The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 849-866

  Moynihan, Donald P ^a   Pandey, Sanjay K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957731615     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muq004     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ammons, David N., and William C. Rivenbark. 2008. Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review 68:304-318
2. Askim, Jostein, Åge Johnsen, and Knut-Andreas Christophersen. 2008. Factors behind organizationallearning from benchmarking: Experiences from Norwegian municipal benchmarking networks.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:297-320.
3. Behn, Robert D. 1995. The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review55:313-324
4. 2007. What all mayors would like to know about Baltimore's CitiStat performance strategy.Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
5. Bergkvist, Lars, and John R. Rossiter. 2007. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-itemmeasures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 44:175-184
6. Bourdeaux, Carolyn, and Grace Chikoto. 2008. Legislative influences on performance management reform.Public Administration Review 68:253-265
7. Brewer, Gene A. 2003. Building social capital: Civic attitudes and behavior of public servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13:5-26.
8. 2008. Employee and organizational performance. In Motivation in public management: The callof public service, ed. James L. Perry and Annie Hondeghem, 101-107 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
9. Broadnax, Walter D., and Kevin J. Conway. 2001. The social security administration and performance management. In Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American government, ed. D.Forsythe, 143-175 Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
10. Brudney, Jeffery L., F. Ted Hebert, and Deil S. Wright. 1999. Reinventing government in the American States: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review 59:19-30.
11. Cornelissen, Thomas. 2006. MEOPROBIT: Stata module to computemarginal effects after estimation of ordered probit. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/ s456788.html (accessed August 12, 2009).
12. de Haven-Smith, Lance, and Kenneth C. Jenne. 2006. Management by inquiry: A discursive account ability system for large organizations. Public Administration Review 66:64-76.
13. de Lancer Julnes, Patria, and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the utilization of performance measures inpublic organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review 61:693-708.
14. Dias, Janice J., and Steven Maynard-Moody. 2007. For-profit welfare: Contracts, conflicts, and the performance paradox. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17:189-211.
15. Dull, Matthew. 2009. Results-model reform leadership: Questions of credible commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19:255-284
16. Feldman, Jack M. 1981. Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive biases in performance appraisal. Journal ofApplied Psychology 66:127-148
17. Franklin, Aimee L. 2000. An examination of bureaucratic reactions to institutional controls. PublicPerformance and Management Review 24:8-21.
18. Gardner, Donald D., L. L. Cummings, Randall B. Dunham, and Jon L. Pierce. 1998. Single-item versusmultiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement 58:898-915.
19. Hatry, Harry. 1999. Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Heikkila, Tayna, and Kimberley Roussin Isett. 2007. Citizen involvement and performance managementin special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review 67:238-248
20. Heinrich, Carolyn J. 1999. Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9:363-393
21. Ho, Alfred Tat-Kei. 2006. Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of city mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:217-237
22. Houston, David J. 2006. "Walking the walk" of public service motivation: Public employees and charitable gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:67-86.
23. Jennings, Edward T., and Meg Patrick Haist. 2006. Putting performance measurement in context. In Theart of governance, eds. Patricia W. Ingraham and Laurence E. Lynn, 173-194 Washington, DC:Georgetown Univ. Press.
