Does Training Matter? Evidence from Performance Management Reforms

Abstract

Training is much discussed but rarely studied in public management. Using multiple waves of survey data, the authors examine the effects of training on the implementation of performance management reforms in the U.S. federal government, asking whether those exposed to training are more likely to use performance data and strategic goals when making decisions. Training is positively associated with reform implementation, but there is little evidence that this association can be explained by the development of specific capacities to overcome performance management challenges. The findings offer two implications for the practice and study of training. The authors propose that training is likely to succeed if it is designed and funded to close specific capacity gaps needed for successful reform implementation. However, it is also necessary to better understand alternative causal mechanisms by which training facilitates reform implementation, such as explaining and justifying reforms. Training can facilitate the implementation of new policies by providing information about the policies, justifying why they are needed, and giving employees the capacity to put the new policies in place. Using training to build specific employee capacities is more complex, resource intensive, and rare than using training to provide information and justify reforms. Effective training in government requires not just more resources but also better understanding of the specific capacities needed and how to create them—research can help by identifying the most significant capacity gaps in policy implementation.

Performance Management as an Alternative Tool for Local Governance: Evidence from Ghanaian Local Government Sector

“…There are several factors that may compel local government institutions to adopt PM systems, to acquire resources, to maintain their reputation and secure legitimacy (Oliver, 1991). In addition, organisations may need to build their technical capacities by adopting these practices (Yang and Hsieh, 2007;Kroll and Moynihan, 2015). However, resources are not readily available and sometimes, they are hard to reach by deprived local government authorities.…”

“…Although the results showed that most of the MMDAs had achieved their KPIs, some MMDAs were uniquely challenged by low capacity in the setting of clear performance indicators and technical competencies to implement key programmes and recommendations of the ARIC (LGS, 2016). This is because most of the MMDAs management staff had low level of training and competencies on organisation development, conflict and record management skills, information communication technology (ICT) skills and knowledge of performance appraisal systems (Akudugu, 2013;Bawole et al, 2013;Kroll and Moynihan, 2015). The issues of low capacity and competencies revealed that a handful of the MMDAs could meet the quarterly requirement of ARIC recommendations and laws governing auditing laws under the Local Government Act, 462.…”

“…The assumption is that an organisation can achieve its economic rationality through clear goals and measurement without emphasising the inputs that may impede the intended PM objectives. More importantly, factors such as resource allocation (Heinrich, 2007), the low capacity of public managers (Kroll and Moynihan, 2015), poor attitudes of employees (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004;Rhodes et al, 2012;Yang and Hsieh, 2007) and employee involvement (Biron et al, 2011) in the PM implementation might explain why some local governments perform better than others.…”

“…However, resources are not readily available and sometimes, they are hard to reach by deprived local government authorities. Subsequently, studies on the challenges facing PM indicate that low technical capacity (Kroll and Moynihan, 2015), insufficient budgetary allocation (Heinrich, 2007;Ohemeng, 2011), lack of ownership of PM goals (Van Dooren, 2011;Bawole et al, 2013) and poor attitudes of employees and senior managers (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004).…”

“…Similarly, Fryer et al (2009) found that technical, attitudinal behavior of public managers affects the outcomes of PM objectives. The difficulty in institutionalising PM is that there are other problems that present unique cases for some local government authorities to achieve their key results areas especially with regards to resource endowments, management capacity and the behavior of employees (Pollitt and Bouckaert,2004;Heinrich, 2007;Kroll and Moynihan, 2015).…”