New Public Management Model and Performance Appraisal System

Living reference work entry



  1. 1.

    Performance appraisal system: Is a human resource management system designed to evaluate the performance of the employees in an organization.

  2. 2.

    Public sector reforms: These are actions taken by the government to reengineer the public service delivery in order to bring efficiency and effectiveness in the operations of the public service.


Globally, the public sector in many developing countries has been under a great deal of pressure post global financial crisis period. Resultantly, most countries have embarked on public sector reforms so that the efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector can be significantly improved. In most countries, the public sector has gone restructuring, reorganization, rationalization, and optimization (Baruch et al. 2014). One aspect of the reform process is the improvement of the performance appraisal system to remove “dead wood” and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Aguinis H, Joo H, Gottfredson RK (2011) Why we hate performance management – and why we should love it. Bus Horiz 54(6):503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews R, Van de Walle S (2013) New public management and citizens’ perceptions of local service efficiency, responsiveness, equity and effectiveness. Public Manag Rev 15(5):762–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonioni D, Park H (2001) The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. J Manag 27(4):479–495Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong M (2003) A handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Aucoin P (1990) Administrative reform in public management: paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance 3(2):115–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baruch Y, Sayce S, Gregoriou A (2014) Retirement in a global labour market: a call for abolishing the fixed retirement age. Pers Rev 43(3):464–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bednall TC, Sanders K, Runhaar P (2014) Stimulating informal learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human resource management system strength: a two-wave study. Acad Manag Learn Educ 13(1):45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernadin HJ, Cooke DK, Villanova P (2000) Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. J Appl Psychol 85(2):232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bohlander G, Snell S (2004) Managing human resources. South-Western, MasonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Bloomberg L (2014) Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Adm Rev 74(4):445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell DJ, Campbell KM, Chia HB (1998) Merit pay, performance appraisal, and individual motivation: an analysis and alternative. Hum Resour Manag 37(2):131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cappelli P, Conyon MJ (2018) What do performance appraisals do? ILR Rev 71(1):88–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christensen T, Lægreid P (2001) New public management: the effects of contractualism and devolution on political control. Public Manag Rev 3(1):73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbett B, Kenny B (2001) Appraisal and learning in a government agency. Learn Organ 8(1):21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daniels AC (1989) Performance management: Improving quality productivity through positive reinforcement. Performance Management Publications, TuckerGoogle Scholar
  16. Dessler G (2011) Human resource management. Prentice Hall, New JesseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Diefenbach T (2009) New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Adm 87(4):892–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunleavy P, Margetts H, Bastow S, Tinkler J (2006) New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance. J Public Adm Res Theory 16(3):467–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forgas JP, George JM (2001) Affective influences on judgments and behaviour in organisations: an information processing perspective. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86(1):3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frink DD, Ferris GR (1998) Accountability, impression management and goal-setting in the performance evaluation process. Hum Relat 51(10):1259–1283Google Scholar
  21. Furnham A, Stringfield P (2001) Gender differences in rating reports: female managers are harsher raters, particularly of males. J Manag Psychol 16(4):281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goss W (2001) Managing for results – appraisal and rewards. J Public Adm 60(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green-pedersen C (2002) New public management reforms of the Danish and Swedish welfare states: the role of different social democratic responses. Governance 15(2):271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grote RC (2002) The performance appraisal question and answer book: a survival guide for managers. American Management Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gurbuz S, Dikmenli O (2007) Performance appraisal in public organizations: an empirical study. Mag Manag Pract 13(1):108–138Google Scholar
  26. Hennessey HW, Bernadin HJ (2003) The relationship between performance appraisal criterion specificity and statistical evidence of discrimination. Hum Resour Manag 42(2):143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hood C (1989) Public administration and public policy: intellectual challenges for the 1990s. Aust J Public Adm 48(4):346–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Adm 69(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jawahar IM, Williams CR (1997) Where all the children are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect. Pers Psychol 50(4):905–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson DE, Erez A, Kiker DS, Motowidlo SJ (2002) Liking and attributions of motives and mediators of the relationships between individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviour and raters’ reward decisions. J Appl Psychol 87(4):808–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaboolian L (1998) The new public management: challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate. Public Adm Rev 58(3):189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klimoski R, Inks L (1990) Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 45(2):194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lane JE (2002) New public management: an introduction. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lefkowitz SW (2000) The role interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings: a literature review and proposed causal model. J Occup Organ Psychol 73(1):67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levy PE, Williams JR (2004) The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J Manag 30(6):881–905Google Scholar
  36. Madison K, Daspit JJ, Turner K, Kellermanns FW (2018) Family firm human resource practices: investigating the effects of professionalization and bifurcation bias on performance. J Bus Res 84:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mani BG (2002) Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: a case study. Public Pers Manag 31(2):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mensah FO, Seidu PA (2012) ‘Employees’ perception of performance appraisal system: a case study. Int J Bus Manag 7(2):14–25Google Scholar
  39. Mero NP, Motowidlo SJ, Anna AL (2003) Effects of accountability on rating behaviour and rating accuracy. J Soc Psychol 33(12):2493–2514Google Scholar
  40. Moon MJ (2000) Organizational commitment revisited in new public management: motivation, organizational culture, sector, and managerial level. Public Perform Manag Rev 24:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mullins LJ (2005) Management and organisational behaviour. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Naidu S (2018) New public management, corruption, information computer technology, and budget deficit: Fiji, Jamaica, and Mauritius. In: Farazmand A (ed) Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  43. Naidu S, Chand A (2014a) A comparative analysis of best human resource management practices in the hotel sector of Samoa and Tonga. Pers Rev 43(5):798–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naidu S, Chand A (2014b) Cultural ideologies of managing human resources versus western ideologies of managing human resources in Samoa. Int J Bus Glob 13(1):58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naidu S, Pathak RD, Chand A (2014) Towards a double triangle model of socially desirable HRM practices and firm performance in small-island developing states. In: Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: a diversity perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 192–211Google Scholar
  46. O’Donnell M, O’Brien J, Junor A (2011) New public management and employment relations in the public services of Australia and New Zealand. Int J Hum Resour Manag 22(11):2367–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pedrini G (2016) Varieties of capitalism in Europe: an inter-temporal comparison of HR policies. Pers Rev 45(3):480–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pettijohn CE, Pettijohn LS, Taylor AJ, Keillor BD (2001) Are performance appraisals a bureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance sales-force satisfaction and commitment? Psychol Mark 18(4):337–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pollitt C (1993) Managerialism and the public services, 2nd edn. Blackwell Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2004) Public management reform: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Posthuma RA, Campion MA (2008) Twenty best practices for just employee performance review. Compens Benefits Rev 40(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Radnor Z, McGuire M (2004) Performance management in the public sector: fact or fiction? Int J Product Perform Manag 53(3):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rego A, Marques C, Leal S, Sousa F, Pina e Cunha M (2010) Psychological capital and performance of Portuguese civil servants: exploring neutralizers in the context of an appraisal system. Int J Hum Resour Manag 21(9):1531–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roberts GE (2003) Employee appraisal system participation: a technique that works. Public Pers Manag 32(1):89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts GE, Reed T (1996) Performance appraisal participation, goal-setting and feedback: the influence of supervisory style. Rev Public Pers Adm 16(4):29–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scholtes PR (1993) Total quality or performance appraisal: choose one. Natl Product Rev 12(3):349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shore TH, Tashchian A (2002) Accountability forces in performance appraisal: effects of self-appraisal information, normative information, and task performance. J Bus Psychol 17(2):261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slater H (1998) Concepts of private sector management for public administrators, Unpublished report to ADBGoogle Scholar
  59. Struthers CW, Weiner B, Allred K (1998) Effects of causal attributions on personnel decisions: a social motivation perspective. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 20(2):155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thurston PW Jr, McNall L (2010) Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. J Manag Psychol 25(3):201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tziner A, Kopelman RE (2002) Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non-psychometric perspective. Appl Psychol 51(3):479–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Varma A, Stroh LK (2001) The impact of same sex LMX dyads on performance evaluations. Hum Resour Manag 40(4):309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management and Public Administration, Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of the South PacificSuvaFiji Islands