Managerial performance in the conditions of selected local government offices

The development and execution of employees in a modern public administration organisation are subject to specific management forms. Performance management is about setting performance standards, monitoring progress, and building relevant plans. Managerial performance and its management are presented as beneficial for employee development. Addressing the interaction between performance management and administrative authority is appropriate given the empirical result of performance management reform. The public sector’s adoption of performance management systems has long focused on creating more advanced performance information systems while neglecting to increase managerial authority. Therefore, understanding how this partial acceptance affects public service performance is particularly important. However, our knowledge of how they interact remains limited despite the central role of management authority over standard performance management regulations. According to the analysis of the current situation, the main goal of the presented article is to derive propositions and propose measures to streamline the managerial performance of the offices in Trnava, Nitra and Trenčín. In the study, we use the benchmarking method to analyse and subsequent evolution of the state of managerial performance in selected bodies. We identify individual factors in the form of the Saaty matrix and characterise the systematic steps of the methodological procedure. In this process, we faced certain limitations related to limited data access. The main benefits of this study are suggestions for improving the level of managerial performance that can be applied in public administration. Among the primary areas where change is needed, we identified ambiguity in the strategy and plan, delayed feedback processes and limited behavioural incentives.

Introduction

Public administrations worldwide are gradually introducing a range of tools designed to improve the quality of public sector managers. The main reason for these changes is to achieve higher performance of public services. Thanks to implementing individual elements, such as setting goals and awareness of performance management within integrated areas of public administration, understanding performance management’s power are gradually coming to the fore. Despite its prevalence, many authors argue that measuring public sector performance distorts the priorities of service organisations and hampers real innovation, often to the detriment of service users. In contrast to this negative attitude, the ever-increasing number of studies on the effects of managerial performance essentially points to its positive benefits for public service performance. Citizens can also use performance information as a controlling factor in individual public authorities, especially if these public organisations are performing poorly.
The system of managerial performance in public administration and its management is defined as a strategic and integrated approach of institutions with a focus on developing people who have the task of increasing group and personal performance. These systems provide a continuous and integrated approach to performance management and remuneration. As the basic methods of motivating employees in public administration failed to give the expected results, they began to look for inspiration in the private sector, focusing on management so that public authorities would also achieve better results. Despite these avant-garde approaches, many problems have inadequately implemented this form of motivation. Managerial performance cannot be effective if the emphasis is not sufficiently focused on the factors that drive performance management and the managers who act as role models in this spectrum. Practical application and effectiveness depend on the manager’s behaviour, implementation of individual procedures, and ability to motivate employees. Various behavioural, psychological and managerial factors contribute to the very effectiveness of management.
According to the analysis of the current state and the benchmarking method, the main goal of the presented article will be to derive propositions and propose measures to streamline the managerial performance of offices in Trnava, Nitra and Trenčín.

