Conference Agenda

Team leaders in schools, but also head nurses in hospital wards, and senior civil servants responsible for their department are examples of line managers in public organizations. They have a crucial role in creating public value (Leisink et al., 2021). Not only are they responsible for work processes in their unit, but they are also people managers in charge of supporting employees in public service delivery (Knies et al., 2018). The support line managers provide to employees by supportive leadership and the implementation of HR practices is referred to as people management (Leroy et al., 2018). Regardless of their important role as people manager, line managers in public organizations are often not specifically trained for their people management role (Penning de Vries & Vermeeren, 2024). Instead, they typically have a background as a teacher, nurse or civil servant. As such, line managers may seek support within the organization for their people management tasks.

Indeed, HRM research shows that support within the organization can help line managers. For instance, Op de Beeck and colleagues (2017) demonstrate that support from HR and supervisors can enhance line managers’ implementation of HR practices. However, these insights do not tell us something about supportive leadership, which is a crucial element of people management. For this, we can turn to the leadership literature, where studies on the trickle-down effect of leadership tell us that leadership at higher levels in the organization influences leadership at lower levels, and thereby eventually enhancing outcomes (Wo et al., 2019). However, the literature on the trickle-down effect is has not been applied to the implementation of HR practices, which is the other crucial component of people management. In this paper, we combine these streams of literature in order to examine the influence of senior managers’ people management and support by HR professionals on line managers’ people management, and the influence on team performance. Thereby, we respond to the call for more research combining HRM and leadership literature to better understand people management (Leroy et al., 2018).

To test our research question, we will use survey data from team leaders (N = 461), HR managers (N = 107) and school leaders (N = 246) in secondary schools in the Netherlands. The data from team leaders is paired with the data from HR managers and school leaders, resulting in multi-rater datasets.

Collaboration among street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) is essential for addressing complex public service challenges. Consequently, public administration research has increasingly examined how SLBs collaborate (Campbell, 2016; Foldy & Buckley, 2010; Whitford et al., 2010). Previous research shows that collaboration offers SLBs social and intellectual capital, which can enhance performance (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone 2015; Thomson & Perry 2006; Sung-Wook & Feiock 2010). However, other studies suggest that collaboration can also reinforce professional values and norms that conflict with organizational goals, leading to loyalty conflicts that undermine SLBs’ organizational performance (Kitchener, 2002; Bovey & Hede, 2001; Denis et al., 1999; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). While collaboration has been widely studied in public administration literature, most research treats it as a uniform phenomenon, overlooking its distinct dimensions and their varying effects (O’Toole, 2014). Drawing on educational research, we identify three key dimensions of collaboration—reflective dialogue, collective responsibility, and de-privatized practice—commonly referred to as professional learning communities (PLCs) (Vescio et al., 2008; Bolam et al., 2005; Stoll et al., 2006).

While studies show that SLB collaboration is generally associated with improved performance (Campbell, 2016; Harris, 2012; Postholm, 2018; Whitford et al., 2010), leadership plays a crucial role in structuring and sustaining collaboration (Leithwood et al., 2008; Hallinger, 2011; Bjørnholt et al., 2019; Daniëls et al., 2019). Previous research shows that managerial support for collaboration is associated with higher levels of organizational performance (Mendez, 2023) and managers play a pivotal role in fostering an environment where collaboration is actively encouraged, adequately resourced, and systematically rewarded (O’Toole, 1997). Thus, management support and in particular professional development leadership may serve as a critical moderating factor in the relationship between collaboration and organizational performance. Despite this, little research has examined how specific leadership strategies such as professional development leadership facilitates collaboration in ways that align with organizational goals and contribute to its long-term sustainability (Campbell, 2016; Weddle, 2022).

We argue that while some forms of collaboration promote alignment with organizational objectives, others may strengthen professional autonomy in ways that reduce managerial control over outcomes. Effective leadership is essential to balance these forces, ensuring that collaboration fosters a shared understanding necessary for achieving performance goals and maximize the positive consequences of collaboration while mitigating potential drawbacks.

