Advertisement

Buy-in to a Credible Vision! Why Leaders Make Prospector Responses to Learning-Oriented Performance Reform

  • Mads Leth JakobsenEmail author
Article

Abstract

The implementation of learning-oriented performance reforms that seek to replace performance regimes based on external accountability is an important phenomenon. This article examines how leaders respond to such reforms and what factors make leaders pursue a prospector response. The article conceptualizes and examines the phenomenon through a mixed method study in the Danish hospital sector and find that some leaders respond in a prospector way and that reactor responses disappear over time. The key result is that leader buy-in to the vision of learning-oriented performance reform and the perception of higher level commitment to the reform further prospector responses.

Keywords

Learning-oriented performance reforms Leader responses Vision Credibility 

Notes

Supplementary material

11115_2019_438_MOESM1_ESM.docx (47 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 47.4 kb)

References

  1. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Strategy implementation and public service performance. Administration and Society, 43(6), 643–671.Google Scholar
  2. Berwick, D. M., Nolan, T. W., & Whittington, J. (2008). The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Affairs, 27(3), 759–769.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Boyne, G. A. (2012). Performance management – does it work? In R. M. Walker, G. A. Boyne, & G. A. Brewer (Eds.), Public management and performance: Research directions (pp. 207–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 231–252.Google Scholar
  6. Brehm, J., & Gates, S. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public (paperback ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brunsson, N. (2002). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations (Vol. 2). Oslo: Abstrakt.Google Scholar
  8. Busse, R., Geissler, A., & Quentin, W. (2011). Diagnosis-related groups in Europe. McGraw-Hill Education; Open University Press - LA English.Google Scholar
  9. Central Denmark Region. (2012). Oplæg til drøftelse. Nye styringsmodeller for aktivitet og økonomi 14-11-2012. Central Denmark Region.Google Scholar
  10. Central Denmark Region. (2014a). Ny styring i et patientperspektiv – præsentation af mål - 27-10-2014. Central Denmark Region.Google Scholar
  11. Central Denmark Region. (2014b). Sagsfremstilling for Regionsrådet – Ny Styring i et patientperspektiv. Central Denmark Region.Google Scholar
  12. Central Denmark Region. (2016). Ny styring i et patientperspektiv, 3. delevaluering, august 2016. Central Denmark Region.Google Scholar
  13. Conner, D. R. (1993). Managing at the speed of change (1st ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  14. Cots, F., Chiarello, P., Salvador, X., Castells, X., & Quentin, W. (2011). DRG-based hospital payment: Intended and unintended consequences. In R. Busse, A. Geissler, W. Quentin, & M. Wiley (Eds.), Diagnosis-related groups in Europe (pp. 75–92). New York: McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  15. de Vries, M. F. R. K., & Balazs, K. (1999). Transforming the mind-set of the organization: a clinical perspective. Administration and Society, 30(6), 640–675.Google Scholar
  16. Dull, M. (2009). Results-model reform leadership: Questions of credible commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 255–284.Google Scholar
  17. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Ernst, C., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2011). Flat world, hard boundaries: how to lead across them. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(3), 81.Google Scholar
  19. Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.Google Scholar
  20. Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611.Google Scholar
  21. Gailmard, S. (2010). Politics, principal-agent problems, and public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 13(1), 35–45.Google Scholar
  22. Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: a meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12433.Google Scholar
  23. Heckman, J. J., Heinrich, P., & Smith, J. (2011). Performance standards and the potential to improve government performance. In J. J. Heckman, P. Heinrich, G. Courty, G. Marschke, & J. Smith (Eds.), The performance of performance standards (pp. 1–14). Kalmazoo: WE Upjohn Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487.Google Scholar
  25. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
  26. Jakobsen, M. L., Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D., & van Loon, N. (2018). Making sense of performance regimes: Rebalancing external accountability and internal learning. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 127–141.Google Scholar
  27. Jakobsen, M. L., Kjeldsen, A. M., & Pallesen, T. (2017). Loyal agents or saboteurs? Performance increasing policies and public service motivation among hospital workers. In Comparative public management: Why context matters in public administration. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jan, S. (2003). A perspective on the analysis of credible commitment and myopia in health sector decision making. Health Policy, 63(3), 269–278.Google Scholar
  29. Jensen, U. T., Andersen, L. B., Bro, L. L., Bøllingtoft, A., Eriksen, T. L. M., Holten, A., & Würtz, A. (2019). Conceptualizing and measuring transformational and transactional leadership. Administration and Society, 51(1), 3–33.Google Scholar
  30. Jespersen, P. K., Nielsen, L.-L. M., & Sognstrup, H. (2002). Professions, institutional dynamics, and new public management in the Danish hospital field. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(12), 1555–1574.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kerpershoek, E., Groenleer, M., & de Bruijn, H. (2016). Unintended responses to performance management in Dutch hospital care: bringing together the managerial and professional perspectives. Public Management Review, 18(3), 417–436.Google Scholar
  33. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kroll, A. (2013). The other type of performance information: Nonroutine feedback, its relevance and use. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 265–276.Google Scholar
  35. Kroll, A. (2015). Explaining the use of performance information by public managers: a planned-behavior approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(2), 201–215.Google Scholar
  36. May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453–476.Google Scholar
  37. Mayne, J. (2007). Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management. Evaluation, 13(1), 87–109.Google Scholar
  38. Meier, K. J., Rutherford, A., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2017). Comparative public management: Why national, environmental, and organizational context matters. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mikkelsen, M. F., Jacobsen, C. B., & Andersen, L. B. (2017). Managing employee motivation: exploring the connections between managers’ enforcement actions, employee perceptions, and employee intrinsic motivation. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 183–123.Google Scholar
  40. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2003). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, G. J., & Whitford, A. B. (2007). The principal’s moral hazard: constraints on the use of incentives in hierarchy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 17(2), 213–233.Google Scholar
  43. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Moynihan, D., & Beazley, I. (2016). Toward next-generation performance budgeting: Lessons from the experiences of seven reforming countries. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism. Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration and Society, 39(6), 761–785.Google Scholar
  46. North, D. C., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Constitutions and commitment: the evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. The Journal of Economic History, 49(4), 803–832.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2014). Recommendation of the council on digital government strategies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  48. Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6–16.Google Scholar
  49. Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19(4), 346–363.Google Scholar
  50. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Porter, M. E., & Lee, T. H. (2013). The strategy that will fix health care: providers must lead the way in making value the overarching goal. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 50.Google Scholar
  52. Ragin, C. C. (1989). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies (1 paperback printing). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  53. Robinson, M. (2002). Output-purchase funding and budgeting systems in the public sector. Public Budgeting & Finance, 22(4), 17–33.Google Scholar
  54. Søgaard, R., Kristensen, S. R., & Bech, M. (2015). Incentivizing effort in governance of public hospitals: Development of a delegation-based alternative to activity-based remuneration. Health Policy, 119(8), 1076–1085.Google Scholar
  55. Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.Google Scholar
  56. Strategisk Sundhedsledelsesforum. (2013). Udskrift af forhandlingsprotokollen for Strategisk Sundhedsledelsesforum. Central Denmark Region.Google Scholar
  57. Suddaby, R., Cooper, D. J., & Greenwood, R. (2007). Transnational regulation of professional services: Governance dynamics of field level organizational change. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4/5), 333–362.Google Scholar
  58. Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance: Organizational and service improvement in the public domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science ResearchAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations