Relevance to panel and conceptual frame
This paper explores the potential of the role of trust as an alternative Performance Management logic in the public sector. The paper traces the role of trust in Performance Management logic for public servants: from Public Choice Theory (Buchanan and Tullock 1962) through to New Public Management (Hood 1991) and beyond, to an emerging new paradigm which responds more effectively to complexity (Houdsen 2016; Lowe and Wilson 2016).
The paper then explores the impact of the recognition of complexity and the behaviour of complex systems on the Performance Management of the Public Sector. From this starting point, it then explores the role of trust in developing complexity-friendly performance management approaches, contributing to the development of new conceptual approaches in this area. To do this, it draws on existing literature on both interpersonal trust (Dietz & Hartog 2006) and organizational trust (Fulmer & Gelfand 2012; Ellonen et al. 2008) to explore how different dimensions of trust map onto commissioning and Performance Management practice.
Significance of the work
The paper’s conceptual work contributes to the development of a new paradigm for public sector management, responding to Houdsen’s (2016) call for work in this area. It does this by exploring the relationship between complexity approaches (Byrne & Callaghan 2014) and dimensions of interpersonal and inter-organisational trust.
Research questions and method
The conceptual frame is explored using qualitative research interviews with organisations who (a) fund and (b) deliver social interventions, who exemplify the new, complexity-friendly funding and Performance Management paradigm. The research explores the extent to which they recognise and respond to complexity in their work, and what role trust plays in their funding and Performance Management mechanisms.
Results
The paper uses this conceptual framework to present information gained from research interviews with those who fund and Performance Manage a range of social interventions, exploring what this emerging new paradigm looks like in practice.
References
Buchanan, J. and Tullock, G. (1962) The Calculus of Consent. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc.
Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014), Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art, London: Routledge
Dietz, G. & Hartog, D.N. Den, 2006. Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), pp.557–588.
Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K. & Puumalainen, K., 2008. The role of trust in organisational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2), pp.160–181.
Fulmer, C.A. & Gelfand, M.J., 2012. At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple organizational levels,
Housden, P. (2016) Rethinking Public Services, Centre for Public Impact
Lowe, T and Wilson, R. (2016) ‘The performance management of social interventions in complex systems’, Conference paper delivered at IRSPM April 2016, Hong Kong.
I4 - Trust-based Management in Public Sector. In Public Managers We Trust?
