Performance Management, Challenges Facing and Complexity Theory

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Accounting Department, Islamic Azad University Kermanshah, Iran.

2 Lecturer in Accounting, Accounting Department, Payam Noor University, Iran.

Abstract

Weaknesses and problems related to performance measurement is not due to subsided interest in performance management, but due to side effects caused by the inappropriate application of performance management systems in public sector, which makes performance management a difficult and complex task for public sector managers. In this regard, in the first section of the article, difficulties of implementing managerial cheklists and budgetary control (especially governmental organizations) key indicators of performance, BSC and lean management (private sector's technologies used in the public sector) have been investigated and in the second part based on getting help from complexity theory, performance management of governmental organizations has been studied. This research using the results of previous researches and the library has examined this issue. Results indicate that performance management in the public sector is still a big problem and review of the current ways to prevent the negative effects of its application is necessary.

Keywords

References

  • امیرخانی، امیرحسین؛ فقیه، محمدباقر. (1391). ”بررسی میزان ناب بودن شرکت ایران خودرو براساس مدل جکسون و جونز“. مدیریت دولتی، دانشگاه تهران، 3 (4)، 30-19.
  • مادح حسینی، سیدمحمد؛ ناصرآبادی، دلیر. (1392). ”نقش تکنیک های حسابداری مدیریت در اجرای نظام حسابرسی عملکرد“. حسابدار رسمی، 21، 82-75.
  • مؤسسه مطالعات بهره وری و منابع انسانی. (1394). ”ارزیابی عملکرد دربخش دولتی: چالش ها و راه کارها“. قابل دسترسی در سایت:www.pogc.ir/portals/0/maghalat/890928.13.pdf
  • سارانی، فاطمه؛ سالارزهی، حبیب اله. (1389). ”از الگوی کارت ارزیابی متوازن تا الگوی سرآمدی سازمانی“. چهارمین کنفرانس ملی مدیریت عملکرد، تهران.

 

  • Armstrong, M. (2008). Performance Management: Key Strategies and Practical Guidelines. Philadelphia: Kogan Page Limited.
  • Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I. & Steccolini, I. (2015). “Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge”. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1-22.
  • Broadbent, J. & Guthrie, J. (2008). “Public sector to public services: 20 years of contextual accounting research”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2(21), 129-69.
  • Bouckaert, G. & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge.
  • Burrows, R. (2012). “Living with the h-index? metric assemblages in the contemporary Academy”. The Sociological Review, 2(60), 72-355.
  • CIMA. (2011). “Public sector performance: Global perspective”. http://www.cimaglobal.com.
  • Coen, D. & Roberts, A. (2012). “A new age of uncertainty”. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 1(25), 5-9.
  • Cuganesan, S., Guthrie, J. & Vranic, V. (2014). “The riskiness of public sector performance management: A review and research agenda”. Financial Accountability & Management, 3(30),  279-302.
  • Curristine, T. (2005). “Government performance: Lessons and challenges”. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(5), 127-51.
  • Curristine. (2007). “Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries (OECD)”.
  • Curristine, (2008). “Performance budgeting in OECD countries”. 6th Annual Meeting of Latin
  • Diefenbach, T. (2009). “New public management in public sector organisations: The dark Sides of managerialistic enlightenment”. Public Administration, 4(87), 892-909.
  • Ezzamel, M., Hyndman, N., Johnsen, A., Lapsley, I. & Pallot, J. (2007). “Experiencing institutionalization: The development of new budgets in the UK devolved bodies”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1(20), 11-40.
  • Frean & Lewis, L. (2010). “Toyota turned deaf ear to safety fears, congress told as carmaker says -sorry-”. The Times, 25-55.
  • Funnell, W. (2015). “Performance auditing and adjudicating political disputes”. Financial Accountability and management, 1(31), 92-111.
  • Gill, R. (2010). “Breaking the silence: the hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia”. In R. Flood and R. Gill (eds.), Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections, 228-44.
  • Hoggett, P. (1996). “New Modes of Control in the Public Service”. Public Administration, 1(74), 9-32.
  • Jackson, P. (1998). “The Management of Performance in the Public Sector”. Public Money & Management, 4(8),  11-16.
  • Kirkpatrick, I., Ackroyd, S. & Walker, R. (2005). The New Managerialism and Public Service Professions. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Lin, J. & Lee, P. (2011). “Performance management in public organizations: A complexity perspective”. International Public Management Review, 2(12), 81-96.
  • Likierman, A. (1993). “Performance indicators: 20 early lessons from managerial use”. Public Money & Management, 15-22.
  • Perrin, B. (2003). Implementing the Vision: Addressing Challenges to Results-Focused Management andBudgeting. OECD: Paris
  • Pettersen, I.J. (2015). “From metrics to knowledge? Quality assessment in higher education”. Financial Accountability & Management, 1(34), 23-40.
  • Pollit & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis(3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Power, M. (1997). Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: University Press.
  • Smith, P.C. & Goddard, M. (2002). “Performance management and operational research: A marriage made in heaven”. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(3), 247-255.
  • Shore, C. (2008). “Audit Culture and Illiberal Governance”. Anthropological Theory, 3(8), 98-278.
  • Talbot, C. (2010). “Performance in Government: The Evolving System of Performance and Evaluation Measurement, Monitoring and Management in the United Kingdom”. ECD Working Paper Series, 24.
  • UNISON (August, 2014). “Survey of Police Officers Morale”. http://www.unison.org.uk.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 November 2016
  • Revise Date: 22 January 2017
  • Accept Date: 22 January 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics