Intervention or persuasion? Strategies for turnaround of poorly-performing councils

Public Money and Management

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 217-226

  Turner, Dave ^a   Skelcher, Chris ^b   Whiteman, Philip ^b   Hughes, Michael ^b   Jas, Pauline ^b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3543032214     PISSN: 09540962     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9302.2004.00423.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Andrews, R. (2004), Analysing deprivation and local authority performance: The implications for CPA. Public Money & Management, 24, 1, pp. 19-26.
2. Audit Commission (2002a), The Final CPA Assessment Framework for Single Tier and County Councils, 2002 (London).
3. Audit Commission (2002b), A Force for Change (London).
4. Audit Commission (2003), Comprehensive Performance Assessment: Scores and Analysis of Performance for Single Tier and County Councils in England 2003 (London).
5. Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review (May/June), pp. 133-141.
6. Boyne, G., Martin, S. and Reid, S. (2003), Strategies for Organizational Recovery in Local Government: Retrenchment, Repositioning and Reorganization (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/HMSO, London).
7. Boyne, G. (2004), Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 3, pp. 367-394.
8. Boyne, G. and Enticott, G. (2004), Are the 'poor' different? The internal characteristics of local authorities in the five comprehensive performance assessment groups. Public Money & Management, 24, 1, pp. 11-18.
9. Davis, H., Downe, J. and Martin, S. (2001), External Inspection of Local Government: Driving Improvement or Drowning in Detail? (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.)
10. Jas, P. and Skelcher, C. (2004), Performance failure and turnaround in public sector organizations: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Paper to International Research Symposium on Public Sector Management, Budapest, Hungary.
11. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1995), Democratic Governance (The Free Press, New York).
12. Martin, S. (2001), Improving Public Services: Evaluation of the Best Value Pilot Programme: Final Report (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London).
13. Martin, S. (2002), The modernization of UK local government: Markets, mentors and mixed fortunes. Public Management Review, 4, 3, pp. 291-307.
14. Meyer, M. W. and Zucker, L. G. (1989), Permanently Failing Organizations (Sage, London).
15. Meyer, M. W. and Gupta, V. (1994), The performance paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, pp. 309-369.
16. ODPM (2003), Government Engagement with Poorly Performing Councils: Practice Guidance for Lead Officials (HMSO, London).
17. Office of Public Sector Reforms (OPSR) (2001), Inspecting for Improvement: Developing a Customer-Focused Approach (HMSO, London).
18. Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation (Sage, London).
19. Scott, W. R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd edn (Sage, London).
20. Senior, B. (1997) Organizational Change (Pitman, London).
21. Shaw, B. M. (1981), The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, pp. 577-587.
22. Starbuck, W. H. and Hedberg, B. L. (1977), Saving and organization from a stagnating environment. In Thorelli, H. (Ed), Strategy + Structure = Performance (Indiana University Press, Bloomington).
23. Wilson, J. (2004), Comprehensive Performance Assessment-Springboard or deadweight? Public Money & Management, 24, 1, pp. 63-68.