Premium
‘Managing for Outcomes’: Accountability and Thrust
Author(s) -
Baehler Karen
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
australian journal of public administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-8500
pISSN - 0313-6647
DOI - 10.1111/j..2003.00346.x
Subject(s) - accountability , sketch , deliverable , quality (philosophy) , outcome (game theory) , business , order (exchange) , jurisdiction , quality management , process management , public administration , public relations , operations management , economics , political science , computer science , management system , management , finance , law , microeconomics , philosophy , epistemology , algorithm
Central agencies in New Zealand are now defining public management performance to include both the quality of a manager's ‘account’ of output‐outcome links and the manager's record of delivering efficient outputs. This article: (1) argues that the hard edge of accountability for deliverables must be dulled somewhat in order to pursue outcomes more vigorously; (2) shows how managers can use evaluation tools known as theories‐in‐action or logic models to give accounts of policy and management thrust; (3) proposes preliminary performance criteria for outcomes‐focused management; and (4) attempts to sketch a new ‘managing for outcomes’ accountability bargain. The conclusions apply broadly to any jurisdiction interested in holding managers accountable for outcomes‐focused management.