Exploring Public-Private Differences in Managerial

Behavior and the Limitations of Publicness

Alisa HicklinAssistant Professor of Political Science

University of Oklahoma

Overview of Talk Research Agenda Major Project Current Study on Publicness Related Research

Research Agenda

Mostly Higher Ed, Some K-12

Performance Equity Accountability Influence of

Administrators Political Control

Representation Equity Immigration Policy Attitudes

Publicness Effectiveness Accountability

Pressures Use of

Information Collaboration Emergency

Response

Management Education Policy Race/Ethnicity

Research Contributions / Directions

Theoretical

Publicness Collaboration and

Networking Political Control /

Accountability Policy Process Bureaucratic Structure Minority Representation

Applied

Design of Accountability Policies

Oversight in Higher Education

Minority Student Achievement

Faculty Diversity School Board Structure and

Resource Allocation Emergency Response Immigration Policy

Five-Year Project Minority Graduation Rates at Four-Year

Universities Influence of Management Role of State Bureaucracy & State

Government W.T. Grant Foundation Scholars Award $350,000 over five years

Management Survey Surveyed all public and private (not-for-

profit) universities in the U.S. Low response rate, but representative on

observable characteristics Pilot study for 2011 survey

Sectoral Differences Long-held beliefs that a key explanation of

managerial behavior can be attributed to public/private difference

Debate over whether public and private differences exist and to what extent

Focus on differences among organizations, less among managerial behavior

Dominant framework: Publicness

Publicness Bozeman: All organizations are subject to

some mix of political and economic authority.

Publicness defined as… Ownership Funding Control

Limits to Existing Evidence on Publicness Mixed findings, many find no difference. Few studies incorporate:

Organizational differences. Individual differences.

Doesn’t speak to assumptions made in the practitioner community about public-private differences.

ReGo: Government should be “run like a business.”

Economic Authority Returning to original definition /

conceptualization of publicness: a mix of political and economic authority

Current measure (O, F, C) only taps into political authority.

Can we assume that “privateness” is nothing more than a lack of publicness?

To what extent are organizations controlled by the market?

Another Possibility Can we assume that political control and

market control are perfectly, inversely related? What about levels of autonomy?

Competition Economic Sensitivity

Budgets Clientele / Consumers

Testing Publicness and Competing Explanations Focusing on Managerial Differences Key Determinants

Publicness Individual Characteristics Organizational Characteristics Economic Authority (Privateness?)

Dependent Variables Time Allocation

Networking Political Actors / Organizations Community

Internal Management Fundraising

Independent Variables Publicness

Ownership (dummy) Funding (% Budget from State Appropriations) Control (Perceptions of Influence)

Individual Characteristics Gender Professional Background (Degree in Education) Experience (Years as President)

Independent Variables (continued) Organizational Characteristics

Enrollment (in thousands) Selectivity (Average SAT/ACT scores) Mission (Carnegie Classification) Wealth (Revenue per Pupil) Disadvantaged Students (% Receiving Pell Grants)

Economic Authority Competition (# of Universities in the State) Economy Sensitivity

Budgets Enrollments

Networking with Political Actors / Government AgenciesOwnership

0.612*(2.89)

Funding -0.002(0.31)

Control 0.262*(3.84)

Constant -1.028*(5.41)

N 317R-squared 0.30

Ownership 0.427 (1.61)Funding -0.000 (0.03)Control 0.253* (3.16)Gender -0.269* (2.37)Ed Degree -0.177* (1.83)Time in Job -0.012 (1.39)Enrollment 0.015* (1.98)Selectivity -0.001 (0.86)Mission (Res) -0.069 (0.42)Wealth -0.003 (1.25)% Pell 0.003 (0.94)Competition-0.001 (0.43)Econ (Enroll) 0.100 (1.41)Econ (Budget) 0.046 (0.77)Constant -0.881 (0.94)

N 272R-squared 0.37

Networking with the CommunityOwnership -

0.080(0.36)

Funding 0.012*(1.91)

Control 0.070(0.83)

Constant -0.342(1.46)

N 323R-squared 0.05

Ownership -0.025 (0.09)Funding 0.005 (0.72)Control 0.066 (0.67)Gender -0.435* (2.88)Ed Degree 0.102 (0.89)Time in Job -0.009 (0.81)Enrollment 0.004 (0.45)Selectivity -0.002* (2.15)Mission (Res) -0.194 (1.02)Wealth -0.002 (0.92)% Pell -0.008 (1.62)Competition-0.003* (1.95)Econ (Enroll) -0.064 (0.80)Econ (Budget) 0.001 (0.02)Constant 2.340 (2.29)

N 277R-squared 0.15

Internal ManagementOwnership 0.349

(1.31)Funding 0.001

(0.10)Control -0.081

(0.87)Constant 0.103

(0.44)

N 310R-squared 0.02Prob>F 0.0637

Ownership -0.025 (0.12)Funding 0.005 (0.52)Control 0.066 (0.48)Gender -0.435* (1.74)Ed Degree 0.102 (0.72)Time in Job -0.009 (0.44)Enrollment 0.004 (0.71)Selectivity -0.002* (2.27)Mission (Res) -0.194 (0.12)Wealth -0.002* (2.09)% Pell -0.008* (2.06)Competition-0.003* (2.43)Econ (Enroll) -0.064 (0.03)Econ (Budget) 0.001 (1.83)Constant 2.340 (1.89)

N 267R-squared 0.09

FundraisingOwnership -0.190 (0.71)Funding 0.006 (0.80)Control 0.079 (0.88)Gender -0.396* (2.60)Ed Degree 0.035 (0.31)Time in Job -0.008 (0.78)Enrollment 0.003 (0.32)Selectivity -0.001* (1.78)Mission (Res) -0.217 (1.21)Wealth -0.002 (0.73)% Pell -0.009 (1.57)Competition-0.004* (2.56)Econ (Enroll) -0.076 (0.97)Econ (Budget) 0.091 (1.21)Constant 1.822* (1.82)

N 275R-squared 0.13

Ownership -0.123

(0.54)Funding 0.012*

(1.83)Control 0.053

(0.61)Constant -0.265

(1.17)

N 320R-squared 0.04

Results Still Mixed! Publicness (1 of 4) Economic authority (3 of 4) Individual characteristics (4 of 4) Organizational characteristics (4 of 4) Not always in the hypothesized direction

Future Directions Data requirements for this type of test are very

high. Better measures of economic sensitivity Other dependent variables Interactions (publicness x org characteristics) Addition of performance measures The addition of performance funding policies For-profit institutions?

Related Research Relationship between Public Managers and

the State (Mixed Methods) Effect of Increasing Faculty Diversity (Mixed

Methods) Perceptions of Political and Professional

Accountability (Mixed Methods) Management and Performance (Mostly

Quantitative) Use of Research in Public Management

(Mostly Qualitative)

THANK YOU

DescriptivesOwnership 42% public, 58% privateFunding Mean = 13.00% SD = 16.8Control Mean = 3.04 SD = 0.90Gender 19% female, 81% maleDegree in Ed 29% yes, 71% noExperience Mean = 6.81 years SD = 5.61Enrollment Mean = 6194 students SD = 8134Selectivity Mean = 1054 (SAT average) SD = 117.5Mission 15% research institutions, 85% otherWealth Mean = $28,992/student SD = 29,735% on Pell Mean = 30.78% SD = 17.65Competition Mean = 49.94 SD = 34.43Econ (Enroll) Mean = 3.21 SD = 0.86Econ (Budget) Mean = 3.69 SD = 0.81

Factor Scores Networking with Political Actors / Institutions: legislators,

state agencies, federal agencies

Networking with Community: alumni, business leaders, community leaders

Internal Management: admin staff, provost, deans, directors, department heads, business affairs, legal affairs, student affairs, development/fundraising, external affairs/PR, research office, athletics, faculty orgs, students orgs

Fundraising: development/fundraising, external affairs/PR, alumni, business leaders, community leaders

Future Funding Opportunities William T. Grant Foundation

Interest in the use of research evidence in policy and practice (related to youth)

Study of use of research in designing programs to increase graduation rates

Lumina Foundation Interest in systematic change & completion Study of accountability policy design Study of Native American achievement

Russell Sage

Interest in immigration Study of state immigration policy and enforcement