The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

Performance management Performance

management
implementation challenges in
Ghana’s local government system
Evidence from the Sefwi Wiawso Municipal 519
Assembly Received 21 June 2016
Revised 25 November 2016
Albert Ahenkan, Emmanuel Senior Tenakwah and Accepted 27 November 2016

Justice Nyigmah Bawole

Department of Public Administration and Health Services Management,
University of Ghana Business School, Accra, Ghana

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the current performance management system of the
Sefwi Wiawso Municipal Assembly as well as the challenges faced by the Assembly in implementing its
performance management system.
Design/methodology/approach – The specific design that was adopted is the case study approach.
The primary data were gathered through in-depth interviews. In total, 20 heads of departments and
employees were purposively sampled. The data gathered from the interviews were analysed using Miles
and Huberman’s (1994) approach to qualitative data analysis.
Findings – The paper reveals that the performance management system of the Assembly has not been
effective. The study also reveals poor communication, poor integration, low commitment by the top officials,
absence of training, inadequate capacity for setting clear targets and objectives, and measuring and
evaluation criteria for performance assessment, cultural issues, absence of rewards for good performance,
financial constraints, weak and highly bureaucratic management systems as challenges facing performance
management system of the assembly.
Practical implications – This study indicates that the training of supervisors and the linking of
performance management systems with reward and recognition are key to ensuring an effective
implementation of the performance management system of the Assembly.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to literature by examining the performance management system of
the Sefwi Wiawso Municipal Assembly in the Western Region of Ghana by describing and drawing lessons from
local government experiences in the implementation of performance management systems in developing countries.
Keywords Performance management, Implementation, Ghana, Challenges, Local government
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Local governments in Ghana play vital roles in development at the local level.
The acknowledgement of local governance by the 1992 Constitution makes a structure for
residents’ support in decision making and governance. The Decentralisation Policy of
Ghana transfers power, capacities and obligation, and human and money-related assets,
from the Central Government to the local level. Ghana’s decentralisation system, as
enshrined in the Constitution, assigns District Assemblies as the most noteworthy political,
legislating, budgeting and planning authority at the local level and all things considered
much is expected of them. The Local government concept is gaining grounds in most
developing countries and is increasingly required to play larger roles in the provision of
services, alleviation of poverty and facilitation of development. The challenge facing local International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
governments in Ghana and most developing countries is to emerge as a valuable force to Management
enhance development so as to improve the living conditions of the people in their catchment Vol. 67 No. 3, 2018
pp. 519-535
areas or communities. The need for local governments to measure and improve their © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
performance is therefore necessary for the survival and development of the local people. DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-06-2016-0124
IJPPM Therefore, managing effectively the performance of employees is not a choice but a
67,3 necessity if local governments are to achieve the purpose for which they were established.
Performance management incorporates activities adopted by an organisation to enhance the
performance of its employees (Aguinis, 2013). Performance management processes or
systems are sometimes developed to motivate employees and this can be achieved by
establishing expectations and providing feedback on an employee’s progress towards
520 meeting those expectations. According to Selden and Sowa (2011), the emphasis of a
performance management framework is ordinarily the performance appraisal, a formal and
deliberate procedure for exploring performance and giving oral and composed input to staff
about performance in any event yearly. This procedure is regularly intended to supplement
the casual, continuous assessment forms that exist in an organisation.
Several papers have been published on performance management in the last decade
even though most of them have focussed on performance appraisal (see Cascio and
Aguinis, 2008: Gudyanga et al., 2014). Performance appraisal and feedback was found by
Cascio and Aguinis (2008) to be the third most popular topic researched in the Journal of
Applied Psychology from 2003 to 2007 and the second most popular in Personnel Psychology
for the same time period Historically, when examining performance, scholars have largely
focussed on its measurement, almost to the exclusion of any other issue (Aguinis, 2013;
Budworth and Mann, 2011; Cascio and Aguinis, 2008). For instance, Budworth and Mann
(2011) state that a significant part of the early research on performance management
concentrated on performance management. Indeed industrial/organisational
psychologists invested decades debating tools and techniques that would upgrade
rating exactness (Budworth and Mann, 2011).
Research by Accenture (2010) found that public organisations, by and large, acknowledge
the advantages of performance management. However, they encounter challenges in
effectively aligning and embedding it within the culture of their organisation in order to
enhance performance and responsibility. Performance management as a tool has been utilised
extensively in the private sector and therefore most of the studies on performance
management have, in one way or the other, focussed on the private sector (see Adler, 2011;
Aguinis et al., 2011, 2012; Buchner, 2007; Budworth and Mann, 2011; Cascio and Aguinis,
2008) as compared to that of the public sector (see Pradhan and Chaudhury, 2012; Selden and
Sowa, 2011; Soss et al., 2011). Again most of the studies on performance management have
been conducted in developed countries (e.g. Adler, 2011; Aguinis et al., 2012; Baird et al., 2012;
Moynihan and Pandey, 2010) compared to developing countries (de Waal, 2007; de Waal and
Counet, 2009; Machingambi et al., 2013; Ohemeng, 2009, 2011) creating an imbalance.
There seems to be a growing bias towards the specific area in the public sector where
performance management studies have been conducted. A review of literature reveals a wide
variation in the specific areas in the public sector where studies have been conducted,
particularly in Africa. Almost all the papers have focussed on areas such as education, health,
housing and others (see Ohemeng, 2009, 2011; Lee Rhodes et al., 2012; Bawole et al., 2013;
Nambi Karuhanga and Werner, 2013; Mosoge and Pilane, 2014; Ohemeng et al., 2015; Mafanya,
and Matsiliza, 2016) with a few on local governance (Njeru and Nzuve, 2013; Munzhedzi and
Phago, 2014; Radebe, 2015). Therefore, there is the need for contemporary research to focus on
the implementation of an effective performance management system in local government to
enhance our understanding. The few studies on performance management in local governance
point to the fact that an effectively implemented performance management has a series of
implications on the operations of the local government bodies even though the performance
management systems have not been all that effective. For example, the study by Baird et al.
(2012) revealed that the performance management systems of Australian local councils are only
moderately effective in relation to performance-related outcomes, and less effective in relation
to the achievement of staff-related outcomes which therefore implies that there is a need for the
managers of local government councils to improve the effectiveness of their performance Performance
management systems. management
Despite the numerous benefits derived from an effectively implemented performance
management system, it seems that most local government institutions in Ghana have not
focussed on its implementation. Indeed, a well-implemented performance management
presents numerous benefits to organisations. A study by Cascio in 2006 found that
organisations with formal and deliberate performance management frameworks are 521
51 per cent more inclined to outflank others with regard to financial performance and
41 per cent more prone to beat others with respect to extra results including consumer
loyalty, employee retention and other vital measurements (Cascio, 2006). This implies that if
organisations such as District Assemblies implement an effective performance management
system, there is the likelihood that their performance will improve considering the enormous
developmental responsibilities placed on their shoulders. This study, therefore, seeks to fill
the gaps in literature by examining the performance management system of local
governments in Ghana. The study describes and draws lessons from local government
experiences in the implementation of performance management systems. This research
seeks to achieve its purpose by investigating the implementation of the current performance
management system a Municipal Assembly and also identify the challenges faced by the
Assembly in implementing performance management system.

Performance management in the public sector

Performance management has been touted as the most commonly chased public sector reform
in modern times (see Moynihan, 2008; Heinrich, 2003; Radin, 2006). For example, Moynihan
(2008) believes that performance management was followed as a portion of the wider bundle of
reform commonly referred to as the new public management. Discussing the evolution of
performance management in the public sector, an account by Williams (2003) shows that it is
not a modern day invention as it existed even in the early 1900s. Williams (2003) argues that
the New York Council in the early 1900s developed systems which sought to analyse data on
past performance and also forecast future performance which is an indication that performance
management systems were relevant then as they are today. Armstrong and Baron (2005) state
that while the term “performance management” was not used until the 1970s, it is currently a
key issue in public administration with journals delivering special editions on the subject
(Ferlie and Steane, 2002). Lee Rhodes et al. (2012) note that performance management in the
public sector is topical both for professionals and academics and that there are various
publications and advisor driven projects on the topic.
Several studies have been conducted on performance management in the public sector
(see Ferlie and Steane, 2002; Williams, 2003; Fryer et al., 2009; Lee Rhodes et al., 2012).
For example, a study by Fryer et al. (2009) uncovers that the normal enhancements in
performance, responsibility, transparency, quality of service and value for money have not yet
materialised in public administration. To them, there are three classes of issues with
performance management in the public sector – technical, systems and inclusion. Fryer et al.
(2009) additionally argue that externally induced restructurings and redesigns impede the
effective usage of performance management systems in the public sector. Another study by
Lee Rhodes et al. (2012) found that administrative culture, which is a key element in impacting
the pace of change and the mentality of elites (lawmakers and public administrators), is
additionally a very important issue that must be addressed. Lee Rhodes et al. (2012) additionally
agree that economic and political crises happening together accelerate the introduction of
incorporated performance management systems. The study additionally indicates that in the
absence of political crises/responsibility, governments will prioritise “external” performance
measures, for example, client service, support and transparency objectives over “internal”
performance measures, such as financial, employee management and government reporting.
IJPPM Performance management implementation in Ghana
67,3 Performance management has been implemented in a number of countries including
Ghana. It is argued that the implementation of the performance management system
in the civil service has been undermined by a number of problems and challenges
(see Issachar, 2009; Ohemeng, 2011) Ohemeng (2011), for example, identified the lack of
political commitment, failure to move from workforce administration to human resource
522 management, powerless linkage between performance management and the national
spending plan, the absence of respect for change management and continuous change of
civil service heads as some of the difficulties confronted by Ghana’s Public Sector in the
usage of performance management. Ohemeng (2009) further uncovers that difficulties
such as culture, institutional discontinuity, the absence of organised rewards and
punishments, absence of commitment among key managers, and absence of political
will have incredibly influenced the execution of PMS in Ghana’s public administration.
Issachar (2009) on his part presented a number of challenges including:
• the low level of official responsibility/contribution in and support for the framework;
• the poor capacity for setting clear targets and objectives, and measuring and
assessment criteria for performance evaluation;
• the failure of the assessment system to differentiate between effective and ineffective
performers;
• employees finding the process worthless because it did not contribute to career
progress, advancement, and motivation in the organisation;
• the absence of a visibly defined, pronounced, and enforceable performance
management policy; and
• the appraisal forms concentrating exclusively on promotion, and not on training
and retention.
Despite the above challenges, Appiah-Adu and Aning (2012) note that another performance
management framework was proposed in 2007 which looked to build up systems and
procedures for adequately inspiring and evaluating employees in the public sector,
particularly chief directors and directors, and also institutional performance in
Ghana’s Public Administration set-up. According to Appiah-Adu and Aning (2012), the
objective was to guarantee the full standardisation of the new framework in the public
administration system and a strategy for compensating and endorsing performing
employees and punishing non-performing ones amongst others. Despite its prospects,
Cabinet failed to support the strategy for two reasons (Lee Rhodes et al., 2012;
Ohemeng, 2011). According to Ohemeng (2011), the first reason was that the draft policy
was finished close to the end of the last term of the president, considering that the
attention of the president was more on the elections than improving upon the
administrative system of the country (Ohemeng, 2011). The second reason discussed
by Ohemeng (2011) is the rate of turnover among heads of the civil service. They believe
that the frequent changes in the leadership of the service has in one way or the other
contributed to Ghana’s inability to adopt a policy on performance management. Based on
the challenges encountered previously, a new performance management system has been
developed even though it is yet to undergo full implementation.

