Managing through measurement or meaning? Lessons from experience with New Zealand's public sector performance management systems

被引:19
作者
Norman, R [1 ]
机构
[1] Victoria Univ Wellington, Sch Business & Publ Management, Wellington, New Zealand
关键词
D O I
10.1177/0020852302684007
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
Comprehensive adoption of systems for managing for results as an alternative to procedure-based bureaucracy has earned the New Zealand public sector a reputation as the 'world's most advanced performance system' (Kettl, 2000: 7). Research with a cross-section of users of this system, now nearly 15 years old, reveals a variety of responses. True Believers support a current focus on measurement and think that more effort should be put into creating clearer, more observable measures that emphasise outcomes. Pragmatic Sceptics see reported measures as part of a new game of public management and at best a starting point for asking about the substance behind the form. Active Doubters believe that too much emphasis on measurement gets in the way of the 'real work' of developing relationship-based work in a political environment. Issues of meaning are seen to be more important than measurement for the further development of the system.
引用
收藏
页码:619 / 628
页数:10
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Performance monitoring in the Australian public service: A government-wide analysis [J].
Alford, J ;
Baird, J .
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT, 1997, 17 (02) :49-58
[2]  
[Anonymous], PERFORMANCE MANAGEME
[3]  
Blau PeterM., 1963, The Dynamics of Bureaucracy
[4]  
DRUCKER P, 1958, PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
[5]  
Ferlie E., 1996, The new public management in action
[6]  
Hood C., 1991, ADM ARGUMENT
[7]  
Kaplan R.S., 1996, BALANCED SCORECARD
[8]  
KETTL D, 2000, ASS PUBL POL MAN 22
[9]  
Kohn A., 1993, Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes
[10]   GOAL SETTING - MOTIVATIONAL TECHNIQUE THAT WORKS [J].
LATHAM, GP ;
LOCKE, EA .
ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS, 1979, 8 (02) :68-80