This leads me to describe the fifth quirk in our system. I am still exploring this quirk using a combination of political theory and research on institutions. So far, it seems that either Ministers are incredibly powerful in the current system (possibly too powerful), or the chief executive’s fixed-term contracts have weakened senior officials’ place…

The fourth quirk speaks to the critical importance of good leadership by public servants and how it lifts capability (which itself enables outcomes).  While this is impressionistic, the agencies that rate highly on this dimension value authentic leadership and have senior leadership teams and boards who create an organisational spirit that encourages staff to be…

The third quirk speaks directly to what lifts the capability of the public service. In short, coherency in strategy and clarity about the agency’s role in the broader system appears to be positively correlated with capability (see diagram below). The strategy and role dimension involve ensuring each agency can clearly articulate its future direction to…

According to all PIF reviews, the second quirk in the public management system is that stronger ratings in results are positively associated with stronger ratings in capability. Interestingly, there is some variability amongst agencies, with some agencies more strongly rated on results than their capability rating would imply and others not producing the results for…

This post is a slight diversion. The legitimacy of the public management system rests on its ability to demonstrate high levels of integrity and performance. The public and their political representatives have a right to be confident that public ownership, funding, provision, and regulation do the most good while curtailing cost. Analysis I have completed…

As is the way in te ao Māori, this paper begins with the place from which the author speaks (Pihama, 2012 and Smith, 2013 ). Ko Pohautea te māunga Ko Waiapu te awa Ko Ngāti Porou tōku iwi Te Whānau a Hineauta and Te Whānau a Pokai nga hapu Ko Pokai tōku marae Nō Rangiora…

I have several reasons for wanting to be transparent about the epistemology, ontology, theoretical basis and methodology of the Performance Improvement Framework (PIF). My reasons are three-fold. First, to communicate the philosophy of the PIF to interested academics to ensure criticism and analysis is well-informed. As signalled previously, the PIF was designed to push against…

In 2013, New Zealand’s Parliament, with rare support from all political parties, amended its 1988 State Sector Act, which had created one of the world’s most devolved public administration systems. After 25 years of increasing frustration among citizens and officials about insufficiently joined up the public sector, a conservative political executive elected in 2008, amidst…

As some of you know, I moved my doctoral study away from Victoria University of Wellington. In doing so, I put aside a review of the system findings of the Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) and what they tell us about the performance of the New Zealand public management system. This shift does not mean I…

In reviewing all the Performance Improvement Review reports, my overwhelming conclusion is this – while many of our public institutions are adept at managing urgent and short-term issues and the daily priorities of Ministers, they are less successful at building strong and enduring public institutions whosepurpose and roles are clear and whose core business is…

Public Sector asked me about the Performance Improvement Framework. I talk about how the PIF has given public service leaders, ministers, and the public an unrestrained view of thestrengths and weaknesses of each public institution and the public service as a whole.

Kevin Guerin and I wrote about the Performance Improvement Framework. We describe the programme and reveal what the published reviews are starting to tell us about Aotearoa’s public management system and why the Better Public Service reforms are necessary.