At least since the late 1970s, the performance measurement literature has used different terminologies to describe agency- and citizen-generated performance measures. The first type of measures are placed into objective and the second type into subjective categories. This article argues that this terminology is outdated owing to evidence on the contextual subjectivity of all performance measures. The analysis also examines the potential impact of the dichotomization on the role accorded citizens in helping to develop public sector performance measures.
AdcroftA.WillisR. (2008). A snapshot of strategy research 2002-2006. Journal of Management History, 14, 313-333.
2.
AlkadryM.FarazmandA. (2004). Measurement as accountability. In HolzerM.LeeS.-H. (Eds.), Public Productivity Handbook (2nd ed., pp. 297-310). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
3.
AmmonsD. (2008, March). Performance budgeting success in local government: Is a new litmus test needed. Paper delivered at the American Society for Public Administration National Conference, Dallas, Texas.
4.
AndrewsR.BoyneG.MeierM.O’TooleL.Jr.WalkerR. (2005). Representative bureaucracy, organizational strategy, and public service performance: An empirical analysis of English local governments. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research, 15, 489-504.
5.
AndrewsR.BoyneG.WalkerR. (2006). Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration in public service performance. In: BoyneG.MeierK.O’TooleL.WalkerR. (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 14-34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BalfourD.MesarosW. (1994). Connecting the local narratives: Public administration as a hermeneutic science. Public Administration Review, 54, 559-564.
7.
BehnR. (1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review, 55, 313-324.
BehnR. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63, 586-606.
10.
BelliottiR. (1992). Justifying law: The debate over foundations, goals, and methods. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
11.
BlauP.MeyerM. (1971). Bureaucracy in modern society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
12.
BohteJ.MeierK. (2000). Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating. Public Administration Review, 60, 173-182.
13.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 846-860.
14.
BrewerG. (2006). All measures of performance are subjective: More evidence on US federal agencies in public service performance. In: BoyneG.MeierK.O’TooleL.Jr.WalkerR. (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 35-54). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BrownK.CoulterP. (1983). Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Administration Review, 43, 50-58.
16.
BrudneyJ.EnglandR. (1982). Urban policy making and subjective service evaluations: Are they compatible?Public Administration Review, 42, 127-135.
17.
BurnierD. (2003). Other voices/other rooms: Towards a care-centered public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 25, 529-544.
18.
CandrevaP.BrookD. (2008). Transitions in defense management reform: A review of the government accountability office’s chief management officer recommendation and comments for the new administration. Public Administration Review, 68, 1043-1049.
19.
CardD.KruegerA. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education and the characteristics of public schools in the United States. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1-40.
20.
CoeC.BrunetJ. (2006). Organizational report cards: Significant impact or much ado about nothing?Public Administration Review, 66, 90-100.
21.
CoplinW.MergetA.BourdeauxC. (2002). The professional researcher as change agent in the government-performance movement. Public Administration Review, 62, 699-711.
22.
DalehiteE. (2008). Political rationality and symbolism: An investigation into the decision to conduct citizen surveys. Public Administration Review, 68, 891-907.
23.
DeHoogR. H.LoweryD.LyonsW. (1990). Citizen satisfaction with local governance: A test of individual, jurisdictional, and city-specific explanations. Journal of Politics, 50, 807-837.
24.
De ZwartF. (2002). Administrative practice and rational inquiry in postmodern public administration theory. Administration & Society, 34, 482-498.
25.
DodgeJ.OspinaS.FoldyE. G. (2005). Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65, 286-300.
DubnickM. (1999, September). Demons, spirits, and elephants: Reflections on the failure of public administration theory. Presentation at the American Political Science Association Conference, Atlanta. Retrieved from www.fsuedu/-localgov/papers/archive/Dubnick.001.pdf
28.
FitzgeraldM.DurantR. (1980). Citizen evaluations and urban management: Service delivery in an age of protest. Public Administration Review, 40, 585-594.
29.
GillJ.MeierK. (2000). Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 157-199.
30.
GoodenS. T.McCrearyS. (2001). That old-time religion: Efficiency, benchmarking and productivity. Public Administration Review, 61, 116-120.
31.
HalachmiA. (2004). Performance measurements, accountability, and improving performance. In: HolzerM.LeeS.-H. (Eds.), Public productivity handbook (2nd ed., pp. 333-352). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
32.
HeikkilaT.IssetK. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67, 238-248.
33.
HoA. (2007). Citizen participation in performance measurement. In: BoxR. (Ed.), Democracy and public administration (pp. 107-118). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
34.
HoodC. (2006). Gaming in Targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66, 515-521.
35.
HummelR. (2008). Toward Bindlestiff science: Let’s all get off the 3:10 to Yuma. Administration & Society, 39, 1013-1019.
36.
KamenskyJ. (2009). Web 2.0 meets performance reporting. PA Times, 32(4), 9.
37.
KeiserL.WilkinsV.MeierK.HollandC. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
38.
KellyJ. (2003). Citizen satisfaction and administrative performance measures: Is there really a link?Urban Affairs Review, 38, 855-866.
39.
KellyJ.SwindellD. (2002). A multiple-indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, 62, 610-621.
40.
KerlingerF. (1964). Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psychological inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
41.
KravchukR.SchackR. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review, 56, 348-358.
42.
LeibE. (2004). Deliberative democracy in America: A proposal for a popular branch of government. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
43.
LicariM.McLeanW.RiceT. (2005). The condition of community streets and parks: A comparison of resident and nonresident evaluations. Public Administration Review, 65, 360-368.
44.
LindblomC. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
LindblomC.CohenD. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
MeierK. (2005). Public administration and the myth of positivism: The AntiChrist’s view. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 27, 650-668.
47.
MeierK.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66, 850-860.
48.
MoynihanD. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
49.
MunroW. B. (1928). Physics and politics—An old analogy revised. American Political Science Review, 22, 1-11.
50.
Nicholson-CrottyS.TheobaldN.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Disparate measures: Public managers and performance-measurement strategies. Public Administration Review, 66, 101-113.
OsborneD.HutchinsonP. (2004). The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent fiscal crisis. New York, NY: Basic Books.
53.
OsborneD.PlastrikP. (2000). The reinventor’s fieldbook: Tools for transforming your government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
54.
ParkR. (1984). Linking objective and subjective measures of performance. Public Administration Review, 44, 116-127.
55.
PercyS. (1986). In defense of citizen evaluations as performance measures. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22, 66-83.
56.
RaadscheldersJ. (2000). Understanding government in society: We see the trees, but could we see the forest?Administrative Theory and Praxis, 22, 192-225.
57.
RadinB. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
58.
RiccucciN. (2007). The criteria of action. In: RosenbloomD.McCurdyH. (Eds.), Revisiting Waldo’s administrative state: Constancy and change in public administration (pp. 55-70). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
59.
RosentraubM.HarlowK.ThompsonL. (1979). In defense of surveys as a reliable source of evaluation data. Public Administration Review, 39, 302-303.
60.
SangerM. B. (2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68(Suppl.), S70-S85.
61.
ShinglerJ.van LoonM.AlterT.BridgerJ. (2008). The importance of subjective data for public agency performance evaluation. Public Administration Review, 68, 1101-1111.
62.
SimonH. (1957). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
63.
SmithK. (2003). The ideology of education: The commonwealth, the market, and America’s schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
64.
StipakB. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review, 39, 46-52.
65.
TownleyB.CooperD.OakesL. (2003). Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations. Organization Studies, 24, 1045-1071.
66.
Van RyzinG.ImmerwahrS.AltmanS. (2008). Measuring street cleanliness: A comparison of New York City’s scorecard and results from a citizen survey. Public Administration Review, 68, 295-303.
67.
WealeA. (2009). Metrics versus peer review. Political Studies Review, 7, 39-49.
68.
WhiteJ.AdamsG. (1994). Research in public administration: Reflections on theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
WilliamsB.KelloughE. (2006). Leadership with an enduring impact: The legacy of Chief Burtell Jefferson of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC. Public Administration Review, 66, 813-822.
70.
WilliamsF.IIIMcShaneM.SechrestD. (1994). Barriers to effective performance review: The seduction of raw data. Public Administration Review, 54, 537-542.
71.
YanowD. (2000). Conducting interpretative policy analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
