Institutions or Contingencies? A Cross‐Country Analysis of Management Tool Use by Public Sector Executives

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13018
• Author: Gerhard Hammerschmid,Steven Van de Walle,Bert George
• Date: 01 May 2019
• Published date: 01 May 2019

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

and is not used for commercial purposes.

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 79, Iss. 3, pp. 330–342. © 2019 The

Authors. Public Administration Review

published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13018.

Abstract: Management tools are often argued to ameliorate public service performance. Indeed, evidence has emerged

to support positive outcomes related to the use of management tools in a variety of public sector settings. Despite these

positive outcomes, there is wide variation in the extent to which public organizations use management tools. Drawing

on normative isomorphism and contingency theory, this article investigates the determinants of both organization-

oriented and client-oriented management tool use by top public sector executives. The hypotheses are tested using

data from a large-N survey of 4,533 central government executives in 18 European countries. Country and sector

fixed-effects ordinary least squares regression models indicate that contingency theory matters more than normative

isomorphism. Public executives working in organizations that are bigger and have goal clarity and executive status are

more likely to use management tools. The only normative pressure that has a positive impact on management tool use

is whether public sector executives have a top hierarchical position.

Evidence for Practice

• Management tool use might be a norm that public sector executives feel is required of them to be considered

“professional” top managers.

• Similarly, management tool use might be influenced by the contingencies of the organization in which

public sector executives work.

• Our results indicate that an organization’s contingencies better predict management tool use by public sector

executives than normative pressures.

• In order to stimulate management tool use in public organizations, public sector executives working

in smaller organizations that have more ambiguous goals and nonexecutive status should be targeted.

The New Public Management (NPM)

movement of the 1980s generated an

influx of private sector management tools

into public organizations (Hood 1991; Osborne

2006). Instruments such as strategic planning,

performance appraisal, and management by

objectives became the core of the public manager’s

toolbox. Because the private sector was considered

a “role model” in efficiency and effectiveness, it

was argued that these tools could also generate

a more efficient and effective government

(Diefenbach 2009). In recent years, insights from

service management have complemented these

more organization-oriented management tools

with client-oriented management tools such as

client surveys and quality management systems.

These tools, it has been argued, can help public

organizations become more responsive to the needs

of their clients—thus answering the call for a more

service-dominant approach to public management

(Osborne, Radnor, and Nasi 2013).

At the heart of management tools’ popularity is the

assumption that these tools contribute to public

service performance—be it indicators of efficiency

and effectiveness or indicators of responsiveness

(Andrews and Van de Walle 2013; Walker and

Andrews 2015). Indeed, empirical evidence has

emerged to support positive outcomes resulting from

the use of organization-oriented and client-oriented

management tools by public organizations (e.g.,

Audenaert et al. 2016; Poister, Pasha, and Edwards

2013), and recent meta-analyses have confirmed

the significant and positive association, on balance,

between several management tools and public service

performance (Gerrish 2016; Walker and Andrews

2015). At the same time, critics have argued that

adopting management tools does not always make

sense and does not contribute to productivity or

efficiency. Andrews (2010), for instance, reviewed

studies on the introduction of performance

management in public organizations and found that

this made little difference to organizational efficiency.

Bert George

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Steven Van de Walle

KU Leuven

Gerhard Hammerschmid

Hertie School of Governance

Institutions or Contingencies? A Cross-Country Analysis of

Management Tool Use by Public Sector Executives

Gerhard Hammerschmid is professor

of public and financial management at the

Hertie School of Governance, Germany. His

research focuses on public management

reform, comparative public administration,

and institutional theory.

E-mail: hammerschmid@hertie-school.org

Steven Van de Walle is professor

of public management at the Public

Governance Institute, KU Leuven, Belgium.

His research focuses on public sector

reform, interactions between public services

and clients, and attitudes and behaviors

of public officials. His latest books are

Public Administration Reforms in Europe:

The View from the Top

(Edward Elgar,

2016, ed., with Gerhard Hammerschmid,

Rhys Andrews, and Philippe Bezes) and

Inspectors and Enforcement at the Front

Line of Government

(Palgrave, 2019, ed.,

with Nadine Raaphorst).

E-mail: steven.vandewalle@kuleuven.be

Bert George is assistant professor

of public management at Erasmus

University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

His research focuses on strategy, behavior,

and performance in public and nonprofit

organizations using observational, meta-

analytical, and experimental research

methods. He is director of the master’s

degree program in public management

at Erasmus University Rotterdam. He

co-chairs the European Group for Public

Administration’s Permanent Study Group

on Strategic Management in Government

and is a senior member of the Netherlands

Institute of Government.

E-mail: george@essb.eur.nl

Research Article