Performance measurement, cognitive dissonance and coping strategies: exploring individual responses to NPM-inspired output control

Original Paper

Abstract

The potential of increasing effectiveness and efficiency via performance measurement practices seems clear for scholars and practitioners alike. At the same time, it is often argued that quantitative performance measures fail to do justice to the complex environment of public sector organizations. This paper takes a first step toward incorporating and operationalizing cognitive dissonance theory to make sense of the different beliefs that public workers hold regarding performance measurement practices that are inspired by the New Public Management movement. We analyze a dataset of 34 interviews with employees working in policy departments, and we identify various indications of cognitive dissonance regarding the use of performance measurement at the individual level. Furthermore, we find that employees aim to reduce this dissonance by changing their behavior and by avoiding tasks that do not yield quantifiable results. This paper contributes to the management control literature by exploring how individuals with complex tasks respond to performance measurement practices.

Keywords

Performance measurement Cognitive dissonance Psychology NPM Coping 

JEL Classification

M190 M400 M410 M480 H830 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Catherine Needham, Tiina Tuominen, Thomas Werner Günther and the two anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. The paper was presented at the 9th conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control in Nice (2017) and at a Public Administration seminar at the University of Leiden (2016). We would like to thank the participants of these events for their useful feedback.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1982). The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance. American Economic Review, 72(3), 307–319.Google Scholar
  2. Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, S. B., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (1996). The organizational transformation process: The micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 477–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birnberg, J. G., Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2007). Psychology theory in management accounting research. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (pp. 113–135). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Burnes, B., & James, H. (1995). Culture, cognitive dissonance and the management of change. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(8), 14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronqvist, A., Theorell, T., Burns, T., & Lützen, K. (2001). Dissonant imperatives in nursing: A conceptualization of stress in intensive care in Sweden. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, 17(4), 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic enlightenment. Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson & Company.Google Scholar
  8. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Foran, M. F., & DeCoster, D. T. (1974). An experimental study of the effects of participation, authoritarianism, and feedback on cognitive dissonance in a standard setting situation. The Accounting Review, 49(4), 751–763.Google Scholar
  10. Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., et al. (2007). Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research, 23(2), 79–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management Journal, 4(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halachmi, A. (2005). Performance measurement: Test the water before you dive in. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall, M. (2016). Realising the richness of psychology theory in contingency-based management accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 31, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2002). Testing the action-based model of cognitive dissonance: The effect of action orientation on postdecisional attitudes. Personality and Social, Psychological Bulletin, 28(6), 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henri, J. F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), 529–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoggett, P. (1996). New modes of control in the public service. Public Administration, 74(1), 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humphrey, C. (1994). Reflecting on attempts to develop a financial management information system for the probation service in England and Wales: Some observations on the relationship between the claims of accounting and its practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(2), 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jermias, J. (2001). Cognitive dissonance and resistance to change: The influence of commitment confirmation and feedback on judgment usefulness of accounting systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnsen, Å., & Lapsley, I. (2005). Reinventing public sector accounting. Financial Accountability & Management, 21(3), 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lapsley, I. (2008). The NPM Agenda: Back to the future. Financial Accountability & Management, 24(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: The cruellest invention of the human spirit? Abacus, 45(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menasco, M. B., & Hawkins, D. I. (1978). A field test of the relationship between cognitive dissonance and state anxiety. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 650–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merchant, K. A., & van der Stede, W. A. (2007). Management control systems (2nd ed.). Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, R. E., Egger-Peitler, I., Höllerer, M. A., & Hammerschmid, G. (2014). Of bureaucrats and passionate public managers: Institutional logics, executive identities, and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 861–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. California: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Modell, S. (2001). Performance measurement and institutional processes: A study of managerial responses to public sector reform. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012). Cognitive biases in governing: Technology preferences in election administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nielsen, V. L. (2006). Are street-level bureaucrats compelled or enticed to cope? Public Administration, 84(4), 861–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norman, R. (2002). Managing through measurement or meaning? Lessons from experience with New Zealand’s public sector performance management systems. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(4), 619–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2014). Realizing the potential of interdisciplinarity in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27(8), 1227–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Page, S. (2005). What’s new about the new public management? Administrative change in the human services. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 713–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollitt, C. (1995). Justification by works or by faith? Evaluating the New Public Management. Evaluation, 1(2), 133–154.Google Scholar
  38. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform—A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ron, P. (2007). Elderly people’s attitudes and perceptions of aging and old age: The role of cognitive dissonance? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 656–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shultz, T. R., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Cognitive dissonance reduction as constraint satisfaction. Psychological Review, 103(2), 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simons, R. (1995). Control in an age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 80–88.Google Scholar
  42. Sloane, P. J., & Williams, H. (1996). Are “overpaid” workers really unhappy? A test of the theory of cognitive dissonance. Labour, 10(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Speklé, R. F., & Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2014). The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stewart, J. (2006). Value conflict and policy change. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strauss, E., & Zecher, C. (2013). Management control systems: A review. Journal of Management Control, 23(4), 233–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stritch, J. M., & Christensen, R. K. (2014). Looking at a job’s social impact through PSM-tinted lenses: Probing the motivation-perception relationship. Public Administration, 92(4), 826–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teelken, C. (2008). The intricate implementation of performance measurement systems: Exploring developments in professional-service organizations in the Dutch non-profit sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(4), 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ter Bogt, H. J. (2008). Management accounting change and new public management in local government: A reassessment of ambitions and results—An institutionalist approach to accounting change in the Dutch public sector. Financial Accountability and Management, 24(3), 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ter Bogt, H. J., van Helden, G. J., & van der Kolk, B. (2015). Challenging the NPM ideas about performance management—Selectivity and differentiation in outcome-oriented performance budgeting. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tiller, M. G. (1983). The dissonance model of participative budgeting: An empirical exploration. Journal of Accounting Research, 21(2), 581–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van der Kolk, B. (2016) Management control packages in public sector organizations. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
  52. van der Kolk, B., & Schokker, T. (2016). Strategy implementation through hierarchical couplings in a management control package: An explorative case study. Journal of Management Control, 27(2), 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van der Kolk, B., ter Bogt, H. J., & van Veen-Dirks, P. M. G. (2015). Constraining and facilitating management control in times of austerity: Case studies in four municipal departments. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(6), 934–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Dijk, P. A., & Kirk, A. (2007). Being somebody else: Emotional labour and emotional dissonance in the context of the service experience at a heritage tourism site. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14(2), 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Tiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Veen-Dirks, P. M. G. (2010). Different uses of performance measures: The evaluation versus reward of production managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IE Business SchoolIE UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.Tilburg Law School, Tilburg Institute of GovernanceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations