1,699
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Articles

An empirical conceptualization of front line enablement by performance management

ORCID Icon
Pages 1658-1683 | Received 01 Sep 2022, Accepted 30 Apr 2023, Published online: 11 May 2023

References

  • Anderson, G. 2008. “Mapping Academic Resistance in the Managerial University.” Organization 15 (2): 251–270. doi:10.1177/1350508407086583.
  • Arnold, G. 2021. “Distinguishing the Street‐level Policy Entrepreneur.” Public Administration 99 (3): 439–453. doi:10.1111/padm.12703.
  • Ashworth, R. E., A. M. McDermott, and G. Currie. 2019. “Theorizing from Qualitative Research in Public Administration: Plurality Through a Combination of Rigor and Richness.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 29 (2): 318–333. doi:10.1093/jopart/muy057.
  • Botje, D., G. Ten Asbroek, T. Plochg, H. Anema, D. S. Kringos, C. Fischer and N. S. Klazinga. 2016. “Are Performance Indicators Used for Hospital Quality Management: A Qualitative Interview Study Amongst Health Professionals and Quality Managers in the Netherlands.” BMC Health Services Research 16 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1826-3.
  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  • Broadhurst, K., D. Wastell, S. White, C. Hall, S. Peckover, K. Thompson, A. Pithouse, and D. Davey. 2011. “Performing ‘Initial assessment’: Identifying the Latent Conditions for Error at the Front-Door of Local Authority Children’s Services.” British Journal of Social Work 40 (2): 352–370. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn162.
  • Brodkin, E.Z. 2011. “Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (2): i253–277. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq093.
  • Buffat, A. 2015. “Street-Level Bureaucracy and E-Government.” Public Management Review 17 (1): 149–161. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.771699.
  • Carey, M., and V. Foster. 2011. “Introducing ‘Deviant’ Social Work: Contextualizing the Limits of Radical Social Work Whilst Understanding (Fragmented) Resistance Within the Social Work Labour Process.” British Journal of Social Work 41 (3): 576–593. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq148.
  • Cecchini, M., and G. S. Harrits. 2022. “The Professional Agency Narrative—Conceptualizing the Role of Professional Knowledge in Frontline Work.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 32 (1): 41–57. doi:10.1093/jopart/muab021.
  • Cohen, N., and N. F. Aviram. 2021. “Street‐level Bureaucrats and Policy Entrepreneurship: When Implementers Challenge Policy Design.” Public Administration 99 (3): 427–438. doi:10.1111/padm.12755.
  • Custodial Institutions Agency. 2014. Regeling van de Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie van 10 februari 2014 houdende wijziging van de Regeling selectie, plaatsing en overplaatsing van gedetineerden in verband met de invoering van promoveren en degraderen van gedetineerden. Retrieved on 7 September 2021, from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2014-4617.html
  • Custodial Institutions Agency. 2016a. Handleiding Planning & Control 2017. Divisie Gevangeniswezen & Vreemdelingenbewaring. Unpublished internal organization document.
  • Custodial Institutions Agency. 2016b. Planning & Control 2017 Prestatie-indicatoren. Divisie Gevangeniswezen & Vreemdelingenbewaring. Unpublished internal organization document.
  • Custodial Institutions Agency. 2020. Functieomschrijving Penitentiair inrichtingsmedewerker (PIW’er). Retrieved on 7 September 2021 from: https://www.dji.nl/werken-bij-dji/documenten/publicaties/2020/03/17/functieomschrijving-penitentiair-inrichtingswerker-piw%E2%80%99er
  • Destler, K. N. 2017. “A Matter of Trust: Street Level Bureaucrats, Organizational Climate and Performance Management Reform.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 27 (3): 517–534.
  • Dias, J.J., and S. Maynard-Moody. 2007. “For-Profit Welfare: Contracts, Conflicts, and the Performance Paradox.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 17 (2): 189–211. doi:10.1093/jopart/mul002.
  • Elmore, R. F. 1979. “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions.” Political Science Quarterly 94 (4): 601–616. doi:10.2307/2149628.