Tracking performance management implementation challenges

Despite the numerous advantages associated with performance management implementation,
there are still a number of challenges to organisations. Challenges identified in literature include:
low responsibility by the top authorities, lack of training, social issues and universal
organisational obstruction (Ohemeng, 2009), absence of rewards for good performers (de Waal, Performance
2007; Ohemeng 2009), the absence of full commitment to the performance management systems management
(de Waal, 2007), monetary limitations (Shun et al., 2006), frail and exceptionally bureaucratic
systems (de Waal 2007; Mendonca and Kanungo, 1996), top management’s convictions and
corporate culture (Hussain and Hoque, 2002), over-bureaucratisation of the performance
management procedure, limited importance and time assigned the performance management
system (Winstanley and Stuart-Smith, 1996) and absence of aptitude to plan and execute 523
complex performance management systems (de Waal, 2007; Mendonca and Kanungo, 1996).
It has been argued that policy implementation in any context depends largely on a number
of factors (Howlett et al., 2003; Rothstein, 1998; Thomas and Grindle, 1990; Van Meter and Van
Horn, 1975). From the reviews, it was revealed that performance management implementation
can be affected by factors such as standards and objectives, resources, processes and
procedures, local factors as well as organisational culture (Guthrie et al., 2005; Pollitt and
Bouckaert, 2004; Torres, 2004). The presence or absence of these factors will affect the
implementation of any given project or programme. Standards and objectives are the core
thrusts of every policy. To illustrate this, Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) stated that all public
policies have standards and objectives that elaborate the overall goals. It can be hypothesised
that if a policy has no clear standards and objectives, it is bound to fail.
For programmes to be successful, resources need to be readily available. Therefore, if the
required resources are not present, the probability of the programme failing is extremely
high. Resources come in the form of financial and human which are all necessary conditions
for programmes to survive. According to Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), for
implementation to be effective, there is the need for policy implementers to make
available resources which may include funds and other incentives to encourage or facilitate
effective implementation. This view is supported by Howlett et al. (2003), who posit that for
policies to be effectively implemented, financing should be provided, people assigned, and
directions and actions developed.
An important variable that affects the implementation of programmes is the structure of
the organisation. According to Rothstein (1998), the appropriateness or otherwise of the
organisational structure tasked with the execution of policy will certainly impact on the success
or otherwise of any given programme. To him, even though it is important to have appropriate
policy design, it is equally central to successful policy implementation to have suitable
implementation structure. In this study, the structure of the Assembly will be examined as it
can affect the success or otherwise of the performance management programme. Schein (1985)
contended that culture comprises three measurements – beliefs, qualities and relics. Culture has
been described as vital to the implementation of locally based programmes due to its ability to
facilitate or impede the process. Culture is an important determinant when it comes to the
implementation of changes or reforms such as performance management systems (Guthrie
et al., 2005; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004; Torres, 2004). For example, the study by Torres (2004)
revealed that the Napoleonic society has been portrayed as having a starting suspicion towards
administrative changes on account of its solid legitimate code introduction and its conventional
state administrations. It is strongly believed that culture has a series of implications which can
affect the success or otherwise of performance management systems.
A study by de Waal and Counet (2009) demonstrates that the disappointment rate of
performance management systems has diminished in the previous decade from 70 to
56 per cent, and that the most extreme challenges faced by organisations are absence of top
administration duty; not having a performance culture; performance management getting a
low need or its utilisation being deserted after any significant change; management putting low
need on the usage; and individuals not sufficiently seeing advantage from performance
management. Behn (2003) also argues that some implementation challenges ensue because
“managers implement a performance system with rules and regulations and then leave it to
IJPPM run, rather than take a hands-on operational approach, and use leadership skills to motivate
67,3 people to produce more, or better, or more consequential results that are valued by citizens”
(p. 64). Again, Khan et al. (2013) identified a number of problems faced by Pakistani
organisations while implementing PMS which can be likened to those of some other countries
which include low priority on implementation by the management, insufficient resources, more
effort and time required in implementation than expected, unstable phase, unclear goal for PMS
524 implementation, negative attitudes towards PMS, PMS and information-communication
technology, organisational strategy, definition of critical success factors and key performance
indicators, goals for lower levels, linkage between KPI, individual employee, team and
departments, change management process, reward system and PMS, updating PMS system
and others. From the above, it is evident that performance management implementation comes
with a number of challenges. This implies that both public and private sector organisations do
face some challenges in the implementation of performance management systems. From the
above, a summary of the key challenges identified have been presented in Table I.

Methodology
The study was undertaken from an interpretivist perspective as this offered explanations to
the implementation of performance management systems in the Assembly from the
perspective of both the heads/supervisors and their subordinates. This paradigm is relevant
as it helped the researcher to pose the what, the why and how questions so as to probe the
issue of performance management implementation in a local government set-up. The study
adopted a qualitative approach. Despite the fact that several studies have been conducted in
the performance management arena, little has been done on local governance and, therefore,
approaching this study from a qualitative perspective offered the opportunity for the
researchers to consider the experiences of the supervisors and employees as well. The
specific design that was adopted is case study. The data for the study were obtained from
two main sources, namely, primary and secondary data. The primary data for this study
were gathered from observations and the in-depth interviews conducted.

