1. Exploring Public-Private Differences in Managerial Behavior and the Limitations of Publicness Alisa Hicklin Assistant Professor of Political Science University of Oklahoma

2. Overview of Talk  Research Agenda  Major Project  Current Study on Publicness  Related Research

3. Research Agenda  Mostly Higher Ed, Some K-12  Performance  Equity  Accountability  Influence of Administrators  Political Control  Representation  Equity  Immigration  Policy Attitudes  Publicness  Effectiveness  Accountability Pressures  Use of Information  Collaboration  Emergency Response ManagementEducation PolicyRace/Ethnicity

4. Research Contributions / Directions Theoretical  Publicness  Collaboration and Networking  Political Control / Accountability  Policy Process  Bureaucratic Structure  Minority Representation Applied  Design of Accountability Policies  Oversight in Higher Education  Minority Student Achievement  Faculty Diversity  School Board Structure and Resource Allocation  Emergency Response  Immigration Policy

5. Five-Year Project  Minority Graduation Rates at Four-Year Universities  Influence of Management  Role of State Bureaucracy & State Government  W.T. Grant Foundation Scholars Award  $350,000 over five years

6. Management Survey  Surveyed all public and private (not-for- profit) universities in the U.S.  Low response rate, but representative on observable characteristics  Pilot study for 2011 survey

7. Sectoral Differences  Long-held beliefs that a key explanation of managerial behavior can be attributed to public/private difference  Debate over whether public and private differences exist and to what extent  Focus on differences among organizations, less among managerial behavior  Dominant framework: Publicness

8. Publicness  Bozeman: All organizations are subject to some mix of political and economic authority.  Publicness defined as… Ownership Funding Control

9. Limits to Existing Evidence on Publicness  Mixed findings, many find no difference.  Few studies incorporate: Organizational differences. Individual differences.  Doesn’t speak to assumptions made in the practitioner community about public- private differences.  ReGo: Government should be “run like a business.”

10. Economic Authority  Returning to original definition / conceptualization of publicness: a mix of political and economic authority  Current measure (O, F, C) only taps into political authority.  Can we assume that “privateness” is nothing more than a lack of publicness?  To what extent are organizations controlled by the market?

11. Another Possibility  Can we assume that political control and market control are perfectly, inversely related? What about levels of autonomy?  Competition  Economic Sensitivity Budgets Clientele / Consumers

12. Testing Publicness and Competing Explanations  Focusing on Managerial Differences  Key Determinants Publicness Individual Characteristics Organizational Characteristics Economic Authority (Privateness?)

13. Dependent Variables  Time Allocation Networking  Political Actors / Organizations  Community Internal Management  Fundraising

14. Independent Variables  Publicness Ownership (dummy) Funding (% Budget from State Appropriations) Control (Perceptions of Influence)  Individual Characteristics Gender Professional Background (Degree in Education) Experience (Years as President)

15. Independent Variables (continued)  Organizational Characteristics Enrollment (in thousands) Selectivity (Average SAT/ACT scores) Mission (Carnegie Classification) Wealth (Revenue per Pupil) Disadvantaged Students (% Receiving Pell Grants)  Economic Authority Competition (# of Universities in the State) Economy Sensitivity  Budgets  Enrollments

16. Networking with Political Actors / Government Agencies Ownership0.612* (2.89) Funding-0.002 (0.31) Control0.262* (3.84) Constant-1.028* (5.41) N317 R-squared0.30 Ownership0.427(1.61) Funding-0.000(0.03) Control0.253*(3.16) Gender-0.269*(2.37) Ed Degree-0.177*(1.83) Time in Job-0.012(1.39) Enrollment0.015*(1.98) Selectivity-0.001(0.86) Mission (Res)-0.069(0.42) Wealth-0.003(1.25) % Pell0.003(0.94) Competition-0.001(0.43) Econ (Enroll)0.100(1.41) Econ (Budget)0.046(0.77) Constant-0.881(0.94) N272 R-squared0.37

