Performance Management Routines That Work? An Early Assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act

Public Administration Review

Volumn 76, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 314-323

  Moynihan, Donald P ^a   Kroll, Alexander ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959177824     PISSN: 00333352     EISSN: 15406210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/puar.12434     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adler, Paul S., Barbara Goldoftas, and David I. Levine. 1999. Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organization Science 10(1): 43-68.
2. Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). 2013. GPRA Modernization Act of 2010: Examining Constraints to, and Providing Tools for, Cross-Agency Collaboration. https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/GPRAMA%20_%20Final%20Recommendation.pdf [accessed July 6, 2015].
3. Becker, Markus C. 2005. A Framework for Applying Organizational Routines in Empirical Research: Linking Antecedents, Characteristics, and Performance Outcomes of Recurrent Interaction Patterns. Industrial and Corporate Change 14(5): 817-46.
4. Behn, Robert D. 2014. The PerformanceStat Potential: A Leadership Strategy for Producing Results. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution Press.
5. Boyne, George A. 2010. Performance Management: Does It Work?. In Public Management and Performance: Research Directions, edited by Richard M. Walker, George A. Boyne, and Gene A. Brewer, 207-26. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Chun, Young Han, and Hal G. Rainey. 2005. Goal Ambiguity in U.S. Federal Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(1): 1-30.
7. Dull, Matthew. 2009. Results-Model Reform Leadership: Questions of Credible Commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(2): 255-84.
8. Feldman, Martha S., and Brian T. Pentland. 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(1): 94-118.
9. Frederickson, David G., and H. George Frederickson. 2006. Measuring the Performance of the Hollow State. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
10. Frisco, Velda, and Odd J. Stalebrink. 2008. Congressional Use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Budgeting and Finance 28(2): 1-19.
11. Gerrish, Edwin. 2015. The Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Public Administration Review 76(1): XXX-XXX.
12. Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna, Jeremy Freese, and Robert M. Hauser. 2011. Using Anchoring Vignettes to Assess Group Differences in General Self-Rated Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 52(2): 246-61.
13. Hatry, Harry P., and Elizabeth Davies. 2011. A Guide to Data-Driven Performance Reviews. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
14. Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2012. How Credible Is the Evidence, and Does It Matter? An Analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review 72(1): 123-34.
15. Kroll, Alexander. 2014. Why Performance Information Use Varies among Public Managers: Testing Manager-Related Explanations. International Public Management Journal 7(2): 174-201.
16. Kroll, Alexander. 2015. Explaining the Use of Performance Information by Public Managers: A Planned-Behavior Approach. American Review of Public Administration 45(2): 201-15.
17. Lavertu, Stéphane, David E. Lewis, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2013. Government Reform, Political Ideology, and Administrative Burden: The Case of Performance Management in the Bush Administration. Public Administration Review 73(6): 845-57.
18. Locke, Edwin A., and Gary P. Latham. 2002. Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. American Psychologist 57(9): 705-17.
19. March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
20. McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 33-43.
21. Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr. 2013. Subjective Organizational Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(2): 429-56.
22. Metzenbaum, Shelley H. 2009. Performance Management Recommendations for the New Administration. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/performance-management-recommendations-new-administration [accessed July 6, 2015].
23. Metzenbaum, Shelley H. 2014. Better Goals, Better Measures and Better Results. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, March 31. http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=5571acf2-60dc-428d-9607-44879e366359 [accessed July 6, 2015].
24. Moynihan, Donald P. 2005. Goal-Based Learning and the Future of Performance Management. Public Administration Review 65(2): 203-16.
25. Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
26. Moynihan, Donald P. 2013. Advancing the Empirical Study of Performance Management What We Learned from the Program Assessment Rating Tool. American Review of Public Administration 43(5): 499-517.
27. Moynihan, Donald P., and Stéphane Lavertu. 2012. Does Involvement in Performance Management Routines Encourage Performance Information Use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review 72(4): 592-602.
28. Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2010. The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(4): 849-66.
29. Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E. Wright. 2012a. Prosocial Values and Performance Management Theory: The Link between Perceived Social Impact and Performance Information Use. Governance 25(3): 463-83.
30. Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E. Wright. 2012b. Setting the Table: How Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information Use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 143-64.
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2013. Strengthening Budget Institutions in OECD Countries: Results of the 2012 OECD Budget Practices and Procedures Survey-Draft. Paris: OECD.
32. Pentland, Brian T., and Martha S. Feldman. 2008. Designing Routines: On the Folly of Designing Artifacts, while Hoping for Patterns of Action. Information and Organization 18(4): 235-50.
33. Pollitt, Christopher. 2000. Is the Emperor in His Underwear? An Analysis of the Impacts of Public Management Reform. Public Management 2(2): 181-200.
34. Provan, Keith G., and Robin H. Lemaire. 2012. Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public Administration Review 72(5): 638-48.
35. Radin, Beryl A. 2000. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(1): 111-35.
36. Shteynberg, Garriy, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2011. Implicit Coordination: Sharing Goals with Similar Others Intensifies Goal Pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47(6): 1291-94.
37. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for Management DecisionMaking. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-05-927.
38. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2008. Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve Results. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-08-1026T.
39. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2013. Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-13-518.
40. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2014a. Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-14-639.
41. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2014b. Managing for Results: Agencies' Trends in the Use of Performance Information to Make Decisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-14-747.
42. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2001. The President's Management Agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2009. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2010: Analytical Perspectives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
44. White, Joseph. 2012. Playing the Wrong PART: The Program Assessment Rating Tool and the Functions of the President's Budget. Public Administration Review 72(1): 112-21.
45. Zients, Jeffery. 2009. Statement Before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, October 29. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/testimony/Zients_102909.pdf [accessed July 6, 2015].