No. Implementation challenges Sources

1. Standards and objectives Kaplan (2001), Van Meter and Van Horn (1975); Bourne et al.
(2003), Appiah-Adu and Aning (2012)
2. Resources Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), Howlett et al. (2003),
Shun et al. (2006), Khan et al. (2013)
3. Definition of strategy, mission and vision Kaplan (2001), Khan et al. (2013)
4. Processes and procedures Guthrie et al. (2005)
5. Lack of expertise in design and Mendonca and Kanungo (1996), de Waal (2007)
implementation
6. Local factors Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004), Van Meter and Van Horn (1975)
7. Staff resistance Bourne et al. (2000)
8. Organisational structure Rothstein (1998), Van Meter and Van Horn (1975)
9. Limited support/commitment from Ohemeng (2009), de Waal and Counet (2009), de Waal (2007),
top management Horine and Hailey (1995), Kaplan (2001)
10. Organisational culture or cultural issues Ohemeng (2009), Torres (2004), Horine and Hailey (1995)
11. Institutional discontinuity Ohemeng (2009)
12. Employee support Ohemeng (2011), Ohemeng (2009)
Table I.
13. Absence of rewards for good performers Ohemeng (2009), de Waal (2007)
Summary of
performance 14. Over-bureaucratisation of the Winstanley and Stuart-Smith (1996)
management performance management system
implementation 15. Lack of training Ohemeng (2009), de Waal (2007)
challenges Source: Summary from literature review
In total, 20 respondents participated in the study. Out of the 20 respondents, 9 were Performance
supervisors while 11 were subordinate employees. The interviewees were made up of the management
municipal coordinating director, human resource manager, municipal finance officer,
municipal works engineer, head of planning, budget, internal audit, chief local government
officer, town and country planning officer while the remaining were subordinate employees.
The interviewees were all stationed at the Municipal Assembly. Most of the interviewees
(50 per cent) held bachelor’s degrees, a few of them (15 per cent) had professional 525
qualifications while the remaining (35 per cent) had Master’s degrees. It is clear from
the responses that all the respondents were well educated and had the capacity to discuss
the issue at hand. It was also important to find information on the duration of service the
employees had been with the Assembly. The responses indicate that the majority of them
had worked for less than five years in the Municipal Assembly even though they had been
in the local government circle for more 20 years. This is so because senior level employees in
the local government set-up and of course most public institutions cannot stay at a
particular station for more than four years. That notwithstanding, most of the interviewees
exhibited a high level of maturity with respect to the issue at hand. The number of years an
individual remains in employment enhances or attests to his/her level of experience. It can
therefore be said that the majority of the employees are experienced.
A purposive sampling technique was used in selecting the interviewees (principal
officers/heads of department and some employees). The principal officers were chosen for
the interview because they had first-hand experience, information and requisite knowledge
on the subject matter. The data gathered from the interviews were analysed using Miles and
Huberman’s (1994) approach to qualitative data analysis. The data were coded to categorise
and define patterns and themes from the viewpoint of the interviewees, so as to appreciate
and describe these patterns and themes.

Findings
The findings are presented under the two key objectives of the study and touch on key issues
such as the purpose of the Assembly’s performance management system, the process of
implementation, the effectiveness of the current system and the implementation challenges.

Purpose and features of PMS

The purpose of an organisation’s performance management system has to be made known
to all employees if it is to be achieved. Whatever the case may be, the reasons could range
from financial to developmental. Therefore, interviewees were asked to indicate the purpose
of the Assembly’s performance management system. An interviewee hinted that:
It is used for the purposes of promoting staff such that those who fall short will be given the
necessary training. It is used to evaluate how individual employees are working and whether there
is the need for improvement in terms of capacity building.
This view was supported by most of the interviewees with the exception of a few who
believed that it goes beyond just the promotion of staff. They were of the view that the
system focusses on the achievement of the goals of the Assembly which therefore calls for
the active involvement of employees. In support of their argument, this is what an
interviewee said:
The focus is to manage the performance of employees so that they will feel motivated and belonged
which will then push them to improve the productivity levels. It also ensures that right salaries are
paid while giving information on employee strengths and weaknesses.
From the responses, it is evidently clear that the current performance management system
deals with a mixture of systems, procedures and actions undertaken by the Assembly to
IJPPM assess the performance of employees. The performance management system involves
67,3 components such as job descriptions, performance potentials, appraisals, corrective policies
and recommendations. The respondents were quick to add that the Assembly did not
practise all the above elements.

