Implications of success and persistence for public sector performance

Public Organization Review

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 281-297

  Hall, Jeremy L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental change; Information; Public sector performance; Public private differences; Strategic persistence

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548169080     PISSN: 15667170     EISSN: 15737098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11115-007-0037-0     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Audia, P., Locke, E. & Smith, K. 2000. The paradox of success: An archival study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 837-853.
2. Bardach, E. 2004. Presidential address - the extrapolation problem: How can we learn from the experience of others? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2): 205-220.
3. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. 1991. Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53(4): 1044-1074.
4. Behn, R. D. 2003. Why measure performance? Public Administration Review, 63(5): 586-606.
5. Boeker, W. 1991. Organizational strategy: An ecological perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 613-635.
6. Bozeman, B. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
7. Bryson, J. M. 2004. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations, 3rd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Columbia Accident Investigation Board. 2003. Report Volume 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. (As accessed September 2, 2003 via the worldwide web at http://anon.nasa-global.speedera.net/ anon.nasa-global/CAIB/CAIB_lowres_full.pdf
9. Daniels, M. 1997. Terminating public programs: An American political paradox. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
10. Davis, O., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. 1966. A theory of the budgetary process. American Political Science Review, 60(3): 529-547.
11. Goodsell, C. 1994. Bureaucrats as ordinary people. In The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
12. Haveman, H. 1992. Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 48-75.
13. Heinrich, C. J. 1999. Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3): 363-393.
14. Kaufman, H. 1985. Time, chance, and organizations: Natural selection in a perilous environment. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House.
15. Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. 1991. Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 591-612.
16. Kelly, J. M., & Swindell, D. 2002. A multiple-indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, 62(5): 610-621.
17. Koppell, J. G. S. 2005. Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of "multiple accountabilities disorder". Public Administration Review, (65)1: 94-108.
18. Lant, T., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. 1992. The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical explanation. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 585-608.
19. Lee, S. R., & Fitzgerald, M. R. 1996. Exploring the basis for parental school choice in public education: Assessing school performance in Tennessee. Policy Studies Journal, 24(4): 595-606.
20. March, J. G., & Olson, J. P. 1983. Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77(2): 281-296.
21. Miller, D. 1988. Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2): 280-308.
22. Miller, D. 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 116-138.
23. Miller, D. 1994. What happens after success: The perils of excellence. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3): 325-359.
24. Miller, D., & Chen, M. 1994. Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the U.S. Airline Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 1-23.
25. Moe, T. 1984. The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4): 739-777.
26. Nystrom, P., & Starbuck, W. H. 1984. To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4): 53-65.
27. Peirce, W. 1981. Bureaucratic failure and public expenditure. New York: Academic.
28. Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. 1987. Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3): 227-238.
29. Simon, C., & Lovrich, N. P. 1996. Private school enrollment and public school performance: Assessing the effects of competition upon private school student achievement in Washington state. Policy Studies Journal, 24(4): 666-675.
30. Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. 1987. Environmental variation, strategic change, and firm performance: A study of railroad deregulation. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 363-376.
31. Vaughan, D. 1997. The trickle down effect: Policy decisions, risky work, and the challenger tragedy. California Management Review, 39(2): 80-102.
32. Wilson, J. Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
33. Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. 1991. The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85(3): 801-828.