Jump to content

Draft:Performance dialogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Comment: period and comma go before, not after, <ref>...</ref>. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Performance dialogue is a collaborative process in which a group of individuals engages in discussing and interpreting performance information with the aim of identifying actions needed to manage the performance of an entity. [1] The entity can be an organization, a group of people, a network of organizations, or another type of actor network. Unlike general discussions, performance dialogue is centered specifically around performance metrics, ensuring that the dialogue remains focused on actionable insights drawn from data.[2] Here, dialogue is seen as a way of exploring and understanding the hidden patterns and assumptions that shape how people think, feel, and behave in relation to given information.[3] In this context, performance information encompasses both financial and non-financial data related to the inputs, processes, workload, outputs, outcomes, productivity, and cost-effectiveness of the entity.[2]

Inputs refer to the resources an organization uses—such as funding, staff, physical infrastructure, and time.[4] Process indicators capture the activities carried out during service delivery,[5] whereas workload metrics measure service demand, like the number of clients in queues for public services.[4] Outputs represent the delivered products or services, along with their quality.[6] Outcomes indicate the effects of these outputs, including changes in circumstances, perceptions, or behaviors.[7] Productivity expresses the relationship between inputs and outputs, often calculated as cost per user.[8] Cost-effectiveness assesses how efficiently inputs are converted into desired outcomes.[9]

Dialogues can be an essential part of the behavioural governance model of performance management systems.[10] Such dialogues can generate a discursive accountability system for people.[11] Collaborative performance summits,[12] management by inquiry,[11] and interactive-dialogue approach[13] all represent different forms of what the management literature calls performance dialogues.[2] Performance dialogue as a concept is particularly relevant in the public sector, where complexity and ambiguity in performance information make it essential to use dialogue to interpret and manage performance effectively.[14] Recently, the concept of performance dialogue has gained more attention.[15] [16][17][18][19][20][21]

Etymology

[edit]

The etymological foundation of the concept of performance dialogue lies in the synthesis of several academic traditions:[2] dialogue literature,[22][23][24] explorations of dialogic leadership,[25] dialogic accounting research,[26] learning organizations,[27] and performance management scholarship.[13] Six foundational elements of dialogue are drawn from the dialogue literature and cross-checked with research on discursive activities in studies of dialogic leadership, dialogic accounting, and learning organizations.The foundational elements of dialogue are as follows: purpose of the discussion, topic, participants, time span, forum, and method. A seventh, unique element that sets performance dialogues apart from other forms of dialogue is that they are specifically built around performance information.The concept of performance information is taken from both performance management and accounting studies.[2]

Practical examples of performance dialogue

[edit]
  1. Municipal daycare services: In Finland, public sector managers regularly hold performance dialogues to align services with community needs. In one municipality, daycare managers reviewed financial data, customer feedback, population forecasts and other performance information to adjust staffing and resources to meet changing regional demands. These discussions helped ensure that services remained responsive to the needs of growing or shrinking populations.[2]​​
  2. Hybrid organizations: In organizational networks, such as hybrid public-private partnerships, performance dialogues often involve boundary-crossing discussions. For example, a hybrid organization providing healthcare and social services in Finland brought together representatives from government agencies, private companies, and third-sector organizations. The participants discussed service integration and customer pathways across different units.[28]
  3. City of Tampere learning forums: In the city of Tampere, Finland, performance dialogues were held through learning forums designed to help city officials interpret and use performance data more effectively. Managers from various departments, including health and social services, reviewed data such as unemployment rates, service usage statistics, and operational reports. These sessions encouraged collaborative discussions, where participants shared interpretations and identified actionable steps to improve performance. The forums resulted in multiple development ideas, some of which were immediately implemented to enhance city services.​[29]
  4. Learning forums in Virginia Department of Corrections: The Virginia Department of Corrections implemented learning forums as part of its strategic planning meetings in 1996. Senior managers used these forums to address critical organizational issues, reviewing performance information to assess and compare alternative processes. Benchmarking exercises were introduced, where teams sought best practices from other leading organizations. These performance dialogues led to changes in practices that improved both cost efficiency and performance, making them a key driver in the department’s organizational improvement efforts.[30]​
  5. Dutch Foundation for Adult Illiteracy and performance summits: In the Netherlands, collaborative performance dialogues were organized by the Dutch Foundation for Adult Illiteracy to improve programs addressing adult illiteracy. These performance summits brought together local government officials, community colleges, libraries, and charities to review their collaborative efforts. During the summits, participants shared performance data. These discussions helped the organizations identify gaps, such as insufficient support for native Dutch speakers, and collaboratively decide on actions to improve literacy outreach.​[19]
  6. ChildStat Program, New York City Administration for Children's Services (ACS): The ChildStat program is a performance dialogue initiative used by the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to improve child protection services. In these dialogues, senior executives, borough management, and caseworkers come together to review performance data, such as case processing times and child safety indicators. The discussions are driven by detailed performance reports and case reviews, which highlight areas of concern. These dialogues aim to foster collaboration between different levels of the organization to ensure that key decisions are based on both performance metrics and frontline casework experiences​.

Reasons to use performance dialogue

[edit]

Performance dialogues serve a specific purpose, which explains why they are used. People have used performance dialogues for the following reasons:

  1. Sharing and aggregating performance Information: Performance dialogues are used to bring together relevant information from different units or hierarchical levels within an organization.[1]​
  2. Breaking organizational silos and supporting integration: Performance dialogues help break down organizational silos by fostering interaction and mutual understanding between different sectors and stakeholders. This cross-sectoral collaboration is crucial for solving broad societal problems that require input from various actors, including public, private, and third-sector organizations.​[31]
  3. Sense-making and decision-making: Performance dialogues help public managers and employees collectively make sense of complex performance information and make informed decisions. This collaborative interpretation of data ensures that the decisions made are grounded in a shared understanding of performance metrics.​[32]
  4. Improving performance: Dialogues are used to pinpoint actions and inactions that can improve organizational performance. By engaging in these conversations, managers and staff identify practical steps to enhance service delivery and performance outcomes.[2]
  5. Learning and innovation: Dialogic performance management fosters learning within organizations. The dialogue enables participants to exchange insights, question existing practices, and innovate new solutions, which can lead to continuous improvement in public sector management.​[32]
  6. Creating a holistic view of performance: By involving various participants from different levels of the organization, dialogues enable managers to obtain a comprehensive view of organizational performance. This facilitates a more nuanced understanding of how different areas contribute to overall outcomes.​[14]
  7. Supporting participatory management: Performance dialogues encourage a participatory approach where employees and managers work together to interpret data and make decisions. This participatory nature of dialogues helps build a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility for performance​.[31]
  8. Enhancing collaboration and synchronization of performance management efforts: Synchronizing different performance dialogues helps in ensuring that efforts across different sectors or management levels are aligned, facilitating a more coherent approach to collaborative performance management​.[28]
  9. Addressing complexity and ambiguity: Performance dialogues are used to tackle complex societal issues and ambiguous performance information that cannot be resolved by any single actor or organization. The collaborative nature of these dialogues allows for multiple perspectives to be considered, helping public managers make sense of intricate problems and information.[14]

Outcomes of performance dialogue

[edit]

To improve learning, performance dialogues can induce several outcomes. First, they facilitate the exchange of participants' existing perceptions of performance information.[19] Second, they support the generation of new insights from performance data, which are then shared among participants. [33] Third, they enable the transformation, refinement, and reorganization of knowledge, which is subsequently communicated within the group.[34] Fourth, performance dialogues may lead to either controlled or uncontrolled learning, thereby enhancing actor autonomy or reinforcing top-down control as part of management control mechanisms.[32] In general, performance dialogues may[35] or may not improve performance information use in public sector organizations.[1][28][31]

Performance dialogues can improve various aspects of the public sector, such as conversational culture, cross-sectoral integration, and collaboration. Improved stakeholder engagement and policy influence may also emerge.[30] If managed improperly, performance dialogues can also increase fragmentation in public service production and concentrate too much power in the hands of information gatekeepers.[31]

Management inquiry grounded in performance dialogues can significantly transform administrative behavior by embedding accountability and problem-solving into everyday operations. Such dialogues can also boost discursive processes that leverage universal norms of honest communication and public reasoning. While performance dialogues may foster stronger commitment, continuous self-evaluation, and more responsive management, they also carry risks of defensiveness, manipulation, and communication breakdowns.[11]

