administrative

sciences

Article
Navigating Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness: Insights
from Middle Managers in Norway
Kristin Severinsen Spieler

Department of Education, University of Agder, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway; kristin.spieler@uia.no

Abstract: Middle managers play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between senior leadership and
employees, often navigating competing demands and pressures. This study investigates experiences
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness among middle managers serving as department heads
in the University and University College (UUC) sector in Norway. The study adopts a qualitative
approach in the form of semi-structured interviews with six participants. The findings underscore
the significance of autonomy, trust, and support in facilitating the effective execution of middle
managers’ roles as executive and inclusive leaders. Autonomy emerges as crucial, which aligns with
the principles of the Nordic work–life model. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of
internal motivation and the support provided by the immediate leadership in enhancing middle
managers’ performance. Personal competence in one’s subject areas and relatedness emerge as key
factors ensuring employee confidence and fostering a positive work environment. The implications
of these findings suggest that nurturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness may mitigate the
perceived stress associated with being a middle manager in the UUC sector. By addressing these
fundamental needs, organisations can potentially enhance the well-being and effectiveness of middle
managers, ultimately contributing to organisational success.

Keywords: middle managers; autonomy; competence; relatedness; self-determination theory

1. Introduction
Head of department positions within the University and University College (UUC) sec-
Citation: Spieler, Kristin Severinsen.
tor occupy a unique role as intermediaries between management and employees. Positioned
2024. Navigating Autonomy,
between the operational core and senior management, middle managers such as heads of
Competence, and Relatedness:
department serve as conduits for information across organisational levels (Mintzberg 1989;
Insights from Middle Managers in
Harding et al. 2014). This intermediary role exposes them to the cross-pressures of balanc-
Norway. Administrative Sciences 14:
ing employees’ safety needs with management’s demands for performance and efficiency
102. https://doi.org/10.3390/
admsci14050102
(Anicich and Hirsh 2017; Jacobsen 2019). The prevalence of high work pressure among
middle managers in higher education is well-documented (Wisniewski 2019; Corbett 2020;
Received: 26 April 2024 Tietjen-Smith et al. 2020). High work pressure and limited work autonomy can, in turn,
Revised: 14 May 2024 lead to stress reactions and sick leave (Cooper and Marshall 1975; Irfaeya 2008; Osterman
Accepted: 14 May 2024
2008; Hassard et al. 2009; Buchanan et al. 2013; Prins et al. 2015; Humphrey et al. 2007).
Published: 17 May 2024
Research indicates that fostering positive interpersonal climates can enhance motivation
and well-being in the workplace. Furthermore, positive associations have been documented
between perceived autonomy support and trust, intrinsic motivation, physical and mental
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
well-being, and job satisfaction (Deci et al. 2001; Baard et al. 2004; Liu et al. 2011). Different
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
forms of support can enhance the satisfaction of basic psychological needs and motivation,
This article is an open access article
leading to positive work outcomes such as increased engagement, improved performance,
distributed under the terms and greater psychological well-being, and reduced fatigue, illness, and turnover (Trépanier et al.
conditions of the Creative Commons 2013; Williams et al. 2014).
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Various studies have explored middle-level leadership in higher education. One study
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ conducted at Australian universities revealed that middle managers perceived their roles
4.0/). as overwhelming, characterised by a profound sense of responsibility but limited authority

Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050102 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 2 of 16

(Pepper and Giles 2015). Another study from English universities suggests that middle
managers need additional support and training to become better senior managers (Floyd
2016). Similarly, Tietjen-Smith et al. (2020) describe that many department heads face role
strain and subsequent burnout, contributing to a high turnover rate among administrators
at this level. However, studies are lacking that specifically confirm the importance of
satisfying one’s own basic needs for intrinsic motivation and well-being among department
heads in Norway. Given the pivotal role of middle management in the success of higher
education institutions (Wisniewski 2019; Tietjen-Smith et al. 2020), this study aims to
address this gap by examining how well-defined frameworks can contribute to creating
favourable working conditions for middle managers within the higher education sector.
The theoretical foundation in the present study is embedded in the self-determination
theory (Deci and Ryan 2000), and the primary aim of the study is to investigate how the
work experiences of middle managers in the Norwegian higher education context relate to
autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

2. Theoretical Background
The self-determination theoretical framework serves as an umbrella term encompass-
ing various propositions that explore how the basic psychological needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness influence human functioning (Deci and Ryan 2000; Deci et al.
2017; Ng et al. 2012; Van den Broeck et al. 2016; Vasquez et al. 2016; Slemp et al. 2018;
Yu et al. 2018). In simple terms, the theory explores the extent to which the causality
of individual behaviour is driven by intrinsic autonomous processes or external control.
Self-determination theory (SDT) has long been a central concept in organisational theory,
particularly as concerns the contextual factors that support employees’ self-determination
and psychological needs (e.g., Deci et al. 2001; Van den Broeck et al. 2016). Job auton-
omy, defined as individuals’ ability to determine how and when they perform tasks, is
often considered a fundamental aspect of self-determination in the workplace. Perceived
autonomy can also be influenced by interpersonal characteristics, including managerial
motivational style, which can range from highly supportive to highly controlling (Slemp
et al. 2018). SDT suggests that individuals have an inherent capacity to grow, overcome
challenges, and incorporate new experiences into their self-esteem. However, this process
relies on constant social support and nourishment. Social context plays a crucial role in
either facilitating or hindering psychological growth and active engagement, thus shaping
individual behaviour and development (Ryan and Deci 2017). Consequently, the experience
of being a middle manager can vary greatly depending on the degree to which the social
environment supports the manager’s basic needs.
Within the SDT framework, healthy development and functioning hinge upon the ful-
filment of three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness
(Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000). Autonomy involves self-determination and the
freedom to make choices that align with one’s interests and values and promote a sense of
integrity. However, individuals may experience frustration when they feel pressured or
conflicted, which compromises their autonomy. For middle managers, autonomy involves
balancing various considerations of loyalty while navigating the limitations of individual
and managerial autonomy (Gunnarsdóttir 2016; Ryan and Deci 2017). Competence pertains
to mastering tasks, achieving desired outcomes, and feeling efficient and capable. Engage-
ment in activities that allow for skill utilisation and development satisfies this need, but
frustration can arise from inefficiency or failure. Relatedness involves feeling valued and
connected to others, which fosters warmth and meaningful relationships. Without such
connections, individuals may experience social alienation and loneliness (Ryan and Deci
2017; Slemp et al. 2018). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be notably shaped by
the challenges, demands, and expectations imposed upon each manager. It can be argued
that support from leadership and employees can help meet these basic needs, and that a
particular leadership style is necessary to succeed in a middle management position (Deci
et al. 1989, 2017).
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 3 of 16

According to Cook and Artino (2016), people are likely to become more internally
motivated when they can choose activities freely (autonomy), when they master an activity
(competence), and when they feel relatedness to and support from the people who are
important to them. Satisfaction of these needs can be understood as essential for the
internalisation of motivation, as the senses of autonomy, competence, and relatedness tend
to provide value and satisfaction to the activity itself (Slemp et al. 2018). However, the
interplay between these fundamental needs is complex. For instance, creating an inclusive
environment that promotes respect, care, and safety can enhance the sense of relatedness.
Conversely, relatedness can be undermined by environments with strong competition,
criticism, professional and group loyalty, and traditions. One’s sense of competence may
grow with favourable challenges and positive feedback, but may be undermined by difficult
challenges and negative feedback. As for autonomy, this is seen in the positive context of an
ability to make one’s own choices, the availability of good explanations, and emotions being
confirmed. On the other hand, threats, deadlines, imposed goals, and control discourage
autonomy (Cook and Artino 2016).
SDT suggests that managers who prioritise employee autonomy are more likely to
foster a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness among their employees (Ryan
and Deci 2017). Research indicates that positive experiences with competence and auton-
omy are crucial for intrinsic motivation, as specific positive feedback enhances interest
and pleasure in tasks. Conversely, external rewards can diminish intrinsic motivation by
shifting the focus from internal to external sources of motivation (Ryan and Deci 2017).
When employees have the autonomy to work in their own way within a supportive context,
they tend to experience greater engagement, job satisfaction, and proactive involvement
with their colleagues (Slemp et al. 2018). In essence, SDT illuminates how middle man-
agers’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness influence their well-being and performance.
Recognising and nurturing these basic psychological needs can enhance job satisfaction,
engagement, and overall effectiveness in the middle management role.

2.1. Middle Managers in a Nordic Context

Norwegian and Nordic working life is typically characterised by a close and trusting
relationship between management and employees, often described as the Nordic model
(Levin et al. 2012). Compared with other countries, there is little distinction and little
difference between wages at the bottom and the top. Employees often participate in
decision-making, and a culture of collaboration between management and employees has
emerged. Unions have a legitimate position and function (Levin et al. 2012). In the higher
education sector, however, the organisational structure seems to have a somewhat more
hierarchical distinction than within the Nordic model as traditionally understood. There is
a considerable distance between the top level of organisational management and the final
level before the employee. Because democracy provides the basis for governance in society,
there is still a high level of trust between employees and management (Levin et al. 2012).
Within a leadership context, the Nordic model can be associated with the idea that
employees should be active through their direct influence and involvement in decision-
making processes. Here, labour law can also be referenced regarding the manager’s right
to manage and duty of care, as well as their obligation to allow employees to participate
(Arbeidsmiljøloven 2005, §4–2). Participation is claimed to be a premise for all engagement
in the workplace, and it is not a matter of either/or but of extent (Levin et al. 2012). In the
Nordic countries, it is generally not necessary to supervise employees but rather to facilitate
efficiency with the opportunity to take responsibility and show independent initiative. It
is argued that the most effective approach is to spend time providing information and
encouraging involvement. Thus, the role largely revolves around decision quality and
implementation ability (Velten et al. 2016).
According to a recent survey conducted by Jacobsen (2019), the role of the middle
manager as an information intermediary is more crucial than that of the manager at
other levels, confirming previous assumptions. Surprisingly, middle managers report
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 4 of 16

experiencing lower levels of role conflict, emotional pressure, and time constraints than
other leaders. However, perceived pressure correlates strongly with the size of the unit
managed by the leader, with larger units being associated with greater pressure in terms
of both time and emotion (Jacobsen 2019). This suggests that middle managers who are
responsible for a greater number of employees may be subject to more pressure than those
responsible for fewer employees.

2.2. Middle Managers in the UUC Sector

In the context of higher education in Norway, universities commonly have a university
board as their highest organisational authority. This is followed by senior management,
with the university director, rector, and vice-rectors. In addition, the organisation is often
divided into several faculties, each with their own faculty management. The next level, head
of department, has managerial and personnel responsibilities for the employees of their
institute. The participants (and middle managers) in this study are heads of department
at a university, and the number of employees for which they are responsible varies. The
head of department, dean, and faculty director together form the faculty’s management
team. The delegation of tasks by the faculty director should occur in consultation with
the dean. For all employees in teaching and research positions in the department, it is the
head of department who serves as the immediate academic leader. A department head’s
responsibilities and tasks primarily relate to general management, education management,
and research leadership. Within general management, the department head is responsible
for overseeing all scientific activities at the institute, ensuring there is a strong connection
between education and research, and also driving efforts to ensure high-quality education
and research (Nokut n.d.).
There is much complexity in the role of head of department as a middle manager
in the higher education sector. Firstly, government organisations suffer from sometimes
confusing demands and incomplete information due to the huge number of external and
internal actors participating in political processes (Chen et al. 2017). Middle managers
are constantly receiving information that must be critically examined, filtered, interpreted,
and disclosed (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Because senior executives also experience
increased demands on their work, middle managers may have to exercise leadership in
assessment situations to a greater extent. In the higher education sector, the strategic
management is far away from where the research and teaching are conducted. In other
words, it is a centralised decision-making authority, where many of the major and most
important decisions are made by senior management (Jacobsen and Thorsvik 2013). This
may create several challenges in the exchange of information. Middle managers in the
public sector are expected to be the balancing wheel in terms of being participatory but
also proactive in decision-making. Furthermore, it is interesting that middle managers
in the public sector more often engage in synthesising information than in fighting for
alternatives (Chen et al. 2017). The functional or psychological significance of the input
influencing the initiation and regulation of intentional behaviour can be classified as either
informational or controlling. Informational input can support autonomy and enhance
competence, while controlling input involves pressuring the individual to think, feel, or
behave in specific ways. If input is perceived as informational, this will provide individual
autonomy, whereas the opposite is true of controlling input, which will reduce autonomy.
Leadership styles that allow for significant participation in decision-making and greater
flexibility in carrying out one’s work have been positively associated with satisfaction,
work–life quality, and organisational effectiveness (Deci et al. 1989).

3. Method
3.1. Qualitative Semi-Structured Interviews
This study aimed to explore middle managers’ perceptions and experiences through
semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. The participants comprised six middle managers—
three men and three women aged between 47 and 62—in the position of department
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 5 of 16

head at a university in Norway, with each overseeing between 30 and 44 employees.

They had between 3 and 19 years of experience in their current position and there was
significant diversity in their educational background in terms of academic discipline. They
all possessed a doctoral degree or equivalent within the field of study of the department
they led. None of the participants had formal leadership education, but all participated to
a varying extent in the university’s own leadership training seminars. Their employees
primarily consisted of academic staff, and they reported to the faculty director and the
dean. Two of the participants had experience in other types of leadership positions.
The interview guide was developed based on a theoretical understanding of the topic
and a review of the previous research. It was also important that the questions were
formulated to allow the participants to describe their experiences within the given theme
(Thagaard 2018). Several questions related to autonomy, competence, and relatedness
were derived from Ryan and Deci’s model, the Self-Determination Continuum (2000),
and tailored to the context of this study. The interview guide consists of 42 questions,
including sub-questions and introductory and concluding questions. To stimulate reflection,
introductory questions were asked at the beginning, and towards the end, participants had
the opportunity to add or comment on anything through the concluding questions.
Data collection was conducted during March 2022, and the interviews were held at
the participants’ offices. To maintain full focus on the participants, a maximum of two
interviews were held per day. Each interview lasted between 35 and 60 min. All participants
were asked the same questions. However, additional questions were also asked based on
what emerged in each individual interview.

3.2. Reliability, Validity, and Ethical Considerations

A pilot study was conducted by interviewing a randomly selected participant, a
department head, to assess the reliability and effectiveness of the interview protocol and
ensure the clarity and coherence of the questions. The insights gained from the pilot study
informed refinements to the interview guide and helped identify any potential issues or
ambiguities in the questions. This iterative approach to refining the research instruments
contributed to the overall reliability and validity of the study. Validations, following Kvale
and Brinkmann (2015), were also conducted throughout the main interview process, and
there was confidence in the accuracy of the participants’ responses. The intention was to
enhance the validity by focusing on the respondents’ understanding and by incorporating
examples shared by the participants (Jacobsen 2015). Discussions on the empirical data
from the interviews, considering theory and other research, also contributed to the validity
and reliability (Thagaard 2018).
Ethical research guidelines were upheld by ensuring voluntary participation and
anonymising the data. Respondents could withdraw from the study at any time. The
study was registered with the Norwegian Social Science Data Services and approved on
27 January 2022 (reference number: 826632), with stringent measures in place for handling
and storing personal data.

3.3. Analysis
The data were analysed based on the principles of the hermeneutic circle. Hermeneu-
tics were employed for understanding or interpreting actions, thoughts, or the general
meaning of various aspects of human interaction. Such an approach is like a dialogue
between the reader and the text, where the reader expands their horizon of understanding
through repeated readings of the same text. This refers to the connections between what is
to be interpreted, the preunderstanding, and the interpretation. It involves a continuous
exchange between the whole and a part, preunderstanding, understanding, and explana-
tion, as well as an exchange between the text and context (Kvale and Brinkmann 2015).
All the data material was transcribed verbatim and then read in its entirety. Furthermore,
I followed the traditional five steps in the analysis process, which involve creating units
of meaning, creating condensed units of meaning, coding, categorisation, and thematisa-
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 6 of 16

tion (Kvale and Brinkmann 2015; Johannessen et al. 2021). The analysis concentrated on
identifying empirical evidence that sheds light on the three basic needs. Consequently, the
coding process, while straightforward, required a continuous interchange between specific
elements and overarching themes. Categories were derived from participants’ concerns
related to the research question and their pre-understanding.

4. Findings
4.1. The Experience of Autonomy
The complex dynamics between senior management and employees posed challenges
in the experience of autonomy for as many as five out of the six department heads. Balanc-
ing these expectations and fulfilling the department head role was not always straightfor-
ward. Prioritisation emerged as a recurring theme, yet conflicting priorities were evident.
One participant attributed implicit job demands to the position, which required balancing
the conflict between the expectations of management and those of their closest colleagues.
Another participant highlighted the impossibility of meeting all demands, opting to priori-
tise immediate tasks based on their perceived importance. Two participants attributed the
pressure of meeting expectations to their self-imposed high standards. However, one partic-
ipant felt pressure from above, while another found it challenging to manage demands from
both sides. Loyalty to their team was particularly demanding for many, occasionally leading
to acts of disobedience followed by subsequent explanations to immediate superiors:
In a middle management position, there are things coming from above that one must
accept and handle, even if not always in agreement. Similarly, demands arise from
below...that’s the squeeze you find yourself in.
The relationship with faculty leadership posed the most significant challenge, and
was likened to being ‘caught between two chairs’. Conversely, managing interactions with
employees in their own department was considered less daunting. Top management’s
focus on strategic planning and vision created a disconnect from everyday life at the
institute, making it challenging to bridge this gap, as noted by one participant. This
individual emphasised the importance of establishing a connection between these levels,
metaphorically described as ‘standing on the bridge’ between upper-level strategic work
and the institute’s daily operations. Internal processes, such as hiring and exam work, were
highlighted as particular challenges due to their lack of smoothness or quickness.
It’s precisely about establishing a connection between the strategic work that happens at
the upper level and the everyday life at an institute, standing on the bridge there.
Despite these challenges, the six participants found their work manageable and ex-
pressed optimism about continuing in their roles. Enjoyment of tasks and workplace
satisfaction were key motivators, with some finding inspiration in the enjoyable aspects
of their jobs. Support for projects, research time, and meaningful work were valued over
top-down directives. Collectively, they emphasised the critical importance of their roles
and occasionally reminded the university board of their significance.
The daily responsibilities of department heads are extensive and diverse, as described
by all participants. These encompass addressing employee enquiries and needs, partic-
ipating in meetings and committees, engaging in strategic planning, managing emails,
and conducting unannounced office visits. This constant stream of tasks necessitates ef-
ficient systems to benefit employees. The need to personally engage with individuals is
underscored as both time-consuming and essential. One participant emphasised the de-
partment head’s role as a facilitator for employees, while another acknowledged occasional
redundancy due to the effectiveness of programme leaders and coordinators, although
recognising their crucial role in other processes. Improved faculty services could allevi-
ate workload burdens, particularly as the role of department head often entails heavier
responsibilities than the role of dean or rector, especially in terms of personnel management.
In sum, all the participants emphasised a sense of autonomy as crucial for their
role as a department head. Trust, freedom to choose, and the ability to make decisions
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 7 of 16