Managerial performance

According to Demerjian et al. (2012) is defined as the process of identifying, measuring, managing and developing human resource performance in an organisation. The intention is to determine how well employees are working and ultimately improve this performance level.
Performance management is strategic in that it addresses the broader aspect that a company must face to operate effectively and manage to implement its long-term goals (Aguinis 2013).
According to Bacala (2012), performance management (in managerial terms) is defined as a continuous communication process that takes place between an employee and their superior (s). This process involves setting clear and shared expectations. Also, Baik et al. (2011) state that managerial skills are positively related to the probability, accuracy and relevance value of individual forecasts of voluntary management revenue. Further studies document the evidence in line with highly qualified managers who improve the information environment of their companies. According to Demerjian et al. (2013), the quality of income increases in direct proportion to managerial skills, while Baik et al. (2017) state that organisational performance with strong managers has more predictable revenues.
The growth of interest in public sector management also reflects the intensified competition in selected aspects (Boselie and Thunnissen 2017) and the focus on a new direction of general management resp. New Public Management (NPM), which supports managerial and compelling logic, reflects growing pressures on accountability and the need to provide paid services (Culie et al. 2014). The development of agile leaders who can manage effectively in a volatile public sector environment (Barkhuizen, 2014) and the need for effective talent management to meet strategic goals (Tummers and Knies 2013) require a shift from traditional bureaucratic approaches to higher performance (McFarlane et al., 2012). Also, preliminary workplace design and the associated low utilisation of human capital potential can be transformed using the proper management methods (Kohnová et al., 2020). Implementing public sector performance is more challenging due to the tension between the traditional values of justice and equal opportunities in the public sector and the new NPM management agendas (Boselie and Thunnissen 2017). The goals in the public sector themselves are also more diverse, less tangible, and more challenging to measure, which complicates the implementation of individual procedures (Blom et al. 2020). In addition, resource constraints limit flexibility in implementing public sector performance practices (Grant et al. 2020).
There are some differences between performance and management in private companies and public administration. According to Papulova et al. (2021), the failure of the personal performance measurement system is due to individual factors, such as the unclear definition of the objective, insufficient support for implementation by management, and barriers related to the expertise of the staff involved in the process. However, the results themselves are more important than the outputs, especially in the case of public administration, where it is often difficult to identify the benefits of work. The impact of outcomes on important areas (quality of life after discharge from hospitalisation or the level of job opportunities after graduation) is a more meaningful indicator of performance. However, this indicator is difficult to measure because it focuses mainly on social rather than economic impacts. Recognising such effects takes time and depends on a particular public authority (Hvidman et al. 2014).
The next level is public sector policies. The focus is on reforming public sector programs through performance management. Resource-based allocation in public administration is often associated with mandatory reforms (Bouckaert and Halligan 2008). On the one hand, public administration acted with low autonomy in setting strategic objectives and managing public resources. Second, it provided general managers with greater flexibility than the private sector in selecting individual performance and information indicators, regardless of the mandatory nature of such practices (Behn 2003). Specific policy sectors have been more affected in this respect than others. For example, centrally defined performance indicators directly affect the allocation of financial resources in health and higher education (Moynihan et al. 2010). Several methods can be used to evaluate the managerial performance process. We recommend the benchmarking method as one of them.
Benchmarking can be defined as a method or technique used to measure performance by comparing multiple units. Attention is focused on the specific methods of the selected entity to achieve improved performance. These are mutually learning bodies that improve each other in selected sectors. The primary task of this method is to apply selected steps of the observed organisation and thus achieve the desired results (Kotler and Keller 2007).
According to Lambe (2017), we classify the benchmarking process into six steps, and we can subsequently obtain added value from each of them. They belong here:
• goal setting,
• data collection and standardisation,
• comparison with the target group,
• identification of best practices,
• selection of change item for implementation,
• monitoring benchmarking progress.

Defining the individual formulas used in the Saaty matrix calculations within benchmarking is also important. We advise here:

Value j=1, 2, …, k,
k= the number of individual criteria specified by the author,
Sij – individual criteria.

k= the number of individual criteria specified by the author.

k= the number of individual criteria specified by the author,
i= 1, 2, …, k.

In the benchmarking evaluation process, we must also define the point evaluation of individual categories. This process takes place using a questionnaire, interview or subjective assessment of the author. Subsequently, the determined number of points (Pi) is multiplied by the weight of the assigned criterion (Vi). This process fits into the formula Zi = Pi × Vi.
Next, the process of adding the obtained variable values Zi takes place. Using this sum, we can subsequently identify the resulting strength of the position of the examined local government bodies. We substitute the obtained values into M= Z1+ Z2+ Z3+ Z4+ Z5.

Data and methodology

The professional literature discusses the connection between managerial performance and a possible increase in work performance in the private sector. On the other hand, inequalities in public administration have not yet been described in more detail in our country and with a representative data set. For this study, we used data from our research on Managerial performance in the conditions of selected local government offices, which was implemented through the benchmarking method (Saaty matrix). Further, as an extension of the primary research, individual factors were identified in the investigated offices through the questionnaire method. Questionnaires were selected among all management and employees in the investigated offices. The data were weighted according to representation (population, number of departments, budget, etc.), representing managerial performance.
Subsequently, comparing the identified criteria depends on the author’s subjective view. Individual measures were compared with sample data, and we determined the resulting values for the identified indicators. These values were subsequently implied into Saaty’s matrix, with the help of which we decided on the following values defined at the examined offices. The source of information for managerial performance research is selected from documents, regulations standards and questionnaires, which serve as performance indicators in the given bodies.
Furthermore, it was essential to map the current state of managerial performance in selected Slovak cities and their bodies, analyse the development and benefits, and identify problematic areas of the specified systems and procedures for applying organisational performance. Subsequently, analyse the results of selected indicators, evaluate the positive and negative factors of individual indicators of organisational performance, point out problematic areas, and propose possible recommendations for improving the current system of managerial performance in the examined local government.
Summarising the acquired data and subsequent evaluation using the benchmarking method was essential. We used primary (questionnaire) and secondary sources of information (documents, regulations, and standards) and the benchmarking process implemented in the Saaty matrix for their implementation and finalisation. Using the data obtained, we found out what methods are used to examine managerial performance in specific offices, what standards the structure of individual indicators consists of, what parameters are monitored, etc. We also identified development, benefits, and problem areas in selected local authorities.

