Assessing performance-use preferences through an institutional logics lens

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-12-2017-0344
• Date: 14 January 2019
• Pages: 2-20
• Published date: 14 January 2019
• Author: Benard Ngoye,Vicenta Sierra,Tamyko Ysa
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

Assessing performance-use

preferences through an

institutional logics lens

Benard Ngoye

Center for Public Governance and Management,

ESADE Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain

Vicenta Sierra

Center for Business Network Dynamics,

ESADE Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain, and

Tamyko Ysa

Center for Public Governance and Management,

ESADE Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of shared cognitive frames, in particular, that of

institutional logics,on the deploymentand use of performancemeasurementsystems (PMSs) inthe public sector.

Design/methodology/approach –Using novel priming techniques derived from behavioral and social

psychology, three institutional logics –the public, market-managerial and professional logics –are

differentially surfaced in three independent experimental groups. The influence of these primed institutional

logics on performance measurement use preferences are then empirically assessed using appropriate analysis

of variance techniques.

Findings –Contrary to theoretical predictions, the paper reveals logic congruence regarding some uses of

PMSs in the public sector, and divergence regarding others. Individuals applying a public logic were more

likely to propose performance measurement use for strategic planning or strategic alignment; while those

applying a professional logic were more likely to propose performance measurement use for learning,

compared to otherwise primed individuals.

Research limitations/implications –Considering the sample size and the novelty of the priming tools, it

is feasible that other potentially significant effects may have been missed.

Originality/value –The paper addresses a gap in literature regarding the influence of shared cognitive

frames on performance measurement use in public sector organizations. The paper further presents priming

techniques embedded within an experimental design as an appropriate method for the micro-level study of

attitudes, preferences and judgments in the public sector.

Keywords Performance measurement, Public sector, Experiment, Institutional logics,

Performance measurement systems, Priming

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Performance is a notion that has preoccupied public administration scholars for decades

(Amirkhanyan et al., 2013). It is considered essential that public sector organizations

perform, and further that they measure and communicate this performance to key

stakeholders (Henman, 2016). Performance measurement, that is, the “enumeration of

organizational or system level processes, outputs and outcomes”(Henman, 2016), in the

public sector, is however not easy given the need to address multiple dimensions and to

satisfy multiple constituents (Amirkhanyan et al., 2013).

This idea of performance measurement serving many purposes is not new (e.g. Atkinson

et al., 1997). Nonetheless, its study has been largely overlooked in empirical research that

has instead focused on performance measurement system (PMS) design and implementation

(Henri, 2006; also, Fryer et al., 2009; Moynihan and Pandey, 2010), and on whether, why and

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 32 No. 1, 2019

pp. 2-20

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-12-2017-0344

Received 10 January 2018

Revised 2 March 2018

4 May 2018

Accepted 11 May 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

2

IJPSM

32,1

how information generated by the PMS is used (e.g. De lancer Julnes and Holzer, 2001;

Moynihan and Ingraham, 2004; Moynihan and Pandey, 2010; Hammerschmid et al., 2013;

Kroll, 2015). Furthermore, the sparse extant research on PMS use has predominantly

focused on enumerating the different uses (e.g. Behn, 2003; Franco-Santos et al., 2007) and on

identifying the outcomes and consequences of such use (e.g. Spekle and Verbeeten, 2014),

but not on the factors that influence PMS use. And so, beyond the few studies as exemplified

by Henri (2006) on the relationship between organizational culture and the nature of PMS

use, there is a paucity of empirical literature on whether and how similarly shared

perspectives or cognitive frames influence PMS use in public sector organizations.

Accordingly, our specific interest is on institutional logics –the shared, socially

constructed decision-making frames (Friedland and Alford, 1991), that “influence opinions

by stressing specific values, facts and other considerations, endowing them with greater

apparent relevance to the issue than they might appear to have under an alternative frame”

(Nelson et al., 1997, p. 569). Though other authors have examined the influence of

institutional logics on the operationalization of PMS (e.g. Carvalho et al., 2006; Andersen and

Hjortskov, 2016; Rautiainen et al., 2017), much extant work is conceptual rather than

empirical, is focused on design, consequences and outcomes and not use, and is located at

the meso-organizational level of analysis and not the micro level (Micheli and Mari, 2014;

Henman, 2016). Yet, organizations are inhabited by individuals of varying backgrounds and

affiliations, who are tasked with implementing these PMS. And they may draw from

different institutional logics with potentially different emphases on PMS use in their

sense-making (Rautiainen et al., 2017).

The aim of this paper is therefore to analyze the link between institutional logics and the

deployment and use of PMS in the public sector. We hypothesize that each institutional logic

will make a specific set of issues about PMS use more salient, in comparison to those identified

by a different logic. Accordingly, individuals primed for an institutional logic will be

differentially biased regarding whether and why PMS should be introduced in the public sector.

This paper thus contributes to public sector performance measurement literature by

elaborating and nuancing the relationships between institutional logics and PMS use. In this

regard, we extend the work of Carvalho et al. (2006) and Rautiainen et al. (2017) by

examining an expanded set of reasons for PMS use, and by assessing the possibility of

institutional logics as drivers for these uses. Thus, for researchers, the study underscores

the importance of institutional logics as a lens through which public sector performance

measurement can be analyzed. The study also introduces novel experimental methodology

that can be exploited by researchers to better understand cognitive influences and

inter-personal interactions at the micro level. For practitioners, the study foregrounds the

question of whether and how to craft messaging to garner the support of organizational

stakeholders toward the operationalization of PMS in the public sector.

In the next section, we present a brief synopsis of the literature on PMS use and on

institutional logics, and further develop our hypothesis. We then describe the

experimental methodology used, present the study findings and discuss the results and

their possible interpretation.

2. Performance measurement use in the public sector

PMS serve different purposes for organizations. For example, Atkinson et al. (1997) classify

the roles of PMSs as coordination, monitoring and diagnosis. Building on this earlier work,

Henri (2006) identifies four types of PMS use: monitoring, attention-focusing, strategic

decision-making and legitimization. Also, Franco-Santos et al. (2007) identify and sort

17 different roles played by PMS in organizations into five broad categories: measurement

of performance, strategy management, communication, behavior-influencing and learning

and improvement. Conversely, regarding public management, Behn (2003) assumes a

3

Assessing

performance-

use preferences