Advertisement

Public Organization Review

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 525–542 | Cite as

The Sustainability Assumption in Performance Management Reforms: Revisiting the Patterns of Implementation

  • Antoine Genest-Grégoire
  • Étienne CharbonneauEmail author
  • Daniel E. BrombergEmail author
Article
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

The sustainability assumption -that once a department, ministry or agency adopts performance measurement tools, it will stay that way- undermines the analyses of performance reforms and performance management practices. The results from analyzing longitudinal descriptive evidence from a unique dataset in a Canadian province are that the implementation and the stability of performance tools uses within ministries and agencies contradicts the sustainability assumption. Mazmanian and Sabatier’s (1989; 1980) cumulative incrementalism scenario is not observed; there is much volatility in performance management from former adopters. Performance management might be much more volatile than practitioners and academics realize.

Keywords

Performance management Performance reform Policy implementation Canada 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the attendees of the 7th Azienda Pubblica Workshop held on May 25–27, 2016 in Palermo, Italy and Stéphanie Gagnon and Isabelle Bourgeois for their comments on an earlier version of that paper. All remaining errors are ours. The corresponding author received financial support from the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture.

References

  1. Ammons, D. N. (2013). Signs of performance measurement progress among Prominent City governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, R., & Brewer, G. A. (2015). Social capital and public service performance: Does managerial strategy matter? Public Performance & Management Review, 38(2), 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernier, L., & Gagnon, S. (2010). Restructurer peu, restructurer mieux : leçons d’expériences ministérielles récentes au Canada. Administration publique du Canada, 53(1), 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, C., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2012). A comparative analysis of performance management systems: The cases of Sicily and North Carolina. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchi, C., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2014). Performance Management in Local Government: The application of system dynamics to promote data use. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(13), 945–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blount, I.Y. (2013). Policy Implementation by Executive Order: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effects of Agency Decisions and Organizational Characteristics on Government Expenditures Through a Minority Businesses Enterprise Set-Aside Program in Ohio Doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  7. Bourne, M., Neely, A., Platts, K., & Mills, J. (2002). The success and failure of performance measurement initiatives: Perceptions of participating managers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(11), 1288–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2015). Performance and accountability—A theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review, 15(2), 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Côté, L., & Mazouz, B. (2005). Les effets de la Loi sur l’administration publique sur la qualité des services et sur la gestion dans les ministères et les organismes. Québec, QC: École nationale d'administration publique.Google Scholar
  10. Cunha, M. P., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Reforming the state: Understanding the vicious circles of reform. European Management Journal, 33(4), 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Boef, S., & Keele, L. (2008). Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durant, R. F. (2014). Taking time seriously: Progressivism, the business–social science nexus, and the paradox of American administrative reform. Political Science & Politics, 47(1), 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerring, J. (2012a). Descriptive arguments Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework (2nd ed., pp. 141-154). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gerring, J. (2012b). Mere Description. British Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 721–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert, M.-C. (2009). L'impact de la Loi sur l'Administration Publique sur le contrôle parlementaire. Master thesis: Université Laval, Québec.Google Scholar
  17. Hupe, P. (2014). What happens on the ground: Persistent issues in implementation research. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kroll, A. (2015). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. (2001). The temporal dynamics of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 624–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maltais, D. (2014). Constats et suggestions fondés sur les échanges avec des sous-ministres et présidents d’organismes concernant (1) la Loi québécoise sur l’administration publique (LAP) et (2) le fonctionnement de la Commission de l’administration publique (CAP). ENAP. Québec.Google Scholar
  21. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and Public Policy (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  22. McFarlane, D. R., & Meier, K. J. (2001). The politics of fertility control: Family planning and abortion policies in the American states. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Why and how do state governments adopt and implement “managing for results” reforms? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Moynihan, D. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moynihan, D. P., & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA modernization act. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 314–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012a). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012b). Do performance reforms change how Federal Managers Manage? Issues in Governance Studies, 52, 1–9.Google Scholar
  29. Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 431–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O'Toole, L. J. J. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollitt, C. (2009). Bureaucracies remember, post-Bureacratic organization forget? Public Administration, 87(2), 198–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollitt, C. (2008). Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pollitt, C. (2010). Cuts and reforms - public services as we move into a new era. Society and Economy, 32(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pollitt, C. (2013). The evolving narratives of public management reform: 40 years of reform white papers in the UK. Public Management Review, 15(6), 899–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2015). Resistance to control—Norwegian ministries’ and agencies’ reactions to performance audit. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rose, S. W., Emery, S. L., Ennett, S., McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Scott, J. C., & Ribisl, K. M. (2015). Retailer opinions about and compliance with family smoking prevention and tobacco control act point of sale provisions: A survey of tobacco retailers. BMC Public Health, 15, 884–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saetren, H. (2014). Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research: An empirical assessment. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 84–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Savoie, D. J. (2013). Whatever happened to the music teacher? How government decides and why. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor, A., & Taylor, M. (2013). Antecedents of effective performance measurement system implementation: An empirical study of UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18), 5485–5498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker, R. M., & Andrews, R. (2015). Local government management and performance: A review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 25(1), 101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winter, S. C. (2007). Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 131–141). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Woolfson, C., Foster, J., & Beck, M. (1996). Paying for the piper: Capital and labour in Britain’s offshore oil industry. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Yang, C. L., & Modell, S. (2013). Power and performance: Institutional Embeddedness and performance Management in a Chinese Local Government Organization. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(1), 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 725–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de SherbrookeQCCanada
  2. 2.École nationale d’administration publiqueQCCanada
  3. 3.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations