John Mayne’s Contribution to Results-Based Management Thinking
A Leadership Legacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75432Keywords:
results-based management, public management, leadership, managing for results, evaluative cultureAbstract
John Mayne wrote extensively on results-based management. While his thinking evolved, some key tenets remained. He emphasized the importance of leadership in managing for results. In this article, we elicit his understanding of sound results-based management and the role of leadership. Mayne argued that a salient task for leaders was building and sustaining an evaluative culture, wherein the organization uses and learns from performance information. The authors analyzed his recommendations for leaders and grouped them into four different types of leadership roles. These roles concern setting a results course of expectations, managing operations, managing change, and managing people and systems.
References
Barrados, M. (2023). John Mayne’s contribution to performance audit. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 461–472.
Barrados, M., & Mayne, J. (2003). Can public sector organisations learn? OECD Journal of Budgeting, 3(3), 87–103.
Behn, R. D. (2002). The psychological barriers to performance management, or why isn’t everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(1), 5–25.
Behn, R. D. (2004). Performance leadership. 11 better practices that can ratchet up performance. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. https://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/performance-leadership-11-better-practices-can-ratchet-performance
Behn, R. D. (2007). What all mayors would like to know about Baltimore’s CitiStat performance strategy. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from https://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/what-all-mayors-would-know-about-baltimore%E2%80%99s-citistat-performance-strategy
Behn, R. D. (2008). Measurement is rarely enough. Bob Behn’s Public Management Report, 5(9). Retrieved from https://thebehnreport.hks.harvard.edu/files/thebehnreport/files/may2008.pdf?m=1463165824
Behn, R. D. (2014a). The performance stat potential: A leadership strategy for producing results. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Behn, R. D. (2014b). What performance management is and is not. Bob Behn’s Public Management Report, 12(1). Retrieved from https://thebehnreport.hks.harvard.edu/files/thebehnreport/files/behnreport_2014oct.pdf
Bernstein, D. J. (1999). Comments on Perrin’s “effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 85–93.
Binnendijk, A. (2000). Results-based management in the development cooperation agencies: A review of experience. Background report. Paris: DAC OECD Working Party on Aid Evaluation. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from https://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/dcdndep/31950852.pdf
Blalock, A. B. (1999). Evaluation research and the performance management movement: From estrangement to useful integration? Evaluation, 5(2), 117–149.
Bouckaert, G., & Peters, B. G. (2002). Performance measurement and management: The Achilles’ heel in administrative modernization. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(4), 359–362.
Bourgeois, I., & Whynot, J. (2023). Bridging evaluation theory and practice: The contributions of John Mayne to Canadian federal evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 324–339.
Buytendijk, F. (2009). Performance leadership, the next practices to motivate your people, align stakeholders, and lead your industry. London, England: McGraw-Hill.
Chaytor, K. (2023). Building evaluation culture—The missing link. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 422–438.
Curristine, T. (2005). Government performance: Lessons and challenges. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(1), 127–151.
Feller, I. (2002). Performance measurement redux. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 435–452.
Gerrish, E. (2015). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66.
Gilmour, J. (2007). Implementing OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): Meeting the challenges of integrating budget and performance. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1), 1–40.
Government of Canada, Canadian International Development Agency. (2002). Review of current RBM and accountability practices in CIDA. Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency, Performance Review Branch and Policy Branch. Retrieved from http://eta.health.usf.edu/publichealth/PHC6146/Module4/5-22b1%20Review%20of%20Current%20RBM%20and%20Accountability%20Practices%20in(1).pdf
Government of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat & Office of the Auditor General. (2003). The managing for results self-assessment tool. Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Retrieved from https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/244385/publication.html
Greene, J. (1999). ‘The Inequality of Performance Measurements’, Evaluation, 5(2), 160–72.
Hatry, H., & Davies, E. (2011). A guide to data-driven performance reviews. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/A Guide to Data-Driven Performance Reviews.pdf
Hunter, D. E. K., & Nielsen, S. B. (2013). Performance management and evaluation: Exploring complementarities. New Directions for Evaluation, 137, 7–18.
Lahey, R. (2023). John Mayne and the origins of evaluation in the public sector in Canada: A shaping of both evaluation and the evaluator. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 340–354.
Lahey, R., & Nielsen, S. B. (2013). Rethinking the relationship among monitoring, evaluation, and results-based management: Observations from Canada. New Directions for Evaluation, 137, 45–56.
Liner, B., Hatry, H. P., Vinson, E., Allen, R., Dusenbury, P., Bryant, S., & Snell, R. (2001). Making results-based state government work. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Mayne, J. (1997). Accountability for program performance: A key to effective performance monitoring and reporting. In J. Mayne & E. Zapico-Goñi (Eds.), Monitoring performance in the public sector (pp. 157–176). News Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Mayne, J. (2004). Reporting on outcomes: Setting performance expectations and telling performance stories. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 19(1), 31–60.
Mayne, J. (2007a). Best practices in results-based management: A review of experience. A report for the United Nations Secretariat. Volume 2: Annexes. Retrieved from https://focusintl.com/data/documents/RBM043-2007-07-UN-Best-Practices-in-Results-Based-Management.pdf
Mayne, J. (2007b). Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management. Evaluation, 13(1), 87–109.
Mayne, J. (2010a). Building an evaluation culture: The key to effective evaluation and results management. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 24(2), 1–30.
Mayne, J. (2010b). Results management: Can results evidence gain a foothold in the public sector? In O. Rieper, F. Leeuw & T. Ling (Eds.), The evidence book (pp. 117–149). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Mayne J. (2015). Structuring evaluations and monitoring for learning. In S. B. Nielsen, R. Turksema, & P. van der Knaap (Eds.), Success in evaluation. Focusing on the positives (pp. 47–68). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Mayne, J., & Rist, R. C. (2006). Studies are not enough: The necessary transformation of evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(3), 93–120.
McDavid, J. (2023). Enduring themes in John Mayne’s work: Implications for evaluation practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 355–370.
McDavid, J., & Huse, I. (2006). Will evaluation prosper in the future? Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(3), 47–72.
Meyer, M. W. & Gupta, V. (1994). ‘The Performance Paradox’, Research in Organizational Behaviour 16, 309–69.
Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203–216.
Moynihan, D. P., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 143–164.
Nielsen, S. B., & Ejler, N. (2008). Improving performance? Exploring the complementarities between evaluation and performance management. Evaluation, 14(2), 171–192.
Nielsen, S. B., & Hunter, D. E. K. (2013). Challenges to and forms of complementarity between performance management and evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 137, 115–123.
Nielsen, S. B., Lemire, S., & Montague, S. (2023). Remembering John Mayne—A practical thinker and a thinking practitioner. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 297–305.
Nielsen, S. B., Tangsig, S., & Lemire, S. (2023). Mapping the contributions of John Mayne: Bridging the gaps between evaluation, auditing, and performance monitoring. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 37(3), 306–323.
Newcomer, K., & Caudle S. (2011). Public performance management systems, Public Performance & Management Review, 35(1), 108–132.
O’Connell, P. E. (2001). Using performance data for accountability: The New York City police department’s CompStat model of police management. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org
OECD/DAC. (2019). Better criteria for better evaluation revised evaluation criteria definitions and principles for use. OECD/DAC Network on Development Evaluation https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/revised-evaluation-criteria-dec-2019.pdf
Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) (1997). Moving toward Managing for Results. In Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. Chapter 11. Retrieved from https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/bvg-oag/FA1-1-1997-eng.pdf
Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) (2000). Managing Departments for Results and Managing Horizontal Issues for Results. In Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. Chapter 20. Retrieved from https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/search/advancedSearch.html?
Parsons, B. (1998). Finding transformative themes across multiple system change evaluations: A work in progress. Boulder, CO: Insites. Retrieved from https://insites.org/documents/AE.98.pap.11-7Themes.11-2.pdf
Patusky, C., Shelley, M., & Botwinik, L. (2007). The Philadelphia SchoolStat model. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org
Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 367–79.
Perrin, B. (1999). Performance measurement: Does the reality match the rhetoric? A rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 101–111.
Perrin, B. (2002). Implementing the vision: Addressing challenges to results-focused management and budgeting. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/2497163.pdf
Perrin, B. (2006). Moving from outputs to outcomes: Practical advice from governments around the world. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from https://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/moving-outputs-outcomes-practical-advice-governments-around-world
Ramboll Management Consulting. (2010). Performance leadership in action. Findings from a North European study. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ramboll Management Consulting. Retrieved from https://ramboll.com/-/media/images/rm/rm-dk-and-rm-group/pdf/publications/2010/report_performance_leadership_in_action.pdf
Rist, R. C. (2006). The “E” in monitoring and evaluation—Using evaluative knowledge to support a results-based management system. In R. C. Rist & N. Stame (Eds.), From studies to streams. Managing evaluative systems (pp. 3–22). London, United Kingdom: Transaction.
Schwartz, R., & Mayne, J. (2005). Assuring the quality of evaluative information: Theory and practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(1), 1–14.
United Nations. Joint Inspection Unit (2017) (Prom-Jackson, S. Coordinator). Results-based management in the United Nations Development System. Analysis of progress and policy effectiveness (Full Report. Joint Inspection Unit Geneva). Retrieved from https://www.unjiu.org/sites/www.unjiu.org/files/rbm_full_report_english.pdf
Van Helden, G. J., Johnsen, Å., & Vakkuri, J. (2012). The life-cycle approach to performance management: Implications for public management and evaluation. Evaluation, 18(2), 159–175.
Van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). ‘The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector’, Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), 267–81.
Vo, A. T., Schreiber, J. S., & Martin, A. (2018). Toward a conceptual understanding of evaluative thinking. Evaluative Thinking. New Directions for Evaluation. 158, 29–47.
Winston, J. A. (1999). Performance indicators—promises unmet: A response to Perrin. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 95–99.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Steffen Bohni Nielsen, Steve Montague
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
