Public management scholars have made impressive strides in explaining managerial usage of performance information (PI). Does such PI use matter to performance? If so, what types of use make a difference? To answer these questions, we connect managerial self-reported behavior with objective organizational outcomes in Texas schools. We control for lagged comparative school performance and employ inverse probability weighting to mitigate endogeneity concerns. The results show that managerial use of PI is associated with objective indicators of performance, and that the type of use matters. In particular, school principals’ use of PI for strategic planning is positively associated with better high-stakes test scores. The findings suggest that maturity of performance management system can shape the relationship between managerial PI use and organizational performance, thereby contributing to a contingency-based understanding of the relationship between performance management and organizational performance.
AchenC. H. (2000). Why lagged dependent variables can supress the explanatory power of other independent variable. Annual meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, Ann Arbor, MI.
2.
AndersenS. C., & MoynihanD. P. (2016). Bureaucratic investments in expertise: Evidence from a randomized controlled field trial. The Journal of Politics, 78(4), 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1086/686029
3.
AndersenS. C., & NielsenH. S. (2020). Learning from performance information. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz036
4.
ArgyrisC., & SchonD. A. (1996). Organizational learning (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
5.
AustinP. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
6.
BarzelayM., & CampbellC. (2003). Preparing for the future: Strategic planning in the U.S. Air force. Brookings Institution Press.
7.
BehnR. D. (2014). The performance stat potential: A leadership strategy for producing results. Harvard University Press.
8.
BreancaT., WalkerM., & MeierK. J. (2011). Texas middle management survey—2011. Project for Equity, Representation, and Governance, College Station, TX.
9.
BrysonJ. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
10.
ChunY. H., & RaineyH. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. Federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui030
11.
DeeT. S., & WyckoffJ. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21818
12.
DehejiaR. H.WahbaS. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302317331982
13.
DiazJ. J.HandaS. (2006). An assessment of propensity score matching as a nonexperimental impact estimator: Evidence from Mexico’s PROGRESA Program. Journal of Human Resources, 41(2), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2006.03.008
14.
FaveroN.MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2016). Goals, trust, participation, and feedback: Linking internal management with performance outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu044
15.
FryerR. G. (2017). The production of human capital in developed countries. DufloE. & AbhijitB. (Eds.), Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 2, pp. 96–175). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hefe.2016.08.006
16.
GeorgeB.WalkerR. M.MonsterJ. (2019). Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13104
17.
GerrishE. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12433
18.
GerrishE.SpreenT. L. (2017). Does benchmarking encourage improvement or convergence? Evaluating north carolina’s fiscal benchmarking tool. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(4), 596–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux018
19.
GoodmanS. F.TurnerL. J. (2013). The design of teacher incentive Pay and educational outcomes: Evidence from the New york city bonus program. Source: Journal of Labor Economics, 31(2), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1086/668676
20.
HanushekE. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019002141
HolmJ. M. (2018). Successful problem solvers? Managerial performance information Use to improve Low organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy017
23.
HongS. (2019). A behavioral model of public organizations: Bounded rationality, performance feedback, and negativity bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy048
24.
HvidmanU.AndersenS. C. (2014). Impact of performance management in public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut019
25.
ImbermanS. A.LovenheimM. F. (2015). Incentive strength and teacher productivity: Evidence from a group-based teacher incentive Pay system.Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00486
26.
JamesG.WittenD.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning : With applications in R. Springer.
27.
JamesO.OlsenA. L.MoynihanD.Van RyzinG. G. (2020). Behavioral public performance: How people make sense of government metrics. Cambridge University Press.
28.
JohansenM. S. (2012). The direct and interactive effects of middle and upper managerial quality on organizational performance. Administration & Society, 44(4), 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711414122
29.
KleineA. (2018). City on the line : How baltimore transformed Its budget to beat the great recession and deliver outcomes (1st ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
30.
KrollA. (2015). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1006469
31.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
32.
LovenheimM.TurnerS. (2018a). Does money matter? The relationship between education inputs and educational outcomes. In Economics of education (pp. 188–220). Worth Publisher.
33.
LovenheimM.TurnerS. (2018b). Test-based accountability programs. In Economics of education, 255–277. Worth Publisher.
34.
MccaffreyD. F.GriffinB. A.AlmirallD.SlaughterM. E.RamchandR.BurgetteL. F. (2013). A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Statistics in Medicine, 32(19), 3388–3414. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5753
35.
MeierK. J. (2011). Superintendent management survey project 2000-2009 user guide, College Station, TX.
36.
MeierK. J.FaveroN.ZhuL. (2015). Performance gaps and managerial decisions: A bayesian decision theory of managerial action. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1221–1246. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu054
37.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management : Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.
MoynihanD. P.HawesD. P. (2012). Responsiveness to reform values: The influence of the environment on performance information use. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), S95–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02653.x
40.
MoynihanD. P.KrollA. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA modernization Act.Public Administration Review, 76(2), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12434
41.
MoynihanD. P.LanduytN. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x
42.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
43.
MulaikS. A. (2010). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
44.
MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. Oxford University Press.
45.
NielsenP. A. (2014a). Learning from performance feedback: Performance information, aspiration levels, and managerial priorities.Public Administration, 92(1), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12050
46.
NielsenP. A. (2014b). Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut025
47.
NielsenP. A.MoynihanD. P. (2017). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw060
48.
O’TooleL. J., & MeierK. J. (2011). Public management organizations, governance, performance. Cambridge University Press.
49.
OuchiW. G.SegalL. G. (2003). Making schools work a revolutionary plan to get your children the education they need. Simon & Schuster.
50.
PashaO. (2018). Can performance management best practices help reduce crime?Public Administration Review, 78(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12856
51.
PoisterT. H. (2010, December). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70(Suppl. 1), s246–s254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02284.x
52.
PrimoD. M.JacobsmeierM. L.MilyoJ. (2007). Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(4), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700405
53.
RidgewayG.McCaffreyD.MorralA.BurgetteL.GriffinB. A. (2017). Toolkit for weighting and analysis of nonequivalent groups: A tutorial for the Twang package. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL136z1.html
54.
RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O.KaneT. J.TaylorE. S. (2012). Information and employee evaluation : Evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools. The American Economic Review, 102(7), 3184–3213. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3184
SpreenT. L., AfonsoW., & GerrishE. (2020). Can employee training influence local fiscal outcomes?The American Review of Public Administration, 50(4–5), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020911717
57.
TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628–3651. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3628
VroomV. H. (1964). Work and motivation. John Wiley & Sons.
60.
XuR.FrankK. A.MaroulisS. J.RosenbergJ. M. (2019). Konfound: Command to quantify robustness of causal inferences. Stata Journal, 19(3), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X19874223
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.
