Employee retention is one of the most pressing contemporary challenges organization encounter. All sector are confronted with labor market shortages (Garcia and Weiss 2018; Burks and Monaco 2019), but in particular in healthcare, shortages are substantial (Winter et al 2020). Probably the best way is to have good leaders, as leadership has been frequently associated with employee turnover (Tse et al 2013) or its mirror employee retention (Weberg 2010).

One of the most prominent theories about leadership that has been developed is the is the full-range leadership (Bass 1998; Antonakis et al 2003), including both transactional and transformational leadership styles. However, in order to further increase the explanatory power of leadership, Antonakis and House (2013) have claimed that it should be supplemented with instrumental leadership, which refers to “the application leader expert knowledge on monitoring of the environment and of performance, and the implementation of strategic and tactical solutions (749)”.

However, in order to fully understand the impact of leadership, one should aim at identifying the mechanisms that explain its effect on follower behavior. For the ‘fuller range leadership theory”, one important venue to explore is its relation with self-determination theory. Satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Deci and Ryan 2004) may offer interesting insights in explaining leadership effects in all three leadership styles on outcomes, and in particular with employee turnover (Van den Broeck et al 2010).

Therefore, this study wants to examine to what extent transactional, transformational and instrumental leadership influence the turnover intention of healthcare staff and to what degree does the satisfaction of basic psychological needs mediate this relation.

In order to make causal claims, solid experimental evidence is required, ruling out endogeneity (Antonakis et al 2010). Therefore, the study will apply a survey-experimental design, with vignettes manipulating the variables. However, when testing mediating models, randomization of the experimental condition is not sufficient (Bullock et al 2010). Next to the independent variable, also the mediator should be randomized (Pirlott and Mackinnon 2016). In our design, we therefore sequentially randomize first the leadership condition respondents are assigned to (either transformational, transactional or instrumental), and secondly we apply a random manipulation of extent of basic psychological needs satisfaction (low, neutral or high). Such ‘double randomized designs’ will enable us to make more convincing claims on to mediation (Valente et al 2017).

Power analysis indicated our sample satisfied the minimum required sample size of N=143, as 185 responses were collected. After validating the measures by means of CFA taking into account the ordinal nature of the measures, the pre-registered hypotheses will be tested through regression.

The findings will not only contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms of leadership style causing retention, but the innovative design of sequential double-randomized experiments will make us more confident in stating causal claims about this process. In turn, this will aid in better understanding the practical elements of process of leading and managing employees in the public sector.

“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas, 1928, p. 572). This well-known “Thomas theorem” implies that individuals can have different interpretations of situations and that their behavior in response to these situations is dependent on their perceptions. Almost a century later, this theorem is used in studies of public management, as the importance of employees’ perceptions of public management and leadership is increasingly recognized (Favero et al., 2016; Jacobsen & Bøgh Andersen, 2015; Løkke & Krøtel, 2019; Marvel, 2017; Penning de Vries, 2021). The argument for the importance of employees’ perceptions is that, like the Thomas theorem implies, it is not managers’ perceptions of their leadership or management that predict outcomes, but employees’ perceptions. The increasing emphasis on employees’ perceptions of public management and leadership has led to several new insights. First, studies indicate that often, public managers are more positive about their leadership than their employees are (Løkke & Krøtel, 2019; Vogel & Kroll, 2019). This is relevant, since shared perceptions between leaders and employees are generally associated with outcomes such as higher performance (Fleenor et al., 2010) and job satisfaction (Song & Meier, 2022) than when perceptions are unshared. Second, the focus on employees’ perceptions sheds light on another kind of difference in perceptions. Empirical research shows that in many cases, there is a rather high degree of variance between employees’ perceptions in the same work unit (Li et al., 2011; Penning de Vries et al., 2020; Sanders et al., 2008). This variance aligns with an assumption in the Thomas theorem: individuals may have different interpretations of the same situation (in this case, their supervisor’s management or leadership). Based on the notion that eventually it is employees’ perceptions that lead to outcomes, it has been argued that these differences in perceptions should not just be seen as statistical variance, but rather as a meaningful phenomenon in explaining the relationship between management and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Wright & Nishii, 2013).

Even though there has been an increasing number of studies interested in vertical shared perceptions (between employees and their supervisor), scholars have called for more research on the consequences of vertical shared perceptions of public management (An et al., 2020). There are some studies looking into the consequences of vertical shared perception in the public sector (e.g. Løkke & Krøtel, 2019; Marvel, 2017; Song & Meier, 2022), but the evidence for this relationship is predominantly based on studies conducted in a private sector setting (Fleenor et al., 2010; Lee & Carpenter, 2018). In addition, horizontal shared perceptions have been a topic of interest in organisational science (Schneider et al., 2013) and Human Resource Management (HRM) literature (i.e. Dello Russo, Mascia, & Morandi, 2016; Pereira & Gomes, 2012; Sanders, Dorenbosch, & Reuver, 2008), but as far as we know the consequences of horizontal shared perceptions have not yet been studied in a public management context (with the exception of Penning de Vries et al, 2020). Therefore, the central research question of this study is: to what extent are horizontal and vertical shared perceptions of people management by public frontline supervisors related to employees’ job satisfaction and team performance?

As this research question indicates, we are interested in shared perceptions of a particular kind of public management: people management. People management refers to the combination of the implementation of human resource (HR) practices by frontline supervisors and their supportive leadership behaviour (Knies et al., 2020; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). In order to establish the relevance of horizontal and vertical shared perceptions, we examine the consequences thereof for job satisfaction and team performance.

This study is conducted in the context of secondary schools in the Netherlands. Both supervisors (team- or department leaders) and employees (teachers) were surveyed, resulting in two datasets (supervisors N= 285; employees N=2,836). All supervisors were responsible for the people management of a team of teachers. By matching the supervisors and employees, we were able to identify the teacher-teams and the supervisor in charge of that team. Based on multilevel regression analysis, our results indicate that horizontal shared perceptions are positively related to job satisfaction and team performance. Polynomial regression analysis did not indicate that vertical shared perceptions as such were related to higher levels of job satisfaction and team performance. Vertical positive perceptions, however, are related to higher levels of job satisfaction and team performance, whereas vertical negative perceptions lead to lower levels of job satisfaction and team performance. Further, we find that when supervisors are more positive than employees, job satisfaction and team performance are lower than when employees are more positive than supervisors.

 

Literature

- An, S.-H., Jensen, U. T., Andersen, L. B., Ladenburg, J., & Meier, K. J. (2020). Seeing Eye to Eye : Can Leadership Training Align Perceptions of Leadership ? International Public Management Journal, 1–22.

- Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-Firm Performance Linkages: The Role of the “Strength” of the HRM System. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.

- Dello Russo, S., Mascia, D., & Morandi, F. (2016). Individual perceptions of HR practices, HRM strength and appropriateness of care: a meso, multilevel approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(2), 286–310.

- Favero, N., Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2016). Goals, Trust, Participation, and Feedback: Linking Internal Management with Performance Outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 327–343.

- Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self-other rating agreement in leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1005–1034.

- Jacobsen, C. B., & Bøgh Andersen, L. (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.

- Knies, E., Leisink, P., & van de Schoot, R. (2020). People management: developing and testing a measurement scale. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(6), 705–737.

- Lee, A., & Carpenter, N. C. (2018). Seeing eye to eye: A meta-analysis of self-other agreement of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 253–275.

- Li, X., Frenkel, S. J., & Sanders, K. (2011). Strategic HRM as process : how HR system and organizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1825–1842.

- Løkke, A.-K., & Krøtel, S. M. L. (2019). Performance evaluations of leadership quality and public sector leaders’ absenteeism. Public Management Review, 1–22.

- Marvel, J. D. (2017). Not Seeing Eye to Eye on Frontline Work: Manager-Employee Disagreement and Its Effects on Employees. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 904–918.

- Penning de Vries, J. (2021). Are we on the same page? Understanding shared perceptions of people management: a multilevel multimethod study in schools [Utrecht University]. In Utrecht University.

- Penning de Vries, J., Knies, E., & Leisink, P. (2020). Shared Perceptions of Supervisor Support: What Processes Make Supervisors and Employees See Eye to Eye? Review of Public Personnel Administration.

- Pereira, C. M. M., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2012). The strength of human resource practices and transformational leadership : impact on organisational performance. 5192(January 2017).

- Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3–20.

- Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L., & Reuver, R. De. (2008). The impact of individual and shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: Considering climate strength. Personnel Review, 37(4), 412–425.

- Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational Climate and Culture. Annu. Rev. Psychol, 64, 361–388.

- Song, M., & Meier, K. J. (2022). Walking the Walk: Does Perceptual Congruence Between Managers and Employees Promote Employee Job Satisfaction? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(2), 195–225.

- Vogel, D., & Kroll, A. (2019). Agreeing to disagree? Explaining self–other disagreement on leadership behaviour. Public Management Review, 1–26.

- Wright, & Nishii. (2013). Strategic HRM and organizational behaviour: integrating multiple levels of analysis. In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, & P. Wright (Eds.), HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges (pp. 97–110). Wiley.

Creating public value for citizens is a key ambition for public organisations. Many top leaders of public organisations try to support this ambition through pragmatism, vision-orientation, and involvement of societal stakeholders (Bozeman and Crow 2021; Osborne 2020). Yet, the creation of public value for citizens is a complex task rife with dilemmas. Public employees and citizens can, for instance, have very different ideas about what constitute value, and legitimate citizen expectations and political and economic priorities are often at odds and cannot be realised simultaneously.

This paper investigates what top-level political, administrative, and union leaders perceive to be necessary leadership requirements to make public organisations and their employees realise public value for citizens, and how they navigate the dilemmas that arise. These actors make up the political and administrative elite, and they are pivotal if large public organizations are to succeed with public value creation (Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg 2014; Hartley, Parker, and Beashel 2019). A key aspect is their ability is to engage with the dilemmas that public employees’ face when trying to create public value for citizens.

Public value is conceptualized as a citizen experience of value created by the public (Meynhardt 2009). In this way, we examine leadership directed at the specific interactions between citizens and the public and not the classical understandings of public value(s) as consensual societal principles in plural (Bozeman 2007) or the overall public value in singular (Moore 2013).

The empirical setting is a large, Danish municipality that is currently trying to realize an ambition to create more public value for its citizens. We have conducted 17 elite interviews with top-level political and administrative officials, and heads of key unions. We systematically compare their perceptions on three dimensions: The creation of public value for citizens, the dilemmas arising from this, and the leadership required to succeed.

Preliminary results indicate that all three groups of top-level leaders see a long-term focus on public value creation as pivotal for the support of the public employees, but they are somewhat sceptical about their ability to maintain such a focus. They are aware that it requires courage and persistence to overcome the risk that everyday events and minor conflicts overshadow the long-term ambition. This is the case for both political, administrative, and union top-level leaders, but the latter group is most sceptical about the ability to maintain a long-term focus on value creation.

The paper makes an important contribution to the study of public value leadership by showing how top-level leaders understand and make sense of public value for citizens, and especially how they understand and see their own role as leaders of large public organizations with many employees that strive to create public value to citizens.

Literature

Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Public Values and Public Interest Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Public Manage-ment and Change. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.

Bozeman, Barry, and Michael M Crow. 2021. Public Values Leadership: Striving to Achieve Democratic Ideals. JHU Press.

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. “Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management.” Public Administration Review 74 (4): 445–56.

Hartley, Jean, Steven Parker, and Jim Beashel. 2019. “Leading and Recognizing Public Value.” Public Administration 97 (2): 264–78.

Meynhardt, Timo. 2009. “Public Value Inside: What Is Public Value Creation?” International Journal of Public Administration 32 (3–4): 192–219.

Moore, Mark H. 2013. Recognizing Public Value. Recognizing Public Value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Osborne, Stephen P. 2020. Public Service Logic: Creating Value for Public Service Users, Citizens, and Society Through Public Service Delivery. Public Service Logic. Routledge Critical Studies in Public Management. Milton: Taylor and Francis.