Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Public Management Model and Performance Appraisal System

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance

Synonyms

NPM model; Performance appraisal system; Public sector management; Reforms

Definitions

  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.

Introduction

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aguinis H, Joo H, Gottfredson RK (2011) Why we hate performance management – and why we should love it. Bus Horiz 54(6):503–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):762–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonioni D, Park H (2001) The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. J Manag 27(4):479–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong M (2003) A handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Aucoin P (1990) Administrative reform in public management: paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance 3(2):115–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):464–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):45–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernadin HJ, Cooke DK, Villanova P (2000) Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. J Appl Psychol 85(2):232–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlander G, Snell S (2004) Managing human resources. South-Western, Mason

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):445–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DJ, Campbell KM, Chia HB (1998) Merit pay, performance appraisal, and individual motivation: an analysis and alternative. Hum Resour Manag 37(2):131–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli P, Conyon MJ (2018) What do performance appraisals do? ILR Rev 71(1):88–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen T, Lægreid P (2001) New public management: the effects of contractualism and devolution on political control. Public Manag Rev 3(1):73–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett B, Kenny B (2001) Appraisal and learning in a government agency. Learn Organ 8(1):21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels AC (1989) Performance management: Improving quality productivity through positive reinforcement. Performance Management Publications, Tucker

    Google Scholar 

  • Dessler G (2011) Human resource management. Prentice Hall, New Jessey

    Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach T (2009) New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Adm 87(4):892–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):467–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgas JP, George JM (2001) Affective influences on judgments and behaviour in organisations: an information processing perspective. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86(1):3–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frink DD, Ferris GR (1998) Accountability, impression management and goal-setting in the performance evaluation process. Hum Relat 51(10):1259–1283

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, Stringfield P (2001) Gender differences in rating reports: female managers are harsher raters, particularly of males. J Manag Psychol 16(4):281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss W (2001) Managing for results – appraisal and rewards. J Public Adm 60(1):3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):271–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote RC (2002) The performance appraisal question and answer book: a survival guide for managers. American Management Association, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurbuz S, Dikmenli O (2007) Performance appraisal in public organizations: an empirical study. Mag Manag Pract 13(1):108–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey HW, Bernadin HJ (2003) The relationship between performance appraisal criterion specificity and statistical evidence of discrimination. Hum Resour Manag 42(2):143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood C (1989) Public administration and public policy: intellectual challenges for the 1990s. Aust J Public Adm 48(4):346–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Adm 69(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar IM, Williams CR (1997) Where all the children are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect. Pers Psychol 50(4):905–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):808–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaboolian L (1998) The new public management: challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate. Public Adm Rev 58(3):189–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski R, Inks L (1990) Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 45(2):194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane JE (2002) New public management: an introduction. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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):67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy PE, Williams JR (2004) The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J Manag 30(6):881–905

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 84:327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mani BG (2002) Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: a case study. Public Pers Manag 31(2):141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mensah FO, Seidu PA (2012) ‘Employees’ perception of performance appraisal system: a case study. Int J Bus Manag 7(2):14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Mero NP, Motowidlo SJ, Anna AL (2003) Effects of accountability on rating behaviour and rating accuracy. J Soc Psychol 33(12):2493–2514

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon MJ (2000) Organizational commitment revisited in new public management: motivation, organizational culture, sector, and managerial level. Public Perform Manag Rev 24:177–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins LJ (2005) Management and organisational behaviour. Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):798–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 192–211

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):2367–2383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrini G (2016) Varieties of capitalism in Europe: an inter-temporal comparison of HR policies. Pers Rev 45(3):480–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):337–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C (1993) Managerialism and the public services, 2nd edn. Blackwell Oxford, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2004) Public management reform: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Posthuma RA, Campion MA (2008) Twenty best practices for just employee performance review. Compens Benefits Rev 40(1):47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radnor Z, McGuire M (2004) Performance management in the public sector: fact or fiction? Int J Product Perform Manag 53(3):245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1531–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts GE (2003) Employee appraisal system participation: a technique that works. Public Pers Manag 32(1):89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts GE, Reed T (1996) Performance appraisal participation, goal-setting and feedback: the influence of supervisory style. Rev Public Pers Adm 16(4):29–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtes PR (1993) Total quality or performance appraisal: choose one. Natl Product Rev 12(3):349–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):261–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater H (1998) Concepts of private sector management for public administrators, Unpublished report to ADB

    Google Scholar 

  • Struthers CW, Weiner B, Allred K (1998) Effects of causal attributions on personnel decisions: a social motivation perspective. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 20(2):155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurston PW Jr, McNall L (2010) Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. J Manag Psychol 25(3):201–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tziner A, Kopelman RE (2002) Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non-psychometric perspective. Appl Psychol 51(3):479–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varma A, Stroh LK (2001) The impact of same sex LMX dyads on performance evaluations. Hum Resour Manag 40(4):309–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and Public Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji Islands

    Anand Chand & Suwastika Naidu

Authors
  1. Anand Chand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suwastika Naidu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suwastika Naidu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

    Ali Farazmand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Chand, A., Naidu, S. (2020). New Public Management Model and Performance Appraisal System. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4031-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4031-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31816-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31816-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation