Assessing performance in the public sector has led to several unintended consequences. These include the performance paradox, tunnel vision and “analysis paralysis”. A paper in Public Performance and Management Review argues these unintended consequences can:
The increased attention on public sector performance coincided with the new public management reforms of the 1980s. These reforms had two objectives:
The reforms also involved the adoption of private sector techniques to measure and improve performance such as the use of performance indicators. While the changes were fed by a strong belief in the measurability of performance in the public sector, this belief may have been simplistic.
Since the reforms were initiated, it is clear that public sector performance assessment is not without its problems or unintended consequences. One problem is performance information that is not reliable, valid and credible. This can be caused by wrong assumptions underlying the development of indicators and errors in measurement.
The use of performance indicators can also inhibit innovation. It can also lead to tunnel vision. This is where there is an emphasis on phenomena that can be quantified in the performance measurement scheme at the expense of unquantified aspects of performance.
Another unintended side effect is sub-optimisation where managers focus on narrow local objectives at the expense of broader organisational objectives. There can also be a fixation on single measures of success rather than the underlying performance objective.
The performance paradox refers to a weak correlation between performance indicators and performance itself. This phenomenon is caused by the tendency of performance indicators to run down over time. They lose their value as measurements of performance and can no longer discriminate between good and bad performers. As a result, the relationship between actual and reported performance declines.
Four factors cause the deterioration of performance indicators:
The paradox is not about performance itself but about the reports on performance. This can be unintentional or deliberate.
An unintended performance paradox can be the result of minimal accountability requirements. The fewer the number of performance indicators, the more difficult it becomes to obtain an accurate report of the performance.
A second cause is the elusiveness of policy objectives. Public policies often have many and sometimes contradictory goals. Consequently, performance indicators are usually not neutral but contested measures in the public sector. This ambiguity complicates the evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of policy implementation as it is difficult to determine which objectives are most important.
The chance of an unintended performance paradox occurring is enhanced by a strong emphasis on monitoring and efficiency within the organisation. Extensive use of performance indicators can create a situation in which agents learn what aspects of their work are important to the principal. By increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of those aspects, agents can game the performance system.
Public sector organisations can also deliberately evoke a performance paradox. For example, they can "sabotage" an audit when they consider it an act of distrust.
Organisations can also try to hide poor performance by misrepresenting or misinterpreting performance indicators. They can restrict performance reporting to parts of the organisation that are most efficient (sub-optimisation) or on short-term objectives.
It is not easy to trace a performance paradox in progress. Not only can it take different forms, it can also be the unintended result of a number of variables. These include:
Several strategies are available to trace a performance paradox. Ideally, a comparison of reported and actual performance is the best way. However, such a comparison is difficult to make because of the lack of comparative information.
Alternative methods are:
Performance assessment in the public can have several unintended consequences, threatening insight into levels of performance. To counteract these consequences, performance assessment systems should take into account the special characteristics of the public sector.
The contested nature of performance indicators requires:
A balance also has to be found between too much and not enough pressure to measure results.
The performance paradox in the public sector - Sandra van Thiel & Frans L. Leeuw, Public Performance and Management Review, January 2016
The original article is available via individual subscription to the journal or institutional access through a library service such as a university library, state library or government library.
Each fortnight The Bridge summarises a recent piece of academic research of relevance to public sector managers.
SIGN UP FOR THE BRIDGE
Recent Research Briefs include: