Exploring performance paradox in public organizations: Analyzing the predictors of distortive behaviors in performance measurement
| Author | Sungjoo Choi,Soonae Park |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211054876 |
| Published date | 01 June 2023 |
| Date | 01 June 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Exploring performance
paradox in public
organizations: Analyzing
the predictors of distortive
behaviors in performance
measurement
Sungjoo Choi
Kyung Hee University, Korea
Soonae Park
Seoul National University, Korea
Abstract
Scholars have argued that utilization of quantitative performance indicators by public
organizations could generate unintended consequences that might outweigh the benefits
of performance measurement. We examined the relationships between goal ambiguity
and external control, and distortive practices in performance measurement in public
organizations. The data from 47 agencies of the central and local governments in
Korea were analyzed using fixed-effect ordered logistic regression methods. The results
showed that goal ambiguity was positively and significantly associated with distortive
practices in performance measurement. Goal ambiguity may incentivize public employ-
ees to misuse performance information to obtain rewards for higher performance rat-
ings. Contrary to our expectation, reinforced external control was negatively and
significantly related to distortive behaviors in performance measurement. Higher
work autonomy was not significantly associated with manipulation of performance infor-
mation. Employees with higher intrinsic motivation were less likely to distort perform-
ance measures, whereas the ones with higher extrinsic motivation were more likely to
misuse performance information to achieve higher performance ratings.
Corresponding author:
Sungjoo Choi, Department of Public Administration, College of Politics and Economics, Kyung Hee University,
26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-701, Korea.
Email: sungjoochoi@khu.ac.kr
Article
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Sciences
2023, Vol. 89(2) 501–518
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00208523211054876
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Points for practitioners
To avoid the potential distortions in performance measurement, public managers should
adopt a refined measurement model of performance customized to the unique charac-
teristics of public services. Multiple sets of measures need to be developed and managed
properly to respond to complex political environments which involve different key
values and the stakeholders in the policy processes, and the nature of public service pro-
ducts and outcomes. Reinforced behavioral control in the process of measuring per-
formance will also be necessary.
Keywords
goal ambiguity, distortion, performance measurement
Introduction
Over the past several decades, performance measurement has been a central issue of per-
formance management in public organizations (Heinrich, 2003; Kelman and Friedman,
2009). Performance measurement has been used for multiple purposes: offering incen-
tives or rewards for higher performance, obtaining performance information to use for
performance feedback, and penalizing employees or making them more accountable
for not meeting performance goals (Heinrich, 2003; Kelman and Friedman, 2009).
Despite its usefulness, whether or not measuring performance is an effective tool to
encourage better performance of public organizations is still an ongoing debate in
public management (Goh, 2012; Kelman and Friedman, 2009). With some notable
exceptions
1
(e.g. Kelman and Friedman, 2009), scholars have expressed concern
that the indiscriminate use of performance information without sufficient knowledge
of the possible unexpected consequences could ultimately lead to negative results
(e.g. Dahler-Larsen, 2014; Franco-Santos and Otley, 2018). The problem could be
unusually serious in public organizations owing to unique characteristics that compli-
cate the measurement of organizational performance. Such organizations serve mul-
tiple principals, pursue a complex set of organizational goals, often face
unquantifiable outcomes and experience long time-lags between policy implementa-
tion and measurable outcomes (Kelman and Friedman, 2009; Propper and Wilson,
2003). In particular, developing and applying quantitative performance indicators
in public organizations could be counterproductive and make the potential unintended
consequences of performance measurement worse, thereby outweighing its benefits
(Smith, 1995; van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002).
Prior research has focused on how the distortive effects of measuring performance
could occur by analyzing relevant cases (e.g. Blau, 1963; Heinrich, 2003; van Thiel
and Leeuw, 2002) or has identified types of distortions (e.g. Hood, 2006; Smith,
1995). Kelman and Friedman (2009) have shown organizational outcomes of the use
of performance measurement in a public organization. However, less research has
502 International Review of Administrative Sciences 89(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial