Post on 03-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Exploring Public-Private Differences in Managerial
Behavior and the Limitations of Publicness
Alisa HicklinAssistant Professor of Political Science
University of Oklahoma
Overview of Talk Research Agenda Major Project Current Study on Publicness Related Research
Research Agenda
Mostly Higher Ed, Some K-12
Performance Equity Accountability Influence of
Administrators Political Control
Representation Equity Immigration Policy Attitudes
Publicness Effectiveness Accountability
Pressures Use of
Information Collaboration Emergency
Response
Management Education Policy Race/Ethnicity
Research Contributions / Directions
Theoretical
Publicness Collaboration and
Networking Political Control /
Accountability Policy Process Bureaucratic Structure Minority Representation
Applied
Design of Accountability Policies
Oversight in Higher Education
Minority Student Achievement
Faculty Diversity School Board Structure and
Resource Allocation Emergency Response Immigration Policy
Five-Year Project Minority Graduation Rates at Four-Year
Universities Influence of Management Role of State Bureaucracy & State
Government W.T. Grant Foundation Scholars Award $350,000 over five years
Management Survey Surveyed all public and private (not-for-
profit) universities in the U.S. Low response rate, but representative on
observable characteristics Pilot study for 2011 survey
Sectoral Differences Long-held beliefs that a key explanation of
managerial behavior can be attributed to public/private difference
Debate over whether public and private differences exist and to what extent
Focus on differences among organizations, less among managerial behavior
Dominant framework: Publicness
Publicness Bozeman: All organizations are subject to
some mix of political and economic authority.
Publicness defined as… Ownership Funding Control
Limits to Existing Evidence on Publicness Mixed findings, many find no difference. Few studies incorporate:
Organizational differences. Individual differences.
Doesn’t speak to assumptions made in the practitioner community about public-private differences.
ReGo: Government should be “run like a business.”
Economic Authority Returning to original definition /
conceptualization of publicness: a mix of political and economic authority
Current measure (O, F, C) only taps into political authority.
Can we assume that “privateness” is nothing more than a lack of publicness?
To what extent are organizations controlled by the market?
Another Possibility Can we assume that political control and
market control are perfectly, inversely related? What about levels of autonomy?
Competition Economic Sensitivity
Budgets Clientele / Consumers
Testing Publicness and Competing Explanations Focusing on Managerial Differences Key Determinants
Publicness Individual Characteristics Organizational Characteristics Economic Authority (Privateness?)
Dependent Variables Time Allocation
Networking Political Actors / Organizations Community
Internal Management Fundraising
Independent Variables Publicness
Ownership (dummy) Funding (% Budget from State Appropriations) Control (Perceptions of Influence)
Individual Characteristics Gender Professional Background (Degree in Education) Experience (Years as President)
Independent Variables (continued) Organizational Characteristics
Enrollment (in thousands) Selectivity (Average SAT/ACT scores) Mission (Carnegie Classification) Wealth (Revenue per Pupil) Disadvantaged Students (% Receiving Pell Grants)
Economic Authority Competition (# of Universities in the State) Economy Sensitivity
Budgets Enrollments
Networking with Political Actors / Government AgenciesOwnership
0.612*(2.89)
Funding -0.002(0.31)
Control 0.262*(3.84)
Constant -1.028*(5.41)
N 317R-squared 0.30
Ownership 0.427 (1.61)Funding -0.000 (0.03)Control 0.253* (3.16)Gender -0.269* (2.37)Ed Degree -0.177* (1.83)Time in Job -0.012 (1.39)Enrollment 0.015* (1.98)Selectivity -0.001 (0.86)Mission (Res) -0.069 (0.42)Wealth -0.003 (1.25)% Pell 0.003 (0.94)Competition-0.001 (0.43)Econ (Enroll) 0.100 (1.41)Econ (Budget) 0.046 (0.77)Constant -0.881 (0.94)
N 272R-squared 0.37
Networking with the CommunityOwnership -
0.080(0.36)
Funding 0.012*(1.91)
Control 0.070(0.83)
Constant -0.342(1.46)
N 323R-squared 0.05
Ownership -0.025 (0.09)Funding 0.005 (0.72)Control 0.066 (0.67)Gender -0.435* (2.88)Ed Degree 0.102 (0.89)Time in Job -0.009 (0.81)Enrollment 0.004 (0.45)Selectivity -0.002* (2.15)Mission (Res) -0.194 (1.02)Wealth -0.002 (0.92)% Pell -0.008 (1.62)Competition-0.003* (1.95)Econ (Enroll) -0.064 (0.80)Econ (Budget) 0.001 (0.02)Constant 2.340 (2.29)
N 277R-squared 0.15
Internal ManagementOwnership 0.349
(1.31)Funding 0.001
(0.10)Control -0.081
(0.87)Constant 0.103
(0.44)
N 310R-squared 0.02Prob>F 0.0637
Ownership -0.025 (0.12)Funding 0.005 (0.52)Control 0.066 (0.48)Gender -0.435* (1.74)Ed Degree 0.102 (0.72)Time in Job -0.009 (0.44)Enrollment 0.004 (0.71)Selectivity -0.002* (2.27)Mission (Res) -0.194 (0.12)Wealth -0.002* (2.09)% Pell -0.008* (2.06)Competition-0.003* (2.43)Econ (Enroll) -0.064 (0.03)Econ (Budget) 0.001 (1.83)Constant 2.340 (1.89)
N 267R-squared 0.09
FundraisingOwnership -0.190 (0.71)Funding 0.006 (0.80)Control 0.079 (0.88)Gender -0.396* (2.60)Ed Degree 0.035 (0.31)Time in Job -0.008 (0.78)Enrollment 0.003 (0.32)Selectivity -0.001* (1.78)Mission (Res) -0.217 (1.21)Wealth -0.002 (0.73)% Pell -0.009 (1.57)Competition-0.004* (2.56)Econ (Enroll) -0.076 (0.97)Econ (Budget) 0.091 (1.21)Constant 1.822* (1.82)
N 275R-squared 0.13
Ownership -0.123
(0.54)Funding 0.012*
(1.83)Control 0.053
(0.61)Constant -0.265
(1.17)
N 320R-squared 0.04
Results Still Mixed! Publicness (1 of 4) Economic authority (3 of 4) Individual characteristics (4 of 4) Organizational characteristics (4 of 4) Not always in the hypothesized direction
Future Directions Data requirements for this type of test are very
high. Better measures of economic sensitivity Other dependent variables Interactions (publicness x org characteristics) Addition of performance measures The addition of performance funding policies For-profit institutions?
Related Research Relationship between Public Managers and
the State (Mixed Methods) Effect of Increasing Faculty Diversity (Mixed
Methods) Perceptions of Political and Professional
Accountability (Mixed Methods) Management and Performance (Mostly
Quantitative) Use of Research in Public Management
(Mostly Qualitative)
THANK YOU
DescriptivesOwnership 42% public, 58% privateFunding Mean = 13.00% SD = 16.8Control Mean = 3.04 SD = 0.90Gender 19% female, 81% maleDegree in Ed 29% yes, 71% noExperience Mean = 6.81 years SD = 5.61Enrollment Mean = 6194 students SD = 8134Selectivity Mean = 1054 (SAT average) SD = 117.5Mission 15% research institutions, 85% otherWealth Mean = $28,992/student SD = 29,735% on Pell Mean = 30.78% SD = 17.65Competition Mean = 49.94 SD = 34.43Econ (Enroll) Mean = 3.21 SD = 0.86Econ (Budget) Mean = 3.69 SD = 0.81
Factor Scores Networking with Political Actors / Institutions: legislators,
state agencies, federal agencies
Networking with Community: alumni, business leaders, community leaders
Internal Management: admin staff, provost, deans, directors, department heads, business affairs, legal affairs, student affairs, development/fundraising, external affairs/PR, research office, athletics, faculty orgs, students orgs
Fundraising: development/fundraising, external affairs/PR, alumni, business leaders, community leaders
Future Funding Opportunities William T. Grant Foundation
Interest in the use of research evidence in policy and practice (related to youth)
Study of use of research in designing programs to increase graduation rates
Lumina Foundation Interest in systematic change & completion Study of accountability policy design Study of Native American achievement
Russell Sage
Interest in immigration Study of state immigration policy and enforcement