Benchmarking in the conditions of selected offices

We use the Saaty matrix, which contains equal columns and rows, to identify selected offices in Trnava, Nitra and Trenčín using specified weights and criteria. Subsequently, it is essential to define the chosen preference values. For this purpose, we use a point scale from one to nine in the Saaty matrix.
• 1 – the value of the set criteria is in balance,
• 3 – the first criterion is less important than the second,
• 5 – the first criterion is more important than the second,
• 7 – the first criterion is multiple times more important than the second,
• 9 – the first criterion is absolutely more important than the second (Čabyová and Ptačin 2014).

If necessary, according to Čabyová and Ptačin (2014), we can evaluate individual preferences and the so-called intermediate value, i., two, four, six or eight. Subsequently, comparing the identified criteria depends on the author’s subjective view.
We classified the standard criteria into six directions and marked them from f1 to f6. We advise here:
• f1 – population of the city,
• f2 – number of municipal office employees (in per cent),
• f3 – the number of city office departments (in per cent),
• f4 – the number of applications processed in one year,
• f5 – the number of times we get feedback from employees in one year,
• f6 – number of electronic services provided.

Table 1: Saaty matrix
Source: Authors

The authors subjectively evaluated the values of selected standard criteria using knowledge gained from the literature and official documents, such as annual reports, budget proposals, final accounts, questionnaires etc. We have defined points from one to three for the selected criteria. The values were represented in the municipal authority in Trnava as follows:
• P1 – 2
• P2 – 2
• P3 – 3
• P4 – 2
• P5 – 2
• P6 – 1

A calculation to obtain a benchmarking level:
M = Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Z4 + Z5 + Z6
M = 1.77720765

The municipal authority in Trenčín obtained the following values:
• P1 – 1
• P2 – 1
• P3 – 1
• P4 – 2
• P5 – 1
• P6 – 2

A calculation to obtain a benchmarking level:
M = 1.16719694

The criteria at the Nitra municipality were defined as follows:
• P1 – 1
• P2 – 3
• P3 – 2
• P4 – 2
• P5 – 2
• P6 – 3

A calculation to obtain a benchmarking level:
M = 1.97243992

With the help of the subjective criteria chosen by the authors, the overall winner from the compared municipal authorities is the municipality in Nitra. In the individual scoring, this office was rated „1“ only in the category of population, which is not directly affected by the performance of the office itself. Overall, the municipal authority in Nitra achieved the variable value of M, representing the ratio of the total points earned in terms of the set criteria, the value of M = 1.97243992. The municipal authority in Nitra has achieved more positive results, especially in the financing, providing electronic services, and the number of employees mediating public services to the population. The municipal authority in Trnava achieved an average benchmarking value of M = 1.77720765. It thus lags behind the municipality in Nitra only in minimal matters. It represents the dominant position in the examined parameters, especially in the number of departments. Regarding the benchmarking method of the compared offices, the municipal authority in Trenčín took third place. In practice, this means that the body lags behind the imaginary competition, especially in the number of departments, staff and the overall budget for the municipality. In the following part, we characterise individual proposals and recommendations for improving managerial performance in the researched local government bodies.

Discussion

The public sector and individual local authorities face several challenges related to organisational performance management, influenced by the history, administration, and overall culture of performance management within public authorities. In addition, different levels of employees, from management to regular employees, require establishing uniform performance management procedures. Among the identified key challenges that hinder effective managerial performance within the examined local government bodies (municipal authorities in Trnava, Nitra and Trenčín), we advise:
• ambiguity of the strategy and plan,
• delayed feedback processes,
• limited behavioural stimulus.

