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

Amandine Lerusse and Steven Van de Walle

Public Management Review, 2023, vol. 25, issue 10, 2003-2026

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.

Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14719037.2022.2085777 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:25:y:2023:i:10:p:2003-2026

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rpxm20

DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2085777

Access Statistics for this article

Public Management Review is currently edited by Stephen P. Osborne

More articles in Public Management Review from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().