Master Public Administration

Chapter2.pdf

Home >Government homework help >Master Public Administration

2 Performance Management as Doctrine

What does performance management actually mean, and what does it hope to achieve? This chapter examines the basic claims made in performance manage- ment doctrine. These claims serve as a theoretical standard against which evidence on the actual implementation of performance management and alternative theo- ries can be compared. The key claim that applies to government organizations is that two mutually dependent reforms should be adopted: Managers should be given more flexibility in human resources and budgeting matters but held ac- countable by quantitative performance standards.

One of the defining tensions of the intellectual development of public adminis- tration is between the field as a social science and as a professional activity under- taken in a highly politicized environment. Frequently, decisions on running public organizations are made on the basis of what Hood and Jackson have described as “administrative arguments” or “doctrines.”1 Such doctrines are ideally suited to pol- icy choices in a political context. Doctrines are a theoretical explanation of cause and effect, often presented as factual and widely applicable. Doctrines are designed to prompt actions consistent with this explanation. Proponents of public administra- tion based on social science have exposed such doctrines as contradictory.2 Yet this style of argumentation persists, and the history of public administration is replete with examples of management doctrines, often of a very similar nature.3 As these doctrinal arguments find supporters, they become movements that seek to reform government. This persistence is due, in part, to the demand-driven nature of pub- lic sector reform. Practitioners and elected officials constantly seek suggestions on improving public organizations, and they rarely differentiate between knowledge derived from social science and plausible argument.4

Performance management closely fits the categorization of management doc- trine, employing many of the rhetorical tools of administrative argument.5 Per- formance management doctrine gives a sense of symmetry by offering generic

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 8. G eo rg et ow n Un iv er si ty P re ss . Al l ri gh ts r es er ve d. M ay n ot b e re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 11/14/2013 3:26 PM via LINDENWOOD UNIV AN: 228430 ; Moynihan, Donald P..; The Dynamics of Performance Management : Constructing Information and Reform Account: 092-800

solutions to the perceived weaknesses of traditional public organizations. This doc- trine also offers a prescriptive theory of cause and effect for how public organiza- tions should be run, resulting in a series of policy options that demand implementation. Traditional public organizations are portrayed as inefficient and ineffective, focused on maximizing inputs and rendering compliance. Existing man- agement systems are to blame for the undesirable state of public organizations. The doctrine promises a more efficient, effective, results-driven public sector.

The credibility of doctrinal claims relies on the credibility of the warrants that underlie these claims.6 The doctrine of performance management draws from a number of schools of thought, most notably New Public Management (NPM), but also strategic management and management accounting and control. Per- formance management doctrine is also closely intertwined with political rhetoric on the state of government and the underlying assumption that the public sector can be made more efficient and effective.

The Doctrine of Performance Management

Some basic assumptions are associated with the doctrine of performance manage- ment:

• Government is inefficient. • Government can transform itself to become more efficient. • The poor performance of government is of major consequence in terms of

fiscal health and public trust in government. • Government can and should make more rational decisions. • Performance information will improve decisions and can be used to foster

accountability.

Explicitly or implicitly these assumptions underlie every speech a politician gives calling for results-oriented government and every proposal that reformers de- sign to the same end. Setting aside the question of whether such broad assump- tions are accurate for all, or even most public agencies, these assumptions are entrenched and widely accepted by those who seek to reform government. For in- stance, let us look at the Findings and Purposes section (see box 2.1) of the federal Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which enjoyed bipartisan sup- port and became the model of performance management for state governments.

Like many of our attitudes about governments, the assumptions reflected in the text of GPRA are tenaciously held, though uninformed by a systematic assessment of evidence. They operate at the level of faith or belief, rather than knowledge or

Performance Management as Doctrine 27

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

understanding. This makes them all the more powerful since they are difficult to refute on the basis of evidence. The reformist ethic that emerges from these beliefs is almost immune to evidence that reform efforts consistently fail, therefore en- couraging round after round of performance management reforms.7

That such assumptions have the status of belief does not mean they are discon- nected from ideas or theories. Scholarship and practitioner claims on performance management make a series of claims that allow us to better understand the per- formance management doctrine. These claims offer a simplified narrative about the problems associated with traditional public organizations, the remedies needed, and what these remedies will bring about. Depending on the source do- mains of these claims, there is some variation between the doctrine presented but not a great deal. We will examine these claims in turn.

Claims about Traditional Public Management Organizations

The doctrinal claims about traditional public organizations might be summarized as follows. Traditional public management systems provide only certain types of

28 Chapter Two

Box 2.1 Government Performance and Results Act, section 2

(a) Findings. —The Congress finds that — (1) waste and inefficiency in Federal programs undermine the confidence of the Amer-

ican people in the Government and reduces the Federal Government’s ability to address adequately vital public needs;

(2) Federal managers are seriously disadvantaged in their efforts to improve program efficiency and effectiveness, because of insufficient articulation of program goals and inadequate information on program performance; and

(3) congressional policymaking, spending decisions and program oversight are seri- ously handicapped by insufficient attention to program performance and results.

(b) Purposes. — The purposes of this Act are to — (1) improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of the Federal

Government, by systematically holding Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results;

(2) initiate program performance reform with a series of pilot projects in setting pro- gram goals, measuring program performance against those goals, and reporting publicly on their progress;

(3) improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction;

(4) help Federal managers improve service delivery, by requiring that they plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with information about pro- gram results and service quality;

(5) improve congressional decisionmaking by providing more objective information on achieving statutory objectives, and on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of Federal programs and spending; and

(6) improve internal management of the Federal Government.

Source: Congressional Record

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

information that act to discourage efficiency. Managers have weak incentives to focus on performance, and they lack the basic goals and data that would focus their attention there. Instead, managers are provided with a list of inputs—bud- geted appropriations—that they are obliged to spend on. Financial controls are centered on controlling these inputs, ensuring that money is spent for the purpose for which it is allocated. Managers lack the discretion to reallocate the money they have been allocated, even if it could mean more effective and efficient achievement of goals. Personnel controls reinforce financial controls, restricting the ability of the manager to make decisions about human resources.

Public managers are essentially inwardly focused, concerned with rule compli- ance rather than goal compliance and short-term issues.8 Koteen links this nonfo- cus on results to the rigidity of existing public management systems: “Government and other nonprofit processes too often focus on observing proper and uniform procedure rather than achieving results . . . the focus is on input, not output.”9

In any case there are no personal or organizational incentives to deviate from ex- isting controls toward more efficient performance. Instead, disincentives exist. Sav- ings made because of efficient budget execution will not be retained by the agency, but reappropriated to the entire government. In making budget proposals, agency administrators are likely to seek more than they need to cover costs and then spend down what money remains before the end of the budget cycle to avoid losing un- spent appropriations and receiving lower allocations in the future. The definition of accountability underpinning these control systems is legal compliance, probity, and error avoidance, not goal achievement, technical efficiency, or program effec- tiveness.10 Informal systems, reflected in organizational cultural artifacts of language and symbols, reinforce these values.11 In short, the public sector seeks management expertise but curbs the use of discretion through both formal management controls and the informal culture that develops around those controls.

Claims about Changes Required: Building Performance Information Systems

Given the critiques of the traditional management systems, what does performance management doctrine tell us about changing these systems? Moving from an ad- ministrative culture of compliance, error avoidance, and presumed inefficiency to a more efficient and effective public service requires multiple changes to existing formal systems. The first is to create a performance information system. The cre- ation of performance information is not a new innovation, with performance measurement in U.S. public management at least a century old.12 From this per- spective, what makes performance management conceptually distinct from sim- ple performance measurement is the effort to link measurement with strategic

Performance Management as Doctrine 29

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

planning into a single connected system, illustrated in figure 1.1. Administrative goals should be specified through some sort of formal strategic planning. Short- term strategic goals are intended to be consistent with longer-term strategic plans for the organization. These short-term goals form the basis of a performance con- tract agreement between elected officials and senior administrators. Goals are de- fined in measurable terms, with ex-post performance compared with ex-ante targets. Administrators face responsibility for achieving performance goals and are rewarded accordingly. Applying strategic planning will direct attention to results, the external environment, and the needs of stakeholders. Resource allocation will become more strategic and made on a longer-time planning horizon. Strategic goals provide standards for excellence and a basis for control and evaluation.

Figure 1.1 represents a simple model of how a performance management sys- tem improves governmental decision making and performance. Evidence from American state governments suggests wide acceptance (if not always actual imple- mentation) of this model. In reporting to the Government Performance Project, states repeatedly emphasized strategic planning and performance measurement as related activities intended to feed into multiple decision venues and improved quality of decisions. Virginia, for example, described its Performance Management System as “comprised of four, linked processes: strategic planning, performance measurement, program evaluation, and performance budgeting . . . these processes are designed to work together to manage the performance of state government.” Florida explained its Performance Accountability System as the “framework to en- sure the critical link is maintained between the strategic plan, budget, and per- formance measures.” Louisiana’s management processes move from “planning to budgeting to implementation to evaluation (or accountability), back to planning and so on. All processes are linked; each builds upon the one that precedes it and contributes to the one that follows. No matter where you enter the circle, you will eventually move through all the processes.” Texas described its system as “an inte- grated comprehensive system of statewide and agency strategic planning, per- formance measurement, performance-based budgeting, and performance reporting, assessment, evaluation and auditing.”

States with more limited experience in performance management do not seem any less in pursuit of the model illustrated in figure 1.1, simply less far along the road to implementing it. For example, Alabama described its system in ways sim- ilar to other states. Its Strategic Plan and Performance Measurement System “con- nects the strategic goals to specific actions and performance measures by the agencies” and “communicates strategic objectives clearly, links objectives to an- nual budgets, provides a common methodology and framework for all agency per- formance efforts.” The state of Washington illustrates the desire to link performance data with decision venues: “What we are trying to achieve in Wash-

30 Chapter Two

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

ington is a system whereby all types of decisions are routinely informed by per- formance and planning information, in addition to traditional factors, such as competing priorities, organizational capacity, financial reality, and stakeholder and public opinion.”

Claims about Changes Required: Managerial Authority

If the first recommendation of performance management doctrine is to build a per- formance information system, the second is to encourage its use through expand- ing the zone of managerial authority. This second aspect of the performance management doctrine is frequently absent from older treatments of performance management, such as calls for performance budgeting in the 1949 Hoover Com- mission, more technical treatments of how to foster performance management, or private sector treatments of performance management that assume private sector levels of managerial discretion.13 But this claim is present in more recent treat- ments of public management, particularly the NPM.14 The essential underlying logic of this claim is that the constraints imposed by traditional public organiza- tions have limited the ability of managers to make positive changes. Even if they have perfect information about their operations and have a strong desire to bring about performance improvement, their ability to reorganize human and fiscal re- sources is limited by traditional managerial controls. Should such controls on in- puts be relaxed in favor of controls on outputs, managers will be more likely to perform better.

Financial management and human resource systems in the NPM benchmark countries—the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia—were significantly decentralized to achieve this increase in managerial authority.15 In line with the contractual approach, administrative motivation was based on clear responsibility and linking achievement of goals to monetary incentives and job security. This tac- tic required the elimination of centralized civil service rules regarding tenure, pro- motion, and pay. Managers were given similar employer authority as private sector counterparts. Appropriations, the price tag for the services agreed upon in the per- formance contract, were aggregated. The main limitation on management use of resources was therefore the size of the appropriation, not specific line items. Man- agers were also allowed to maintain unspent funds to eliminate the incentive for end-of-year spending.

Schick’s summary of NPM ideas illustrates the central focus of reform ideas on performance improvement, which is assumed to occur when

• managers have clear goals, with results measured against these goals. • managers are given flexibility in using resources.

Performance Management as Doctrine 31

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

• operational authority is devolved from central agencies and agency HQ to operating levels and units.

• government decisions and controls focus on outputs and outcomes rather than on inputs and procedures.

• managers are held accountable for the use of resources and the results produced.16

Schick’s characterization of NPM ideas is interactive, illustrating how NPM ideas depend on one another to work and are not simply a menu of independent prescriptions. Flexibility and operational authority are increased in return for an accountability based on results.

These NPM arguments are inherent to performance management doctrine. Per- formance management doctrine views managerial authority and the existence of per- formance information that provides a focus on results as the two key variables that shape management systems. The different configurations of these two variables are illustrated in figure 2.1. Performance management doctrine interprets the history of public management as a gradual and logical transition from prebureaucratic spoils systems (box 1) to bureaucratic systems (box 2) to performance-oriented systems (box 3). Box 4 represents a constrained performance system, where managers have limited authority but are expected to produce results. Chapter 3 will argue that this configuration is closest to the reality that public managers in the United States face. For the moment, however, we will focus on the other boxes in figure 2.1, since they represent the logic of performance management doctrine.

