Innovating the routine? Signs of evolving organizational performance in surveys of federal managers

Abstract

Insufficient achievement of performance management in the federal government is widely acknowledged, despite the absence of an accepted way for determining when and how progress has been made. The process of maturation is traced through a model based on Stinchcombe’s innovation framework, enabling progress toward utilization of performance management to be gauged. The premise of this model is that change has to permeate the organization, reaching the level of routines, to be implemented operationally. Assessment of performance management maturity employs a match between the obstacles expected in the distinct stages of adoption and implementation and the hindrances federal agencies have encountered. Quantitative analysis of data provided by pooled Government Accountability Office surveys of federal managers points to activity at the adoption stage, but not at the implementation stage, calling into question the maturity of the performance initiative.

Holding employees accountable for the accomplishment of organizational goals: The case of the u.s. federal government

“…Furthermore, there are likely capacity gaps in GPRArelated strategic planning and performance reporting capacity, making it more difficult to link individual performance to agency performance. Federal managers do not use performance information at a high rate, and agencies frequently rely on contractors to draft strategic plans and performance reports (Moynihan, 2008;Gibson, 2012). If the knowledge of strategic performance is held outside the agency, it is more difficult to make alignment in appraisal a substantive process that is seen as meaningful.…”

“…Importantly, adoption of a policy does not necessarily mean that it is fully implemented and integrated into regular management routines (Feiock & West, 1993;Gibson, 2012). For example, an agency may adopt a policy as a symbolic gesture in response to external pressure, while a more substantive response of complete implementation may follow from task pressures (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990;Schloz & Wei, 1986).…”

The art of orienteering small firms’ innovation

“…From this point of view, it consists of the: “[ … ] adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and establishment of new management system” (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010, p. 1155). Therefore, beyond the introduction of new products and services (Berends et al , 2014; Carlborg et al , 2014; Pikkemaat and Zehrer, 2016), the renewal of organizational processes is also relevant when innovation issues are taken into consideration (Gibson, 2012). In fact, process innovation paves the way for the achievement of new and sustainable sources of competitive advantage, which allow enhancing the long-term viability of organizations (Gallego et al , 2013).…”