Abstract
Performance management systems that include goal setting have become a widespread instrument in public management, intended to ensure that the entire organization is working to meet the same goals. One key question, however, is how public managers can ensure their employees’ commitment to the goals that management has chosen to prioritize. This article examines the importance of “co-determination” for the relationship between managers’ goal prioritization and the goal commitment of the employees in upper secondary schools in Denmark. Co-determination has the potential to create a common direction and committed employees, thereby rendering it a valuable tool for public managers in goal setting processes. Analysis of ten qualitative interviews with teachers and principals provides rich insight into the concept of co-determination in the context of Danish education, and a quantitative analysis of two parallel questionnaires with 73 principals and 1353 teachers reveals how co-determination has a positive impact on the association between a school principal’s prioritization of the goal of achieving a high completion rate and the teachers’ commitment to the goal.
Appendix
Coding List of Actively Applied Codes in the Analysis.
| Main codes | Sub-codes | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant areas of co-determination | Individual conditions | Teacher statements about having influence on their own work tasks and planning |
| Organizational conditions | Teacher statements about having influence on the school’s goals, decision-making processes and work environment | |
| Channels of co-determination | Formal | Teacher statements about co-determination through formal channels such as the teacher representative and the Education Council |
| Informal | Teacher statements about co-determination through informal channels such as working groups and ad hoc committees | |
| The significance of co-determination | Dialogue | Teacher statements about the significance of co-determination for dialogue between employees and management |
| Exchange of information | Teacher statements about the significance of co-determination for the exchange of information between employees and management | |
| Goal prioritization and goal perceptions | Teachers’ goal prioritization | Teacher statements about the overall prioritization of goals at the school |
| Teachers’ goal perceptions | Teacher statements about the specific goal of achieving a high completion rate | |
| Principals’ goal prioritization | Principal statements about the overall prioritization of goals at the school | |
| Principals’ goal perceptions | Principal statements about the specific goal of achieving a high completion rate |
Principal and Teacher Prioritization of the Goal of Achieving a High Completion Rate.*
| Priority | Frequency (p) | Frequency (t) | Pct. (p) | Pct. (t) | Cum. pct. (p) | Cum. pct. (t) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | 180 | 12.33 | 13.30 | 12.33 | 14.34 |
| 2 | 19 | 520 | 26.03 | 38.43 | 38.36 | 52.77 |
| 3 | 11 | 126 | 15.07 | 9.31 | 53.42 | 62.08 |
| 4 | 18 | 114 | 24.66 | 8.43 | 78.08 | 70.51 |
| 5 | 9 | 91 | 13.33 | 6.73 | 90.41 | 77.24 |
| 6 | 6 | 197 | 8.22 | 14.56 | 98.63 | 91.80 |
| 7 | 1 | 111 | 1.37 | 8.20 | 100 | 100 |
*(t)=teachers, (p)=principals. 14 teachers (1.03 pct.) wrote that the goal was not a priority at all.
Correlation Information.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) | (13) | (14) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Goal commitment (t) | 1.0000 | |||||||||||||
| (2) Goal prioritization (p) | 0.0118 | 1.0000 | ||||||||||||
| (3) Co-determination (t) | 0.2432*** | 0.0598* | 1.0000 | |||||||||||
| (4) Interaction (goal prioritization* co-determination) | 0.1696*** | 0.7447*** | 0.6459*** | 1.0000 | ||||||||||
| (5) Difference in goal prioritization (p-t) | –0.0933*** | 0.6161*** | 0.0231 | 0.4530*** | 1.0000 | |||||||||
| (6) Age (t) | 0.0767** | –0.0537* | 0.0089 | –0.0369 | –0.1029*** | 1.0000 | ||||||||
| (7) Gender (female=1) (l) | 0.0363 | 0.0221 | 0.0050 | 0.0256 | 0.0055 | –0.1169*** | 1.0000 | |||||||
| (8) Seniority (t) | 0.0152 | –0.0602* | 0.0036 | –0.0493 | –0.0923*** | 0.8167*** | –0.1158*** | 1.0000 | ||||||
| (9) Subject (science=1, else=0) (t) | –0.0522 | –0.0075 | –0.0322 | –0.0232 | –0.0038 | 0.0794** | –0.1669*** | 0.0429 | 1.0000 | |||||
| (10) Part time (t) | 0.0482 | 0.0121 | 0.0323 | 0.0244 | –0.0098 | 0.1260*** | 0.0132 | 0.0971*** | 0.0216 | 1.0000 | ||||
| (11) Age (p) | 0.0301 | 0.0234 | –0.0078 | –0.0122 | 0.0328 | –0.0295 | –0.0228 | –0.0362 | –0.0190 | 0.0258 | 1.0000 | |||
| (12) Gender (female=1) (p) | 0.0311 | 0.1067*** | 0.0373 | 0.1012*** | 0.0395 | –0.0070 | –0.0326 | –0.0266 | 0.0120 | 0.0099 | –0.0869** | 1.0000 | ||
| (13) Seniority (p) | –0.0094 | –0.1482*** | –0.0684* | –0.1673*** | –0.0569* | –0.0106 | –0.0410 | –0.0017 | 0.0146 | 0.0115 | 0.6873*** | –0.1717*** | 1.0000 | |
| (14) School size (number of teachers) | –0.0509 | 0.0127 | –0.0619* | 0.0012 | 0.0292 | –0.0387 | 0.0283 | –0.0227 | 0.0105 | –0.1176*** | –0.0421 | –0.0386 | –0.0591* | 1.0000 |
Note: Correlations (Pearsons r). (t)=teachers, (p)=principals. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
References
Andersen, Lotte Bøgh (2013) “Transformations- og transaktionsledelse i offentlige organisationer (Transformation and transaction management in public organizations),” Administrativ Debat, 1:52‒55.Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, Lotte Bøgh and Rikke Skou Jensen (2002) “Medarbejderne: virkelighedens institutionsledere? (Employees: The real managers of institutions?).” In: (Jens Blom-Hansen, Finn Bruun and Thomas Pallesen, eds.) Kommunale Patologier (Municipal pathologies). Gylling: Narayana Press, pp. 67‒91.Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, Peter Bogetoft and Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen (2014) Styring, ledelse og resultater på ungdomsuddannelserne (Management, leadership and results in the youth education programmes). Odense: The Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and the University Press of Southern Denmark.Search in Google Scholar
Boyne, George, Glenville Jenkins and Michael Poole (1999) “Human Resource Management in the Public and Private Sectors: An Empirical Comparison,” Public Administration, 77(2):407‒420.10.1111/1467-9299.00160Search in Google Scholar
Børne- og Undervisningsudvalget, Bilag 197 (2012) Teknisk gennemgang af taxametersystemet – med særlig vægt på de gymnasiale uddannelser. www.ft.dk (28 August 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Christensen, Tom, Per Lægreid, Paul G. Roness and Kjell Arne Røvik (2004) Organisasjonsteori for offentlig sektor (Organization theory for the public sector). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Search in Google Scholar
David, Matthew and Carole D. Sutton (2004) Social Research: The Basics. London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitar (1969) The Semi Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers. New York: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fernandez, Sergio and Tima Moldogaziev (2013) “Employee Empowerment, Employee Attitudes and Performance: Testing a Causal Model,” Public Administration Review, 73:490‒506.10.1111/puar.12049Search in Google Scholar
Freeman, Richard B. and Edward P. Lazear (1995) “An Economic Analysis of Work Councils.” In: (Joel Rogers and Wolfgang Streeck, eds.) Work Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 27‒50.Search in Google Scholar
Frege, Carola (2002) “A Critical Assessment of the Theoretical and Empirical Research on German Work Councils,” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(2):221‒248.10.1111/1467-8543.00230Search in Google Scholar
Gould-Williams, Julian and Fiona Davies (2007) “Using Social Exchange Theory to Predict the Effects of HRM Practice on Employee Outcomes: An Analysis of Public Sector Workers,” Public Management Review, 7(1):1‒24.10.1080/1471903042000339392Search in Google Scholar
Heller, F. (2003) “Participation and Power: A Critical Assessment,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(1):144‒163.10.1111/1464-0597.00128Search in Google Scholar
Jensen, Rikke Skou (2004) Ledelse og medindflydelse: En analyse af ledelsesadfærd og institutionaliseret samarbejde på offentlige og private arbejdspladser (Management and influence: An analysis of management behaviour and instutionalized cooperation in public and private workplaces). Aarhus: Politica.Search in Google Scholar
Jeppesen, Hans Jeppe, Thomas Jønsson and Mark Shevlin (2011) “Employee Attitudes to the Distribution of Organizational Influence: Who should have the Most Influence on Which Issues?” Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32(1):69‒86.10.1177/0143831X10372432Search in Google Scholar
Klein, Howard J., Michael J. Wesson, John R. Hollenbeck and Bradley J. Alge (1999) “Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Conceptual Clarification and Empirical Synthesis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:885‒896.10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.885Search in Google Scholar
Latham, Gary P., Laura Borgogni and Laura Petitta (2008) “Goal Setting and Performance Management in the Public Sector,” International Public Management Journal, 11(4):385‒403.10.1080/10967490802491087Search in Google Scholar
Levine, David I. and Laura D’Andrea Tyson (1990) “Participation, Productivity, and the Firm’s Environment.” In: (Alan S. Blinder, ed.) Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, pp. 183‒237.10.2307/41166630Search in Google Scholar
Locke, Edwin A., Gary P. Latham and Miriam Erez (1988) “The determinants of goal commitment,” Academy of Management Review, 13:23‒39.10.2307/258352Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, John P. and Natalie J. Allen (1997) Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.10.4135/9781452231556Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, John P. and Lynne Herscovitch (2001) “Commitment in the Workplace: Toward a General Model.” Human Resource Management Review, 11:299‒326.10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-XSearch in Google Scholar
Meyer, John P., David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch and Laryssa Topolnytsky (2002) “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61:20‒52.10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842Search in Google Scholar
Miles, Matthew B. and Michael A. Huberman (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar
Niskanen, William A. (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Search in Google Scholar
O’Toole, J. Laurence Jr. and Kenneth J. Meier (2011) Public Management: Organizations, Governance, and Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511784040Search in Google Scholar
Paarlberg, Laurie E. and Bob Lavigna (2010) “Transformational Leadership and Public Service Motivation: Driving Individual and Organizational Performance,” Public Administration Review, 70(5):710‒718.10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02199.xSearch in Google Scholar
Pallesen, Thomas (1999) “Institutionel teori og offentlig drift (Institutional theory and public operations).” In: (Anders Berg Sørensen, ed.) Politologi i praksis (Political science in practice) Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag, pp. 159‒185.Search in Google Scholar
Panday, Sanjay K. and Hal G. Rainey (2006) “Public Managers’ Perceptions of Organizational Goal Ambiguity: Analyzing Alternative Models,” International Public Management Journal, 9(2):85‒112.10.1080/10967490600766953Search in Google Scholar
Park, Sung M. and Hal G. Rainey (2007) “Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment: Empirical Tests of Commitment Effects in Federal Agencies,” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3):197‒226.10.1177/0734371X06296866Search in Google Scholar
Porter, Lyman W., William J. Crampon and Frank J. Smith (1976) “Organizational Commitment and Managerial Turnover: A Longitudinal Study,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15:87‒98.10.1016/0030-5073(76)90030-1Search in Google Scholar
Rainey, Hal G. (2009) Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Ritz, Adrian, Amanda Shantz, Kerstin Alfes and Alana S. Arshoff (2012) “Who Needs Leaders the Most? The Interactive Effect of Leadership and Core Self-Evaluations on Commitment to Change in the Public Sector,” International Public Management Journal, 15(2):160‒185.10.1080/10967494.2012.702588Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, Joel and Wolfgang Streeck (1995) “The Study of Work Councils: Concepts and Problems.” In: (Joel Rogers and Wolfgang Streeck, eds.) Work Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3‒26.10.7208/chicago/9780226723792.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Sagie, Abraham (1997) “Leader Direction and Employee Participation in Decision Making: Contradictory or Compatible Practices?” Applied Psychology, 46:387‒416.10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01244.xSearch in Google Scholar
Samarbejdssekretariatet (2013) Samarbejdsaftalen 2013. Cirkulære om aftale om Samarbejde og Samarbejdsudvalg i Staten (Cooperation agreement 2013: Circular on the agreement about cooperation and the cooperation committee in the state). www.Samarbejdssekretariatet.dk (20 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Soonhee, Kim (2002) “Participation Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management Leadership,” Public Administration Review, 62(2):231‒241.10.1111/0033-3352.00173Search in Google Scholar
Stazyk, Edmund C., Sanjay K. Panday and Bradley E. Wright (2011) “Understanding Affective Organizational Commitment: The Importance of Institutional Context,” The American Review of Public Administration, 41:603‒624.10.1177/0275074011398119Search in Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney (2004) “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide.” In: (Henry Brady and David Collier, eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 171‒179.Search in Google Scholar
Undervisningsministeriet (2013) LBK nr 1076, Bekendtgørelse af lov om uddannelsen til studentereksamen (stx) (Gymnasieloven). www.retsinformation.dk (20. marts, 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: BasicBooks.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Bradley E. (2004) “The Role of Work Context in Work Motivation: A public Sector Application of Goal and Social Cognitive Theories,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1):59‒78.10.1093/jopart/muh004Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Bradley E., Donald P. Moynihan and Sanjay K. Panday (2012) “Pulling the Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Valence,” Public Administration Review, 72(2):206‒215.10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02496.xSearch in Google Scholar
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