Prebureaucratic systems are represented in box 1 of figure 2.1. In this configu- ration, the combination of high levels of managerial authority with lack of a focus on results creates the potential for public officials to usurp the power of public or- ganizations for noneffective goals such as maintaining political power; rewarding political supporters, friends, and relatives, or personal enrichment. The spoils sys- tem in U.S. government exemplified such characteristics. The spoils system was re- sponded to by the introduction of rules that limited how public officials could use their human and financial resources. By limiting managerial authority, govern- ments created traditional bureaucracies, as represented by box 2 of figure 2.1.

According to performance management doctrine, two shortcomings of the bu- reaucratic model are that managers still lack a focus on effectiveness and lack the authority to improve service provision. Therefore, performance management doc- trine argues that the next stage is to replace controls over inputs or process with managerial authority while developing performance information systems that can be used to hold managers accountable for results. This performance management ideal-type is represented by box 3 of figure 2.1. In such a system, the part of the organization with primary responsibility for a goal is identified.17 This identifica-

32 Chapter Two

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

tion helps match incentives to authority and program knowledge to responsibil- ity. Diagnostic control systems capable of measuring results and ensuring goal con- gruence between different levels of goals become critical. These systems leave it up to employees to figure out how to juggle inputs and processes to achieve the out- puts the system requires.18 Thompson argues that the major difference between the private sector benchmark organizations promoted by the NPM and public organ- izations is the nature of the control system.19 Control systems of successful private organizations are primarily built to facilitate the achievement of results. Avoid- ance of error or malfeasance is of secondary consideration. The opposite is true in the public sector. A comparison of budgets is illustrative:

Operational budgets in the federal government are highly detailed spending or resources-acquisition plans that must be scrupulously executed just as they were approved. In contrast, operating budgets in benchmark organizations are re- markably sparing of detail, often consisting of not more than a handful of quan- titative performance standards. This difference reflects the efforts made by the benchmark organizations to delegate authority and responsibility down into the organization. Delegation of authority means giving departmental managers the maximum feasible authority needed to make their units productive or, in the al- ternative, subjecting them to a minimum of constraints.20

The goal for benchmark organizations is to make operational budgeting into a form of responsibility budgeting, where a manager is responsible for achieving a cer- tain performance standard or standards. In contrast, public budgeting emphasizes

Performance Management as Doctrine 33

Figure 2.1 How managerial authority and focus on results create different management systems

High managerial authority

Low managerial authority

Low focus on results

Box 1. Prebureaucratic systems Focus on goals other than performance or rule probity (political spoils, personal enrichment).

Box 2: Bureaucratic systems High focus on inputs and little incentive or authority to increase technical efficiency.

High focus on results

Box 3: Performance management ideal-type Managers have clear goals and authority to achieve goals. This should lead to program effectiveness, higher technical efficiency, and results-based accountability.

Box 4: Constrained performance system Demand for results, but managers lack authority to engineer change, limiting performance improvement and results- based accountability.

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

the use of inputs rather than the achievement of results: In other words, operating managers have no authority to acquire or use assets. But without authority, they can- not properly be held responsible for the performance of the administrative units they nominally head.21

NPM ideas were sometimes repackaged by U.S. public management writers, most commonly as “reinvention” or as reforms to the budgeting process but with the same recommendations for performance management. For instance, Osborne and Gaebler’s widely read manifesto for government reform, Reinventing Govern- ment, employs NPM principles:

• Steering Rather Than Rowing: This claim suggests that the public actors who set goals (elected officials or those who work most closely with them, political appointees, or central agency actors) should not be the ones implementing these goals. Critical to this claim is the assumption that government priorities should and can be set in terms of strategic goals, with measures of those goals sufficiently clear that they can be used to manage other actors implementing goals. This assumption is also clear in other reinvention prescriptions such as the call to inject competition into service delivery, even within quasi-market settings where public organizations are competing with the private sector or each other.

• Transforming Rule-Driven Organizations: Osborne and Gaebler see public organizations as traditionally focused on compliance with rules and on the amount of resources they receive. They call for organizations and employees to be guided by organizational mission and goals rather than rules or budgets, requiring an increase in managerial flexibility and discretion to align mission with actions, elimination of rules that prevent alignment of mission and behavior, and the use of mission and strategic goals to motivate employees rather than rule compliance.