The first problem in performance management is the insufficient identification of goals, strategies and plans for this form of leadership. Many of the office’s employees do not receive adequate communication from their managers regarding the organisation‘s specific process and measures required to contribute to these goals. This communication gap contributes to the mismatch between employee goals and the organisation‘s strategy. Many office staff are unaware of the institution’s overall strategy and support plan. While such a factor is relatively common in the public service, we rarely encounter such a problem in the private sector. Therefore, employees do not have to have clearly defined objectives in the key priorities and consequently try to identify which initiatives should focus on achieving this plan. This process often results in employees spending time on activities that do not contribute to the organisation‘s programs or feeling overwhelmed without a clear sense of direction. However, the interpretation of the organisation‘s goals alone is not enough. To achieve a balanced performance, managers must lead employees to understand how their actions will proceed and thus influence these successes. The manager must show how the individual plans and personal goals are strategically aligned with the broader goals of the authority and consistently cascade this information to ensure that the strategies are aligned, understood and adopted by employees.
Leaders must create, replicate and strengthen the authority’s strategy to motivate their team to meet their goals. Managers are responsible for communicating goals and priorities to their departments. They must ensure that staff understand how their work translates into achieving the institution’s objectives. It is essential to identify and use all opportunities to communicate the goals. This process will help ensure that the strategy comes first for employees. This will help employees create a link and understand how their actions contribute to this plan. When communicating, they should always consider the employees’ views on the issue and ensure that the body’s strategy is adapted to their capacities. The more leaders can communicate with the perspectives of their employees, the easier it will be for the links between personal and organisational goals to take place, which usually leads to increased interest and performance itself. Cooperation with employees ensures development and career goals align with the organisation’s purposes. Partnering with a team manager is crucial because it helps achieve the goals. In addition to the steps above, managers must constantly involve their employees through formal and informal opportunities (e.g., meetings, lunches outside the headquarters) and communicate goals and how the employees fit into this plan. This method provides managers with ongoing coaching opportunities and allows employees to ask questions, clarify goals, and engage in two-way conversations.
Another decisive factor is the regular request and retention of feedback for the formal performance of the verification cycle. Public authorities’ actual performance evaluation cycles vary within departments, agencies, offices, and even collective agreements may be different. Regardless of the process, there is room for management to improve in the industry to „store“ feedback or staff coaching opportunities, improving performance. While the performance control processes vary in the public sector, employees usually produce the standards they strive to meet. As the managers of the performance management process or their superiors require feedback only to a minimal extent (once or twice a year), it is relatively easy to improve. Managers often try to integrate both formal and informal types of feedback, risking that instead of a smooth performance response throughout the calendar year, they only get a time window in which employees provide feedback that is of little relevance to its timeliness. The performance situation, which may lead to an overall decline in the level of responsibility that employees have or feel, must be reflected at more regular intervals.

Conclusion

Managerial performance in the public sector is a blurry and elusive concept. Management performance alone may reflect the overall performance of the body. Achieving organisational goals is also closely related to managerial performance. Still, many focus only on the solo performance of the workforce, while administrative roles as leaders of organisations significantly impact decision-making. The leader needs to acquire more qualities and the emotional intelligence associated with making the right decisions to achieve the organisation‘s goals.
Achieving set goals and managerial performance are interconnected vessels. In a public administration, organisational performance is one of the essential factors that constantly increase the efficiency level in the provision of public services and, simultaneously, the complete functionality of public authorities. The presented article aimed to derive propositions and propose measures to streamline managerial performance in selected local government bodies according to the analysis of the current situation. Our research shows that the municipal authority in Nitra achieves the highest organisational performance among the compared offices. Among the dominant areas, we advise on financing, electronic services, and the number of employees whose role is to provide public services to the population. Using more agile methodologies, municipality managers in Nitra can increase performance through rapidly changing evaluation cycles. A clear timeline and support from senior management are essential if cooperation between relevant stakeholders in the department is to be improved. The municipal authority in Trnava lost some points compared to Nitra, especially in investing in the municipality’s property and the number of electronic services provided. It represents the dominant position in the examined parameters, especially in the number of departments. The municipal authority in Trenčín lost points in several categories. In practice, this means that the body lags behind the imaginary competition, especially in the number of departments, staff and the overall budget for the municipality. Increasing the implementation of employees into the work process, which takes place at the municipality in Trenčín, is possible with the help of stretch goals. Another way to increase managerial efficiency is to use digital platforms to share information, which will mean moving forward for public administration in the 21st century.