Against this backdrop, we examine how different forms of SLB collaboration influence organizational performance and the moderating role of leadership in shaping these effects. We test our hypotheses using a longitudinal dataset matching two waves of panel survey data (2021–2023) from 771 Danish teachers (who have responded to the survey both years) and their school leaders with archival data on student educational achievements, well-being, and self-efficacy. This design allows us to assess how changes in collaboration over time impact organizational performance and how leadership strategies shape the effectiveness of peer collaboration, addressing the endogeneity concerns common in cross-sectional studies (Schot et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015).

This study examines how the employment relationship (ER) influences teacher performance by exploring the role of need satisfaction. The ER reflects the dynamic between employees and employers, defined by the employers’ expectations regarding specific employee contributions and the inducements offered in return for their contributions (Tsui et al., 1997). The public sector was traditionally perceived as over-invested, offering strong job security and generous benefits compared to the private sector (Tsui et al., 1997). However, recent challenges have increased the need for efficiency and effectiveness, raising expectations for public sector employees, including teachers (Decramer et al., 2021). This shift towards high expectations with limited inducements in return, may influence performances of public sector employees. The evolving public sector, along with its unique characteristics, underscores the need for context-specific research on the impact of ER (e.g., Knies et al., 2018; 2022).

Following job demands-resources theory (JD-R) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), expected contributions and offered inducements correspond to job demands and job resources, respectively (Audenaert et al., 2019; Bauwens et al., 2021). The boosting hypothesis in JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2007) suggests that job resources become most motivating when job demands are high. In other words, offered inducements reach their full motivating potential when combined with high expected contributions (Audenaert et al., 2019). Based on self-determination theory, ER is a contextual factor that can facilitate teachers’ psychological need satisfaction (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Fulfilled needs, autonomy, competence and relatedness, enhance performance and make people thrive and flourish in their job (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Among different ER types, the mutual investment ER (characterized with high expected contributions and attractive offered inducements) is expected to best satisfy psychological needs, thereby enhancing teacher performance.

This study employs a cross-sectional, time-lagged survey design, targeting secondary and elementary school teachers in Flanders. The first online survey, conducted in November 2024, measured ER, followed by a second survey two weeks later measuring need satisfaction and teaching performance. The final sample comprised 1030 teachers from 136 schools. Structural equation modelling confirmed our hypotheses, indicating that a combination of attractive offered inducements and high expectations results in the strongest satisfaction of psychological needs, which in turn enhances teachers’ performance. These findings highlight the importance of balancing high expectations and high rewards to foster teacher motivation and performance. This study provides empirical evidence on how ER functions within the unique context of public schools.

Audenaert, M. (2014a). How human resource management motivates employees: the role of job-level perceived HRM, motivational processes, and situational context (Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University).

Audenaert, M. (2014b). De waardeketen van werkrelaties, prestaties en welzijn op het werk: een concreet fasemodel. Tijdschrift voor HRM, 3, 1-20.

Audenaert, M., Carette, P., Shore, L., Van Waeyenberg, T., & Decramer, A. (2018a). Leader-employee congruence of expected contributions in the employee-organization relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 414-422.

Audenaert, M., George, B., & Decramer, A. (2018b). How a demanding employment relationship relates to affective commitment in public organizations: A multilevel analysis. Public Administration. 1-17.

Audenaert, M., George, B., & Decramer, A. (2019). How a demanding employment relationship relates to affective commitment in public organizations: A multilevel analysis. Public Administration, 97(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12378

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285.

Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274–284.

Bauwens, R., Decramer, A., & Audenaert, M. (2021). Challenged by great expectations? Examining cross-level moderations and curvilinearity in the public sector job demands–resources model. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(2), 319-337.

Decramer A., Audenaert M., George B., Van der Heijden B. (2021). Performance management. In Steijn B., Knies E. (Eds.), Research handbook on HRM in the public sector (pp. 91–104). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.

Jia, L., Shaw, J. D., Tsui, A. S., & Park, T. Y. (2014). A social–structural perspective on employee–organization relationships and team creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 869-891.

Knies, E., Boselie, P, Gould-Williams, J. & Vandenabeele, W. (2018) Strategic human resource management and public sector performance: context matters, The International Journal of Human Resource Management.

Knies, E., Borst, R. T., Leisink, P., & Farndale, E. (2022b). The distinctiveness of public sector HRM: A four‐wave trend analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(4), 799–825.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Song, J. L., Tsui, A. S., & Law, K. S. (2009). Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: The role of social and economic exchange perceptions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 56-93.

Tsui, A., Pearce, J., Porter, L., & Tripoli, A. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1089-1997.

Van Der Voet, J., & Vermeeren, B. (2016). Change management in hard times. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), 230– 252.

The impact of open science on research grant success 2017-2024:

A case study on public service performance of a Dutch university

Paul Boselie, Rinze Benedictus, Aleid de Jong, Jacob Nelson and Hanne Oberman

Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Email: p.boselie@uu.nl

Introduction

The Annual Meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco in 2012 can be considered the starting point of the global Open Science movement. This event also marks the Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA), that is worldwide acknowledged by universities and individuals in 166 different countries. Other international initiatives towards open science are the Leiden Manifesto (2015), the Dutch UNL et al. position paper on recognition and rewards (2019), the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA, 2022) and the Barcelona Declaration (2024) (Kramer and Bosman, 2024). The Open Science movement in academia is aimed at open access, FAIR data and software, public engagement, open education, and an alternative framework for recognition and rewards of scholars. The open science critiques on contemporary science can be summarized as follows (Miedema, 2022):

• Too much focus on the individual instead of the collective (for example through teamwork);

• Too much focus on research, often ignoring other academic activities such as (open) education and contributions to society (public value creation);

• Lack of attention for both academic leadership and team science or team spirit;

• Too much focus on poor and simplistic one-dimensional performance indicators, in particular the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and the h-index;

• Lack of open sources, both in terms of open access of publications and open data plus open software;

• Too much emphasis on competition instead of cooperation on both the institutional (university) and the individual employee level.

Little is known about the effects of open science decisions of universities on the organization, employees and society. Critics have warned university boards that a shift towards open science and a applying a broader scope than the research domain could lead to reputation damage and a decrease in external research grant success. Open science indeed broadens the scope from research to other domains such as education, societal impact, team science and team spirit, and academic leadership. However, some of these domains such as societal impact and team science could also have a positive effect on university outcomes, including external research grant success. This paper is an explorative study focused on the impact of an open science strategy on external research grant success of a Dutch university covering a time frame of 2017-2024 right from the start of the open science decision by the university board. The university’s strategic decision towards open science was made in 2017.

The central question in this explorative paper: What is the impact of the open science decision of a university on the longitudinal external research grant success? There are three possible outcomes: No effects, negative effects (decreasing external research grant success) and positive effects(increasing external grant success). The paper also explores the possible external and internal factors (markers) that shape the open science transformation and outcomes such as individual research grant success.

Research grant success

From a public service performance perspective research grant success of university can be seen as a form of organizational performance in one of the strategic areas of a university: Research. Grant success has multiple benefits for an organization. First, it is additional funding that supports organizational goals in a certain area. Second, it often enables a university to attract and retain additional staff who will do the research. Finally, grant success has a positive impact of the university’s reputation and can be seen as a form of corporate branding that is often promoted and communicated on the university website. Research grant success in this paper is focused on individual grant success, both national (Dutch NWO) and international (ERC). Concrete individual national grant success are the Dutch NWO research funding Rubicon, VENI, VIDI and VICI. Concrete individual international grant success are the ERC funding labelled starting, consolidator and advanced grants. Longitudinal data on these different types research grant success will be collected and compared to the grant success of other Dutch universities in the same time frame.