• Funding Outcomes, Not Inputs: To encourage a focus on the goals of an organization, budgeting and other systems of monetary reward, including pay or bonuses, should be linked to performance.

• From Hierarchy to Participation and Teamwork: Traditional bureaucracies are too hierarchical, removing decision-making power from those with a close knowledge of management problems and processes. Decision making needs to be decentralized in a way that provides substantially more discretion in the hands of managers.22

Clearly, the above principles call for strategic planning and performance meas- urement, which act as a means by which to set organizational goals, as well as mo- tivate, judge, and reward performance. The need for increased managerial authority

34 Chapter Two

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

is reflected in the calls for employee flexibility, more decentralized decision making, and less reliance on formal rules. The benefits claimed of this increased authority will be improved performance as employees make better-informed decisions and reengineer existing management processes.

The Promise of Performance Management: Claims about Improvement

If governments adopt the recommended reforms of performance management doctrine, what benefits are they promised? Performance management doctrine claims a variety of positive benefits, including improved resource allocation, im- proved responsiveness of bureaucrats to elected officials, enhanced accountability to the public, and improved efficiency.23 This section describes those claims, which are summarized in table 2.1. Chapters 3 and 5 return to these claims to see how well they have been achieved in practice.

Allocative efficiency is “the capacity of government to distribute resources on the basis of the effectiveness of public programs in meeting strategic objectives.”24 It es- sentially refers to the pursuit of better decisions in allocating resources and therefore applies particularly to budgeteers and elected officials. Performance management doctrine proposes to increase allocative efficiency by providing a process whereby in- formation on goals is generated through strategic planning and levels of performance through performance measurement. Greater knowledge about the performance of programs and process allows more informed allocation decisions. Budgeteers and elected officials, less concerned with tracking how money is spent, have more time to focus on providing allocations according to strategic goals, observing whether these goals are achieved, and holding managers accountable for results.25

Performance management doctrine claims it can facilitate a new approach to ac- countability in the public sector, one based on the achievement of measurable re- sults. The prospect of result-based accountability is one of the most frequently mentioned positive benefits of performance management, but it is often left un- explored. There are two main ways to consider how performance management might change accountability. External accountability of the government to the pub- lic changes accountability because the public now has greater information available on the level of performance of the government the people fund. Performance man- agement also provides the opportunity for the public to influence public goals through citizen participation in strategic planning or assessment of services.

The second type of accountability is internal accountability of bureaucrats to elected officials. Without performance information, bureaucrats can exploit their information advantage over elected officials in a number of ways, including lack of responsiveness, work shirking, and budget maximization. Performance infor- mation systems allow elected officials to specify the goals they wish to achieve and

Performance Management as Doctrine 35

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

makes transparent the success or failure of public organizations over time. Elected officials gain an improved ability to direct public services, ascertain bureaucratic performance, and make decisions as a result.

Internal accountability may simply mean the availability of performance infor- mation, enabling elected officials to keep a performance scorecard and fostering oversight accountability. Another type of internal accountability is the ability of elected officials to direct, through setting of strategic goals, the policies and activ- ities of bureaucrats or exert policy control. Performance information facilitates the achievement of this benefit by creating a goal-setting process that is transparent and can be controlled by senior officials. Policy control essentially assumes a top- down relationship between elected officials and appointees and bureaucrats. The justification for such a top-down relationship is based on the normative dimension of democratic control and is particularly present in economic theories of public or- ganizations, which emphasize elected officials reasserting control over bureaucrats by focusing on performance goals rather than inputs.

36 Chapter Two

Table 2.1 The doctrinal benefits claimed by performance management

Benefit claimed How benefit will occur

Allocative efficiency

Accountability of government to the public

Accountability of bureaucrats to elected officials

Technical efficiency

• Budgeteers will incorporate performance information in making better budget decisions, reflected by greater allocative efficiency in the distribution of resources.

• Performance information available for use. • Public better informed about performance of public institutions. • Potential for public involvement in setting goals and evaluating

performance.

• The policy goals of elected officials are translated into lower level goals that direct the actions of agency-level employees.

• Performance information makes the performance of programs become transparent.

• When bureaucrats are given control over goals, the introduction of performance information allows elected officials to hold them responsible for performance.

• Performance information provides transparency of productivity, making shirking more difficult and facilitating a top-down pressure to perform.

