Contemporary public management is characterized by a strong tendency to introduce performance measurement in order to reduce complexity. Public managers face two challenges when performing their work: uncertainty and ambiguity. Ambiguity is understood as the absence of or contradictory interpretations about what needs to, can and should be done, when and where. In this article we argue that the intensity and nature of ambiguity vary, depending on the public management setting. This has serious implications for the type of evaluation chosen. Performance measurement may be appropriate when ambiguity is relatively low, but it is difficult and potentially damaging in settings marked by a high degree of ambiguity. In these latter cases, evaluation approaches that acknowledge ambiguity through dialogue are more suitable. To structure this line of reasoning, we distinguish four public management settings (industrial, enforcing, professional and strategic) and relate this to different evaluation approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abma, T. A. (1999) `Introduction', in T. A. Abma (ed.) Telling Tales, On Narrative and Evaluation, Advances in Program Evaluation 6, pp. 1-28. Stamford, CT: JAI Press .
2.
Abma, T. A. (2001a) `Evaluating Palliative Care: Facilitating Reflexive Dialogues about an Ambiguous Concept' , Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy4(3): 261-276 .
3.
Abma, T. A., ed. (2001b) `Special Issue: Dialogue in Evaluation' , Evaluation7(2): 155-280 .
4.
Abma, T. A. (2001c) `Narratieve infrastructuur en fixaties inbeleidsdialogen: de Schipholdiscussie als casus' , B en M20(2): 66-79 .
5.
Blalock, A. B. (1999) `Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement' , Evaluation5(2): 117-149 .
6.
Chen, H. T. and P. H. Rossi (1981) `The Multi-Goal Theory Driven Approach to Evaluation, A Model Linking Basic and Applied Social Science', in H. E. Freeman and M.A. Solomon (eds) Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
7.
Chen, H. T. and P. H. Rossi (1989) `Issues in the Theory-driven Perspective' , Evaluation and Program Planning12: 299-306 .
8.
Clarke, J. and J. Newman (1997) The Managerial State. London: Sage .
9.
Cohen, M. D. and J. G. March (1974) Leadership and Ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill .
10.
Davies, I. C. (1999) `Evaluation and Performance Management in Government' , Evaluation5(2): 150-159 .
11.
Forester, J. (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice: Toward Critical Pragmatism. New York: State University of New York Press .
12.
Green, P. and U. Andersson (2002) `Evaluating the Uses and Abuses of Good Examples in Environmental Politics' , Paper presented at the 5th European Evaluation Society conference, Seville, October 10-12.
13.
Greene, J. C. (1988) `Stakeholder Participation and Utilization Program Evaluation' , Evaluation Review12(2): 91-116 .
14.
Greene, J. C. (1997) `Participatory Evolution', in L. Mabry (ed.) Evaluation and the Post-modern Dilemma, Advances in Program Evaluation 3, pp. 171-190. Stamford, CT: JAI Press .
15.
Greene, J. C. (1999) `The Inequality of Performance Measurements' , Evaluation5(2): 160-172 .
16.
Grit, K. (2000) Economisering als probleem. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum .
17.
Guba, E. and Y. S. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
18.
Hajer, M. (1993) `Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of the Acid Rain in Great Britain', in F. Fisher and J. Forester (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press .
19.
Hofstede, G. (1981) `Management Control of Public and Not-for-Profit Activities' , Accounting, Organizations and Society6(3): 193-211 .
20.
Hood, C. A. (1991) `Public Management for All Seasons?' , Public Administration69(1): 3-19 .
21.
House, E. R. (1993) Professional Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
22.
Kaufman, H. (1980) The Administrative Behavior of Federal Bureau Chiefs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
23.
Kickert, W. J. M., ed. (1997) Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing .
24.
Koch, T. (1994) `Beyond Measurement: Fourth Generation Evaluation in Nursing' , Journal of Advanced Nursing20: 1148-1155 .
25.
Koch, T. (2000) ` “ Having a Say”: Negotiation in Fourth Generation Evaluation' , Journal of Advanced Nursing31(1): 117-125 .
26.
Kotter, J. P. (1982) The General Managers. New York: Free Press .
27.
Krosse, H. (1995) `De gemeentelijke praktijk en het Tilburgs model', in M. Noordegraaf, A. B. Ringeling and F. J. M. Zwetsloot (eds) De ambtenaar als publiek ondernemer, pp. 141-148. Bussum: Coutinho .
28.
Leeuw, F. L. (2001) `Evaluatie-onderzoek, auditing en controle in Nederland anno 2000', in T. Abma and R. in `t Veld (eds) Handboek beleidswetenschap [Handbook Policy Sciences], pp. 70-82. Amsterdam: Boom .
29.
Lips, A. M. B. (1996) Autonomie in kwaliteit, Ambiguiteit in bestuurlijke communicatie over de ontwikkeling van kwaliteitszorg in het hoger onderwijs. Delft: Eburon .
30.
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level-Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
31.
March, J. G. (1994) A Primer on Decision-Making. New York: Free Press .
32.
March, J. and J. Olsen (1979) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universityforlaget .
33.
March, J. and J. Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press .
34.
Meyer, M. W. and V. Gupta (1994) `The Performance Paradox' , Research in Organizational Behaviour16: 309-369 .
35.
Mintzberg, H. (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Free Press .
36.
Mintzberg, H. (1996) `Managing Government, Governing Management' , Harvard Business Review74: 75-83 .
37.
Moen, J. and T. A. Abma (1992) `Het ziekenhuis als een transactienetwerk van maatschappen', in P. de Jong, A. F. A. Korsten and J. H. van der Made (eds) Ziekenhuizen: besluitvorming en management, pp. 18-27. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum .
38.
Moore, M. (1995) Creating Public Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
39.
Noordegraaf, M. (1999) `De overheid is geen bedrijf! Over de scheidslijn tussen publiek en privaat' , Socialisme & Democratie3: 179-203 .
40.
Noordegraaf, M. (2000) `Attention! Work and Behavior of Public Managers amidst Ambiguity', dissertation. Delft: Eburon.
41.
Noordegraaf, M. and R. Stewart (2000) `Managerial Behavior in Private and Public Sectors: Distinctiveness, Disputes and Directions' , Journal of Management Studies37(3): 427-444 .
42.
Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services. Oxford: Blackwell .
43.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2000) Public Management Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
44.
Power, M. (1999) The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
45.
Rein, M. (1983) From Policy to Practice. New York: Sharpe .
46.
Sanderson, I. (2002) `Does it Work? Is it “Appropriate”? Instrumental and Practical Rationality in Evidence-Based Policymaking' , Paper presented at the 5th European Evaluation Society Conference, Seville, October 10-12.
47.
Scott, R. (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
48.
Stake, R. E. (1975) `To Evaluate an Arts Program', in R. E. Stake (ed.) Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach, pp. 13-31. Colombus, OH: Merrill .
49.
Stake, R. E. (2000) `Case Studies', in N. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, pp. 435-455. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
50.
van Gunsteren, H. R. (1992) Eigentijds Burgerschap [Contemporary Citizenship], WRR report. The Hague: SDU .
51.
van Twist, M. J. W. and C. J. A. M. Termeer (1991) `Introduction to Configuration Approach: A Process Theory for Societal Steering', in R. in `t Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A.M. Termeer and M. J. W. van Twist (eds) Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory, pp. 19-30. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
52.
Vinzant, J. C. and L. Crothers (1998) Street-level Leadership: Discretion and Legitimacy in Frontline Public Service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press .
53.
Vugt, G. W. M. and P. W. Tops (1998) Zoeken naar een modern bestuur [Searching for Modern Administration]. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom .
54.
Wadsworth, Y. (2001) `Becoming Responsive - and Some Consequences for Evaluation as Dialogue Across Distance', in J. C. Greene and T. A. Abma (eds) Responsive Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation 92, pp. 45-58. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass .
55.
Wagenaar, H. (1997) `Beleid als fictie' , Beleid en Maatschappij24(1): 1-43 .
56.
Weick, K. E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. London: Random House .
57.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
58.
Weiss, C. H. (1992) Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
59.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989) Bureaucracy. What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Free Press .
60.
Yin, R. (1984) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
