Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-ckgrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T10:05:12.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professionalism and organizational performance in the wake of new managerialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2014

Shirin Ahlbäck Öberg Open the ORCID record for Shirin Ahlbäck Öberg [Opens in a new window]  and
Louise Bringselius
Shirin Ahlbäck Öberg*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Louise Bringselius
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
*
*E-mail: shirin.ahlback@statsvet.uu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With New Public Management came the idea that public organizations should be led by professional managers, rather than by professionals. This has been referred to as new managerialism. This article explores how new managerialism may affect professional autonomy in a public organization that enjoys a high – and constitutionally protected – degree of organizational autonomy. A framework distinguishing between organizational and occupational professionalism is adopted, in a 10-year case study of the Swedish National Audit Office (SNAO). The study shows how the autonomy of professionals at the SNAO was highly restricted, while management control systems were continuously expanded. At the same time, SNAO performance has been reduced. For example, the SNAO has been criticized for its high overhead costs. The study presented in this article, shows the complex interplay between professionalism, new managerialism, and organizational performance. Based on the findings from this study, the article maintains that it is equally important to consider how autonomy is distributed within agencies, as it is to consider how autonomy is distributed between the political sphere and the administration, when trying to explain organizational performance.

Keywords

professionalismagency autonomyprofessional autonomySupreme Audit Institutionnew managerialism
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 499 - 523
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abma, T.A. and Noordegraaf, M. (2003), ‘Public managers amidst ambiguity: towards a typology of evaluative practices in public management’, Evaluation 9(3): 285–306.Google Scholar
Ackroyd, S., Kirkpatrick, I. and Walker, R.M. (2007), ‘Public management reform in the UK and its consequences for professional organization: a comparative analysis’, Public Administration 85: 9–26.Google Scholar
Agevall, L. and Jonnergård, K. (2007), ‘Management by documents: a risk of deprofessionalizing?’, in C. Aili, L.-E. Nilsson, L.G. Svensson and P. Denicolo (eds), Tension between Organization and Profession: Professionals in Nordic Public Service, Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ahlbäck, S. (1999), Att kontrollera staten. Den statliga revisionens roll i den parlamentariska demokratin. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis [diss.], Uppsala, 131.Google Scholar
Ahlbäck, S. (2001), ‘En konstitutionell revolution – den nya revisionsmyndigheten’, Politologen 30: 25–32.Google Scholar
Aranya, N. and Ferris, K.R. (1983), ‘Organizational-professional conflict among U.S. and israeli professional accountants’, The Journal of Social Psychology 119(2): 153–161.Google Scholar
Brante, T. (1992), ‘Expert society: the origins and development of professions in Sweden’, Studies of Higher Education and Research 1992: 1–29.Google Scholar
Brante, T. (1999), ‘Professional waves and state objectives: a macro-sociological model of the origin and development of continental professions, illustrated by the case of Sweden’, in I. Hellberg, M. Saks and C. Benoit (eds), Professional Identities in Transition, Göteborg: Department of Sociology, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Bringselius, L. (2008), Personnel Resistance in Public Professional Service Mergers: the Merging of Two National Audit Organizations, Lund Studies in Economics and Management [diss.] Lund: Lund Business Press.Google Scholar
Bringselius, L. (2011), ‘Performance audit at the Swedish Supreme Audit Institution (SAI)’. The Lund Institute of Economic Research Report Series, no. 2011–01. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Bringselius, L. (2013), Organisera oberoende granskning: Riksrevisionens första tio år, Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Bringselius, L. (2014), ‘The dissemination of results from supreme audit institutions: independent partners with the media?’, Financial Accountability & Management 30(1): 75–94.Google Scholar
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2001), ‘Public service professionals and the new public management: control of the professions in public services’, in K., McLaughlin, S., Osborne and E., Ferlie (eds), The New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (2011), ‘Policy work: street-level organizations under new managerialism’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(Supplement 2): i253–i277.Google Scholar
Brunsson, N. and Jacobsson, B. (2000), A World of Standards, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burrage, M. and Torstendahl, R. (1990), Professions in Theory and History. Rethinking the Study of the Professions, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Choi, S., Holmberg, I., Löwstedt, J. and Brommels, M. (2011), ‘Executive management in radical change: the case of the Karolinska University Hospital merger’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 27: 11–23.Google Scholar
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (eds) (2006), Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997), The Managerial State, London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cowton, C.J. and Brierley, J.A. (2000), ‘Putting meta-analysis to work: accountants’ organizational-professional conflict’, Journal of Business Ethics 24(4 (part 2)): 343–353.Google Scholar
Dagens Nyheter (2003), ‘Riksrevisionen är förlamad’, Dagens Nyheter, May 5, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Deem, R. (2001), ‘Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: is the local dimension still important?’, Comparative Education 37(1): 7–20.Google Scholar
Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2005), ‘Management as ideology: the case of “new managerialism” in higher education’, Oxford Review of Education 31: 217–235.Google Scholar
Denhardt, R.B. and Denhardt, J.V. (2000), ‘The new public service: serving rather than steering’, Public Administration Review 60: 549–559.Google Scholar
Diver, C. (1982), ‘Engineers and entrepreneurs: the dilemma of public management’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1(3): 402–406.Google Scholar
Douglas, P.P. (1971), ‘Professionalism: its presence and absence in the insurance industry’, Journal of Risk and Insurance 38(2): 215–224.Google Scholar
Evetts, J. (2003), ‘The sociological analysis of professionalism: occupational change in the modern world’, International Sociology 18(2): 395–415.Google Scholar
Evetts, J. (2006), ‘Introduction: trust and professionalism: challenges and occupational changes’, Current Sociology 54(4): 515–531.Google Scholar
Evans, T. (2011), ‘Professionals, managers and discretion: critiquing street-level bureaucracy’, British Journal of Social Work 41(2): 368–386.Google Scholar
Evans, T. and Harris, J. (2004), ‘Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion’, The British Journal of Social Work 34(6): 871–895.Google Scholar
