Chapter2006

Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration

Rhys Andrews · George A. Boyne · Richard M. Walker

183 citations0/0 files storedCambridge University Press eBooks

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Public Policy and Administration Research Accounting and Organizational Management Public Administration in Developing Nations

Abstract

Introduction Governments around the globe now seek to judge the performance of their public services. This has given rise to the introduction of a range of complex and sophisticated regimes to provide information to politicians, managers and the public on organizational success or failures. Examples include an index of measures of performance of Chinese cities (China Daily 2004), the Comprehensive Performance Assessment in English local government (Audit Commission 2002), the Government Performance Results Act 1992 in the US, the Service Improvement Initiative in Canada, the Putting Service First scheme in Australia, Strategic Results Area Networks in New Zealand, Management by Results in Sweden, and Regulation of Performance Management and Policy Evaluation in the Netherlands (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004). Researchers have increasingly turned their attention to public service performance (e.g., see the Symposium edition of Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2005 (Boyne and Walker 2005), on the determinants of performance in public organizations). Despite such progress, a persistent problem for public management researchers and practitioners has been the conceptualisation and measurement of performance. Previous research has shown that organizational performance is multifaceted (Boyne 2003; Carter et al . 1992; Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983; Venkatraman and Ramanujuam 1986). This is because public organizations are required to address a range of goals, some of which may be in conflict. Consequently, public organizations are obliged to focus attention on multiple dimensions of performance. Boyne's (2002) review of these dimensions isolated five conceptual categories – outputs, efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness and democratic outcomes.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 183 citations exist upstream.

References

1973Rank Correlation Methods 2004Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis 1986Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches 1983A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis 1984Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately‐held firm and conglomerate business unit 2014An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis 1996THE IMPACT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE.1971Rank Correlation Methods.

Cited by

2021The Expectancy‐Disconfirmation Model and Citizen Satisfaction with Public Services: A Meta‐analysis and an Agenda for Best Practice 2022Serving citizens 2008Strategy Formulation, Strategy Content and Performance 2009The Impact of Red Tape on Governmental Performance: An Empirical Analysis 2013I Think (I Am Doing Well), Therefore I Am: Assessing the Validity of Administrators' Self-Assessments of Performance

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.