Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:29:21.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Public and Nonprofit Administration

Shared Measures

Collective Performance Data Use in Collaborations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2022

Alexander Kroll
Alexander Kroll
Affiliation:
Florida International University

Summary

Traditionally, performance metrics and data have been used to hold organizations accountable. But public service provision is not merely hierarchical anymore. Increasingly, we see partnerships among government agencies, private or nonprofit organizations, and civil society groups. Such collaborations may also use goals, measures, and data to manage group efforts, however, the application of performance practices here will likely follow a different logic. This Element introduces the concepts of “shared measures” and “collective data use” to add collaborative, relational elements to existing performance management theory. It draws on a case study of collaboratives in North Carolina that were established to develop community responses to the opioid epidemic. To explain the use of shared performance measures and data within these collaboratives, this Element studies the role of factors such as group composition, participatory structures, social relationships, distributed leadership, group culture, and value congruence.
Get access

Keywords

performance managementperformance information usecollaborative governancegroup decision-makingopioid epidemic
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Public and Nonprofit Administration
Online ISBN: 9781108933025
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 17 March 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Amirkhanyan, A., Kim, H., & Lambright, K. (2012). Closer than “arm’s length”: Understanding the factors associated with collaborative contracting. American Review of Public Administration, 42(3), 341–366.Google Scholar
Ammons, D. (2020). Performance measurement for managing local government: Getting it right. Irvine, CA: Melvin and Leigh.Google Scholar
Ammons, D., & Rivenbark, W. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–318.Google Scholar
Amos, O. (2017). Why opioids are such an American problem. BBC News. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada–41701718.Google Scholar
Andersen, S., & Moynihan, D. (2016). How leaders respond to diversity: The moderating role of organizational culture on performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 448–460.Google Scholar
Askim, J., Bjurstrøm, K., & Kjærvik, J. (2019). Quasi-contractual ministerial steering of state agencies: Its intensity, modes, and how agency characteristics matter. International Public Management Journal, 22(3), 470–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C., Mathiasen, A., & Petersen, N. (2019). The role of evidence in politics: Motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 1117–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, G., Batchelor, J., Seers, A., O’Boyle, E., Pollack, J., & Gower, K. (2014). What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 273–295.Google Scholar
Behn, R. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.Google Scholar
Behn, R. (2014). The PerformanceStat potential: A leadership strategy for producing results. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press/Ash Center.Google Scholar
Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2018). Framing effects under different uses of performance information: An experimental study on public managers. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 841–851.Google Scholar
Benaine, S., & Kroll, A. (2020). Explaining effort substitution in performance systems: The role of task demands and mission orientation. Public Management Review, 22(6), 813–835.Google Scholar
Bjurstrøm, K. (2019). How interagency coordination is affected by agency policy autonomy. Public Management Review, 23(3), 397–421.Google Scholar
Bjurstrøm, K. (2020). Principal–agent or principal–steward: How ministry-agency relations condition the impact of performance management in the steering of government agencies. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(5), 1053–1077.Google Scholar
Black, J., & Gregersen, H. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859–878.Google Scholar
Bohte, J., & Meier, K. (2000). Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 173–182.Google Scholar
Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251–269.Google Scholar
Brown, T., Potoski, M., & Van Slyke, D. (2006). Managing public service contracts: Aligning values, institutions, and markets. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 323–331.Google Scholar
Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 44–55.Google Scholar
Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calciolari, S., Prenestini, A., & Lega, F. (2018). An organizational culture for all seasons? How cultural type dominance and strength influence different performance goals. Public Management Review, 20(9), 1400–1422.Google Scholar
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Centers of Disease Control and Preventions (CDC). (2021a). Opioid overdose. www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html.Google Scholar
Centers of Disease Control and Preventions (CDC). (2021b). U.S. opioid dispensing rate maps. www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/maps/rxrate-maps.html.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. (2018). A literature review of team-member exchange and prospects. Journal of Service Science and Management, 11(4), 433–454.Google Scholar
Choi, S., Kim, K., & Kang, S.-W. (2017). Effects of transformational and shared leadership styles on employees’ perception of team effectiveness. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(3), 377–386.Google Scholar
