Why and How Do State Governments Adopt and Implement "Managing for Results" Reforms?

Abstract

Managing for results reforms were proposed as solutions to the problems identified by implementation theory, but such reforms must themselves be implemented. Based on case analysis in three states, this article proposes a theory of adoption and implementation of managing for results policies. This theory argues that why and how elected officials adopt results-based reform are based on their understanding of the relative costs and benefits—primarily symbolic—of the reform. Adopting performance information systems is popular, has no natural opposition, and requires little work or loss of power on the part of elected officials. Managers at the agency level react by using the reform where their authority allows, often in ways not predicted by reform doctrine. Agency leadership identifies how such reforms may be used to add positive value to the organization, or at least limit costs, given the organization's context and the leader's agenda. The case evidence suggests that symbolic action is not inconsistent with consequential outcomes that provide real public management benefits.