Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-prt4h Total loading time: 0.317 Render date: 2021-10-19T20:01:19.914Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

9 - Performance management: does it work?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

George A. Boyne
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Richard M. Walker
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
George A. Boyne
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Gene A. Brewer
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The idea that organizations should measure and actively manage their performance is a core element of recent public sector reforms in many nations, and is strongly encouraged by international bodies such as the OECD and World Bank. This doctrine of ‘performance management’ has taken root not only in US federal (Milakovich 2006), state (Moynihan 2006) and local governments (Krane 2008) but also in national government agencies in China (Chan and Gao 2009), New Zealand (Norman 2002) and Western Europe (Pollitt 2005), in local governments in the UK (Boyne et al. 2004), and in former Soviet states (Verheijen and Dobrolyubova 2007). Thus it can be argued that performance management appears to be viewed positively by governments across the globe, and is believed by senior policy-makers to lead to better public service performance.

Like many aspects of New Public management (NPM), performance management has roots in public choice theory (Boyne et al. 2003). In the era before the deluge of performance indicators in the public sector, writers such as Niskanen (1971) argued that public organizations were less efficient than their private sector counterparts, partly because their performance was opaque to citizens and politicians. Only the bureaucrats knew the true cost of services, and so were able to ‘budget-maximize’, thereby pursuing their own interests rather than the public interest and reducing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of service delivery. One policy response to this problem was to expose public agencies to competition, which was intended to reveal the price and performance of alternative providers and so pressurize the bureaucracy to deliver better results. Another response was to encourage or force public organizations to collect and publish data on their performance.

Type
Chapter
Information
Public Management and Performance
Research Directions
, pp. 207 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammons, David, and Rivenbark, William. 2008. ‘Factors influencing the use of performance data to provide municipal services: evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project’, Public Administration Review, 68, 3, 304–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Rhys, Boyne, George A., Law, Jennifer, and Walker, Richard M.. 2005. ‘External constraints on local service standards: the case of comprehensive performance assessment in English local government’, Public Administration 83, 4, 639–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berliner, Joseph. 1956. ‘A problem in Soviet business administration’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 1, 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Gwyn, and Hood, Christopher. 2006. ‘What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English national health care system’, Public Administration 84, 4, 517–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohte, John, and Meier, Kenneth. 2000. ‘The motivation for organizational cheating’, Public Administration Review, 60, 2, 173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Geert, and Halligan, John. 2008. Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A. 2001. ‘Planning, performance and public services’, Public Administration 79, 1, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, George. A. 2002. ‘Public and private management: what’s the difference?’, Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1, 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, George A., and Chen, Alex. 2007. ‘Performance targets and public service improvement’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 3, 455–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, George A., and Gould-Williams, Julian. 2003. ‘Planning and performance in public organizations’, Public Management Review, 5, 1, 115–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, George A., Farrell, Catherine, Law, Jennifer, Powell, Martin, and Walker, Richard. 2003. Evaluating Public Management Reforms: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia and Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A., Law, Jennifer, Gould-Williams, Julian, and Walker, Richard M.. 2004. ‘Problems of rational planning in public organizations: an empirical assessment of the conventional wisdom’, Administration and Society, 36, 3, 328–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, Hon, and Gao, Jie. 2009. ‘Putting the cart before the horse? Accountability of performance’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68, S51–S68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Yung Han, and Rainey, Hal G.. 2005. ‘Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US Federal Agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 3, 529–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courty, Pascal, and Marschke, Gerald. 2007. ‘Making government accountable: lessons from a federal job training program’, Public Administration Review, 67, 6, 904–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Ivor, and Waine, Barbara. 1997. Managing the Welfare State. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Andrew, and Swiss, James. 2008. ‘Contrasting views of results-based management tools from different organizational levels’, International Public Management Journal, 11, 2, 214–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, Eric, and Raymond, Margaret. 2005. ‘Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 2, 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartog, Deane, Boselie, Paul, and Paauwe, Jaap. 2004. ‘Performance management: a model and research agenda’, Applied Psychology, 53, 5, 556–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, Carolyn. 2002. ‘Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness’, Public Administration Review, 62, 6, 712–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, Christopher. 2007. ‘Public service management by numbers: Why does it vary? Where has it come from? What are the gaps and the puzzles?’, Public Money and Management, 27, 2, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, Noel, and Eden, Ron. 2001. ‘Rational management, performance targets and executive agencies: views from agency chief executives in Northern Ireland’, Public Administration, 79, 4, 579–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, Stephen. 1975. ‘On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B’, Academy of Management Journal, 18, 5, 769–83.Google Scholar
Krane, Dale. 2008. ‘Can the ‘Courthouse Gang’ go modern? Lessons from the adoption of performance-based management by county governments’, Public Performance and Management Review, 31, 3, 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravchuck, Robert, and Schack, Ronald. 1996. ‘Designing effective performance–­measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993’, Public Administration Review, 56, 4, 348–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, Julian. 1982. The Strategy of Equality. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Locke, Edwin, and Latham, Gary. 2002. ‘Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35 year odyssey’, American Psychologist, 57, 9, 705–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milakovich, Michael. 2006. ‘Comparing Bush-Chaney and Clinton-Gore performance management strategies: are they more alike than different?’, Public Administration, 84, 3, 461–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Donald. 2006. ‘Managing for results in State Government: evaluating a decade of reform’, Public Administration Review, 66, 1, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, William. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Norman, Richard. 2002. ‘Management through measurement or meaning? Lessons from experience with New Zealand’s public sector performance management systems’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68, 4, 619–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Richard. 2007. ‘Managing for outcomes while accounting for outputs’, Public Performance and Management Review, 30, 4, 536–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, Christopher. 2005. ‘Performance management in practice: a comparative study of executive agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 1, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, V. F. 1956. ‘Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements’, Administrative Science Quarterly 1, 2, 240–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, Robert, and Hunter, John. 1992. ‘A foundation of good management practice in government: management by objectives’, Public Administration Review, 52, 1, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, Ross, Schwartz, Amy, and Stiefel, Leanna. 2003. ‘Better than raw: a guide to measuring organizational performance with adjusted measures’, Public Administration Review, 63, 5, 607–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Peter. 1993. ‘Outcome-related performance indicators and organizational control in the public sector’, British Journal of Management, 4, 1, 135–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swiss, James. 2005. ‘A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management’, Public Administration Review, 65, 5, 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheijen, Tony, and Dobrolyubova, Yelena. 2007. ‘Performance management in the Baltic States and Russia’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73, 2, 205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Richard M., and Boyne, George A.. 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, 2, 371–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Kaifeng, and Hsieh, Jun. 2007. ‘Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement’, Public Administration Review, 67, 6, 861–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×