The Effects of Managers' Purposeful Performance Information Use on American Hospital Performance

被引:15
作者
Kim, Taehee [1 ]
Johansen, Morgen [2 ]
Zhu, Ling [3 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Sci & Technol, Publ Adm, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Univ Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA
[3] Univ Houston, Polit Sci, Houston, TX 77004 USA
关键词
cross-sector differences; hospitals; performance management; PUBLIC-SECTOR; ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE; NONPROFIT; PRIVATE; IMPACT; ACCOUNTABILITY; GOVERNMENT; ADOPTION; PROGRESS; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1080/15309576.2019.1638275
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
There is a growing body of research on the impact of purposeful performance information (PPI) use on organizational performance (Kroll, 2015a), but questions remain about how a top manager's operating context may affect the relationship between PPI use and performance. In this study, we examine the relationship between top managers' PPI use and performance, and cross-sector differences in the relationship between PPI use and performance. We test our hypotheses by combining survey data of nearly 1,000 top managers from public, private, and nonprofit American hospitals with indirect (client satisfaction), direct (patient readmission rates), and perceptual (managers' self-assessment) performance measures, while controlling for task. We move beyond overall performance information use by exploring the relationship between PPI use and performance in four specific decision areas. We observe a fair amount of homogeneity across the three sectors but also find salient differences regarding how PPI use is linked to different performance indicators. While public hospitals primarily use PPI to meet community needs, nonprofit and for-profit hospitals use PPI to improve patient outcomes. The article concludes with a discussion of the findings within the performance management and cross-sector differences literatures.
引用
收藏
页码:129 / 156
页数:28
相关论文
共 70 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], IMPLEMENTING REFORMS
[2]   Hospital Readmission as an Accountability Measure [J].
Axon, R. Neal ;
Williams, Mark V. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2011, 305 (05) :504-505
[3]   The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects [J].
Becker, B ;
Gerhart, B .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 1996, 39 (04) :779-801
[4]   Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures [J].
Behn, RD .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2003, 63 (05) :586-606
[5]   Legislative influences on performance management reform [J].
Bourdeaux, Carolyn ;
Chikoto, Grace .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2008, 68 (02) :253-265
[6]  
Boyne G.A., 2010, Public management and performance: Research directions, P207
[7]   Democracy and Government Performance: Holding Incumbents Accountable in English Local Governments [J].
Boyne, George A. ;
James, Oliver ;
John, Peter ;
Petrovsky, Nicolai .
JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 2009, 71 (04) :1273-1284
[8]   Nonprofits, Funders, and Evaluation Accountability in Action [J].
Carman, Joanne G. .
AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2009, 39 (04) :374-390
[9]   Explaining the Difference of Work Attitudes Between Public and Nonprofit Managers: The Views of Rule Constraints and Motivation Styles [J].
Chen, Chung-An .
AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2012, 42 (04) :437-460
[10]  
de Walle V. S., 2007, MAKING BETTER USE IN