24. Kamensky, John. 1996. Role of the "reinventing government" movement in federal management reform.Public Administration Review 56:247-255
25. Kettl, Donald F., and Steven Kelman. 2007. Reflections on 21st century government management.Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
26. Lewis, David E. 2008. The politics of presidential appointments: Political control and bureaucratic performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
27. Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 2005. Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review 65:180-190
28. Moynihan, Donald P. 2003. Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizensummits in Washington, D.C. American Review of Public Administration 33:164-188
29. 2005. Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review 65:203-216
30. 2008. The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform.Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
31. Moynihan, Donald P., and Noel Landuyt. 2009. How do public organizations learn? Bridging structuraland cultural divides. Public Administration Review 69:1097-1105
32. Moynihan, Donald P., Sergio Fernandez, Soonhee Kim, Kelly LeRoux, Suzanne J. Piotrowski, andBradley Wright. Forthcoming. Performance measurement amidst governance complexity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
33. Moynihan, Donald P., and Patricia W. Ingraham. 2004. Integrative leadership in the public sector: A modelof performance information use. Administration & Society 36:427-453
34. Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. Testing how management matters in an era ofgovernment by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15:421-439
35. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Edmund C. Stazyk. 2008. Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation.In Motivation in public management: The call of public service, eds. James L. Perry and AnnieHondeghem, 101-117 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
36. Pandey, Sanjay K., David H. Coursey, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2007. Organizational effectiveness andbureaucratic red tape: A multi-method study. Public Performance and Management Review30:398-425.
37. Pandey, Sanjay K., Bradley E. Wright, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2008. Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal 11:89-108.
38. Perry, James L. 1986. Merit pay in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration 7:57-69.
39. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6:5-22.
40. Perry, James L., and Anne Hondeghem. 2008. Motivation in public management: The call of publicservice. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
41. Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. 1999. Performance measurement in municipal government:Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review 59:325-335
42. Pollitt, Christopher. 2000. Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public managementreform. Public Management Review 2:181-199
43. Quinn, Robert E., and John Rohrbaugh. 1981. A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness.Public Productivity Review 5:122-140
44. Radin, Beryl. 2006. Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
45. Rainey, Hal G. 1983. Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and individual roles.Administration & Society 15:207-242
46. Roy, Claude, and Francine Seguin. 2000. The institutionalization of efficiency-oriented approaches for public service improvement. Public Productivity & Management Review 23:449-468
47. Schick, Allen. 1997. The changing role of the central budget office. Paris, France: OECD.
48. 2001. Getting performance measures to measure up. In Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performancein American government, ed. Dall Forsythe, 39-60. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute.
49. Schulz, Martin. 2001. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows.Academy of Management Journal 44:661-681
50. Spector, Paul E. 1997. Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
51. Tavits, Margit. 2006. Making democracy work more? Exploring the linkage between social capital and government performance. Political Research Quarterly 59:211-225
52. Van Dooren, Wouter. 2008. Nothing new under the sun? Change and continuity in twentieth century performance movements. In Performance information in the public sector: How it is used, eds.Steven Van de Walle and Wouter Van Dooren, 11-23. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
53. Van de Walle, Steven, and Tony Bovaird. 2007. Making better use of information to drive improvement inlocal public services: A report for the Audit Commission. Birmingham, AL: School of Public Policy,Univ. of Birmingham.
54. Van de Walle, Steven, and Wouter Van Dooren. 2008. Introduction: Using public sector information. InPerformance information in the public sector: How it is used, eds. Steven Van de Walle and WouterVan Dooren, 1-8. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
55. Wanous, John P., and Michael J. Hundy. 2001. A single-item reliability: A replication and extension.Organizational Research Methods 4:361-375
56. Weibel, Antoinette, Katja Rost, and Margit Osterloh. Pay for performance in the public sector-benefits and(hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration and Theory. Advance Access published May 27,2009, doi:10.1093/jopart/mup009
57. Willis, James J., Stephen D. Mastrofski, and David Weisburd. 2007. Making sense of COMPSTAT.Law & Society Review 41:147-188
58. Williams, Richard. 2006. Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds model for ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal 6:58-82.
59. Wright, Bradley E. 2001. Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration and Theory 11:559-586
60. Yang, Kaifeng, and Jun Yi Hsieh. 2006. Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement:Testing a middle range model. Public Administration Review 67:861-879
61. Zammuto, Raymond F., and Jack Y. Krakower. 1991. Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development 5:83-114.
62. Zients, Jeffery. 2009. Testimony before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,United States Senate. September 29, 2009