© The Authors 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CSF Associates: Publius, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Editorial |
Special Edition on Performance Management
* Research Fellow, Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, University of Tasmania. E-mail: jennyf@postoffice.utas.edu.au
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Performance evaluation is more than an academic exercise, a matter of methodologies and numbers. How performance is measured affects not only what the public know about the police, but also the character of police operations and the management climate. Because performance evaluations establish priorities, incentives and requirements, they are much too important to be left to technicians. Performance measurement should be viewed as an integral, ongoing part of the management of policing. (Bayley, 1996)
The idea of managing performance in the public sector is closely tied to the managerialist trends of the late twentieth century. Managerialism has provided a base for setting, measuring and benchmarking performance outcomes in the public sector. Manning (in this issue) reminds us that as early as 1988, Moore and Trojanowicz argued that the police organization was a form of ‘public corporation’ and should ‘compete for and maintain a market niche—ensuring and sustaining profitability’.
What Do We Mean by Performance Management?
Performance Management in Police Organizations
The Papers