In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• 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. Performance management doctrine views managerial authority and the existence of performance 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 configuration , 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 organizations for noneffective goals such as maintaining political power; rewarding political supporters, friends, and relatives, or personal enrichment. The spoils system in U.S. government exemplified such characteristics.The spoils system was responded to by the introduction of rules that limited how public officials could use their human and financial resources. By limiting managerial authority, governments created traditional bureaucracies, as represented by box 2 of figure 2.1. According to performance management doctrine, two shortcomings of the bureaucratic model are that managers still lack a focus on effectiveness and lack the authority to improve service provision.Therefore, performance management doctrine 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 identifica32 Chapter Two tion helps match incentives to authority and program knowledge to responsibility . Diagnostic control systems capable of measuring results and ensuring goal congruence 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 outputs the system requires.18 Thompson argues that the major difference between the private sector benchmark organizations promoted by the NPM and public organizations is the nature of the control system.19 Control systems of successful private organizations are primarily built to facilitate the achievement of results. Avoidance 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 remarkably sparing of detail, often consisting of not more than a handful of quantitative 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 alternative , 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 certain 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...

Share