Managing through Measurement or Meaning? Lessons from Experience with New Zealand’s Public Sector Performance Management Systems

Abstract

Comprehensive adoption of systems for managing for results as an alternative to procedure-based bureaucracy has earned the New Zealand public sector a reputation as the ‘world’s most advanced performance system’ (Kettl, 2000: 7). Research with a cross-section of users of this system, now nearly 15 years old, reveals a variety of responses. True Believers support a current focus on measurement and think that more effort should be put into creating clearer, more observable measures that emphasise outcomes. Pragmatic Sceptics see reported measures as part of a new game of public management and at best a starting point for asking about the substance behind the form. Active Doubters believe that too much emphasis on measurement gets in the way of the ‘real work’ of developing relationship-based work in a political environment. Issues of meaning are seen to be more important than measurement for the further development of the system.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alford, J. and Baird, J. (1997) ‘Performance Monitoring in the Australian Public Service: A Government-wide Analysis’, Public Money and Management 17(2): 49–58.

Blau, P. (1963) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Drucker, P. (1958) The Practice of Management. London: Heinemann.

Ferlie, E. , Ashburner, L. , Fitzgerald, L. and Pettigrew, A. (1996) The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hood, C. and Jackson, M. (1991) Administrative Argument. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kettl, D. (2000) ‘Performance Management: The State of the Field’, Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy and Management, 22nd Annual Research Conference, Seattle, Washington.

Kohn, A. (1993) Punished by Rewards. The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Latham, G.P. and Locke, R.A. (1979)‘Goal Setting— A Motivational Technique that Works’, Organizational Dynamics 8: 68–80.

10.

Norman, R. (2001)‘Letting and Making Managers Manage. The Effect of Control Systems of Management Action in New Zealand’s Central Government’, International Public Management Journal 4: 65–89.

11.

Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2000) The Knowing–Doing Gap–How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

12.

Pollitt, C. (1990) Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

13.

Rogers, S. (1999) Performance Management in Local Government. London: Financial Times Professional Ltd.

14.

Simons, R. (1995) Levers of Control. How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

15.

State Services Commission (SSC) (1999) Improving Accountability: Setting the Scene, Occasional Paper No. 10. Wellington: State Services Commission.

16.

Taylor, F. (1947) Scientific Management. New York, Harper & Row.

17.

Waldersee, R. (1999) ‘The Art of Service v. the Science of Measurement: Measuring and Managing Service Delivery’, Australian Journal of Public Administration 58(3): 38–42.