“…Secretaries and Deputies will be charged with the setting of agency goals, will be held responsible for performance against those goals and their related measurements and will be expected to be actively engaged in all aspects of the performance management process” (2009, 2). Consistent with Zients's argument, managers who identify themselves with their goals and are highly committed to their indicators are also more likely to use performance data (Kroll ). In turn, this commitment should foster others’ use of performance data. Hypothesis 2: Routines of goal clarification are associated with the use of performance information for decisions.…”
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 provides the latest chapter in a history of US federal performance reforms that have largely failed to meet expectations. Will the Modernization Act be any different? This paper offers an early systematic assessment, and the results provide grounds for optimism. Managerial use of performance data was an explicit goal of the Modernization Act, a goal that previous federal reforms failed to achieve. The Act established a new series of performance routines to encourage performance information use. Our analysis of GAO survey data shows that as federal managers experience those routines, they are more likely to report using performance data to make decisions. Specifically, routines centered around the pursuit of cross-agency priority goals, the prioritization of a small number of agency goals, and data-driven reviews are all associated with higher rates of performance information use. We also find that managers in better-run data-driven reviews also report using performance data at higher levels.
“…Secretaries and Deputies will be charged with the setting of agency goals, will be held responsible for performance against those goals and their related measurements and will be expected to be actively engaged in all aspects of the performance management process” (2009, 2). Consistent with Zients's argument, managers who identify themselves with their goals and are highly committed to their indicators are also more likely to use performance data (Kroll ). In turn, this commitment should foster others’ use of performance data. Hypothesis 2: Routines of goal clarification are associated with the use of performance information for decisions.…”
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 provides the latest chapter in a history of US federal performance reforms that have largely failed to meet expectations. Will the Modernization Act be any different? This paper offers an early systematic assessment, and the results provide grounds for optimism. Managerial use of performance data was an explicit goal of the Modernization Act, a goal that previous federal reforms failed to achieve. The Act established a new series of performance routines to encourage performance information use. Our analysis of GAO survey data shows that as federal managers experience those routines, they are more likely to report using performance data to make decisions. Specifically, routines centered around the pursuit of cross-agency priority goals, the prioritization of a small number of agency goals, and data-driven reviews are all associated with higher rates of performance information use. We also find that managers in better-run data-driven reviews also report using performance data at higher levels.
“…All the measures we use can be found in the appendix. To capture the concept of performance information use, we employ four indicators that are consistent with prior work and can be associated with the purposeful dimension of data use (Dull ; Julnes and Holzer ; Kroll ; Moynihan and Hawes ): the use of performance data for setting program priorities, allocating resources, adopting new program approaches or changing work processes, and rewarding government employees. In line with previous research, we expect purposeful information use to be a one‐dimensional construct for which respondents show a consistent rating pattern across items.…”
In recent decades, governments have invested in the creation of two forms of knowledge production about government performance: program evaluations and performance management. Prior research has noted tensions between these two approaches and the potential for complementarities when they are aligned. This article offers empirical evidence on how program evaluations connect with performance management in the U.S. federal government in 2000 and 2013. In the later time period, there is an interactive effect between the two approaches, which, the authors argue, reflects deliberate efforts by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations to build closer connections between program evaluation and performance management. Drawing on the 2013 data, the authors offer evidence that how evaluations are implemented matters and that evaluations facilitate performance information use by reducing the causal uncertainty that managers face as they try to make sense of what performance data mean.
“…In parallel with such developments in accounting scholarship, in the public administration literature, performance measurement, seen as NPM's 'major feature' (Hughes 2008, p. 60), gave rise to a number of studies exploring how the design, adoption and use of accounting and performance measurement systems are altered in the expectation that this would translate into better outcomes (e.g., De Lancer Julnes and Holzer 2001; Melkers and Willoughby 2005;Van Dooren and Van De Walle 2008;Taylor 2009Taylor , 2011Moynihan et al 2012aMoynihan et al , 2012bKroll 2014). Within this stream of research, an important field of investigation has been (and still is) the identification of contextual, organizational and individual factors which explain 'purposeful' performance information use by managers and politicians, often through quantitative analyses (e.g., Melkers and Willoughby 2005;Ammons and Rivenbark 2008;Taylor 2009Taylor , 2011Moynihan and Pandey 2010;Moynihan et al 2012b;Kroll 2014Kroll , 2015, that is, the use of performance information aimed at supporting better decision-making.…”
Section: Accounting and Performance Measurement Systems In Public Amentioning
The spate of public sector reforms which have taken place in recent decades has triggered the development of a new body of research around public sector accounting and performance measurement both in public administration as well as in the (public sector) accounting literature. However, studies in accounting and public administration have at times ignored each other, proceeding in parallel. This symposium encourages the adoption of interdisciplinary perspectives in exploring the myriad roles played by accounting and performance measurement systems in contemporary public administration. Emphasizing that accounting and performance measurement systems are socially, politically, culturally constructed and, in turn, are implicated in the creation of organizations, society and political values, this symposium aims to extend the dialogue between accounting and public administration scholars in exploring how accounting, accountability and performance measurement considerations are connected to policy‐making, public services and, more generally, the building and maintenance of modern states and democracies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
