Exploring the Sources of Cognitive Gap Between Accountability and Performance
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Author | Kwangseon Hwang,Yousueng Han |
| DOI | 10.1177/0091026019873031 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
Public Personnel Management
2020, Vol. 49(3) 393 –420
Exploring the Sources of
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Cognitive Gap Between
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019873031
DOI: 10.1177/0091026019873031
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm
Accountability and
Performance
Kwangseon Hwang1 and Yousueng Han2
Abstract
This article decouples accountability and performance to highlight the cognitive
gap in the ability to discern between accountability and performance at the street
level. A qualitative content analysis of interviews from child welfare caseworkers
provides several noteworthy findings. While these terms share certain common
key themes, they also have different characteristics. Both terms may be
understood and used interchangeably in practical applications, including serving
(the children and families), responsible action (trust), following rules, completing
the task, integrity/ethics, and effectiveness. Aside from the common key themes,
accountability was also understood as embodying the key themes of explanation/
meeting, expectation, and ownership. Conversely, performance was perceived as
representing professionalism, skill, and teamwork. In general, when the frontline
workers talk about process and relationships, they reference accountability and
when they are discussing outcomes, they reference performance. This study
highlights common and disparate characteristics associated with accountability
and performance that explain why they are pursued simultaneously and why
enhancing accountability sometimes does not lead to improving performance and
vice versa.
Keywords
accountability, performance, performance management, public services, caseworker
1Gachon University, Seongnam, South Korea
2Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
Corresponding Authors:
Kwangseon Hwang, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Seongnam-si 13120, South Korea.
Email: kwangseonhwang@gmail.com
Yousueng Han, Department of Global Public Administration, Yonsei University, 1 Yonsei-gil, Wonju-si,
Gangwon-do, 26493, South Korea.
Email: youshan@yonsei.ac.kr
394
Public Personnel Management 49(3)
Introduction
Public organizations, in particular, are asked to ensure accountability and improve
performance when public servants deliver services. Performance and accountability
are treated as nearly identical and simply axiomatic. They are surely connected to each
other as Barbara Romzek (2015) states, “In its simplest sense accountability is answer-
ability for performance, which if it is working properly, should result in a reward or a
sanction” and “to do accountability you need performance information; accountability
without performance information is a hollow concept” (p. 28). Accountability may be
fostered by monitoring performance and the impact of decisions, or from the cognitive
processes employed to reach a decision. Using these terms interchangeably might suf-
fice in a mechanistic process, but it seems insufficient when there is dissonance in their
consequences. For instance, when people believe they have had fair treatment from
police officers because the police officers’ procedures were explained in a respectful
way and their complaints were heard, it is more likely that they will perceive the meet-
ing with the police as positive, even if the results of the meeting were not good for
them. The way an individual perceives that he is satisfying the public service could
vary depending on how accountability and performance are conceptualized, under-
stood, and applied in an organizational context.
Accountability and performance go well together as the literature assesses whether
the government is “achieving its goal,” examining not only whether government
actions work but also whether the government behaves in an accountable way. When
the main goal of accountability is to improve service delivery, accountability and per-
formance are very alike. When accountability means punishing caseworkers who are
not performing well, however, this seems quite different from performance. There is
no straightforward coupling between accountability and performance (Christensen &
Lægreid, 2015) except the link between accountability and performance within “social
system” literature (Frink & Ferris, 1999, 1998). Some might say it is just a matter of
semantics, not about substance in public performance management. That might be true
at strategic levels but not at operational levels. This article evaluates what constitutes
“accountability” and “performance” in public sector practices. Knowledge about
whether such nuances exist is scarce.
This article decouples accountability and performance to highlight the cognitive
gap in the ability to discern between accountability and performance at the street level,
which refers to the front line in hierarchical organizations deciding who gets access to
public services. Is the caseworker willing to tell the client where to get the necessary
articles and how to identify persons in organizations who might be able to help? Will
the caseworker give advice about how and when to get these materials, the location of
the relevant offices, and directions to reach them? Helping the client with these issues
is not formally mandated. There is a facet of performance management that has
received less attention: how street-level bureaucrats interpret accountability and per-
formance in their daily practices and in a performance regime. This study relies on a
phenomenological approach to accountability as proposed by Tetlock (1985, 1992)
and Frink and Klimoski (1998). This approach applies a perspective that helps to
Hwang and Han
395
explain the state of mind (subjective/interpretive phenomena), as opposed to merely
the state of affairs (objective mechanisms). These subjective interpretations of reality
are what drive individual behavior and attitudes. Frink and Klimoski (1998) advocated
a conceptualization of accountability in organizations that considers the formal and
informal, the internal and external (i.e., to the individual), and the objective and sub-
jective. The majority of employees possess their own special needs, beliefs, and cogni-
tive perceptions irrespective of administrative positions and bureaucratic expectations;
as Frink and Ferris (1998) emphasized, “people are agents of their own behavior, and
can be held answerable for their behaviors” (p. 1261). These informal influences do
effect accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998), particularly individual level account-
ability (Hall, Frink, & Buckley, 2017).
Gormley and Balla (2012) stated that
[i]n the 1990s the concept of performance came to rival accountability as a standard for
evaluating executive branch agencies. On its own merits, performance is important in
democratic institutions, as the public is well served by government organizations that
operate effectively and produce generally acceptable results. (p. 14, emphasis added)
It is well recognized that accountability and performance developed from different
sources in discrete fields. While the idea of accountability has developed from finan-
cial accounting and democratic governance, performance was popularized by New
Public Management (Hwang, 2019). Performance appraisals are used mainly to hold
employees accountable. Halachmi (2002) suggested two purposes for these perfor-
mance appraisals. “To measure accountability these appraisals ask, ‘was it done right’
and to measure performance they ask, ‘was the right thing done’” (p. 90). Therefore,
Halachmi argues that “performance measurement for improved performance may not
be very useful for establishing accountability” (p. 92). Greiling and Halachmi (2013)
observed that despite substantial expansion of the amount and scope of public account-
ability reforms, government responsiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness have not
significantly improved. In addition, instead of enhancing performance, accountability
measures often lead to gaming behaviors (Busuioc & Lodge, 2016).
This study examines common and disparate characteristics of accountability and
performance from a novel street-level perspective. This article argues that account-
givers have a nuanced understanding of accountability and performance that suggests
notable implications for public performance management. The street-level perspective
offers a lens through which the existing scholarship can better understand the dimen-
sions of administrative practice that incorporate accountability and performance
mechanisms. Brodkin (2012) observes that street-level studies “have brought a critical
perspective to bear on consideration of issues such as performance and accountabil-
ity” (p. 5, original emphasis).
This study’s focus is public child welfare caseworkers in the state of Virginia,
USA, including personnel in the areas of adoption, child protective services (CPS),
family preservation, and foster care. The cases were selected because of the authors’
familiarity with and accessibility to them. They are examples meant to illuminate
396
Public Personnel Management 49(3)
some of the challenges and complexities inherent in the division between account-
ability and performance. Child welfare systems are often managed through a steadily
expanding regulatory framework that sets forth procedures, timeframes, documenta-
tion requirements, and review processes....
To continue reading
Request your trial