Public officials’ interpretation of conflicting performance information: goal reprioritization or unbiased decision-making?

Abstract

When public officials evaluate service providers’ performance, this evaluation is influenced by their preferences for the public or private provision of services. However, these so-called governance preferences often conflict with public officials’ preferences for certain performance measures during evaluation processes. Building on goal reprioritization theory, this study examines how public officials behave in situations where their governance preferences do not align with their preferences for the performance measures. Using survey experiment data (n = 4,248), we found that public officials use goal reprioritization rather than unbiased decision-making when assessing conflicting performance information, questioning the efficient use of performance information by public administrations.