Performance summits, as forms of performance dialogues, can have four main outcomes. They may result in no change at all. They can lead to small changes in daily work (operational change). They might shift the goals or how progress is measured (strategic change). In some cases, they change how the collaboration is organized or governed (systemic change). In terms of performance improvements, some performance summits led to measurable improvements, while others did not. What comes to improved comprehension, the link between participants identifying performance problems before the summit and realizing improvements afterward was weak.[36]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Rajala, Tomi; Laihonen, Harri; Haapala, Petra (2018-01-01). "Why is dialogue on performance challenging in the public sector?". Measuring Business Excellence. 22 (2): 117–129. doi:10.1108/MBE-06-2017-0032. ISSN 1368-3047.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Rajala, Tomi; Laihonen, Harri (2018-01-01). "Managerial choices in orchestrating dialogic performance management". Baltic Journal of Management. 14 (1): 141–157. doi:10.1108/BJM-12-2017-0416. ISSN 1746-5265.
  3. ^ Isaacs, William N. (2001-06-01). "Toward an Action Theory of Dialogue". International Journal of Public Administration. 24 (7–8): 709–748. doi:10.1081/PAD-100104771. ISSN 0190-0692.
  4. ^ a b Hatry, Harry P. (2006). Performance measurement: getting results (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87766-734-6.
  5. ^ Rice, Robyn (2005). Home Care Nursing Practice: Concepts and Application (4th ed.). Mosby (published August 22, 2005). ISBN 9780323030724.
  6. ^ Helden, G. Jan van (2017). Public Sector Accounting and Budgeting for Non-Specialists (1st ed.). London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-137-37698-5.
  7. ^ Morley, Elaine; Bryant, Scott P.; Hatry, Harry P. (2001). Comparative performance measurement. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87766-700-1.
  8. ^ Sumanth, David J. (1984). Productivity engineering and management: productivity measurement, evaluation, planning, and improvement in manufacturing and service organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-062426-9.
  9. ^ Levin, Henry M.; McEwan, Patrick J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis: methods and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks (Calif.): Sage. ISBN 978-0-7619-1933-9.
  10. ^ De Bruijn, Hans; Van Helden, G. Jan (November 2006). "A Plea for Dialogue Driven Performance Based Management Systems: Evidence from the Dutch Public Sector". Financial Accountability & Management. 22 (4): 405–423. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2006.00432.x. ISSN 0267-4424.
  11. ^ a b c DeHaven-Smith, Lance; Jenne II, Kenneth C. (2006). "Management by Inquiry: A Discursive Accountability System for Large Organizations". Public Administration Review. 66 (1): 64–76. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00556.x. ISSN 1540-6210.
  12. ^ Douglas, Scott; Ansell, Chris (2021). "Getting a Grip on the Performance of Collaborations: Examining Collaborative Performance Regimes and Collaborative Performance Summits". Public Administration Review. 81 (5): 951–961. doi:10.1111/puar.13341. ISSN 1540-6210. PMC 8518688. PMID 34690374.
  13. ^ a b Moynihan, Donald (2008). "Advocacy and Learning: An Interactive-Dialogue Approach to Performance Information Use". In Van Dooren, Wouter; Van de Walle, Steven (eds.). Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 24–41. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-10541-7_3. ISBN 978-1-137-10541-7. Retrieved 2025-07-15.
  14. ^ a b c Laihonen, Harri; Rajala, Tomi (2022). "Developing Public Administration with Performance Dialogues". In Farazmand, Ali (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 3137–3143. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_3986. ISBN 978-3-030-66252-3. Retrieved 2024-09-27.
  15. ^ Bianchi, Carmine; Hall, Jeremy (September 2023). "Harnessing the evolutionary advantage of emergent performance management regimes: Strengthening accountability for challenges of modern public administration and governance". Public Administration Review. 83 (5): 1083–1087. doi:10.1111/puar.13713. ISSN 0033-3352.
  16. ^ Couturier, Jerome; Sklavounos, Nikolaos (2019-01-01). "Performance dialogue: A framework to enhance the effectiveness of performance measurement systems". International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 68 (4): 699–720. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-09-2017-0238. ISSN 1741-0401.
  17. ^ Deschamps, Carl; Mattijs, Jan (2018-07-03). "How Organizational Learning Is Supported by Performance Management Systems: Evidence from a Longitudinal Case Study". Public Performance & Management Review. 41 (3): 469–496. doi:10.1080/15309576.2018.1462213. hdl:2013/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/283129. ISSN 1530-9576.
