Why is diversity in the workplace so important?

Why is diversity in the workplace so important?

Question1

This is a major federal agency that provided health insurance to US citizens aged 65 or older. Thy also have the responsibility of maintaining extensive data on annual Medicare and Medicaid expenditures, as well as the Children’s Health Insurance Programs and national healthcare expenditures. What federal agency is this?

Question 2

A. The purchase of a hospital by another facility or multihospital system is called a ————————–

B. Organization whose ownership is divided between a hospital and physicians on the basis of their contributions to the enterprise is called —————————-

C. —————————-designed to keep senior citizens in the community as long as possible by providing a combination of social and medical services.

D. An organization’s ______, ______, and __ provide the foundation on which the strategic plan is built.

Question 3

What is an accountable care organization (ACO)?

Question 4

What arwhat are the roles of the following groups in the health care value improvement process: boards of directors, senior leaders, Physicians, employees, and payers?

Question 5

Many elderly patients are being discharged from acute care hospitals after undergoing procedures such as knee and hip replacement surgeries. They need extensive rehabilitation services. From a strategic planning perspective, investment in what type of PAC facility would be best to pursue, given these circumstances? Explain why

Question 6

In 1999, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) published To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, to improve patient safety in health care; what are the six IOM aims for quality improvement?

Question 7

List 3 benefits of forming a joint venture?

Question 8

Why is diversity in the workplace so important? As a future healthcare professional, how will you make sure that diversity is part of your organization?

Question 9

Identify and discuss (a) one political issue and (b) one ethical issue related to the growth in the healthcare system of the USA and how might each of these issues impact the strategic planning of a healthcare organization. Give examples to help you explain your answer.

Question 10

Who are the key stakeholders in a healthcare organization? Provide an example of a motivating statement that might engage one of these groups.

The post Why is diversity in the workplace so important? appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Prin/Meth Health Plane

Prin/Meth Health Plane

Question1

This is a major federal agency that provided health insurance to US citizens aged 65 or older. Thy also have the responsibility of maintaining extensive data on annual Medicare and Medicaid expenditures, as well as the Children’s Health Insurance Programs and national healthcare expenditures. What federal agency is this?

Question 2

A. The purchase of a hospital by another facility or multihospital system is called a ————————–

B. Organization whose ownership is divided between a hospital and physicians on the basis of their contributions to the enterprise is called —————————-

C. —————————-designed to keep senior citizens in the community as long as possible by providing a combination of social and medical services.

D. An organization’s ______, ______, and __ provide the foundation on which the strategic plan is built.

Question 3

What is an accountable care organization (ACO)?

Question 4

What arwhat are the roles of the following groups in the health care value improvement process: boards of directors, senior leaders, Physicians, employees, and payers?

Question 5

Many elderly patients are being discharged from acute care hospitals after undergoing procedures such as knee and hip replacement surgeries. They need extensive rehabilitation services. From a strategic planning perspective, investment in what type of PAC facility would be best to pursue, given these circumstances? Explain why

Question 6

In 1999, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) published To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, to improve patient safety in health care; what are the six IOM aims for quality improvement?

Question 7

List 3 benefits of forming a joint venture?

Question 8

Why is diversity in the workplace so important? As a future healthcare professional, how will you make sure that diversity is part of your organization?

Question 9

Identify and discuss (a) one political issue and (b) one ethical issue related to the growth in the healthcare system of the USA and how might each of these issues impact the strategic planning of a healthcare organization. Give examples to help you explain your answer.

Question 10

Who are the key stakeholders in a healthcare organization? Provide an example of a motivating statement that might engage one of these groups.

The post Prin/Meth Health Plane appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management

Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management

JPART 21:367–386

Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management

Richard M. Walker*, Fariborz Damanpour�, Carlos A. Devece�

*University of Hong Kong; �Rutgers Business School; �Universitat Jaume

ABSTRACT

Management innovations (MIs) are widely adopted, but their influences on organizational

performance are little researched in public settings. Positing that the MI-performance

relationship is complex and is conditional over other characteristics of the organization, we

examine the influence of MI on organizational performance both directly and indirectly

through performance management (PM). PM is an important organizational process

characteristic arising from public management reform and in itself influences performance.

We test our hypotheses using structural equation models with data from three sources in

English local governments. The findings indicate that the impact of MI on performance is not

direct; it is mediated by PM. We also find that PM positively affects organizational

performance. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for research and

practice.

Innovations are adopted by public organizations to improve the services delivered to users

and citizens, with the broad aim of improving quality of life and building better and stronger

communities. Knowledge on the processes of innovation adoption and the characteristics of

innovative organizations is developing in public services settings (Boyne et al. 2005; Light

1998; Rashman and Radnor 2005; Walker 2006, 2008). Literature on whether adopted in-

novations are actually able to deliver positive outcomes is, by contrast, in its infancy. Find-

ings from qualitative and quantitative studies in the emerging literature are not unanimous

but often suggest a positive relationship (Light 1998; Moore 1995; Osborne 1998; Walker

and Damanpour 2008). However, similar to the studies of business organizations where the

focus has been on performance consequences of product innovations, the emphasis in pub-

lic organizations has been on the impact of service innovations.

In this article, we focus on management innovations (MIs) and examine its association

with organizational effectiveness or performance.We consider themechanisms throughwhich

MI could influence organizational performance in the public sector and examine whether its

influence on performance is mediated by performance management (PM)—a widely adopted

and promoted organizational process characteristic in the public sector. Our thesis stems from

a concern that direct-effects models exploring the innovation-performance hypothesis are over

Address correspondence to the author at rwalker@hku.hk.

doi:10.1093/jopart/muq043 Advance Access publication on August 18, 2010 ª The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

simple.We posit that the process of innovation adoption is complex, and there is mounting and

compelling evidence indicating that the impact of a management practice on performance is

dependent on other internal organizational characteristics (Birkinshaw andMol 2006; Jansen,

Van den Bosch, and Volberda 2006).

In our study, we seek to make a number of contributions. The first is to address the

imbalance within the innovation literature where influence of innovation on perfor-

mance has mainly been examined for product or technology-based innovations at

the industry or firm level (Adams, John, and Phelps 2006; Miles 2001). The second con-

tribution is to add to the growing body of evidence on the nature and influence of innovation

on performance in public organizations by developing and analyzing both a direct and a

mediated model of the innovation-performance relationship (O’Toole and Meier 1999).

The third is to examine the influence of MI on PM, a main pillar of public management

reforms in recent years (Boyne 2010; Heinrich 2002; Jennings and Haist 2004; Moynihan

2006). We explore these issues in English local government with data from three sources:

a survey, an audited external measure of organizational performance, and documentary

data from government departments and the census. We have tested our hypothesis by

using structural equation modeling (SEM), a rigorous analytical procedure for examining

mediating effects.

In the next section, we outline our hypotheses. This is followed by the study’s meth-

odology and statistical results. We conclude with a discussion of our findings and their

implications for future research and practice. We find no independent association between

innovation and performance; rather, we demonstrate that the impact of MI on performance

is mediated by PM. Figure 1 shows the study’s conceptual model.

THEORY

Reforms epitomized by the New Public Management (NPM) movement have led to major

changes in organization and management of the public sector based around the notion of

competitive markets and the adoption of private sector management practices. Public

organizations became engaged in restructuring their organization and improving manage-

ment processes in order to boost organizational performance. More recently, attention has

Figure 1 Conceptual Model

368 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

shifted to issues of governance and networking and the adoption of service improvement

strategies based around enhancing organizational and management capacities (Ingraham,

Joyce, and Donahue 2003; Moore 1995). We focus on two aspects of these public man-

agement reforms: introduction of MIs and PM. Though these are widely promoted, adop-

ted, and researched, evidence linking these activities with organizational outcomes is

remarkable by its scarcity (Boyne 2010; Walker 2010).