were important. They emphasised the significance of having autonomy and the trust of
the faculty leadership, while also acknowledging certain boundaries within which their
autonomy operates. As one participant stated:
I do have significant autonomy and trust from the faculty director and dean regarding
how I conduct leadership and lead the department.
As another states:
It is critical to have trust, and it would not be possible to function as a department head if
you did not have the opportunity to do things in a way you believe in and make certain
selections.
Strategic initiatives occasionally encroached on their autonomy, with decisions made
without their input. Not all assigned tasks elicited equal enthusiasm. For instance, one
department head felt obligated to promote a staff discussion coffee cup. Another participant
expressed a desire for more control in certain situations, seeking assistance in navigating
what they perceived as a controlling system. However, all department heads emphasised
granting significant autonomy to their employees on the basis of mutual trust. They trusted
their staff to perform well and believed in granting them autonomy, and they viewed their
own autonomy as a valuable tool in their leadership interactions with staff.

4.2. The Experience of Competence

The participants all underscored the critical importance of possessing expertise in the
field they led and expressed concerns about leaders lacking such knowledge. This fear
stemmed from the potential for decisions to be made without adequate insight, which
highlighted the essential role of domain expertise in effective leadership.
Competence and understanding of academia, including everyday teaching, supervision,
research, and dissemination, are crucial in such a leadership role. Otherwise it’s incredibly
difficult to earn respect from colleagues and lead in academia. So, competence and
experience are essential.
Understanding human behaviour was also emphasised as pivotal for navigating
the complexities of academic environments. One participant admitted to stepping into a
leadership role without formal training, relying instead on personal principles and instincts:
And I haven’t read a single book on leadership, don’t tell anyone, but obviously that’s
evident (laughter). But I’ve sort of thought that there are two principles that I find
important. . . One is recognition, that I’m constantly on the lookout for treasures. . .seizing
people doing something good. Recognition and herding the team, and by that, I mean
(laughter), these are completely new leadership concepts.
While the participants had significant experience, formal leadership education was
relatively limited. However, they identified several key competencies essential for effective
leadership, including decisiveness, a holistic understanding of academic activities, financial
acumen, and skills in recruitment and conflict resolution. Adaptability and a willingness to
seek knowledge when necessary were also highlighted as crucial attributes. Several par-
ticipants also emphasised the importance of harnessing potential, fostering development,
adaptation, and change. For a couple of participants, it was also crucial that they could
speak up if they did not understand everything, while also being aware of how to acquire
necessary knowledge. Involvement in leadership matters was deemed invaluable, with
practical experiences contributing significantly to motivation and a deeper understanding
of complex issues.
I often say that people need to come here and use me, so my task is largely to be a vent. . ..
One participant mentioned attending useful leadership development sessions with
other department heads and acknowledged personal limitations, particularly in personnel
management. Moreover, while external support in areas such as financial management was
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 8 of 16

appreciated, there was a recognised need for the further development of legal knowledge
and conflict resolution skills.
Overall, participants stressed the crucial role of expertise and competence in academic
leadership, emphasising the necessity of a thorough understanding of academia to earn
respect and effectively lead. They also recognised the importance of understanding human
behaviour in academic settings and acknowledged personal limitations and the need
for ongoing development, particularly in areas such as personnel management, legal
knowledge, and conflict resolution.

4.3. The Experience of Relatedness

The sense of relatedness to the workplace was vividly described as a deep identification
with, feeling of being at home in, and active participation in the development of the
department. All six department heads articulated a strong sense of connection in this
regard, attributing this to their expertise and their familiarity with colleagues. Notably,
only one participant had not previously worked as an academic staff member in the same
department. Both the professional and social dimensions of relatedness were underscored
as essential. One participant expressed profound loyalty to the university, while another
highlighted a sense of relatedness stemming from her expertise, which extended across
all levels of the organisation. This deep-rooted sense of relatedness served as a significant
motivating factor. As articulated by one participant:
It greatly affects motivation, absolutely. Because I feel it makes sense to be involved in
leading and developing something that I have a passion for.
This participant was supported by another who emphasised the link between related-
ness and motivation:
The connection between belonging and motivation is quite clear. You know who you’re
working for, and that provides motivation.
Immediate leaders played a pivotal role in motivation through recognition and ac-
knowledgment. While two participants admitted they were not adept at receiving praise,
they acknowledged its positive impact on their work. Furthermore, it was emphasised that
basic needs were met through a sense of belonging and motivation. One participant un-
derscored the importance of fostering a sense of relatedness among employees to enhance
their motivation. Additionally, the significance of performance appraisals was highlighted
in this context.
If you think a bit like Maslow, that there are sort of basic needs that must be met, then
you have more energy and capacity to develop further in advanced, professional tasks.
But it must be at the foundation, otherwise we will constantly sink into feeling lonely or
excluded or undervalued. . ..
Naturally, five participants’ transition from academic staff member to department
head altered relationships, particularly regarding power dynamics and colleagues’ work
tasks. Despite these changes, the participants felt included both professionally and socially.
They also expressed satisfaction with the support received from the faculty leadership,
describing it as ‘very solid’, ‘good’, and ‘reliable’. Strong support was also reported from
employees, who valued initiatives and leadership. Positive feedback from employee
surveys further validated their efforts. However, instances were occasionally noted of
a perceived lack of support or willingness to resolve issues, particularly from the top
leadership. Overall, however, there was a consensus that there was a supportive working
environment, characterised by a robust collaboration between department heads and
their employees.
The findings reveal a strong sense among department heads of relatedness to their
workplace, characterised by deep identification, a feeling of belonging, and active in-
volvement in departmental development. This connection is attributed to expertise and
familiarity with colleagues, with a clear link between relatedness and motivation. While oc-
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 9 of 16

casional challenges were noted, there was a consensus that there was a supportive working
environment, fostering collaboration between employees and leaders.

