH.G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49.
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.
50.
RaineyH.G. & WatsonS.A. (1996). Transformational leadership and middle management: Towards a role for mere mortals. International Journal of Public Administration, 19, 763–800.
51.
RiccucciN.M. (2005). How management matters: Street level bureaucrats and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
52.
RodgersR. & HunterJ.E. (1992). A foundation of good management practice in government: Management by objectives. Public Administration Review, 52, 27–39.
53.
SchneiderM., TeskeP., MarshallM., & RochC. (1998). Shopping for schools: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed parent may be enough. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 769–793.
54.
SeldenS.C. (2009). Human capital: Tools and strategies for the public sector. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
55.
SimonH.A. (1948). Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press.
TorenvliedR., & AkkermanA. (2012). Effects of managers' work motivation and networking activating on their reported levels of external red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 445–471.
58.
WalkerR.M. & BrewerG.A. (2008). An organizational echelon analysis of the determinants of red tape in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 68, 1112–27.
59.
WilkinsV.M. (2006). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 77–94.
60.
WilsonJ.Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.
61.
WinterS.C. & MayP.J. (2001). Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 675–98.
62.
WooldridgeB. & FloydS.W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 231–41.
63.
WrightB.E. (2001). Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 559–86.
64.
WrightB.E. & PandeyS.K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the public sector: does structure matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 75–89.
