Personnel Flexibility and Red Tape in Public and Nonprofit Organizations: Distinctions Due to Institutional and Political Accountability

Abstract

Academics and journalists have depicted government bureaucracies as particularly subject to administrative constraints, including the infamous red tape and personnel rules that sharply constrain pay, promotion and dismissal and weaken their relations to performance.Research on these topics has often focused on public organizations alone or on comparisons of public and private organizations. The analysis reported here extends this research to include nonprofit organizations. Certain theoretical perspectives would predict sharp differences between public and nonprofit organizations, while others would predict no differences. Using survey data from managerial-level respondents in state government and nonprofit organizations in Georgia and Illinois, this analysis compares perceptions of red tape and personnel rule constraints in public and nonprofit organizations. We investigate whether or not public and nonprofit respondents differ in their perceptions about levels of organizational red tape, and about whether formal rules enable or constrain managers in promoting and rewarding good employees and removing poor performers. The results indicate sharp public and nonprofit differences, with public managers reporting higher perceived organizational red tape and lower levels of personnel flexibility. In addition to public and nonprofit comparisons, the analysis takes into account other factors that might influence public and nonprofit managers' perceptions of red tape and personnel flexibility in their organizations, including individual motivations to choose the job, the respondent's state (Georgia or Illinois), and others. 1 The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable suggestions and insights to further the development of the manuscript. The reviewers' thoughtful recommendations greatly improved this manuscript and the authors are greatful for their feedback.

Factors Attracting Individuals to Nonprofit Management over Public and Private Sector Management

“…Empirical studies assessing the differences between public and nonprofit organizations are relatively sparse, creating gaps in our understanding about the implications these organizational differences have for managers. Although nonprofit and public organizations are similar in that they provide services in many of the same industries, pursue public-serving missions without providing financial gains to stockholders or individual owners, attract public service-minded individuals (Rotolo and Wilson 2006), and place greater importance on personal relations than private sector organizations (Rawls et al 1975), researchers have begun to investigate differences in management and work life across public and nonprofit organizations (Borzaga and Tortia 2006;Feeney and Rainey 2010;Rotolo and Wilson 2006). There is evidence that nonprofit workers report higher job commitment and satisfaction compared to public sector employees (Borzaga and Tortia 2006;Mirvis 1992;Mirvis and Hackett 1983).…”

“…choose nonprofit work settings over government, or vice versa (Feeney and Rainey 2010). Early studies that compare nonprofit employees to those in the for-profit and public sectors have found that nonprofit employees report more satisfaction with their jobs and have more trust in management than those in other sectors (Mirvis 1992;Mirvis and Hackett 1983).…”

Bureaucratic oppression: its causes and cures

“…Несмотря на сложность и продуманность, теория управления имеет ряд существенных недостатков. На-пример, объясняя механизм применения клиентоори-ентированного подхода, Barzelay пишет: «В типичных клиентских отношениях пользователи считают, что поставщики должны быть подотчетны им (и, возмож-но, другим сторонам) в отношении [удовлетворения потребностей клиентов], и поставщики признают, что они должны быть в этом подотчетны» 165 . Эти рекомен-дации имеют смысл, однако термин «подотчетность» не определен и фактически скрывает критическую неопределенность [343, рр.…”

“…Теоретически, и судя по нравственным проповедям чиновники должны быть подотчетны людям, которым законодательно должны служить. Однако из-за раз-личий в статусе, отношений с незнакомыми людьми, институциональных недостатков и дивергентных 165 [293, р. 110 стимулов они не являются подотчетными ни в каком смысле 167 .…”

“…Если вы от-кроете сборник должностных инструкций (обычно очень объемистый) или руководство для чиновника государственного учреждения 76 , то вряд ли вы най-дете там утверждение, что то или иное требование 75 Ведется обширная дискуссия по поводу того, больше ли распространена волокита в государственных учреждениях, чем в частных организациях эквивалентной величины и сложности. См., например, [163] (показано, что именно государственный ха-рактер организации лучше всего объясняет распространенность в ней волокиты); [164] (показано, что волокита распространена в некоммерческих частных больницах); [165] (показано, что во-локита распространена в государственных учреждениях больше, чем в подобных частных некоммерческих организациях). 76 Это один из аспектов, показывающих, что управление выходит за рамки правовой модели.…”