Implementation of PMS
526 Ideally, performance management systems span a year. In view of that, respondents were
asked to indicate the duration of the implementation of the current PMS. While some were of
the view that the current PMS was implemented throughout the year, others saw it as a half
yearly activity with a few indicating that it was a one-time activity. To these employees,
there is nothing like performance management, it is just a performance appraisal system.
Those employees who see the current system as a year round activity indicated that the
Assembly goes through series of activities from the beginning of the year to the end mostly
crowning it with a performance appraisal meeting. This is what a respondent shared:
[…] as a head of department we meet at the beginning of the year to determine the goals of the
Assembly for the year before I communicate it to my subordinates and ensure that it is achieved
before the year ends. I have been doing this ever since I was posted here.
In addition to the above, some respondents lamented on the manner in which the assembly
looks at performance issues. Most supervisors of the assembly focus narrowly on
performance appraisal to the neglect of other important activities. An employee expressed
his view on this issue:
[…] our supervisors don’t care about how we undertake our activities. They are only interested in
filling our appraisal forms and giving us low marks.
Because most organisations and managers need to acquire the greatest returns on their
investment and employees are undoubtedly the most costly and valued assets they have, it
only makes sense that they would do everything humanly possible to get the best
performance from them. But some respondents who felt the assembly had a performance
appraisal and not a performance management system shared this:
[…] as employees we have to know what is expected of us, we also like to know how we are
performing against the expectations of the Assembly and we want to develop ourselves to address
the gaps in performance and to move toward greater responsibility so that we get rewarded. But we
don’t see that over here. The only time we experience a bit of the so-called performance
management system is the appraisal period.
The process of implementing performance management systems varies across organisations.
Even though the majority of the respondents viewed the performance management system of
the Assembly as a process, they were a bit divided as to the specific processes adopted by the
Assembly. Some of the respondents hinted that it was a three-stage process which involved
the planning of performance implementation and performance assessment and review.
This is what an interviewee had to say:
I can’t say it is a comprehensive or complete process, but to the best of my knowledge, we meet at
the beginning of the year to plan what we want to achieve for the year in question after which our
supervisors enforce performance standards require to achieve those objectives. When the year is
coming to an end we review our performance with the help of the appraisal forms.
It appears that there are variations in the system of implementation across departments.
For some departments such as accounts/finance and internal audit, the respondents were
able to give responses regarding its implementation as compared to other respondents such
as the typists.
Implementation challenges facing the assembly’s performance management system Performance
Performance management systems, which typically include performance appraisal and management
employee development, are the weak or vulnerable activities of human resource management
which can potentially lead to an organisation’s downfall. A lot of time and energy is spent in
crafting the right vision, mission and goals of a performance management system. Yet, the
success of the programme is not assured. In view of the above, respondents were asked to
indicate whether the performance management system had been implemented successfully. 527
Most of the respondents indicated that the system had not been successfully implemented
looking at the challenges confronting the assembly. From the responses gathered, it becomes
clear that managers have not been able to effectively plan and implement the performance
management system of the Assembly. A respondent shared this:
[…] ooooooh I don’t think it has been successful. In fact, all of us don’t respect the implementation
time frames, how can it be successful? All documentation and forms are not properly completed.
We do it anyhow.
Commenting on the poor implementation of the system, an interviewee hinted that:
Mechanisms that must be put in place to ensure the objectivity of performance ratings and
judgments, and to reduce favouritism and bias is [sic] not there so supervisors just give any mark
and its worse when you and your supervisor are at war.
The responses above indicate that there is a problem with the current performance
management system of the Assembly. In view of the above, there was the need for respondents
to indicate the particular challenge facing the Assembly. Discussed below are some of the
dominant challenges presented by the respondents. The performance management system and
devices must be intended to address the specific needs of organisations. The design ought to
include intensive discussions with all partners and particularly employees and supervisors
who always utilise the framework. Individuals included in the outline of the framework must
have aptitude in performance management and an understanding of the context in which the
Assembly finds itself but this is not the case at the Municipal Assembly. Recounting how the
issue had affected the implementation of the current system, an interviewee fumed:
I think the current system was wrongly designed. The performance management system and tools
does not fit with the specific needs of the Assembly. The heads of department only see it as a
requirement which needs to be fulfilled annually and not something to help improve the
performance of the Assembly as well as its employees.
Some respondents, especially the supervisors, maintained that some of the employees were
not supportive at all. They believed strongly that the system was not working to perfection
because of the behaviour of some of these employees. Describing the situation, a supervisor
shared his views:
[…] employees are supposed to cooperate with their supervisors always, unfortunately some
employees don’t do that to the extent that they sometimes fight some of us. It is really an
unpleasant experience and does not auger well for the Assembly.
The above remarks indicate the extent to which cooperation is important in the performance
management system. The respondents also indicated that it is a two-way relationship and
therefore both parties (employees and supervisors) must all play their role if it is to succeed.
Interestingly, some employees also blamed their supervisors for the inability of the system
to achieve its intended objectives:
[…] some of the supervisors don’t help at all, they just assess us anyhow without recourse to our
actual performance. Some of us have not been promoted because our bosses do not like us and so
we always don’t pass. I have been complaining about this thing for years but to no avail.
IJPPM During implementation, good communication enables managers to effectively deal with
67,3 resistance to change and build the confidence of stakeholders in the system. This implies
that communication and training are inevitable if the performance management system is to
succeed. Describing the relevance of communication and how it has negatively affected the
Assembly, an interviewee revealed that:
Communication is one of the most critical success factors of the entire performance management
528 system because it reduces resistance to change, and generates commitment to the system but the
Assembly has failed to do that and employees are at a loss.
Performance management system needs to be fused with the strategic plans, culture,
structure and other relevant components of the Assembly as well as the human resource
management systems. The absence of integration can negatively affect the success of the
system. In the opinion of an employee:
The current performance management system fails to link individual performance, departmental
performance and service delivery and so things are done haphazardly.
The above remark on the lack of alignment is due to the fact that various programmes of the
Assembly have been segregated. In other words, there is no link between the Assembly’s
strategy, budgets and operational plans mainly due to the fact that it was undertaken by
different people with varying objectives. For performance management to be successfully
implemented, it has to be approached from a unified standpoint. Furthermore, cooperation
must exist between the Assembly’s strategy, budgets and operational plans, its culture and
structure and as well as human resources. In the absence of harmony, it will be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, for performance management system to be successful no matter
how detailed the programme may be.
Commitment is a vital concern with respect to the success or otherwise of a programme.
Managers must create a vision that is shared by all members of the organisation, motivate
employees and build a performance management system that pushes the organisation
towards the intended destination. An interviewee mentioned that:
There is total lack of commitment on the part of the Assembly’s top officials who are supposed to
inspire us to give our all. Seriously speaking leadership commitment and support is a must for
smooth implementation of the system. Top officials must drive the process and make performance
management an integral part of the management of the Assembly. Leaders contribute not only in
setting the strategic direction and performance measures but also in monitoring and reviewing
performance across the Assembly. They also reinforce the performance cycle by recognizing and
rewarding performance.
The leadership challenge has an enormous effect on coordinating and adjusting a system of
management to convey an extensive performance. In addition to the above challenges, some
of the respondents were also of the view that the Assembly did not have the required
financial resources to effectively implement the system. To these respondents, even if the
top officials were ready to fully implement the system, they were financially constrained and
for that matter they have been struggling to fully implement any meaningful programme.
An interviewee revealed that:
[…] the Assembly is seriously constrained. As you may be aware, we are yet to receive our share
of last year’s common fund and we also finding it difficult to raise money internally. You know
that if there is no money, there is no way the system can be effective. So that is one of our
numerous challenges.
Due to the financial constraints, some interviewees noted that there was a total absence of
rewards for employees even if they performed well. Employees are sometimes motivated to
perform if there are reward systems for them but this does not happen in the Assembly.
An employee bemoaned how this problem has affected the successful implementation of the Performance
current system: management
I believe that a reward system that rewards high performance and discourages low and mediocre
performance must be put in place because there is nothing of that sort over here. A comprehensive
and holistic reward system which can motivate employees as done in the private sector is missing
in the Assembly’s performance management system.
Employees normally expect their performance to be linked with pay. Ideally, performance 529
management systems should be connected to reward, whether it is a certain percentage rise
on the employee’s salary or a specified amount for good performance.

