Performance management in Canadian public organizations: findings of a multi-case study

Purpose - – Performance management (PM) is now clearly a well-established practice in public sector organizations. However, increasingly scholars have been questioning its efficacy in improving organizational performance. Research has shown that the presumed benefits remain questionable and that there are many barriers, challenges and problems in implementing PM. The purpose of this paper is to report and discuss the findings of a multi-case study that examines in more depth how five Canadian public sector organizations are implementing PM. Design/methodology/approach - – A qualitative multi-case study approach was used in this study. Structured interviews were carried out in each public sector organization and the interview data were analyzed using NVivo8. Individual case profiles were also written. A cross-case analysis was carried out using data from these five cases. Findings - – The cross-case analysis of the data focussed on the major themes emerging from the data with respect to challenges and barriers, success factors, context and implications for practice for PM in public sector organizations. Three contextual factors are identified and discussed in explaining some of the findings. Conclusions are drawn for making PM more effective in achieving performance improvement in public sector organizations and future directions for research. Research limitations/implications - – The research findings and implications for practice are based on five Canadian public sector organizations so may limit its generalizability to public sector organizations in other countries. Practical implications - – Some practical implications are discussed with respect to implementing PM more successfully in public sector organizations. This included the better integration of PM to corporate strategy, leadership in developing a positive PM culture and employee buy-in and commitment to the process. Originality/value - – This qualitative multi-case study of PM in Canadian public sector organizations has not previously been done. This approach allows for a more close-up look at PM in public sector organizations especially how it is implemented and the experiences of organizational members. The paper also presents new insights on context as an important variable in explaining the findings from the cross-case analysis and points to future new directions for research and in developing a contingency theory approach to PM.

[1]  Mary McGuire,et al.  Performance management in the public sector: fact or fiction? , 2004 .

[2]  A. Ho.  Accounting for the Value of Performance Measurement from the Perspective of Midwestern Mayors , 2006 .

[3]  K. Meier,et al.  Public management and organizational performance: An agenda for research , 2006 .

[4]  Aki Jääskeläinen,et al.  Overcoming challenges in the implementation of performance measurement , 2013 .

[5]  J. Mcdavid,et al.  Legislator Uses of Public Performance Reports , 2012 .

[6]  David H. Folz,et al.  The Adoption, Use, and Impacts of Performance Measures in Medium-Size Cities , 2009 .

[7]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches , 1966 .

[8]  Robert E. Stake,et al.  Multiple Case Study Analysis , 2005 .

[9]  Marc Wouters,et al.  Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department , 2008 .

[10]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .

[11]  B. Bernard.  Emerging Indicators and Bureaucracy: From the Iron Cage to the Metric Cage , 2008 .

[12]  P. Jackson.  Governance by numbers: what have we learned over the past 30 years? , 2011 .

[13]  Harri Laihonen,et al.  A contingency approach to performance measurement in service operations , 2012 .

[14]  Joanne M. Lye.  Performance Measurement in the Public Sector: A Clarification and Agenda for Research , 2006 .

[15]  Zahirul Hoque,et al.  Measuring and reporting public sector outputs/outcomes: Exploratory evidence from Australia , 2008 .

[16]  George Alexander Boyne,et al.  Performance Targets and Public Service Improvement , 2006 .

[17]  Beryl A. Radin,et al.  Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values , 2006 .

[18]  Louise Kloot,et al.  Performance measurement and accountability in an Australian fire service , 2009 .

[19]  J. Creswell.  Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[20]  Ana I. Melo,et al.  Current state of public sector performance management in seven selected countries , 2012 .

[21]  Donald P. Moynihan,et al.  Does Involvement in Performance Management Routines Encourage Performance Information Use? Evaluating GPRA and PART , 2012 .

[22]  Jiju Antony,et al.  Performance management in the public sector , 2009 .

[23]  N. Flynn.  Public Sector Management , 1990 .

[24]  Sabine Kuhlmann.  Performance Measurement in European local governments: a comparative analysis of reform experiences in Great Britain, France, Sweden and Germany , 2010 .

[25]  S. Kelman.  Improving service delivery performance in the United Kingdom: Organization theory perspectives on central intervention strategies , 2006 .

[26]  Zahirul Hoque,et al.  The Rise and Use of Balanced Scorecard Measures in Australian Government Departments , 2011 .

[27]  D. Moynihan,et al.  Measuring How Administration Shapes Citizenship: A Policy Feedback Perspective on Performance Management , 2008 .

[28]  E. Pieter Jansen,et al.  Performance measurement in governmental organizations: a contingent approach to measurement and management control , 2004 .

[29]  G. Latham,et al.  Goal Setting and Performance Management in the Public Sector , 2008 .

[30]  Aki Jääskeläinen,et al.  Bottom‐up approach for productivity measurement in large public organizations , 2011 .

[31]  A. Schatteman.  The state of Ontario's municipal performance reports: A critical analysis , 2010 .

[32]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Performance Management in the Public Sector , 2015 .

[33]  Robert D. Behn,et al.  Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures , 2003 .

[34]  John N. Friedman,et al.  Performance Improvement and Performance Dysfunction: An Empirical Examination of Impacts of the Emergency Room Wait-Time Target in the English National Health Service , 2007 .

[35]  S. Borins,et al.  The new public management is here to stay , 1995 .

[36]  J. A. Algera,et al.  Participation in the design of performance management systems: a quasi-experimental field study , 2004 .

[37]  Frank H.M. Verbeeten,et al.  Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance , 2008 .

[38]  M. B. Sanger.  From Measurement to Management: Breaking through the Barriers to State and Local Performance , 2008 .

[39]  Joining public accountability and performance management: A case study of Lethbridge, Alberta , 2011 .

[40]  Evaluation, Accountability, and Performance Measurement in National Education Systems: Trends, Methods, and Issues , 2009 .

[41]  Milena Vainieri,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of a performance evaluation system in the public health care sector: some novel evidence from the Tuscany region experience , 2013 .

[42]  Raili Pollanen,et al.  Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context , 2005 .

[43]  P. Julnes,et al.  Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation , 2001 .

[44]  Y. L. Chan,et al.  Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards , 2004 .

[45]  C. Hood,et al.  The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox? , 2004 .

[46]  Umit Bititci,et al.  Performance Measurement: Challenges for Tomorrow , 2012 .