Open science

The case study is focused on the Dutch Utrecht University that strategically decided a shift towards open science in 2017. This was a strategic decision made by the university board. Open science has become one of the five pillars of the Utrecht University strategy since 2020. The open science transition in this university covers three phases. Phase 1 – the initial phases – is the decision and starting of open science in 2017 and 2018. The second phases – the open science program – lasted from 2019 till 2023 and included a university wide program team, open science faculty teams and open science chairs on the five main themes of open access, FAIR data & software, public engagement, open education, and recognition & rewards. The third phase – from 2024 onwards – includes an open science office and open science as a project for further implementation and internalization. It is already decided that open science will continue to be one of the pillars of the new strategic plan 2026-2030.

Open science markers (external and internal):

• External open science markers: DORA (2012), the Leiden Manifesto (2015), the UNL et al. (2019) position paper on recognition & rewards and CoARA (2022) are all supported by Utrecht University;

• Internal open science markers:

o UU strategic decision by the university board for open science (2017);

o UU Open Science program (2019-2023);

o Open science as one of the five pillars of the university strategy (2020-now);

o UU vision on recognition and rewards (2021), including the UU TRIPLE model with an emphasis on team spirit, research, impact, professional performance, leadership and education;

o UU practical vision on recognition and rewards (2023), including employee and line management guidelines, sharing good practices and online videos on UU experiences.

These external and internal markers will also be subject for studying the authorizing environment (Vandenabeele et al., 2013) affecting the Utrecht University open science transformation, value chain and organizational outcomes (in particular individual research grants successes). One example of an external marker that directly affected open science and research grant submissions was the introduction of the narrative CV and the decision that journal impact factor were no longer allowed to use in Dutch NWO research grant proposals. This decision was based on open science and recognition & rewards developments. The political, institutional and stakeholder environment (external and internal) is subject to changes including the global and national open science movement (Miedema, 2022). The introduction of a specific recognition & rewards model such as the MERIT or TRIPLE model is another example of environmental change affecting the open science transformation and organizational effects (in particular individual research grant success).

TRIPLE model

The Utrecht University TRIPLE model is based on the Tilburg University MERIT model. MERIT focuses on five academic domains: Management, Education, Research, Impact and Team science. Utrecht University adopted the MERIT model in the faculty of Law, Economics and Governance (round 2018), followed by the faculty of Geo Sciences. The UNL et al. (2019) position paper on recognition and rewards formed the starting point for adopting the UNL recognition and rewards principles and adapt the MERIT model. The ‘M’ of management was replaced by the ‘L’ of leadership. And the ‘P’ of professional performance was added because of the patient care that is an academic activity within the academic hospital that is linked to Utrecht University.

MERIT was transformed into TRIPLE (from MERIT to TRIPLE, 2021 ):

• Team spirit; the collective is the starting point;

• Research;

• Impact; a way of working through research and education, but also impact as outcome beyond valorization (economic impact);

• Professional performance; a translation of the concept of patient care;

• Leadership; at all levels, hands-on and value-driven;

• Education.

The TRIPLE model was introduced in 2021 within Utrecht University.

Hypotheses

The open science movement proposes a shift from a dominant research focus towards a multidimensional framework that also recognizes and rewards education, impact, leadership and team science. This shift may lead to less emphasis on research and the pursue for research grants. According to the open science and recognition and rewards principles individual employees should not only be selected, appraised, rewarded and promoted on the basis of research activities and research performance (including research grant success). These movements have created room for differentiation, diversification, different academic profiles and accents, for example towards education and academic leadership profiles with little or no attention for research grant applications. From a goal setting theoretical perspective (Locke & Latham, 2002) this implies a shift from one-dimensional research grant focus towards a variety of goals related to research, education, impact and leadership.

Hypothesis 1: The decision of a university towards open science has a negative impact on individual research grant success.

There is a potential lag effect between the strategic decision for open science and the research grant success. It takes time to translate the open science strategy to open science policies and practices (implementation). After formal implementation it also takes some time before the open science practices are perceived and internalized in terms of actual open science employee and team attitudes and behaviors (Wright & Nishii, 2013).

Hypothesis 2: The impact of open science on individual research grant success is visible several years after the strategic decision towards open science.

Other strategic and developments (internal and external) affect the research grant success. This paper will map and explore external and internal markers (the authorizing environment) that potentially affect the open science value chain with an university and outcomes (individual research grant success). When the external and the internal organizational context changes and moves in the direction of open science this also affects employee behavior and outcomes. The recognition & rewards concept of diversification, for example, also may lead to new forms of specialization, in which some scholars focus on new domains such as education and societal impact, while others will focus on research including the focus on individual research grants. From an HRM strength based perspective this diversification might also be more successful for the collective of teams, departments, faculties and universities because it provides room for everyone’s talent. We know little about how this is shaped in practice. The shaping of employment relationships and performance management in academia is often a case of muddling through, requisite variety and loose coupling (Boselie et al., 2021).

Methods

The case study is focused on a Dutch university (Utrecht University). The university itself collects annual data on individual research grant success. The data cover both the Utrecht University and the Utrecht Medical Center. The university was founded in 1636. The organization has seven faculties, approximately 8.900 employees (medical center excluded), a budget of 1.2 billion euros, over 650 full professors, over 7.500 publications per year, approximately 500 dissertations per year, over 40.000 students, 59 bachelor programs and over 150 master programs. Utrecht University is a broad Dutch university and one of the largest universities in the Netherlands located in the center of the country. The Utrecht Medical Center has 12.000 employees and over 1.000 beds. Part of the hospital is the faculty of Medicine that is connected to Utrecht University.

The annual data of Utrecht University will be compared with the data of other Dutch universities to calculate possible shifts in the relative market share in research grants.

The focus of this explorative research will be on individual research grant success, in particular three national and three international research grants:

1. NWO VENI (Dutch);

2. NWO VIDI (Dutch);

3. NWO VICI (Dutch);

4. ERC Starting grant (EU);

5. ERC Advanced grant (EU);

6. ERC Consolidator grant (EU).

Additional data will be collected from the other twelve Dutch universities to compare the longitudinal data with Utrecht University data.

 

Source: https://www.uu.nl/en/organisation/about-us/facts-and-figures/grants-and-distinctions

The longitudinal research grant successes in the case study will be extended with an explorative overview focused on the external and internal open science developments using markers in time. The analyses will be based on document analysis and media exposure.

 

References

Boselie, P., Paauwe, J. and Peccei, R. (2021). Picking up the HRM Pieces: Why Fit Doesn’t Fit in the Public Sector. In Research Handbook on HRM in the Public Sector, edited by B. Steijn and E. Knies. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

COARA (2022) : https://coara.eu/

DORA (2012) : https://sfdora.org/

Kramer, B. and Bosman, J. (2024) Recognition and rewards in academia - recent trends in assessment. Chapter 4. In : Thunnissen, M. and Boselie, P. (eds.) (2024). Talent management in higher education. Emerald publishers.

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. https://doi.org /10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Miedema, F. (2022). Open Science: the Very Idea. Springer, open access.

UNL, NFU, KNAW, NWO and ZonMW (2019) Room for everyone’s talent: Towards a new balance in the recognition and rewards of academics: https://recognitionrewards.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/position-paper-room-for-everyones-talent.pdf

Vandenabeele, W., P. Leisink and E. Knies (2013). Public Value Creation and Strategic Human Resource Management: Public Service Motivation as a Linking Pin, in P. Boselie, P. Leisink, M. van Bottenburg and D.M. Hosking (eds), Managing Social Issues: A Public Values Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 37–54.

Wright, P. M., and Nishii, L. H. (2013). Strategic HRM and organizational behaviour: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. In J. Paauwe, D. E. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges (pp. 97–111). London: Wiley.