Finance-oriented vs. operations-oriented management control in public hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of finance-oriented vs. operations-oriented management control in public hospitals on physicians’ role conflict and cost consciousness as well as on perceived organizational performance. First, we conduct a participatory research project, and identify two public university hospitals with clearly differing management control environments: one finance-oriented, the other operations-oriented. Then we collect quantitative data from 211 physicians employed in these hospitals, and analyze it using regression analyses and structural equation modeling. Our empirical results indicate that a finance-oriented control environment is preferable to an operations-oriented control environment with respect to cost consciousness, but with respect to role conflict the reverse is true. Regarding the perceived organizational performance, our findings indicate that an operations-oriented control environment is more advantageous than a finance-oriented control environment. The main implication of our study is that management control issues in public hospitals are important, risky, and therefore merit dedicated managerial support. To enable effective coordination without unnecessarily creating conflicts, top management has to find an appropriate balance not only between professional autonomy and monitoring requirements, or between trust and control, but also between financial and operational performance measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".