Choi, I., & Moynihan, D. (2019). How to foster collaborative performance management? Key factors in the US federal agencies. Public Management Review, 21(10), 1538–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C., Mathiasen, A., Moynihan, D., & Petersen, N. (2018). How do elected officials evaluate performance? Goal preferences, governance preferences, and the process of goal reprioritization. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton, J., Vollrath, D., Froggatt, K., Lengnick-Hall, M., & Jennings, K. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8–22.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.Google Scholar
Davis, J., Schoorman, F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denhardt, K., & Aristigueta, M. (2008). Performance management system: Providing accountability and challenging collaboration. In: Van Dooren, W. & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.), Performance information on the public sector: How it is used (pp. 106–122). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dermer, J., & Lucas, R. (1986). The illusion of managerial control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(6), 471–482.Google Scholar
Doberstein, C. (2016). Designing collaborative governance decision-making in search of a “collaborative advantage.” Public Management Review, 18(6), 819–841.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1996). Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Douglas, S., & Ansell, C. (2021). Getting a grip on the performance of collaborations: Examining collaborative performance regimes and collaborative performance summits. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 951–961.Google Scholar
Douglas, J., Raudla, R., Randma-Liiv, T., & Savi, R. (2019). The impact of greater centralization on the relevance of performance information in European governments during the fiscal crisis. Administration and Society, 51(7), 1020–1050.Google Scholar
Duchek, S., Raetze, S., & Scheuch, I. (2020). The role of diversity in organizational resilience: A theoretical framework. Business Research, 13, 387–423.Google Scholar
Dull, M. (2009). Results-model reform leadership: Questions of credible commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 255–284.Google Scholar
Edwards, J., & Cable, D. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, L. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015a). Collaborative governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015b). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A performance matrix. Public Performance and Management Review, 38(4), 717–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Folz, D., Abdelrazek, R., & Chung, Y. (2009). The adoption, use, and impacts of performance measures in medium-size cities. Public Performance and Management Review, 33(1), 63–87.Google Scholar
Gagné, N., & Deci, E. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.Google Scholar
George, B., Baekgaard, M., Decramer, A., Audenaert, M., & Goeminne, S. (2020). Institutional isomorphism, negativity bias and performance information use by politicians: A survey experiment. Public Administration, 98(1), 14–28.Google Scholar
Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta‐analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66.Google Scholar
Getha-Taylor, H. (2019). Partnerships that last: Identifying the keys to resilient collaboration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girth, A. (2014). A closer look at contract accountability: Exploring the determinants of sanctions for unsatisfactory contract performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grissom, J. (2012). Revisiting the impact of participative decision making on public employee retention: The moderating influence of effective managers. American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 400–418.Google Scholar
Gu, J., Chen, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H., & Huang, S. (2018). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between shared leadership and creativity in inter‐organizational teams. Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(2), 109–126.Google Scholar
Han, Y. (2020). The impact of accountability deficit on agency performance: Performance-accountability regime. Public Management Review, 22(6), 927–948.Google Scholar
Hatry, H. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
He, W., Hao, P., Huang, X., Long, L.-R., Hiller, N., & Li, S.-L. (2020). Different roles of shared and vertical leadership in promoting team creativity: Cultivating and synthesizing team members’ individual creativity. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 199–225.Google Scholar
Heinrich, C., & Marschke, G. (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 183–208.Google Scholar
Henderson, A., & Bromberg, D. (2015). Performance information use in local government: Monitoring relationships with emergency medical services agencies. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(1), 58–82.Google Scholar
Hiller, N., Day, D., & Vance, R. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 387–397.Google Scholar
Ho, A. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217–237.Google Scholar
Hodgson., G. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, J., & Benner, K. (2020). Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges for Opioid Sales. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/health/purdue-opioids-criminal-charges.html.Google Scholar
Hoffman, B., Bynum, B., Piccolo, R., & Sutton, A. (2011). Person-organization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 779–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, J. (2017). Double standards? How historical and political aspiration levels guide managerial performance information use. Public Administration, 95(4), 1026–1040.Google Scholar
Holm, J. (2018). Successful problem solvers? Managerial performance information use to improve low organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 303–320.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2000). The art of the state. Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2012). Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug: Two hypotheses. Public Administration Review, 72(S1), S85–S92.Google Scholar
Horwitz, S., & Horwitz, I. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015.Google Scholar
Imperial, M. (2004). Collaboration and performance management in network settings: Lessons from three watershed governance efforts. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.Google Scholar
Isett, K., Mergel, I., LeRoux, K., Mischen, P., & Rethemeyer, R. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl_1), i157–i173.Google Scholar
Jager, N., Newig, J., Challies, E., & Kochskämper, E. (2020). Pathways to implementation: Evidence on how participation in environmental governance impacts on environmental outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 383–399.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, M., Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D., & Loon, N. (2018). Making sense of performance regimes: Rebalancing external accountability and internal learning. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 127–141.Google Scholar
James, O., Moynihan, D., Olsen, A., & Van Ryzin, G. (2020). Behavioral public performance: How people make sense of government metrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janis, I. (1991). Groupthink. In: Griffin, E. (Ed.), A first look at communication theory (pp. 235–246). New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.Google Scholar
Johnston, E., Hicks, D., Nan, N., & Auer, J. (2011). Managing the inclusion process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 699–721.Google Scholar
Jones, M., Viswanath, O., Peck, J., Kaye, A, Gill, J., & Simopoulos, T. (2018). A brief history of the opioid epidemic and strategies for pain medicine. Pain and Therapy, 7, 13–21.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part 1: What politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417.Google Scholar
Katz, J., & Sanger-Katz, M. (2021). “It’s huge, it’s historic, it’s unheard-of”: Drug overdose deaths spike. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/07/14/upshot/drug-overdose-deaths.html.Google Scholar
Kettl, D. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 10–19.Google Scholar
Kim, J., & Siddiki, S. (2018). Linking diversity of collaborative policymaking venues with procedural justice perceptions: A study of U.S. marine aquaculture partnerships. American Review of Public Administration, 48(2), 159–174.Google Scholar
King, E., Hebl, M., & Beal, D. (2009). Conflict and cooperation in diverse workgroups. Journal of Social Issues, 65(2), 261–285.Google Scholar
Kontopoulos, K. (1993). The logics of social structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Krause, T., & Swiatczak, M. (2021). In control we trust!? Exploring formal control configurations for municipally owned corporations. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 33(3), 314–342.Google Scholar
Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R., & Johnson, E. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, A. (2013). The other type of performance information: Nonroutine feedback, its relevance and use. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 265–276.Google Scholar
Kroll, A. (2014). Why performance information use varies among public managers: Testing manager-related explanations. International Public Management Journal, 17(2), 174–201.Google Scholar
Kroll, A. (2015a). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance and Management Review, 38(3), 459–486.Google Scholar
Kroll, A. (2015b). Explaining the use of performance information by public managers: A planned-behavior approach. American Review of Public Administration, 45(2): 201–215.Google Scholar
Kroll, A. (2021). Why you should care about shared measures. In: Nelson, K. (Ed.), Using the collective impact process as a model to address complex community problems: Lessons learned from the Opioid Response Project (pp. 85–92). Chapel Hill, NC: School of Government at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Kroll, A., DeHart-Davis, L., & Vogel, D. (2019). Mechanisms of social capital in organizations: How team cognition influences employee commitment and engagement. American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 777–791.Google Scholar
Kroll, A., & Moynihan, D. (2018). The design and practice of integrating evidence: connecting performance management with program evaluation. Public Administration Review, 78(2), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, A., & Moynihan, D. (2021). Tools of control? Comparing congressional and presidential performance management reforms. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 599–609.Google Scholar
Kroll, A., & Vogel, D. (2014). The PSM-leadership fit: A model of performance information use. Public Administration, 92(4), 974–991.Google Scholar
Kroll, A., & Vogel, D. (2021). Why public employees manipulate performance data: Prosocial impact, job stress, and red tape. International Public Management Journal, 24(2), 164–182.Google Scholar
Leach, D. (2016). When freedom is not an endless meeting: A new look at efficiency in consensus-based decision making. Sociological Quarterly, 57(1), 36–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leana, C., & Van Buren, H. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2018). The opioid crisis is a wicked problem. American Journal on Addictions, 27(1), 51.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Park, J.-G., & Lee, J. (2015), Explaining knowledge sharing with social capital theory in information systems development projects. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 115(5), 883–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.-H. (2013) The processes of social capital and employee creativity: Empirical evidence from intraorganizational networks. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(20), 3886–3902.Google Scholar
Lu, J. (2016). The performance of performance-based contracting in human services: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 277–293.Google Scholar
McGuire, M. (2013). Network management. In Bevir, M. (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance (pp. 436–453). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Micheli, P., & Pavlov, A. (2020). What is performance measurement for? Multiple uses of performance information within organizations. Public Administration, 98(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
Miller, G. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 203–225.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49–61.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Parker, V., Giles, M., Joyce, P., & Chiang, V. (2012). Perceived value congruence and team innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(4), 626–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910.Google Scholar
Monnat, S. (2020). Opioid crisis in the rural U.S. In: Glick, J., McHale, S., & King, V. (Eds.), Rural families and communities in the united states: Facing challenges and leveraging opportunities (pp. 117–143). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Moon, K.-K., & Christensen, R. (2020). Realizing the performance benefits of workforce diversity in the U.S. federal government: The moderating role of diversity climate. Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 141–165.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. (2009). Through a glass, darkly: Understanding the effects of performance regimes. Public Performance and Management Review, 32(4), 592–603.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. (2015). Uncovering the circumstances of performance information use: Findings from an experiment. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(1), 33–57.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D., Baekgaard, M., & Jakobsen, M. (2020). Tackling the performance regime paradox: A problem‐solving approach engages professional goal‐based learning. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 1001–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D., & Hawes, D. (2012). Responsiveness to reform values: The influence of the environment on performance information use. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), 95–105.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D., & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 314–323.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40–53.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D., Fernandez, S., Kim, S., LeRoux, K., Piotrowski, S., Wright, B., & Yang, K. (2011). Performance regimes amidst governance complexity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(issue suppl. 1), i141–i155.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D., Pandey, S., & Wright, B. (2012). Prosocial values and performance management theory: Linking perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance, 25(3), 463–483.Google Scholar
Murthy, V. (2016). Ending the opioid epidemic: A call to action. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 2413–2415.Google Scholar
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA]. (2021). Opioid overdose crisis. www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (2021). Using the collective impact process as a model to address complex community problems: Lessons learned from the opioid response project. Chapel Hill, NC: School of Government at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Nielsen, P., & Moynihan, D. (2017). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269–283.Google Scholar
North, D. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.Google Scholar
North, D. (2008). Institutions and the performance of economies over time. In Menard, C. & Shirley, M. (Eds.), Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 21–30). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services [NCDHHS]. (2021a). Opioid action plan data dashboard. www.ncdhhs.gov/about/department-initiatives/opioid-epidemic/opioid-action-plan-data-dashboard.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services [NCDHHS]. (2021b). North Carolina’s Opioid Action Plan. www.ncdhhs.gov/about/department-initiatives/opioid-epidemic/north-carolinas-opioid-action-plan.Google Scholar
Olsen, A. (2017). Human interest or hard numbers? Experiments on citizens’ selection, exposure, and recall of performance information. Public Administration Review, 77(3), 408–420.Google Scholar
Ospina, S. (2016). Collective leadership and context in public administration: Bridging public leadership research and leadership studies. Public Administration Review, 77(2), 275–287.Google Scholar
Paarlberg, L., & Perry, J. (2007). Values management: Aligning employee values and organization goals. American Review of Public Administration, 37(4), 387–408.Google Scholar
Page, S. (2004). Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaboratives. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 591–606.Google Scholar
Page, S., Stone, M., Bryson, J., & Crosby, B. (2015). Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715–732.Google Scholar
