Mixed Feelings? Comparing the Effects of Perceived Red Tape and Job Goal Clarity on HRM Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Across Central Government, Government Agencies, and Businesses

• Date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026019878204
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

878204PPMXXX10.1177/0091026019878204Public Personnel ManagementBlom
research-article2019
Article
Public Personnel Management
2020, Vol. 49(3) 421 –443
Mixed Feelings? Comparing
© The Author(s) 2019
the Effects of Perceived Red
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Tape and Job Goal Clarity
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019878204
DOI: 10.1177/0091026019878204
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm
on HRM Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment
Across Central Government,
Government Agencies, and
Businesses
Rutger Blom1
Abstract
In the past decades, increasing attention in the public sector has been paid to
the relationship between human resource management (HRM) practices and
organizational commitment. The bureaucratic structure of public organizations has
often been mentioned to have a negative impact on this relationship. To reduce red
tape and increase goal clarity, governments worldwide have created semi-autonomous
agencies that operate at arm’s length, expecting that they would operate under more
business-like conditions with positive effects on organizational commitment. In this
study, these positive expectations were tested using groups of employees working
at central government, two types of agencies, and businesses. Using multigroup
structural equation modeling with a Dutch data set containing 2,432 respondents, the
findings provide little support for the notion that agencies are similar to businesses
in terms of bureaucracy and ways to stimulate employee commitment, and even
indicate that some agencies are more bureaucratic than central government.
Keywords
sector comparison, red tape, goal clarity, HRM, organizational commitment
1Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Rutger Blom, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 141, 6525 AJ
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Email: r.blom@fm.ru.nl

---

422
Public Personnel Management 49(3)
Introduction
In the past years, increasing attention has been paid on ways to stimulate public
employees’ commitment, as it has been argued to be critical for performance (Hansen
& Kjeldsen, 2017; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
[OECD], 2016; Wright & Davis, 2003). In this respect, governments have increas-
ingly adopted human resource management (HRM) practices, which were found to
be beneficial in the private sector (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler, 2005;
Pollit & Bouckaert, 2011). However, scholars have questioned whether these prac-
tices would have a similar effect in public organizations (Brown, 2004; Diefenbach,
2009). A prevailing argument is that the bureaucratic structure of central government
includes high levels of red tape and unclear goals, which is supposed to negatively
impact the perceptions of HRM practices and alienate employees from their organiza-
tion, leading to lower commitment (DeHart-Davis & Pandey, 2005; Hansen &
Kjeldsen, 2017; Jung, 2014).
To circumvent these issues, semi-autonomous agencies—hereafter referred to as
agencies—have been created, which operate at arm’s length of central government
(Verhoest, Van Thiel, Bouckaert, & Laegreid, 2012). Thus, although they can still be
viewed as governmental, agencies are organizationally distinct and, to a certain degree,
independent from central government (Selin, 2015). Being created as less hierarchical,
single-purpose organizations, agencies would operate under business-like conditions
beneficial for HRM and employees (Dunleavy et al., 2005; Rainey, 2009). It was
expected that agencies and their employees were less hindered by red tape and that
their goals were less diverse and ambiguous, that is to say, more consistent with busi-
nesses. These expected benefits have been one of the motives for “agencification” in
many countries, leading to the creation of numerous agencies (Van Thiel, 2012).
Despite the ubiquity of agencies nowadays, little is known about whether they are
indeed able to better stimulate organizational commitment than central government,
due to lower red tape and clearer goals. In this respect, previous literature suggests that
many positive claims regarding agencies should be met with caution (Kim & Cho,
2014; Overman & van Thiel, 2015; Yamamoto, 2006). Therefore, the goal of this study
is to put these positive claims to the test. More specifically, this study aims to compare
the effects of perceived red tape and job goal clarity on satisfaction with HRM prac-
tices and organizational commitment among central government, two types of agen-
cies, and businesses.
By presenting agencies as independent organizations, this study extends previous
literature on public–private comparisons by more adequately reflecting the distinction
between agencies and central governments found in practice. Over time, several stud-
ies have investigated public and private sector differences in HRM and organizational
commitment (e.g., Vanhala & Stavrou, 2013; Wang, Bruning, & Peng, 2007; Zeffane,
1994). However, the evidence is mixed, and conclusions should be drawn with care
(Baarspul & Wilderom, 2011). One of the possible explanations for these mixed find-
ings could be related to an oversimplification of the public sector in research, by pre-
senting the public sector as one unified sector. By disentangling central government

---

Blom
423
and agencies in this study, we can get more insight into a prime example of the “blur-
ring of the sectors” (Rainey & Chun, 2007; Verhoest et al., 2012).
To test the hypotheses, secondary survey data were collected in the Netherlands in
2014, containing information of employees from central government, agencies, and
businesses. As previous research found nonidentical measurement models between
sectors (Van Loon, 2017), multigroup structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses
were conducted to control for measurement invariance across sectors before testing
the hypotheses.
In the remainder of this article, the position of agencies in relation to central gov-
ernment and businesses is discussed first, followed by hypotheses on differences in
employee perceptions of red tape and job goal clarity. Also, hypotheses are presented
on differences in the effects of perceived red tape and job goal clarity on satisfaction
with HRM practices and organizational commitment. Second, the methodology is
described, followed by the results. Finally, the results, limitations, and suggestions for
future research are discussed.
Theory
Central Government, Businesses, and the Position of Agencies
In the past decades, scholars have adopted different ways to distinguish between pub-
lic and private organizations, most of them referring to either the core or dimensional
approach (Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1994). In the core approach, public and private
organizations are distinguished based on legal type (government-owned vs. privately
owned), whereas in the dimensional approach, every organization is, to a certain
degree, considered public. Although often studied separately, the two approaches are
complementary, rather than alternatives, and have merit on their own (Antonsen &
Jorgensen, 1997). In this study, the core approach is adopted to distinguish between
government-owned (central government and agencies) and privately owned organiza-
tions (businesses). In addition, the dimensional approach is adopted to distinguish
between central government and agencies, based on the agencies’ independence.
Albeit government-owned, agencies are expected to act as businesses and operate
under business-like conditions. As mentioned before, agencies are organizationally dis-
tinct and independent from central government, although they remain under the politi-
cal responsibility of (a department of) central government (Selin, 2015). Agencies are
expected to operate under business-like conditions, have organizational autonomy, and
sometimes have legal personality. Furthermore, while central government is primarily
responsible for policymaking, agencies are primarily responsible for policy implemen-
tation (Kickert, 2001). Following the categorization of public organizations by Van
Thiel (2012), three types of agencies can be identified based on their legal personality
and managerial autonomy. The first two types are fully government owned and will be
examined in this study. Type 1 agencies have some degree of managerial autonomy but
no legal independence (see, for example, the Next Steps Agencies in the United
Kingdom). Type 2 agencies, with legal independence and managerial autonomy, are the

---

424
Public Personnel Management 49(3)
most common types of agencies in Europe (e.g., public establishments in France and
Italy, and nondepartmental public bodies in the United Kingdom). Most agencies have
been founded during the heydays of New Public Management (NPM) from the early
1980s until the early 2000s, although some agencies have existed much longer.
Differences in perceived red tape. Clearly, one of the most striking distinctions between
government- and privately owned organizations is the absence of profitability and
markets as sources of incentives and controls in the public sector (Rainey & Chun,
2007). Instead, governmental control often implies the extensive use of legal and for-
mal constraints, leading to high perceptions of red tape (Pandey & Kingsley, 2000).
Although early studies considered red tape as a relatively neutral concept, being some-
times detrimental or sometimes beneficial to the organization...