The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on public sector managers’ motivation

We conduct an explorative study to investigate the effect of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on managerial motivation in public sector organisations. Increased subjectivity can enhance motivation if supervisors are able to provide better informational feedback. However, subjectivity is likely to reduce motivation if it reduces perceived mission clarity or negatively affects relations between supervisors and subordinates. Our analysis is based on a survey among 94 public sector managers in the Netherlands. We predict and find that subjectivity in performance evaluation practices reduces perceived mission clarity, which in turn decreases motivation. We also find that subjectivity negatively affects subordinate managers’ trust in their supervisor, which also reduces motivation. Jointly, these results indicate that the negative effects of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices outweigh its potential positive consequences, suggesting that New Public Management's focus on more objective performance measures can indeed be beneficial. By itself, however, this does not automatically imply that more objective systems in general are optimal in all public sector organisations as such systems may have dysfunctional side effects such as distortion of performance measures, gaming or manipulation. In addition, we find that the effects of subjectivity are moderated by organisational characteristics.

[1]  M. Degroote.  A model of the impact of mission statements on firm performance , 2001 .

[2]  George P. Baker,et al.  Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts , 1993 .

[3]  J. Dermer.  Research Notes. THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION. , 1975 .

[4]  Henk J. ter Bogt,et al.  Management Accounting Change and New Public Management in Local Government: A Reassessment of Ambitions and Results an Institutionalist Approach to Accounting Change in the Dutch Public Sector , 2008 .

[5]  Michael Gibbs,et al.  Determinants and Effects of Subjectivity in Incentives , 2004 .

[6]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. , 2002, The American psychologist.

[7]  Jean Tirole,et al.  The internal organization of government , 1994 .

[8]  Jasmijn C. Bol,et al.  The Determinants and Performance Effects of Managers’ Performance Evaluation Biases , 2011 .

[9]  J. Dermer,et al.  The Interrelationship of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation , 1975 .

[10]  G. Jan van Helden,et al.  Researching Public Sector Transformation: The Role of Management Accounting , 2005 .

[11]  Christopher D. Ittner,et al.  Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard , 2003 .

[12]  M. Abernethy,et al.  Management control systems in research and development organizations: The role of accounting, behavior and personnel controls , 1997 .

[13]  Bradley E. Wright,et al.  Public-Sector Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature and a Revised Conceptual Model , 2001 .

[14]  G. Hofstede.  Management Control of Public and Not-for-Profit Activities , 1981 .

[15]  Eran Vigoda.  New Public Management , 2007 .

[16]  James L. Perry,et al.  Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited , 2006 .

[17]  Carol Propper,et al.  The Use and Usefulness of Performance Measures in the Public Sector , 2003 .

[18]  Christopher A. Higgins,et al.  A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, Public Sector, and Parapublic Sector Employees , 2006 .

[19]  Sven Modell,et al.  Power and Performance: A Field Study of the Rise and Fall of an Institutional Entrepreneur , 2010 .

[20]  Robert Dur,et al.  Incentives and Workers Motivation in the Public Sector , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[21]  C. Hood.  The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme , 1995 .

[22]  C. Hood,et al.  What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system , 2006 .

[23]  B. Wright.  The Role of Work Context in Work Motivation: A Public Sector Application of Goal and Social Cognitive Theories , 2004 .

[24]  Philip Moon,et al.  Performance measurement and the use of league tables: some experimental evidence of dysfunctional consequences , 2000 .

[25]  Waymond Rodgers,et al.  Potential model misspecification bias: Formative indicators enhancing theory for accounting researchers , 2011 .

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

[27]  Frank Moers,et al.  Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity , 2001 .

[28]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. , 1991 .

[29]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal , 1987 .

[30]  O. Hart,et al.  The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons , 1996 .

[31]  Michael Gibbs,et al.  Performance Measure Properties and Incentive System Design , 2009 .

[32]  Nick Bontis,et al.  A MODEL OF THE IMPACT OF MISSION STATEMENTS ON FIRM PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[33]  Wynne W. Chin.  The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .

[34]  Henry L. Tosi.  A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance , 1991 .

[35]  Christopher D. Ittner,et al.  Implementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence from Government , 2004 .

