19
– performance model, proactive management still matters to performance. Results for reactive
management follow the additive non-autoregressive results in Table 2. When controlling for
environmental forces and organizational inertia, reactive management does not significantly
contribute to program performance.
Proactive Management – Additional Performance Indicators
Next, Tables 4 and 5 evaluate the influence of proactive and reactive management on
various indicators of organizational performance. The models used in these analyses are
equations [5] and [6]. Table 4 looks specifically at the impact of proactive management on
organizational performance.
[TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE]
The key coefficient - proactive management - continues to positively and significantly
contribute to three additional performance indicators – attendance rate, low-income TAAS pass
rate, and the Latino pass rate. Likewise, the slope of the coefficient is appropriately signed across
all of the additional indicators, except average ACT score. One can speculate why managerial
proactivity does not significantly influence SAT and ACT scores, in general. It could be the case
that parents inherently play the role of “manager” when it comes to this particular test (high-end
performance indicator). They help their children gather logistical information, find helpful
resources (including enrolling their child and paying for SAT tutoring programs like Kaplan or
Princeton Review), and communicate the importance of the actual test in terms of college
incentives. On the other hand, it could also be that there are diminishing returns on managerial
proactivity for those already performing at standard, or (well) beyond expectation.
Convention