Perversity in public service performance measurement

Abstract

PurposeTo discuss some of the reasons why performance measurement systems in public services can lead to dysfunctional consequences even when people operate with the best of intentions.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws together literature from the UK public sector, from writers in performance measurement and from cultural insights in anthropology to understand why some of these perverse effects occur.FindingsThough many reasons are cited for public service performance measurement regimes, it is clear that control aspects dominate the others. This, when allied to an unthinking use of cybernetic metaphors, is what can lead to dysfunctionality.Originality/valueThe paper should appeal to those who wish to improve the performance of performance measurement systems in public services and to those who wish to understand why things can go wrong.

When will we ever learn ?

“…Th e types of behaviour that promote negative eff ects are oft en referred to as dysfunctional, perverse, unethical or unintended (e.g. Ridgway 1956;Perrin 1998;Van Th iel and Leeuw 2002;Pidd 2005;Ordóñez et al 2009;Fryer et al 2009), even though they would in fact be regarded as both rational and anticipated if organisational and decision-making theory were applied.…”

The Optimal Maintenance Strategy in BMS considering Probability of Measuring Error

“…The higher the impact, the higher the propensity for strategic behaviour. Such behaviour may lead to perverse effects and unwanted outcomes (Pidd, 2005;Smith, 1995). The higher the impact the higher the required quality of the indicators.…”

Managing Performance in the Defense Sector: Cases of the Italian Army and Us Navy Surface Warfare Enterprise

“…As is the case with many government organizations, the internal information system uses a cash-based accounting system rather than a system based on costs. In addition to problems of accuracy and systematic errors, leaders suspect two other critical factors of performance measurement related to two dysfunctional behaviors [14,39]. The first behavior, sub-optimization, results when individuals and suborganizations optimize performance in their own parts of the organization, but do not properly integrate processes among different functions.…”