Successfully Achieving Ambitious Goals in Government: An Empirical Analysis

Kelman, Steven; Myers, Jeff

doi:10.1177/0275074010380450

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, Taylor (2011) recommends the usage of performance information to enhance decision-making processes by both public agencies and accountability authorities. Conclusively, we hypothesize that performance measurement is a decision-making instrument that can provide focus to decision makers, encourage learning during decision making and provide performance data over time, which in turn all contribute to the quality of strategic decisions (Kelman & Myers, 2011; Poister & Streib, 2005).…”

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic-Decision Quality in Public Organizations: An Information Processing Perspective

George

Desmidt

2016

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study draws on information processing theory to investigate predictors of strategic-decision quality in public organizations. Information processing theory argues that (a) rational planning practices contribute to strategic-decision quality by injecting information into decision-making and (b) decision-makers contribute to strategic-decision quality by exchanging information during decision-making. These assumptions are tested upon fifty-five Flemish pupil guidance centers. Rational planning practices are operationalized as strategic planning, performance measurement and performance management. Information exchange by decision-makers during decision-making is operationalized as procedural justice of the decision-making process. Results suggest that procedural justice, strategic planning and performance management contribute to strategic-decision quality while performance measurement does not. KeywordsRational planning, decision-making, strategic planning, performance measurement, performance management, procedural justice 2 IntroductionIn the slipstream of new public management, rational planning has conquered the public sector by storm (Boyne, 2001;Bryson, 2010). Rational planning is a theoretical framework of strategic management that centers on a rational approach to strategy formulation through strategic planning and strategy implementation through performance measurement and performance management (Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2009b;Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010). Rational planning has been the subject of several legislative provisions worldwide such as Best Value in the UK and the Government Performance and Results Act in the US (Bovaird, 2008; Boyne, GouldWilliams, Law, & Walker, 2004;Poister & Streib, 2005). Key to rational planning's popularity is the assumption that it contributes to strategic-decision quality in the public sector by offering a counterweight to political or intuitive decision-making (Boyne, 2001;Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O'Toole, 2010). From an information processing perspective, this assumption is, at least theoretically, valid (Elbanna, 2006;Rogers, Miller, & Judge, 1999). Rational planning practices can inject information into decision-making processes by offering, for instance, focus on strategic goals, insights into the organizational environment, and insights into performance information (e.g. Boyne et al., 2004;Poister, 2005;Taylor, 2011).Although these theoretical arguments prompt the assumption that rational planning practices can be viewed as significant predictors of strategic-decision quality in public organizations, the validity of this assumption is debated. First, while several scholars have provided arguments for the effectiveness of rational planning practices in public organizations 2010). Second, the, albeit limited, empirical evidence on rational planning's effectiveness in public organizations has, so far, centered on performance-related outcomes (e.g. Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2009a;Jung & Lee, 2013), while empirical studies focusing ...

show abstract

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic-Decision Quality in Public Organizations: An Information Processing Perspective

George

Desmidt

2016

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What is more important is political risk of managerial career, which may be augmented by technological failure or misuse (Mohr 1969 ;Christensen et al 2004 ). The adoption of innovation by governments is heavily infl uenced by the attitudes and behaviors of political and organizational leaders (Borins 1998 ;Kelman and Myers 2011 ). Without strong support and policy mandate from upper-tier authorities, government offi cials may not have suffi cient incentive to adopt microblogging (Kelman 2005 ;Sahni et al 2013 ).…”

Section: Leaders' Championship and Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media and Local Governments

Sobacı¹

2016

Public Administration and Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In an earlier paper using the same methodology one of us coauthored (Kelman and Myers ), we found many differences between management approaches used by those successfully executing a strategy seeking major organizational change compared to a comparison group. Here, by contrast, we find more similarities than differences between the groups, suggesting there is a decision making style common to these executives.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

“Tell It Like It Is”: Decision Making, Groupthink, and Decisiveness among U.S. Federal Subcabinet Executives

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to difficulties gathering and evaluating complete information, cognitive limitations and biases preclude individuals from making fully value-maximizing choices when making decisions. It has been suggested that, done properly, involving advisors can compensate for individual-level limitations. However, the "groupthink" tradition has highlighted ways group-aided decision making can fail to live up to its potential. Out of this literature has emerged a paradigm Janis calls "vigilant problemsolving." For this article, we interviewed 20 heads of subcabinet-level organizations in the U.S. federal government, asking questions about how they made important decisions. Ten were nominated by "good-government" experts, 10 chosen at random. We wanted to see whether there were differences in how members of those two groups made decisions, specifically, to what extent executives in the two categories used a "vigilant" process. We found, however, that similarities between the two groups overwhelmed differences: As best as we were able to measure, decision making by U.S. subcabinet executives tracks vigilant decision making recommendations fairly closely. The similarity reflects a common style of senior-level decision making, which we theorize grows out of government bureaucracy's methodical culture. We did, however, develop evidence for a difference between outstanding executives and others on another dimension of decision making style. Outstanding executives valued decision making decisiveness-"bias for action"-more than the comparison group. Perhaps, then, what distinguishes outstanding executives from others is not vigilance but decisiveness. Contrary to the implications of the groupthink literature, the danger in government may be "paralysis by analysis" as much or more than groupthink.Senior government executives make many decisions, frequently difficult ones involving complex and uncertain information, and/or hard trade-offs among conflicting values/interests (George 1972;Nutt 1989). Making good decisions under these circumstances is challenging. Cognitive limitations preclude individuals from fully considering all relevant information, and cognitive biases can interfere with information gathering and analysis. Organized properly, a group of advisors can compensate for such individual limitations. However, the "groupthink" literature has highlighted ways groups can fail to live up to their potential to help decision makers. Out of this literature has emerged an approach to designing a process to support a decision maker that Janis (1989) calls "vigilant problem-solving." This refers to a process where advisors bring diverse knowledge and opinions, and where the leader solicits dissenting views, critically examines costs and risks of choices, and is willing to revise an initial view in response to deliberation. The aim, to quote the Aaron Neville song, is for members of a group of advisors to "tell it like it is" to the executive decision maker.

show abstract

Successfully Achieving Ambitious Goals in Government: An Empirical Analysis

Cited by 10 publications

References 33 publications

Strategic-Decision Quality in Public Organizations: An Information Processing Perspective

Strategic-Decision Quality in Public Organizations: An Information Processing Perspective

Social Media and Local Governments

“Tell It Like It Is”: Decision Making, Groupthink, and Decisiveness among U.S. Federal Subcabinet Executives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About