Autonomy and managerial reforms in Europe: Let or make public managers manage?

Abstract

Drawing on a survey of top executives in central governments in 11 European countries (N = 5,190), this study explores variations in the extent and scale of managerial autonomy across and within European states. The article is based on a comparative, multidimensional and relational approach to autonomy. Confirming predictions of qualitative studies, it shows that these variations can partly be explained by the intensity of New Public Management (NPM) reforms and provides a typology of European countries connecting the intensity of neo‐managerial reforms (measured by the declared use of management tools) to the degree of managerial autonomy. Our findings support Donald Kettl's hypothesis differentiating countries where the ‘let the manager manage’ model prevails, as in the Northern countries, by contrast with those, such as the United Kingdom, dominated by the ‘make the manager manage’ programme. The promise of managerial autonomy has also not been delivered to the same extent across and within countries.

Senior Public Managers’ Organizational Commitment: Do Private Sector Experience and Tenure Make a Difference?

“…The data are subject to strict anonymity regulations. Bezes and Jeannot (2018, 5) emphasize that although the COCOPS project sample is not "representative of the real distribution of top civil servants within and among ministries and agencies in each country", the distribution of responses between different types of central government organization and policy area is nevertheless satisfactory (Bezes and Jeannot 2018).…”

Structural reform histories and perceptions of organizational autonomy: Do senior managers perceive less strategic policy autonomy when faced with frequent and intense restructuring?

“…Beyond studying the various substantive dimensions of autonomy, researchers have developed the crucial insight that an organization's formal level of autonomy, as determined, for instance, through founding laws or performance agreements, does not necessarily equate to the de facto level of autonomy as perceived by organizations (Verhoest et al ; Yesilkagit ; Maggetti ; Busuioc et al ; Korinek and Veit ; Bezes and Jeannot ). Instead, de facto autonomy is also shaped by an internally developed logic of appropriateness, determining the organization's perception of what actions are normatively acceptable and desirable (March and Olsen ), as well as rational calculations of the consequences of their actions for stakeholders.…”

“…The increasing interest of governments in creating autonomous agencies spurred the interest of public administration scholars in the early 2000s, who have since devoted substantial attention to the nature and role of organizational autonomy. Verhoest et al () assert that organizational decision‐making autonomy consists of two distinct dimensions, one encompassing managerial affairs and the other encompassing policy development and implementation (Verhoest et al ; Groenleer ; Busuioc et al ; Bezes and Jeannot ). The policy autonomy dimension may be subdivided into operational policy autonomy and strategic policy autonomy.…”

Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance

“…This concern the: All these developments create new opportunities, but also new challenges. For example, destandardization trends have arguably placed the morality of legal approaches and standardized and merit-based HRM practices increasingly in the hand of managers, line managers and HR experts who have discretion and decision-making powers in these fields (Bezes & Jeannot, 2018). The decline of standardized approaches has left many employees more vulnerable to individual discretionary, opportunistic and subjective behavior.…”