Adoption of MI

Innovation is generally defined as the generation (development) or adoption (use) of new

ideas, objects, or practices (Amabile 1988; O’Toole 1997; Rogers 1995). The generation of

innovation results in an outcome—a product, service, or practice that is new to the state of

the art (or at least to an organizational population); the adoption of innovation results in the

use of a product, service, or practice new to the unit of adoption—individual, team, or

organization (Damanpour and Wischnevsky 2006). This study focuses on the adoption

of innovation new to an organization.

Innovation adoption is a process that generally includes three phases: initiation, adop-

tion decision, and implementation (Damanpour and Schneider 2006; Rogers 1995). An

innovation is implemented when it is accepted by the users (employees, clients, or custom-

ers) and is regularly used by them. Therefore, for the innovation to deliver improvements

and contribute to organizational performance, it is necessary that it is implemented. This is

particularly important because public organizations may adopt an innovation in search of

legitimacy without fully implementing it (Ashworth, Boyne, and Delbridge 2009; Brown

and Potoski 2003; Feller 1981).

Innovation researchers have long distinguished among innovation types on the as-

sumption that they have different attributes and antecedents and follow certain adoption

processes (Daft 1978; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981; Light 1998). Whereas many typolo-

gies of innovation have been proposed (see Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek 1973, 31), three

have been examined frequently: (1) product/service versus process innovations (Abernathy

and Utterback 1978; Walker and Damanpour 2008), (2) technological versus administra-

tive/managerial innovations (Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda 2009; Kimberly and

Evanisko 1981), and (3) radical versus incremental innovations (Cardinal 2001; Germain

1996). This study focuses on managerial innovation, one type of innovation whose con-

sequences have not been widely probed in the public context.

Birkinshaw, Hamel, and Mol (2008, 829) reviewed the literature on managerial in-

novation and defined it operationally as ‘‘the generation and implementation of a manage-

ment practice, process, structure, or technique that is new to the state of the art and is

intended to further organizational goals.’’ Examples include: divisional structure, Toyota

production system, total quality management (TQM), activity-based costing, modern as-

sembly line, and quality of work life (Birkinshaw, Hamel, and Mol 2008). As these exam-

ples suggest, MI is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, including structural,

operational, and administrative processes. Further, because ‘‘newness’’ is defined as the

state of the art, these innovations are radical and their adoption may result in major changes

in the organization’s management systems and processes.

In this study, we use the definition of Birkinshaw et al. with two noteworthy mod-

ifications. First, as stated above, we focus only on the adoption, not the generation of in-

novation. Whereas an organization may both generate and then adopt and implement an

Walker et al. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance 369

innovation, it is also common that the innovation is generated by one organization and is

adopted by another.1 Second, we define ‘‘newness’’ relative to the adopting organization,

not the state of the art. This distinction is appropriate because we examine the influence of

MI related to NPM reforms on organizational performance. However, it affirms that MIs

examined in this study fall in the left side of innovation radicalness; that is, their adoption

may produce minor changes in the organization’s management systems and processes (see,

e.g., Damanpour and Schneider [2009, 516] for examples).

MIs, as compared with product/service innovations that are introduced for use by or to

serve external constituents, typically aim to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the

internal organizational operating and administrative processes (Adams, John, and Phelps

2006; Birkinshaw, Hamel, and Mol 2008; Boer and During 2001). They pertain to changes

in structure, management systems, knowledge used in performing the work of management,

and managerial skills that enable an organization to function efficiently and effectively

(Hamel 2006). Therefore, we conceive MI as a two-dimensional construct: an information

technology (IT) dimension and an administrative dimension. Whereas the administrative

dimension captures the adoption of new management systems and processes to make the

work of management more effective, the IT dimension reflects the use of new management

and office information systems to advance efficiency of the organization’s operating sys-

tems and processes (Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda 2009). Together, they represent

the introduction of new practices, processes, and techniques to further organizational

adaptation and effectiveness.

MI and Organizational Performance

Only limited empirical attention has been focused upon the innovation-performance hy-

pothesis in public agencies (Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda 2009; Salge and Vera

2009; Walker and Damanpour 2008). Whereas extant work does not examine performance

consequences of MIs in particular, it provides evidence to support the notion that innova-

tion may unfold and influence organizational performance in different ways—findings that

corroborateWalker’s (2004) quantitative review of studies across public and private sectors

that innovation influences performance positively. The balance of evidence suggests that

although innovation is risky and its success is not guaranteed, its adoption enhances per-

formance. It confirms views espoused by contingency and resource dependence theories

that organizations are adaptive systems that introduce change in order to function effec-

tively (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Pfeffer and Salancik 2003).

MI can play a central role in the process of changing organizations, facilitating or-

ganizational adaptation to the external environment and increasing the efficiency and ef-

fectiveness of internal processes. For instance, the adoption of MIs such as the balanced

score card and TQM in public agencies seek to increase organizational performance, align-

ing the organization with the environmental demands of quality public services at lower

costs. The critical review of Boyne and Walker (2002) indicates that TQM has positive

performance consequences, but the evidence was not equivocal. Argument from institu-

tional theory has alternatively suggested that MI may have indirect performance impacts

1 For more detail description of generation and adoption process and differences between the characteristics of

innovation-generating and innovation-adopting organizations, see Damanpour and Wischnevsky (2006).

370 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

because factors driving adoption are initially focused upon securing internal and external

legitimacy (Staw and Epstein 2000). Although large sample empirical studies of the re-

lationship betweenMI and organizational performance are scarce, evidence from case stud-

ies repeatedly points toward the positive effects of the adoption of MIs (Birkinshaw and

Mol 2006; Hamel 2006). For instance, Hamel (2006) cites cases from the private sector in

the early 1900s such as Mary Parker Follett’s experiences of building and running com-

munity-based organizations in Boston to more modern-day MIs in nonprofit ventures such

as Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank. We therefore hypothesize,

H1 Management innovation is positively associated with organizational performance.

MI and PM

At the heart of public management reforms have been attempts to deal with some of the

major maladies of public organizations, such as goal ambiguity, red tape, low productivity,

and bureaucratic imperialism (Rainey 2003; Wilson 1989). A central reform strategy has

been to promote PM (OECD 2005; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004) also referred to as ‘‘man-

aging for results’’ (Moynihan 2006) and ‘‘managing for outcomes’’ (Heinrich 2002). PM is

associated with setting clear organizational goals, specifying targets and indicators to link

goals to performance outcomes, and taking action to influence achievement against targets

(Boyne 2010; Jennings and Haist 2004; Rainey and Rhu 2004). To facilitate buy-in of mis-

sions and goals and to assist with meeting targets, PM regimes seek to empower middle

managers to make decisions and take responsibility of their unit’s conduct and outcomes.

Simultaneously, senior executives have been mandated to intervene, make corrective ac-

tions in a coordinated manner, and adapt strategy when necessary (OPSR 2002;Walker and

Boyne 2006).

MIs can further these organizational processes by introducing practices new to the

organization. The desired, intended consequence of both MI and PM is organizational ef-

fectiveness. Therefore, innovations that assist public agencies in meeting their objectives

are more likely to succeed where there is an affinity between existing goals, targets and

indicators and the new practices being implemented. Over the long-term innovations may

change the goals of organizations; for example, new information technologies such as Geo-

graphical Information Systems may lead to new data on client needs that could result in

targeting new client groups, thus achieving important equity outcomes necessitating new

targets and indicators. Innovations that are more closely tied to organizational missions and

strategies will more likely help reinforce the implementation of organizational processes

associated with PM.

