Turnaround management strategies in public systems: the impact on group-level organizational citizenship behavior
| Date | 01 March 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852311430284 |
| Published date | 01 March 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
78(1) 158–179
!The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852311430284
ras.sagepub.com
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
Article
Turnaround management
strategies in public systems:
the impact on group-level
organizational citizenship behavior
Itai Beeri
University of Haifa, Israel
Abstract
The use of Turnaround Management Strategies (TMS) in public administration has
received growing interest among both researchers and practitioners who deal with
public performance. However, our theoretical and empirical knowledge about TMS
suffers from significant lacunae. This research presents results from a unique empirical
survey that tests the effect of TMS on group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
One hundred and twenty-six senior leaders of English local authorities participated in
the study. The findings show that local authorities that implemented repositioning and
reorganization at the organizational level to a high extent experienced high levels of
group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior, while high implementation of reorga-
nization at the personnel level was linked to low group-level Organizational Citizenship
Behavior. Group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior was indifferent to retrench-
ment strategies. Implications and suggestions for future studies are discussed.
Points for practitioners
Modern public administrations face repeated ups and downs. This being so, public
managers are expected to pursue far-reaching organizational changes to achieve goals
ranging from maintaining excellence to recovering from poor performance. This study
explores the effect of Turnaround Management Strategies (TMS) on organizational
behavior. The findings offer two useful lessons for practitioners. First, repositioning
and reorganization at the organizational level may be used as a foundation for improving
the organizational culture, work relations, morale and cooperation. Second, introducing
major personnel changes is likely to produce mixed or even undesired outcomes.
Corresponding author:
Itai Beeri, Division of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount
Carmel, 31905, Israel
Email: itaibeeri@poli.haifa.ac.il
Keywords
Group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior, local government, Organizational
Citizenship Behavior, Turnaround Management Strategies
Introduction
Since the early 1980s, as a reaction to fiscal crises, public organizations of various
sectors have continually pursued better performance (Talbot and Johnson, 2007) in
order to maximize aims such as social welfare (Rainey et al., 1976). However, this
movement has gradually but continuously lost ground as the traditional public
sector has struggled to cope with huge challenges – on the one hand, increasing
demands for more and better services, and on the other, a severe lack of resources
resulting from, inter alia, lost revenues and poor management (Martin, 2002). In
accordance with expectations to espouse standards, values and practices imported
from the private sector (Boyne, 2006), those public sector bodies that have not met
these challenges – i.e. poor performers – have been pushed to adopt a unique set of
strategies known as Turnaround Management Strategies (TMS) (Borins, 2002;
Jas and Skelcher, 2005).
In a nutshell, TMS refer to actions taken by the organizational leadership in
order to bring about a recovery in performance by encouraging efficiency, stability,
and innovation, and by rechanneling resources and making organizational changes
directed toward supporting these aims. Organizations are forced into adopting
TMS to deal with low-probability, high-impact situations that result from multiple
and interrelated external and internal factors (Balgobin and Pandit, 2001) and that
can be seen as a decline in performance, crisis or failure (Hofer, 1980; Meyer and
Zucker, 1990). Poor performance is extremely negative for both the public and the
political reserves of local leaders; the label ‘poor performer’ is therefore often
highly contested by stakeholders (Boyne and Meier, 2009).
While TMS originated in the private sector, scholars suggest that TMS are
relevant and feasible for public organizations (e.g. Boyne, 2004; Cornforth and
Paton, 2004; Turner et al., 2004; Walshe et al., 2004). Nevertheless, both theoretical
and empirical research on TMS suffers from sizeable lacunae, making it difficult to
know whether TMS are effective for public turnaround. Several gaps in the liter-
ature are apparent. First, most large-sample empirical studies on TMS have
involved private sector organizations (Boyne and Meier, 2009) which employ prac-
tices used since the 1950s (e.g. Hofer, 1980; Schendel et al., 1976), leaving public
sector organizations and more contemporary practices less examined. Second,
many recent works on TMS are case studies that follow recovery stories of large
firms (e.g. Balgobin and Pandit, 2001; Mellahi et al., 2002); few cover smaller firms
or firms that employ TMS when not in crisis (this point will be covered further
below). Third, turnaround is usually defined as a radical improvement (Pearce and
Robbins, 1993) in core organizational tasks and, especially, narrow financial ratios
(Balgobin and Pandit 2001; Schendel et al., 1976). Scholars have paid scant
Beeri 159
To continue reading
Request your trial