Performance management systems for senior civil servants: how strong is the managerial public service bargain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past couple of decades we have witnessed important reforms in the public sector in OECD countries. Various forms of performance management systems have been introduced. This had an impact on the role and position of senior civil servants. The traditional public service bargain (PSB) came under pressure and was replaced by – at least partially – a managerial PSB. This article looks at the performance management systems that have been introduced for senior civil servants in five countries (Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium) and their impact on the managerial PSB. When there is strong result-based control in the different phases of the performance management cycle, we assume a strong managerial PSB. The finding is that the Anglo-Saxon countries have stronger result-based control systems than the European continental countries. Therefore we conclude that in the former countries the managerial PSBs are stronger than in the latter countries. Points for practitioners Performance management systems for senior civil servants show a different degree of result-based control. Following the four steps in a control process (plan, do, check, act) we can divide the performance management cycle into four phases: planning, monitoring, evaluation, and acting. When there is strong result-based control in each stage, we can speak of a strong managerial public service bargain (PSB). When there is moderate or weak result-based control, there is a moderate or weak managerial PSB, respectively. Each country can make its own choices regarding the performance management system for senior civil servants, but one must be aware that this has an impact on political-administrative relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".