Exploring performance paradox in public organizations: Analyzing the predictors of distortive behaviors in performance measurement

Abstract

Scholars have argued that utilization of quantitative performance indicators by public organizations could generate unintended consequences that might outweigh the benefits of performance measurement. We examined the relationships between goal ambiguity and external control, and distortive practices in performance measurement in public organizations. The data from 47 agencies of the central and local governments in Korea were analyzed using fixed-effect ordered logistic regression methods. The results showed that goal ambiguity was positively and significantly associated with distortive practices in performance measurement. Goal ambiguity may incentivize public employees to misuse performance information to obtain rewards for higher performance ratings. Contrary to our expectation, reinforced external control was negatively and significantly related to distortive behaviors in performance measurement. Higher work autonomy was not significantly associated with manipulation of performance information. Employees with higher intrinsic motivation were less likely to distort performance measures, whereas the ones with higher extrinsic motivation were more likely to misuse performance information to achieve higher performance ratings.

Points for practitioners

To avoid the potential distortions in performance measurement, public managers should adopt a refined measurement model of performance customized to the unique characteristics of public services. Multiple sets of measures need to be developed and managed properly to respond to complex political environments which involve different key values and the stakeholders in the policy processes, and the nature of public service products and outcomes. Reinforced behavioral control in the process of measuring performance will also be necessary.

Keywords

goal ambiguity distortion performance measurement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison

(1983) Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In: Perry

Kraemer

(eds) Public Management: Public and Private Perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 72–92.

Bevan

Hamblin

(2009) Hitting and missing targets by ambulance services for emergency calls: Effects of different systems of performance measurement within the UK. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 172(1): 161–190.

Blau

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

Bolognesi

Pflieger

(2021) In the shadow of sunshine regulation: Explaining disclosure biases. Regulation & Governance 15(1): 200–225.

Bolognesi

Brochet

Renou

(2021) Assessing socio-technical resistances to public policy instruments: Insights from water performance indicators in the Grenoble area. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, Online First publication.

Campbell J and Pritchard R (1976) Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette M (ed) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 63–130). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Choi S (2020) Korean civil service systems from recruitment to retirement. In Moon C and Moon M (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Korean Politics and Public Administration (p. 259–274). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chun

Rainey

(2005) Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(4): 529–557.

Dahler-Larsen

(2014) Constitutive effects of performance indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review 16(7): 969–986.

10.

Davis

Stazyk

(2015) Developing and testing a new goal taxonomy: Accounting for the complexity of ambiguity and political support. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(2): 751–775.

11.

De Bruijn

Van Helden

(2006) A plea for dialogue driven performance-based management systems: Evidence from the Dutch public sector. Financial Accountability & Management 22(4): 405–423.

12.

Fernandez

Moldogaziev

(2011) Empowering public sector employees to improve performance: Does it work? American Review of Public Administration 41(1): 23–47.

13.

Fountain

(2001) Paradoxes of public sector customer service. Governance 14(1): 55–73.

14.

Franco-Santos

Otley

(2018) Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. International Journal of Management Reviews 20(3): 696–730.

15.

Goh

(2012) Making performance measurement systems more effective in public sector organizations. Measuring Business Excellence 16(1): 31–42.

16.

Goldman

Slezak

(2006) An equilibrium model of incentive contracts in the presence of information manipulation. Journal of Financial Economics 80(3): 603–626.

17.

Heinrich

(2003) Measuring public sector performance and effectiveness. In: Guy Peters

Pierre

(eds) Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 25–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Hood

(2006) Gaming in targetwood: The target approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review 66(4): 515–522.

19.

Hood

Jackson

(1991) Administrative Argumentation. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

20.

Campbell

Cha

(2013) Revisiting confucian bureaucracy: Roots of the Korean government's culture and competitiveness. Public Administration and Development 33(4): 286–296.

21.

Jakobsen

Jensen

(2015) Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal 18(1): 3–30.

22.

Kelman

Friedman

(2009) Performance improvement and performance dysfunction: An empirical examination of distortionary impacts of the emergency room wait-time target in the English national health service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1): 917–946.

23.

Laffont

Martimort

(2009) The Theory of Incentives: The Principal–Agent Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

24.

Lewis

(2015) The politics and consequences of performance measurement. Policy and Society 34(1): 1–12.

25.

Lindblom

(1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.

26.

Majone

(1989) Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

27.

McGuire

(2001) Counting performance or performance that counts? Benchmarking government services in Australia. Paper presented at the fifth International Research Symposium on Public Management, University of Barcelona, Spain.

28.

Merton

(1936) The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review 1: 895–904.

29.

Meyer

Gupta

(1994) The performance paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior 16: 309–369.

30.

Moynihan

(2006) Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review 66(1): 77–89.

31.

Nielsen

(2014) Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(2): 431–458.

32.

Perry J (1996) Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (1): 5–22.

33.

Pidd

(2005) Perversity in public service performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54(5/6): 482–493.

34.

Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S and Lee J (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4): 879–903.

35.

Pollitt

(2013) The logics of performance management. Evaluation 19(4): 346–363.

36.

Propper

Wilson

(2003) The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19(2): 250–267.

37.

Rainey

(2014) Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, 5th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Rainey

Jung

(2015) A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(1): 71–99.

39.

Sawyer

(1992) Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(2): 130–142.

40.

Smith

(1995) On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration 18(2–3): 277–310.

41.

Stazyk

Pandey

Wright

(2011) Understanding affective organizational commitment: The importance of institutional context. The American Review of Public Administration 41(6): 603–624.

42.

Taber

(2018) The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education 48(6): 1273–1296.

43.

Vakkuri

Meklin

(2006) Ambiguity in performance measurement: A theoretical approach to organizational uses of performance measurement. Financial Accountability & Management 22(3): 235–250.

44.

van Thiel

Leeuw

(2002) The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review 25(3): 267–281.

45.

Wildavsky

(1979) Politics of the Budgetary Process. New York: Sage.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB