This article draws on the theory of effective government organizations to provide a theoretical context, utilizes data from 58 existing studies, and conducts meta-regression analyses to examine the determinants of public sector performance. It hypothesizes that the determinants of public sector performance are moderated by five contextual characteristics: performance measurement systems, institutions, public service motivation, external environment, and diversity management. The findings indicate that performance measurement systems, diversity management, and the external environment influence public sector performance. The findings highlight the importance of performance measurement systems that effectively monitor outcomes and organizational efficiency. Expanding beyond internal performance measures, diversity programs that enable managers to build culturally competent administrators, and attention to the external environment, all contribute to improving public sector performance. The findings validate existing studies and indicate the areas policymakers should prioritize to advance public sector performance.
AhyaruddinM.AkbarR. (2016). The relationship between the use of a performance measurement system, organizational factors, accountability, and the performance of public sector organizations. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 31(1), 1–22.
2.
Al-JedaiaY.MehrezA. (2020). The effect of performance appraisal on job performance in governmental sector: The mediating role of motivation. Management Science Letters, 10(9), 2077–2088.
3.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A. (2010). Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 443–454.
4.
AswarK.AswarK. (2022). The effect of internal factors on performance measurement in Indonesian Local Government. Information Management and Business Review, 14(2(I)), 1–8.
5.
BackhausL.VogelR. (2022). Leadership in the public sector: A meta-analysis of styles, outcomes, contexts, and methods. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 986–1003.
6.
BaeK. B.LeeD.SohnH. (2019). How to increase participation in telework programs in US federal agencies: Examining the effects of being a female supervisor, supportive leadership, and diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 48(4), 565–583.
7.
BrewerG. A.WalkerR. M. (2010). The impact of red tape on governmental performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 233–257.
8.
BrignallS.ModellS. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306.
9.
BronkhorstB.SteijnB.VermeerenB. (2015). Transformational leadership, goal setting, and work motivation: The case of a Dutch municipality. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 124–145.
10.
ChandrashekaranM.WalkerB. A. (1993). Meta-analysis with heteroscedastic effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 246–255.
11.
ChoiS.RaineyH. G. (2010). Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 109–121.
12.
ComptonM. E.MeierK. J. (2016). Managing social capital and diversity for performance in public organizations. Public Administration, 94(3), 609–629.
13.
DennisM. S.SharpE.ChovanesJ.ThomasA.BurnsR. M.CusterB.ParkJ. (2016). A meta-analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31(3), 156–168.
14.
de WaalA. A. (2010). Achieving high performance in the public sector: What needs to be done?Public Performance & Management Review, 34(1), 81–103.
15.
Dimitrijevska-MarkoskiT. (2019). The impact of performance measurement and performance information use on municipal and county performance. Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 52–78.
16.
Dimitrijevska-MarkoskiT.BreenJ. D.NukpezahJ. A.MobleyR. (2021). Strategic Planning and management in small municipalities in Mississippi – Implementation, perceived benefits, and determinants of use. Public Organization Review, 21, 437–452. 2021.
17.
Dimitrijevska-MarkoskiT.NukpezahJ. A.AzharA. (2024). Service delivery during crises: The effects of organizational capacity, collaboration, and public service motivation on organizational resilience. Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 210–227.
18.
Dimitrijevska-MarkoskiT.FrenchP. E. (2019). Determinants of public administrators’ use of performance information: Evidence from local governments in Florida. Public Administration Review, 79(5), 699–709.
19.
DingF.LuJ.RiccucciN. M. (2021). How bureaucratic representation affects public organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1003–1018.
20.
EliuzS.KapucuN.UstunY.DemirhanC. (2017). Predictors of an effective performance measurement system: Evidence from municipal governments in Turkey. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(4), 329–341.
21.
FernandezS.ChoY. J.PerryJ. L. (2010). Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public sector performance. Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 308–323.
22.
FieldA. P.GillettR. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694.
23.
GeorgeB.PandeyS. K.SteijnB.DecramerA.AudenaertM. (2021). Red Tape, organizational performance, and employee outcomes: Meta-analysis, meta-regression, and research agenda. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 638–651.
24.
GerrishE. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66.
25.
HombergF.McCarthyD.TabvumaV. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 711–722.
26.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
27.
HorwitzS. K.HorwitzI. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015.
28.
HsiehC.YangK.FuK. (2012). Motivational bases and emotional labor: Assessing the impact of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 241–251.
29.
HvidmanU.AndersenS. C. (2014). Impact of performance management in public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 35–58.
30.
IgallaM.EdelenbosJ.van MeerkerkI. (2020). What explains the performance of community-based initiatives? Testing the impact of leadership, social capital, organizational capacity, and government support. Public Management Review, 22(4), 602–632.
31.
JulnesP. D. L.HolzerM. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693–708.
32.
KaufmannW.HooghiemstraR.FeeneyM. K. (2018). Formal institutions, informal institutions, and red tape: A comparative study. Public Administration, 96(2), 386–403.
33.
KimS. (2004). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245–261.
34.
KrollA.VogelD. (2014). The PSM–leadership fit: A model of performance information use. Public Administration, 92(4), 974–991.
35.
LeeS. Y.WhitfordA. B. (2013). Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(3), 687–712.
36.
LeisinkP.SteijnB. (2009). Public service motivation and job performance of public sector employees in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 35–52.
37.
MalatestaD.SmithC. R. (2014). Lessons from resource dependence theory for contemporary public and nonprofit management. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 14–25.
38.
MeierK. (Ed.). (2000). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government (4th ed.). Harcourt.
39.
MelkersJ.WilloughbyK. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190.
40.
MengX.LiC. (2025). Does public sector performance information impact stakeholders? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 85, 1086–1097.
41.
MooreM. (1995). Promoting good government by supporting institutional development?IDS Bulletin, 26(2), 89–96.
42.
MoynihanD. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77–89.
43.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.
44.
MoynihanD. P.IngrahamP. W. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance-information use. Administration & Society, 36(4), 427–453.
45.
MoynihanD. P.LanduytN. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097–1105.
46.
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(3), 421–439.
47.
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.
48.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K.WrightB. E. (2012). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 143–164.
49.
MuscaluE.IancuD.HalmaghiE. E. (2016). The influence of the external environment on Organizations. Journal of Defense Resources Management, 7(2), 133–138.
50.
NukpezahJ. A.FlomoV. O.FrenchP. E.BreenD. (2024). Does public service motivation mediate public safety work’s effect on public sector employee job satisfaction?Public Organization Review, 24, 907–923.
51.
NukpezahJ. A.IsmayilovO. (2024). Collective action, climate change adaptation, and green job creation in South Florida. International Journal of Public Administration, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.2422986
52.
O'TooleL. J.JrMeierK. J. (2011). Public management: Organizations, governance, and performance. Cambridge University Press.
53.
OrduA. (2016). The effects of diversity management on job satisfaction and individual performance of teachers. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(3), 105–112.
54.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing government: The five strategies for reinventing government. Penguin.
55.
O’TooleL. J.MeierK. J. (2015). Public management, context, and performance: In quest of a more general theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu011
56.
PadovaniE.YetanoA.OrelliR. L. (2010). Municipal performance measurement and management in practice: Which factors matter?Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 591–635.
57.
PandeyS. K.KingsleyG. A. (2000). Examining red tape in public and private organizations: Alternative explanations from a social psychological model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 779–800.
58.
ParkS.LiangJ. (2020). Merit, diversity, and performance: Does diversity management moderate the effect of merit principles on governmental performance?Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 83–110.
59.
PerryJ. L.WiseL. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367–373.
60.
PetersB. G. (2015). Advanced introduction to public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
61.
PetrovskyN.RitzA. (2014). Public service motivation and performance: A critical Perspective. Evidence-based HRM a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 2(1), 57–79.
62.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis of NPM, the Neo-Weberian State, and New Public Governance. OUP Oxford.
63.
PuspasariW. R.BaridwanZ.AchsinM. (2016). The determinants of performance information use for local government institutions. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 5(1), 40–51.
64.
PustejovskyJ. E.TiptonE. (2018). Small-sample methods for cluster-robust variance estimation and hypothesis testing in fixed effects models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 36(4), 672–683.
65.
RaineyH. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
66.
RaineyH. G.SteinbauerP. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1–32.
67.
RingquistE. (2013). Meta-analysis for public management and policy. John Wiley & Sons.
68.
RitzA. (2009). Public service motivation and organizational performance in Swiss federal government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 53–78.
69.
RivitoA.MulyaniS. (2019). The effect of budget participation on local government performance with organizational commitment as moderating variable. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Business, 2(2), 90–103.
70.
RobersonQ. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.
SabharwalM. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217.
73.
SaifulinaN.Carballo-PenelaA. (2017). Promoting sustainable development at an organizational level: An analysis of the drivers of workplace environmentally friendly behaviour of employees. Sustainable Development, 25(4), 299–310.
74.
SchwarzG.NewmanA.CooperB.EvaN. (2016). Servant leadership and follower job performance: The mediating effect of public service motivation. Public Administration, 94(4), 1025–1041.
75.
StazykE. C.PandeyS. K.WrightB. E. (2011). Understanding affective organizational commitment: The importance of institutional context. American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 603–624.
76.
SunR.HendersonA. C. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational processes: Influencing public performance. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 554–565.
77.
TaylorJ. (2011). Factors influencing the use of performance information for decision making in Australian state agencies. Public Administration, 89(4), 1316–1334.
78.
Van Den BekeromP.TorenvliedR.AkkermanA. (2017). Constrained by red tape: How managerial networking moderates the effects of red tape on public service performance. American Review of Public Administration, 47(3), 300–322.
79.
Van DoorenW.BouckaertG.HalliganJ. (2015). Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge.
80.
WangX. (2000). Performance measurement in budgeting: A study of county governments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(3), 102–118.
81.
WrightB. E.MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 206–215.
82.
WrightB. E.PandeyS. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person—organization fit. Administration & Society, 40(5), 502–521.
83.
YangK. (2007). Examining perceived honest performance reporting by public organizations: Bureaucratic politics and organizational practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 81–105.
84.
YangK.HolzerM. (2009). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126.
85.
YangK.HsiehJ. Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861–879.
86.
ZegerS. L.LiangK. Y. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42(1), 121–130.
87.
ZornC. J. W. (2001). Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: a review with applications. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 470–490.
