How Much Decentralization?

• Author: Zsuzsanna Lonti
• Published date: 01 June 2005
• Date: 01 June 2005
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074004272622
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0275074004272622ARPA/June2005Lonti/HOWMUCHDEC ENTRALIZATION?

HOW MUCH DECENTRALIZATION?

Managerial Autonomy in

the Canadian Public Service

ZSUZSANNA LONTI

Victoria University of Wellington

Thisarticle examines the extent of managerial autonomy middle managers in Canadiangovernments report in finan-

cial and human resourcesmanagement areas. It analyzes whether during a period of intense government restructur-

ing middle managers’autonomy has increased or not and whether thereare any environmental or structural factors

that couldexplain the variation in the extent of managerial autonomy reported by them. Managersreported the most

autonomy regardingquality and client consultation issues and relatively high levels of autonomy for performance

management, training and development,and staffing decisions. The extent of perceived managerial autonomy was

found to be statistically significantly relatedto being a manager of a work unit in the periphery, managing a small

unit, leading a corporate unit, and having greater emphasis on results.

Keywords: public service; managerial autonomy; Canada

One of the major goals of public management reforms in the past 2 decades has been to

strengthen the managerial capacity of public sector organizations (Maor, 1999). Providing

increased autonomy for local managers is considered a cornerstone of new public manage-

ment (NPM). Kernaghan (1997) distinguishes three major components of NPM: “the reduc-

tion of government activitiesby such means as privatization and contracting out; the creation

of new forms of organizations such as service agencies; and the adoption and adaptation of

new approaches to management, such as empowerment” (p. 53).

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, one of the

main thrusts of reform and renewal in public management is devolving responsibility for

both financial and human resources to line departments and, in turn, to line managers (Orga-

nization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1996). Decentralization of financial

management to line management was identified as an essential prerequisite for meaningful

devolution of human resources management (HRM) function. New public management

advocates a shift from extensive regulation and compliance management to increased

discretion and initiative for operating managers in achieving targets. They argue that

decentralization and devolution of HRM is instrumental in shifting from a rule-bound cul-

ture to a performance-based system. The advantages of decentralization are in creating

greater diversity of practices, better recruitment and training, increased responsibility and

accountability,sharper focus on efficiency and effectiveness,and the provision of better ser-

vices. In the Canadian context, the importance of managerial autonomy is also underscored

in related research on the determinants of flexible work practices in government workplaces,

Initial Submission: December 20, 2003

Accepted: October 11, 2004

AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol.35 No. 2, June 2005 122-136

DOI: 10.1177/0275074004272622

© 2005 Sage Publications

122