Discussion of findings
Performance management systems are composed of process and people components. The
process component is made up of job descriptions, assessment standards, the assessment
deliberations and reward systems. A key constituent of the people component is the
supervisor who pushes the system by establishing the expectations, communicating plans,
stimulating growth and giving and receiving feedback from subordinates. Even though the
majority of the respondents viewed the performance management system of the Assembly as
a process, they were a bit divided. Some of the interviewees felt it was just a two-stage activity
or process of performance planning and performance evaluation. To these people, there is
actually nothing like performance implementation because when the goals are formulated,
hardly does someone ensure its implementation. The only thing supervisors do is to mark the
appraisal forms filled by the employee just because it is an annual “ritual” or requirement.
The performance management framework requires the contribution of numerous players.
The fruitful implementation of the framework obliges a definite appreciation of how the
framework functions and a reasonable understanding of its advantages from the alternative
points of view of all included. Fruitful execution requires wide authoritative backing and
acknowledgement. Prior to its implementation, a fruitful correspondence arrangement must
be actualised that will reduce resistance and galvanise support for the system. The system
should also be pilot-tested, a view which is reinforced by scholars such as Pulakos (2009),
Aguinis (2009) and Neely et al. (1996). Unfortunately, the case of the Municipal Assembly is a
bit of deviation from the views held by some scholars as discussed above.

Challenges of the performance management system

The interviewees indicated that the Assembly had not been able to successfully implement
its performance management system due to a number of challenges. Some of these
challenges revealed by the respondents include the following: wrong design of the system,
poor communication, poor integration, low commitment by the top officials, absence of
training, inadequate ability for establishing clear goals and objectives, and assessing and
evaluation standards for performance assessment, absence of rewards for good
performance, financial constraints and the limited importance accorded to it. Most of the
respondents felt that the system was imposed on them and for that matter they were not
consulted at its inception. The revelation that employees of the Assembly were not
contacted at the beginning of the system has vital consequences in relation to employees’
assurance and attitudes towards the system. Non-involvement of employees in the
designing of performance management system creates the impression that employees are
not significant role players in the policy-making process of the Assembly. Employees will
normally reject the performance measurement systems that are imposed on them because
such types of measurements are often misconstrued as devices to punish them.
These revelations are in line with previous studies (Howlett et al., 2003; Shun et al., 2006;
de Waal, 2007; Ohemeng, 2011; Ohemeng, 2009; de Waal and Counet, 2009; Mendonca and
IJPPM Kanungo, 1996). The dominant factors indicated include wrong design, absence of employee
67,3 support, resources, lack of alignment, lack of commitment, and poor communication. Based
on the findings a framework has been developed. It is evident that these factors represent
the challenges faced by a developing country in the implementation of performance
management systems. Below is the framework (Figure 1).
Whereas most of the challenges revealed are not too different from other countries and
530 sectors as indicated by previous studies (Kaplan, 2001; Howlett et al., 2003; Shun et al., 2006;
de Waal, 2007; Ohemeng, 2011; Ohemeng, 2009; de Waal and Counet, 2009; Mendonca and
Kanungo, 1996; Horine and Hailey, 1995; Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975), there are some
challenges which are yet to catch the attention of researchers. These challenges are lack of
alignment and poor communication which may be unique to local government institutions
in developing countries particularly Ghana. The poor integration is due to the fact that
various programmes of the Assembly have been segregated. To some extent there is no link
between the Assembly’s strategy, budgets and operational plans mainly due to the fact that
the performance management is not approached from a unified standpoint. It appears that
each unit or directorate has its own strategy and goals which to some extent deviate from
the general strategy adopted by the Assembly as a whole owing to the fact that these
strategies are not effectively integrated. On the issue of communication, the responses point
to the fact that supervisors have failed in communicating the rationale behind the current
performance management system and this is a recipe for resistance among the subordinate
employees because they are at a loss.

Conclusions
Implementing an effective performance management system is not an easy task.
Therefore, the Assembly has to put in more effort than what it is doing at the moment. The
basic principle underlying performance management is that if employees recognise what

Wrong design

Resources

Absence of
Performance
employee support
management
system
Effective
Lack of
implementation
commitment

Poor integration

Poor
communication

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
Inhibiting factors Outcome
is required of them, they are more probable to accomplish tasks effectually. This results in Performance
improved employee performance as well as better organisational performance. The management
responses gathered call for a complete performance management system which includes:
clear vision/mission/values, strategic goals, job descriptions, clear accountabilities for
delivering strategic and day to day tasks, consistent feedback, training and development,
reward and recognition, and a more formal performance appraisal which will not only put
fear in employees but will push them to think outside the box and deliver an exceptional 531
performance. The study, therefore, concludes that though the Assembly has not been able
to fully implement its performance management to the expectation of all stakeholders,
it has the opportunity to turn its fortunes around by adopting a complete and an
all-inclusive system which will not only serve the interest of the Assembly but also that of
the employees as well.

