Managing trough measurement or meaning? Lessons from experience with New Zealands public sector performance management systems.
Please note: This page may contain data in Norwegian that is not translated to English.
Author
Normann, Richard
Year
2002
Publisher
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68:4.Vol 68 (2002), 619-628.
Type of publication:
Tidsskriftsartikkel
Link to publication:
http://ras.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/68/4/619?ck=nck
Link to review:
http://ras.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/68/4/619?ck=nck
Number of pages:
11
Language of publication:
Engelsk
NSD-reference:
2476
This page was last updated:
2007-08-10 10:53:26.873
- Primærdata
- Kvalitativ
- Spørreskjema
- Intervju
- New Zealand
- 2.1 Formell styringsdialog
- Forskning
- Effektstudie/implikasjoner/resultater
- Kostnadseffektivitet
- Samfunnseffektivitet
- Staten generelt
Summary
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.