5. Discussion
The findings in this study present a nuanced picture of how the participants perceived
their leadership situation with regard to autonomy, competence, and relatedness in their
everyday work. As a starting point, it is worth noting that the participants experience auton-
omy and the ability to make decisions as crucial for performing well as department heads.
They also described autonomy as being linked to enthusiasm and motivation. Autonomy
is about having the freedom to act in accordance with one’s personal values and express
one’s values truthfully and having the ability to consider others’ feelings. The literature
on this subject underscores that a middle manager should balance various loyalties and
navigate limitations to individual autonomy and managerial autonomy (Gunnarsdóttir
2016) and, furthermore, that autonomy in the job is linked to inner motivation and well-
being (Humphrey et al. 2007; Deci et al. 2017). Indeed, it was clear that the participants in
the present study experienced autonomy regarding their position within their own faculty
leadership, and it was noted that, without this, it would be impossible to function as a
department head. This indicates that the motivational style of their immediate leaders was
supportive rather than highly controlling (Slemp et al. 2018). While cognitive evaluation
theory posits that intrinsic motivation flourishes when individuals engage in work for its
inherent value (Ryan and Deci 2017), the autonomy experienced by department heads is
not without constraints. Mandated tasks, devoid of participatory opportunities, represent a
form of control within the organisational framework (Cook and Artino 2016). However, the
participants’ compliance with such directives, albeit without a deep internal motivation,
suggests a pragmatic adherence to role expectations rather than overt resistance (Ryan
and Deci 2017). Thus, while mandated tasks may not significantly impede autonomy, they
could evoke a sense of irritation or inconvenience.
The participants advocated for the reciprocal nature of the trust between management
and employees. Furthermore, their own autonomy was a valuable tool for leadership
actions. Individual-focused actions combined with effective communication were deemed
significant in this regard. Autonomy, obtained through the delegation of responsibilities,
cultivates ownership and commitment among employees, thus enhancing performance out-
comes. Conversely, insufficient autonomy can precipitate burnout, stress, and absenteeism,
underscoring the delicate balance that is required (Humphrey et al. 2007; Irfaeya 2008).
Being responsible for a considerable number of employees, ranging from 30 to 44 in-
dividuals, contributes to a substantial workload. Participants’ daily tasks were perceived
as extensive and content-rich, with employees’ enquiries and needs being particularly
pronounced. The magnitude of managers’ responsibility for personnel raises questions
regarding workload management, especially in view of research linking perceived work
pressure to the size of the unit being led (Jacobsen 2019). In the Nordic model, individual
recognition is valued, which necessitates direct contact between managers and employees
to ensure workplace participation (Levin et al. 2012). Not only does this align with the
needs of SDT, it also builds upon the basic premises of the theory. Furthermore, autonomy
in terms of being the source of actions is embedded in the Nordic model through influence
and involvement. This also implies that, in other contexts, discrepancies may arise. Efforts
to facilitate employee initiatives and responsibilities are crucial for fostering a collaborative
work environment. While middle managers may not experience as much time pressure
as other leaders, as observed by Jacobsen (2019), the optimal threshold for responsibility
for personnel remains debatable. Although participants did not explicitly raise concerns
about coping with workload demands, they did express desires for more time that could
be dedicated to staff engagement. Stress in the workplace is multifaceted and can affect
individuals differently, irrespective of their work capacity (Cooper and Marshall 1975).
While personnel management is an integral aspect of a department head’s role, the delega-
tion of certain tasks to alleviate workload pressures should be explored. This could entail
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 10 of 16

reconsidering the number of employees for whom a department head bears responsibility
and identifying tasks suitable for delegation.
Five of the six participants felt caught between top management and their employees, a
common challenge in middle management (Mintzberg 1989). Managers are required to bal-
ance leadership and following directives while dealing with conflicting interests in several
ways (Prins et al. 2015; Buchanan et al. 2013). Firstly, middle managers control others, but
they are also controlled themselves. Secondly, they may resist upper management, but they
also must deal with resistance from their employees (Harding et al. 2014). Thirdly, middle
managers, when interacting with their employees, often need to provide clear guidelines
and have a clear opinion. When dealing with immediate leaders, an understanding and
listening demeanour may be expected (Anicich and Hirsh 2017; Jacobsen 2019). Perhaps it
is the differences between employees’ need for security and management’s demands for
results and efficiency that lead to this pressure (Jacobsen 2019), and as is known, a work
situation with this type of pressure can lead to undesirable conditions (Prins et al. 2015;
Buchanan et al. 2013; Hassard et al. 2009; Osterman 2008). One participant stood out by not
experiencing the same sense of being squeezed, and not experiencing conflict between the
demands of management and those of his closest employees. This highlights the subjective
nature of the challenges in middle management roles: what is perceived as challenging
by some may not be viewed the same way by others. The personality traits of leaders
could potentially play a role in shaping these perceptions, with some individuals naturally
being better equipped to navigate conflicting demands. However, regardless of individual
differences, the overarching framework conditions are critical.

5.1. The Balancing Act

There was no indication that the participants in this study experienced the middle
management squeeze as threatening to their health; instead, they expressed their intention
to continue their career as department head. This suggests that while they may have felt
dissatisfaction, this is likely related to frustration regarding the lack of alignment between
top management’s decisions and the academic environment. Participants mentioned the
need to accept and balance directives from above, indicating a disconnect between the
visions of top management and departmental realities. As one participant described it,
achieving an alignment between these levels was akin to ‘being a bridge’. Middle man-
agers face challenges related to loyalty and managing the limitations of their autonomy,
particularly in public sector contexts, which can be demanding (Huy 2002; Gunnarsdottir
2014). The middle manager must navigate interactions with individuals at varying au-
thority levels and ensure the implementation of the top management’s strategies while
recognising and including their employees (Velten et al. 2016). Given these complexities, it
is understandable that middle managers describe their experiences as being caught in a
squeeze or acting as a bridge.
The perceived disconnect from decisions made by a university’s top management
might fuel negative perceptions. These perceptions could be particularly amplified among
the employees of middle managers, given their position within the organisational hierarchy.
Top management’s role is crucial in ensuring that middle managers are provided with
the necessary autonomy and support to navigate their responsibilities effectively without
feeling overwhelmed. Velten et al. (2016) emphasise the importance of mutual commitment,
shared goals, and a fair distribution of burdens and benefits in the relationship between
top management and middle managers. According to Construal Level Theory (CLT),
individuals’ responses to events are influenced by their perception of their distance from
those events (Trope and Liberman 2003). When changes are to be implemented, gaining
support from academic staff can be challenging for department heads, especially if there
is resistance due to their perceived distance from the decision-making processes. Trope
and Liberman (2010) suggest that changes can evoke emotions that are not driven solely by
rationality and may also be influenced by psychological factors. Thus, while reactions to
change may initially appear negative, they can be seen as constructive criticism aimed at
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 11 of 16

improving future decisions. Anchoring plays a crucial role in initiating missions or changes,
as it helps establish a connection between different worlds or levels within the organisation.
The notion of being caught between two different worlds reflects the challenges middle
managers face in bridging the gap between top management directives and the operational
reality at the departmental level. Similarly, the acceptance and handling of decisions by
both top management and employees highlight the distances inherent in CLT (Trope and
Liberman 2010), underscoring the complexities middle managers encounter in their roles.
It is noteworthy that all the department heads expressed a high level of satisfaction
with their leadership teams at the faculty level. These provided them with a supportive
environment where they could freely discuss leadership challenges and seek advice when
facing difficulties. Such open communication channels within the faculty leadership group
are invaluable, especially when dealing with emotional or relational issues. Functional
leadership groups not only offer support but also play a crucial role in implementing
strategic decisions made at higher levels. Discussions within these groups facilitate the
smooth execution of changes and the management of new tasks. However, despite the
support from faculty leadership, all participants highlighted challenges with the internal
processes, which often did not occur as smoothly or quickly as desired. This inefficiency
could lead to frustration, particularly in departments where there is a pressing need for
timely action, such as in exam administration or when addressing staffing challenges.
Openly addressing such frustrations within the leadership group proved to be essential for
maintaining morale and productivity amidst these challenges.
The availability of support from immediate leadership and employees provided a
sense of security, enabling an open discussion about both opportunities and challenges as
needed. This support, described as robust and reliable, fostered a strong “we–community”
dynamic. The perceived support from leaders and colleagues significantly contributes to
the sense of relatedness, as highlighted by the participants. Relatedness involves feeling
valued and experiencing care and warmth from others (Ryan and Deci 2017). For the
participants, relatedness meant feeling at home in, identifying with, and participating in
the development of the institute. This concept easily aligns with the aspects mentioned
above. Feeling at home can involve feelings of warmth and care, while feeling significant
can relate to identifying with an institute and participating in its development. However,
there were occasional instances of a lack of support and a lack of willingness from faculty
leadership to address issues, but these were rare. Conversely, top management was
perceived as more distant, with little involvement in the day-to-day affairs of department
heads, reflecting the hierarchical distance (Trope and Liberman 2010). Despite occasional
experiences of lacking support, the participants generally perceived a work environment
that adequately supported the basic psychological needs that are crucial for well-being and
optimal functioning. The presence of support from immediate leadership and employees
suggests the presence of the necessary foundation for meeting fundamental needs, although
ongoing efforts are essential. Efforts to facilitate employee initiatives and responsibilities
are crucial for fostering a collaborative work environment, as described in the Nordic model
(Kuvaas and Dysvik 2020).
Within the framework of SDT, competence entails feelings of efficiency and mastery,
along with opportunities to utilise and enhance one’s skills and expertise (Deci and Ryan
2000). For the participants, possessing competence in the field they led was paramount,
given their role in guiding academic staff. Consequently, there was an emphasis on compre-
hensively understanding the UUC sector. Additionally, having an academic background
related to the institute they lead was crucial for feeling that they were in the right place. The
sense of relatedness can be enhanced by an inclusive environment, respect, and security, all
of which the participants experienced within their institutes. Conversely, a strongly com-
petitive atmosphere, criticism, strong traditions, and relatedness to specific academic fields
or groups might potentially undermine the sense of relatedness (Cook and Artino 2016)
and result in feelings of exclusion, loneliness, and social alienation (Ryan and Deci 2017).
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 12 of 16

The group’s relatedness to their field helped reinforce the feeling of being at home.
It can be argued that a strong organisational culture underpins this sense of community
and relatedness (Jacobsen and Thorsvik 2013). Previous studies have shown that such
subcultures within a specific field or area can lead to groupthink. On the one hand,
this can create various negative tensions, and it might be tempting to label this culture as
dysfunctional. On the other hand, such a subculture can support the organisation’s attitudes
and values (Jacobsen and Thorsvik 2013). It is the latter that appears to be predominant in
the expressions of the participants.
The participants emphasised a strong link between relatedness and motivation, as-
serting that leading and nurturing something they are passionate about is meaningful.
Relational motivation theory underscores the significance of interpersonal interactions
for adaptation and well-being. Studies indicate that quality relationships not only fulfil
attachment needs but also partially satisfy autonomy and competence requirements (Ryan
and Deci 2017). The transition from a scientific employee to a department head leads to
changes in relationships. For instance, the need to assume authority over former peers was
noted. While acquiring more personal insights into colleagues’ lives, participants still felt a
sense of relatedness, both socially and professionally.
While the participants valued experiential knowledge, it is notable that formal leader-
ship competence received less attention. However, relying solely on experience may not
always suffice for effective decision-making in diverse contexts. Perceptions of competence
can be compromised by overly challenging tasks or negative feedback, leading to feelings of
ineffectiveness and helplessness (Ryan and Deci 2017). Fortunately, the participants in this
study did not report such challenges significantly affecting their self-perceived competence.
Nonetheless, instances arose when they felt their expertise fell short. Integrating both
experiential and formal leadership competences could potentially enhance their ability to
navigate the various challenges encountered in their roles. Positive feedback and engag-
ing challenges have been shown to bolster feelings of competence (Ryan and Deci 2017),
underscoring the former’s role in motivating department heads’ work.
For all participants, mastering the role of department head was a significant motivation.
However, opinions diverged regarding what was most crucial in achieving good results,
which reflects the different orientations individuals adopt in their work environments.
Determining the driving force behind an individual’s actions, whether external or internal,
provides the basis for establishing causality (Schunk et al. 2010). Orientations often align
with three types of causality orientations (Ryan and Deci 2017). Notably, there were no
signs of amotivated orientation among the participants, who instead generally acted based
on their interests and values, actively seeking situations that resonated with them. This
suggests a causality orientation towards the individual themselves, who are driven by
internal motives. In certain cases, where there is a desire for financial stability or a higher
salary, choices may lean in a more control-oriented direction. This involves potential
rewards or approvals for the participant, who regulate their behaviour based on anticipated
outcomes (Ryan and Deci 2017). Overall, it appears that the participants in this study
were predominantly motivated by an internal drive. Hence, there is little indication that
deficiencies in competence contributed to increased pressure during their workdays.
As anticipated, the findings demonstrate that all three basic needs were integral
components of the participants’ well-being while functioning as middle managers. More
surprising, perhaps, is that the participants in this study did not feel overwhelmed by their
work as middle managers, in contrast with other contexts (Anicich and Hirsh 2017; Jacobsen
2019). With the Nordic model in mind, it is worth reflecting on what happens when a need
is not satisfied. Mutual dependence within the SDT model warrants further exploration to
understand its implications, including the potential for a middle manager to avoid burnout
even when one of the basic needs is not fulfilled. It is conceivable that two fulfilled needs
may compensate for one that is not, allowing the middle manager to continue to perceive
the job positively. Although not explicitly highlighted by my data, one might speculate that
competence becomes especially vital in favourable circumstances, when it ensures effective
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 13 of 16

performance and the capacity to seize opportunities. Conversely, in turbulent times,

relatedness assumes heightened importance, fostering a sense of support and cohesion
among team members. Meanwhile, autonomy may have consistent significance, providing
a stable source of empowerment and freedom in decision-making. This aligns well with
the Nordic model, which prioritises a high level of trust and close collaboration between
management and employees. Generally, there is less emphasis on supervision and more on
facilitating efficiency, responsibility, and initiative in this context (Levin et al. 2012).

5.2. Limitations and Implications

The present study has some limitations that should be addressed. First, caution
must be exercised in drawing strong conclusions, given the relatively small sample size
and qualitative methodology. Future studies should aim to increase participant numbers,
and the use of some form of mixed methods is also recommended. Second, the dataset
may have been affected by the diverse expertise of the organisation’s employees. Third,
participants lacked formal leadership education, despite having high levels of education in
other areas. Fourth, the interview questions may not have captured all aspects of being a
department head and, finally, the included theory is limited. Previous research has explored
various aspects of middle managers’ experiences of motivation and negative pressure in
the position. I have chosen a somewhat less explored path, focusing on the positive aspect
of being a bridge between the top and bottom levels of management. While SDT was
utilised, some sub-elements may have been omitted. Future research could incorporate
other elements of SDT to further explore middle managers’ experiences.
The limitations described above do not diminish the strengths and contributions of
this study. The study contributes to a relatively unexplored area of research on middle
managers in the Norwegian academic context, offering a new perspective within the frame-
work of SDT. Despite its limitations, the study opens avenues for further exploration of
middle managers’ experiences in various organisational contexts, both domestically and
internationally. The findings are likely relevant not only within the higher education sector
but also within organisations of a similar size. The practical implications include the impor-
tance of recognising the values of autonomy, relatedness, and competence among leaders
and employees, as well as understanding the cross-pressures faced by middle managers in
both the public and private sectors. Future research should consider approaches to assess
the trends and factors affecting middle managers’ work experiences and explore interac-
tions, role expectations, self-determined behaviour, and the impact of formal education on
their roles.

6. Conclusions
In contrast with previous international research conducted in various contexts (Pepper
and Giles 2015; Floyd 2016; Wisniewski 2019; Corbett 2020; Tietjen-Smith et al. 2020), the
findings of this study suggest that the experience of being a middle manager in the UUC
sector in Norway is not as daunting as previously thought, if the needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness are fulfilled. Jacobsen (2019) has drawn similar conclusions
about middle managers. The findings are particularly noteworthy within the Nordic edu-
cation sector, where the role of middle manager seems to be less stressful or overwhelming
than in other organisational settings. While many of the participants occasionally felt
caught between top management and employees, in keeping with previous research and
theories on middle management (Mintzberg 1989; Prins et al. 2015; Buchanan et al. 2013;
Harding et al. 2014; Anicich and Hirsh 2017); this tension is not perceived as detrimental to
their well-being but rather as frustrating due to the disconnect between directives and the
department’s reality.
The study illustrates how department heads maintain a delicate balance of responsi-
bility, trust, and support to facilitate their roles as both executive and an inclusive middle
manager. They navigate a dynamic environment where they both influence and are in-
fluenced by others. This reflects an organisational culture that emphasises engagement,
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 14 of 16

openness, community, and accountability, in line with the Nordic model (Jacobsen and
Thorsvik 2013; Velten et al. 2016). Autonomy emerges as crucial for middle managers’ work,
although some control-oriented tasks may hinder this. Additionally, middle managers
feel strongly supported by their immediate leadership at the faculty level, which enables
them to navigate challenges effectively. Thus, it can be speculated that, given a good work
environment and a high degree of satisfaction, they tolerate somewhat more pressure than
expected in such a position. Overall, the participants feel that their psychological needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which must be satisfied for the sake of their
well-being and intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2017), are largely met at work.

Funding: This research received no specific grant or funding from any funding agency in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (reference number: 826632,
27 January 2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the author.

References
Anicich, Eric M., and Jacob B. Hirsh. 2017. The psychology of middle power: Vertical code-switching, role conflict, and behavioral
inhibition. Academy of Management Review 42: 659–82. [CrossRef]
Arbeidsmiljøloven. 2005. Lov om Arbeidsmiljø, Arbeidstid og Stillingsvern mv. (LOV-2005-06-17-62). Lovdata. Available online:
https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/regelverk/lover/arbeidsmiljoloven/4/4-2/ (accessed on 14 January 2023).
Baard, Paul P., Edward L. Deci, and Richard M. Ryan. 2004. Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and
well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34: 2045–68. [CrossRef]
Buchanan, Danielle A., David Denyer, J. Jaina, Clare Kelliher, C. Moore, Emma Parry, and Colin Pilbeam. 2013. How do they manage?
A qualitative study of the realities of middle and front-line management work in health care. Health Service Delivery Research 1:
1–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chen, Chung-An, Evan M. Berman, and Chun-Yuan Wang. 2017. Middle managers’ upward roles in the public sector. Administration
and Society 49: 700–29. [CrossRef]
Cook, David A., and Anthony R. Artino, Jr. 2016. Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Medical Education 50:
997–1014. [CrossRef]
Cooper, Cary L., and Judi Marshall. 1975. The management of stress. Personnel Review 4: 27–31. [CrossRef]
Corbett, Stephen. 2020. Establishing professional expectations in further education middle management: The human resource
manager’s perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50: 1–17. [CrossRef]
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11: 227–68. [CrossRef]
Deci, Edward L., Anja H. Olafsen, and Richard M. Ryan. 2017. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4: 19–43. [CrossRef]
Deci, Edward L., James P. Connell, and Richard M. Ryan. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology
74: 580–90. [CrossRef]
Deci, Edward L., Richard M. Ryan, Marylène Gagné, Dean R. Leone, Julian Usunov, and Boyanka P. Kornazheva. 2001. Need
satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of
self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27: 930–42. [CrossRef]
Floyd, Alan. 2016. Supporting Academic Middle Managers in Higher Education: Do We Care? Higher Education Policy 29: 167–83.
[CrossRef]
Gunnarsdottir, Hulda Mjöll. 2014. Gender and person/role conflict in management: A study of gender, management position, and
emotional dissonance among managers in a Scandinavian setting. Research on Emotion in Organizations 10: 271–303.
Gunnarsdóttir, Hulda Mjöll. 2016. Autonomy and emotion management. Middle management in welfare professions during radical
organizational change. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 6: 87–108. [CrossRef]
Harding, Nancy, Hugh Lee, and Jackie Ford. 2014. Who is “the middle manager”? Human Relations 67: 1213–37. [CrossRef]
Hassard, John, Leo McCann, and Jonathan Morris. 2009. Managing the Modern Corporation: The Intensification of Managerial Work in the
USA, UK, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 15 of 16

Humphrey, Stephen E., Jennifer D. Nahrgang, and Frederick P. Morgeson. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work
design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92:
1332–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Huy, Quy Nguyen. 2002. Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers.
Administrative Science Quarterly 47: 31–69. [CrossRef]
Irfaeya, Wajda. 2008. Employee Responsibility—Conceptualization, Validation, Determinants, and Outcomes. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jacobsen, Dag Ingvar. 2015. Hvordan Gjennomføre Undersøkelser? Innføring I Samfunnsvitenskapelig Metode, 3rd ed. Oslo: Høyskoleforlaget.
Jacobsen, Dag Ingvar. 2019. Mellomledelse—En spesiell form for ledelse? Magma 22: 46–54. Available online: https://www.magma.
no/mellomledelse-en-spesiell-form-for-ledelse (accessed on 2 September 2023). [CrossRef]
Jacobsen, Dag Ingvar, and Jan Thorsvik. 2013. Hvordan Organisasjoner Fungerer, 4th ed. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Johannessen, Asbjørn, Per Arne Tufte, and Line Christoffersen. 2021. Introduksjon til samfunnsvitenskapelig metode, 6th ed. Oslo:
Abstrakt Forlag.
Kuvaas, Bård, and Anders Dysvik. 2020. Lønnsomhet gjennom menneskelige ressurser. In Evidensbasert HRM, 4th ed. Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget.
Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2015. Det kvalitative forskningsintervju, 3rd ed. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Levin, Morten, Tore Nilssen, Johan E. Ravn, and Lisbeth Øyum. 2012. Demokrati i arbeidslivet. Den norske samarbeidsmodellen som
konkurransefortrinn. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Liu, Dong, Shu Zhang, Lei Wang, and Thomas W. Lee. 2011. The effects of autonomy and empowerment on employee turnover: Test of
a multilevel model in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 1305–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mintzberg, Henry. 1989. Mintzberg on Management. Inside Our Strange World of Organizations. New York: Free Press.
Ng, Johan Y. Y., Nikos Ntoumanis, Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan, Joan L. Duda, and Geoffrey C.
Williams. 2012. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7:
325–40. [CrossRef]
Nokut. n.d. Akkrediterte Institusjonar. 22.01.07. Available online: https://www.nokut.no/databaser-og-fakta/akkrediterte-
institusjonar/ (accessed on 2 September 2023).
Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of
Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Osterman, Paul. 2008. The Truth about Middle Managers: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Matter. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Pepper, Coral, and Wendy Giles. 2015. Leading in middle management in higher education. Management in Education 29: 46–52.
[CrossRef]
Prins, Seth J., Lisa M. Bates, Katherine M. Keyes, and Carles Muntaner. 2015. Anxious? Depressed? You might be suffering from
capitalism: Contradictory class locations and the prevalence of depression and anxiety in the USA. Sociology of Health and Illness
37: 1352–72. [CrossRef]
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2017. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness.
New York: Guilford Publishing.
Schunk, Dale H., Paul R. Pintrich, and Judith L. Meece. 2010. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and Applications, International ed.
Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Slemp, Gavin R., Margaret L. Kern, Kent J. Patrick, and Richard M. Ryan. 2018. Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A
meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion 42: 706–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Thagaard, Tove. 2018. Systematikk og innlevelse: En innføring i kvalitativ metode. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Tietjen-Smith, Tara, Bethany Hersman, and Betty A. Block. 2020. Planning for succession: Preparing faculty for the kinesiology
department head role. Quest 72: 383–94. [CrossRef]
Trépanier, Sarah-Geneviève, Claude Fernet, and Stéphanie Austin. 2013. Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: The
mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Work Stress 27: 123–40. [CrossRef]
Trope, Yaacov, and Nira Liberman. 2003. Temporal construal. Psychological Review 110: 403–21. [CrossRef]
Trope, Yaacov, and Nira Liberman. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review 117: 440–63. [CrossRef]
Van den Broeck, Anja, D. Lance Ferris, Chu-Hsiang Chang, and Christopher C. Rosen. 2016. A review of self-determination theory’s
basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management 42: 1195–29. [CrossRef]
Vasquez, Ariana C., Erika A. Patall, Carlton J. Fong, Andrew S. Corrigan, and Lisa Pine. 2016. Parent autonomy support, academic
achievement, and psychosocial functioning: A meta-analysis of research. Educational Psychology Review 28: 605–44. [CrossRef]
Velten, Johan, Tengblad Stefan, and Runar Heggen. 2016. Medarbeiderskap. Hva som får folk til å ta ansvar og vise initiativ. Bergen:
Universitetsforlaget.
Williams, Geoffrey C., Hallgeir Halvari, Christopher P. Niemiec, Øystein Sørebø, Anja H. Olafsen, and Cathrine Westbye. 2014.
Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-related correlates: A self-determination
theory perspective. Work and Stress 28: 404–19. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 102 16 of 16

Wisniewski, Mary. 2019. Leadership development for academic chairs: Programs for promoting competence in higher education.
Journal of Continuing Higher Education 67: 48–51. [CrossRef]
Yu, Shi, Chantal Levesque-Bristol, and Yukiko Maeda. 2018. General need for autonomy and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis of
studies in the US and East Asia. Journal of Happiness Studies 19: 1863–82. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.