Assessing the challenges in attaining the 
predetermined organisational performance objectives 

in the Gauteng Office of the Premier 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Makgaba Samuel Molapo 
WITS Graduate School of Governance 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thesis presented in partial fulfilment for the degree of Master of 
Management (in the field of Public and Development Sector 

Monitoring and Evaluation) to the Faculty of Commerce, Law, and 
Management, University of the Witwatersrand 

 

February 2024 



 ii 

DECLARATION 
 
I Makgaba Samuel Molapo, a student at University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 

confirms that this research namely, “Assessing the challenges in attaining the 

predetermined organisational performance objectives in the Gauteng Office of the 

Premier” is originally conducted by myself. This research is unique to me, and I have not 

submitted it to any academic institution for examination. I also confirm that I have 

referenced as well as credited and recognised all the views of authors sourced somewhere 

else. It is in this regard that I am submitting this research to satisfy the requirements of 

attaining the master’s degree in Management and in particular the specialisation of Public 

and Development Sector Monitoring and Evaluation.  

 
Name of candidate Makgaba Samuel Molapo 

Student number 2398113 

Signature 

 

 

Signed at Johannesburg on 26 February 2024 

Telephone numbers 0762797990 

Email address 
Makgaba.molapo@gmail.com  

 

First year of registration 2020 

Date of proposal submission 02 December 2022 

Date of report submission 24 February 2024 

Name of supervisor Kambidima Wotela 

 

mailto:Makgaba.molapo@gmail.com


 iii 

ABSTRACT 
 

Author: Makgaba Samuel Molapo Supervisor Kambidima Wotela 

Thesis 

title: 

Assessing the challenges in attaining the predetermined organisational 
performance objectives in the Gauteng Office of the Premier 

        
This research aims to assess the challenges in attaining the predetermined organisational 

performance objectives in the Gauteng Office of the Premier. In doing so, I have applied 

the strategy of qualitative research as well as the case study design. This enabled the 

research to use semi-structured interviews to collect primary data that informs challenges 

in attaining the predetermined organisational performance objectives in the Gauteng 

Office of the Premier. The population of this study is Gauteng Office of the Premier 

and from this population I have sampled 9 participants using a purposive sampling 

technique. I have located this research in the academic field of organisational 

performance studies. This field was suitable for my incumbent research due to its aspect 

connecting to the research problem. Furthermore, I have established attributes of 

organisational performance and linked them to interpretative frameworks of this 

research to answer empirical results. The interpretative frameworks of this study are 

bureaucracy theory, government management frameworks, Government Wide 

Monitoring and Evaluation (GWM&E) framework, and programme logical model. 

Using these frameworks as a lens of interpreting research findings, the study indicates 

that the organisational structure of Gauteng Office of the Premier is not fit for purpose, 

and it is not approved by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). 

As a result, the organisational structure hinders the office of the premier ability to employ 

human resources that will achieve predetermined objectives. The findings also point out 

the challenges of data collection, duplication, and alignment of budget to office priorities. 

Moreover, it was found that stakeholders are non-compliant and do not conform to the 

implementation of monitoring and evaluation system. As a result, the Gauteng office of 

the premier is unable to perform because is depended on stakeholders to achieve the 

office mandate. Lastly, the findings pointed that challenges of attaining predetermined 

objectives are linked to components of logical model.  

 

Johannesburg, February 2024 

 

  



 iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................................ ii 

Abstract iii 

Table of contents ........................................................................................................................................ iv 

List of tables vii 

List of figures viii 

List of tables and figures in the appendices ............................................................................................ ix 

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... x 

1 Introduction to the research ............................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1.1 The Gauteng Office of the Premier in brief ........................................................ 1 

1.1.2 State of reporting on predetermined objectives in Gauteng Office of the 
Premier ....................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1.3 An introduction to organisational performance .................................................. 3 

1.2 Research conceptualisation: Towards assessing organisational performance 
challenges in attaining the predetermined objectives in the Gauteng Office of the 
Premier. ..................................................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.1 The research problem statement ........................................................................... 5 

1.2.2 The research purpose (aim and objectives) statement ....................................... 6 

1.2.3 The research questions. ........................................................................................... 7 

1.3 Delimitations of the research ................................................................................................ 7 

1.4 Justification of the research ................................................................................................... 8 

1.5 Preface to the research report ............................................................................................... 9 

2 Reviewing Literature to derive the conceptual framework ........................................................10 

2.1 The description and history of the Gauteng Office of the Premier .............................10 

2.1.1 Description of Gauteng Office of the Premier .................................................11 

2.1.2 History of Gauteng Office of the Premier .........................................................13 

2.1.3 Aspects connecting the context to the research problem................................15 

2.2 Organisational performance challenges in attaining predetermined objectives. .........16 

2.2.1 Linking symptoms to the problem ......................................................................16 

2.2.2 Linking root causes to the problem ....................................................................19 

2.2.3 Linking consequences to the problem ................................................................21 

2.2.4 Gauteng Office of the Premier results chain framework ................................22 

2.3 Methods, data, findings, and conclusions of studies on and evaluation of 
organisational performance challenges in attaining predetermined objectives ...........27 

2.3.1 Aim and objectives of previous research studies on organisational 
performance challenges .........................................................................................27 

2.3.2 Interpretive/theoretical frameworks considered by previous studies on 
organisational performance ..................................................................................28 

2.3.3 Research strategy and design used by previous studies on organisational 
performance ............................................................................................................29 

2.3.4 Data collection instruments used by previous authors on organisational 
development ............................................................................................................30 

2.3.5 Sampling technique and limitations from previous studies on organisational 
performance ............................................................................................................30 



 v 

2.3.6 Data collection process, processing, and analysis from previous studies on 
organisational performance ..................................................................................30 

2.3.7 Key empirical results presented by previous studies on organisational 
performance ............................................................................................................31 

2.3.8 Research findings from previous studies on organisational performance ....32 

2.3.9 Limitations from previous studies of organisational performance ................32 

2.4 Introduction to organisational performance studies and its components and 
processes .................................................................................................................................33 

2.4.1 Describing organisational performance ..............................................................33 

2.4.2 The purpose of organisational performance ......................................................34 

2.4.3 Established facts in organisational performance. ..............................................34 

2.4.4 Key issues and debates in the study of organisational performance ..............35 

2.4.5 Major components of organisational performance ..........................................36 

2.4.6 Major processes of organisational performance................................................36 

2.5 Key attributes in organisational performance that are key to organisational 
performance challenges. .......................................................................................................37 

2.5.1 Organisational structure ........................................................................................38 

2.5.2 Organisational outcomes ......................................................................................40 

2.5.3 Organisational outputs ..........................................................................................41 

2.5.4 Organisational enablers .........................................................................................42 

2.6 Describing bureaucracy, performance management framework, Government Wide 
Monitoring and Evaluation framework and the programme logical model for 
interpreting empirical results on organisational performance challenges against 
predetermined objectives .....................................................................................................43 

2.6.1 Theory of organisational bureaucracy .................................................................43 

2.6.2 Government performance management framework ........................................45 

2.6.3 Government Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Systems .................................47 

2.6.4 Programme Logic Model ......................................................................................48 

2.7 A conceptual framework for assessing challenges in attaining predetermined 
objectives: the case of the Gauteng Office of the Premier ............................................50 

3 Research strategy, design, procedure and methods .....................................................................55 

3.1 Research strategy ...................................................................................................................55 

3.2 Research design .....................................................................................................................57 

3.3 Research procedure and methods ......................................................................................59 

3.3.1 Research data and information collection instrument(s) .................................59 

3.3.2 Research target population and selection of respondents ...............................62 

3.3.3 Ethical considerations when collecting research data ......................................64 

3.3.4 Research data and information collection process ...........................................65 

3.3.5 Research data and information processing and analysis ..................................68 

3.3.6 Description of the research respondents............................................................71 

3.4 Research strengthens—reliability and validity measures applied ..................................72 

3.5 Research weaknesses—technical and administrative limitations...................................74 

4 Presentation of research results ......................................................................................................76 

