Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:24:57.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Consequences of goal ambiguity in public organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Young Han Chun
Affiliation:
Assistant professor of public administration Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
Hal G. Rainey
Affiliation:
Alumni Foundation Distinguished Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Policy of the School of Public and International Affairs University of Georgia
George A. Boyne
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Kenneth J. Meier
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr.
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Richard M. Walker
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Assertions that goal ambiguity in public organizations has a major influence on those organizations abound in the public management literature (for a review, see Rainey 1993). For instance, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 assumes that the reduction of goal ambiguity will improve organizational performance in US federal agencies. Strategic planning initiatives in many other nations have similar implications (Boyne and Walker 2004). New Public Management reforms and reforms in other nations have often sought to create more market- and business-like arrangements for government organizations, often involving efforts to clarify and specify goals and performance objectives (e.g., Barzelay 2001; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000). However, one finds little empirical evidence of the impact of goal ambiguity on organizational performance and other important organizational characteristics such as structural dimensions, behaviours, and work attitudes. Severe conceptual and methodological challenges in investigating organizational goal ambiguity appear to account for this scarcity of evidence. Previous studies of goal ambiguity have usually relied on managers' responses to survey questions about whether their organizations have vague or clear goals (e.g., Rainey et al. 1995). Such surveys have found no differences between public and private managers in their ratings of the clarity of their organizations' goals. For public management experts, these results come as a surprise since they do not support the frequently repeated assertion that public organizations have less goal clarity than business firms.

Type
Chapter
Information
Public Service Performance
Perspectives on Measurement and Management
, pp. 92 - 112
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1968) ‘Organizational independence and intra-organizational structure’, American Sociological Review, 33: 912–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzelay, M. (2001) The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bearden, W., Netemeyer, R. and Mobley, M. (1993) Handbook of marketing scales. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Boyne, G. A. and Walker, R. M. (2004) ‘Strategy content and public service organizations’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14: 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozeman, B. (2000) Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Kingsley, G. (1998) ‘Risk culture in public and private organizations’, Public Administration Review, 58: 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, B. (1974) ‘Government managers, business executives, and organizational commitment’, Public Administration Review, 35: 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, B. (1975) ‘Red tape and the service ethic: some unexpected differences between public and private managers’, Administration and Society, 6: 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Y. H. and Rainey, H. (2005a) ‘Goal ambiguity in US federal agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Y. H. and Rainey, H. (2005b) ‘Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US federal agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15: 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. and Lindblom, C. (1958) Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1967) Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drucker, P. (1980) ‘The deadly sins in public administration’, Public Administration Review, 40: 103–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. (1999) ‘Managing for results in Arizona: A fifth-year report card’, Public Productivity and Management Review, 23: 194–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginger, C. (1998) ‘Interpreting roads in roadless areas: organizational culture, ambiguity, and change in agency responses to policy mandates’, Administration and Society, 29: 723–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grizzle, G. (1982) ‘Measuring state and local government performance: issues to resolve before implementing a performance measurement system’, State and Local Government Review, 14: 132–136.Google Scholar
Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1969) ‘Routine technology, social structure, and organizational goals’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 366–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargrove, E. and Glidewell, J. (eds.) (1990) Impossible jobs in public management. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Khademian, A. (1995) ‘Reinventing a government corporation: professional priorities and a clear bottom line’, Public Administration Review, 55: 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, Z. and Rainey, H. (1992) ‘Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private and hybrid organizations: More evidence on frequent assertions about differences’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2: 5–28.Google Scholar
Lee, T., Locke, E. and Latham, G. (1989) ‘Goal setting theory and job performance’ in Pervin, L. (ed.) Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 291–326.Google Scholar
Lerner, A. and Wanat, J. (1983) ‘Fuzziness and bureaucracy’, Public Administration Review, 43: 500–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1959) ‘The science of muddling through,’ Public Administration Review, 19: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, E., Chah, D., Harrison, S, and Lustgarten, N. (1989) ‘Separating the effects of goal specificity from goal level’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 270–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, T. (1979) The end of liberalism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Lynn, L. E. Jr., (1981) Managing the public's business. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Meier, K. J. (1980) ‘Measuring organizational power: resources and autonomy of government agencies’, Administration and Society, 12: 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. (1957) Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. W. (1979) Change in public bureaucracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, E. and Rassel, G. (1995) Research methods for public administrators. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. and Kingsley, G. (2000) ‘Examining red tape in public and private organizations: alternative explanations from a social psychological model’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10: 779–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. and Porter, L. (1982) ‘Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 7: 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinder, C. (1998) Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000) Public management reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rainey, H. (1993) ‘Toward a theory of goal ambiguity in public organizations’, in Perry, J. (ed.) Research in public administration. Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 121–166.Google Scholar
Rainey, H. (2003) Understanding and managing public organizations. 3rd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rainey, H., Pandey, S. and Bozeman, B. (1995) ‘Research note: Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape', Public Administration Review, 55: 567–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. (1986) Setting strategic goals and objectives. 2nd edn. New York: West.Google Scholar
Rourke, F. (1984) Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Scott, W. (1992) Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Shalala, D. (1998) ‘Are large public organizations manageable?Public Administration Review, 58: 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, D. (1999) Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1999) Make success measurable!New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Spicer, M. and Terry, L. (1996) ‘Administrative interpretation of statutes: A constitutional view on the “new world order” of public administration’, Public Administration Review, 56: 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Office of Management and Budget (2001) OMB Circular No. A-11. Washington DC: US Office of Management and Budget.
Warwick, D. (1975) A theory of public bureaucracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, J. and Piderit, S. (1999) ‘The value of mission statements in public agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9: 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. (1989) Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×