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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Ammons, D. N. (2013). Signs of performance measurement progress among Prominent City governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 507–528.
Andrews, R., & Brewer, G. A. (2015). Social capital and public service performance: Does managerial strategy matter? Public Performance & Management Review, 38(2), 187–213.
Bernier, L., & Gagnon, S. (2010). Restructurer peu, restructurer mieux : leçons d’expériences ministérielles récentes au Canada. Administration publique du Canada, 53(1), 21–46.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2015). Performance and accountability—A theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review, 15(2), 207–225.
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.
Cunha, M. P., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Reforming the state: Understanding the vicious circles of reform. European Management Journal, 33(4), 225–229.
De Boef, S., & Keele, L. (2008). Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 184–200.
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.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657–684.
Gerring, J. (2012a). Descriptive arguments Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework (2nd ed., pp. 141-154). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gerring, J. (2012b). Mere Description. British Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 721–746.
Gilbert, M.-C. (2009). L'impact de la Loi sur l'Administration Publique sur le contrôle parlementaire. Master thesis: Université Laval, Québec.
Hupe, P. (2014). What happens on the ground: Persistent issues in implementation research. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 164–182.
Kroll, A. (2015). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459–486.
Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. (2001). The temporal dynamics of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 624–644.
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.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and Public Policy (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
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.
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.
Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012b). Do performance reforms change how Federal Managers Manage? Issues in Governance Studies, 52, 1–9.
Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 431–458.
O'Toole, L. J. J. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263–288.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94–120.
Pollitt, C. (2009). Bureaucracies remember, post-Bureacratic organization forget? Public Administration, 87(2), 198–218.
Pollitt, C. (2008). Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C. (2010). Cuts and reforms - public services as we move into a new era. Society and Economy, 32(1), 17–31.
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.
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2015). Resistance to control—Norwegian ministries’ and agencies’ reactions to performance audit. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 17–32.
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.
Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–560.
Saetren, H. (2014). Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research: An empirical assessment. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 84–105.
Savoie, D. J. (2013). Whatever happened to the music teacher? How government decides and why. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
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.
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.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.
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.
Woolfson, C., Foster, J., & Beck, M. (1996). Paying for the piper: Capital and labour in Britain’s offshore oil industry. New York: Routledge.
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.
Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 725–741.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Genest-Grégoire, A., Charbonneau, É. & Bromberg, D.E. The Sustainability Assumption in Performance Management Reforms: Revisiting the Patterns of Implementation. Public Organiz Rev 18, 525–542 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-017-0391-5
- Performance management
- Performance reform
- Policy implementation