4.1 Organisational structure challenges affecting the Gauteng office of the Premiers 
performance in attaining predetermined objectives. .......................................................76 

4.1.1 Response to research question 1 ..........................................................................77 

4.1.2 Comparison of research results to other similar studies ..................................82 



 vi 

4.2 Challenges of managing performance information in the Gauteng Office of the 
Premier ....................................................................................................................................83 

4.2.1 Response to research question 2 ..........................................................................83 

4.2.2 Comparison of research results to other similar studies ..................................89 

4.3 Challenges affecting the implementation of Government Wide Monitoring and 
Evaluation (GWM&E) System in the Gauteng Office of the Premier to achieve 
predetermined objectives? ...................................................................................................90 

4.3.1 Response to research question 3 ..........................................................................90 

4.3.2 Comparison of research results to other similar studies ..................................94 

4.4 Key components of the logical model affecting the performance of the Gauteng 
Office of the Premier ...........................................................................................................95 

4.4.1 Response to research question 4 ..........................................................................95 

4.4.2 Comparison of research results to other similar studies ............................... 100 

5 Discussion of research findings ................................................................................................... 101 

5.1 Organisational structure challenges affecting the Gauteng office of the Premiers 
performance in attaining predetermined objectives ..................................................... 101 

5.1.1 Formal rules ......................................................................................................... 102 

5.1.2 Specialisation of task ........................................................................................... 104 

5.2 Challenges of managing performance information in the Gauteng Office of the 
Premier ................................................................................................................................. 105 

5.3 Challenges affecting the implementation of Government Wide Monitoring and 
Evaluation (GWM&E) System in the Gauteng Office of the Premier to achieve 
predetermined objectives? ................................................................................................ 108 

5.4 Key components of the logical model affecting the performance of the Gauteng 
Office of the Premier ........................................................................................................ 110 

5.4.1 Inputs .................................................................................................................... 110 

5.4.2 Activities ............................................................................................................... 111 

5.4.3 Output ................................................................................................................... 111 

5.4.4 Outcome ............................................................................................................... 112 

6 Summary, conclusions, limitations, and recommendations .................................................... 113 

6.1 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 114 

6.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 117 

6.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 119 

6.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 120 

References 123 

Appendices 131 

Appendix 1.1:    Letter permitting the researcher to carry out the research in Gauteng Office of 
the Premier ................................................................................................................. 132 

Appendix 2.1:    Ethical clearance certificate to conduct research ................................................. 133 

Appendix 3.1:    Informed consent and participation information sheet ...................................... 134 

Appendix 4.1:    Research instrument (Interview questions) ........................................................... 135 

Appendix 5.1:    Researchers bio .......................................................................................................... 137 

Appendix 6.1:    Example of fully populated interview schedule ................................................... 138 



 vii 

LIST OF TABLES 
 

 

Table 1: Alignment of outcomes that best describes the Gauteng Office of the Premier 

Table 2: Results chain framework for Gauteng Office of the Premier’s performance 

Table 3: Tangible and intangible inputs affecting the Gauteng office of the Premier’s 

performance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 viii 

LIST OF FIGURES 
 

 

Figure 1: Gauteng Office of the Premier’s 5th administration programme performance 

Figure 2: The organogram of the Gauteng Office of the Premier 

Figure 3: Gauteng Provincial map 

Figure 4: Problem tee analysis 

Figure 5: Number of indicators in the Gauteng Office of the Premier 

Figure 6: Components of organisational performance in government  

Figure 7: Key attributes in organisational performance 

Figure 8: Planning, budgeting, and reporting cycle 

Figure 9: Key performance information concepts 

Figure 10: Diagram showing conceptual framework to assess challenges in attaining 

predetermined objectives in the Gauteng Office of the Premier 

Figure 11: Components of logical model affecting Office of the Premier’s performance 

Figure 12: outlining summary, conclusion, and recommendations for the study 

 

 

 

 

 



 ix 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IN THE 
APPENDICES 

 

 

Appendix 1.1 Letter permitting the researcher to carry out the research in Gauteng 
Office of the Premier 
 
