The problem of ambiguity in Performance Measurement Systems in the Public Sector: An analysis of the international literature

Author/s Chiara Oppi, Cristina Campanale, Lino Cinquini
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2021/2
Language Italian Pages 28 P. 11-38 File size 278 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2021-002002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This paper aims at examining how the issue of ambiguity in performance measurement systems in the public sector has been addressed in international literature. Particularly, the research highlights the variables of ambiguity that the literature reports at an organizational and an individual level, with reference to two perspectives: an objective perspective related to certain characteristics of the performance measurement systems, and a subjective perspective referring to the perceptions of the actors who are the recipients of these objectives. The authors conducted a systematic literature review in Scopus and ScienceDirect. Of the 1,148 abstracts analyzed, the authors selected 126 articles for full reading and accepted 27 for final discussion. The research presents the antecedents and the consequences for each ambiguity variable, reporting the factors that enable and inhibit ambiguity in the design and application of performance measurement systems in the public sector. This paper not only analyzes and interprets ambiguity in the public sector, but also summarizes the main indications for future research, contributing to the research in an area that is poorly investigated and that has significant relevance for the effectiveness of performance measurement systems in the public sector.

Keywords: Performance Measurement Systems, Public Sector, Literature review, Ambiguity.

  1. Addae H.M., Parboteeah K.P., Velinor N. (2008), Role stressors and organizational commitment: public sector employment in St Lucia, International Journal of Manpower, 29, 6, pp. 567-582. DOI: 10.1108/01437720810904220
  2. Aidemark L. (2001), The Meaning of Balanced Scorecards in the Health Care Organisation, Financial Accountability and Management, 17, 1, pp. 23-40.
  3. Allini A., Spanò R., Zampella A., Meucci F. (2020), Integrated Performance Plans in Higher Education as means of accounting change. Insights into the Italian context, Management Control, 1, pp-87-110. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001005
  4. Arnaboldi M., Lapsley I. (2009), On the implementation of accrual accounting: A study of conflict and ambiguity, European Accounting Review, 18, 4, pp. 809-836. DOI: 10.1080/09638180903136225
  5. Baldwin J.N. (1987), Public versus private: Not that different, not that consequential, Public Personnel Management, 16, 2, pp. 181-193.
  6. Bandura A. (1977), Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
  7. Baraldi S., Kalyal H.J., Berntson E. et al. (2010), The importance of commitment to change in public reform: An example from Pakistan, Journal of Change Management, 10, 4, pp. 347-368. DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2010.516482
  8. Barley W.C., Leonardi P.M., Bailey D.E. (2012), Engineering objects for collaboration: Strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries, Human Communication Research, 38, 3, pp. 280-308.
  9. Baier V.E., March J.G., Saetren H. (1988), Implementation and ambiguity, Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 2, 3-4, pp. 197-212. DOI: 10.1016/0281-7527(86)90016-2
  10. Berman P. (1978), The study of macro- and micro-implementation, Public Policy, 26, pp. 157-84.
  11. 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, pp. 517-38.
  12. Braun V., Clarke V. (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2, pp. 77-101.
  13. Brown G.A., Collins R., Thornton D.B. (1993), Professional Judgment and Accounting Standards, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18, 4, pp. 275-289. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(93)90017-Z
  14. Brunetto Y., Farr-Wharton R., Shacklock K. (2011), Supervisor – nurse relationships, teamwork, role ambiguity and well-being: Public versus private sector nurses, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49, 2, pp. 143-164.
  15. Brunetto Y., Farr-Wharton R., Shacklock K., Robson F. (2012), Supervisor relationships, teamwork, role ambiguity and discretionary power: Nurses in Australia and the United Kingdom, International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 8, pp. 532-543. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2012.655471
  16. Budner S.N.Y. (1962), Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable, Journal of Personality, 30, 1, pp. 29-50.
  17. Burchell S., Clubb C., Hopwood A., Hughes J., Nahapiet J. (1980), The roles of accounting in organizations and society, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5, 1, pp. 5-27. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(80)90017-3
  18. Calciolari S., Cantù E., Fattore G. (2011), Performance management and goal ambiguity: Managerial implications in a single payer system, Health Care Management Review, 36, 2, pp. 164-174.
  19. Castellano N. (2011), Modelli e misure di performance aziendale: analisi della letteratura e spunti di ricerca, Management Control, 1, pp. 41-63. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2011-001003
