The sisyphean fate of government-wide performance accountability reforms: Federal performance management efforts and employees' daily work, 2002-2008

Public Performance and Management Review

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 149-176

  Yang, Kaifeng ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; federal government; performance management; performance based accountability; reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864921458     PISSN: 15309576     EISSN: 15579271     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576350108     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (62)

1. Ammons, D., & Rivenbark, W. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304-318.
2. Barzelay, M. 1992. Breaking through bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Behn, R. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4. Behn, R. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.
5. Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409-420.
6. Boyne, G., Meier, K., O'Toole, L., & Walker, D. (2006). Public management and organizational performance: An agenda for research. In G. Boyne, K. Meier, L. O'Toole, and R. Walker (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 295-311). New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Breul, J. (2007). GPRA-A foundation for performance budgeting. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 312-331.
8. de Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693-707.
9. Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 376-417.
10. Dull, M. (2006). Why PART? The institutional politics of presidential budget reform. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 16(2), 187-215.
11. Fountain, J., Campbell, W., Patton, T., Epstein, P., & Cohn, M. (2003). Reporting performance information: Suggested criteria for effective communication. Norwalk, CT: Government Accounting Standards Board.
12. Fox, C. (1996). Reinventing government as postmodern symbolic politics. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 256-262.
13. Gilmour, J. (2008). Implementing OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool. In F. Shea & T. Buss (Eds.), Performance management and budgeting: How governments can learn from experience (pp. 21-48). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
14. Gilmour, J., & Lewis, D. (2006). Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the Office of Management and Budget's PART scores. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 743-752.
15. Greitens, T., & Joaquin, M. (2010). Policy typology and performance measurement: Re sults from the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(4), 555-570.
16. Gueorguieva, V., Accius, J., Apaza, C., Bennett, L., Brownley, C., Cronin, S., & Preechyanud, P. (2009). The Program Assessment Rating Tool and the Government Performance and Results Act: Evaluating conflicts and disconnections. American Review of Public Administration, 39(3), 225-245.
17. Halachmi, A. (2005). Performance measurement: Test the water before you drive in. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 255-266.
18. Harbour, J., & Marble, J. (2005). How performance improves. Performance Improvement, 44(8), 14-19.
19. Hatry, H.P. 1999. Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
20. Hatry, H.P. 2002. Performance measurement: Fashions and fallacies. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 352-358.
21. Hatry, H., Morley, E., Rossman, S., & Wholey, J. (2003). How federal programs use outcome information: Opportunities for federal managers. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
22. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
23. Ho, A. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of Midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217-238.
24. Kamensky, J., Morales, A., & Abramson, M. (2005). From "useful measures" to "measures used." In J. Kamensky, A. Morales, & M. Abramson (Eds.), Managing for results 2005 (pp. 1-14). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25. Kelly, J. (2002). Why we should take performance measurement on faith. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 375-380.
26. Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
27. Kettl, D. (1995). Building lasting reform: Enduring questions, missing reforms. In D. Kettl and J. DiIulio (Eds.), Inside the reinvention machine (pp. 9-86). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
28. Kettl, D., & Kelman, S. (2007). Reflections on 21st century government management. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
29. Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg, & R.H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
30. Lind, E., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
31. March, J. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 563-577.
32. Melkers, J. (2006). On the road to improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 73-95.
33. Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance- measurement use in local governments. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180-190.
34. Moynihan, D. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203-216.
35. Moynihan, D. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 78-90.
36. Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849-866.
37. Newcomer, K. (2007). How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government? Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3): 332-350.
38. Newell, E. (2009, September 24). OMB will create new performance management framework for agencies. Government Executive. www.govexec.com/ dailyfed/0909/092409e1. htm.
39. Orszag, P. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. M-10-01. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.
40. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
41. Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
42. Radin, B. (2008). The legacy of federal management change: PART repeats familiar problems. In F. Shea & T. Buss (Eds.), Performance management and budgeting: How governments can learn from experience (pp. 114-134). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
43. Rosenbloom, D. (2007). Reinventing administrative prescriptions: The case for democraticconstitutional impact statements and scorecards. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 28-39.
44. Rubin, E.V. (2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 125-143.
45. Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 277-310.
46. Steel, R., & Ovalle, N. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 673-686.
47. Terman, J., & Yang, K. (2010). Contracting and the Performance Assessment Rating Tool: Politicization or sound management? Public Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 400-433.
48. Thompson, J. (1999). Devising administration reform that works: The example of the reinvention lab program. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 283-292.
49. Thompson, J. (2000). Reinvention as reform: Assessing the National Performance Review. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 508-521.
50. Thompson, J., & Ingraham, P. (1996). The reinvention game. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 291-298.
51. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2003). Results-oriented cultures. GAO-03-488.
52. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results. GAO-04-38.
53. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Older workers: Enhanced communication among federal agencies could improve strategies for hiring and retaining experienced workers. GAO-09-206.
54. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Government performance: GPRA Modernization Act provides opportunities to help address fiscal, performance, and management challenges. GAO-11-466T.
55. U.S. Office of Managment and Budget. (2002). The president's management agenda. Washington, DC.
56. Van Dooren, W., & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.). (2008). Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
57. Wholey, J. (2002). Making results count in public and nonprofit organizations. In K. Newcomer, E. Jennings, C. Broom, & A. Lomax (Eds.), Meeting the challenges of performance-oriented government (pp. 13-35). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
58. Yang, K. (2009). Examining perceived honest performance reporting by public organizations: Bureaucratic politics and organizational practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 81-105.
59. Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861-879.
60. Yang, K., & Kassekert, A. (2010). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 413-436.
61. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. (2009). How do perceived political environment and administrative reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 335-360.
62. Zients, J. (2010, September 14). Memorandum for the senior executive service. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.