Dubnick, Melvin J., “Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms,” Public Performance and Management Review (PPMR), 28 (3), March 2005, pp. 376–417
Abstract:
In an effort to determine the basis for the assumed relationship between accountability and performance that pervades much of contemporary administrative reform efforts, this paper applies a “social mechanisms” approach to elaborate the factors that might be involved in account giving and various forms of administrative performance. This search for mechanisms indicates that the relationship is paradoxical and either spurious or so contingent as to raise questions regarding administrative reforms based on it. Various theoretical approaches for dealing with the relationship are considered.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document examines the theoretical and empirical foundations of the assumed relationship between accountability and performance in public administration reforms.
Relationship Between Accountability and Performance
- The assumed link between accountability and improved performance is often taken for granted without thorough analysis.
- The relationship is paradoxical, possibly spurious or highly contingent, raising questions about reform effectiveness.
Concept and Ambiguity of Accountability
- Accountability is broadly defined as “giving accounts,” but its core meaning is often obscured by synonyms like responsibility and responsiveness.
- Its multiple interpretations hinder clear understanding and analysis of its role in governance.
Social Mechanism Approach to Accountability
- The paper adopts a social mechanisms framework to analyze how accountability influences performance through social processes.
- It views accountability as embedded social relationships involving account giving and targeted performance outcomes.
Types of Account Giving
- Reporting involves providing neutral, preset information to principals, mainly for oversight and control.
- Mitigated account giving responds to specific issues, with agents actively responding to principal concerns.
- Reframed account giving aims to transform relationships, with agents actively shaping the account to influence outcomes.
Role of Reporting in Governance
- Administrative and financial reporting serve as control mechanisms rooted in management and accountability traditions.
- Reports are artifacts of governance, used for oversight, transparency, and evaluating organizational performance.
Financial Reporting as a Control Mechanism
- Financial reports are central to accountability, providing transparency and enabling oversight.
- They are designed to assess compliance, efficiency, and effectiveness, especially in public sector management.
Reporting as a Control System
- Reporting establishes a subordinate role for agents, focusing on oversight and control.
- Accounting technologies act as social control tools, shaping perceptions of organizational predictability and behavior.
Concept of Account Giving and Its Types
- Account giving involves speech acts aimed at recasting actions’ negative significance or responsibility.
- It is used to mitigate damage or reframe situations without admitting fault, depending on context.
Mitigation Strategies and Their Foundations
- Rooted in Austin’s distinction between excuses and justifications; excuses show lack of control, justifications justify actions.
- Common forms include appeals to accidents, defeasibility, biological drives, scapegoating, and apologies, each suited to different contexts.
Social and Cultural Dynamics of Mitigation
- Account giving is negotiated among social roles, shaped by normative structures and social relationships.
- Cultural differences influence effectiveness; for example, public shame is significant in Japan, serving as a mitigation form without requiring forgiveness.
Reframing and Impression Management
- Reframing involves actively controlling how situations are perceived, often through Goffman’s face-work and framing strategies.
- Strategies include mystification, denial, and preemptive disclaimers to influence expectations and evaluations.
Performance Types and Measurement
- Performance varies from task execution (production) to quality of actions (competence), results, and productivity.
- Each type emphasizes different aspects: process, skill, output, or efficiency, affecting how performance is assessed and improved.
The M Factor and Social Mechanisms
- The M factor energizes the link between account giving and performance, acting as a causal mechanism.
- Types include cognitive, normative, interactional, and rational-choice mechanisms, which influence social responses.
The Accountability Paradox
- Increasing accountability efforts often hinder performance improvements due to resource consumption and superficial compliance.
- Reforms like GPRA and PART exemplify how accountability measures can become symbolic rather than effective.
Contextual Factors Influencing Accountability and Performance
- Expectations and trust are key, shaping how account giving influences performance.
- Expectations are multidimensional, including quantity, scope, clarity, and stability, and can be strategically manipulated.
Trust and Expectations in Governance
- Trust reflects the expectation that others will act as anticipated, affecting accountability dynamics.
- Variability in trust across environments influences mechanisms for managing expectations and accountability.
Social and Institutional Contexts
- Contexts such as answerability systems, moral communities, legal liabilities, and attribution environments shape accountability.
- These settings generate specific mechanisms that influence how account giving impacts performance.
Theoretical and Empirical Gaps
- Current literature lacks a clear, tested link between account giving and performance.
- The relationship is complex, likely influenced by external factors like expectations and trust, requiring further research.
Foundations of Public Service Accountability
- The literature explores responsibility and accountability in public service across different contexts.
- Emphasis on comparative perspectives and the importance of transparency and performance.
Theories and Social Mechanisms
- Social mechanisms explain how social processes influence accountability and governance.
- Mechanisms are used to analyze social and organizational behavior systematically.
Performance Measurement and Evaluation
- Development of performance indicators and measurement systems to assess public programs.
- Challenges include dysfunctions and ensuring indicators accurately reflect performance.
Cultural and Organizational Influences
- Cultural differences shape perceptions of conflict, responsibility, and accountability.
- Organizational structures and internal networks impact performance and accountability outcomes.
Accountability in Democratic and Public Sectors
- Democratic accountability involves transparency, responsibility, and citizen trust.
- Public sector accountability faces unique challenges due to complex governance and legal frameworks.
Legal and Ethical Dimensions
- Legal interpretations and moral responsibility influence accountability practices.
- Apologies and moral justifications play roles in managing blame and responsibility.
Governance Reforms and Public Management
- Reforms like New Public Management aim to improve efficiency and accountability.
- Critics highlight potential dysfunctions and the importance of balancing managerialism with democratic values.
Measurement and Evaluation Challenges
- Difficulties in designing reliable performance systems and avoiding dysfunctional effects.
- Emphasis on meaningful measurement over mere compliance.
Social and Psychological Aspects
- Emotions like shame and guilt influence accountability and social bonds.
- Impression management and social accounts shape perceptions of responsibility.
Institutional and Political Contexts
- Political and institutional environments affect accountability mechanisms.
- Local control, community involvement, and governance networks are crucial factors.