• Decision makers have greater knowledge about the performance of programs and processes. Such single-loop learning informs decisions about process reengineering.

• As managers are granted increased authority, they can employ their functional knowledge with single-loop learning for a greater number of process reengineering and performance improvement opportunities.

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Results-based internal accountability can be taken a step further, to imply an- swerability for performance. Responsibility accountability means holding agencies or individual managers responsible for achievement. If responsibility accountabil- ity is dependent on having requisite authority, it logically requires matching levels of authority over resources with responsibility.

Improved technical efficiency targets the actions of managers. By offering a set of ex-ante objectives, managers will have clear direction as to what they are trying to achieve. Performance information provides transparency of productivity, making shirking more difficult and facilitating a top-down pressure to perform. Managers, stifled by traditional management controls, can improve productivity once they are given greater authority in managing assets and employees. By reducing input-based controls in favor of a focus on results, managers will have the flexibility, combined with their expertise and judgment, to spend the money more effectively than can be mandated by central budgeteers or the legislature. Greater managerial knowl- edge about the performance of programs and processes allows informed manage- ment decisions. Decisions that exploit knowledge and improve productivity through reengineering are more likely to occur where managers have authority to undertake change. Increasing managerial authority is, therefore, linked to greater use of performance information to improve productivity.

Performance management doctrine calls for removing existing disincentives and creating positive incentives for improved technical efficiency. Allowing carry- overs of unspent money gives agencies an incentive to be more efficient with re- sources.26 Some performance management systems use explicit rewards tied to the achievement of specific goals, but such experimentation has primarily occurred among contracting relationships, and pay-for-performance systems have had a mixed record within traditional government bureaucracies. 27

Conclusion

This chapter has summarized the claims of performance management doctrine. This doctrine promises that by following its prescriptions, public organizations can reorganize themselves to move from an inefficient past to a results-driven future. The following chapters examine just how realistic this vision is.

Notes

1. Hood and Jackson, Administrative Argument. 2. Simon, Administrative Behavior.

Performance Management as Doctrine 37

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

3. Downs and Larkey, The Search for Government Efficiency. 4. Forrester and Adams, “Budgetary Reform through Organizational Learning.” 5. Hood and Jackson, “Key for Locks in Administrative Argument.” 6. Barzelay, “How to Argue about the New Public Management.” 7. Downs and Larkey, The Search for Government Efficiency. 8. Moore, Creating Public Value. 9. Koteen, Strategic Management in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, 15.

10. Stewart, “The Role of Information in Public Accountability.” 11. Miller, Rabin, and Hilldreth, “Strategy, Values, and Productivity.” 12. Williams, “Measuring Government in the Early Twentieth Century.” 13. Bouckaert, “Measurement and Meaningful Management”; Hatry, Performance Measure-

ment. 14. See, for example, Cothran, “Entrepreneurial Budgeting”; Gruening, “Origin and Theo-

retical Basis of New Public Management”; Keating and Holmes, “Australia’s Budgetary and Fi- nancial Management Reforms”; Osborne and Gaebler, Reinventing Government; Thompson, “Mission-Driven, Results-Oriented Budgeting”; Schick, “Opportunity, Strategy, and Tactics in Reforming Public Management.”

15. Barzelay, The New Public Management. 16. Schick, “Opportunity, Strategy, and Tactics.” 17. Hongren, Sundem, and Stratton, Introduction to Management Accounting, 10th ed. 18. Simons, Levers of Control, 165. 19. Thompson, “Mission-Driven, Results-Oriented Budgeting.” 20. Ibid., 94. 21. Ibid., 95. 22. Osborne and Gaebler, Reinventing Government. 23. Aristigueta, Managing for Results in State Government; Poister and Streib, “Strategic Man-

agement in the Public Sector.” 24. Schick, A Contemporary Approach to Public Expenditure Management, 89. 25. Grizzle, “Linking Performance to Decisions.” 26. Cothran, “Entrepreneurial Budgeting.” 27. About rewards tied to achievement, see Heinrich, “Organizational Form and Perfor -

mance.” On the subject of pay-for-performance systems, see the following: Ingraham, “Of Pigs in Pokes and Policy Diffusion”; Kellough and Lu, “The Paradox of Merit Pay in the Public Sec- tor”; VanLandingham, Wellman, and Andrews, “Useful, But Not a Panacea.”

38 Chapter Two

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .