Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of Success and Persistence for Public Sector Performance

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public sector organizations collect vast amounts of information that often goes unused. Information may serve a symbolic role to imply that decision makers are using rational decision processes, or it may be collected to rationalize a preconceived decision and develop or maintain public support. Over-collection of irrelevant information or under-analysis of existing information for decision implications leads to excessive public information costs with limited public benefit. The study discusses the role systematic information misalignment plays in the public sector and considers its implications for public agency performance. The concept is evaluated using examples from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Kaufman’s argument is focused on chance; for example, by chance, a coin will land on heads 50% of the time. So, if positive outcomes befall an organization more often than chance predicts, the organization might be characterized as ‘lucky.’

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. 1991. Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53(4): 1044–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. D. 2003. Why measure performance? Public Administration Review, 63(5): 586–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeker, W. 1991. Organizational strategy: An ecological perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 613–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M. 2004. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations, 3rd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Daniels, M. 1997. Terminating public programs: An American political paradox. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, O., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. 1966. A theory of the budgetary process. American Political Science Review, 60(3): 529–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodsell, C. 1994. Bureaucrats as ordinary people. In The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, H. 1985. Time, chance, and organizations: Natural selection in a perilous environment. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. 1991. Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 591–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppell, J. G. S. 2005. Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review, (65)1: 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1988. Relating Porter’s business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2): 280–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 116–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1994. What happens after success: The perils of excellence. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3): 325–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. 1984. The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4): 739–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrom, P., & Starbuck, W. H. 1984. To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4): 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, W. 1981. Bureaucratic failure and public expenditure. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. 1987. Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3): 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. 1997. The trickle down effect: Policy decisions, risky work, and the challenger tragedy. California Management Review, 39(2): 80–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. 1991. The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85(3): 801–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges special gratitude to those who helped make this essay possible—Robert C. Rodgers and Edward T. Jennings, Jr.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government, University of Alabama at Birmingham, U238, 1530 3rd Ave. S., Birmingham, AL, 35294-3350, USA

    Jeremy L. Hall

Authors
  1. Jeremy L. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy L. Hall.

Additional information

Manuscript Prepared for Submission to: Public Organization Review

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hall, J.L. Implications of Success and Persistence for Public Sector Performance. Public Organiz Rev 7, 281–297 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-007-0037-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-007-0037-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation