Performance measurement scholarship sits at the intersection of a number of disciplines, including accounting, organizational behaviour, political science, psychology and sociology,. Performance measurement can be seen as... [ view full abstract ]
Performance measurement scholarship sits at the intersection of a number of disciplines, including accounting, organizational behaviour, political science, psychology and sociology,. Performance measurement can be seen as consisting of a series of links in a chain, from the political decision to introduce it (who wants it and why), to the choice of measurement system and institutions (how it is structured and managed), to what it values (what it measures and how), to what its effects are on organizations and individuals (desirable and undesirable consequences).
This paper argues that an intersecting set of theoretical considerations from the disciplines of political science, sociology and psychology, can advance our understanding of the less visible structures and effects of performance measurement in the public sector. I argue that it is fundamental to understand who wants performance measurement and why (politics). I then propose that performance measurement, in its implementation, can best be understood as the social structure arising from the interactions of institutional rules and individual responses to those rules, informed by both sociology and psychology.
Seeing actors and systems as fundamentally interlinked points to how public bureaucracies shape the incentives and opportunities of individual actors, through formal structures and rules, and the resources available. Actors still have freedoms to make choices (following Crozier), although they cannot fully know what the consequences of those choices will be (following Merton). The requirements of performance measurement also shape what is going on inside individuals’ minds, and sets up value and meaning systems. People soon discover what activities are rewarded, and then seek to do (or at least pretend to do) those things, based on their interpretations of what is valued about their work (following Lerner and Tetlock). This intersection points to a political and social structural view of performance measurement, which helps to uncover its effects.
Crozier, M (1980) Actors and systems. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lerner, J.S., and P.E. Tetlock. 1999. ‘Accounting for the effects of accountability.’ Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 255-275.
Merton, RK (1936) ‘The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action’, American Sociological Review 1:894-904.
