Exploring Public Sector Communication Performance: Testing a Model and Drawing Implications

Abstract

Despite its importance to agency eff ectiveness, communication performance is an understudied topic. Th is is partly attributable to the " performance predicament, " which arises because costs of communication are easier to measure than its benefi ts. In this study, we develop and test an exploratory model of public sector communication performance that is synthesized from the literature on public -private diff erences and organizational communication. Th is model is statistically signifi cant and explains the variation in interpersonal, external, and internal communication performance. Th is is perhaps the largest empirical study on public sector communication to date. Our fi ndings have two key implications for public managers. First, the constraints of red tape on communication performance can be overcome if key performance-enhancing conditions -goal clarity without rigidity and a culture that supports communication -are in place. Second, external communication poses more challenges and may require additional eff ort.A long-standing assumption within administrative and organization theory is that sound communication leads to sound performance. In his classic work Th e Functions of the Executive , Chester Barnard pronounced, " Th e fi rst executive function is to develop and maintain a system of communication " (1938, 226). For Barnard, communication is not just an executive function -it is the fi rst, primary function. In another classic, Simon, Smithburg, and Th ompson acknowledged the crucial nature of communication to government performance: " Blockages in the communication system constitute one of the most serious problems in public administration " (1950, 229). Indeed, similar assertions about the salience of communication have been made in diverse literatures, including policy analysis crisis management (Pijnenberg and van Duin 1991).Despite the focus on and attention paid to communication in a number of domains, few studies have directly examined communication performance. Th is is partly the result of what Garnett (1997) calls the " performance predicament, " which he defi nes thus: " Th e costs of government communication are generally easier to measure than are its benefi ts, making it diffi cult to demonstrate a favorable performance ratio " (10). Certainly, there are exceptions to the performance predicament -major disasters, for example-in which the benefi ts of averting a disaster are easily demonstrated in retrospect, powerfully bring home the importance of communication performance. It has been shown that unreceived (or unheeded) warnings blocked or fi ltered through upward channels were instrumental to the 1986 Chernobyl radiation release (Lowernhardt and van den , were exacerbated because of faulty interorganizational communication.Although crises forcefully demonstrate the benefi ts of eff ective communication performance, communication performance is just as important for day-to-day operations. Yet the extant literature on communication performance -specifi cally, communication performance...

User acceptance of mobile e-government services: An empirical study

“…One of the most complex problems governments face is being able to communicate with their citizens anytime and anywhere. Several studies (Garnett, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2008;Melkers & Willoughby, 2005;Pandey & Garnett, 2006) have indicated that communication plays a large role in either mitigating performance problems or enhancing government performance.…”

Implementation and effects of user participation in playground management: a comparative study of two Swedish municipalities

“…The three organisational levels can be inserted into a playground management model ( Fig. 1), developed from existing models (Randrup and Persson, 2009) Randrup and Persson (2009). Internal and external communication are both claimed to be important in public sector strategic management and performance (Tourish and Tourish, 1996;Pandey and Garnett, 2006;Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). Involving users or other stakeholders through dialogue and participation forms part of public sector strategy formation (Bryson, 1995;Poister and Streib, 1999;Albrechts et al, 2003;Fernandez and Rainey, 2006), and can result in learning both for users and for management professionals, provided that they play an active role in the process (Joyce, 2000).…”

Introduction

“…In this sense, research perspectives that emphasize the significance of reputation helpfully shift the focus to the reality of political outcomes and the truth of who and what a leader and public policies are. Research being developed in the area of intangible assets in the public sector may contribute to this shift (Carmeli & Cohen, 2001;Cinca, Molinero & Queiroz, 2003;Pandey & Garnett, 2006;Luoma-aho, 2005Luoma-aho, , 2006Luoma-aho, , 2007Luoma-aho, , 2008Luoma-aho & Peltola, 2006; see also in the area of public administration studies Glenny, 2008;Bell, Hindmoor & Mols, 2010;Bevir 2011).…”

“…All this stresses the importance of certain values in the relationships that are established between governments and citizens such as transparency, trust, accessibility and responsiveness (see Pandey & Garnett, 2006;Roosbroek, 2006;Spencer & McGrath, 2006;Cloete, 2007;Fairbanks, Plowman & Raulins, 2007;Gaber, 2007;Zmerli & Newton, 2008;Greiling & Spraul, 2010;Kim, 2010;Salminen & Ikola-Norrbacka, 2010). Finally, looking at government communication from a multifaceted perspective poses the question of whether and how the purpose of governments when they communicate with citizens is directed towards democracy building.…”