Managerial Effectiveness of Government Performance Measurement: Testing a Middle‐Range Model

The research on government performance measurement has been largely descriptive and prescriptive, with only limited attention paid to hypothesis testing and middle-range theory construction. Although researchers have made prescriptions about how to make performance management work, the validity of those prescriptions has not been systematically examined. In particular, the role of the external political environment and stakeholder participation, two important factors for public sector management, remains unclear. Based on survey data, this article uses structural equation modeling to test a model that assesses how political environment, stakeholder participation, organizational support, and training affect the adoption and managerial effectiveness of performance management.

[1]  Donald P. Moynihan,et al.  What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Performance? Dialogue Theory and Performance Budgeting , 2005 .

[2]  Barbara Czarniawska,et al.  Weick, Karl E. , 1998 .

[3]  H. Rainey,et al.  Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector , 2006 .

[4]  James R. Thompson,et al.  Transforming government : lessons from the reinvention laboratories , 1998 .

[5]  D. Osborne,et al.  Reinventing Government: How the En-trepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector , 1992 .

[6]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[7]  K. Weick.  FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[8]  Robert D. Behn,et al.  Rethinking Democratic Accountability , 2001 .

[9]  Ryh-Song Yeh.  Management practices of Taiwanese firms: As compared to those of American and Japanese subsidiaries in Taiwan , 1991 .

[10]  H. Rainey.  Understanding and Managing Public Organizations , 1991 .

[11]  김종식.  동아시아 문화와 경영, Geert Hofstede, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications, 1980) ; and Cultures and Organizations : Software of the Mind (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1997) , 1999 .

[12]  Francis F. Rourke.  Responsiveness and Neutral Competence in American Bureaucracy , 1992 .

[13]  Evan M. Berman,et al.  Dealing with Cynical Citizens , 1997 .

[14]  D. Kettl.  The Global Public Management Revolution , 2006 .

[15]  F. E. Rourke,et al.  Bureaucracy, Politics and Public Policy , 1984 .

[16]  Jodie B. Ullman,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling: Reviewing the Basics and Moving Forward , 2006, Journal of personality assessment.

[17]  Bradley E. Wright,et al.  Connecting the Dots in Public Management: Political Environment, Organizational Goal Ambiguity, and the Public Manager's Role Ambiguity , 2006 .

[18]  J. Melkers,et al.  Budgeters' Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches , 2001 .

[19]  R. Kravchuk,et al.  Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 , 1996 .

[20]  M. L. Whicker,et al.  The Troublesome Cleft: Public Administration and Political Science , 1993 .

[21]  S. Kelman.  Unleashing Change: A Study of Organizational Renewal in Government , 2005 .

[22]  John P. Wanous,et al.  Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change , 1997 .

[23]  A. Franklin,et al.  The challenge of changing federal management processes: implementation barriers relating to strategic planning and the government performance and results act , 2003 .

[24]  R. Merton.  Social Theory and Social Structure , 1958 .

[25]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[26]  Theodore H. Poister,et al.  Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice , 1999 .

[27]  Harry P. Hatry.  Performance Measurement , 2002 .

[28]  A. Franklin.  Serving the Public Interest? , 2001 .

[29]  Ching-Ping Tang.  When New Public Management Runs into Democratization: Taiwan's Public Administration in Transition , 2004 .

[30]  James F. Wilson.  Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It , 1990 .

[31]  H. G. Frederickson,et al.  Confucius and the Moral Basis of Bureaucracy , 2002 .

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

[33]  P. Hedström,et al.  Social mechanisms : an analytical approach to social theory , 1999 .

[34]  M. Kweit,et al.  Citizen Participation and Citizen Evaluation in Disaster Recovery , 2004 .

[35]  Rolph E. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.): with readings , 1995 .

[36]  Larry Hatcher,et al.  A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling , 1994 .

[37]  Sanjay K. Pandey,et al.  Testing How Management Matters in an Era of Government by Performance Management , 2004 .

[38]  Charles L. Hulin,et al.  The importance of individuals' repertoires of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. , 1998 .

[39]  Peter F. Drucker,et al.  Managing for Results , 1964 .

[40]  Sangmook Kim,et al.  Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations , 2004 .

[41]  Janet M. Kelly,et al.  Why We Should take Performance Measurement on Faith (Facts Being Hard to Come by and Not Terribly Important) , 2002 .

[42]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis , 2004 .

[43]  Ian C. MacMillan,et al.  Does culture endure, or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development☆ , 1992 .

[44]  L. Karakowsky,et al.  Cultural Malleability in an East Asian Context , 2002 .

[45]  Kenneth J. Meier,et al.  Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government , 1979 .

[46]  C. Pinder,et al.  Middle range theory and the study of organizations , 1980 .

[47]  William H. Glick,et al.  Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results? , 1998 .

[48]  Julia Melkers,et al.  Models of Performance‐Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects , 2005 .

[49]  Soonhee Kim,et al.  The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge‐Sharing Capabilities , 2006 .

[50]  Joseph S. Wholey.  Performance-Based Management: Responding to the Challenges , 1999 .

[51]  Matthew Dull.  Why PART? The Institutional Politics of Presidential Budget Reform , 2006 .

[52]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .

[53]  B. Radin.  The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes? , 2000 .

[54]  Paul E. Spector.  Method Variance in Organizational Research , 2006 .

[55]  K. Meier,et al.  Plus ça change: Public management, personnel stability and organizational performance , 2003 .

[56]  J. March.  Administrative Practice, Organization Theory, and Political Philosophy: Ruminations on the Reflections of John M. Gaus , 1997 .

[57]  Gregory Streib,et al.  Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades , 2005 .

[58]  K. Meier,et al.  Political Control versus Bureaucratic Values: Reframing the Debate , 2006 .

[59]  J. C. Thomas.  Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers , 1995 .

[60]  David Swindell,et al.  Linking Citizen Satisfaction Data to Performance Measures: A Preliminary Evaluation , 2000 .

[61]  James R. Thompson,et al.  Reinvention As Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review , 2000 .

[62]  J. Wagner,et al.  Percept-Percept Inflation in Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect , 1994 .

[63]  H. Rainey,et al.  Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations , 1999 .

[64]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

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

[66]  J. Thompson.  Devising Administrative Reform That Works: The Example of the Reinvention Lab Program , 1999 .

[67]  Marc Holzer,et al.  The Performance–Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement , 2006 .

[68]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[69]  A. Hyde.  Desperately Seeking V. O. Key: New Budget Theory for New Policy Choices? , 2003 .

[70]  Gerald Zeitz,et al.  Organizational Properties from Aggregate Data: Separating Individual and Structural Effects , 1980 .

[71]  Evan M. Berman,et al.  Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform , 2000 .

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

[73]  Evan M. Berman,et al.  Hypotheses about Performance Measurement in Counties: Findings from a Survey , 2001 .

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

[75]  C. King,et al.  The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration , 1998 .

[76]  D. Moynihan,et al.  Organizational Performance Managing for Results in State Government : Evaluating a Decade of Reform , 2005 .

[77]  W. Gormley,et al.  Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance , 2003 .

[78]  Laurence J. O'Toole,et al.  Modeling the impact of public management: implications of structural context , 1999 .

[79]  D. Moynihan.  Why and How Do State Governments Adopt and Implement “Managing for Results” Reforms? , 2004 .

[80]  Christopher Marquis,et al.  Special Issue: Frontiers of Organization Science, Part 1 of 2: Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[81]  Michael Barzelay,et al.  The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue , 2001 .

[82]  G. Caiden.  The dynamics of public administration: Guidelines to current transformations in theory and practice , 1971 .

[83]  Sven Modell,et al.  Performance measurement and institutional processes: a study of managerial responses to public sector reform , 2001 .

[84]  Peter C Smith,et al.  On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector , 1995 .

[85]  M. Moore.  Creating public value : strategic management in government , 1995 .

[86]  Patrick J. Wolf.  A Case Survey of Bureaucratic Effectiveness in U.S. Cabinet Agencies: Preliminary Results , 1993 .

[87]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .