新科学想法 › 文献管理 › 浏览文献

Performance evaluation styles in governmental organizations: How do professional managers facilitate politicians? work?

3xliu 添加于 2009-11-11 09:10 | 2229 次阅读 | 0 个评论

作者
TERBOGT H
摘要
This paper is concerned with performance evaluation of top professional managers by local politicians. Based on the opinions of a small group of experts and a written survey of 262 aldermen, it examines criteria and performance evaluation styles which are used by aldermen of Dutch municipalities—elected politicians—to evaluate performances of professional managers. The paper examines to what extent the large number of aldermen who participated in the survey displayed characteristics of politicians using the ‘operations-conscious’ (or ‘facilitating’) performance evaluation style. Based on previous case research, this style was added to three evaluation styles for the government sector which originated from Hopwood’s evaluation styles for the profit sector. The survey shows that, in a general sense, aldermen judge whether professional managers and their organizations function in a ‘businesslike’ manner. In this respect, evaluation of top managers may be in line with more businesslike and performance-oriented control of government organizations, which is essential to New Public Management. However, aldermen are usually not only or mainly interested in the way managers function in a businesslike manner and in concrete and ‘objective’ data on outputs, costs, and efficiency. Aldermen actually evaluate top managers’ performances on a rather wide range of criteria. Subjective impressions of these criteria play an important part in their evaluations. The outcome of the survey is a more detailed description of local politicians’ performance evaluation style and a refinement of the operations-conscious style.
详细资料
- 文献种类:期刊
- 期刊名称: Management Accounting Research
- 期刊缩写: Management Accounting Research
- 期卷页: 2003年第14卷第4期 311-332页
- ISBN: 1044-5005
标签

performance evaluation politician governmental
相关链接 DOI URL
3xliu 的文献笔记订阅

政治与行政；政策与执行；绩效评估