The paper "Challenges in Measuring Performance Management in the Public Sector" is a good example of management coursework. The contemporary political, social and economic climate is characterised by escalating demand from public funders and stakeholders for indications of achievements and impacts (Kendall and Knapp, 2000, p. 105). Van Dooren, Bouckaert and Hilligan (2010, p. 3) posit that the concept of performance in public organizations is intentional behaviour by public organizations to achieve success. There are various dimensions to performance management in public organizations some of which include value judgement, and quality of achievements. According to Heinrich (2002, p. 712), the increasing performance management activities in the public sector imply the increasing need for both accountability and effectiveness at all the levels of government.
However, research on public sector performance management also depicts significant challenges systems of performance measurements as policy tools for enhancing accountability and performance in public organizations (Heinrich, 2002, p. 712). This paper seeks to investigate how and to what extent performance management in the public sector has changed under contemporary managerial reforms. Additionally, this paper shall identify and examine the challenges in measuring the performance of public organizations and their implications. 2.0 How and To What Extent the Performance Management in the Public Sector Has Changed Under Contemporary Managerial Reforms 2.1 The Theory of Contemporary Managerial Reforms There are various initiatives which have influenced performance management in the public sector.
One such initiative revolves around what is referred to as the New Public Management (NPM) (Heinrich, 2002, p. 712). However, due to inefficiencies encountered with this model, other initiatives have also arisen some of which include public value and whole-of-government (WoG) initiatives. Despite the rise of these new public sector performance management initiatives, the bottom line is that they all converge at structural and organizational decentralization; single/one-purpose public organizations; as well as management of performance of public organizations (Christensen and Laegreid, 2007, p. 1059). 2.2 The Trends of Contemporary Managerial reforms in the Public Sector Contemporary managerial reforms in various OECD countries as well as elsewhere around the globe have revolved around the following trends (Rose, 1999).
Firstly, restructuring of the public sector which has been spearheaded by management techniques and practices such as review and restructuring of public organizations, privatization, decentralization, the establishment of executive agencies, corporatization (World Bank, n.d, p.1 to 5).
Secondly, reforms in financial management and budgetary allocations. These reforms have changed the performance management in the public sector through facilitating fiscal/financial decentralization, new systems of budgeting, adoption of more efficient expenditure control mechanisms, as well as fostering public organizations performance auditing (value for money) ((World Bank, n.d, p.1 to 5; Ling, 2002, p. 615). Thirdly are the reforms in the management of human/workforce resources. This has been achieved via the adoption of new systems of managing human resources performance, reclassification of services provided by public organizations, payment, rewards and promotion based on performance, lateral employee entry and contract-based appointments, as well as the establishment of senior executive services (Heinrich, 2002, p. 712).
Finally are the reforms in public service delivery. In order to achieve this objective, OECD member countries such as Australia, the UK and New Zealand among others have emphasized public-private partnerships (PPP) in service delivery; simplified regulations, procedures and rules; service charters; high standards if quality in public services provided; the use of information communication technology and electronic services; one-stop service counters; as well as consumer/client orientation in public service provision (World Bank, n.d, p.1 to 5).
Australian Public Service Commission. N.d. Leading and Shaping a Unified, High Performance APS. [Accessed June 11, 2013]. Available at: http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archived-publications/publications-archive/history-of-reform
Christensen, T. and Laegrreid, P. 2007, “The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform.” Public Administration Review, November/December 2007, pp. 1059-1066.
Heinrich, C.J. 2002, “Outcomes-based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and effectiveness.” Public Administration Review, 62(6), pp. 712-725.
Kendall, J. and Knapp, M. 2000, “Measuring the Performance of Voluntary Organizations.” Public Management, 2(1), pp. 105-132.
Ling , T. 2002, “Delivering Joined-Up Government in the UK: Dimensions, Issues and Problems.” Public Administration, 80(4), pp. 615-42.
Management Advisory Committee (MAC). 2004, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Manning, N. 2001, “The Legacy of New Public Management in developing countries.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 62(2), pp. 297-312.
Page , E. 2005, Joined-Up Government and the Civil Service . In “Joined-Up Government”, edited by Vernon Bogdanor, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Rose, A. 1999, “The Role of Administrative Review Bodies,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, 58(1), pp. 64-74.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. 2010, Performance Management in the Public Sector, Abingdon, Routledge.
World Bank. N.d. Overview of Public Sector Management Reform. [Accessed June 11, 2013]. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROADSHIGHWAYS/Resources/338993-1115316483571/3-public_sector_mgmnt_reform.pdf