Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Notes on contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration
- 3 All measures of performance are subjective: More evidence on US federal agencies
- 4 A qualitative evaluation of public sector organizations: Assessing organizational performance in healthcare
- 5 Quantitative approaches towards assessing organizational performance
- 6 Consequences of goal ambiguity in public organizations
- 7 Performance control and public organizations
- 8 Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: Testing the moderating role of culture and political support
- 9 All that glitters is not gold: Disaggregating networks and the impact on performance
- 10 Network evolution and performance under public contracting for mental health services
- 11 The design and management of performance-based contracts for public welfare services
- 12 Outsourcing government information technology services: An Australian case study
- 13 International comparisons of output and productivity in public service provision: A review
- 14 Public management and government performance: An international review
- 15 What drives global e-government? An exploratory assessment of existing e-government performance measures
- 16 Public management and organizational performance: An agenda for research
- Index
- References
7 - Performance control and public organizations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Notes on contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration
- 3 All measures of performance are subjective: More evidence on US federal agencies
- 4 A qualitative evaluation of public sector organizations: Assessing organizational performance in healthcare
- 5 Quantitative approaches towards assessing organizational performance
- 6 Consequences of goal ambiguity in public organizations
- 7 Performance control and public organizations
- 8 Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: Testing the moderating role of culture and political support
- 9 All that glitters is not gold: Disaggregating networks and the impact on performance
- 10 Network evolution and performance under public contracting for mental health services
- 11 The design and management of performance-based contracts for public welfare services
- 12 Outsourcing government information technology services: An Australian case study
- 13 International comparisons of output and productivity in public service provision: A review
- 14 Public management and government performance: An international review
- 15 What drives global e-government? An exploratory assessment of existing e-government performance measures
- 16 Public management and organizational performance: An agenda for research
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
This chapter is designed to contribute to the discussion on determining the performance of public organizations by investigating the relationship between performance control systems and performance. It cannot be assumed that performance control systems automatically lead to performance. Neither shall we assume that management control systems are the same as performance control. To do so would be a case of ‘managementism’ which has been described by Dubnick (2003: 9) as a phenomenon where ‘management is seen as the premium mobile that shapes and drives the basic logic of the common research agenda for contemporary Public Administration’. Consequently, we will demonstrate that different forms of performance control do exist. Which form is the most likely to contribute to performance depends on a number of conditions.
In this chapter, we first give a definition of control systems; second, present different types of performance control systems; and third, formulate propositions about how different control approaches contribute to organizational performance. In the last part we discuss the limitations and the opportunities from these insights in providing a solid basis for improving the performance of public organizations.
The definition of performance control and types of performance control
Performance control is defined here as ‘the process of monitoring performance, comparing it with some standards, and then providing rewards and adjustments’ (see Ouchi 1977: 97). This definition should not be misinterpreted, as has often been done, by equating it with performance management, management control systems, management accounting systems, organizational control and management control (Ashworth et al. 2002).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Public Service PerformancePerspectives on Measurement and Management, pp. 113 - 129Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
and (1995) ‘The role of professional control in the management of complex organization’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1972) ‘Production, information cost and economic organization’, American Economic Review, 61: 777–795.Google Scholar
(1980) ‘Some limitations of the case method: Experiences in a management development program’, Academy of Management Review, 5: 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002) ‘Regulatory problems in the public sector: Theories and cases’, Policy & Politics, 30: 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1995) ‘Changing the role of top management: Beyond systems to people’, Harvard Business Review, 7(3): 132–142.Google Scholar
(1990) ‘“How'm I doin?”: How college presidents assess their effectiveness’, Leadership Quarterly, 1: 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000) ‘Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating’, Public Administration Review, 60: 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003a) ‘Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13: 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003b) ‘What is public service improvement?’, Public Administration, 81: 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1991) ‘Organizational learning and communities of practice: Towards a unified view of working, learning, and innovation’, Organization Science, 2: 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1988) ‘Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: development versus evaluation’, Academy of Management Review, 13: 302–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991) ‘Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public accounting firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) ‘Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 127–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002) ‘The professional researcher as change agent in the government-performance movement’, Public Administration Review, 62: 699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999) ‘Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing’, Organization Science, 10: 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1996) ‘The budgetary process of power and politics’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11: 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988) ‘Dynamics of organizational control: The case of Berol Kemi Ab’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13: 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1974) ‘The many dimensions of performance measurement: There is more to performance than profits and growth’, Organizational Dynamics, 3: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988) ‘Control and organizational order’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13: 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Paper prepared for delivery at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 28–31 August, Philadelphia, PA and Conference of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA), 3–6 September, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Follett, M. P. (1937) ‘The process of control’ in and (eds.), Papers on the science of administration. New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration, pp. 161–169.Google Scholar
Grean, G. (1967) ‘Role-making processes within complex organizations’ in (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 1201–1245.Google Scholar
and (1988) ‘Cybernetics and dependence: Reframing the control concept’, Academy of Management Review, 12: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) ‘Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1981) ‘Management control of public and not-for-profit activities’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004) ‘Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use’, Organization Studies, 25: 529–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) ‘Crisis in de gezondheidszorg: De wachtlijstproblematiek’, Bestuurskunde 12: 88–96.Google Scholar
(2005) Balancing on network norms: A partial presentation of a study on control in Dutch health care networks. Paper presented at the EGOS Conference, Berlin.Google Scholar
(2001) ‘The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for’, Public Administration Review, 61: 144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2000) ‘Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10: 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000) ‘State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10: 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001) ‘Reforming the European governance: old problems or new principles?’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67: 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1977) ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2001) ‘Achieving goal congruence in complex environments: The case of welfare reform’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11: 165–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001) ‘Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter’, Social Research: An International Quarterly of Political and Social Science, 68: 379–396.Google Scholar
(1983) ‘Self-management: Its control and relationship to other organizational properties’, Academy of Management Review, 8: 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Mintzberg on management: inside our strange world of organizations. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
(2004) ‘Performance measurement myths in the public sector: A Research note’, Financial Accountability and Management 20: 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004) ‘Public management and organizational performance: The case of law enforcement agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J. E. (1990) ‘Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in a service culture’ in and (eds.) Collective remembering: Memory in society, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 169–189.Google Scholar
(1996) Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
(1977) The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1986) ‘Interactions and arrangements in the process of informing’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11: 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2004) ‘The implementation of welfare reform policy: The role of public managers in front-line practices’, Public Administration Review, 64: 438–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Agent control in the organizational literature. MA thesis manuscript: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
and (2002) The tools of government: a guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
and (2005) ‘Industrial and organisation research on self-regulation: from constructs to applications’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54: 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996) ‘Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1948) Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1964) ‘The professionalization of everyone?’, American Journal of Sociology, 70: 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1978) ‘On the social control of industries’, Social Forces, 57: 79–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 5
- Cited by