How Cutbacks and Job Satisfaction Are Related: The Role of Top-Level Public Managers’ Autonomy
| Author | Joris van der Voet,Steven Van de Walle |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0734371X15609409 |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2015
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2018, Vol. 38(1) 5 –23
How Cutbacks and Job
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Satisfaction Are Related:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X15609409
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
The Role of Top-Level Public
Managers’ Autonomy
Joris van der Voet1 and Steven Van de Walle2
Abstract
Many studies on cutback management have suggested that cutbacks may have negative
consequences for employee well-being in the public sector. However, the relationship
between cutbacks and the work-related attitudes of top-level managers has received
little attention. In this study, we assess the relationships between five commonly
used cutback measures and the job satisfaction of top-level public managers in 12
European countries. We propose and test a model in which autonomy serves as an
explanatory variable for the relationship between cutbacks and job satisfaction. The
results indicate that cutback measures have little direct effect on the job satisfaction
of managers. However, as cutback measures are related negatively to the perceived
managerial autonomy of public managers and positively to the degree in which
politicians interfere in the affairs of managers, autonomy may function as a mechanism
to explain decreased job satisfaction as a result of cutback implementation.
Keywords
cutback management, job satisfaction, autonomy, financial crisis.
Introduction: Cutbacks and Top-Level Public Managers
Public management has been characterized by an increasing focus on cost-awareness,
value for money and cost-effectiveness in the past decades. The New Public
Management (NPM) has placed a major emphasis on increasing cost-effectiveness in
1Leiden University, The Netherlands
2Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Joris van der Voet, Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, Schouwburgstraat 2, 2511VA
Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Email: j.van.der.voet@cdh.leidenuniv.nl
6
Review of Public Personnel Administration 38(1)
the public sector, which has been a dominant paradigm in the way public organizations
(strive) to operate (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). The NPM emphasizes clearly formu-
lated goals, a focus on results rather than processes, a reliance on private-sector man-
agement styles, and more competition and choice (Hood, 1991). Although some
dysfunctions of such management practices in a public-sector context have become
apparent at later points in time (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler, 2006; Hood
& Peters, 2004), the NPM has placed a major emphasis on increasing cost-effectiveness
in the public sector.
In more recent years, the financial crisis and subsequent economic recession have
further strengthened the need for a more cost-effective public sector. In many coun-
tries, a focus on more efficiency and value for money, as articulated in the NPM, is no
longer enough. Many public organizations are forced to cut back on budgets and orga-
nizational activities. The recent financial and economic crisis has thus enforced a more
radical, but arguably less strategic, way of cutting expenses in public organizations
than has been witnessed in the past decades. Because of these developments, cutback
management is once again a central issue in both public management practice and
research (e.g., Bozeman, 2010; Cepiku & Savignon, 2012; Dougherty & Klase, 2009;
Pandey, 2010; Pollitt, 2010; Raudla, Douglas, Randma-Liiv, & Savi, 2015).
Cutback management can be defined as “managing organizational change toward
lower levels of resource consumption and organizational activity” (Levine, 1979,
p. 180). Although growth comes incrementally and naturally to public organizations,
decline does not come about in a reverse fashion (Levine, 1979). Moreover, cutback
management is generally not part of the organization’s long-term strategy, but takes
the form of a short-term, reactive fix (Pandey, 2010). The implementation of cutbacks
results in many hard choices and paradoxes, and thus poses a considerable challenge
for many public organizations, and especially for those leading these organizations. In
times of savings, political pressure is likely to be high, and previously held areas of
managerial autonomy come under pressure. Top-level public managers are thus in
their own way affected by cutbacks.
The presumed negative effects of the implementation of cutbacks on employee
well-being have been well documented in the literature, although the empirical evi-
dence remains still rather limited. There is consensus that negative consequences of
cutbacks for employee morale, job satisfaction, work motivation, work-related stress,
and intention to leave are inevitable (e.g., Kets de Vries & Balasz, 1996; Kiefer,
Hartley, Conway, & Briner, 2015; Levine, 1978, 1984; Mishra & Preitzer, 1998;
Raudla, Savi, & Randma-Liiv, 2013). Much of this work has looked at the relationship
between cutbacks and the work-related attitudes of general employees, whereas those
individuals higher up in the organizational hierarchy have received far less attention
(Buckley, 2011). At first sight, the well-being of top-level managers may seem an
irrelevant issue when it comes to the implementation of cutbacks. After all, top-level
managers are not to the same extent subject to cutbacks as lower level organizational
members. It may well be argued that top-level managers are the executioner rather
than the victim of cutbacks. Cutbacks will most likely be directed at the lower or
peripheral echelons of the organization. However, many of the mechanisms that may
van der Voet and Van de Walle
7
deteriorate work-related attitudes at the employee level may also affect managers
higher up in the organization, because they are the ones responsible for implementing
cutbacks, and they are the ones who are often blamed by their employees. Ultimately,
the work-related attitudes of top-level public managers may have important conse-
quences on their individual and organizational performance (Farnham & Horton,
1996; Steijn, 2004).
In this article, we specifically focus on the relationship between the implementation
of cutbacks and the job satisfaction of top-level managers in European central govern-
ment organizations. In the next section, we discuss the theoretical mechanisms through
which cutbacks can be expected to affect the work-related attitudes of both employees
and managers. Subsequently, we introduce autonomy as an explanation for the rela-
tionship between cutbacks and job satisfaction on the managerial level. We argue that
a negative relationship between the implementation of cutbacks and job satisfaction
may be partly explained by a decrease in the managerial autonomy of public managers
and an increase in the political interference managers experience. Cutbacks restrict
managers’ freedom to manage their organization and increase interference by politi-
cians, which in turn decreases public managers’ satisfaction with their jobs.
The analysis uses the Coordinating for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future
(COCOPS) Top Executive Survey of more than 3,500 central government public man-
agers in 12 European countries. All managers are active on the first, second, or third
highest hierarchical tier of their organization. Rather than examining a single relation-
ship between cutbacks and job satisfaction, we account for five cutback measures that
are often applied in contemporary European public organizations: hiring freezes,
frontline reductions, cutting existing programs, postponing future programs, and
reducing back offices.
Theory and Hypotheses
In this theoretical section, we first discuss the literature on cutback management and
job satisfaction to argue that there are several reasons for why a negative relationship
between cutbacks and job satisfaction may exist. We will then focus on autonomy as a
mechanism that may explain decreased job satisfaction as a result of the implementa-
tion of cutbacks. We distinguish between managerial autonomy, the degree to which
managers are free to make decisions in their organization, and political interference,
the degree to which politicians attempt to influence and steer decision-making in the
organization.
Cutbacks and the Job Satisfaction of Public Managers
Despite a recent renewed academic interest in the implementation of cutbacks in the
public sector (Bozeman, 2010), there is a dearth of empirical evidence concerning how
the implementation of cutbacks or downsizing may affect the job satisfaction of
employees. Some of this work focuses on private-sector organizations or health care
organizations (Armstrong-Stassen, Cameron, & Horsburgh, 1996; Helogren & Sverke,
8
Review of Public Personnel Administration 38(1)
2001; Lahner, Hayslip, McKelvy, & Caballero, 2014). Related work has also looked at
the effect of furlough days on job satisfaction (Lee & Sanders, 2013), or of public-
sector downsizing on employee trust (Feldheim, 2007). Some other work also has
looked at the effects of the announcements of cutbacks and treats cutbacks as external
shocks (see, for example, Conway, Kiefer, Hartley, & Briner, 2015; Kiefer et al.,
2014). At the same time, much conceptual work concerning this issue exists. For
instance, Jick and Murray (1982) argue that a “crisis syndrome” may affect organiza-
tional...
To continue reading
Request your trial