Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance

Purpose - The aim of this study is to investigate whether performance management practices affect performance in public sector organizations. Design/methodology/approach - Theoretically, the research project is based on economic as well as behavioral theories. The study distinguishes amongst quantitative performance (efficiency, quantities produced) and qualitative performance (accuracy, quality, innovation and employee morale) and uses survey data from 93 public sector organizations in the Netherlands. Findings - The research shows that the definition of clear and measurable goals is positively associated with quantity performance as well as quality performance. In addition, the use of incentives is positively associated with quantity performance yet not related to quality performance. Finally, the effects of performance management practices in public sector organizations are affected by institutional factors. The results suggest that the behavioral effects of performance management practices are as important as the economic effects in public sector organizations. Research limitations/implications - All limitations of survey research apply. The survey is based on public sector organizations in The Netherlands; findings may not be transferable to other countries. Practical implications - The joint introduction of performance management practices may provide an opportunity to increase quantity performance yet may have no impact on quality performance. Originality/value - The paper responds to previous calls in the literature to use quantitative research methods to generalize findings from previous case studies. Also, the paper empirically tests the impact of performance management practices on performance, an area that has attracted scarce research attention.

[1]  Mathias Dewatripont,et al.  The Economics of Career Concerns, Part II: Application to Missions and Accountability of Government Agencies , 1999 .

[2]  Margaret A. Abernethy,et al.  Determinants of Control System Design in Divisionalized Firms , 2004 .

[3]  Alan S. Dunk,et al.  An Analysis of Departmental Effectiveness, Participative Budgetary Control Processes and Environmental Dimensionality Within the Competing Values Framework: A Public Sector Study , 1997 .

[4]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle,et al.  A Review of the Effects of Financial Incentives on Performance in Laboratory Tasks: Implications for Management Accounting , 2000 .

[5]  T. J. Brignall,et al.  An Institutional Perspective on Performance Measurement and Management in the 'New Public Sector' , 2000 .

[6]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[7]  John Martin,et al.  Strategic performance management: A balanced approach to performance management issues in local government , 2000 .

[8]  C. Hood.  The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management , 1998 .

[9]  Carolyn J. Heinrich.  Outcomes–Based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness , 2002 .

[10]  William G. Ouchi,et al.  Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans. , 1980 .

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

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

[13]  R. Kaplan.  Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit Organizations , 2001 .

[14]  R. Chenhall.  Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future , 2003 .

[15]  M. Ezzamel,et al.  Has Devolution Increased Democratic Accountability? , 2004 .

[16]  Richard A. Lambert.  Contracting Theory and Accounting , 2001 .

[17]  R. Chenhall.  Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study , 2005 .

[18]  Stanley Baiman,et al.  AGENCY RESEARCH IN MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING: A SECOND LOOK. , 1990 .

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

[20]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[21]  J. Pallot.  A Decade in Review: New Zealand’s Experience with Resource Accounting and Budgeting , 2001 .

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

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

[24]  T. Bogt.  Performance evaluation styles in governmental organizations: How do professional managers facilitate politicians’ work? , 2003 .

[25]  A. Keating,et al.  Determinants of divisional performance evaluation practices , 1997 .

[26]  D. Henley.  Public Sector Accounting and Financial Control , 1983 .

[27]  S. Newberry,et al.  New Zealand's Financial Management System: Implications for Democracy , 2006 .

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

[29]  M. Shirley,et al.  The Empirical Effects of Performance Contracts: Evidence from China , 1997 .

[30]  Karel Cool,et al.  Business strategy, market structure and risk-return relationships: a structural approach , 1989 .

[31]  Mark Penno,et al.  Private Predecision Information, Performance Measure Congruity, and the Value of Delegation* , 2000 .

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

[33]  Kim Langfield-Smith,et al.  Structural equation modeling in management accounting research: critical analysis and opportunities , 2004 .

[34]  Robert S. Kaplan,et al.  Advanced Management Accounting , 1989 .

[35]  Christopher Pollitt,et al.  Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies , 2006 .

[36]  Beyond NPM: Developing Strategic Capacity , 1999 .

[37]  Robert S. Kaplan,et al.  Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy : text and cases , 2000 .

[38]  Zahirul Hoque.  Securing institutional legitimacy or organizational effectiveness? A case examining the impact of public sector reform initiatives in an Australian local authority , 2005 .

[39]  W. Ouchi.  A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms , 1979 .

[40]  Z. Hoque,et al.  Policing the police service , 2004 .

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

[42]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches , 1985 .

[43]  Sven Modell,et al.  Integrating Management Control and Human Resource Management in Public Health Care: Swedish Case Study Evidence , 2000 .

[44]  D. Larcker,et al.  Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective , 2001 .

[45]  G. Latham.  The motivational benefits of goal-setting , 2004 .

[46]  Rangan Vk.  Lofty missions, down-to-earth plans. , 2004 .

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

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

[49]  Avinash Dixit,et al.  Power of Incentives in Private versus Public Organizations , 1997 .

[50]  Peter C. Smith,et al.  Outcome‐related Performance Indicators and Organizational Control in the Public Sector1 , 1993 .

[51]  Janine Nahapiet,et al.  The roles of accounting in organizations and society , 1980 .

[52]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[54]  J. Shaw,et al.  Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. , 1998 .

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

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

[57]  Bill Jenkins,et al.  Codes of Accountability in the New Public Sector , 1993 .

[58]  C. Pollitt.  BEYOND THE MANAGERIAL MODEL: THE CASE FOR BROADENING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN GOVERNMENT AND THE PUBLIC SERVICES , 1986 .

[59]  S. van Thiel,et al.  The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector , 2002 .

[60]  Noel Hyndman,et al.  Rational Management, Performance Targets and Executive Agencies: Views from Agency Chief Executives in Northern Ireland , 2001 .

[61]  Margaret A. Abernethy,et al.  Determinants of accounting innovation implementation , 2005 .

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

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

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

[65]  A. Atkinson,et al.  A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Performance Measurement , 1997 .

[66]  Adam S. Maiga,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Quality Performance , 2005 .

[67]  C. Ittner,et al.  The influence of funding source and legislative requirements on government cost accounting practices , 1996 .

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

[69]  Jarmo Vakkuri,et al.  Ambiguity in Performance Measurement: A Theoretical Approach to Organisational Uses of Performance Measurement , 2006 .

[70]  S. Newberry.  Intended or Unintended Consequences? Resource Erosion in New Zealand's Government Departments , 2002 .

[71]  David Otley,et al.  Performance Management: A Framework for Management Control Systems Research , 1999 .

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

[73]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle,et al.  The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research , 2002 .

[74]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[76]  Åge Johnsen,et al.  What Does 25 Years of Experience Tell Us About the State of Performance Measurement in Public Policy and Management? , 2005 .

[77]  Bill Jenkins,et al.  FROM PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION TO PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: REASSESSING A REVOLUTION? , 1995 .

[78]  Norman B. Macintosh,et al.  Budget-related behavior in public sector organizations: Some empirical evidence☆ , 1990 .

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

[80]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Linking goals to monetary incentives , 2004 .

[81]  Avinash Dixit,et al.  # Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review , 2002 .

[82]  Neil Carter,et al.  How Organisations Measure Success: The Use of Performance Indicators in Government , 1992 .

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

[84]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Measuring And Assessing Organizations , 1980 .

[85]  Kenneth A. Merchant,et al.  Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems , 2003 .

[86]  A. Likierman,et al.  Performance indicators: 20 early lessons from managerial use , 1993 .

[87]  John Hulland,et al.  Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies , 1999 .

[88]  Zahirul Hoque,et al.  Securing institutional legitimacy or organizational effectiveness , 2005 .

[89]  Noel Hyndman,et al.  A study of the coordination of mission, objectives and targets in U.K. executive agencies , 2000 .

[90]  K. Eisenhardt.  Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[91]  Antonio Davila,et al.  Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy: Text and Cases , 1999 .

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

[93]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Debating Developments in New Public Financial Management: The Limits of Global Theorising and Some New Ways Forward , 1999 .

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

[95]  O. Williamson.  Public and Private Bureaucracies: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective , 1999 .

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

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

[98]  Frank G. H. Hartmann,et al.  The Effects of Tolerance for Ambiguity and Uncertainty on the Appropriateness of Accounting Performance Measures , 2005 .

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

[100]  Irvine Lapsley,et al.  Accounting and the New Public Management: Instruments of Substantive Efficiency or a Rationalising Modernity? , 1999 .

[101]  Lokman Mia,et al.  DECENTRALIZATION, ACCOUNTING CONTROLS AND PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS: A NEW ZEALAND EMPIRICAL STUDY , 1996 .

[102]  M. Dirsmith,et al.  Coordination and Control in a Government Agency: Contingency and Institutional Theory Perspectives on GAO Audits , 1994 .

[103]  S. Newberry,et al.  A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing? Wider Consequences of the Financial Management System of the New Zealand Central Government , 2005 .

[104]  James A. Brickley,et al.  The Economics Of Organizational Architecture , 1995 .