The Other Type of Performance Information: Nonroutine Feedback, Its Relevance and Use

Abstract

What most of the studies have in common is their understanding of what performance information is. Th is, in turn, is infl uenced by the New Public Management wave that contributed to diff use performance management practices worldwide (Bouckaert and Halligan 2008; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004). Th e fi rst part of this shared understanding refers to the multiple dimensions of the concept of performance. Instead of focusing only on the inputs, attention is also drawn to the outputs, effi ciency, quality, and outcomes of public services. Th e second part focuses on the synoptic management routine that leads to the systematic collection and reporting of the data (de Lancer Julnes et al. 2007;Hatry 2006;Van Dooren, Bouckaert, and Halligan 2010). 1 I therefore refer to this type of data as routine performance information.Th ere is another type of performance data that has thus far been largely overlooked: nonroutine information. Th ere has always been performance feedback about the work of public organizations. If something went wrong in a public organization, customers complained, interest groups called, other public entities sent letters or e-mails, the media showed up, or politicians chastised administrators. Th is kind of feedback is concerned with the performance of public services, and it also addresses outputs and outcomes (namely, what is done by Th e literature on performance information use explains how public managers deal with mainly quantitative data that are systematically collected and formally reported. Th is article argues that such a narrow understanding is incomplete, as it excludes all kinds of nonroutine performance information, including verbal, ad hoc, and qualitative feedback. To understand how responsive public managers are to performance feedback, alternative sources of performance information need to be taken into account. A literature review suggests considering two important sources of nonroutine feedback: organizational insiders and relevant external stakeholders. Using survey data from German local government, this article shows that public managers prefer to use nonroutine feedback over routine data from performance reports. Furthermore, a regression analysis indicates that diff erent sources of performance information require diff erent determinants to trigger their use. Th is fi nding is essential because it suggests that explanations of performance information use can covary with the information source studied. O ne of the few indisputable facts about performance management is that the amount of available performance information has increased within the past few years. Current research on organizational performance, therefore, has been devoted to the fi nal stage of the management cycle: the use of performance data (Moynihan 2008; Van Dooren, Bouckaert, and Halligan 2010; Van Dooren and Van de Walle 2008). When speaking of "use," students of performance management are usually referring to the impact of performance information on decision making (Moynihan and Pandey types of performan...

Drivers of Performance Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research

“…A final favorable individual characteristic is the manager's networking behavior. Individuals who are more generally open to feedback from outside the organization (professional networks, see Kroll, 2013, as well as relevant stakeholders, see Moynihan & Hawes, 2012) were also found to be frequent users of performance data.…”

“…Studying politicians' information preferences, ter Bogt (2004) and Van Dooren (2004) found that these preferences are situational and can differ among policy sectors. Kroll (2013) has argued that research might miss important facets of managers' receptiveness to performance feedback if investigators only study the use of quantitative data. Instead, one should also pay attention to nonroutine performance information, which includes qualitative feedback that is often collected on an ad hoc basis or passively received instead of actively pursued through an established management routine.…”

“…A second characteristic is that performance information is in a quantitative, aggregated format, and is made transparent through reports or databases. Its collection is not ad hoc but follows a systematic control-cycle logic where indicators for goal achievement are defined, and performance information is collected and analyzed, and it is supposed to be used for future decision-making (see Figure 1; for further explanations, see de Lancer Julnes, Berry, Aristigueta, & Yang, 2007;Kroll, 2013;Van Dooren et al, 2010).…”

“…Studying the use and nonuse of performance data in decision-making has become a highly relevant and fast-growing research area (Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008;de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001;Dull, 2009;Kroll, 2013;Melkers & Willoughby, 2005;Moynihan & Hawes, 2012;Moynihan & Pandey, 2010;Taylor, 2011). Studies have aimed at determining which factors foster or constrain performance information use in order to theorize about this behavior as well as to facilitate it.…”

Thinking Allowed: Reforming Indicator-Based Accountability to Enhance Innovation

“…The dialogue on performance should make sense of the mostly ambiguous performance information. Kroll (2013) adds to this notion of routine dialogues the idea of non-routine feedback in performance management. Much of the value of performance indicators does not originate from the indicator-based accountability schemes.…”