This article proposes a value-based model for performance management, governance, and public service leadership development. There are three distinguishing features of this model. First, the model is the product of considerable research and curricular “field-testing” with academic partners in the United States, China, Vietnam, and Japan. Second, the model deliberately integrates an emphasis on values, leadership, management, and governance into an organic framework that addresses many of the criticisms that have been made of New Public Management. Third, the model incorporates differences in the values and structures of authority among political settings, thus making it applicable across a wide variety of regimes.
AlfordJ. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social exchange perspective. Public Administration Review, 62, 337-346.
2.
AmmonsD. N.RivenbarkW. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68, 304-318.
3.
ArgyrisC.SchonD. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
BaoG.WangX.MorganD. F.LarsenG. L. (2011, June). Keywords and concepts of interviews in China county level government [Field interviews conducted with Chinese county leaders]. Retrieved from http://www.lanzhou-hatfield.pdx.edu/prwp-0
5.
BatieS. S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90, 1176-1191.
6.
BayA. (2011). Ataturk: Lessons in leadership from the greatest general of the Ottoman Empire. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BrookesS. (2008, April). From NPM to NPL: Setting the public leadership challenge. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPM XII), Brisbane, Australia.
8.
BrookesS.GrintK. (2010). The new public leadership challenge. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
BrownV. A.HarrisJ. A.RussellJ. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination. London, England: Routledge.
10.
CaulfieldJ. L. (2006). Local government reform in China: A rational actor perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72, 253-267.
11.
ChanH. S.ChowK. W. (2007). Public management policy and practice in Western China: Metapolicy, tacit knowledge, and implications for management innovation transfer. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 479-498.
12.
CookB. J. (1996). Bureaucracy and self government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
CooperP. J. (2003). Governing by contract: Challenges and opportunities for public managers. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
14.
CrosbyB. (2010). Leading in a shared-power world of 2010. Public Administration Review, 70, s69-s77.
15.
CrosbyB. C.BrysonJ. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
ElkinS.SoltanK. E. (1993). A new constitutionalism: Designing political institutions for a good society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
17.
GilleyB. (in press). The East Asian legitimacy premium: Empirical and normative dimensions. In ChanJ.WilliamsM. (Eds.), East Asian perspectives on political legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.
18.
GreenR. T. (2002). Alexander Hamilton: Founder of the American public administration. Administration & Society, 34, 541-562.
19.
GrintK. (2000). The arts of leadership. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
HatryH. P. (2002). Performance measurement: Fashions and fallacies. Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 352-358.
21.
HatryH. P. (2010). Looking into the crystal ball: Performance mover the next decade. Public Administration Review, 70, s208-s211.
22.
HefetzA.WarnerM. (2004). Privatization and its reverse: Explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 171-190.
23.
JohnsonS. (2002). The transformation of civic institutions and practices in Portland, Oregon, 1960-1999 (Doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR.
24.
JørgensenT. B.BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39, 354-381.
25.
KellyR. M. (1998). An inclusive democratic polity, representative bureaucracies, and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 58, 201-208.
26.
KemmisD. (1990). Community and the politics of place. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
27.
KettlD. F. (2000). The global public management revolution: A report on the transformation of governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28.
LarsenG. L. (2008). Emerging governance at the edge of constrained federalism: Public administrators at the frontier of democracy (Doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/33/43/3343771.html
29.
LauriaM. (Ed.). (1997). Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating local government in a global economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
LeoC. (1998). Regional growth management regime: The case of Portland, Oregon. Journal of Urban Affairs, 20, 363-394.
31.
LynnL.Jr.(1998). The New Public Management: How to transform a theme into a legacy. Public Administration Review, 58, 231-237.
MicheliP.NeelyA. (2010). Performance measurement in the public sector in England: Searching for the golden thread. Public Administration Review, 70, 591-600.
34.
MoeR. C.GilmourR. S. (1995). Rediscovering principles of public administration: The neglected foundation of public law. Public Administration Review, 55, 135-146.
35.
MooreM. (1994). Public value as the focus of strategy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53, 296-303.
36.
MooreM. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
MorganD. F.GreenR.ShinnC. W.RobinsonK. (1996). The role of middle managers in local government: The limits of reinventing government. Public Administration Review, 56, 359-395.
38.
MorganD. F.GreenR.ShinnC. W.RobinsonK. S. (2008). Foundations of public service. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
39.
MorganD. F.KassH. D. (1993). The American odyssey of the career public service: The ethical crises of role reversal. In FredericksonH. G. (Ed.), Ethics and public administration (pp. 177-190). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
40.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 421-439.
41.
O’FlynnJ. (2007). From New Public Management to public value: Paradigm change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66, 353-356.
42.
OsborneS. P. (2008). The third sector in Europe: Prospects and challenges. London, England: Routledge.
43.
OsborneS. P. (2010). The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London, England: Routledge.
44.
O’TooleL. (2010). The ties that bind? Networks, public administration, and political science. Political Science & Politics, 43, 7-14.
45.
OzawaC. (Ed.). (2005). The Portland edge: Challenges and successes in growing communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
46.
PoisterT. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70, S246-S254.
47.
RittelH. W. J.WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
48.
RohrJ. (1989). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
49.
RosenbloomD. H. (2003). Administrative law for public managers. Boulder, CO: Westview.
50.
RosenbloomD. H.CarrollJ. D.CarrollJ. D. (2000). Constitutional competence for public managers: Cases and commentary. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
51.
RosenbloomD. H.KravchukR. S. (2005). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
52.
SalamonL. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
SangerM. B. (2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68, s70-s85.
54.
SarasonS. B.LorentyE. M. (1997). Crossing boundaries: Collaboration, coordination and making the most of limited resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55.
ScheinE. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
ScheinE. H. (1993). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57.
SchonD. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
58.
SmithR. F. I. (2004). Focusing on public value: Something new and something old. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63, 68-79.
59.
StokerG. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?American Review of Public Administration, 36, 41-57.
60.
StoneC. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
61.
SullivanH.SkelcherC. (2002). Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public service. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
62.
ToonenT. A. J. (1998). Networks, management and institutions: Public administration as “normal science.”Public Administration, 76, 229-252.
63.
WalkerR. M.WuJ. (2010). Future prospects for performance management in Chinese city governments. Administration & Society, 42, 34S-55S.
64.
WeatherfordJ. M. (2004). Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world (1st ed.). New York, NY: Crown.
65.
WescottC. G. (2003). Hierarchies, networks and local government in Vietnam. International Public Management Review, 4(2), 20-40.
66.
WhiteL. D. (1948). The federalists: A study in administrative history. New York, NY: Macmillan.
67.
WholeyJ. S. (1999). Performance-based management: Responding to the challenges. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22, 288-307.
68.
YangK.HolzerM. (2006). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66, 114-126.
