Exploring the Sources of Cognitive Gap Between Accountability and Performance

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Public Personnel Management Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1177/0091026019873031
Kwangseon Hwang, Yousueng Han
{"title":"Exploring the Sources of Cognitive Gap Between Accountability and Performance","authors":"Kwangseon Hwang, Yousueng Han","doi":"10.1177/0091026019873031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":47366,"journal":{"name":"Public Personnel Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0091026019873031","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Personnel Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019873031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
问责制与绩效认知差距的根源探析
这篇文章将问责制和绩效脱钩,以突出在街头辨别问责制和绩效的能力方面的认知差距。对儿童福利个案工作者访谈的定性内容分析提供了几个值得注意的发现。虽然这些术语有某些共同的关键主题,但它们也有不同的特点。这两个术语在实际应用中可以相互理解和使用,包括服务(儿童和家庭)、负责任的行动(信任)、遵守规则、完成任务、诚信/道德和有效性。除了共同的关键主题外,问责制也被理解为体现了解释/会议、期望和所有权等关键主题。相反,表现被认为代表了专业精神、技能和团队合作。一般来说,当一线员工谈论过程和关系时,他们会提到问责制,当他们讨论结果时,他们也会提到绩效。这项研究强调了与问责制和绩效相关的共同和不同特征,这些特征解释了为什么同时追求问责制,以及为什么加强问责制有时不能提高绩效,反之亦然。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Information and Communication Technology Adoption, Administrative Discretion, and Innovative Mindsets in Public Organizations Flexible Work in the Public Sector: A Dual Perspective on Cognitive Benefits and Costs in Remote Work Environments A Taste of Telework: Effects of Remote Work Arrangements During and After the Global Pandemic Does Citizen Feedback Influence Public Service Motivation? Evidence From a Survey Experiment in the Context of Urban Service Provisions Navigating Job Satisfaction: Unveiling the Nexus of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility (DEIA), Perceived Supervisory Support, and Intrinsic Work Experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1