  • Evans, T. 2011. “Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy.” British Journal of Social Work 41 (2): 368–386. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq074.
  • Evans, T., and J. Harris. 2004. “Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion.” British Journal of Social Work 34 (6): 871–895. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch106.
  • Gassner, D., and A. Gofen. 2018. “Street-Level Management: A Clientele-Agent Perspective on Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 28 (4): 551–568. doi:10.1093/jopart/muy051.
  • Gassner, D., A. Gofen, and N. Raaphorst. 2022. “Performance Management from the Bottom Up.” Public Management Review 24 (1): 106–123. doi:10.1080/14719037.2020.1795232.
  • Giacomelli, G. 2020. “The Role of Hybrid Professionals in the Public Sector: A Review and Research Synthesis.” Public Management Review 22 (11): 1624–1651. doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1642952.
  • Gofen, A. 2014. “Mind the Gap: Dimensions and Influence of Street-Level Divergence.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 24 (2): 473–493. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut037.
  • Gofen, A., and D. Gassner. 2022. “Delegating Power? Performance Management from a Process Perspective.” Governance 35 (2): 365–384. doi:10.1111/gove.12567.
  • Høybye-Mortensen, M., and P. Ejbye-Ernst. 2019. “What is the Purpose? Caseworkers’ Perception of Performance Information.” European Journal of Social Work 22 (3): 458–471. doi:10.1080/13691457.2017.1366427.
  • Hoyle, L. 2014. “‘I Mean, Obviously You’re Using Your discretion’: Nurses Use of Discretion in Policy Implementation.” Social Policy & Society 13 (2): 189–202. doi:10.1017/S1474746413000316.
  • Hupe, P., and A. Buffat. 2014. “A Public Service Gap: Capturing Contexts in a Comparative Approach of Street-Level Bureaucracy.” Public Management Review 16 (4): 548–569. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.854401.
  • Jakobsen, M. L., M. Baekgaard, D. P. Moynihan, and N. van Loon. 2018. “Making Sense of Performance Regimes: Rebalancing External Accountability and Internal Learning.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1 (2): 127–141. doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvx001.
  • Jensen, D. C. 2018. “Does Core Task Matter for Decision-Making? A Comparative Case Study on Whether Differences in Job Characteristics Affect Discretionary Street-Level Decision-Making.” Administration & Society 50 (8): 1125–1147. doi:10.1177/0095399715609383.
  • Kerpershoek, E., M. Groenleer, and H. de Bruijn. 2016. “Unintended Responses to Performance Management in Dutch Hospital Care: Bringing Together the Managerial and Professional Perspectives.” Public Management Review 18 (3): 417–436. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.985248.
  • Kitchener, M., I. Kirkpatrick, and R. Whipp. 2000. “Supervising Professional Work Under New Public Management: Evidence from an ‘Invisible trade’.” British Journal of Management 11 (3): 213–226. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00162.
  • Krefting, L. 1991. “Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45 (3): 214–222. doi:10.5014/ajot.45.3.214.
  • Lam, A. 2000. “Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework.” Organization Studies 21 (3): 487–513. doi:10.1177/0170840600213001.
  • Lee, M. K. 2018. “Understanding Perception of Algorithmic Decisions: Fairness, Trust, and Emotion in Response to Algorithmic Management.” Big Data & Society 5 (1): 2053951718756684. doi:10.1177/2053951718756684.
  • Maynard-Moody, S. W., M. C. Musheno, and M. C. Musheno. 2003. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Mintzberg, H. 1998. “Covert Leadership: Notes on Managing Professionals. Knowledge Workers Respond to Inspiration, Not Supervision.” Harvard Business Review 76 (6): 140–148.
  • Molleman, T. 2011. Benchmarking in het gevangeniswezen: Een onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden van het vergelijken en verbeteren van prestaties. Den Haag, The Netherlands.
  • Møller, A. M. 2022. “Mobilizing Knowledge in Frontline Work: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Exploration.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 5 (1): 50–62. doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvab023.
  • Møller, M. Ø., and M. Hill. 2021. “Performance Measurement and Professional Decision Making: A Resolvable Conflict?” Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 45 (5): 392–409. doi:10.1080/23303131.2021.1975861.
  • Moynihan, D. P. 2010. “A Workforce of Cynics? The Effects of Contemporary Reforms on Public Service Motivation.” International Public Management Journal 13 (1): 24–34. doi:10.1080/10967490903547167.
  • Moynihan, D. P., M. Baekgaard, and M. L. Jakobsen. 2020. “Tackling the Performance Regime Paradox: A Problem‐solving Approach Engages Professional Goal‐based Learning.” Public Administration Review 80 (6): 1001–1010. doi:10.1111/puar.13142.
  • Moynihan, D. P., and A. Kroll. 2016. “Performance Management Routines That Work? An Early Assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act.” Public Administration Review 76 (2): 314–323. doi:10.1111/puar.12434.
  • Noordegraaf, M. 2020. “Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts.” Journal of Professions and Organization 7 (2): 205–223. doi:10.1093/jpo/joaa011.
  • Nowell, B., and K. Albrecht. 2019. “A Reviewer’s Guide to Qualitative Rigor.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 29 (2): 348–363. doi:10.1093/jopart/muy052.
  • Paanakker, H.L. 2019. “Values of Public Craftsmanship: The Mismatch Between Street-Level Ideals and Institutional Facilitation in the Prison Sector.” The American Review of Public Administration 49 (8): 884–896. doi:10.1177/0275074019859944.
  • Petersen, N. B. G. 2020. “How the Source of Performance Information Matters to Learning on the Front-Lines: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” International Public Management Journal 23 (2): 276–291. doi:10.1080/10967494.2019.1699214.
  • Petersen, N. B. G., T. V. Laumann, and M. Jakobsen. 2019. “Acceptance or Disapproval: Performance Information in the Eyes of Public Frontline Employees.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 29 (1): 101–117. doi:10.1093/jopart/muy035.
  • Polanyi, M. 1962. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
  • Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” The American Political Science Review 87 (2): 334–347. doi:10.2307/2939044.
  • Soss, J., R. Fording, and S.F. Schram. 2011. “The Organization of Discipline: From Performance Management to Perversity and Punishment.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21 (2): i203–232. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq095.
  • Spradley, J. P. 2016. Participant Observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
  • Tummers, L. 2011. “Explaining the Willingness of Public Professionals to Implement New Policies: A Policy Alienation Framework.” International Review of Administrative Science 77 (3): 555–581. doi:10.1177/0020852311407364.
  • Tummers, L. G., and S. Van de Walle. 2012. “Explaining Health Care professionals’ Resistance to Implement Diagnosis Related Groups: (No) Benefits for Society, Patients and Professionals.” Health Policy 108 (2–3): 158–166. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.08.024.
  • Varjus, S.L., H. Leino‐kilpi, and T. Suominen. 2011. “Professional Autonomy of Nurses in Hospital Settings–A Review of the Literature.” Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 25 (1): 201–207. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00819.x.
  • Vinzant, J., and L. Crothers. 1996. “Street-Level Leadership: Rethinking the Role of Public Servants in Contemporary Governance.” The American Review of Public Administration 26 (4): 457–476. doi:10.1177/027507409602600405.
  • Wallenburg, I., T. Mol, M. Harmsen, and M. De Bruyne. 2019. Onderzoek naar risicoselectie met de basisset kwaliteitsindicatoren ziekenhuizen: op weg naar verantwoorde keuzes. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Public Health research institute.
  • Wassenaar, M., R. Gradus, and T. Molleman. 2017. Public Vs Nonprofit Incarceration: The Case of the Netherlands (Discussion Paper). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Tinbergen Institute.
  • Wastell, D., S. White, K. Broadhurst, S. Peckover, and A. Pithouse. 2010. “Children’s Services in the Iron Cage of Performance Management: Street-Level Bureaucracy and the Spectre of Švejkism.” International Journal of Social Welfare 19 (3): 310–320. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00716.x.
  • Weiss, R. S. 1994. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: Free Press.
  • Zacka, B. 2017. When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.