Building Evidence for Public Human Resource Management: Using Middle Range Theory to Link Theory and Data
| DOI | 10.1177/0734371X17697248 |
| Author | James L. Perry,Gordon B. Abner,Sun Young Kim |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2017, Vol. 37(2) 139 –159
Building Evidence for
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Public Human Resource
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17697248
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17697248
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
Management: Using Middle
Range Theory to Link Theory
and Data
Gordon B. Abner1, Sun Young Kim1,
and James L. Perry1
Abstract
Theory building within public administration has been slow and uneven, due in part
to the field’s search for grand theories and its failure to systematize knowledge.
Middle range theory may be a particularly useful theory-building strategy for public
administration scholarship due to its emphasis on generating testable hypotheses,
organizing knowledge about particular phenomena, and bridging gaps between
empirical facts and theory. Its utility for the development of public human resource
management theory is illustrated based on examples from performance-related pay and
representative bureaucracy research. We present a series of theoretical statements
about performance-related pay and representative bureaucracy, and we identify the
extent to which these statements are supported by empirical evidence. The examples
both illustrate the utility of the theory-building strategy and identify theoretical
statements that are widely confirmed and others that need additional testing.
Keywords
middle range theory, performance-related pay, representative bureaucracy
Introduction
Although the methodological rigor of public administration research has increased
dramatically over the past several decades (Cleary, 2000; Stallings & Ferris, 1988;
Stout, 2013), theory building within public administration has progressed at a much
1Indiana University, Bloomington, USA
Corresponding Author:
Gordon B. Abner, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1315 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
Email: goabner@indiana.edu
140
Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(2)
slower pace (Meier, 2015; Rubin, 2015). Two shortcomings within the field are the
main impediments to theory development: (a) a failure to systematize research find-
ings (Perry, 2012; Rhodes, 2016) and (b) an overreliance on grand theories (Jreisat,
2005; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2012; Perry, 1991).
Public administration research has grown substantially since its beginnings as an
identifiable field in the early 20th century, increasing the value of research methods
that are capable of systematizing large bodies of knowledge. Unfortunately, however,
efforts to systematize public administration research are lacking. Rhodes (2016), for
example, contends that public administration scholars have failed to systematize
knowledge regarding the skills needed to perform the traditional craft of public admin-
istration. Instead, he argues, public administration scholars have given much more
attention to investigating popular public sector reforms. By systematizing scholarship
on public administration, scholars will have a better understanding of what is impor-
tant, which will help curtail the tendency of scholars to focus primarily on what is
popular (Rubin, 2015).
Although grand theories are no longer as popular among public administration
scholars, principal-agent and similar theories continue to be influential in public
administration research. The term grand theory was first coined by C. Wright Mills
(1959) in his classic text, The Sociological Imagination, and refers to a form of highly
abstract theorizing that is designed to explain a relatively large and diverse set of prob-
lems. Grand theories often suggest that “human energies can be directed toward orga-
nizational purposes by the application of universal principals” (Moore, Johns, &
Pinder, 1980, p. 3). Grand theories also present “an implicit view of the basic nature of
people” while ignoring important individual differences (Moore et al., 1980, p. 3).
Agency theory embodies a grand theory because it assumes that all agents are
innately wired to seek to shirk from their duties, and as a consequence, they need to be
controlled. While agency theory provides a parsimonious theory of principal-agent
interactions, it presents an overly simplistic view of these interactions because it fails
to articulate how sector differences, individual motivation, and task characteristics
influence agents’ desire to shirk from their duties. The repeated failure of performance-
related pay (PRP) schemes to achieve their desired results is in part a consequence of
the over simplicity and predictive inaccuracy of agency theory that serves as a theo-
retical cornerstone for PRP policies.
Representative bureaucracy theory, in its early form, was itself a grand theory
because it too presented “an implicit view of the basic nature of people” (Moore et al.,
1980, p. 3). Early scholarship on representative bureaucracy assumed that all people
from a given social group were equally motivated to represent the values of their social
group and equally positioned to act on those values (Kingsley, 1944; Mosher, 1968).
Inconsistent findings concerning the relationship between sociodemographic repre-
sentation and equitable outcomes attest to the over simplicity of this early, grand
theorizing.
In this article, we present middle range theory as a tool for theory building within
public administration. Merton (1949) introduced the construct in the first edition of his
book, Social Theory and Social Structure, in which he described middle range theories as
Abner et al.
141
theories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in
abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop
a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behavior, social
organization, and social change. (p. 39)
Middle range theories contribute to the development of public administration the-
ory in three important ways. First, unlike grand theories, middle range theories are
concrete enough to generate testable hypotheses, which make them amenable to dis-
proof (Moore et al., 1980). Second, middle range theories tend to be linkable to each
other, which is helpful for systematizing existing bodies of knowledge (Moore et al.,
1980; Perry, 1991). Third, middle range theories are derived from data rather than
from general theorizing, which increases the likelihood that they are consistent with
reality (Gilfillan, 1980).
In what follows, we present a series of middle range theory propositions that are
helpful for advancing knowledge and understanding about two core phenomena in
public human resource management: PRP and representative bureaucracy. PRP and
representative bureaucracy represent useful case studies for examining the potential of
middle range theory to build theory within public administration for two reasons. First,
both PRP and representative bureaucracy are used globally as tools for achieving pub-
lic purposes. Therefore, these case studies are of relevance to current scholarship and
of practical relevance to practitioners. Second, both PRP and representative bureau-
cracy were originally based on relatively simple theories that have advanced signifi-
cantly over time.
The empirical evidence for each middle range theory statement listed below was
identified through a systematized review process in which unique keywords were used
to search for empirical evidence for each theoretical statement (M. J. Grant & Booth,
2009). The empirical studies for each theory statement listed in the tables below are
not intended to represent a comprehensive list of the studies that test each theory state-
ment given that such a search process is outside the purpose and scope of this article.
Instead, the empirical evidence represents a selective sample of such relevant studies.
Performance-Related Pay
PRP is a compensation scheme in which an employee’s pay is based partially or wholly
on performance. PRP is distinct from other compensation schemes that base pay solely
on seniority, equality, education, skill, ability to pay and/or need. PRP schemes can be
a function of individual, team, unit, departmental, or organizational performance, and
performance can be measured in a variety of ways including “qualitative assessments
or quantitative measures of inputs . . . outputs . . . or outcomes” (Hasnain, Manning, &
Pierskalla, 2012, p. 1). PRP is grounded in the rather straightforward belief that “indi-
viduals should be paid according to their contributions” (Pynes, 2013, p. 226). PRP
contributes to individual performance mainly by positively influencing employees’
motivation and effort to perform (Durham & Bartol, 2004). Individual performance in
turn affects organizational performance (Brewer, 2005; Brewer & Selden, 2000).
142
Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(2)
While the logic that underlies PRP may be simple, PRP schemes in the public sector
have repeatedly failed to achieve their desired results (Bowman, 2010; Ingraham, 1993;
Kellough & Lu, 1993; Perry, 1986; Perry, Engbers, & Jun, 2009). Three core elements
influence the success of PRP: (a) sector differences, (b) individual motivation, and (c)
task characteristics. The middle range theory statements that link these three elements
to PRP success are summarized in Table 1 and represented graphically...
To continue reading
Request your trial