Pasha, O., Kroll, A., & Ash, M. (2021). Assessing the equity and effectiveness of PerformanceStat systems. Forthcoming in International Public Management Journal (DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2021.1918300).Google Scholar
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K., & Xin, K. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Petersen, N. (2020). How the source of performance information matters to learning on the front-lines: Evidence from a survey experiment. International Public Management Journal, 23(2), 276–291.Google Scholar
Pfiffner, R. (2019). Why performance information use requires a managerial identity: Evidence from the field of human services. Public Performance and Management Review, 42(2), 405–431.Google Scholar
Poocharoen, O., & Wong, N. (2016). Performance management of collaborative projects: The stronger the collaboration, the less is measured. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(3), 607–629.Google Scholar
Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (2), 229–252.Google Scholar
Ryu, G. (2015). The missing link of value congruence and its consequences: The mediating role of employees’ acceptance of organizational vision. Public Personnel Management, 44(4), 473–495.Google Scholar
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119.Google Scholar
Schillemans, T., & Bjurstrøm, K. (2019). Trust and verification: Balancing agency and stewardship theory in the governance of agencies. International Public Management Journal, 23(5), 650–676.Google Scholar
School of Government [SOG]. (2021). The opioid response project. https://orp.sites.unc.edu/.Google Scholar
Seers, A. (1989). Team–member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135.Google Scholar
Shipton, E. A., Shipton, E. E., & Shipton, A. J. (2018). A review of the opioid epidemic: What do we do about it? Pain and Therapy, 7, 23–36.Google Scholar
Siddiki, S., Kim, J., & Leach, W. (2017). Diversity, trust, and social learning in collaborative governance. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 863–874.Google Scholar
Spector, P. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016.Google Scholar
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Supovitz, J., & Tognatta, N. (2013). The impact of distributed leadership on collaborative team decision making. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(2), 101–121.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2004). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Hatch, M. & Schultz, M. (Eds.), Organizational identity (pp. 56–65). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tantardini, M. (2019). Routine and nonroutine performance information: An assessment about substitution and complementarity. Public Management Review, 21(5), 755–774.Google Scholar
Tantardini, M., & Kroll, A. (2015). The role of organizational social capital in performance management. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(1), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] (2021). Opioid crisis statistics. www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/opioid-crisis-statistics/index.html.Google Scholar
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Dooren, W., & Van de Walle, S. (2008). Performance information on the public sector: How it is used. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Van Slyke, D. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, A.-C., Hsieh, H.-H., Tsai, C.-Y., & Cheng, B.-S. (2012). Does value congruence lead to voice? Cooperative voice and cooperative silence under team and differentiated transformational leadership. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 341–370.Google Scholar
Wang, D., Waldman, D., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198.Google Scholar
Watkins, D. (2013). What is organizational culture? And why should we care? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/05/what-is-organizational-culture.Google Scholar
Webeck, S., & Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2020). How historical and social comparisons influence interpretations of performance information. International Public Management Journal, 23(6), 798–821.Google Scholar
Willems, J. (2016). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 568–592.Google Scholar
Witesman, E., & Fernandez, S. (2013). Government contracts with private organizations: Are there differences between nonprofits and for-profits? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 689–715.Google Scholar
Wu, Q., Cormican, K., Chen, G. (2020). A meta-analysis of shared leadership: Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 27(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861–879.Google Scholar
Yin, R. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41–47.Google Scholar
Yin, R. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321–332.Google Scholar
Yin, R. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Levenson, A., & Crossley, C. (2015). Move your research from the ivy tower to the board room: A primer on action research for academics, consultants, and business executives. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 151–174.Google Scholar
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Chi, K., Yam, K., & Johnson, R. (2018). Shared leadership: A state‐of‐the‐art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834–852.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Shared Measures
  • Alexander Kroll, Florida International University
  • Online ISBN: 9781108933025
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Shared Measures
  • Alexander Kroll, Florida International University
  • Online ISBN: 9781108933025
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Shared Measures
  • Alexander Kroll, Florida International University
  • Online ISBN: 9781108933025
Available formats
×