How to foster collaborative performance management? Key factors in the US federal agencies

References

• Agranoff, R. 2006. “Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers.” Public Administration Review 66 (s1): 56–65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldrich, H. E., and J. Pfeffer. 1976. “Environments of Organizations.” Annual Review of Sociology 2 (1): 79–105. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayers, R. S., J. R. Malgeri, and J. E. Press. 2014. “Assessing Senior Performance Councils.” Public Performance & Management Review 38 (1): 152–186. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576380107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. 2014. The PerformanceStat Potential: A Leadership Strategy for Producing Results. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bellé, N. 2012. “Experimental Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Performance.” Public Adminisration Review 73 (1): 143–153. doi:10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.02621.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovens, M. 2007. “Analysing and Assessing Public Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.” European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovens, M., T. Schillemans, and P. T. Hart. 2008. “Does Public Accountability Work? An Assessment Tool.” Public Administration 86 (1): 225–242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00716.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brannick, M. T., D. Chan, J. M. Conway, C. E. Lance, and P. E. Spector. 2010. “What Is Method Variance and How Can We Cope with It? A Panel Discussion.” Organizational Research Methods 13 (3): 407–420. doi:10.1177/1094428109360993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brass, C. T. 2012. Changes to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Overview of the New Framework of Products and Processes. Washington, DC.: Congressional Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. L., and M. Potoski. 2003. “Transaction Costs and Institutional Explanations for Government Service Production Decisions.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 441–468. doi:10.1093/jopart/mug030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., F. S. Berry, and K. Yang. 2010. “The State of Public Strategic Management Research: A Selective Literature Review and Set of Future Directions.” The American Review of Public Administration 40 (5): 495–521. doi:10.1177/0275074010370361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, D. 2009. “So Why Ask Me? Are Self-Report Data Really That Bad.” In Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences, edited by C. E. Lance and R. J. Vandenberg, 309–336. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., and J. Lee. 2018. “Collaborative Data Networks for Public Service: Governance, Management, and Performance.” Public Management Review 20 (5): 672–690. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1305691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connelly, D. R., J. Zhang, and S. Faerman. 2008. “The Paradoxical Nature of Collaboration.” In Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management, edited by L. B. Bingham and R. O’Leary, 17–35. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, M., and C. James. 2006. “Collaboration for School Improvement: A Resource Dependency and Institutional Framework of Analysis.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 34 (1): 69–87. doi:10.1177/1741143206059540.
   Google Scholar
• Cristofoli, D., M. Meneguzzo, and N. Riccucci. 2017. “Collaborative Administration: The Management of Successful Networks.” Public Management Review 19 (3): 275–283. doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1209236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickinson, H., and H. Sullivan. 2014. “Towards a General Theory of Collaborative Performance: The Importance of Efficacy and Agency.” Public Administration 92 (1): 161–177. doi:10.1111/padm.12048. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubnick, M. 2005. “Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms.” Public Performance & Management Review 28 (3): 376–417. doi:10.2307/3381159.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, K., and T. Nabatchi. 2015. “Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A Performance Matrix.” Public Performance & Management Review 38 (4): 717–747. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erez, M., P. C. Earley, and C. L. Hulin. 1985. “The Impact of Participation on Goal Acceptance and Performance: A Two-Step Model.” Academy of Management Journal 28 (1): 50–66. doi:10.2307/256061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrer, J., J. E. Kee, K. E. Newcomer, and E. Boyer. 2010. “Public–Private Partnerships and the Public Accountability Question.” Public Administration Review 70 (3): 475–484. doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1540-6210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fountain, J. E. 2013a. Implementing Cross-Agency Collaboration: A Guide for Federal Managers. Washington, DC.: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Fountain, J. E. 2013b. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010: Examining Constraints to, and Providing Tools for, Cross-Agency Collaboration. Washington, DC.: Administrative Conference of the United States.
   Google Scholar
• Getha-Taylor, H. 2008. “Identifying Collaborative Competencies.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 28 (2): 103–119. doi:10.1177/0734371X08315434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollenbeck, J. R., and C. R. Williams. 1987. “Goal Importance, Self-Focus, and the Goal-Setting Process.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (2): 204–211. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxham, C., and S. Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, C. S., and G. Lee. 2013. “Goals, Strategic Planning, and Performance in Government Agencies.” Public Management Review 15 (6): 787–815. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klijn, E.-H., T. Ysa, V. Sierra, E. Berman, J. Edelenbos, and D. Y. Chen. 2015. “The Influence of Network Management and Complexity on Network Performance in Taiwan, Spain and the Netherlands.” Public Management Review 17 (5): 736–764. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.957340. Routledge.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koliba, C. J., R. M. Mills, and A. Zia. 2011. “Accountability in Governance Networks: An Assessment of Public, Private, and Nonprofit Emergency Management Practices following Hurricane Katrina.” Public Administration Review 71 (2): 210–220. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02332.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppenjan, J. F. M., and E. H. Klijn. 2004. Managing Uncertainties in Networks A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. London: Routledge. doi:0415-36941-X/0-415-36940-1.
   Google Scholar
• Kroll, A. 2015. “Drivers of Performance Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research.” Public Performance & Management Review 38 (3): 459–486. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1006469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latham, G. P., E. A. Locke, and M. Erez. 1988. “Resolving Scientific Disputes by the Joint Design of Crucial Experiments by the Antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham Dispute regarding Participation in Goal Setting.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (4): 753–772. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.753. American Psychological Association.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawler, E. E. 1994. “Total Quality Management and Employee Involvement: Are They Compatible?” The Academy of Management Executive 8 (1): 68–76. https://search.proquest.com/docview/210528176?accountid=14166
   Google Scholar
• Lee, D., M. McGuire, and J. H. Kim. 2018. “Collaboration, Strategic Plans, and Government Performance: The Case of Efforts to Reduce Homelessness.” Public Management Review 20 (3): 360–376. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1285113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, S., and E. P. White. 1961. “Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships.” Administrative Science Quarterly 5 (4): 583–601. doi:10.2307/2390622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham. 2002. “Building A Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey.” American Psychologist 57 (9): 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markovic, J. 2017. “Contingencies and Organizing Principles in Public Networks.” Public Management Review 19 (3): 361–380. doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1209237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw, K. O., and S. P. Wong. 1996. “Forming Inferences about Some Intraclass Correlation Coefficients.” Psychological Methods 1 (1): 20–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, M. 2006. “Collaborative Public Managment: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It.” Public Administration Review 66 (s1): 33–43. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., and J. Bohte. 2007. Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Milward, H. B., and K. G. Provan. 2006. A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks, 6–28. Washington, DC.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Mischen, P. A. 2015. “Collaborative Network Capacity.” Public Management Review 17 (3): 380–403. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.822527. Routledge.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, G. E., R. O’Leary, and C. Gerard. 2015. “Collaboration and Performance: Perspectives from Public Managers and NGO Leaders.” Public Performance & Management Review 38 (4): 684–716. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1031015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. 2013. The New Federal Performance System: Implementing the GPRA Modernization Act. Washington, DC.: IBM Center for The Business of Government. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/TheNewFederalPerformanceSystem.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., and I. Beazley. 2016. Toward Next-Generation Performance Budgeting: Lessons from the Experiences of Seven Reforming Countries. Washington, DC.: World Bank Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., and A. Kroll. 2015. “Performance Management Routines that Work? An Early Assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act.” Public Adminisration Review 76 (2): 314–323. doi:10.1111/puar.12434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., S. K. Pandey, and B. E. Wright. 2012. “Prosocial Values and Performance Management Theory : Linking Perceived Social Impact and Performance Information Use.” Governance 25 (3): 463–483. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01583.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohrstedt, D. 2015. “Does Adaptive Capacity Influence Service Delivery? Evidence from Swedish Emergency Management Collaborations.” Public Management Review 17 (5): 718–735. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.848921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, S. 2008. “Managing for Results across Agencies: Building Collaborative Capacity in the Human Services.” In Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management, edited by L. B. Bingham and R. O’Leary, 138–161. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Park, S., and E. T. Lake. 2005. “Multilevel Modeling of a Clustered Continuous Outcome: Nurses’ Work Hours and Burnout.” Nursing Research 54 (6): 406–413. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16317362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2011. “Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It.” Annual Review of Psychology 63 (1): 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popp, J. K., H. Brinton Milward, G. Mackean, A. Casebeer, and R. Lindstrom. 2014. “Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice.” http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Inter-Organizational Networks_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K. G., and R. H. Lemaire. 2012. “Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice.” Public Administration Review 72 (5): 638–648. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02595.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., and G. A. Marcoulides. 2015. “Intraclass Correlation Coefficients in Hierarchical Design Studies with Discrete Response Variables: A Note on A Direct Interval Estimation Procedure.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 1–8. doi:10.1177/0013164414564052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romzek, B. S., K. LeRoux, J. Johnston, R. J. Kempf, and J. S. Piatak. 2014. “Informal Accountability in Multisector Service Delivery Collaborations.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (4): 813–842. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romzek, B. S., K. Leroux, and J. M. Blackmar. 2012. “A Preliminary Theory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors.” Public Administration Review 72 (3): 442–453. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02547.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvia, C., and M. Mcguire. 2010. “Leading Public Sector Networks: An Empirical Examination of Integrative Leadership Behaviors.” The Leadership Quarterly 21: 264–277. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skelcher, C., and H. Sullivan. 2008. “Theory-Driven Approaches to Analysing Collaborative Performance.” Public Management Review 10: 751–771. doi:10.1080/14719030802423103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, A. M., J. L. Perry, and T. K. Miller. 2008. “Linking Collaboration Processes and Outcomes: Foundations for Advancing Empirical Theory.” In Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management, edited by L. B. Bingham and R. O’Leary, 97–120. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, K., L. de Chernatony, L. Arganbright, and S. Khan. 1999. “The Buy-In Benchmark: How Staff Understanding and Commitment Impact Brand and Business Performance.” Journal of Marketing Management 15 (8): 819–835. doi:10.1362/026725799784772684.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2008. Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2011. Government Performance: GPRA Modernization Act Provides Opportunities to Help Address Fiscal, Performance, and Management Challenges. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2012. Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2013a. Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Programs Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance Management. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2013b. Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2013c. Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges. Washington, DC. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655541.pdf
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2014a. Managing for Results: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2014b. Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups. Washington, DC. : U.S. Government Printing Office.https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660952.pdf
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2016a. Managing for Results: Agencies Need to Fully Identify and Report Major Management Challenges and Actions to Resolve Them in Their Agency Performance Plans. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office 2016b. Managing for Results: OMB Improved Implementation of Cross-Agency Priority Goals, But Could Be More Transparent About Measuring Progress. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., G. Bouckaert, and J. Halligan. 2015. Performance Management in the Public Sector. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vangen, S. 2017. “Culturally Diverse Collaborations: A Focus on Communication and Shared Understanding.” Public Management Review 19 (3): 305–325. doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1209234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vangen, S., J. P. Hayes, and C. Cornforth. 2015. “Governing Cross-Sector, Inter- Organizational Collaborations.” Public Management Review 17 (9): 1237–1260. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.903658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verkuil, P. R., and J. E. Fountain. 2014. “The Administrative Conference of the United States: Recommendations to Advance CrossAgency Collaboration under the GPRA Modernization Act.” Public Administration Review 74 (1): 10–11. doi:10.1111/puar.12175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2003. Managing Collaboration in Public Administration: The Promise of Alliance among Governance, Citizens, and Businesses. Westport: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, E. P., and A. M. Khademian. 2008. “Wicked Problems, Knowledge Capacity Builders in Network Challenges, Settings and Collaborative.” Public Administration Review 68 (2): 334–349. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt, L. A. 1998. “Enhancing Organizational Goal Congruence: A Solution to Organizational Politics.” Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (4): 666–674. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zients, J. D. 2009. “Statement before the Budget Committee United States Senate.” https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/testimony/Zients_102909.pdf
   Google Scholar