IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpxmxx/v25y2023i10p2003-2026.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public officials’ interpretation of conflicting performance information: goal reprioritization or unbiased decision-making?

Author

Listed:
  • Amandine Lerusse
  • Steven Van de Walle

Abstract

When public officials evaluate service providers’ performance, this evaluation is influenced by their preferences for the public or private provision of services. However, these so-called governance preferences often conflict with public officials’ preferences for certain performance measures during evaluation processes. Building on goal reprioritization theory, this study examines how public officials behave in situations where their governance preferences do not align with their preferences for the performance measures. Using survey experiment data (n = 4,248), we found that public officials use goal reprioritization rather than unbiased decision-making when assessing conflicting performance information, questioning the efficient use of performance information by public administrations.

Suggested Citation

  • Amandine Lerusse & Steven Van de Walle, 2023. "Public officials’ interpretation of conflicting performance information: goal reprioritization or unbiased decision-making?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(10), pages 2003-2026, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:25:y:2023:i:10:p:2003-2026
    DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2085777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14719037.2022.2085777
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14719037.2022.2085777?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:25:y:2023:i:10:p:2003-2026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rpxm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.