6 Performance management – to support accountability or learning?
The last fifteen years have seen the performance management systems within the New Zealand public management model focused on supporting the principle of accountability. In doing so it could be argued that the performance management systems have operated in a manner that is counter to the generation of a learning environment and the evaluation of the effectiveness of policies – why would Ministers and chief executives provide information where they might be held to account for “failed” policies?
A managing for outcomes environment requires the evaluation of policies and the impact interventions have on outcomes. Without this it will be impossible to determine not only whether the public service is “doing the right” things, but also whether it is “doing them right”. It is important, therefore, that a way be found to encourage evaluation whilst ensuring that “negative” findings will not necessarily impact in terms of accountability.
6.1 Accountability
The nature of accountability relationships will be dependant upon the different levers and forms of control available to different actors within the New Zealand public sector management system, and the culture that exists within the current environment.
6.1.1 The concept of “Accountability”
“Accountability” as a concept has a number of different nuances. This is particularly true when looking towards a managing for outcomes environment where it is likely that questions such as: whether people should be held to account, or have to give account; the extent to which straight-line accountability is sensible when duality and strategic coordination across agencies is being encouraged; and the extent to which the system can provide for the intrinsic incentives and sanctions on performance that are not obvious in a strongly contractual system need to be resolved. It is possible to summarise these different questions in terms of whether to provide for accountability or to encourage responsibility.
Mulgan (2000) suggests that accountability and responsibility need to be seen as separate, but related, concepts, where the intrinsic difference sits in whether the control factor is imposed by external parties or through the individual’s own sense of self. Having made this distinction, Mulgan suggests that the core concept of accountability has developed over time to cover four areas: “professional” and “personal” accountability; accountability as “control”; accountability as “responsiveness’” and accountability as “dialogue”.
The contractualist nature of the New Zealand public management system tends to reflect the concept of accountability as control, which Mulgan (2000) suggests is a feature of the various institutional checks and balances by which democracies seek to control the action of the governments(p. 556). He suggests that control is not only exercised by external agencies, but also through the interweaving of mechanisms to ensure accountability through the institutions that make up a public management system.
The concept of “accountability as control” is closely related to what Day and Klein (1987) define as managerial accountability; i.e. accountability focused on making those with delegated authority answerable for carrying out agreed tasks according to agreed criteria of performance. The New Zealand public management system would appear to have good systems in place to provide for managerial accountability around the tasks Day and Klein (1987) describe as fiscal / regularity tasks (inputs) and process / efficiency tasks (outputs). However, a key question arises in considering whether the systems adequately provide for accountability for programme / effectiveness tasks (outcomes) or, in fact, the extent to which the system should provide for accountability for outcomes.
It could be that these aspects of accountability can be provided through levers such as those identified by strengthening concepts of personal and professional accountability. This could be promoted within the public management system through the establishment of clear expectations on chief executives and / or through using clan controls to promote the self-controls identified by Dalton (1971) – where morality, professional behaviour and a core understanding of the ethos of the public service will drive individuals to perform to the best of their ability.
6.1.2 Accountability in the New Zealand context
If Ministers are to take a lead on the specification of outcomes, systems to support Ministerial accountability for outcomes might be most appropriate. On the other hand, it could be argued that the parliamentary cycle, parliamentary scrutiny and the general media coverage of governmental activities already provide a significant level of accountability for Ministers – which may in fact create disincentives for the articulation of outcomes.
The decision rights matrix indicated by Figure 2also suggests that chief executives should take a lead in relation to the delivery of outputs and management of inputs. It went on to suggest that chief executives should also be accountable for outputs and the intrinsic behaviours and norms that support a managing for outcomes environment. At these levels it is easier to implement accountability as control systems – in large part because the information flows associated with a closed performance management system have fewer external influences.
At an outcomes level it might be more appropriate, however, to engender a culture where chief executives take “responsibility’, rather than being held to account for the achievement of outcomes. Engendering such a culture would require a clear understanding on the part of “oversight” agencies, Ministers and Parliament about the distinction being made.
6.1.3 Conclusion
In looking towards a managing for outcomes environment, accepting that some part of the jigsaw needs to provide for accountability of executive decisions and public service action, it may prove necessary to provide for a range of different accountability systems that support a range of incentives and sanctions.
A key lesson from evaluations of the current public management system lies in the need for a learning environment to sit alongside these accountability systems. How this might be provided for is discussed in the next section.
