Combining ideal types of performance and performance regimes. An integrated framework of analysis of performance management systems for public organizations

• Published date: 03 October 2019
• Date: 03 October 2019
• Pages: 721-740
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2018-0246
• Author: Giorgio Giacomelli,Nora Annesi,Sara Barsanti,Massimo Battaglia
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management

Combining ideal types of

performance and

performance regimes

An integrated framework of analysis of

performance management systems for

public organizations

Giorgio Giacomelli, Nora Annesi and Sara Barsanti

Institute of Management and Department EMbeDS, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna,

Pisa, Italy, and

Massimo Battaglia

Department of Management, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the scholarship on public management models and to

advance the theoretical conceptualization of the complexity of performance management systems (PMSs).

The paper explores how the characteristics of PMSs vary within and across different organizational units in

common institutional context, based on the case of a regional authority in Italy.

Design/methodology/approach –A framework of analysis considering both objective and subjective factors

was derived from a combination of performance typologies in the public sector, namely ideal types of managing

performance (Bouckaert and Halligan, 2007) and performance regimes (Jakobsen et al., 2017). The combinationof

the characteristics of these two models across different Directorates General (DGs) has also been explored through

a nested case study (Starman, 2013). Data were gathered via a desk analysis of official documents regarding the

planning and programming of a regional authority along with in-depth interviews with top-level managers.

Findings –The results highlighted a clear differentiation of PMSs, both within and across DGs. The findings

of the study reveal the hybrid nature of PMSs within a common institutional context.

Originality/value –Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Bouckaert and Halligan (2007) and Jakobsen

et al. (2017), the paper provides an integrated approach for analysing PMSs, considering both objective and

subjective dimensions. Insights and indications for future research on hybridity at a meso level of public

organizations are highlighted.

Keywords Performance management systems, Performance ideal types, Performance regimes,

Public management

Paper type Research paper

Aim of the study

Public administrations, particularly those in western countries, have changed their

organizational structures, routines and management styles shifting from traditional models

derived from the Weberian approach (Dunleavy and Hood, 1994) to governance-like ones

(Bovaird and Löffler, 2009). This trend has changed its dynamics both in time and space

(Drechsler, 2010). In fact, even within the same country, scholars have highlighted a great

variation with regard to the level and characteristics of the implementation of different

public management models (Iacovino et al., 2015; Ongaro and Valotti, 2008).

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 32 No. 7, 2019

pp. 721-740

Emerald Publishing Limited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-11-2018-0246

Received 28 November 2018

Revised 9 April 2019

Accepted 16 July 2019

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

© Giorgio Giacomelli, Nora Annesi, Sara Barsanti and Massimo Battaglia. Published by Emerald

PublishingLimited. This article is publishedunder the CreativeCommons Attribution(CC BY 4.0) licence.

Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both

commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and

authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

721

Analysis of

PMSs for

public

organizations

Institutional crises tend to reveal the fuzziness of these dynamics and to emphasize

differences in response to local contingencies, though some common reactions may be

detected, such as a more centralized approach to decision making and greater political

control over the civil service (Peters, 2011). Continual reforms result in complex public

management models: features of previous models are not rejected, but rather complemented

by characterizing instruments of the new ones, through a layering process (Christensen and

Lægreid, 2011; Iacovino et al., 2015).

This paper explores how the simultaneous presence of multiple models impacts on public

organizations at a meso level, with specific reference to the characteristics of the

performance management systems (PMSs) of different units within a common institutional

context. It is reasonable to expect that unclear configurations of PMSs may emerge, based

on different combinations of specific factors (sectorial, administrative, organizational), even

within a common institutional context.

In line with the stream of research that challenges a “doctrinal”approach to PMSs

(Moynihan, 2008), this paper integrates theories on ideal types of management performance

(Bouckaert and Halligan, 2007) and performance regimes ( Jakobsen et al., 2017) in order to

explore the presence of mixed combination of PMSs in a common institutional context. To

this aim, a case study of a regional authority in Italy is presented and discussed, based on

the analysis of qualitative data.

The paper is structured as follows. The second section provides some preliminary

comments based on the literature on ideal types of managing performance and performance

regimes. The third section presents the methodological issues. The results of the analysis

are then reported in the fourth section. The fifth section discusses the results. Lastly, the

conclusions and suggestions for further research are reported in the sixth section.

Theoretical background

Performance management is generally expected to enhance the rationality of policy-making

and management (Van Dooren and Van de Walle, 2016) by exploiting an evidence-based

approach. It is also expected to support effective multi-level governance.

A PMS is usually defined as the set of tools for defining performance, measuring and

linking it to incentives and sanctions hierarchically provided, generally coupled with some

degree of managerial autonomy (Ketelaar et al., 2007) and embedded within certain

contextual schemes (O’Toole and Meier, 2015). PMSs improve management by providing

strategic focus, useful metrics, goals and incentives, and they improve accountability by

providing data on government performance (Forsythe, 2001). Despite such general goals

and expectations, PMSs have experienced historically situated evolution, moving from

traditional models aimed at appraising and controlling (individual) performance to

alternative ones eliciting internal learning (IL) (group) processes (Brudan, 2010). Recent

conceptualizations of PMSs tend to highlight the role of incentive schemes in supporting

reflective work practices and motivating employees (Saunila et al., 2015), as a necessary

response to evolving contextual demands (Greiling and Halachmi, 2013).

However, several scholars (De Bruijn, 2002; Fryer et al., 2009; Van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002)

have also stressed the risks of performance management, su ch as gaming, deviant behaviours

and increased internal bureaucracy, thus questioning a “normative”approach to performance

management. In order to manage the various challenges to implementation, such as competing

performance dimensions, rule constraints, organizational factors, inter-organizational factors,

technical barriers and resource constraints related to the risks listed above (Wholey, 2002),

some scholars have developed a theoretical discourse aimed at avoiding “one-size-fit-all”

approaches (Ohemeng, 2010) by including contextual factors (O’Toole and Meier, 2015).

This has been mirrored by the production of several interpretative schemes for PMSs

(Bouckaert and Halligan, 2007; Moynihan et al., 2011; Newcomer and Caudle, 2011;

722

IJPSM

32,7