In recent years, performance management (PM) has become a buzzword in public sector organizations. Well-functioning PM systems rely on valid performance data, but critics point out that conflicting rationale or logic among professional staff in recording information can undermine the quality of the data. Based on a case study of social service staff members, the authors explore three recording logics. The findings reveal a complexity of recording behavior and show how frontline staff shift between recording logics according to the situation. The actual data recordings depend not only on the overall logic but also on factors such as attitudes, assumptions, and motives. The authors suggest that shifting recording logics weaken the validity of performance data. These shifts undermine the idea of PM as a trustworthy strategy to bridge the gap between professional and managerial staff, as well as the possibility of a well-informed management.
AlbækE. (2003). Evalueringens Fremtid—Fremtidens Evalueringer [The future of evaluation—Evaluations of the future]. In Dahler-LarsenP.KrogstrupH. (Eds.), Tendenser i evaluering [Tendencies in evaluation] (pp. 260–270). Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
2.
ArnaboldiM.LapsleyI.SteccoliniI. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31, 1–22.
3.
BjörkA. (2013). Working with different logics: A case study on the use of the Addiction Severity Index in addiction treatment practice. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 30, 179–199.
4.
BlissD. L. (2007). Implementing an outcomes measurement system in substance abuse treatment programs. Administration in Social Work, 31, 83–101.
5.
BrignallS.ModellS. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the “new public sector.”Management Accounting Research, 11, 281–306.
6.
ChopraP. K.KanjiG. K. (2011). On the science of management with measurement. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22, 63–81.
7.
Dahler-LarsenP. (2001). From programme theory to constructivism: On tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation, 7, 331–349.
8.
Dahler-LarsenP.SchwandtT. A. (2012). Political culture as context for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 135, 75–87.
9.
de BruijnH. (2007). Managing performance in the public sector. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
EvettsJ. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8, 247–266.
11.
HansenM. B.VedungE. (2010). Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 295–313.
12.
HasenfeldY. (2010). The attributes of human service organizations. In HasenfeldY. (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (2nd ed., pp. 9–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
HunterD. E.NielsenS. B. (2013). Performance management and evaluation: Exploring complementarities. New Directions for Evaluation, 137, 7–17.
14.
KrogstrupH. K. (2011). Kampen om evidens: Resultatmåling, effektevaluering og evidens [The battle of evidence: Performance measurement, impact evaluation, and evidence]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels.
15.
LiljegrenA.PardingK. (2010). Ändrad styrning av välfärdsprofessioner: Exemplet evidensbasering i socialt arbete [Changed management of welfare professions: Example of evidence-based social work]. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 17, 270–288.
16.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Sage.
17.
Lynch-CerulloK.CooneyK. (2011). Moving from outputs to outcomes: A review of the evolution of performance measurement in the human service nonprofit sector. Administration in Social Work, 35, 364–388.
18.
MayneJ. (2007). Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management. Evaluation, 13, 87–109.
19.
MayneJ.RistR. C. (2006). Studies are not enough: The necessary transformation of evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21, 93–120.
20.
NielsenS. B.JacobsenM. N.PedersenM. (2005). Øje for effekterne—resultatbaseret styring kan styrke offentlige indsatser [An eye for impacts—Result-based management can improve public services]. Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, 86, 276–295.
21.
NielsenS. T.BojsenD. S.EjlerN. (2009). Introduktion til resultatbaseret styring [Introduction to result-based management]. In EjlerN. (Ed.), Når måling giver mening: Resultatbaseret styring og dansk velfærdspolitik i forvandling [When measuring makes sense: Result-based management and Danish welfare policies in transformation] (pp. 40–70). Copenhagen, Denmark: Djöf Forlag.
22.
PollittC. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 25–44.
23.
PollittC. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19, 346–363.
24.
RistR. C. (2009). På jagt efter trovärdig evidens: At konstruere monitorerings- og evalueringssystemer indenfor områder med knappe ressourcer [On the hunt for trustworthy evidence: To construct monitoring and evaluation systems within areas of scarce resources]. In EjlerN. (Ed.), Når måling giver mening: Resultatbaseret styring og dansk velfærdspolitik i forvandling [When measuring makes sense: Result-based management and Danish welfare policies in transformation] (pp. 259–267). Copenhagen, Denmark: Djöf Forlag.
25.
VedungE. (2010). Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation, 16, 263–277.
26.
VedungE. (2011). Spridning, användning och implementering av utvärdering [Diffusion, impact, and implementation of evaluation]. In BlomB.NygrenL.MorénS. (Eds.), Utvärdering i socialt arbete: Utgångspunkter, modeller och användning [Evaluation in social work: Starting points, models, and use] (pp. 285–299). Stockholm, Sweden: Natur & Kultur.
27.
WandersmanA.ImmP.ChinnmanM.KaftarianF. (2000). Getting to outcomes: A results-based approach to accountability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 389–395.
28.
WennebergS. B. (2000). Socialkonstruktivisme: Positioner, problemer og perspektiver [Social constructivism: Positions, problems, and perspectives]. Fredriksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
