Performance improvement, culture, and regimes

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to better understand the performance improvement outcomes that result from the interaction of a performance regime and its context over more than a decade. Design/methodology/approach -A series of partial free disposable hull analyses are performed to graph variations in performance for 13 services in 444 municipalities in one province for over a decade. Findings -There are few examples of mass service improvements over time. This holds even for relative bottom performers, as they do not catch up to average municipalities over time. However, there is also little proof of service deterioration during the same period. Research limitations/implications -A limitation results from the high churning rate of the indicators. The relevance of refining indicators based on feedback from practitioners should not be dismissed, even if it makes the task of proving performance improvement more difficult. It is possible that the overall quality of services on the ground improved, or stayed stable despite diminishing costs, without stable indicators to capture that reality. Practical implications -Not all arrangements incentives and structures ofperformance regimesare equally fruitful for one level of government to steer a multitude of other governments on the generalized path to improved performance. Social implications -With the insight that was not available to public managers putting together these performance regimes in the beginning of the 2000s, the authors offer a proposition: mass performance improvement is not to be expected out of intelligence regime. It neither levels nor improves performance for all (Knutsson et al., 2012). Though there are benefits to such a regime, a general rise in performance across all participants is not one of them. Originality/value -Performance improvements are assessed under difficult, yet common characteristics in the public sector: budgetary realities where there are trade-offs between many 105 Performance improvement, culture, and regimes Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:41 22 June 2015 (PT) services, locally set priorities, no clear definition of what constitutes a good level of performance, and chang...

Public Sector Performance Assessment:

“…Among the internal factors, he lists management leadership and commitment, sufficient resources, organizational culture oriented toward the performance evaluation, employee commitment, and maturity in terms of experience. It is important to understand that a measurement strategy is rarely completely satisfactory: each system has strengths and weaknesses, and not every model is useful for a given structure (Jääskeläinen, & Laihonen, 2014;Charbonneau, et al, 2015).…”

“…Another tool suggested by the literature to promote excellence in public service is total quality management, whereas performance management requires much more than working within a budget: it considers specific metrics in developing public services (Kanji, Moura, & Sá, 2007;Tomazevic, et al, 2015). The methods of data envelopment analysis and statistical regression in general are often used (Montesinos, & Sudden, 2009;Lin, & Tan, 2013;Otto, & Schlager-Weidinger, 2014;Park, 2014;Charbonneau, et al, 2015;Tomaževič, et al, 2015). Regardless of the model adopted, it should be used as a tool designed for the specific needs of each organization in a specific time and context (West, & Blackman, 2015).…”

“…Regarding the strategic use of performance evaluation, Charbonneau et al (2015) emphasized the need to analyze the particularities of each context. Public policies are distinct; as such, they call for different evaluation and measurement systems.…”

“…Public policies are distinct; as such, they call for different evaluation and measurement systems. The best way to manage what is measured needs to be considered: no single, general way exists to improve organizational performance (Charbonneau, et al, 2015).…”

Measuring Performance: Case of Lithuanian Municipalities

“…Simons (2000) points out that performance measurement and control systems are formal, information-based routines and procedures managers use to maintain or alter patterns in organizational activities. In all, Charbonneau, Bromberg and Henderson (2015), point that performance in the public sector is complex. Governments serve a number of stakeholders and are held to account by a number of principles.…”