Search results

Seeks to examine how far Michael Lipsky's theory of discretion as it relates to public sector professionals as “street‐level bureaucrats” is still applicable in the light of public sector reform and in particular the introduction of increased managerial control over professionals.

The main thesis in Lipsky's work, Street‐Level Bureaucracy, that street‐level bureaucrats devise their own rules and procedures to deal with the dilemmas of policy implementation is linked to public sector reform over the past 25 years or so. The article differentiates between three forms of discretion, rule, task and value and assesses the extent to which these different forms of discretion have been compromised by reform. Examples are drawn principally from the literature on school teachers and social workers

The findings suggest that the rule‐making (hence bureaucratic) capacity of professionals at street‐level is much less influential than before although it is questionable whether or not the greater accountability of professionals to management and clarity of the targets and objectives of organisations delivering public policy has liberated them from the dilemmas of street‐level bureaucracy.

The work has focussed on the UK and in particular on two professions. However, it may be applied to any country which has undergone public sector reform and in particular where “new public management” processes and procedures have been implemented. There is scope for in‐depth studies of a range of occupations, professional and otherwise in the UK and elsewhere.

Policy makers and managers should consider how far the positive aspects of facilitating discretion in the workplace by reducing the need for “rule‐making” to cope with dilemmas have been outweighed by increased levels of bureaucracy and the “de‐skilling” of professionals.

Lipsky's much cited and influential work is evaluated in the light of public sector reform some 25 years since it was published. The three forms of discretion identified offer the scope for their systematic application to the workplace.

The theory of managerial discretion and the direct insights it provides in the understanding of the varying impact strategic and operational actions have on organizational change and business fortunes is an area of research potential underexplored in the UK. This study aims to establish whether the measurement of managerial discretion is constant between the two similar societal corporate frameworks of the UK and the USA listed markets.

The extant managerial discretion ranking model, established in the USA, is empirically assessed for its validity and effectiveness across a sample of high- and low-discretion companies from the FTSE 350.

Using accounting measures, a clear and significant difference is established between UK high and low managerial discretion entities. The results prove to be significant in enabling the differential comparative analysis of the institutional characteristics of corporates.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study of this nature has been conducted previously in the UK context. While the original model developed in the USA is now several decades old, the UK results reflect similar industry rankings as found originally in the USA, subject to some differences considered to be a result of the changing nature of global business since the 1990s. This study opens a new seam of novel research, which has the potential to uncover, at a granular level, the differential mores and character of management ethics, styles and practices in such issues as organizational change, corporate culture, governance and social responsibility.

This paper examines the role of managerial discretion in the relation between managerial ability on the level of corporate cash.

Conjoining the upper echelons theory's premises and the theoretical framework of cash holdings, we posit that the managerial ability's effect on cash policy varies with managerial discretion using firm-level data. To test the empirical prediction, we employ a linear regression model with fixed effects with a sample of US listed firms from 1980 to 2016.

The findings reveal that the positive association between the ability of chief executive officers and corporate cash savings is weakened by firm-level managerial discretion. The results are robust to various additional analyses, namely lagged independent variables regression, reduced form regression and granger causality test. Overall, the findings are generally consistent with the cash holding motives yielding transaction and precautionary demand for money. However, our findings also shed light on whether managerial discretion moderates or exacerbates agency problems related to top executives' cash holding policies.

This work's distinct characteristic is the investigation of the joint effect of managerial talent and discretion on a firm's cash holding, which remains unexplored in the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the moderating effect of discretion and social capital on the relationship between individual perceptions of team conflict and employee-level outcomes. The authors propose that both employee discretion and unit-level social capital influence the negative effects of perceived conflict on employee stress and turnover intentions. They argue that an individual’s perceptions of these central organizational characteristics are likely to alter the consequences associated with conflict and the manner in which individuals respond to it.

This study empirically tests the moderating effects of discretion and unit-level social capital on the relationship between individual’s perception of team conflict and employee-level outcomes. Analysis was conducted with survey data from a sample of health care care providers in 90 units across 20 nursing home organizations. We applied hierarchical linear modeling analyses to test our hypotheses.

Results demonstrate that employee discretion moderates the relationship between perceived task conflict and job stress. Unit-level social capital was shown to moderate the relationship between perceived relationship conflict and employee turnover intentions. Our findings also document a varied moderation effect at low to moderate levels of conflict versus high levels of conflict. This finding suggests that the moderating role of contextual variables is more nuanced and complex than the existing conceptual frameworks acknowledge.

This study contributes to the research on conflict and conflict management by extending a multilevel approach to the effect of conflict and by providing new insights regarding the contextual manner in which conflict affects workplace outcomes.

The effects of discretion and unit-level social capital on how conflict is metabolized by organizations and their members varied. Contextual factors matter differently for different individual level outcomes. In attempting to manage the consequences associated with workplace conflict, organizations and their managers must consider different contextual factors.

This study contributes to the research on conflict and its management in organization by providing new insights regarding the contextual manner in which conflict affects organizational and individual outcomes. This study provides support for the claim that the relational and task-related context under which employees experience conflict affects employee stress levels and the extent to which they report their intentions to leave the organization.

Managerial constraint is a central theme in strategic management research. Although discussed using a variety of labels (including choice and determinism) and theoretical perspectives (including resource dependence and population ecology), the common question is the degree to which executives have choices or options when making decisions. Two of the most commonly used approaches for discussing constraint are organizational task environments (Dess & Beard, 1984) and managerial discretion (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987). These two papers share substantial commonalities in both their theoretical background and operationalization, raising the question of whether discretion and task environment are indeed separate constructs. This chapter reviews both conceptual and methodological issues associated with the use of task environment and discretion. Drawing on a review of published studies and original data analysis, we offer methodological suggestions for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the national-level predictors of country competitiveness using the concept of managerial discretion. The objective is to empirically link the strategic management discipline particularly the upper echelon theory to the concept of country performance measured by competitiveness.

