Getting a Grip on the Performance of Collaborations: Examining Collaborative Performance Regimes and Collaborative Performance Summits

• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Author: Scott Douglas,Chris Ansell
• Date: 01 September 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13341

Research Article

951

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Abstract: Collaborative governance is popular among practitioners and scholars, but getting a grip on the performance

of collaborations remains a challenge. Recent research has made progress by identifying appropriate performance

measures, yet managing performance also requires appropriate performance routines. This article brings together insights

from collaborative governance and performance management to conceptualize collaborative performance regimes; the

collection of routines used by actors working together on a societal issue to explicate their goals, exchange performance

information, examine progress, and explore performance improvement actions. The concept of regimes is made concrete

by focusing on the specific routine of organizing a collaborative performance summit; a periodic gathering where

partners review their joint performance. Such summits are both manifestations of the performance regime and potential

turning points for regime change. Using three local public health collaborations as illustration, this article offers a

framework for understanding collaborative performance regimes, summits, and the dynamics between them.

Evidence for Practice

• The effective performance management of collaborations requires not only joint indicators, but also

processes to jointly collect and review performance information with all partners.

• Partners can choose to fully integrate their performance management processes, keep their processes separate,

or find some middle ground between autonomy and integration.

• Bringing together partners for collaborative performance summits can be valuable for gaining insights, but

these meetings can also be counterproductive when poorly run.

• The dominant performance processes within a collaboration will change over time, with summits forming

potential turning points in a collaborative performance regime.

Advancing Collaborative Performance

Management

Collaborative governance is popular among both

practitioners and scholars, but getting a grip on the

performance of collaborations remains a challenge

(Emerson and Nabatchi 2015; Gash 2017). Research

efforts have sought to identify appropriate performance

measures for collaborations, detailing the exact dimensions

or indicators to be assessed (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015;

Page et al. 2015; Provan and Milward, 2001).

However, recent performance management research

has found that effective performance management

requires appropriate performance routines as well

(Behn 2010; Gerrish 2016; James et al. 2020;

Kroll and Moynihan 2018). Performance routines

such as goal-setting processes, performance budget

negotiations, and performance reviews “structure

how [actors] experience their work” (March and

Simon 1993), help actors to make sense of ambiguity

(Noordegraaf 2017), and motivate them to improve

performance (Moynihan and Kroll 2016).

Performance management routines can be studied by

looking at the collection of routines as a whole and by

examining a specific routine in detail.

The collection of performance routines governing

an organization have been called a “performance

regime” (Jakobsen et al. 2017; Moynihan et al. 2011;

Talbot 2010), encapsulating the overall structure

and approach to performance management within

an agency. In hierarchical settings, this regime would

usually be dominated by a principal holding the

agency to account by setting goals and conducting

regular reviews (Jakobsen et al. 2017). In collaborative

settings, there may not be a clear hierarchical

relationship or even a specific goal (Ansell and

Gash 2008; Behn 2010). As actors oscillate between

the need to work together and desire to retain

autonomy, collaborative performance regimes may be

in a constant state of flux.

Specific performance routines for collaborations

are similarly difficult to grasp. For example,

Getting a Grip on the Performance of Collaborations:

Examining Collaborative Performance Regimes and

Collaborative Performance Summits

Scott Douglas Chris Ansell

Utrecht University UC Berkeley

Christopher Ansell is a Professor of

Political Science at the University of

California, Berkeley. His research focuses

on understanding how organizations,

institutions, and communities can engage

effectively in democratic governance in the

face of conflict, uncertainty, and complexity.

Email: cansell@berkeley.edu

Scott Douglas is an assistant professor

of public management at the Utrecht

School of Governance. His research focuses

on the performance management of

collaborations, working closely with public

sector organizations tackling issues such

as radicalization, educational inequality,

and obesity.

Email: s.c.douglas@uu.nl

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 5, pp. 951–961. © 2020 The Authors.

Public Administration Review published

by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The

American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13341.