Suchergebnisse

AbstractReputation scholars in the field of regulation tend to focus on the strategic nature—or: "agency"—of reputation management. We know fairly little about the precise nature of the dynamics and conflicts between structural and agential factors that are experienced by regulators in practice, and how these dynamics impact reputation management and its outcomes. This study addresses these questions, using conceptual language from the strategic‐relational approach to study the reputation management of the Belgian financial regulator during an event of high reputational salience: the global financial crisis. The results present an image of a regulator as a strategic actor who—either consciously or more intuitively—calculated its possible moves in light of a strategically selective context (which, in turn, was constantly evolving as a result of strategic actions). This contributes to a more complex and behaviorally realistic understanding of regulatory reputation management.

AbstractGovernments across the globe try to rebalance their budgets by rationalizing overhead operations. When overhead‐reducing policies are adopted, it is important to understand why some central government organizations have a higher overhead than others, and why organizational models to produce overhead efficiencies are used to different degrees. This study focuses on the Flemish context to analyse differences between central government organizations in the size and organization of two overhead processes: human resources management (HRM) and finance and control (FIN). Significant effects are found for autonomy, organizational size, spatial dispersion and budgetary stress, yet effects vary according to whether HRM or FIN is considered and whether the focus is on the size or the organization of HRM or FIN. Our findings have practical implications to get a process‐sensitive understanding of the size and organization of overhead, and theoretical implications as they cast light on factors that shape decision‐making in public organizations.

In the past decades, scholarship has recognized the potential of human resource management (HRM) to contribute to organizational performance in the public sector. Even so, the issue of how HRM activities are organized to achieve superior performance is still in largely unknown territory. De-centering and re-centering dynamics for the organization of HRM have been recognized, but insufficiently analyzed in terms of theoretical and analytical integration. This study investigates the specifics of how the public sector organizes a variety of HRM activities, including the questions of where and why. We find that a complementary use of a rational design perspective and a constraining drift perspective is crucial in order to fully understand the complexities of organizing HRM activities in the public sector. Public organizations generally intend to seek the most optimal arrangement but are sometimes constrained from doing so. Institutional constraints sometimes result in more optimal arrangements, but they can also lead to unintended side-effects. This calls for more research on how design and drift factors intertwine.

AbstractWhat happens to organizational rigidity when public organizations faced reputational threats over time? Do they take external criticism as incentives to become less rigid and more innovative and flexible through employee involvement and empowerment? Or do reputational threats paradoxically contribute to the very rigidity that is often stereotyped as inherent parts of government? Building on threat‐rigidity theory, we test the temporal relation between reputational threats (both in terms of the direction of reputation and its turbulence) and organizational rigidity. We apply a dynamic panel data approach combining different data sources on 34 US agencies over a period of 13 years. The results show that organizational rigidity increased, both when reputations evolved negatively over time and when reputations evolved more turbulently. No combined effect of negative reputations and reputational turbulence was observed. Both sources of reputational threats independently precluded organizations from creating a climate of employee empowerment, involvement, flexibility, and innovation.

Les études sur l'innovation dans le secteur public n'ont pas encore exploré de manière systématique la manière dont le contexte cible (ou la phase de production) des innovations influe sur les premières phases des processus d'innovation. Cette étude théorise et vérifie si les organisations innovantes sont plus sensibles aux idées de certains groupes de parties prenantes en fonction du groupe cible de l'innovation concernée. Sur la base d'un ensemble de données à grande échelle provenant de la fonction publique australienne, les résultats montrent que les innovations destinées à des groupes cibles externes sont plus susceptibles d'être fondées sur des idées émanant de parties prenantes externes (par rapport aux parties prenantes internes) et – au sein du groupe des parties prenantes internes – sur des idées émanant de cadres (par rapport aux employés non cadres). Les implications pratiques et scientifiques sont discutées. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Les innovations profitent de l'intégration des idées des parties prenantes internes et externes, à la fois sur le fond (des connaissances appropriées conduisent à de meilleurs produits finaux) et sur le plan symbolique (les innovations doivent être considérées comme légitimes et recevoir le soutien des acteurs qui seront les premiers concernés par l'innovation). Les organisations innovantes doivent être conscientes des perceptions des parties prenantes concernées par l'innovation, et bien percevoir, saisir et traduire les idées de ces parties prenantes dans le processus d'innovation.

Public sector innovation scholarship has not yet systematically explored how the target context (or output phase) of innovations impacts the early phases of innovation processes. This study theorizes and tests whether innovating organizations are more sensitive to ideas from particular stakeholder groups depending on the target group of said innovation. Using a large-scale dataset from the Australian Public Service, the results show that innovations with external target groups are more likely to be built on ideas from external stakeholders (compared with internal stakeholders) and—within the group of internal stakeholders—on ideas from managers (compared with non-managerial employees). Practical and scholarly implications are discussed.Points for practitioners: Innovations benefit from the inclusion of internal and external stakeholder ideas, both substantively (appropriate knowledge leads to better end products) and symbolically (innovations need to be deemed legitimate, and receive support from the actors that will be primarily impacted by the innovation). Innovating organizations need to be aware of the perceptions of the stakeholders affected by the innovation, and properly sense, capture and translate the ideas of those stakeholders in the innovation process.