[36]  Adam M. Grant.  Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. , 2008, The Journal of applied psychology.

[37]  C. Lau,et al.  Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: How do they affect job satisfaction? , 2005 .

[38]  P. E. Crewson,et al.  Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect , 1997 .

[39]  Hans de Bruijn,et al.  Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement , 2002 .

[40]  D. Marginson,et al.  Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours , 2005 .

[41]  I. Eggleton,et al.  Fairness of performance evaluation procedures and job satisfaction: The role of outcome‐based and non‐outcome‐based effects , 2008 .

[42]  Laurence van Lent,et al.  Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers , 2006 .

[43]  E. Deci.  Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. , 1971 .

[44]  K. Jacobs,et al.  The Decentralisation Debate and Accounting Controls in the New Zealand Public Sector , 1997 .

[45]  Bradley E. Wright,et al.  Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter? , 2007 .

[46]  Mahfud Sholihin,et al.  Fairness in performance evaluation and its behavioural consequences , 2009 .

[47]  D. Larcker,et al.  Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends and Research Implications , 1998 .

[48]  R. Goffin,et al.  The self‐rater's personality and self‐other disagreement in multi‐source performance ratings: Is disagreement healthy? , 2007 .

[49]  S. Newberry,et al.  Freedom or coercion? NPM incentives in New Zealand central government departments , 2004 .

[50]  Josep Bisbe,et al.  Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification , 2007 .

[51]  Bradley E. Wright,et al.  Public Service Motivation and the Assumption of Person—Organization Fit , 2008 .

[52]  Bram Steijn,et al.  Public service motivation and job performance of public sector employees in the Netherlands , 2009 .

[53]  H. Klein,et al.  A Field Study of the Influence of Situational Constraints Leader-Member Exchange, and Goal Commitment on Performance , 1998 .

[54]  Barry Gerhart,et al.  Personnel psychology: performance evaluation and pay for performance. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[55]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Modern methods for business research , 1998 .

[56]  J. Gould-Williams.  The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations , 2003 .

[57]  Lawrence A. Gordon,et al.  Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: An empirical investigation , 1984 .

[58]  Canice Prendergast,et al.  The Motivation and Bias of Bureaucrats , 2007 .

[59]  Dale E. Zand.  Trust and Managerial Problem Solving , 1972 .

[60]  Jasmijn C. Bol,et al.  Spillover Effects in Subjective Performance Evaluation: Bias and the Asymmetric Influence of Controllability , 2011 .

[61]  Irvine Lapsley,et al.  1new Public Management: The Cruellest Invention of the Human Spirit? , 2009 .

[62]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Public Sector to Public Services: 20 Years of 'Contextual' Accounting Research , 2007 .

[63]  E. Deci,et al.  Self-determination in a work organization. , 1989 .

[64]  Raffi J. Indjejikian,et al.  CEO compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation , 1996 .

[65]  Sergeja Slapničar,et al.  How Formal Performance Evaluation Affects Trust between Superior and Subordinate Managers , 2009 .

[66]  Frank Moers,et al.  The Choice of Different Types of Subjectivity in CEO Annual Bonus Contracts , 2011 .

[67]  S. Burgess,et al.  The Role of Incentives in the Public Sector: Issues and Evidence , 2003 .

[68]  C. Hood.  A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS , 1991 .

[69]  F. Moers.  Performance Measure Properties and Delegation , 2006 .

[70]  J. Baldwin,et al.  Public versus Private: Not That Different, Not That Consequential , 1987 .

[71]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[72]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Measures of Perrow's Work Unit Technology: An Empirical Assessment and a New Scale , 1983 .

[73]  C. Lau,et al.  Budgeting - The Role of Trust and Participation: A Research Note , 2001 .

[74]  Karen L. Sedatole,et al.  The Effect of Control Systems on Trust and Cooperation in Collaborative Environments , 2005 .

[75]  Robert F. Lusch,et al.  Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers: some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses , 2000 .

[76]  Marcel van Rinsum,et al.  In search of informed discretion: an experimental investigation of fairness and trust reciprocity , 2012 .

[77]  T. M. Amabile,et al.  The Work Preference Inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.