Drivers of Performance Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research

References

• Ammons, D., & Rivenbark, W. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. 1996. Organizational learning: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Askim, J. (2009). The demand side of performance measurement: Explaining councillors’ utilization of performance information in policymaking. International Public Management Journal, 12(1), 24–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Askim, J., Johnsen, A., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2008). Factors behind organizational learning from benchmarking: Experiences from Norwegian municipal benchmarking networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 297–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. (1994). Leadership counts: Lessons for public managers from the Massachusetts welfare, training and employment program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. (2003). Why measure performance? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdeaux, C., & Chikoto, G. (2008). Legislative influences on performance management reform. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 253–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, G., & Walker, R. (2010). Strategic management and public service performance: The way ahead. Public Administration Review, 70(s1), s185–s192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, G., Gould-Williams, J., Law, J., & Walker, R. (2004). Toward the self-evaluating organization? An empirical test of the Wildavsky model. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 463–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1986). Public management information systems: Theory and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46, 475–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretschneider, S. (1990): Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50(5), 536–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2009): Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Management Accounting Research, 20, 283–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• de Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Lancer Julnes, P., Berry, F., Aristigueta, M., & Yang, K. (Eds.). (2007). International handbook of practice-based performance management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Deming, W. (1994). The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson, L. (2001): The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dull, M. (2009). Results-model reform leadership: Questions of credible commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 19(2), 255–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folz, D., Abdelrazek, R., & Chung, Y. (2009). The adoption, use, and impacts of performance measures in medium-size cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(1), 63–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, A., & Wall, T. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 653–686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, A. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, A. (2008). Reporting public performance information: The promise and challenges of citizen involvement. In W. Van Dooren and S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (pp. 192–210). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. (2014). The impact of performance management in public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 35–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, O. (2011). Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 399–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson, T., & Siverbo, S. (2009). Explaining the utilization of relative performance evaluation in local government: A multi-theoretical study using data from Sweden. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(2), 197–224.
   Google Scholar
• Kelman, S., & Friedman, J. (2009). Performance improvement and performance dysfunction: An empirical examination of distortionary impacts of the emergency room wait-time target in the English National Health Service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 917–946.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In S. Armstrong & C. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Kroll, A. (2013). The other type of performance information: Non-routine feedback, its relevance and use. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 265–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroll, A., & Proeller, I. (2013). Controlling the control system: Performance information in the German childcare administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1), 74–85.
   Google Scholar
• Kroll, A., & Vogel, D. (2014). The PSM-leadership fit: A model of performance information use. Public Administration, 92(4), 974–991.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J., Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Marchand, D., Kettinger, W., & Rollins, J. (2002). Information orientation: The link to business performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, R., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive identities: A managerial challenge to public administration in Austria. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 1000–1014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. (2009). Through a glass, darkly: Understanding the effects of performance regimes. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 592–603.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D., & Hawes, D. (2012). Responsiveness to reform values: The influence of the environment on performance information use. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), 95–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D., & Ingraham, P. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance-information use. Administration & Society, 36(4), 427–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097–1105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D., & Lavertu, S. (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D., Pandey, S., & Wright, B. (2012a). Prosocial values and performance management theory: The link between perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance, 25(3), 463–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D., Pandey, S., & Wright, B. (2012b). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 143–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, P. (2014). Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 431–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, P., & Baekgaard, M. (2013). Performance information, blame avoidance, and politicians’ attitudes to spending and reform: Evidence from an experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut051
   Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation, & Development (OECD). (2007). Performance budgeting in OECD countries. Paris: OECD. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALMGMT/Resources/313217-1196229169083/4441154-1196275288288/4444688-1196378494429/PerformanceBudgetinginOECDCountries.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Otley, D. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis. Accounting, Organization, and Society, 5(4), 413–428.
   Google Scholar
• Pinder, C., & Moore, L. (1979). The resurrection of taxonomy to aid the development of middle range theories of organizational behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(1), 99–118.
   Google Scholar
• Poister, T., Pasha, O., & Edwards, L. (2013). Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. public transit industry. Public Administration Review, 73(4) 625–636.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (Ed.). (2013). Context in public policy and management: The missing link? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pratchett, L., & Wingfield, M. (1996). Petty bureaucracy and woollyminded liberalisms? The changing ethos of local government officers. Public Administration, 74(4), 639–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3), 193–215.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, R., & Van Ryzin, G. (2014). Are performance management practices associated with better public outcomes? Empirical evidence from New York public schools. American Review of Public Administration, 44(3), 324–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, A. (2009). Publication bias. In H. Cooper L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 435–452). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. (2009). Strengthening the link between performance measurement and decision making. Public Administration, 87(4), 853–871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. (2011). Factors influencing the use of performance information for decision making in Australian state agencies. Public Administration, 89(4), 1316–1334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ter Bogt, H. (2004). Politicians in search of performance information? Survey research on Dutch aldermen’s use of performance information. Financial Accountability and Management, 20(3), 221–252.
   Google Scholar
• Togerson, C. (2006) Publication bias: The Achilles’ heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 89–102.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Walle, S., & Bovaird, T. (2007). Making better use of information to drive improvement in local public services: A report for the Audit Commission. Project Report. INLOGOV. Available at http://archive.audit-commission.gov.uk/auditcommission/SiteCollectionDocuments/AuditCommissionReports/NationalStudies/INLOGOV_Information_use_review.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W. (2004). Supply and demand of policy indicators. Public Management Review, 6(4), 511–530.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.). (2008). Performance information in the public sector. How it is used. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance management in the public sector. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861–879.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar