Performance Management Flashcards
Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations
Hal G. Rainey and Paula Steinbauer (1999)
Rainey and Steinbauer examine why government agencies perform well when they do when there are higher levels under the following conditions: Relations with oversight authority (legislative, judicial, executive) that are attentive to agency mission accomplishment; supportive, and delegative. Relations with other stakeholders characterized as: favorable public opinion/support; multiple, influential, mobilizable constitutent/client groups; and effective utilization of technology; and effective negotiation of networks; Autonomy in operalization and pursuit of agency mission; strong organizational culture linked to mission. Leadership that is stable, multiplicity, committed to mission, effective goal setting, and effectively copes with administrative/political constraints. Task design characterized by intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards. Development of human resources (effective recruitment, selection, training, and development), and values/preferences among recruits and members that support task/mission. Professionalism among members. Motivation among members associated with public service, mission, and tasks.
Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting Organizational Performance in Federal Agencies
Gene A. Brewer and Sally Coleman Selden (2000)
Brewer and Selden post that high performance organizations are clear on their missions, define outcomes and focus on results, empower employees, motivate and inspire people to succeed, are flexible and adjust nimbly to new conditions, are competitive in terms of performance, restructure work processes to meet customer needs, and maintain communication with stakeholders. Theoretical dimensions of organizational performance involve internal efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness compared with external efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness. Study of federal agencies found that the variables most associated with organizational performance are efficacy, teamwork, building human capital, structure of task/work, protection of employees, concern for the public interest, and task motivation.
Outcomes-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness
Carolyn J. Heinrich (2002)
Early performance measures in the 1960s included planning, programming, and budgeting. The Nixon administration in the 1970s focused on management by objectives and zero-based budgeting and these were more internal and process focused. The 1980s ushered in an era that shifted considerable responsibility and discretion in the management of public programs to the state and local levels. The Government Performance and Reform Act of 1993 required formal, outcomes-based performance evaluations mandatory for federal programs. This Act required federal agencies to develop (1) strategic plans, (2) an annual performance plan that specifies quantitatively measurable goals, performance indicators, and levels of performance to be achieved, (3) an annual program performance report that compares actual performance with performance goals.
Testing How Management Matters in an Era of Government by Performance Management
Donald P. Moynihan and Sanjay K. Pandey (2004)
PA finds itself in an era of govt by performance management, which is reflected in the widespread assumption that management is a key determinant of performance, and that it is reasonable to expect managers to measurably improve organizational effectiveness. Two key values of efficiency and management. Moynihan and Pandey find that organizational performance is shaped both by external environmental factors and internal management factors. Organizations with clear goals and decentralized decision authority will perform better, reinforcing existing hypotheses about public organizations.
The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information
Donald P. Moynihan and Sanjay K. Pandey (2010)
The article proposes that understanding public employee use of performance information is perhaps the most pressing challenge for scholarship on performance management. The most widespread governmental reform in recent decades has been the requirement for agencies to track and measure strategic goals, targets, and achievements. The following variables have been found to be positively associated with performance information use: administrative stability, internal requirements and lower levels of government; and, chief executive power. Factors that have been negatively associated with performance information use include efforts by the central agency to control the policy agenda and measurement challenges. PSM - a measure of public service motivation (Perry and Hondeghem 2008). High PSM employees exhibit higher levels of organizational commitment, enjoy higher job satisfaction, experience greater job involvement, and require less intrinsic rewards. PSM is positively associated with a form of behavior that is a logical contributor to both higher individual and organizational performance.
The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square pegs in round holes? Beryl Radin (2000)
The GPRA, like a number of earlier federal management reform efforts, does not fit easily into the institutional structures, functions, and political realities of the American system. The GPRA assumes that a single piece of information will be able to meet the complex decision-making needs of both the executive and legislative branches; the focus on outcome performance measures denigrates the role of the federal government in many program areas; assumes that it is possible to directly link planning, management, and budgeting processes through performance information; assumes that it is possible to avoid partisan conflicts and the differences in policy constructs between programs; and, the imposition of performance measures establishes a set of expectations and processes that move agencies to more centralized relationships than were anticipated. The GPRA draws on concepts from private sector management models and establishes a system in which market-like discipline could be used to improve federal government management. GPRA has failed to significantly influence substantive policy and budgetary processes. Instead, its use of administrative rhetoric has caused it to collide with institutional, functional, and policy/political constraints that are a part of the American decision-making system.
