Usi e impatti delle informazioni di performance: un’analisi a livello comunale

Anteprima

L’obiettivo di questo lavoro è approfondire le relazioni tra i diversi usi delle informazioni di performance, la cultura e la performance organizzativa, presentando i risultati di un questionario somministrato ai responsabili di unità organizzativa di comuni italiani. Il lavoro estende la letteratura esistente sul performance management in due direzioni. Da un lato, mentre gli studi sinora condotti si sono focalizzati per lo più sugli usi di tipo razionale delle informazioni di performance, esso esplora l’esistenza e gli effetti degli usi delle informazioni di performance non solo di tipo razionale ma anche legittimante e politico. Dall’altro lato, il lavoro evidenzia le possibili conseguenze degli usi delle informazioni di performance sulla cultura e sulla performance organizzativa, mostrando che solo quando le informazioni sono usate per finalità di monitoraggio dei risultati raggiunti rispetto a quelli previsti si osserva un impatto diretto e immediato sulla performance organizzativa. Altri tipi di usi, invece, quali quelli volti a focalizzare l’attenzione degli attori organizzativi sulla performance e a legittimare le azioni del management risultano associati alla performance organizzativa solo indirettamente, per il tramite della cultura organizzativa.

_____________________________________
The aim of this paper is to delve into the relationship among the different uses of performance measures, organizational culture, and organizational performance. The paper is based on data from a survey of Italian municipal service managers. This paper extends previous public administration literature on performance management in two directions. On the one hand, it provides empirical evidence on the existence and effects of rational, legitimizing, and political uses of performance measurement systems, whereas previous literature has tended to emphasize only rational ones. On the other hand, it provides a relevant building block to our knowledge on the consequences of performance measurement uses, showing that only monitoring uses produce direct effects on performance, while other uses (attention-focusing and legitimizing) may affect performance only indirectly, through organizational culture.

Key words: Performance information, Municipalities, Organizational Culture, Organizational performance

Bibliografia
  1. Ansari S., Euske K.J. (1987), “Rational, rationalizing, and reifying uses of accounting data in organizations”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, 12(6), pp. 549-570.
  2. Arnaboldi M., Lapsley I., Steccolini I. (2015), “Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge”, Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1-22.
  3. Boland Jr., Pondy L.R. (1983), “Accounting in Organizations: A Union of Natural and Rational Perspectives”, Accounting Organizations & Society, 8(2/3), pp. 223-234.
  4. Bouckaert G. (2006), “Towards a Neo-Weberian Administration”, in: Bagumil J., Jann W., Nullmeier F. (Hrsg.), Politik und Verwaltung. PVS Politische Vierteljahresschrift. Sonderheft 37/2006. Deutsche Vereinigung fur Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften (354-372).
  5. Bouckaert G. (1993), “Efficiency measurement from a management perspective:a case of the civil registry office in Flanders”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 59(1), pp.11-27.
  6. Brewer G., Walker R. (2010), “The Impact of Red Tape on Governmental Performance: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal Public Administration Research e Theory, 20(1), pp. 233-25.
  7. Burchell S., Clubb C., Hopwood A., Hughes J., Nahapiet J. (1980), “The rolesof accounting in organizations and society”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, 5(1), pp. 5-27.
  8. Caccia L., Steccolini I., (2005), “Accounting Change in Italian Local Governments: What’s beyond Managerial Fashion?”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(2-3), pp.154-174.
  9. De Lancer J.P., Holzer M. (2001), “Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation”, Public Administration Review, 61(6), pp. 693-708.
  10. Feldman M.S., March J.G. (1981), “Information in organizations as signal and symbol”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), pp. 171-186.
  11. Fornell C., Larcker D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp. 39-50.
  12. Hair J.F. Jr., Tomas G.M.H., Ringle C., Sarstedt M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Los Angeles: Sage.
  13. Henri J.F. (2006), “Organizational culture and performance measurement systems”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, 31, pp. 77-103.
  14. Hood C. (1991), “A public management for all seasons?”, Public Administration, 69(1), pp. 3-19.
  15. Hood C. (1995), “The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme”, Accounting, Organizations e Society, 20(2-3), pp. 93-109.
  16. Hvidman U., Andersen S.C. (2014), „Impact of Performance Management in Public and Private Organizations”, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 24(1), pp. 35-58.
  17. Guarini E. (2000), “Ruolo dell’ente locale e accountability: l’impatto sui sistemi di misurazione e controllo”, Azienda Pubblica, 6, pp. 715-36.
  18. Guarini E. (2014), “Measuring public vaue in bureaucratic settings: opportunities and constraints”, in: Guthrie, Marcon, Russo, Farneti (eds), Public Value Management, Measurement and Reporting, 3, pp. 301-319.
  19. Kroll A. (2013), “The other type of performance information: Nonroutine feedback, its relevance and use”, Public Administration Review, 73(2), pp. 265-276.
  20. Kroll A. (2014), “Why performance information use varies among public managers: Testing manager-related explanations”, International Public Management Journal, 17(2), pp. 174-201.
  21. Kroll A. (2015), “Drivers of Performance Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research”, Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), pp. 459-486.
  22. Liguori M., Steccolini I. (2011), “Accounting change: explaining the outcomes, interpreting the process”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), pp. 27-70.
  23. Liguori M., Sicilia M., Steccolini I. (2012), “Some like it non-financial… politicians’ and managers’ views on the importance of performance information”, Public Management Review, 14(7), pp. 903-922.
  24. Likierman A. (1993), “Performance indicators: 20 early lessons from managerial use”, Public Money & Management, 13(4), pp.15-22.
  25. Marcuccio M., Steccolini I. (2009), “Patterns of voluntary Extended Performance Reporting in Italian Local Authorities”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(2), pp.146-167.
  26. Marcoulides G.A., Heck R.H. (1993), “Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model”, Organization Science, 4(2), 209-225.
  27. Melkers J., Willoughby K. (2005), “Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Government”, Public Administration Review, 65(2), pp. 180-190.
  28. Metcalfe L., Richards S. (1992), Improving Public Management, London: Sage.
  29. Modell S. (2009), “Institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector accounting literature: A review e assessment”, Financial Accountability & Management, 25(3), pp. 277-304.
  30. Moynihan D., Hawe s D. (2012), “Responsiveness to Reform Values: The Influence of the Environment on Performance Information Use”, Public Administration Review, 72(suppl 1), pp. 95-105.
  31. Moyniha n D., Lave rtu S. (2012), “Does Involvement in Performance Management Routines Encourage Performance Information Use? Evaluating GPRA e PART”, Public Administration Review, 72(4), pp. 592-602.
  32. Moynihan D.P. (2009), “Through a Glass Darkly: Understanding the Effects of Performance Regimes”, Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), pp. 586-598.
  33. Moynihan D.P., Pandey S. (2010), “The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 849-866.
  34. Moyniha n D., Pandey S., Wright B. (2012a), “Prosocial Values and Performance Management Theory: The Link between Perceived Social Impact and Performance Information Use”, Governance, 25(3), pp. 463-483.
  35. Moyniha n D., Pandey S., Wright B. (2012b), “Setting the Table: How Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information Use”, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 22(1), pp. 143-164.
  36. Mussari R. (2005), La performance dell’azienda pubblica locale, Cedam.
  37. Nielsen P. (2014), “Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance”, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 24(2), pp. 431-458.
  38. Nisio et al. (2013), “L’introduzione del performance management, measurement and improvement: l’esperienza di alcune amministrazioni locali italiane”, Azienda Pubblica, 2, pp. 221-46.
  39. OECD (1994), Performance management in government: performance measurement and results-oriented management, PUMA occasional papers 3.
  40. OECD (1997), In search of results: performance management practices, PUMA.
  41. Poister T., Pasha O., Edwa rds L. (2013), “Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. public transit industry”, Public Administration Review, 73(4), pp. 625-636.
  42. Putnam R.D., Leonardi R., Nanetti R.Y. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  43. Quinn R.E. (1988), Beyond rational management, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Inc Publishers.
  44. Ruffini R. (2013), La valutazione della performance individuale nelle pubbliche amministrazioni, Milano: Franco Angeli.
  45. Simons R. (1990), “The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: new perspectives”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, 15, pp. 127-143.
  46. Speklé R., Verbeeten, F.H.M. (2014), “The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance”, Management Accounting Research, 25, pp. 131-146.
  47. Sun R., Van Ryzin G. (2014), “Are performance management practices associated with better outcomes? Empirical evidence from New York public schools”, American Review of Public Administration, 44(3), pp. 324-338.
  48. Taylor J. (2009), “Strengthening the Link between Performance Measurement and Decision Making”, Public Administration, 87(4), pp. 853- 871.
  49. Taylor J. (2011), “Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Information for Decision Making in Australian State Agencies”, Public Administration, 89(4), pp. 1316-1334.
  50. Van de Ven A.H., Ferry D.L. (1980), Measuring and assessing organizations, New York: John Wiley.
  51. Van de Walle S., Van Dooren W. (eds) (2008), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used, Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
  52. Van Dooren W., Bouckaert G., Halligan J. (2010), Performance Management in the Public Sector, London: Routledge.
  53. Van Helden G.J., Johnsen A., Vakkuri J. (2008), “Distinctive research patterns on public sector performance measurement of public administration and accounting disciplines”, Public Management Review, 10(5), pp. 641-651.
  54. Verbee ten F.H.M., Spek lé R.F. (2015), “Management Control, Results-Oriented Culture and Public Sector Performance: Empirical Evidence on New Public Management”, Organization Studies, 36(7), pp. 953-978.
  55. Walker R., Damanpour F., Devece C. (2011), “Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management”, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(2), pp. 367-386.
  56. Weber M. (1922), “Bureaucracy”, in: Shafritz J.M., Hyde A.C. (Eds), Classics of Public Administration, 4th ed., Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
  57. Zammuto R.F., Krakower J.Y. (1991), “Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture”, Research in Organizational Change & Development, 5, pp. 83-114.