Appendix 2.1 Ethical clearance certificate to conduct research 
 
Appendix 3.1 Informed consent and participation information sheet 
 
Appendix 4.1 Research instrument (Interview questions) 
 
Appendix 5.1 Researchers bio 
 
Appendix 6.1 Example of fully populated interview schedule 
 

 

 

 



 x 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 

All thanks and gratitude to GOD Almighty for the knowledge and strength. Similarly, to 

Professor Kambidima Wotela for immensely guiding me through supervision and 

ensuring that my research meet the maximum quality standards of a masters student. I 

will continuously value the knowledge and experience you have imparted. Moreover, to 

the Gauteng Office of the Premier for opening their doors and making this research 

possible. I am grateful to all participants that took part. Furthermore, my appreciation is 

extended to Joseph and Maria Molapo (Parents) who have always supported me and 

taught me the importance of learning and advancing my academic career. Similarly, to 

also thank Sethoga Molapo and Gugu Hlela for always believing in me when there was 

no hope. I am grateful to all my friends Sifiso Ndaba, Mlungisi Mthembu and Mahlatse 

Mojapelo who indirectly influenced me to undertake this masters qualification by making 

education fashionable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 1 

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH 
 

1.1 Background 

This chapter starts by drawing attention to commonly used concepts that informs our 

research conceptualisation, that is providing the brief understanding of the research 

context and setting (starting from section 1.1.1 till section 1.1.3). Secondly, this chapter 

drills down to understand research problem statement that is outlined in section 1.2.1. 

Thirdly, in section 1.2.2, I draw attention to the research purpose statement as well as 

the aims and objectives. Fourthly, in section 1.2.3 of this chapter, I point out the research 

questions. lastly, the delimitations, justification and preface of the research are 

highlighted from section 1.3 to 1.5. 

 

1.1.1 The Gauteng Office of the Premier in brief 

Gauteng Office of the Premier is one of the Fourteen Departments within Gauteng 

Provincial sphere of Government (South Africa, 1996). Its existence and mandate are 

guided by the constitution and specific pieces of legislation as well as policy directives 

that describes the scope within which the Gauteng Office of the Premier is expected to 

function. Some of the legislative pieces amongst others includes the Public Financial 

Management Act 1 of 1999 and Public Service Act 1 of 1994 and its regulations 

(Treasury, 1999, Treasury, 1994 & Diedericks, 2017). Notwithstanding other policy 

directives, the National Development Plan (NDP) of 2030, Growing Gauteng Together 

Plan (GGT) of 2030 and Medium-Term Strategic Framework are amongst other policy 

directives that describe the scope of the office of the Premier (Diedericks, 2017 & 

DPME, 2019).   

 

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 therefore becomes 

an overarching umbrella as well as the blueprint of all the above legislative mandates and 

policy directives. In detail, Chapter 3 of the constitution situates the Gauteng Office of 

the Premier within the middle sphere of government (Provincial Sphere) in terms of 

separation of powers and cooperative government functions (South Africa, 1996). For 

instance, schedule 4 and 5 of section 41 (1) clearly outlines the principles and 

relationships of cooperation between National government, Provincial government as 

well as Municipalities that are known as Local government (South Africa, 1996). It is in 

the Provincial Sphere that the Premier’s office is responsible for the effective and 



 2 

efficient implementation of intergovernmental relations as well as cooperative 

governance between National and Local government to ensure good governance 

(Koenane & Mangena, 2017).      

 

Over and above the role of implementing intergovernmental relations, the Gauteng 

Office of the Premier also performs executive, legislative, policy and ceremonial 

functions amongst other roles defined in chapter 6 of the constitution of the Republic 

of South Africa. It is in the Office of the Premier that the executive authority is vested 

in the Premier of Gauteng in terms of section 125 (1) of the constitution. However, it 

must be noted that the Premier exercises executive authority jointly with provincial 

Members of Executive Council.   

1.1.2 State of reporting on predetermined objectives in Gauteng 
Office of the Premier 

The context of reporting on predetermined objectives in the Gauteng Office of the 

Premier became the centre of attention after the newly democratically elected government 

in 1994 with the aim to improve service delivery in the marginalised communities that 

were previously disadvantaged by the apartheid government (Van der Nest & Erasmus , 

2011). Similalry the constitution of the republic of South Africa motivates for efficient 

use of public resources and accountability as well as transperancy on the work of 

government (South Africa, 1996). In doing so, it was necessary for the South African 

governemnt to embark on a nation wide public sector reform with the focus on 

performance and budget expenditure (Van der Nest & Erasmus , 2011). Engela & Ajam 

(2010) points out that the reforms focused on value for money spent by the “public 

sector”. 

 

Furthermore, the public sector in South African drafted laws on performance 

management processes and implemented them to ensure that they are binding (Van der 

Nest & Erasmus, 2011). Diedericks (2017) points out that one of the first legislation that 

required spheres of governemnt to account on predetermined objectives was introduced 

in 1999 namely, the Public Finance Mnagement (PFMA) Act of 1999. Similarly, the 

existance of PFMA paved a way for a number of guiding documents and frameworks 

issued by the department of Treasury as well as the Department of Planning Monitoring 

and Evaluation (DPME) to guide implementation of performance management agaisnt 

predetermined objectives (Treasury regulations, 2001 & Department of Planning 



 3 

Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), 2020). The guiding documents and frameworks on 

reporting and attainment of predtermiend objectives amongst other includes the 

Framework for Managing Programme Performance (Treasury, 2007) and the latest 

Revised Framework for Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans (DPME, 2020). 

 

Using the guiding documents and frameworks for reporting and attaining performance 

against predetermined objectives, I indicate in figure 1 below the state of performance of 

Gauteng Office of the Premier in attaining its predetermined objectives during the 5th 

administration.  

 

Figure 1: Gauteng Office of the Premier 5th administration programme performance 

 

Source: Adopted from Gauteng Office of the Premier Annual Reports 2014/15 till 

2019/20 

 

The Gauteng Office of the Premier inability to meet all its predetermine objectives is a 

symptom of performance challenges. For instance, when I compare the Gauteng Office 

of the Premier annual reports in figure 1 above for 2014/15 till 2017/18 there is a 

regression of performance from 85% to 65% achievement of predetermined objectives. 

It is important to use such measures for this research argument to establish the 

performance progress of the Gauteng Office of the Premier in attaining predetermined 

objectives. Similarly, Marr (2006) argues that such progress and evidence serve as 

foundations to formulate interventions on performance challenges if we know our 

starting point.  

1.1.3 An introduction to organisational performance 

Organisational performance is amongst the concept included in the title of this research, 

henceforth this section will provide a background to the concept of organisational 



 4 

performance. Over and above this section providing the background to the concept of 

organisational performance, section 2.4.1 will go into details of defining the concept of 

organisational performance as part of academic field of study for this research. 

 

The origins of the concept and idea of organisational performance can be traced back to 

mid-nineties century particularly in the field of competitive contest. This is more 

apparent in the work of Elena-Iuliana & Maria (2016), who points out that sporting 

contest used this concept to define and translate competitive results. However, in the 

late twentieth century, the concept of organisational performance has evolved, and 

multiple authors have adopted several definitions that are aimed at making sense of what 

is perceived to be the definition of organisational performance (Marr, 2008 & Silitonga, 

2017 & Khunoethe & Reddy & Mthuli, 2021). 

 

The introduction of organisational performance, particularly in government departments 

was essential for government to monitor as well as measure service delivery. For 

instance, organisational performance in government illustrate performance against 

service delivery indicators to assess if whether government departments and entities have 

done a good job and to establish if the predetermined objectives have been achieved or 

not (Treasury regulations, 2001 & DPME, 2020). 

 

Organisational performance was mainly introduced to provide an overview of 

achievements in an organisation. This is more evident in the work of Silitonga (2017) 

who points out that organisational performance has evolved overtime to become a tool 

of measuring the level of policy implementations, organisational and individual 

achievements. Similarly, Marr, (2008) points out that the background to organisational 

performance is linked to job performance in line with what is expected to be achieved. 

While the introduction of organisational performance can be associated with 

implementation of organisational tasks with the sole responsibility of achieving 

organisational vision, goals, and mission, it cannot be possible without enablers (Marr, 

2008 & Silitonga, 2017).  The enablers of organisational performance in question vary 

from non-physical enablers to physical enablers. This includes employees or workforce, 

finances, equipment, policies and regulation information amongst others (Silitonga, 

2017). 

 



 5 

1.2 Research conceptualisation: Towards assessing 
organisational performance challenges in attaining the 
predetermined objectives in the Gauteng Office of the 
Premier. 

1.2.1 The research problem statement 

The Gauteng Office of the Premier like any other government departments in South 

Africa is required by government frameworks and regulations to report on performance 

against predetermined objectives (Deidericks, 2017 & Van der Nest & Erasmus , 2011). 

Furthermore, Diedericks (2017) states that government departments in the Republic of 

South Africa are mandated by “Section 40 of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 

1999, read in line with Section 5.1.1 of the Treasury Regulations to report on performance 

against predetermined objectives”. In addition to performance regulations stated above, 

the South African constitution (1996) specifically chapter 6, becomes the overarching 

umbrella to provide the context of reporting on performance information which involves 

the Gauteng Office of the Premier being accountable to the provincial legislature by 

means of providing regular progress reports to determine achievements and assess 

performance challenges for intervention. 

 

With the above-mentioned statutory regulations on organisational performance in 

government departments, the Gauteng Office of the Premier finds it difficult to achieve 

100 percent of its predetermined objectives. This challenge can be attributed to the lack 

of political will that has destroyed the public sector ability to provide sustainable public 

service (Thusi, Matyana & Nokukhanya, 2023). Furthermore, it is evident from the 

previously submitted quarterly and annual performance reports to the Gauteng Provincial 

Legislature that the Office of the Premier is unable to achieve 100 percent of its 

predetermined objectives (Gauteng Office of the Premier Annual Report, 2022). Treasury 

(2007) has laid the foundation that enforces reporting on performance against 

predetermined objectives in line with the Public Financial Management Act Sections 40 

(3) and 55 (2). This is done in the spirit of accountability to indicate government 

performance towards the implementation of policy outcomes and to share information 

with community groups (Simanjuntak, Siahaan, Situmorang & Elisabeth, 2023).  

 

Furthermore, the development of the performance reports in the Premier’s Office are 

aligned to the organisational predetermined objectives as well as Medium Term Strategic 



 6 

Framework (MTSF) priorities (Diedericks, 2017), however a challenge of achieving them 

remains to be a concern. Scholars such as Zwikael (2020) argue that delivery must 

ultimately contributes towards the achievement of the predetermined objectives, meaning 

that reporting must contribute to the achievement of predetermined objectives unlike 

reporting for compliance. Although the Department of Planning Monitoring and 

Evaluation (DPME) developed the 2019-2024 MTSF priorities that serves as medium-

term roadmap for the Gauteng Office of the Premier to perform against, the priorities 

are unlikely to be achieved due to the consistent underachievement of annual targets 

(DPME, 2019).  

 

The challenge of not achieving 100 percent of the predetermined objectives in the 

Gauteng Office of the Premier amongst others, affects the principle of value for money 

and decision-making (Ndevu & Muller, 2018 & DPME, 2019). Furthermore, the Director 

General performance as the accounting officer becomes compromised because the 

Director General is mandated by the Public Service Regulations (2016) to sign a 

performance agreement with the Premier with a sole purpose of outlining the 

predetermined objectives against which the organisational performance will be measured. 

This is what Sofyani, Akbar & Ferrer (2018) refers to as “performance management tasks 

which involve setting goals, measuring results, and reporting on progress” against planned 

targets.  

 

Meanwhile organisational performance can be determined as the achievement of project 

objectives as well as organisational broader outcomes, its indicators remain to be 

productivity, service quality as well as customer satisfaction (Olivier, 2018). Henceforth it 

is important to undertake this research due to the growing violence in protest of 

government performance which has laid a foundation for academic researchers to 

understand causes and effects of protests (Breakfast, Bradshaw, & Nomarwayi, 2019 & 

Ngcamu, 2019). The context of this research problem will therefore provide insight on 

performance challenges experienced by Gauteng Office of the Premier. 