  18. ^ Bleiklie, Ivar; Frølich, Nicoline; Michelsen, Svein (2024-12-18). "Investigating the dynamics of managerial dialogue in HE merger reform". Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-024-01371-2. ISSN 1573-174X.
  19. ^ a b c Douglas, Scott; Schiffelers, Marie-Jeanne (2021-11-02). "Unpredictable cocktails or recurring recipes? Identifying the patterns that shape collaborative performance summits". Public Management Review. 23 (11): 1705–1723. doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1879917. ISSN 1471-9037.
  20. ^ Ikonen, Anna-Kaisa (2020-01-02). "Knowledge as a critical success factor in the Finnish social and health-care reform". Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 18 (1): 69–80. doi:10.1080/14778238.2019.1621223. ISSN 1477-8238.
  21. ^ Vignieri, Vincenzo (2022). "Fostering Policy Learning in Public Value-Driven Performance Regimes Through Dynamic Performance Management". In Vignieri, Vincenzo (ed.). Enhancing Performance Regimes to Enable Outcome-based Policy Analysis in Cross-boundary Settings: A Dynamic Performance Management Approach. System Dynamics for Performance Management & Governance. Vol. 6. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 77–106. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07074-7_3. ISBN 978-3-031-07074-7. Retrieved 2025-07-15.
  22. ^ Buber, Martin (2010). I and Thou. Translated by Smith, Ronald Gregor. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing. ISBN 978-1-57898-997-3.
  23. ^ Bohm, David; Nichol, Lee (1996). On dialogue. London ; New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-14911-2.
  24. ^ Bakhtin, M. M.; Emerson, Caryl (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Theory and history of literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-1227-7.
  25. ^ Isaacs, William (2008). Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together. New York: Crown/Archetype. ISBN 978-0-307-48378-2.
  26. ^ Brown, Judy (2009-04-01). "Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously". Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 20 (3): 313–342. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2008.08.002. ISSN 1045-2354.
  27. ^ Senge, Peter M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. A currency book (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday Currency. ISBN 978-0-385-26094-7.
  28. ^ a b c Rajala, Tomi; Laihonen, Harri; Vakkuri, Jarmo (2020-09-01). "Exploring challenges of boundary-crossing performance dialogues in hybrids". Journal of Management and Governance. 24 (3): 799–820. doi:10.1007/s10997-019-09485-x. ISSN 1572-963X.
  29. ^ Laihonen, Harri; Mäntylä, Sari (2017-01-01). "Principles of performance dialogue in public administration". International Journal of Public Sector Management. 30 (5): 414–428. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-09-2016-0149. ISSN 0951-3558.
  30. ^ a b Moynihan, Donald P. (March 2005). "Goal-Based Learning and the Future of Performance Management". Public Administration Review. 65 (2): 203–216. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00445.x. ISSN 0033-3352.
  31. ^ a b c d Rajala, Tomi; Laihonen, Harri (2022-01-01). "Fragmentation and performance dialogues in public management". International Journal of Public Sector Management. 35 (2): 211–235. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-06-2021-0150. ISSN 0951-3558.
  32. ^ a b c Rajala, Tomi; Laihonen, Harri (2020). "Combining Learning with Management Controls in Performance Dialogues to Shape the Behavior of Public Servants". In Sullivan, Helen; Dickinson, Helen; Henderson, Hayley (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–21. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_45-1. ISBN 978-3-030-03008-7. Retrieved 2024-09-27.
  33. ^ Andersson, Krister (2009). "Motivational dilemmas in collaborative learning activities: The case of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)". Public Administration and Development. 29 (5): 341–351. doi:10.1002/pad.552. ISSN 1099-162X.
  34. ^ Göranzon, Bo; Hammaren, Maria; Ennals, Richard, eds. (2006). Dialogue, skill and tacit knowledge. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ISBN 978-0-470-01921-4.
  35. ^ Rajala, Tomi; Sinervo, Lotta-Maria (2021-01-01). "The beauty of constructive culture: planting the seeds for widespread performance information use among councilors". International Journal of Public Sector Management. 34 (4): 459–485. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-09-2020-0237. ISSN 0951-3558.
  36. ^ Douglas, Scott; Ansell, Chris (September 2023). "To the summit and beyond: Tracing the process and impact of collaborative performance summits". Public Administration Review. 83 (5): 1108–1122. doi:10.1111/puar.13598. ISSN 0033-3352.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Performance_dialogue&oldid=1300871351"