The component elements of MI—operational and administrative—can play important

roles in bridging the challenges of managing top-down and bottom-up processes. The ad-

ministrative component can play a fundamental role, especially in planning and budgeting

because the management control system (comprising of the budgeting system and incentive

system) should ‘‘. . .motivate managers to make the same decisions senior managers would have made in the circumstances’’ (Teall 1992, 32). The operational component, which

in service organizations is mainly based on changes in information technologies and

systems—where there has been substantial improvements in public organizations

(Reschenthaler and Thompson 1996)—is also relevant in the success of PM. Information

systems facilitate the link between the corporate structure and other parts of the

Walker et al. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance 371

organization through collection, process, and dissemination of data on performance indi-

cators. Together, MI components facilitate organizational units’ capability to introduce

measures of performance consistent with overall organizational goals, thereby work in tan-

dem to implement the overall PM system (Teall 1992). Therefore,

H2 Management innovation is positively associated with performance management.

PM and Organizational Performance

PM sits within a tradition of rational approaches to management in the public sector (see

Boyne [2010] for a review), of which the primary purpose is to ‘‘improve public manage-

ment and program outcomes’’ (Heinrich 2002, 712). One area PM seeks to tackle is the

ambiguous nature of organizational goals which can arise from the complex, multiple, and

conflicting nature of many public agencies’ goals—contrast garbage collection with polic-

ing or health care (Rainey 2003). Many public organizations are staffed by diverse groups

of professionals who may have very different views about appropriate organizational ob-

jectives and have inadequate cross-functional management skills. These conflicts of goals

and personnel can complicate coordination of activities of individuals and teams and in-

tegration of organizational units, harming organizational efficiency and effectiveness

(Chun and Rainey 2005). Given these characteristics and findings, a number of studies

highlight the importance of focus and clarity around the organizational mission and

goals as a critical characteristic of higher performance (Rainey and Rhu 2004; Rainey

and Steinbauer 1999; Weiss and Piderit 1999).

Target setting and PM is one of the key mechanisms by which the difficulty of goal

ambiguity can be tackled—put simply goals are linked to outcomes. An additional purpose

of target setting is to combat bureaucratic imperialism and ensure the information asym-

metries between bureaucrats and other stakeholders are broken down. PM systems are

needed because public organizations cannot plan for performance improvements if they

are not aware of the starting point and do not have information for manager’s to measure

progress toward targets. These approaches reflect models of strategic planning that specifies

clear targets, detailed plans, and the close monitoring of the targets. Empirical evidence

increasingly points to the likely success of strategic planning, target setting, and PM in

improving public service performance (Boyne and Chen 2007; Hendrick 2003; Hyndman

and Eden 2001; Walker and Boyne 2006).

Appropriate structures for achieving delegation and control, and for ensuring that

goals are implemented and targets are achieved, are essential for organizational effective-

ness. On one hand, successful implementation of goals and targets requires top managers to

intervene and change organizational direction when problems occur. Timely corrective

action by top executives is one strategy to reduce the likely detrimental effects of internal

conflict by offering clear lines of hierarchal authority. Such actions are among responsi-

bilities of organizational leaders and do not necessarily reflect a centralized, vertical de-

cision making structure. On the other hand, devolved decision making and ensuring that

decisions are made as close to the users and citizens as possible increase line managers’

capacity to meet targets and give them needed flexibility to respond to changing environ-

mental circumstances. The empirical evidence on the relative merits of top management

intervention and devolved management is limited and mixed in public organizations

(Andrews et al. 2009). Given effective organizations require control, delegation, and

372 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

cooperation, we, therefore, propose both top managements’ corrective actions and de-

volved management will positively affect organizational performance. Thus,

H3 Performance management is positively associated with organizational performance.

METHODS

Sample and Data

We examined English local governments or authorities. Local authorities are elected bod-

ies, operate in specific geographical areas, employ professional career staff, and receive

approximately two-thirds of their income from the central government. They are multipur-

pose organizations and deliver services including education, social care, land-use planning,

waste management, housing, leisure and culture, and welfare benefits. In urban areas, uni-

tary authorities deliver all these services; in predominately rural areas, a two-tier system

prevails with county councils administering education and social services and district coun-

cils providing welfare and regulatory services. In this study, we do not include district

councils because our dependent variable (organizational performance) is only available

for the unitary and upper-tier authorities.

The data come frommultiple sources. For the dependent variable, the data are taken from

a data set created by the Audit Commission (2002) (details below). The Commission acts on

behalf of central government, provides audit, inspection services, and value-for-money

investigations and is therefore an important external stakeholder for local governments.

For control variables, the data come from UK census (details below). Data for the measures

of MI and PM are from a survey of English local government. Our data have a lagged

structure: the measure of organizational performance was recorded in 2005 and the

measures of MI and PM in 2004, and control variables are from 2004 and earlier.

The survey was administered to a census of the 139 unitary and upper tier authorities

and responses were received from 136 authorities—a response rate of 98%. The survey was

pretested in 17 local authorities (and 378 respondents) and conducted electronically

(Enticott 2003). Questionnaires were delivered as Excel files attached to e-mail and were,

therefore, self-coding. Informants had 8 weeks to return the file by e-mail, and during this

period, three reminders were sent to informants who had not responded. There were no

statistically significant differences between late and early respondents.

The survey was a multiple informant survey. Multiple informant surveys aim to cap-

ture internal organizational variety in a compatible format (Phillips 1981) collecting data

from informants from several managerial levels or ‘‘echelons.’’ Aiken and Hage (1968,

918) define an echelon, or social position in an organization, as ‘‘the level of stratum

in the organization, the department or type of professional activity.’’ Hence, in each local

authority, questionnaires were sent to two echelons—three corporate officers and four of-

ficers in each of the seven service areas mentioned above.2 All survey questions were in the

form of a seven-point Likert scale and informants were asked to rate their authority (for

corporate officers) or service area (for service area officers). A total of 1,056 informants

2 Corporate officers include the chief executive officer and corporate policy officers with cross-organizational

responsibilities for service delivery and improvement. Service officers include chief officers who are the most senior

officer with specific service delivery responsibility and service managers or frontline supervisory officers.

Walker et al. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance 373

responded to the survey of which 196 were corporate officers and 860 service officers

(48.4% and 22.7% response rates, respectively). To calculate an organizational mean,

we first calculated a mean of corporate officers and a mean of service officers giving equal

weight to each tier; the organizational score is then derived from these two means (Aiken

and Hage (1968). This procedure maintains variations across organizations and converts

categorical data to continuous data. Furthermore, data from two tiers help overcome the

sample bias problem faced in surveying informants from one organizational level only

(Bowman and Ambrosini 1997).

Measures

Organizational performance (OP) was measured by the core service performance (CSP)

score constructed by the Audit Commission (2002). For each of the seven service areas, the

CSP score is based largely on archival performance indicators, supplemented by the results

of inspection and assessment of statuary plans (Andrews et al. 2005). The archival perfor-

mance indicators cover six aspects of organizational performance: quantity of outputs (e.g.,

number of home helps for the elderly), quality of outputs (e.g., number of serious injury on

highways), efficiency (e.g., cost per benefit claimed), formal effectiveness (e.g., average

school passes at 16), equity (e.g., equal access to public housing), and consumer satisfaction

(e.g., satisfaction with waste collection). Inspection of services draws upon internal im-

provement plans, field visits, and other documentation. Statutory plans are assessed against

the criteria of the service’s relevant central government department. Evaluators external to

the local authority conduct all assessments. Each service area is given a performance score

by the Audit Commission from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest).

After calculating the CSP score for each service area the Audit Commission derives

a score for the whole organization by weighting services to reflect their relative importance

by budget (the weight for education and social services is 4, for environment health and

housing is 2, and for libraries and leisure, benefits, and management of resources is 1). The

Commission then combines these weights with the performance score (1 – 4) for each ser-

vice area to calculate the CSP. The resulting scores range from a minimum of 15 (12 in the

case of county councils that do not provide either housing or benefits) to a maximum of 60

(48 for county councils). To make the CSP scores comparable across all authorities, we

calculated the percentage of the maximum possible CSP score for the given local govern-

ment. Therefore, the measure of organizational performance in this study is an aggregate

measure across the key services areas of local governments and includes multiple indicators

of performance for each service area.

MI was measured by five survey items that explore employees’ perception of the in-

troduction of new management practices and techniques (Appendix lists scales and ques-

tions). The IT innovation dimension includes new techniques primarily aimed at modifying

the organization’s operating processes and systems (MI1 andMI2), whereas administrative

innovation dimension includes new practices mainly seeking to alter the organization’s

administrative processes and systems (MI3, MI4, and MI5).

PM as defined earlier has several components. First, it ensures that organizational

mission and operational goals are specified, understood, and accepted across the organi-

zation (PM1, see Appendix). Second, the specification of performance targets and measures

ensures the strategy, and how it is implemented tactically and operationally, is continually

assessed (PM2). Third, the clear specification of objectives and their understanding across

374 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

the service areas permits devolution of control to line managers who can make local de-

cisions based on the wider organizational mission and goals (PM3). Fourth, serious devia-

tions from the plans that surpass the local scope and resources are communicated to top

management and the corrective action is applied in the organization (PM4).3

External constraints may cloud the relationship between MI, PM, and organizational

performance. Researchers have controlled for a variety of contextual factors (Andrews et al.

2005; Boyne et al. 2005; O’Toole andMeier 2003; Pettigrew, Ferlie, andMcKee 1992).We

tested the influence of seven factors that were used in the other studies from this data set on

organizational performance: service need, diversity of need (by age, ethnic, and social

class), slack resources, population density, and change in population (Andrews et al.

2005) and prior performance (O’Toole and Meier 1999; Staw and Epstein 2000).4 The

definitions, measures, descriptive statistics, and correlations of control variables are avail-

able from the authors.

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and correlations for MI, PM, and organizational

performance.

Analysis

We used two analytical methods. First, to test the mediation effect of PM in the relationship

between MI and organizational performance, we used SEM. The software employed was

EQS 6.1. The maximum likelihood method, combined with the method of robust standard

estimators, was used to overcome restrictions due to the nonnormality of the data (Satorra

and Bentler 2001). The overall fit of the models was evaluated by a combination of ab-

solute, incremental, and parsimonious fit indexes recommended by Hair et al. (1992)

and Jöreskog and Sorbom (1993). Before the hypothesized model was estimated, the mea-

surement scales of multi-indicators MI and PM were assessed by conducting confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) (Bagozzi 1981). OP was a single indicator and was thus assumed not

to contain measurement errors. The conceptual model (figure 1) consists of one exogenous

variable (MI) and two endogenous variables (PM and OP). Second, we conducted hierar-

chical regression analyses to ensure that the influence of MI and PM on performance is

beyond and above that of control variables.

Table 1 Means, SDs, and Correlations

Mean SD Minimum Maximum Correlations

(1) MI (.80) 5.12 0.54 3.50 6.66 1

(2) PM (.73) 5.26 0.45 3.34 6.30 .38** 1

(3) OP 68.02 8.79 40.0 90.00 .04 .35**

Note: Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scales are in parenthesis; n 5 136. **p , .01 (two tailed).

3 To test if MI and PM are different constructs, we ran an EFA. Analysis clearly isolated two factors that correspond

to MI (eigenvalue 1.618, minimum correlation .595) and PM (eigenvalue 3.502, minimum correlation .665).

4 Prior performance was included because (1) performance of most organizations, especially public organizations,

alter incrementally through time (O’Toole and Meier 1999); and (2) inclusion of an autoregressive term helps

controlling for unspecified correlates of performance, ensuring that coefficients for MI and PM are not biased

(Pedhazur 1982).

Walker et al. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance 375

RESULTS

Measurement Models

The MI

As stated above, the MI construct was conceptualized and measured as a two-dimensional

factor. The reliability and convergent validity of MI measurement model were assessed by

a CFA. Because of the saturation of the second-order measurement model, the validation of

the scale was conducted in a first-order model with a covariance between the dimensions.

The goodness-of-fit indexes of the five-item MI scale with two dimensions are provided in

Appendix. The incremental fit indexes (comparative fit index [CFI] 5 .94, incremental fit index [IFI] 5 .94) exceeded the recommended minimum value of 0.90 (Hair et al. 1992), although the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) was low (.85). Nevertheless, the values of the rest

of the indexes together with a high NFI (.92, not shown in Appendix) assures the good fit of

the data. The absolute fit index root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (5.116) was slightly high, but the parsimonious normed chi-square (NC) index (52.80) was lower than the maximum value of 3.0 (Kline 1998). Besides, the Cronbach’s alpha was .80 and all

the loadings were greater than 0.60, surpassing the minimum value recommended of 0.50

(Hair et al. 1992). The convergent validity of the scale was examined by the composite

reliability of the construct (Werts, Linn, and Jorekog 1974), reaching a value of 0.80. These

tests guarantee that the MI scale fulfills the psychometric properties necessary in measure-

ment scales (Hair et al. 1992).

The PM

To check the unidimensionality of the PM construct, we conducted an exploratory factor

analysis (EFA). A single dimension was extracted, with the lowest loading item (PM4)

higher than 0.62. The CFA showed that all the indices have adequate fit (NNFI 5 .98; CFI 5 .99, IFI 5 .99; NC 5 1.7; RMSEA 5 .035) and Cronbach’s alpha (.734) is satis- factory (Appendix). The standardized loadings from the CFA for all items were higher than

0.50, with the exception of PM4 (0.45). This low loading is also reflected in the composite

reliability of the scale (0.59), pointing out the limited number of items employed in the

measurement of a multidimensional and conceptually complex construct such as PM. How-

ever, the robustness of the rest of indexes guarantees the validity of the scale.

Structural Model

We tested the hypotheses jointly by the structural model (Model 1, figure 2). Applying the

maximum likelihood method, all the indices indicated that the hypothesized model had

adequate fit to the data (NNFI 5 .93; CFI 5 .95, IFI 5 .95; NC 5 1.38; RMSEA 5 .054). Figure 2 also contains the parameter estimates for the main predictors, significance

levels, and proportions of explained variance (R2).

Hypothesis 1 was not supported as the path coefficient between MI and organizational

performance is not significant (2.22, p. .05).5 However, the path coefficient between MI

5 The direct effect of MI on performance is significant at the .10 level, however. This negative effect, after

discounting the positive effect mediated by PM, may arise because of the possible disruptive impact of innovation and

short-term (1 year) lag in our model. Longitudinal data are needed to confirm.

376 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

and PM is positive (.52, p, .01), supporting Hypothesis 2. MI explains 27% of variance in PM. Hypothesis 3 was also supported as the path coefficient between PM and organiza-

tional performance is positive and significant (.52, p , .01).

Additional Analysis

Alternative SEM Model Evaluation

The hypothesized model (Model 1) is a partially mediated model since the effect of MI

on organizational performance is considered both directly and indirectly through PM. To

shed more light on the MI-performance relationship, we conducted additional SEM

analyses to test the validity of nonmediated and fully mediated models (figure 3). Model

2 is a nonmediated model and assesses the independent effects of MI and PM on perfor-

mance; Model 3 is a fully mediated model and has the same number of paths as Model 2.

These models allow the comparison of direct and indirect effects of MI on performance.

Since Models 1–3 are nested models, we compared the fit of the hypothesized model

(Model 1) and the alternative models (Models 2 and 3) by the significance of change

in chi squared.

In Model 2, the data did not fit adequately (NNFI5 .72; CFI5 .75, IFI5 .81; NC5 2.35; RMSEA5 .101), delineating that hypothesized model is superior to the nonmediated model. In Model 3, the data fit well (NNFI 5 .92; CFI 5 .94; IFI 5 .95; NC 5 1.43; RMSEA 5 .057) and the chi-square was greater than that in Model 1 (x2 5 42.76 versus 45.89); however, the difference between the chi-squares was not significant (Dx2 [1] 5 3.13, p . .05). Because Model 3 is more parsimonious than Model 1 and the difference in chi-square is not statistically significant, this alternative model is considered better than

the hypothesized model. Thus, the data indicate that the path between MI and performance

in Model 1 does not represent any improvement in explaining performance; that is, MI

affects organizational performance mainly through PM.

Figure 2 Path Coefficients for the Hypothesized Model

Walker et al. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance 377

Stepwise Regression Analysis

Whereas SEM is the most suitable model for analyzing the mediating effects as it allows

inclusion of both observed and unobserved (latent) variables in MI and PM constructs, it

restricts the number of parameter (variables) that can be included per a certain sample size

and the addition of nonsignificant control variables usually deteriorates the fit of the model

(Kline 1998). Therefore, we tested the influence of the control variables first by regressing

organizational performance on each of the seven control variables alone. None of the re-

gression models or regression coefficients was statistically significant (p. .05). Then, we conducted a multiple regression analysis regressing performance on all controls and

prior performance (organizational performance in year 2004). With exception of the

coefficient for prior performance (p , .001), none of the regression coefficients was sig- nificant (p . .05). Therefore, we only considered prior performance for the stepwise regression analysis.6

Figure 3 Alternative SEM Models

6 The regression models with the control variables are available from the authors.

378 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

We examined three models (Models 1–3, Table 2), entering MI, PM, and prior orga-

nizational performance (measured by 2004 CSP score) as explanatory variables, respec-

tively.7 Model 1 was not significant (F 5 .14, p . .05), but Models 2 and 3 were (p , .001). Further, the regression coefficient in Models 1 was not statistically significant (p. .05). In Model 2, only the coefficient for PM was significant (.39, p, .001). In Model 3, only the coefficients for PM and prior organizational performance were significant (.20,

p, .01 and .54, p, .001, respectively).8 These results confirm the findings from the SEM analysis (Model 1), delineating that PM, but not MI, affect organizational performance.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we have examined independent and joint effects of MI and PM on organi-

zational performance. We conducted statistical tests using structural equation models in

a sample of English local governments. The main findings from this study are that (1)

MI does not have a direct impact on organizational performance, (2) PM directly affects

organizational performance, and (3) the effect of MI on organizational performance is fully

mediated by PM.

The literature on innovation and performance in the public and private sectors led us to

hypothesize that there would be a positive relationship between MI and organizational per-

formance. Our analysis, however, indicates that PM mediates this relationship (Model 3,

figure 3). Although the balance of evidence on the direct effect of innovation on perfor-

mance is weighted toward positive findings, previous research has not examined the pos-

sible mediating effects of other variables. Therefore, our study’s findings signal the need for

more extensive research on the innovation-performance relationship counting for the me-

diating role of organizational attributes and processes.

Indeed, there are spots of evidence in previous research that raises the possibility

of the so-called ‘‘pro-innovation bias’’ (Rogers 1995). First, as stated above, the patterns

of adoption, antecedents, and consequences of different types of innovation are not nec-

essarily the same. Further, the bulk of knowledge on adoption comes from the private sector

Table 2 Stepwise Regression Resultsa

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

MI .03 2.11 2.03 PM .39*** .20*

Prior organizational performance (year 2004) .54***

F .14 9.66* 27.63*

Adjusted R2 2.01 .12* .38* Change in R2 .13* .26* aThe dependant variable is organizational performance (year 2005). Table entries are standardized regression coefficients.

*p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001.

7 To test for the mediation effect, we also implemented the approach suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The

results did not shed any further light on the conceptual model (they are available from the authors). Thus, in keeping

with recommendations from Judd and Kenny (1981), we present the final stages of the stepwise regression.

8 We also tested nonlinear effect of PM on performance (i.e., testing whether too much emphasis on PM could be

detrimental to performance). The coefficient of the quadratic term of PMwas nonsignificant (p. .05), and other results remained unchanged.

Walker et al. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance 379

and manufacturing in particular. These studies have predominately focused on technology-

based product and process innovations and have examined means of appropriating benefits

that determine the technological trajectory, leading to a focus on ‘‘product or technology life

cycle’’ models and discontinuous radical technological change (Abernathy and

Utterback1978;AndersonandTushman1991).These technology-drivenmodelsareperhaps

not suited to an understanding of the adoption of innovations in public service organizations,

especiallyMIs. This and other studies (Borins 1998;Moore andHartley 2008;Walker 2008)

are making progress in deciphering evidence on innovation types in public organizations.

For example, Moore and Hartley (2008) argue that innovation types are more blurred and

dimensional in the public sector, and rather than following a linear trajectory, public

agencies may simultaneously adopt innovations, making the successful adoption of one in-

novation dependent upon another. However, this research stream is still in its infancy. More

workneeds to beundertaken for understanding the adoption of different innovation types and

their distinct impact on organizational performance in public organizationswhichmay in the

future offer alternative interpretations of the adoption and impact of MI than those offered

here.

Second, large-sample empirical studies of the influence of MI on organizational

performance are scarce. Evidence has come mainly from case studies (Gold 1982;

Hamel 2006; Light 1998). Our probing of the MI, PM, and performance relationship

supports the case study contention that MI is a force for good; however, it adds that

the relationship between MI and performance is subject to the focal organization’s ability

to have in place management systems and effectively manage organizational processes to

implement its mission and strategies. Hamel (2006, 75–6) associatesMI with ‘‘. . . changing how managers do what they do.’’ In order to ‘‘change how managers do what they do’’

and for the adoption of MI to enhance performance, mechanisms to ensure that the

adopted innovation is successfully implemented are necessary. Our research findings

suggest that PM brings a degree of congruence between MI and performance. For public

services managers, this finding implies that for gaining the greatest rewards from the in-

troduction of MI, they need to ensure that appropriate PM frameworks are in place because

without them the likely performance gains fromMIwill not materialize. Given that we have

only examined one set of organizational processes, future innovation research should

investigate the role of other key processes (e.g., strategy formulation and content,

leadership, communication, and conflict resolution) as mediators or moderators of MI

and performance.

Third, as explained above, as process innovations, antecedents, and consequences of

MIs are often contrasted with product/service innovations. For instance, ‘‘performance-

gap’’ and ‘‘first or early mover advantage’’ perspectives suggest that product/service inno-

vations have a more direct effect on organizational outcomes than process/MIs (Roberts

and Amit 2003; Wischnevsky and Damanpour 2006). According to these perspectives,

changes in management systems and processes may affect the organization as a whole

and could have consequences for organizational outcomes; however, their effect is more

indirect and takes more time to occur than changes in products or services. In public service

organizations, for example, the introduction of new services to assist elderly people to re-

main in their homes rather than move into residential or hospital care is likely to see a very

immediate and positive effect on effectiveness of these services to this constituency. By

contrast, the adoption of a new budgeting system may take a number of years to impact on

380 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

the allocation of resources and may need other mechanisms to ensure that new budgeting

processes are embedded into the organization. Therefore, one interpretation of our findings

is that the negative affect of MI on performance (albeit at the .10 significance level) is

a result of the short time lag (one year) in our study. Additional research using longitudinal

data is required to compare and contrast performance consequences of MIs in different

public services and examine in greater detail the time lags between the adoption of

MIs and their impacts on performance.

Finally, we are able to conclude that the emphasis on organizational processes in pub-

lic management reforms could play an important role in public agencies. There has been

skepticism surrounding the adoption of many management reforms that have sought to

tackle the maladies of vague goals or high levels of red tape (see, e.g., Fountain 2001).

Our findings challenge these a

The post Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Performance management:

Performance management:

PhD in Business Administration

RE01 C 1

Name:

oni

Program:

PhD.BA

Concentration:

Management and Organizations

When did you start the program (session, year)?

Fall, 2017

Chosen topic of study

  1. Define your topic of research interest. (about 300 words)

The topic of interest is “The Mediating Effect of Performance Management’’. Management innovation is the process by which the management handles the various processes in the organization to come up with better and new ideas. The topic, therefore, aims at determining the role that the handling of processes and coming up with new ideas drive better change in the organization. It is combined with the aspect of change management. Where there is an effective process of management innovation, there is a high possibility that there will always be a chance to favor the organization.
The topic is therefore meant to determine the roles that the management innovation could play in the enhancement of organizational performance. There is the issue of determining how successful an organization could be by having in place management innovation. Besides, there is the intention of determining how the business could fail if it does not have the management innovation in place. Different processes are related to the management of the organization. At this point, Performance management (PM) will be associated with setting clear organizational goals, specifying targets and indicators to link goals to performance outcomes, and taking action to influence achievement against targets (Boyne 2010). To facilitate buy-in of missions and goals and to assist with meeting targets, PM regimes will seek to empower middle managers to make decisions and take responsibility for their unit’s conduct and outcomes. Simultaneously, senior executives will be mandated to intervene, make corrective actions in a coordinated manner, and adapt strategy when necessary (Walker and Boyne 2006).
First, there is the inventory management that determines how effective the various inventories of the firm are managed. There is also the management of the customers, both the internal and the external customers. Other management processes include departmental organizations, management of the employees’ welfare and motivation, management of wastage in the organization, and even communication management. The overall goal of the management is to ensure that all the processes are handled most efficiently for the better performance of the organization. Management innovation adds up to the role of the management by introducing the aspect of change in the end. The entire topic is about the relationship between the level of management innovation and the performance of the organization. Different levels of management innovation will be compared to the different levels of performance.
In the end, the topic aims at determining the correlation that exists between the two aspects. The management innovation is the independent variable while the performance of the organization is the dependent variable. The latter is dependent as it depends on the level of management innovation. The main concentration is on the management and the organization of the firm. This determines how well the processes of the organization are managed and how effective they lead to the performance of the firm.

  1. Why are you interested in this topic? And to whom this topic would be interesting? (about 150 words)

This topic is quite significant as it touches on the leadership of the organization. The management of the organization determines how effective the rest of the processes will be. In this regard, leadership is ascertained to affect all other areas of the firm. Management and organization are the central areas of the firm. If they are handled well, they lead to a better performance of the organization. This topic brings about the issue of management innovation. This incorporates the issue of new decisions and ideas that the management comes up within the process of running the organization. It is more than just the normal management.
It is interesting to determine whether the innovation management does the organization any better, or is just another source of failure. In the end, the topic allows the reader and the researcher to come up with an effective recommendation about management innovation. One would recommend for the process if the findings show that innovation management leads to better performance. On the other hand, one would consider negative recommendation if the findings indicate poor performance as a result of the management innovation. The most interested parties of the topic are the managers and other levels of leadership in the organization. They would borrow a reef and consider if they need to adopt the management innovation or stick to their normal routines. The topic also guides the rest of the parties involved in the running of organizations as they would prefer better management methods that lead to better profit levels.

  1. What are the main journals publishing this area of research? Provide a list of 3 to 5 journals.
  2. Main Journals Publishing in the Management Innovation Topic
  3. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management.
    (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249234538_Management_Innovation_and_Organizational_Performance_The_Mediating_Effect_of_Performance_Management)
  4. The Influence of Management Innovation and Technological Innovation on Organization Performance A Mediating Role of Sustainability
    (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/495/pdf)
  5. Role of Management Control Systems in Quality, Innovation and Organizational Performance in Portugal SMES Companies
    (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219877018500141)
  6. What methodologies are mostly used in this area of research?

This research project applies to secondary methods. This includes the use of written journals that are peer-reviewed to determine the relationship between management innovation and the performance of the organization (Darroch, 2005). There are various reasons why the secondary method of data collection is used for this research. First, the method provides the opinions of so many scholars among which one could select from it. With the different views of the different scholars, it is possible that one would make the best conclusions. The secondary method also provides a chance for one to compare and contrast results from other sources. This increases the level of reliability of any information collected along the way. The information is also readily available for the researcher.
The articles used to collect the information are readily available on the online platform. This is a cheap source of information and can also be referred to any time the researcher is in need. The research at hand has a limited time to collect all the information and come up with an effective consultation. The secondary research method allows one to access information in good time and only spends limited costs. This makes it more convenient for the researcher and the participants. There is also a limitation of the number of people required in the project. The secondary research method does not require respondents as compared to primary research. This ensures that there is convenience and one does not face the issue of non-cooperating members of the team. The secondary research method is applied as the main method. However, other methods could be used in small magnitude where the secondary method fails to be sufficient.

  1. Identify at least three variables that you plan to use in your study and you are interested in studying. Fill out this table with that information. The scales can come from the same source or from multiple sources. (Use space as needed).

Variables Used in the Study
Variable Name
Definition
Scale
Source
Management Innovation
New management Ideas
1-10
1
Management Organization
Decision making and resolving issues
1-10
2
Organization Performance
Productivity/Profitability of the firm
1-10
1

  1. Describe briefly how each of the variables was used in the cited source. This review should include at least 300 words for each variable. Explain how that variable was study and what the findings were.

Management Innovation

This is the process by which the management adopts new ways of doing things and comes up with new ideas to enhance better organizational performance. This is the process that is intertwined with the change management enhancement of the management. With management innovation, the management adopts better ways of doing things. It is in this case where there are better technologies used to manage the organization. There are also new technologies used to control various processes in the entire supply changing management. Management innovation affects the overall performance of the firm. Where there is a high level of innovation in terms of the management aspects, the firm does better in short and the long run (Walker, Damanpour & Devece, 2010). On the other hand, performance reduces when management innovation is low or not available. The best alternative for the management is to adopt innovative management styles as they lead to better performance of the organization. This creates a better competition ground for the firm.

Management Organization

This is the process by which leadership leads, organizes, plans, and controls the business with the ultimate goals of attaining profitability and productivity. It is the ultimate objective of every organization to do well in the market. Also, every leader aims to see that the organization does well in all other aspects. Even though profitability is the primary goal of the firm, it cannot be attained with poor processes. The leading role has to be of quality. The firm must have in place leaders that can coordinate all employees effectively (Darroch, 2005). Such leaders need to have the skills of how best to motivate the employees so that they can offer their best. This is the staffing role. When the staffing role is weak, the performance of the employees is affected negatively, and so are the profits of the firm. The level of planning also determines how well the firm performs in the end. When the management can plan effectively, and in good time, the firm gets a sense of direction in every activity. When errors are ascertained and controlled in good time, the firm performs well. On the other hand, the firm performs poorly if errors are determined late and therefore not regulated.

Organization Performance

This is the dependent variable in the entire comparison process. The management innovation and management organization determine it. When the two methods are active, the latter also does well. On the other hand, where the firm has not management innovation in place, there will be poor performance (Prajogo & Sohal, 2006). It is worth noting that the firm does not survive in isolation. It competes with other firms. In this regard, management innovation ensures that leaders make better decisions to enhance better performance in the market. It is the role of the management to ensure that all factors are taken into account to provide better performance of the firm.

  1. Develop a model where the variables you selected are included as independent, dependent, moderating or mediating variables.

