Combining ideal types of performance and performance regimes

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the scholarship on public management models and to advance the theoretical conceptualization of the complexity of performance management systems (PMSs). The paper explores how the characteristics of PMSs vary within and across different organizational units in common institutional context, based on the case of a regional authority in Italy. Design/methodology/approach -A framework of analysis considering both objective and subjective factors was derived from a combination of performance typologies in the public sector, namely ideal types of managing performance (Bouckaert and Halligan, 2007) and performance regimes ( Jakobsen et al., 2017). The combination of the characteristics of these two models across different Directorates General (DGs) has also been explored through a nested case study (Starman, 2013). Data were gathered via a desk analysis of official documents regarding the planning and programming of a regional authority along with in-depth interviews with top-level managers. Findings -The results highlighted a clear differentiation of PMSs, both within and across DGs. The findings of the study reveal the hybrid nature of PMSs within a common institutional context. Originality/value -Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Bouckaert and Halligan (2007) and Jakobsen et al. (2017), the paper provides an integrated approach for analysing PMSs, considering both objective and subjective dimensions. Insights and indications for future research on hybridity at a meso level of public organizations are highlighted.

Effects of different kinds of trust and leadership on outputs of collaborative processes: the case of personal social services in Israel

“…Reasons for implementing performance management in public organizations range from evaluating and improving services to increasing efficiency in resource allocation (Behn, 2003; Kuhlmann, 2010; Borgonovi et al , 2018; Giacomelli et al , 2019). However, it may be difficult to agree on the desired outcomes, for example, in the case of quality of care (Campbell et al , 2000), thus creating a mutual process of framing organizational outcomes is a crucial step in the legitimation and sustainability of performance measurements (Bianchi, 2016, p. 58).…”

Impact of Rewards System on Employee Motivation: A Study of a Manufacturing Firm in Oman

“…One of the major drawbacks of low motivation is a decrease in productivity. An employee slaking of work due to a dip in motivation can lead the entire team in a major fallback in productivity (Giacomelli, Annesi, & Barsanti, 2019). Just one employee can easily decrease productivity drastically and can influence others as well.…”

“…When an unmotivated employee is given a challenging task, he or she may postpone it subconsciously and move to an easier task without understanding the underlining problem. The employee soon loses their interest in their job and stops caring about being on time to work or in general are not abided to follow organizational rules and regulations (Giacomelli et al, 2019). This leads to higher costs for the business, which means in financially difficult times it could be a difference between going out of business or staying above water.…”