17. Networking with the Community Ownership-0.080 (0.36) Funding0.012* (1.91) Control0.070 (0.83) Constant-0.342 (1.46) N323 R-squared0.05 Ownership-0.025(0.09) Funding0.005(0.72) Control0.066(0.67) Gender-0.435*(2.88) Ed Degree0.102(0.89) Time in Job-0.009(0.81) Enrollment0.004(0.45) Selectivity-0.002*(2.15) Mission (Res)-0.194(1.02) Wealth-0.002(0.92) % Pell-0.008(1.62) Competition-0.003*(1.95) Econ (Enroll)-0.064(0.80) Econ (Budget)0.001(0.02) Constant2.340(2.29) N277 R-squared0.15

18. Internal Management Ownership0.349 (1.31) Funding0.001 (0.10) Control-0.081 (0.87) Constant0.103 (0.44) N310 R-squared0.02 Prob>F0.0637 Ownership-0.025(0.12) Funding0.005(0.52) Control0.066(0.48) Gender-0.435*(1.74) Ed Degree0.102(0.72) Time in Job-0.009(0.44) Enrollment0.004(0.71) Selectivity-0.002*(2.27) Mission (Res)-0.194(0.12) Wealth-0.002*(2.09) % Pell-0.008*(2.06) Competition-0.003*(2.43) Econ (Enroll)-0.064(0.03) Econ (Budget)0.001(1.83) Constant2.340(1.89) N267 R-squared0.09

19. Fundraising Ownership-0.190(0.71) Funding0.006(0.80) Control0.079(0.88) Gender-0.396*(2.60) Ed Degree0.035(0.31) Time in Job-0.008(0.78) Enrollment0.003(0.32) Selectivity-0.001*(1.78) Mission (Res)-0.217(1.21) Wealth-0.002(0.73) % Pell-0.009(1.57) Competition-0.004*(2.56) Econ (Enroll)-0.076(0.97) Econ (Budget)0.091(1.21) Constant1.822*(1.82) N275 R-squared0.13 Ownership-0.123 (0.54) Funding0.012* (1.83) Control0.053 (0.61) Constant-0.265 (1.17) N320 R-squared0.04

20. Results  Still Mixed!  Publicness (1 of 4)  Economic authority (3 of 4)  Individual characteristics (4 of 4)  Organizational characteristics (4 of 4)  Not always in the hypothesized direction

21. Future Directions  Data requirements for this type of test are very high.  Better measures of economic sensitivity  Other dependent variables  Interactions (publicness x org characteristics)  Addition of performance measures  The addition of performance funding policies  For-profit institutions?

22. Related Research  Relationship between Public Managers and the State (Mixed Methods)  Effect of Increasing Faculty Diversity (Mixed Methods)  Perceptions of Political and Professional Accountability (Mixed Methods)  Management and Performance (Mostly Quantitative)  Use of Research in Public Management (Mostly Qualitative)

23. THANK YOU

24. Descriptives Ownership42% public, 58% private FundingMean = 13.00%SD = 16.8 ControlMean = 3.04SD = 0.90 Gender19% female, 81% male Degree in Ed29% yes, 71% no ExperienceMean = 6.81 yearsSD = 5.61 EnrollmentMean = 6194 studentsSD = 8134 SelectivityMean = 1054 (SAT average)SD = 117.5 Mission 15% research institutions, 85% other WealthMean = $28,992/studentSD = 29,735 % on PellMean = 30.78%SD = 17.65 CompetitionMean = 49.94SD = 34.43 Econ (Enroll)Mean = 3.21SD = 0.86 Econ (Budget)Mean = 3.69SD = 0.81

25. Factor Scores  Networking with Political Actors / Institutions: legislators, state agencies, federal agencies  Networking with Community: alumni, business leaders, community leaders  Internal Management: admin staff, provost, deans, directors, department heads, business affairs, legal affairs, student affairs, development/fundraising, external affairs/PR, research office, athletics, faculty orgs, students orgs  Fundraising: development/fundraising, external affairs/PR, alumni, business leaders, community leaders

26. Future Funding Opportunities  William T. Grant Foundation Interest in the use of research evidence in policy and practice (related to youth) Study of use of research in designing programs to increase graduation rates  Lumina Foundation Interest in systematic change & completion Study of accountability policy design Study of Native American achievement  Russell Sage Interest in immigration Study of state immigration policy and enforcement