Strategies in Performance Management: A Balance between Control and Flexibility

In recent years, the paradigm of performance measurement within public organizations has undergone significant transformation, as indicated by Adler [1] and Hood [2]. This encompasses not only traditional service metrics, but also goals, objectives, and indicators. The evolution of performance measurement extends beyond simply measuring performance, and instead involves a crucial shift towards converting performance data into meaningful information for informed decision-making. This shift has been highlighted by numerous scholars, including de Lancer Julnes and Holzer [3], Behn [4], Pollitt [5], Sanger [6], and Moynihan [7]. This progress signifies a noteworthy advancement from performance measurements to a broader domain of performance management. Extensive research, as noted by Moynihan [8], Poister [9], and Kuhlmann [10], has confirmed the widespread adoption of performance measurement as a common managerial tool, both in the United States and globally. The central question arises: How do performance data drive organizations beyond a fundamental accountability framework? Performance management provides an answer to this question by outlining a process in which public officials utilize this information to inform decisions related to the day-to-day complexities of program management and contribute to higher-level policy discussions at the strategic level. This expanded focus on performance management within the public sector has the potential to enrich the field of public administration research by encouraging scholars to explore the organizational aspects that support and facilitate this advancement in performance. The transition from performance measurement to performance management presents two significant aspects that add complexity to the paradigm change. First, establishing robust outcome measures is crucial for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. Research indicates that public organizations are more likely to adopt performance management when moving from simple output measures to advanced metrics that assess efficiency and effectiveness. However, given the difficulties in defining and obtaining high-quality data, the challenge lies in identifying and tracking the impact measures. Addressing this challenge requires cultural transformation and the adoption of methodologies that foster policy coordination and strategic learning. Additionally, this shift necessitates governments to recognize and incorporate outcomes and impact measures that are often overlooked by traditional performance management systems. This change emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach that extends beyond conventional metrics to capture the multifaceted dimensions of organizational performance fully. A second essential aspect of transitioning from performance measurement to performance management is determining the optimal blend of organizational dimensions that inspires public officials to integrate performance measures into their decision making. The incorporation of leadership is a critical organizational dimension that fosters a culture of performance management in which data-driven decision-making is deeply ingrained in organizational ethos. The field of public administration is making commendable progress in this area by examining outcome measures and organizational dimensions with the goal of offering valuable insights and guidance to public organizations. This is aimed at helping these organizations achieve the best possible return on investment from the implementation of performance management practices.

This endeavor aims to expand the understanding of performance management in public administration by examining the intricacies of performance management strategies within diverse organizational cultures. The purpose of exploring these intricacies across various organizational contexts is to discern shared patterns and distinctions that transcend the paradigm shift from performance measurement to performance management. This approach not only allows for the identification of practical strategies employed to aid public officials in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery but also provides valuable insights into the nuanced ways in which these strategies contribute to informed decision-making in the public sector. However, it is essential to recognize that numerous public sector organization managers express their dedication to New Public Management (NPM) practices by implementing highly formalized structures, often adhering to a uniform, one-size-fits-all approach, reminiscent of Weber’s [11] bureaucratic model. This model, characterized by hierarchical authority, restricted employee discretion, emphasis on a high division of labor, incentive-based rewards, and extensive rules and procedures, continues to pervade the public sector despite the emergence of more contemporary approaches.

It is curious that public-sector managers, such as Apple and Google, often overlook or disregard lessons from private sector firms known for their creativity and innovation. These successful private enterprises typically favor less-formalized structures, and the same public sector managers appear to be unaware or have forgotten that the New Public Management (NPM) philosophy, with its emphasis on “customer service,” often advocates decentralized service delivery models. In these models, employees who directly interface with customers are granted greater decision-making authority. This oversight reflects a paradox in which public-sector managers, in their pursuit of NPM practices, unintentionally embrace structures that diverge from the flexibility- and innovation-driven approaches employed by their private-sector counterparts. It is noteworthy that an increasing number of Fortune 500 companies are moving away from highly structured and centralized approaches such as annual employee performance evaluation programs. Companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Accenture are among those leading this trend, aiming to shift emphasis from retrospective control and evaluation to fostering opportunities that support and empower workers to enhance their future performance. By contrast, public organizations are progressively gravitating toward formal, centralized structures characterized by retrospective and quantitatively focused performance measurements, which can be detrimental to the well-being of employees, as highlighted by Kallio [12]. Therefore, transitioning from performance measurement to performance management presents a challenge for public managers, particularly those prone to micromanagement. It is essential to exercise caution and resist temptation in order to prescribe excessive control measures. An overabundance of control measures in a performance management system can impede employees’ ability to perform critical organizational tasks, particularly in organizations that prioritize innovation. A performance management system characterized by an “in triplicate” mentality can stifle creativity and hinder an organization’s ability to innovate. The level of control within an organization must be precisely calibrated to ensure that the organization remains aligned with its objectives while also preventing fraudulent and unethical behavior. The goldilocks principle is applicable in this context, advocating for a balance that is neither too lax nor excessively stringent in terms of performance management. What is needed is an optimal, “just right” amount of oversight. Establishing this equilibrium is crucial for organizations seeking to strike the right balance between control and flexibility, fostering a conducive environment for sustained innovation and employee engagement.

1. Adler RW (2023) Strategic performance management. Accounting for organizational control. Routledge, New York, USA.
2. Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 68(1): 3-19.
3. de Lancer Julnes P, Holzer M (2001) Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review 61(6): 693-708.
4. Behn RD (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 63(5): 586-606.
5. Pollitt C (2003) The essential public manager. Open University Press, UK.
6. Sanger MB (2008) From Measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review 68(S1): S70- S85.
7. Moynihan DP (2013) Advancing the empirical study of performance management: What we learned from the program assessment rating tool. American Review of Public Administration 43(3): 499-517.
8. Moynihan DP (2008) The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press, USA, p. 264.
9. Poister TH, Streib G (1999) Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review 59(4): 325-335.
10. Kuhlmann S (2010) New public management for the classical continental European administration: Modernization at the local level in Germany, France, and Italy. Public Administration 88(4): 1116-1130
11. Weber M (1947) The theory of social and economic organization, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
12. Kallio K, Kallio TJ, Tienari J, Hyvönen T (2016) Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations 69(3): 685-709.