Recommendations
From the findings and discussions made, the following are recommended.
The Assembly can achieve its objectives through the current performance
management system by providing the needed financial resources to ensure smooth and
full scale implementation. The provision of the required resources will ensure that the
performance management system is linked to rewards and recognition. By so doing, the
employees will appreciate the system better and do whatever they can to make it a
success. If the resources needed are not provided, the probability of the programme failing
is extremely high.
One of the challenges revealed by the respondents had to do with the design of the
process. The performance management process should be value-added so as to reduce or
possibly eliminate resistance. Resistance is a key challenge affecting policy implementation
particularly in developing countries. Successful systems must not be cumbersome. Rather,
they must be kept simple and realistic while addressing the expectations of both the
Assembly and its employees. In order to successfully implement the system, there is the
need to reduce or possibly eliminate employee resistance as supportive employees can
contribute significantly to the success of the system.
Another important issue that was discussed by the respondents had to do with the
commitment of top level officials. This commitment must not only be exhibited verbally but
also through cooperation in the same performance management process for assessments.
The present culture of the Assembly regarding performance appraisals and management is
not welcoming and, therefore, does not encourage participation. There should be an open
system of communication where employees can freely air their views regarding their
performance issues. It should be possible for employees to reliably discuss their
performance and identify ways of improving upon their performance into the foreseeable
future. Such a culture will not only make the system participatory but will make it more
accountable and successful.