Literatúra/List of References

1. Aguinis, H., 2013. Performance management. United Kingdom, UK: Watt University, 2013. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://ebs.online.hw.ac.uk/EBS/media/EBS/PDFs/Performance-Management-Course-Taster.pdf>
2. Alford, J., 2002. Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-10]. Available at: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1540-6210.00183>
3. Armstrong, M., 2000. Performance management key strategies and practical guidelines. London: British Library. 2000. ISBN 0-7494-2628-4.
4. Bacal, R., 2012. Performance management. New York: McGraw Hill Professional, 2012. ISBN 0071772251.
5. Baik, B., Farber, D., Lee, S., 2011. CEO ability and management earnings forecasts. In: Contemporary Accounting Research. 2011, 28, 1645-1668. ISSN 0823-9150.
6. Barkhuizen, N., 2014. How relevant is talent management in South African local government institutions? In: Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2014, 5, 2223-2230. ISSN 2039-2117.  [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p2223>
7. Behn, R., 2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. In: Public Administration Review. 2003. ISSN 00333352. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-12]. Available at: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1540-6210.00322>
8. Blom, R. P., Kruyen, B., van Thiel, S. and van der Heijden, B., 2020. One HRM fits all? A meta-analysis of the effects of HRM practices in the public, semi-public and private sector. In: Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2020, 40(1), 3-35. ISSN 0734371X. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18773492>
9. Boselie, P. and Thunnissen, M., 2017. Talent management in the public sector: Managing tensions and dualities. In: Collings, D. G., Mellahi, K. and Cascio, W. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of talent management, 2017, Oxford University Press, 420-439. ISBN 978-0198758273.
10. Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J., 2008. Managing performance: International comparisons. London: Routledge, 2008. ISBN 9780415423946.
11. Culie, J. D., Khapova, S. N., and Arthur, M. B., 2014. Careers, clusters and employment mobility: The influences of psychological mobility and organisational support. In: Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2014, 84(2), 164-176. ISSN 0001-8791. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.002>
12. Čabyová, Ľ. and Ptačin, J., 2014. Benchmarking comparison of marketing communication of universities in Slovakia. In: Journal Communication Today. 2014, 5(1), 54-68. ISSN 1338-130X.
13. Demerjian, P., Lev, B. and McVay, S., 2012. Quantifying managerial ability: A new measure and validity tests. In: Management Science. 2012, 58(7), 1229-1248. ISSN 0025-1909.
14. Fibírová, J., 2015. Manažerské účetnictví – nástroje a metody. Rijn: Wolters Kluwer. 2015. ISBN 978-80-747-8743-0.
15. Grant, K., Garavan, T. and Mackie, R., 2020. Coaction interrupted: Logic contestations in the implementation of inter-organisational collaboration around talent management in the public sector in Scotland. In: European Management Review. 2020, 17(4), 915-930. ISSN 1740-4754. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12404>
16. Hrnčiar, M. and Fabiánová, Z., 2011. Use of knowledge from performance management at public administration organisations. Hradec Králové: Grant journal. 2011. ISSN 1805-062X.
17. Hvidman, U., 2014. Impact of performance management in public and private organizations. In: Journal of PART. 2014, 58. ISSN 1053-1858.
18. Kohnová, L., Papula, J., Papulová, Z., Stachová, K. and Stacho, Z., 2020. Job mismatch: the phenomenon of overskilled employees as a result of poor managerial competences. In: Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues. 2020, 8(1), 83-102. ISSN 2345-0282. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(6)>
19. Kotler, P. and Keller, K., 2007. Marketing management. Praha: Grada Publishing. 2007. ISBN 802-47-1359-5.
20. Lambe, R., 2017. The value of facility benchmarking, 2017. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-17]. Available at: <https://facilityissues.com/value-facility-benchmarking/>
21. McFarlane, F., Duberley, J., Fewtrell, C. and Powell, M., 2012. Talent management for NHS managers: Human resources or resourceful humans? In: Public Money & Management. 2012, 32, 445-452. ISSN 1467-9302.
22. Milbourn, T., 2003. CEO ability and stock-based compensation. In: Journal of Financial Economics. 2003, 68, 233-262. ISSN 1099-1158.
23. Moynihan, D., 2010. Through a glass, darkly understanding the effects of performance regimes. London: Taylor & Francis, 2010. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/PMR1530-9576320409>
24. Nielsen, P., 2013. Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. London: Oxford university press, 2013. ISSN 1477-9803.
25. Papulová, Z., Gažová, A., Šlenker, M. and Papula, J., 2021. Performance measurement system: Implementation process in SMEs. In: Sustainability. 2021, 13(9). ISSN 2071-1050. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://doi:10.3390/su13094794>
26. G., 2021. Understanding and managing public organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2021. ISBN 978-1-119-70589-5
27. Rinthaisong, I. and Songsom, A., 2014. Factors influencing to behavioral competency for competitiveness and success. In: Journal of Management Research. 2014, 6(2), 221-231. ISSN 0976-4739.
28. Smith, G. et al., 2021. Does performance measurement improve public sector performance? Australia: AJPA Editorial, 2021. ISSN 1467-8500.
29. Souček, I. et al,. 2020. Tvorba strategie a strategické plánování. Bratislava: Graday, 2020. ISBN 9788027124992.
30. Tummers, L. and Knies, E., 2013. Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector. In: Public Administration Review. 2013, 73(6), 859-868. ISSN 0033-3352. [online]. [cit. 2022-3-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12138>
31. Tumpach, M., 2008. Manažérske a nákladové účtovníctvo. Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 2008. ISBN 8080781682.
32. Wagner, J., 2009. Měření výkonnosti. Bratislava: Grada. 2009. ISBN 978-80-247-6739-0.
33. Walling, E., 2007. Manažment 50 myšlienok, ktoré by ste mali poznať. Bratislava: Sadzba Alias Press, s.r.o., 2007. ISBN 978-80556-0419-0.

