Performance in Public Organizations: Clarifying the Conceptual Space

Abstract

Performance in public organizations is a key concept that requires clarification. Based on a conceptual review of research published in 10 public administration journals, this article proposes six distinctions to describe the systematic differences in performance criteria: From which stakeholder's perspective is performance being assessed? Are the criteria formal or informal? Are the criteria subjective? Which process focus and product focus do they have, if any? What is the unit of analysis? Based on these distinctions, the performance criteria of existing studies used in an empirical review of management and performance are classified. The results illustrate how a systematization of the conceptual space of performance in public organizations can help researchers select what to study and what to leave out with greater accuracy while also bringing greater clarity to public debates about performance.

Perceived Organizational Red Tape and Organizational Performance in Public Services

“…Empirically, this article focuses on effectiveness in the sense of organizations achieving their formal objectives (Boyne , 18) by examining the impact of educational organizations on student learning measured through grades. Stakeholders do not always agree on the salience of various performance dimensions (Andersen, Boesen, and Pedersen ), but politically decided goals are prominent in a democratic society.…”

Public Administration Needs to Become a Player in the Ratings and Rankings Business

“…These activities include: Public administration scholars and practitioners should begin to pay attention to ranking and ratings, foremost because many of them either directly address core concepts in the field or ultimate benchmarks (e.g., performance) for good government. Public administration expertise, experience, and wisdom should be incorporated into the meaning and measurement of the core concepts and benchmarks, especially when their meaning may be contested (Andersen, Boesen, and Pedersen ). Public administration scholars and practitioners should seek to contribute to the development of reliable and valid ranking measures as a means not only to shape debate about concepts and rankings, but also to provide strong foundations for subsequent research. Failure to do so increases the prospect that actors with little sense of the validity of performance metrics are likely to control the process and all that flows from it (Lavertu ; Van de Walle ). The databases associated with rankings, preferably relying on panel data, and the rankings themselves, could facilitate both quantitative and qualitative research for enhancing global public administration knowledge (Brewer, Choi, and Walker ; Perry ). …”

The many outcomes from contracting out: The voice of public managers

“…However, the predominant approach to the study of contracting outcomes emerges as somewhat 'narrow' when contrasted with a) the broader range of approaches and criteria of potential relevance identified in the general literature on public management and performance (Andersen et al, 2016;Boyne, 2002;Hansen, 2017;Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011;Walker and Andrews, 2015); b) the few studies that have approached contracting outcomes from alternative perspectives, such as citizens' perceptions (Andrews and Van de Welle, 2013), consequences for staff (Vrangbaek et al, 2015), accountability issues (Hodge and Coghill, 2007;Mulgan, 2006), challenges for management (Kettl, 2010;Lindholst and Bogetoft, 2011) and the distribution of power (Hansen, 2010a); c) studies emphasising the multidimensional and composite characteristics of contracting outcomes (Amirkhanyan et al, 2010;Fernandez, 2009;Lindholst, 2017); qualitative studies enabling broader narrative accounts (Jones, 2000;Romzek and Johnston, 2002).…”

“…Indeed, concepts like 'performance', 'efficiency' and 'effectiveness' are value-laden and their relevance and content vary across various stakeholders. In order to provide a systematic conceptual approach beyond lists of performance criteria used for evaluations in various settings, Andersen et al (2016) proposed a framework for capturing conceptualisations of performance based on distinctions between questions related to 'stakeholders', 'formality', 'subjectivity', 'type of processes', 'type of products' and 'unit of analysis'. Clearly, any list of relevant criteria is seldom complete or fully 8 Version accepted for publication in Planning and Environment C: Politics and Space comprehensive.…”

“…Andersen et al, 2016;Boyne, 2002;Hansen, 2017;Walker et al, 2015). Working with the 3E (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) and IOO (input-output-outcome) models, Boyne (2002) developed a set of five main 'performance domains' related to 'outputs', 'efficiency', 'service outcomes', 'responsiveness' and 'democratic outcomes', which were further divided into 15 'subdomains'.…”