  20. Chun Y.H., Rainey H.G. (2005a), Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 1, pp. 1-30.
  21. Chun Y.H., Rainey H.G. (2005b), Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 4, pp. 529-557.
  22. Cooper H.M. (1989), Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
  23. Dahl R.A., Lindblom C.E. (1953), Politics, economics and welfare: planning and politico-economic systems, resolved into basic processes, New York, NY, Harper & Brothers.
  24. Davis R.S., Stazyk E.C. (2015), Developing and testing a new goal taxonomy: Accounting for the complexity of ambiguity and political support, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 3, pp. 751-775.
  25. Davis P.J., R. Hersh (1986), Descartes Dream. The World According to Mathematics, Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.
  26. Jesson J. (2011), Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques, London, UK, Sage Publications.
  27. Johanson U., Skoog, M., Backlund A., Almqvist R. (2006), Balancing Dilemmas of the Balanced Scorecard, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19, 6, pp. 842-57. DOI: 10.1108/09513570610709890
  28. Jung C.S. (2011), Organizational goal ambiguity and performance: Conceptualization, measurement, and relationships, International Public Management Journal, 14, 2, pp. 193-217. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2011.589760
  29. Jung C.S. (2012a), Developing and validating new concepts and measures of program goal ambiguity in the U.S. federal government, Administration and Society, 44, 6, pp. 675-701.
  30. Jung C.S. (2012b), Why are goals important in the public sector? Exploring the benefits of goal clarity for reducing turnover intention, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 1, pp. 209-234.
  31. Jung C.S. (2014a), Extending the theory of goal ambiguity to programs: Examining the relationship between goal ambiguity and performance, Public Administration Review, 74, 2, pp. 205-219.
  32. Jung C.S. (2014b), Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 4, pp. 955-981.
  33. Jung C.S., Rainey H.G. (2011), Organizational goal characteristics and public duty motivation in U.S. federal agencies, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 1, pp. 28-47.
  34. Hjern B. (1982), Implementation research: the link gone missing, Journal of Public Policy, 3, pp. 301-308.
  35. Hjern B., Porter D.O. (1981), Implementation structures: a new unit of administrative analysis, Organization Studies, 2, 3, pp. 211-227.
  36. Kaplan R.S. (2009), Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard, in Chapman C.S., Hopwood, A.G. e Shields, M.D., a cura di, Handbook of Management Accounting Research, vol. III, London, Elsevier.
  37. Kaplan R.S., D.P. Norton. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
  38. Kahn R.L., Wolfe D.M., Quinn R.P., Snoek J.D., Rosenthal R.A. (1964), Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity, Haboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons.
  39. Lee J.W., Rainey H.G., Chun Y.H. (2010), Goal ambiguity, work complexity and work routineness in federal agencies, The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 3, pp. 284-308.
  40. Lepori B., Montauti M. (2020), Bringing the organization back in: Flexing structural responses to competing logics in budgeting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 80, 101075.
  41. Lindblom C.E. (1959), The Science of ‘Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, 19, 2, pp. 79-88.
  42. Lowi T. (1979), The end of liberalism. New York, NY, W.W. Norton.
  43. Majone G., Wildavsky A. (1984), Implementation as evolution, in Pressman, J., Wildavsky, A., a cura di, Implementation, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 163-180.
  44. March J.G. (1987), Ambiguity and accounting: The elusive link between information and decision making, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 2, pp. 153-168. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(87)90004-3
  45. March J.G., Olsen J.P. (1987), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Bergen, Norway, Universitets-forslaget.
  46. March J.G., Sutton R.I. (1997), Crossroads-organizational performance as a dependent variable, Organization Science, 8, 6, pp. 698-706.
  47. Maynard-Moody S., McClintock C. (1987), Weeding an old garden: Toward a new understanding of organizational goals, Administration & Society, 19, 1, pp. 125-142.
  48. Moore M.H. (1995), Creating public value: Strategic management in government, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
  49. Marra M. (2018), The ambiguities of performance-based governance reforms in Italy: Reviving the fortunes of evaluation and performance measurement, Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, pp. 173-182.
  50. Matland R.E. (1995), Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 2, pp. 145-174.
  51. McLain D.L. (1993), The MSTAT-1: a new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 1, pp. 183-189.
  52. Meyer J.P., Allen N.J. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, 1, 1, pp.61-89. DOI: 10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
  53. Mobley W.H. (1977), Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction andemployee turnover, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 2, pp. 237-240. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237
  54. Modell S. (2004), Performance measurement myths in the public sector: A research note, Financial Accountability & Management, 20, 1, pp. 39-55.
  55. Moynihan D.P. (2002), Ambiguity in Policy Lessons: The Agencification Experience, Public Administration, 84, 4, pp. 1029-1050.
  56. Northon R.W. (1975), Measurement of ambiguity tolerance, Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 6, pp. 607-619.
  57. Nutt P.C., Backoff. R.W. (1993), Organizational publicness and its implications for stra- tegic management, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, pp. 209-231.
  58. Oppi C., Vagnoni E. (2020), Management accountants’ role and coercive regulations: evidence from the Italian health-care sector, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 17, 3, pp. 405-433. DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-02-2019-0040
  59. Pakarinen M., Virtanen P. (2016), Solving organisational conflicts in public matrix organisation, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 11, 4, pp. 232-252. DOI: 10.1108/QROM-12-2015-1340
  60. Pandey S.K., Rainey H.G. (2006), Public managers’ perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity: Analyzing alternative models, International Public Management Journal, 9, 2, pp. 85-112. DOI: 10.1080/10967490600766953
  61. Pandey S.K., Wright B.E. (2006), Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity, and the public manager’s role ambiguity, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 4, pp. 511-532.
  62. Petticrew M., Roberts H. (2006), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences, Ltd, Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing.
  63. Pilonato S., Monfardini P. (2020), Performance measurement systems in higher education: How levers of control reveal the ambiguities of reforms, British Accounting Review, 52, 3, 100908.
  64. Rainey H.G. (2003), Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.), San Francisco, CA, John Wiley & Sons.
  65. Rainey H.G. (2010), Goal Ambiguity and the Study of American Bureaucracy, in Durant, R.F., a cura di, The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 231-251.
  66. Rainey H.G., Jung, C.S. (2015), A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 1, pp. 71-99.
  67. Reid M.F., Riemenschneider C.K., Allen M.W., Armstrong D.J. (2008), Information technology employees in state government A study of affective organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction, The American Review of Public Administration, 38, 1, pp. 41-61. DOI: 10.1177/2F0275074007303136
  68. Rizzo J.R., House R.J., Lirtzman S.I. (1970), Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 2, pp. 150-163. DOI: 10.2307/2391486
  69. Skrinou M., Gkorezis P. (2019), Antecedents of psychological empowerment: A study of Greek employees in municipalities, International Journal of Public Administration, pp. 1-10. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2019.1669172
  70. Stazyk E.C., Goerdel H.T. (2011), The benefits of bureaucracy: Public managers’ perceptions of political support, goal ambiguity, and organizational effectiveness, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 4, pp. 645-672.
  71. Stazyk E.C., Pandey S.K., Wright B.E. (2011), Understanding affective organizational commitment: The importance of institutional context, The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 6, pp. 603-624. DOI: 10.1177/2F0275074011398119
  72. Sun R., Peng S., Pandey S.K. (2014), Testing the effect of person-environment fit on employee perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity, Public Performance & Management Review, 37, 3, pp. 465-495.
  73. Tsirikas A.N., Katsaros K.K., Nicolaidis C.S. (2012), Knowledge management, tolerance of ambiguity and productivity: Evidence from the Greek public sector, Employee Relations, 34, 4, pp. 344-359. DOI: 10.1108/01425451211236814
  74. Vaismoradi M., Turunen H., Bondas T. (2013), Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study, Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 3, pp. 398-405.
  75. Vakkuri J., Meklin P. (2006), Ambiguity in performance measurement: A theoretical approach to organisational uses of performance measurement, Financial Accountability & Management, 22, 3, pp. 235-250.
  76. Wilson J.Q. (1989), Bureaucracy, New York, Basic Books.Vakkuri, J. (2010), Struggling with ambiguity: Public managers as users of NPM-oriented management instruments, Public Administration, 88, 4, pp. 999-1024.
  77. Wright B.E. (2004), The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 1, pp. 59-78.

  • Towards Digital and Sustainable Organisations Manuela Paolini, Domenico Raucci, pp.69 (ISBN:978-3-031-52879-8)

Chiara Oppi, Cristina Campanale, Lino Cinquini, Il problema dell’ambiguità nei sistemi di misurazione della performance nel settore pubblico: un’analisi della letteratura internazionale in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 2/2021, pp 11-38, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2021-002002