The following figures shows the typical representations of variables

Model of Variables

IV Management Innovation DV Organizational Performance Mediating Firm : (PM)

IV Management Organization

  1. What is your research question? (about 20 words)

What is the role of management innovation and organization on organizational performance?

  1. How do you plan to contribute to this area of study? (about 100 words)

I plan to contribute to the area of study by carrying out in-depth research on the research question. In this regard, I will carry out a thorough research on the selected articles. This will enable me to determine the various independent variables and the dependent variables. I will research to determine the role that each of the independent variables plays on the result obtained on the dependent variable. More importantly, I will examine the influence of management innovation (MI) on organizational performance (OP) both directly and indirectly through performance management (PM). To this end, a central reform strategy that will be to promote performance management also referred to as ‘‘managing for results’’ (Moynihan 2006) and ‘‘managing for outcomes’’ (Heinrich 2002). Besides, I will come up with a conclusion in the end. I will also provide recommendations on the need for future research on the topic under consideration. This is after developing the study gaps left after the study.

  1. What kind of data do you plan to use for your dissertation? (about 50 words)

This is a quantitative nature of research. The nature of the dissertation will be in the form of collecting secondary data from secondary sources. Therefore, I am planning to provide a descriptive form of data in the dissertation. Collection of data will involve conducting research from government and public databases. This will be a comparison between the dependent and independent variables. The information will compare the role played by each of the independent variables on the performance of the organization, the dependent variable. The type of data will enhance the reliable construction of a conclusion and recommendation on the research topic.

References

Boyne, George A. 2010. Performance management: Does it work? In Public management

and performance: Research directions, eds. Richard M. Walker, George A. Boyne, and

Gene A. Brewer. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of knowledge management, 9(3), 101-115. Retrieved from:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/495/pdf

Prajogo, D. I., &Sohal, A. S. (2006).The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance: The mediating role of TQM. European journal of operational research, 168(1), 35-50. Retrieved from: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219877018500141
Heinrich, Carolyn. 2002. Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector:

Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review 62:712–25.

Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2010). Management innovation and

Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management

[Abstract]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 367-386.

doi:10.1093/jopart/muq043

Walker, Richard M., and George A. Boyne. 2006. Public management reform and

organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the UK Labour government’s public service improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25:371–94.

The post Performance management: appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

review research paper

review research paper

PhD in Business Administration

RE01 C 1

Name:

oni

Program:

PhD.BA

Concentration:

Management and Organizations

When did you start the program (session, year)?

Fall, 2017

Chosen topic of study

  1. Define your topic of research interest. (about 300 words)

The topic of interest is “The Mediating Effect of Performance Management’’. Management innovation is the process by which the management handles the various processes in the organization to come up with better and new ideas. The topic, therefore, aims at determining the role that the handling of processes and coming up with new ideas drive better change in the organization. It is combined with the aspect of change management. Where there is an effective process of management innovation, there is a high possibility that there will always be a chance to favor the organization.
The topic is therefore meant to determine the roles that the management innovation could play in the enhancement of organizational performance. There is the issue of determining how successful an organization could be by having in place management innovation. Besides, there is the intention of determining how the business could fail if it does not have the management innovation in place. Different processes are related to the management of the organization. At this point, Performance management (PM) will be associated with setting clear organizational goals, specifying targets and indicators to link goals to performance outcomes, and taking action to influence achievement against targets (Boyne 2010). To facilitate buy-in of missions and goals and to assist with meeting targets, PM regimes will seek to empower middle managers to make decisions and take responsibility for their unit’s conduct and outcomes. Simultaneously, senior executives will be mandated to intervene, make corrective actions in a coordinated manner, and adapt strategy when necessary (Walker and Boyne 2006).
First, there is the inventory management that determines how effective the various inventories of the firm are managed. There is also the management of the customers, both the internal and the external customers. Other management processes include departmental organizations, management of the employees’ welfare and motivation, management of wastage in the organization, and even communication management. The overall goal of the management is to ensure that all the processes are handled most efficiently for the better performance of the organization. Management innovation adds up to the role of the management by introducing the aspect of change in the end. The entire topic is about the relationship between the level of management innovation and the performance of the organization. Different levels of management innovation will be compared to the different levels of performance.
In the end, the topic aims at determining the correlation that exists between the two aspects. The management innovation is the independent variable while the performance of the organization is the dependent variable. The latter is dependent as it depends on the level of management innovation. The main concentration is on the management and the organization of the firm. This determines how well the processes of the organization are managed and how effective they lead to the performance of the firm.

  1. Why are you interested in this topic? And to whom this topic would be interesting? (about 150 words)

This topic is quite significant as it touches on the leadership of the organization. The management of the organization determines how effective the rest of the processes will be. In this regard, leadership is ascertained to affect all other areas of the firm. Management and organization are the central areas of the firm. If they are handled well, they lead to a better performance of the organization. This topic brings about the issue of management innovation. This incorporates the issue of new decisions and ideas that the management comes up within the process of running the organization. It is more than just the normal management.
It is interesting to determine whether the innovation management does the organization any better, or is just another source of failure. In the end, the topic allows the reader and the researcher to come up with an effective recommendation about management innovation. One would recommend for the process if the findings show that innovation management leads to better performance. On the other hand, one would consider negative recommendation if the findings indicate poor performance as a result of the management innovation. The most interested parties of the topic are the managers and other levels of leadership in the organization. They would borrow a reef and consider if they need to adopt the management innovation or stick to their normal routines. The topic also guides the rest of the parties involved in the running of organizations as they would prefer better management methods that lead to better profit levels.

  1. What are the main journals publishing this area of research? Provide a list of 3 to 5 journals.
  2. Main Journals Publishing in the Management Innovation Topic
  3. Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management.
    (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249234538_Management_Innovation_and_Organizational_Performance_The_Mediating_Effect_of_Performance_Management)
  4. The Influence of Management Innovation and Technological Innovation on Organization Performance A Mediating Role of Sustainability
    (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/495/pdf)
  5. Role of Management Control Systems in Quality, Innovation and Organizational Performance in Portugal SMES Companies
    (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219877018500141)
  6. What methodologies are mostly used in this area of research?

This research project applies to secondary methods. This includes the use of written journals that are peer-reviewed to determine the relationship between management innovation and the performance of the organization (Darroch, 2005). There are various reasons why the secondary method of data collection is used for this research. First, the method provides the opinions of so many scholars among which one could select from it. With the different views of the different scholars, it is possible that one would make the best conclusions. The secondary method also provides a chance for one to compare and contrast results from other sources. This increases the level of reliability of any information collected along the way. The information is also readily available for the researcher.
The articles used to collect the information are readily available on the online platform. This is a cheap source of information and can also be referred to any time the researcher is in need. The research at hand has a limited time to collect all the information and come up with an effective consultation. The secondary research method allows one to access information in good time and only spends limited costs. This makes it more convenient for the researcher and the participants. There is also a limitation of the number of people required in the project. The secondary research method does not require respondents as compared to primary research. This ensures that there is convenience and one does not face the issue of non-cooperating members of the team. The secondary research method is applied as the main method. However, other methods could be used in small magnitude where the secondary method fails to be sufficient.

  1. Identify at least three variables that you plan to use in your study and you are interested in studying. Fill out this table with that information. The scales can come from the same source or from multiple sources. (Use space as needed).

Variables Used in the Study
Variable Name
Definition
Scale
Source
Management Innovation
New management Ideas
1-10
1
Management Organization
Decision making and resolving issues
1-10
2
Organization Performance
Productivity/Profitability of the firm
1-10
1

  1. Describe briefly how each of the variables was used in the cited source. This review should include at least 300 words for each variable. Explain how that variable was study and what the findings were.