This paper tests the proposed relationship between managerial discretion and country competitiveness using a sample of 18 countries from 6 different regional clusters. Discretion scores are generated from survey responses of prominent senior management consultants, while country competitiveness is measured via the Global Competitiveness Index developed by the World Economic Forum. A multi-level regression analysis on the panel data set spanning 10 years of national competitiveness levels is used to empirically demonstrate the association between managerial discretion and country competitiveness.

The authors show that managerial discretion is a direct predictor of national competitiveness through its ability to provide CEOs with a wider array of actions to innovate and enhance firm performance which will ultimately contribute to country competitiveness.

The positive influence of managerial discretion on country competitiveness provide an interesting framework to examine the influence of firms over public policy-making. Additionally, with businesses becoming increasingly globalized, the profile of countries becomes of a great importance and can become a tool for corporate strategic decisions, such as: market entry strategies.

By linking the well-known term of competitiveness to the concept of managerial discretion, the authors provide a totally new approach to assess country performance. Additionally, this paper contributes to the growing literature of managerial discretion by discovering new national-level consequences.

The purpose of this paper is to examine cross-cultural differences in managerial discretion and the extent to which variations and interaction of cultural practices and values affect the degree of freedom in decision making that is accorded to executives. This paper offers a holistic approach to investigating culture in addition to acknowledging its paradoxical nature.

Using a panel of prominent management consultants to rate discretion across 18 countries, the authors further develop the national-level construct of managerial discretion by empirically investigating the influence of cultural practices and values on CEOs’ discretion.

The study reveals that cultural values moderate the relationship between cultural practices and managerial discretion for three cultural dimensions: individualism, uncertainty tolerance and power distance (PD). By adopting the logic of marginal utility, the authors also show that the more a society values individualism, uncertainty tolerance and PD, the weaker the effect of their practices on managerial discretion.

Few research has attempted to assess both cultural values and practices in relation to managerial discretion. By showing the mechanism in which culture affects the level of managerial discretion, the authors offer new theoretical insights and practical implications, overall contributing to the field of cross-cultural and strategic management. Finally, this will offer CEO’s a new perspective of leveraging culture as a tool, enhancing their decision-making capabilities in the aim of improving organizational performance.

The objective of this research is to analyze the extent to which street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) have exercised discretion (low, medium and high) and the contributing factors involved (i.e. the influence of personal, work environment and demographic factors on the exercise of discretion).

The mixed-methods research uses the embedded design approach. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic through a survey of 2,867 Official Certifier of Title Deeds (Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah/PPAT) as SLBs spread across fifty regencies/cities in ten provinces in Indonesia.

This field study found a significant and positive correlation between SLBs' economic motive and the client's knowledge of land issues with the exercise of discretion. In addition, the study found a significant correlation between the age and gender of SLBs and their practice of discretion.

This study provides insights into that new policies should not further complicate the system but reduce face-to-face interactions between SLBs and their clients by allowing digital technology.

The novelty of this research is the paradox of SLB service during the COVID-19 pandemic differed from the paradoxes identified in earlier studies. SLBs commonly cope with service paradox by limiting their services or focusing solely on the most profitable clientele. However, this study shows that some SLBs actively reach out to clients using a “friendly” service model.

The purpose of this research is to better understand how industry conditions affect corporate social performance (CSP). To accomplish this objective, the authors develop and test a theoretical argument that task environment managerial discretion plays an important role in determining a firm’s level of CSP.

In this research, the authors utilize a longitudinal data set of archival data nested across year, firm and industry. They then test their research model using multilevel techniques, which account for the nested nature of their research design.

Firms exhibit higher levels of CSP when their industry’s environment is high in dynamism and product differentiation. Conversely, firms exhibit lower levels of CSP when capital intensity is high. Finally, the authors find that firms exhibit higher levels of both positive and negative CSP as industry munificence increases.

A number of researchers have called for investigation into the antecedents of CSP. This research provides an important next step in understanding the factors that influence firm CSP. Specifically, this research illustrates how the task environment affects stakeholder management by influencing the degree to which firms engage in CSP.

Managers should be mindful of the task environment’s conditions for managerial discretion and how these conditions affect stakeholder support for CSP. Moreover, managers should understand how industry conditions affect the firm’s ability to achieve competitive advantage through the use of CSP strategies.

While there has been much research aimed at understanding the potential CSP-firm performance link, there has been relatively little attention paid to understanding what influences firm CSP in the first place. This research suggests that industry-level characteristics of managerial discretion strongly influence firm strategic actions toward social performance.

This paper analyzes the effect of strategic context on managerial compensation design, and the interactive influence on firm performance for a set of Spanish companies. Specifically, this study examines the performance implications of the fit between different managerial compensation systems and diverse firm’s strategic orientations – representing various levels of managerial discretion. Based on a framework combining agency theory and managerial discretion concept, a research design with both archival and survey data is used to test hypotheses in a sample of 82 firms. The findings offer sufficient confirmation of theoretical arguments, providing extensions of this research stream for non‐U.S. firms. Results show that firms benefit from the design of managerial compensation systems when they match the managerial control and risk‐bearing requirements imposed by the strategic context. Specifically, risk‐encouraging compensation systems are better for prospector firms – high level of managerial discretion – whereas risk‐discouraging compensation systems are better for defender firms – low level of managerial discretion.