Future research directions

First, future research can take a positivist approach where hypothesis can be formulated
and tested on selected public sector organisations to confirm or disconfirm the findings of
studies in this arena. Again, a multiple case studies can also be conducted where more than
one district assembly will be selected and studied in detail so as to compare the
implementation of performance management systems amongst these institutions. Little has
also been done on the impact or effect of performance management on the financial
performance of district assemblies or public sector institutions in general and therefore
future research can consider that.
IJPPM References
67,3 Accenture (2010), “Performance management in the public sector driving high performance by
focusing on what really matters to citizens”, Accenture Global, Dublin, available at: www.
accenture.com (accessed 25 June 2014).
Adler, R.W. (2011), “Performance management and organizational strategy: how to design systems
that meet the needs of confrontation strategy firms”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 43
532 No. 4, pp. 251-263.
Aguinis, H. (2009), Performance Management, 2nd ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Aguinis, H. (2013), Performance Management, 3rd ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R.K. and Joo, H. (2012), “Delivering effective performance feedback: the
strengths-based approach”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 105-111.
Aguinis, H., Joo, H. and Gottfredson, R.K. (2011), “Why we hate performance management – and why
we should love it”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 503-507.
Appiah-Adu, K. and Aning, S. (2012), “Enhancing government’s policy management and decision
making system: the case of Ghana’s central governance reforms project”, Canadian Public
Administration, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 125-147.
Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (2005), Managing Performance: Performance Management in Action,
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), London.
Baird, K., Schoch, H. and Chen, Q. (2012), “Performance management system effectiveness in
Australian local government”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 161-185.
Bawole, J.N., Hossain, F., Domfeh, K.A., Bukari, H.Z. and Sanyare, F. (2013), “Performance appraisal or
praising performance? The culture of rhetoric in performance management in Ghana civil
service”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 36 No. 13, pp. 953-962.
Behn, R.D. (2003), “Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 586-606.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J. and Platts, K. (2003), “Implementing performance measurement systems:
a literature review”, International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 1-24.
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. and Platts, K. (2000), “Designing, implementing and updating
performance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 754-771.
Buchner, T.W. (2007), “Performance management theory: a look from the performer’s perspective with
implications for HRD”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
Budworth, M. and Mann, S.L. (2011), “Performance management: where do we go from here?”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 81-84.
Cascio, W.F. (2006), “Global performance management systems”, in Bjorkman, I. and Stahl, G. (Eds),
Handbook of Research in International Human Resources Management, Edward Elgar Ltd,
London, pp. 176-196.
Cascio, W.F. and Aguinis, H. (2008), “Research in industrial and organizational psychology from
1963 to 2007: changes, choices, and trends”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5,
pp. 1062-1081.
de Waal, A.A. (2007), “Is performance management applicable in developing countries? The case of a
Tanzanian college”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
de Waal, A.A. and Counet, H. (2009), “Lessons learned from performance management systems
implementations”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58
No. 4, pp. 367-390.
Ferlie, E. and Steane, P. (2002), “Changing developments in NPM”, International Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1459-1469.
Fryer, K., Antony, J. and Ogden, S. (2009), “Performance management in the public sector”, Performance
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, management
pp. 478-498.
Gudyanga, E., Shumba, P. and Wadesango, N. (2014), “An analysis of performance appraisal system
in Shurugwi district day secondary schools”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 461-470.
Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C., Jones, L. and Olson, O. (2005), International Public Financial Management 533
Reform: Progress, Contradictions and Challenges, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
Heinrich, C.J. (2003), “Measuring Public Sector Performance and Effectiveness”, in Peters, G.
and Pierre, J. (Eds), The Handbook of Public Administration, Sage Publications, London,
pp. 25-37.
Horine, J.E. and Hailey, W.A. (1995), “Challenges to successful quality management implementation in
higher education institutions”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. (2003), Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems,
Vol. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hussain, M.M. and Hoque, Z. (2002), “Understanding non-financial performance measurement
practices in Japanese banks: a new institutional sociology perspective”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 162-183.
Issachar, J.D. (2009), “The current state of performance management in MDAs/MMDAs”, paper
presented at the 4th Annual Internal Audit Forum, Accra International Conference Centre,
Accra, 18-19 August.
Kaplan, R.S. (2001), “Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit
organisations”, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 353-370.
Khan, M.K., Ishaq, M.I., Nawaz, M.R. and Hussain, N.M. (2013), “Implications of performance
management systems in Pakistani organizations”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific
Research, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 335-341.
Lee Rhodes, M., Biondi, L., Gomes, R., Melo, A.I., Ohemeng, F., Perez-Lopez, G. and Sutiyono, W.
(2012), “Current state of public sector performance management in seven selected countries”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 235-271.
Machingambi, S., Maphosa, C., Ndofirepi, A., Mutekwe, E. and Wadesango, N. (2013), “Perceived
challenges of implementing the performance management system in Zimbabwe”, Journal of
Social Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 263-271.
Mafanya, N. and Matsiliza, N.S. (2016), “Performance management practices in the South African police
service in the Western Cape, South Africa”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 22-28.
Mendonca, M. and Kanungo, R.N. (1996), “Impact of culture on performance management in developing
countries”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 17 Nos 4/5, pp. 65-75.
Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mosoge, M.J. and Pilane, M.W. (2014), “Performance management: the neglected imperative of
accountability systems in education”, South African Journal of Education, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Moynihan, D.P. (2008), The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and
Reform, Georgetown University Press.
Moynihan, D.P. and Pandey, S.K. (2010), “The big question for performance management: why do
managers use performance information?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 849-866.
Munzhedzi, P.H. and Phago, K. (2014), “Performance management system quandary in the public
service: a case of the Limpopo province, South Africa”, Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 1083-1099.
IJPPM Nambi Karuhanga, B. and Werner, A. (2013), “Challenges impacting performance management
67,3 implementation in public universities: a case of Uganda”, African Journal of Economic and
Management Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 223-243.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M. and Richards, H. (1996), “Performance measurement system
design: should process based approaches be adopted?”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 46, pp. 423-431.
534 Njeru, L.K. and Nzuve, S.N. (2013), “Perceived factors affecting performance management among local
authorities in Kenya: a case of the city council of Nairobi”, DBA Africa Management Review,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 59-69.
Ohemeng, F.L.K. (2009), “Constraints in the implementation of performance management systems in
developing countries: the Ghanaian case”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
Vol. 1, pp. 109-132.
Ohemeng, F.L.K. (2011), “Institutionalizing the performance management system in public organizations
in Ghana chasing a mirage?”, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 467-488.
Ohemeng, F.L., Zakari, H.B. and Adusah‐Karikari, A. (2015), “Performance appraisal and its use for
individual and organisational improvement in the civil service of Ghana: the case of much ado
about nothing?”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 179-191.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Pradhan, S.K. and Chaudhury, S.K. (2012), “A survey on employee performance management and its
implication to their retention in OCL India Ltd”, Asian Journal of Research in Social Science and
Humanities, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 249-262.
Pulakos, E. (2009), Performance Management: A New Approach for Driving Business Results,
Wiley-Blackwell ( John Wiley and Sons Ltd), Oxford.
Radebe, P.Q. (2015), “Managers’ perceptions of the performance appraisal system in the local
municipality of Gauteng province in South Africa”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 175-182.
Radin, B. (2006), Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic
Values, Georgetown University Press.
Rothstein, B. (1998), Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of The Universal Welfare
State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schein, E.H. (1985), Organisational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San Francisco, CA.
Selden, S. and Sowa, J.E. (2011), “Performance management and appraisal in human service organizations:
management and staff perspectives”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 251-264.
Shun, H., Chen, C.C.Y and Jiun, Y.S. (2006), “The application of a balanced scorecard in the performance
evaluation of higher education”, The Total Quality Management Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 190-205.
Soss, J., Fording, R. and Schram, S.F. (2011), “The organization of discipline: from performance
management to perversity and punishment”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. i203-i232.
Thomas, J.W. and Grindle, M.S. (1990), “After the decision: implementing policy reforms in developing
countries”, World Development, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 1163-1181.
Torres, L. (2004), “Trajectories in public administration reforms in European continental countries”,
Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 99-112.
Van Meter, D. and Van Horn, C. (1975), “The policy implementation process: a conceptual framework”,
Administration and Society, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 445-487.
Williams, D.W. (2003), “Measuring government in the early twentieth century”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 643-659.
Winstanley, D. and Stuart-Smith, K. (1996), “Policing performance: the ethics of performance
management”, Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 66-84.
Further Reading Performance
Armstrong, M. (2008), Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management: An Evidence-Based Guide management
to Delivering High Performance, 4th ed., Kogan Page, London.
Eckardt, S. (2008), “Political accountability, fiscal conditions and local government performance-cross‐
sectional evidence from Indonesia”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Helm, C., Holladay, C. and Tortorella, F. (2007), “The performance management system: applying and
evaluating a pay-for-performance initiative”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 51 No. 1, 535
pp. 49-62.
Hvidman, U. and Andersen, S.C. (2013), “Impact of performance management in public and private
organizations”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 35-58.
Melo, A., Sarrico, C. and Radnor, Z. (2010), “The influence of performance management systems on key
actors in universities”, Public Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 233-254.
Nath, N. and Sharma, U. (2014), “Performance management systems in the public housing sector:
dissemination to diffusion”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 24 No. 68, pp. 1-14.
Padovani, E., Yetano, A. and Orelli, R. (2010), “Municipal performance measurement and management
in practice: which factors matter?”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 591-635.

Corresponding author
Albert Ahenkan can be contacted at: aahenkan@ug.edu.gh

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com