There is now a huge literature on public sector performance management systems (PMSs), but only a small fraction of it directly addresses the logics used by those who use or are subject to such systems. This article analyses a variety of ‘alternative logics’, covering a range of different types of gaming, cheating and symbolic uses. A synthesis is advanced, indicating how the different logics are inter-related and how they are likely to affect different actors within PMSs. It argues that two balances appear to be crucial in restraining the growth of alternative logics: one between continuously refreshing PMSs and keeping them stable, and the other between tight or loose coupling of measures to incentives. Realist evaluation may offer a useful way of analysing this hitherto concealed world.
Audit Commission (2003) Waiting List Accuracy. London: The Stationary Office.
2.
BarberM (2007) Instruction to Deliver: Tony Blair, Public Services and the Challenge of Achieving Targets. London: Politico’s.
3.
BehnR (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review63(5): 586–606.
4.
BevanG (2006) Setting targets for health care performance: lessons from a case study of the English NHS. National Institute Economic Review197(1): 67–79.
5.
BevanG (2009) Hitting and missing targets by ambulance services for emergency calls: effects of different systems of performance measurement in the UK. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society172(1): 161–90.
6.
BevanGHoodC (2006) What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration84(3): 517–38.
7.
BevanGWilsonD (2013) Does ‘naming and shaming’ work for schools and hospitals? Lessons from natural experiments following devolution in England and Wales. Public Money and Management33(3): 245–52.
8.
BouckaertGHalliganJ (2008) Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
9.
BoyneGMeierKO’TooleJrWalkerR (eds) (2006) Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrewerG (2008) Employee and organizational performance. In: Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 136–56.
11.
BusseRGeisslerAQuentinWWileyM (eds) (2011) Diagnosis-related Groups in Europe: Moving towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
12.
ChristensenT (2012) Global ideas and modern public sector reforms: a theoretical elaboration and empirical discussion of a neoinstitutional theory. American Review of Public Administration42(6): 635–53.
13.
ChristensenTLaegreidPStigenI (2006) Performance management and public sector reforms: the Norwegian hospital reform. International Public Management Journal9(2): 1–27.
14.
CullenJRebackR (2006) tinkering towards accolades: school gaming under a performance accountability system. Working paper 12286. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
15.
De BruijnH (2002) Managing Performance in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.
16.
De KoolD (2008) Rational, political and cultural uses of performance monitors: the case of Dutch urban policy. In: Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 174–91.
17.
DunnMJonesC (2010) Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: the contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967-2005. Administrative Science Quarterly55: 114–49.
18.
FitzgibbonJ (1997) The Value Added National Project: Report to the Secretary of State. Durham, NC: University of Durham/School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
19.
FrancisR (2010) Independent Inquiry into the Care Provided by Mid Stafforshire NHS Foundation Trust January 2005-March 2009, HC375-1. London: The Stationary Office.
20.
FriedlandRAlfordR (1991) Bringing society back in: symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In: PowellWDiMaggioP (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 232–66.
21.
GoddardMMannionRSmithP (2000) The performance framework: taking account of economic behaviour. In: SmithP (ed.), Reforming Markets in Health Care. Buckingham: Open University Press, 138–61.
22.
HammondK (1996) Human Judgement in Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error and Unavoidable Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
Healthcare Commission (2009) Investigation into Mid Stafforshire NHS Foundation Trust. London: Healthcare Commission, March.
24.
HoodC (2012) Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug: two hypotheses. Public Administration Review72(1): S85–S92.
25.
HoodCDixonR (2010) The political payoff from performance target system: no-brainer or no-gainer?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20: i281–i291.
26.
IngrahamPJoycePDonahueA (2003) Government Performance. Why Management Matters, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
27.
JacobsRGoddardMSmithP (2006) Public services: are composite measures a robust reflection of performance in the public sector?University of York, Centre for Health Economics, Research Paper 16, June.
28.
JohnstonCTalbotC (2008) UK parliamentary scrutiny of Public Service Agreements: a challenge too far? In: Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 157–73.
29.
KahnemanD (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
30.
KelmanSFriedmanJ (2009) Performance improvement and performance dysfunction: an empirical examination of the distortionary impacts of the emergency room wait-time target in the English National Health Service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(4): 917–46.
31.
KettlDKelmanS (2007) Reflections on 21st Century Government Management. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
32.
LaegreidPRonessPRubecksenK (2008) Performance information and performance steering: integrated system or loose coupling? In: Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 42–57.
33.
Le GrandJ (2003) Motivation, Agency and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
LodgeMHoodC (2012) Into an age of multiple austerities? Public management and public service bargains acrossOECD countries. Governance25(1): 79–101.
35.
MarchJ (1994) A Primer on Decision Making. New York: The Free Press.
36.
MartinSDowneJGraceCNutleyS (2013) New development: all change? Performance assessment regimes in UK local government. Public Money and Management32(3): 277–80.
37.
MaynardA (2008) Payment for performance (P4P): international experience and a cautionary proposal for Estonia. Health Financing Policy Paper, Copenhagen, Division of Country Health Systems, World Health Organization Europe.
38.
MeyerJGuptaV (1994) The performance paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior16: 309–69.
39.
Minister for Government Policy (2011) Open Public Services White Paper, Cm8145. London: The Stationary Office, July.
40.
MoynihanD (2008a) The Dynamics of Performance Management. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
41.
MoynihanD (2008b) Advocacy and learning: an interactive-dialogue approach to performance information use. In: Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 24–41.
42.
MoynihanD (2008c) The normative model in decline? Public service motivation in the age of governance. In: Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 247–67.
43.
NakrosisV (2008) Reforming performance management in Lithuania: towards results-based government. In: PetersGB (ed.), Mixes, Matches and Mistakes: New Public Management in Russia and the Former Soviet Republics. Budapest: OGI/LGI, 53–108.
44.
NemecJ (2007) Performance management in the Slovak higher education system: preliminary evaluation. Central European Journal of Public Policy1(1): 64–78.
45.
Ofqual (2012) GCSE English 2012. Ofqual report 12/5225. Coventry: Ofqual.
46.
PawsonR (2013) The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
PerryJHondeghemA (eds) (2008) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
PerryJVandenabeeleW (2008) Behavioral dynamics: institutions, identities and self-regulation. In: PerryJHondeghemA (eds), Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 56–79.
50.
PerryJEngbersTYun JunS (2009) Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research and the perils of persistance. Public Administration Review69(1): 1–31.
51.
PollittC (2004) Castles built on sand: agencies in Latvia. In: PollittCTalbotC (eds), Unbundled Government. A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis, 283–96.
52.
PollittC (2006) Performance management in practice: a comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(1): 25–44.
53.
PollittC (2008) Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
PollittC (2010) Simply the best? The international benchmarking of reform and good governance. In: PierreJIngrahamP (eds), Comparative Administrative Change: Lessons Learned. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 91–113.
55.
PollittC (2011) ‘Moderation in all things’: international comparisons of governance quality. Financial Accountability and Management27(4): 437–57.
56.
PollittC (ed.) (2013) Context in Public Policy and Management: The Missing Link?Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
57.
PollittCBouckaertG (2009) Continuity and Change in Public Policy and Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
58.
PollittCDanS (2011) The impacts of the New Public management in Europe: a meta-analysis. Working paper WP 3, COCOPS, December. URL: http://www.cocops.eu
59.
PollittCHarrisonSDowswellGJerak-ZuiderentSBalR (2010) Performance regimes in health care: institutions, critical junctures and the logic of escalation in England and the Netherlands. Evaluation16(1): 13–29.
60.
PollittCTalbotCCaulfieldJSmullenA (2004) Agencies: How Governments Do Things through Semi-Autonomous Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
61.
PropperCSuttonMWhitnallCWindmeijerF (2008) Incentives and targets in hospital care: evidence from a natural experiment. Bath, CMPO Working Paper 9.
62.
RadinB (2006) Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
63.
ReayTHiningsC (2009) Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies30(6): 629–52.
64.
SmithP (1995) On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration18: 277–310.
65.
SmithersR (2002) Schools cheat to boost exam results. Guardian, 5June, p. 1.
66.
SundströmG (2006) Management by results: its origin and development in the case of the Swedish state. International Public Management Journal9(4): 399–427.
67.
TalbotC (2010) Theories of Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68.
ThomasJ (1999) Quantifying the black economy: ‘measurement without theory’ yet again. The Economic Journal109: 381–98.
69.
ThorntonPOcasioWLounsburyM (2012) The Institutional Logic Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
TownleyB (1997) The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies18(2): 261–85.
71.
Transparency International (2012) Corruption Risks in the Visegrad Countries: Visegrad Integrity System Study. Hungary: Transparency International.
72.
Van ThielSLeeuwF (2002) The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review25(3): 267–81.
73.
Van de WalleSRobertsA (2008) Publishing performance information: an illusion of control? In: Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 211–26.
74.
Van DoorenWVan de WalleS (eds) (2008) Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
75.
VaroneFGiauqueD (2001) Policy management and performance-related pay: comparative analysis of service contracts in Switzerland. International Review of Administrative Sciences67(3): 543–65.
76.
VerhoestKVan ThielSBouckaertGLægreidP (eds) (2012) Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
77.
WeickK (2001) Making Sense of the Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
78.
WilsonJQ (1989) Bureaucracies – What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.