Kľúčové slová/Key words

benchmarking, managerial performance, Saaty matrix, municipal authority, government
benchmarking, výkonnosť manažmentu, Saatyho matica, obecný úrad, štátna správa

JEL klasifikácia/JEL Classification

H11, H79, M12, M31

Résumé

Výkonnosť manažmentu v podmienkach vybraných úradov miestnej samosprávy

Rozvoj a výkon zamestnancov v modernej organizácii verejnej správy podlieha určitým formám riadenia. Samotný proces riadenie výkonnosti je o stanovení výkonnostných štandardov, monitorovaní pokroku a budovaní relevantných plánov. Manažérska výkonnosť a jej riadenie je prezentované ako prínosný spôsob rozvoja zamestnancov. Riešenie interakcie medzi riadením výkonnosti a manažérskou autoritou je relevantné vzhľadom na empirický vývoj reformy riadenia výkonnosti. Prijímanie systémov riadenia výkonnosti vo verejnom sektore sa dlhodobo zameriavalo na vytváranie pokročilejších informačných systémov o výkonnosti, pričom sa zanedbávalo zvýšenie manažérskej autority. Hlavným cieľom predkladaného článku bolo podľa analýzy súčasného stavu odvodiť propozície a navrhnúť opatrenia na zefektívnenie manažérskej výkonnosti úradov v mestách Trnava, Nitra a Trenčín. V štúdií sme využívali na proces analýzy a následnej evalvácie stavu manažérskej výkonnosti vo vybraných orgánoch metódu benchmarkingu, kde sme formou Saatyho matice identifikovali jednotlivé faktory a charakterizovali systematické kroky metodického postupu. Pri tomto procese sme museli čeliť určitým obmedzeniam, ktoré súviseli s limitovaným prístupom k dátam. Hlavným prínosom tejto štúdie boli návrhy na zlepšenie úrovne manažérskej výkonnosti, ktoré môžu byť aplikované v orgánoch verejnej správy. Medzi primárne oblasti, kde bolo potrebné aplikovať zmeny, sme označili nejasnosť stratégie a plánu, oneskorené procesy spätnej väzby, zmätok ohľadom kolektívnych zmlúv a obmedzené behaviorálne stimuly.

Recenzované/Reviewed

25. June 2022 / 5. July 2022