Do performance regimes influence how employees cope with pressure at work?

Public employees at the frontlines have considerable discretion in their work. At the same time organizations and political principals try to influence their behavior through performance management. To reduce demands employees... [ view full abstract ]

Public employees at the frontlines have considerable discretion in their work. At the same time organizations and political principals try to influence their behavior through performance management. To reduce demands employees employ coping mechanisms such as creaming and gaming (Lipsky 1980; Tummers et al. 2015). Studies have shown that performance regimes strongly focused on targets can result in more gaming behavior (Bevan & Hood 2006).

This paper sets out to gain insight in whether coping patterns vary under different performance regimes due to the different demands they impose. In a ‘public-accountability regime’ goals and targets are externally determined and linked to incentives. In a ‘professional-accountability regime’ goals are internally determined and there is no rewards-punishment system.

As opposed to focusing on classic, client-oriented and reactive, coping, we aim to broaden research in public administration to proactive coping in which employees aim to change environmental demands. In doing so we connect psychological insights on (proactive) coping with public management theory to gain more insight in how various coping behaviors are influenced by performance regimes. We expect the ‘public-accountability regime’ to have more reactive coping such as rationing, rule bending and focusing on tasks that are measured than the professional-accountability regime as there is less identification, discretionary space and influence in the former.

This study uses survey data from approximately 1200 employees working in 7 hospital wards included in a field trial that introduced a ‘professional-accountability regime’ and 7 control wards that are working under the general DRG-healthcare system. In 2014 the 7 wards were as an three-year trial exempt from the general performance regime, and we analyze the data gathered in 2015 after implementation while controlling for pre-trial characteristics. We are able to analyze patterns of various types of reactive (rationing, routinizing, rule breaking, gaming) and proactive (professional activation, speaking out) coping between the wards while controlling for individual self-efficacy from the pre-survey to accurately estimate the influence of performance regimes.


Literature:
• Bevan, G. & Hood, C. WHAT ’ S MEASURED IS WHAT MATTERS: TARGETS AND GAMING IN THE ENGLISH PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, Public Administration, 84(3): 517-538.
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Tummers, L.G., Bekkers. V.J.J.M., Vink, E. & Musheno, M. (2014). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, advance access