This article discusses the principles and practices of pay determination for senior managers in the public sector. A central theme of the article is the analysis of performance-related pay (PRP) in the pattern of pay determination for this group. The discussion of this approach to pay is set in the context of New Public Management (NPM) and the emphasis on installing performance measurement and management as a central element in the ‘reform’ of public-sector services. The exemplary material is drawn from the United Kingdom, as it represents a national case in which NPM techniques have been applied over a quarter of century under successive governments. The article argues that while there are logical connections between PRP and performance measurement and management the practice of pay determination for senior public-sector managers is less coherent than such connections might suggest. The article locates the causes of such incoherence in the complexity of patterns of pay determination for senior public managers and the conceptual and methodological problems inherent in assessing the performance of public-sector services.
AndrewsR.BoyneG.LawJ.WalkerR. (2003) Myths, measures and modernisation: A comparison of local authority performance in England and Wales, Local Government Studies29 (4), pp. 54–75.
2.
AucoinP. (1990) Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums, Governance3 (2), pp. 115–37.
3.
BellE. (1999) Changing the ‘line of sight’ on payment systems: A study of shop-floor workers and managers within the British chemical industry, International Journal of Human Resource Management10 (5), pp. 924–940.
4.
BoyneG. (2003) What is a public service improvement?Public Administration81 (2), pp. 211–29.
5.
British Broadcasting Corporation (2003) Annual Report, 2003, at www.bbc.co.uk/annual report.
ClarkeJ.NewmanJ. (1997) The Managerial State. Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare (London, Sage).
10.
CutlerT. (2005) Managerialism avant la lettre? The debate on accounting in NHS hospitals in the 1950s, in BerridgeV.LoughlinK. (eds) Medicine, the Media and the Mass Market (London, Routledge).
11.
CutlerT.WaineB. (1997) Managing the Welfare State. Text and Sourcebook (Oxford, Berg).
12.
CutlerT.WaineB. (2004), ‘Performance’ without pay? Managing school budgets under performance-related pay: Evidence from the first year of PRP', Financial Accountability and Management20 (1), pp. 57–76.
13.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) Teachers. Meeting the Challenge of Change, Cm 4164 (London, Stationery Office).
14.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003) Evidence to the School Teachers' Review Body, at www.dfes.gov.uk.
15.
DunleavyP.HoodC. (1994) From old public administration to New Public Management, Public Money and Management14 (3), pp. 9–16.
16.
ErturkI.FroudJ.JohalS.WilliamsK. (2005) Pay for corporate performance or pay as social division: Rethinking the problem of top management pay in giant corporations, Competition & Change9 (1), pp. 49–74.
17.
FosterD.HoggettP. (1999) Change in the benefits agency: Empowering the exhausted worker?Work, Employment and Society13 (1), pp. 19–39.
HeeryE. (1996) Performance-related Pay in Local Government. A Case Study of the New Industrial Relations, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London School of Economics.
22.
HewittP. (2003) Foreword to ‘Rewards for Failure’. Directors' Remuneration – Contracts, Performance and Severance: A Consultative Document (London, Department of Trade and Industry).
23.
HoodC. (1991) A public management for all seasons, Public Administration69 (1), pp. 3–19.
24.
House of Commons (2003) Factsheet Ministerial Salaries, at www.parliament.uk.
25.
HuckmanL.HillT. (1994) Local management of schools: Rationality and decision making in the employment of teachers, Oxford Review of Education20 (2), pp. 185–197.
26.
JamesO. (2004) The UK core executive's use of public service agreements as a tool of governance, Public Administration82 (2), pp. 397–419.
27.
MarsdenD.RichardsonR. (1994) Performing for pay? The effect of merit pay on motivation in a public service, British Journal of Industrial Relations32, pp. 243–62.
28.
MarsdenD.FrenchS. (1998) What a Performance. Performance-related Pay in the Public Services (London, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics).
29.
MinogueK. (1986) Politics and the gross intellectual product, Government and Opposition21 (4), pp. 396–405.
30.
MurnaneR.CohenD. (1986) Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit plans fail and a few survive, Harvard Educational Review56 (1), pp. 1–17.
31.
O'DonnellM. (1998) Creating a performance culture? Performance-based pay in the Australian public service, Australian Journal of Public Administration57 (3), pp. 28–40.
32.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Employers' Organisation (2004) Pay and Workforce Strategy, at www.odpm.gov.uk.
33.
ParkinsonJ. (1994) Corporate Power and Responsibility. Issues in the Theory of Company Law Oxford, Oxford University Press).
34.
Police Leadership Development Board (2003) Progress Report. Getting the best Leaders to take on More Demanding Challenges, at www.policereform.gov.uk/ptdb.
35.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2000) Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
36.
PrescottJ. (2003) Speech to the Local Government Association, July, at www.odpm.gov.uk.
37.
ProctorS.McArdleL.HassardJ.RowlinsonM. (1993) Performance-related pay in practice: A critical perspective, British Journal of Management4, pp. 153–60.
38.
RandleK. (1997) Rewarding failure: Operating a performance-related pay system in pharmaceutical research, Personnel Review26 (3), pp. 187–200.
39.
Report of an Inquiry into Civil Service Pay I (1982) (Megaw report), Cmnd 8590 (London, HMSO).
40.
Royal Commission on the Civil Service (1955) Report (Priestley Commission), Cmnd 9613 (London, HMSO).
41.
Senior Salaries Review Body (1995) Seventeenth Report, Cm 2764 (London, HMSO).
42.
Senior Salaries Review Body (1998) Twentieth Report, Cm 3836 (London: Stationery Office).
43.
Senior Salaries Review Body (2001) Twenty-third Report, Cm 4995 (London, Stationery Office).
44.
Senior Salaries Review Body (2002a) Twenty-fourth ReportI, Cm 5389-I (London, Stationery Office).
45.
Senior Salaries Review Body (2002b) Twenty-fourth ReportII, Cm 5389-II (London, Stationery Office).
46.
Senior Salaries Review Body (2003) Twenty-fifth Report, Cm 5715 (London, Stationery Office).
47.
Times Higher Education Supplement (2004) Vice-chancellor and top academic pay, 20 February.
48.
Top Salaries Review Body (1988) Eleventh Report, Cm 359 (London, HMSO).