Exworthy, M. and Halford, S. (eds) (1999), Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Ferlie, E. and Geraghty, K.J. (2007), ‘Professionals in public service organizations: implications for public sector “Reforming”’, in E., Ferlie, L.E., Lynn and C., Pollitt (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Flynn, R. (1999), ‘Managerialism, professionalism and quasi-markets’, in M., Exworthy and S., Halford (eds), Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Freidson, E. (1995), ‘What is “The” State; What is “The” Profession?’ Paper to the SASE conference, April 7–9, Washington.Google Scholar
Freidson, E. (1999), ‘Theory of professionalism: method and substance’, International Review of Sociology 9(1): 117–129.Google Scholar
Freidson, E. (2001), Professionalism: The Third Logic, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gore, A. (1993), From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less, Washington, DC: National Performance Review.Google Scholar
Grönlund, A., Svärdsten, F. and Öhman, P. (2011), ‘Value for money and the rule of law: the (new) performance audit in Sweden’, International Journal of Public Sector Management 24(2): 107–121.Google Scholar
Guest, D.E. (1997), ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 8(3): 263–276.Google Scholar
Gunz, H.P. and Gunz, S.P. (1994), ‘Professional/Organizational commitment and job satisfaction for employed lawyers’, Human Relations 47(7): 801–828.Google Scholar
Hall, R.H. (1968), ‘Professionalization and bureaucratization’, American Sociological Review 33(1): 92–104.Google Scholar
Hertting, N., Jungerhem, S. and Sjöblom, A. (2012), Kvalitetsbedömning av Effektivitetsrevisionens Granskningsprocess, Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Hertting, N., Jungerhem, S., Murhem, S., Sjöblom, A., Stenbacka, S. and Söderberg, B. (2011), Kvalitetsbedömning av effektivitetsrevisionens granskningsrapporter, 2011: Rapport till Riksrevisionen, Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Hood, C. and Peters, G. (2004), ‘The middle aging of new public management: into the age of paradox?’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14: 267–282.Google Scholar
Ingraham, P.W. (2005), ‘Performance: promises to keep and miles to go’, Public Administration Review 65(4): 390–395.Google Scholar
INTOSAI. (2001), ‘Code of Ethics and Auditing Standards’, Issued by the Auditing Standards Committee at the XVIth Congress of INTOSAI in 1998 in Montevideo, INTOSAI, Uruguay.Google Scholar
INTOSAI (2004), ‘Implementation Guidelines for Performance Auditing – Standards and Guidelines for Performance Auditing based on INTOSAI’s Auditing Standards and Practical Experience’, presented by INTOSAI Auditing Standards Committee, INTOSAI, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, I., Ackroyd, S. and Walker, R.M. (2005), The New Managerialism and Public Service Professions, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kitchener, M. (2002), ‘Mobilizing the logic of managerialism in professional fields: the case of academic health center mergers’, Organization Studies 23: 391–420.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. (1977), Politics and Markets: the World’s Political-Economic Systems, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maor, M. (2004), ‘Feeling the heat? Anticorruption mechanisms in comparative perspective’, Governance 17: 1–28.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.E. and Hammerschmid, G. (2010), ‘The degree of decentralization and individual decision making in central government human resource management: a European comparative perspective’, Public Administration 88(2): 455–478.Google Scholar
Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (1988), ‘Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing’, Personnel Psychology 41: 267–281.Google Scholar
Newman, S. and Lawler, J. (2009), ‘Managing health care under new public management: a sisyphean challenge for nursing’, Journal of Sociology 45: 419–432.Google Scholar
Noordegraaf, M., de Wit, B. (2012), ‘Responses to managerialism: how management pressures affect managerial relations and loyalties in education’, Public Administration 90: 957–973.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, D. and Reed, M. (2011), ‘The grit in the oyster: professionalism, managerialism and leaderism as discourses of UK public services modernization’, Organization Studies 32: 1079–1101.Google Scholar
Parker, M. (2002), Against Management: Organization in the Age of Managerialism, Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. (1990), ‘Doing business in the temple: managers and quality assurance in public services’, Public Administration 68(4): 435–452.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2011), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Summa, H. (1999), Performance or Compliance?: Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Powell, W.W. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reed, M. (2002), ‘New managerialism, professional power and organizational governance in UK universities: a review and assessment’, in A. Amaral, G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–186.Google Scholar
SFS [Swedish Code of Statutes] 2002:1022, ‘the Swedish Act on Auditing of State Activities’.Google Scholar
Shafer, W.E. (2002), ‘Ethical pressure, organizational-professional conflict, and related work outcomes among management accountants’, Journal of Business Ethics 38(3): 261–273.Google Scholar
Sveriges riksdag (2008/09 URF1), ‘Uppföljning av Riksrevisionsreformen: Riksrevisionens styrelse, ledning och hanteringen av effektivitetsgranskningar’.Google Scholar
Sveriges riksdag (2008/09:URF3), ‘Uppföljning av Riksrevisionsreformen II: Effektivitetsrevisionen, den årliga revisionen och den internationella verksamheten’.Google Scholar
Sveriges riksdag (2009), ‘Vad ska Riksrevisionen granska?’, February 26, Appendix 2, 2008/09:URF3, pp. 129–169.Google Scholar
SVT [Swedish Public Service Television] Aktuellt [news program] (2011), March 13.Google Scholar
Teelken, C. (2012), ‘Compliance or pragmatism: how do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? a comparative study in three countries’, Studies in Higher Education 37(3): 271–290.Google Scholar
Terry, L.S. (1998), ‘Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement’, Public Administration Review 58(3): 194–200.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. and Dunkerley, D. (1999), ‘Careering Downwards? Middle Managers’ Experiences in the Downsized Organization’, British Journal of Management 10: 157–169.Google Scholar
Thorelli, H.B. (1986), ‘Networks: between markets and hierarchies’, Strategic Management Journal 7: 37–51.Google Scholar
Tummers, L.G. and Knies, E. (2013), ‘Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector’, Public Administration Review 73: 859–868.Google Scholar
Van Thiel, S., Verhoest, K., Bouckaert, G. and Lægreid, P. (2012), ‘Lessons and recommendations for the practice of agencification’, in K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert and P. Lægreid (eds), Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 413–440.Google Scholar
Verhoest, K., Peters, B.G., Bouckaert, G. and Vershuere, B. (2004), ‘The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review’, Public Administration and Development 24: 101–118.Google Scholar
Wilensky, H.L. (1964), ‘The professionalization of everyone?’, American Journal of Sociology 70(2): 137–158.Google Scholar
Williamson, O.E. (1973), ‘Markets and hierarchies: some elementary considerations’, American Economic Review 63(2): 316–325.Google Scholar

Empirical documents

Kuriren. (2006), No. 8.Google Scholar
Sifo Research and Consulting. (2004), ‘Riksrevisionen – Attitydmätning 2004’. Projektnummer 1512017, 2004-09-07.Google Scholar
Sifo Research and Consulting. (2005), ‘Riksrevisionen – Medarbetarundersökning 2005’. Projektnummer 1514099, 2006-01-07.Google Scholar
SNAO Board. (2006), ‘Riksrevisionens styrelse och effektivitetsrevisionen – en uppföljning efter tre år’.Google Scholar
ZonderaCom. (2008), ‘Resultatrapport Riksrevisionen’.Google Scholar
ZonderaCom. (2010), ‘Resultatrapport Riksrevisionen’.Google Scholar
Gullers Grupp. (2007), Omvärldens syn på Riksrevisionen: en intervjuundersökning med 23 viktiga intressenter. January 2007.Google Scholar

Interviews

#28 (Jun 11, 2003), Performance auditor at the Parliamentary Auditors.Google Scholar
#39 (Oct 8, 2003), Performance auditor at the SNAO, formerly at the Parliamentary Auditors.Google Scholar
#40 (Oct 8, 2003), Member of the SNAO reform preparations group.Google Scholar
#65 (Sep 27, 2004), Performance auditor at the SNAO, formerly RRV.Google Scholar
#76 (Oct 13, 2006), Performance auditor at the SNAO, formerly RRV; also a union representative.Google Scholar
#85 (Apr 20, 2007), Auditor-General at the SNAO.Google Scholar