Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance Access originally published online on February 25, 2005
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2005 15(4):529-557; doi:10.1093/jopart/mui030
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies
Yonsei University
University of Georgia
Address correspondence to Young Han Chun at doongsirigo{at}hanmail.net.
In spite of numerous observations that government organizations have high levels of organizational goal ambiguity that exert major influences on their other characteristics, few researchers have measured goal ambiguity and tested these frequent assertions. In previous research, we developed measures of four dimensions of goal ambiguity: mission comprehension ambiguity, directive goal ambiguity, evaluative goal ambiguity, and priority goal ambiguity. Confirming hypotheses developed from the literature on public organizations, the latter three variables showed relations to such organizational characteristics as organizational age, financial publicness (proportion of funding from government allocations), and regulatory status. This article reports a second analytical step of examining the relations between the goal ambiguity dimensions and indicators of organizational performance based on responses to the 2000 National Partnership for Reinventing Government Survey of federal employees. The performance variables included managerial effectiveness, customer service orientation, productivity, and work quality. Regression analyses with numerous control variables found that directive, evaluative, and priority goal ambiguity related negatively to managerial effectiveness. All four performance indicators showed significant negative relationships with evaluative goal ambiguity and directive goal ambiguity. The results provide further evidence of the viability of the new measures of goal ambiguity, support theory-based but previously untested hypotheses, and further indicate the feasibility and value of analyzing goal ambiguity of government organizations.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. E. Kim and J. W. Lee Impact of Competing Accountability Requirements on Perceived Work Performance The American Review of Public Administration, January 1, 2010; 40(1): 100 - 118. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Seok Eun Kim and Gee Weon Chang An empirical analysis of innovativeness in government: findings and implications International Review of Administrative Sciences, June 1, 2009; 75(2): 293 - 310. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. J. Meier and L. J. O'Toole Jr The Proverbs of New Public Management: Lessons From an Evidence-Based Research Agenda The American Review of Public Administration, January 1, 2009; 39(1): 4 - 22. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Hicklin, L. J. O'Toole Jr., and K. J. Meier Serpents in the Sand: Managerial Networking and Nonlinear Influences on Organizational Performance J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., April 1, 2008; 18(2): 253 - 273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Sung Min Park and H. G. Rainey Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment: Empirical Tests of Commitment Effects in Federal Agencies Review of Public Personnel Administration, September 1, 2007; 27(3): 197 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. J. Meier, L. J. O'Toole Jr, G. A. Boyne, and R. M. Walker Strategic Management and the Performance of Public Organizations: Testing Venerable Ideas against Recent Theories J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., July 1, 2007; 17(3): 357 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Bouckaert Modernising Government: The Way Forward--a comment International Review of Administrative Sciences, September 1, 2006; 72(3): 327 - 332. [PDF]
|
|