Management Innovation

This is the process by which the management adopts new ways of doing things and comes up with new ideas to enhance better organizational performance. This is the process that is intertwined with the change management enhancement of the management. With management innovation, the management adopts better ways of doing things. It is in this case where there are better technologies used to manage the organization. There are also new technologies used to control various processes in the entire supply changing management. Management innovation affects the overall performance of the firm. Where there is a high level of innovation in terms of the management aspects, the firm does better in short and the long run (Walker, Damanpour & Devece, 2010). On the other hand, performance reduces when management innovation is low or not available. The best alternative for the management is to adopt innovative management styles as they lead to better performance of the organization. This creates a better competition ground for the firm.

Management Organization

This is the process by which leadership leads, organizes, plans, and controls the business with the ultimate goals of attaining profitability and productivity. It is the ultimate objective of every organization to do well in the market. Also, every leader aims to see that the organization does well in all other aspects. Even though profitability is the primary goal of the firm, it cannot be attained with poor processes. The leading role has to be of quality. The firm must have in place leaders that can coordinate all employees effectively (Darroch, 2005). Such leaders need to have the skills of how best to motivate the employees so that they can offer their best. This is the staffing role. When the staffing role is weak, the performance of the employees is affected negatively, and so are the profits of the firm. The level of planning also determines how well the firm performs in the end. When the management can plan effectively, and in good time, the firm gets a sense of direction in every activity. When errors are ascertained and controlled in good time, the firm performs well. On the other hand, the firm performs poorly if errors are determined late and therefore not regulated.

Organization Performance

This is the dependent variable in the entire comparison process. The management innovation and management organization determine it. When the two methods are active, the latter also does well. On the other hand, where the firm has not management innovation in place, there will be poor performance (Prajogo & Sohal, 2006). It is worth noting that the firm does not survive in isolation. It competes with other firms. In this regard, management innovation ensures that leaders make better decisions to enhance better performance in the market. It is the role of the management to ensure that all factors are taken into account to provide better performance of the firm.

  1. Develop a model where the variables you selected are included as independent, dependent, moderating or mediating variables.

The following figures shows the typical representations of variables

Model of Variables

IV Management Innovation DV Organizational Performance Mediating Firm : (PM)

IV Management Organization

  1. What is your research question? (about 20 words)

What is the role of management innovation and organization on organizational performance?

  1. How do you plan to contribute to this area of study? (about 100 words)

I plan to contribute to the area of study by carrying out in-depth research on the research question. In this regard, I will carry out a thorough research on the selected articles. This will enable me to determine the various independent variables and the dependent variables. I will research to determine the role that each of the independent variables plays on the result obtained on the dependent variable. More importantly, I will examine the influence of management innovation (MI) on organizational performance (OP) both directly and indirectly through performance management (PM). To this end, a central reform strategy that will be to promote performance management also referred to as ‘‘managing for results’’ (Moynihan 2006) and ‘‘managing for outcomes’’ (Heinrich 2002). Besides, I will come up with a conclusion in the end. I will also provide recommendations on the need for future research on the topic under consideration. This is after developing the study gaps left after the study.

  1. What kind of data do you plan to use for your dissertation? (about 50 words)

This is a quantitative nature of research. The nature of the dissertation will be in the form of collecting secondary data from secondary sources. Therefore, I am planning to provide a descriptive form of data in the dissertation. Collection of data will involve conducting research from government and public databases. This will be a comparison between the dependent and independent variables. The information will compare the role played by each of the independent variables on the performance of the organization, the dependent variable. The type of data will enhance the reliable construction of a conclusion and recommendation on the research topic.

References

Boyne, George A. 2010. Performance management: Does it work? In Public management

and performance: Research directions, eds. Richard M. Walker, George A. Boyne, and

Gene A. Brewer. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of knowledge management, 9(3), 101-115. Retrieved from:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/495/pdf

Prajogo, D. I., &Sohal, A. S. (2006).The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance: The mediating role of TQM. European journal of operational research, 168(1), 35-50. Retrieved from: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219877018500141
Heinrich, Carolyn. 2002. Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector:

Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review 62:712–25.

Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2010). Management innovation and

Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management

[Abstract]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 367-386.

doi:10.1093/jopart/muq043

Walker, Richard M., and George A. Boyne. 2006. Public management reform and

organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the UK Labour government’s public service improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25:371–94.

The post review research paper appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Film Essay: The Boys In The Band(Dir. William Friedkin, 1970),The Student Nurses(Dir. Stephanie Rothman, 1970) And Coffy(Dir. Jack Hill, 1973)

Film Essay: The Boys In The Band(Dir. William Friedkin, 1970),The Student Nurses(Dir. Stephanie Rothman, 1970) And Coffy(Dir. Jack Hill, 1973)

The Boys in the Band(dir. William Friedkin, 1970),The Student Nurses(dir. Stephanie Rothman, 1970) and Coffy(dir. Jack Hill, 1973) all tackle controversial social issues of their time. Compare and contrast the treatment of these issues in each film, taking into consideration the different target audience(s) for each film and the style of filmmaking used.

Your essay must include all three films named in the question. Your essay should be approximately 5 short paragraphs in length, including an introduction, 3 body paragraphs, and a conclusion. You might devote one body paragraph to discuss each film or you might use each of the three body paragraphsto develop a differentidea that relates to all three films.

The post Film Essay: The Boys In The Band(Dir. William Friedkin, 1970),The Student Nurses(Dir. Stephanie Rothman, 1970) And Coffy(Dir. Jack Hill, 1973) appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

10 Pages Paper For Discussing One Of The Major World’s Religion

10 Pages Paper For Discussing One Of The Major World’s Religion

The target length is 10-12 pages, typed, double-spaced.

8-10 references for your paper’ bibliography. Each reference should be properly cited.

The post 10 Pages Paper For Discussing One Of The Major World’s Religion appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Practice Plan

Practice Plan

The next section is Supervision and Consultation:

Until you are fully licensed, you are required to work under the supervision of an experienced mental health professional. After reviewing the ACA Code of Ethics and the requirements for your state, describe plans for receiving clinical supervision to help you make ethical and legal decisions on the job.

After licensure, the professional counselor has the right to consult with a colleague on any case, particularly when there is the potential for serious or foreseeable harm to the client or others. Describe resources in your professional community with whom you could engage in case consultation. Identify practices you would use so that your case consultation would meet ethical and legal requirements.

The next section is Professional Organizations:

In this section, identify several national, state, regional, or special interest professional organizations that will support your practice as a professional counselor. Describe several ways in which you will benefit from affiliation with these professional counseling organizations.

The post Practice Plan appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Assess the ethical nature of leadership by studying a current or historical leader

Assess the ethical nature of leadership by studying a current or historical leader

For the course project, you will assess the ethical nature of leadership by studying a current or historical leader. Choose a famous leader with readily available information (e.g., press releases, organizational websites, published biographies, etc.) that you can research. Consult with your instructor early in the week if you need assistance.

For the Week paper, prepare a biographical introduction of your chosen leader that summarizes:

Paragraphs 1-2 : who the leader is, what era the leader came from, what organization the leader is or was affiliated with, why this leader is worthy of study, the specific leadership theory/style this leader used, citing specific examples and research to support your assessment.

Paragraphs 3-4: Next, analyze this leader in terms of moral intelligence and credibility as a leader, citing evidence to support your perspectives. Specifically, this section should assess any gaps between espoused values and actual behaviors.

Paragraphs 5-6: Next, analyze the alignment of the leader’s values and behaviors with the organizational values expressed in vision, mission, and value statements of the organization most closely affiliated with the leader, as well as any other indicators of organizational culture.]

Paragraphs 7-8: Finally, synthesize a personal reflection of “lessons learned” that includes at least two key take aways that you can apply to your own leadership practice.

Submission Details:

Submit your answers in a 3page Microsoft Word document.

The post Assess the ethical nature of leadership by studying a current or historical leader appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"