| This dissertation assesses the health of public sector management theory, highlighting limitations: (1) skewed coverage, whereby management function dominates management approach, (2) narrow focus on efficiency rather than effectiveness, (3) public-versus-private typology challenges, (4) limited empirical study, (5) analytical starting points predispositioned by researchers' parent disciplines, (6) lack of consensus on the impact of "publicness" and (7) model inadequacy, in that private sector models are used to assess public domain activities.Given the lack of comparative insight, this research collected data on over 80 managers across the space industry (from public nonprofits, private nonprofits, and private for-profits) and analyzed statistically significant differences in (1) the proportion of time spent on management processes, (2) their preferred approach to a management process, and (3) the relative influence of different environmental factors on their choice of approach. Environmental factors included personnel constraints, fiscal restrictions, impact of press/media, and legislative/judicial oversight.The hypothesis was that managers' approaches change in consistent, predictable ways across the private-to-public sector continuum. Variations result from the managers' reaction to environmental factors---the influence of which differs between sectors. The management framework was a synthesis of John Kotter and Paul Lawrence (1974), Graham Allison (1980) and Henry Mintzberg (1989).Statistical testing included analysis of variance (ANOVA), correlation, and multiple regression. Four of the approaches proved to vary with movement along the continuum while three were, instead, uni-sector distinct (private nonprofits differed statistically from the other two sectors). For all seven approaches, sector distinction was statistically significant and, alone, explained 9--19% of variance in a manager's usage. Environmental factors also proved statistically significant. The greatest influencers were (1) personnel constraints and legislative oversight for the public nonprofits, (2) "other" restrictions and personnel/fiscal constraints for the private nonprofits, and (3) legislative/judicial oversight for the private for-profits.The impact of the research, in terms of new discoveries, confirmation of theories, and contradictions of current knowledge, is highlighted in the final chapter. The study is descriptive. |