 

1.2.2 The research purpose (aim and objectives) statement 

The purpose of this research is to assess the challenges in attaining the predetermined 

organisational performance objectives in the Gauteng Office of the Premier. I have 

chosen to use the organisational performance field of study perspective as my general lens 



 7 

in this research. More specifically, the organisational performance lens provides for 

attributes such as organisational structure, outcomes, outputs, and enabler/inputs which 

are key to this research. Furthermore, I have used four frameworks to interpret the 

empirical results. The frameworks are namely Bureaucracy, Government performance 

management framework, Government Wide Monitoring Systems and lastly the logical 

model framework.  

 

In detail, this research will achieve the first objective that looks at organisational structure 

challenges affecting the organisational performance in attaining predetermined objectives. 

The Second objective will look at challenges of managing performance information in the 

Gauteng Office of the Premier. The third objective will look at Government Wide 

Monitoring and Evaluation Systems implementation challenges in the Gauteng Office of 

the Premier. The last objective will look at the key components of the logical model 

affecting the performance of the Gauteng Office of the Premier.  

 

1.2.3 The research questions.  

 

1.2.3.1 Question: What are the organisational structure challenges affecting the 
Gauteng office of the Premiers performance in attaining predetermined 
objectives? 

1.2.3.2 Question: What are the challenges of managing performance information in 
the Gauteng Office of the Premier? 

1.2.3.3 Question: What are the challenges affecting the implementation of 
Government Wide Monitoring and Evaluation (GWM&E) System in Gauteng 
Office of the Premier to achieve predetermined objectives? 

1.2.3.4 Question: What key components of the logical model affect the performance 
of the Gauteng Office of the Premier? 

 

1.3 Delimitations of the research 

Section 1.2.2 above has clearly articulated the purpose of this research which is to assess 

the performance challenges in attaining organisational predetermined objectives in the 

Gauteng Office of the Premier. A qualitative research strategy and a case study research 

design has been employed to achieve the purpose of this research and gather useful and 

in-depth understanding of the research problem articulated in section 1.2.1. The 

qualitative research strategy and a case study design has played a role to understand the 

underlying challenges in relation to the attainment of predetermined objectives from the 



 8 

views and perspectives of the sampled unit in the Gauteng Office of the Premier. The 

Gauteng office of the Premier is the population from which the sample has been drawn 

to generalise the results within the Gauteng Office of the premier as a government 

department. This study has four explanatory frameworks that have been used to interpret 

the results and subsequently converting them into research findings.  The four explanatory 

frameworks are namely, Bureaucracy theory, Government management framework, 

Government Wide Monitoring & Evaluation system and lastly, the programme logical 

model. 

 

This research has also considered ethics of conducting research and in doing so I have 

applied and obtained ethical clearance certificate through the University of Witwatersrand. 

Noting that I used a qualitative research strategy, I have ensured validity and reliability of 

which the details are alluded to in chapter 3 of this research report. Moreover, this 

research does not generalise the findings to the other Provincial government departments 

as well as other provincial Offices of the Premier in South Africa, however, it only limits 

its scope in the Gauteng Office of the Premier as a provincial department in Gauteng.  

Further, I have proposed an intervention of the research problem in this research 

following the identified problem tree in section 2.2 however, it is important for the reader 

to understand that I will not be evaluating the intervention, but rather I will solely focus 

the research on understanding challenges in attaining predetermined organisation 

performance objectives in the Gauteng Office of the Premier. 

 

1.4 Justification of the research 

This research aims to contribute to the body of knowledge by uncovering details of 

understanding performance challenges in attaining predetermined objectives within the 

Gauteng Office of the Premier context. As part of the policy development processes to 

better the lives of Gauteng Citizens, the Gauteng Office of the Premier is provided with 

a mandate to identify its broader strategic outcomes and targets for achievement over a 

five-year period (Strategic Plan, 2020). Subsequently, these outcomes are then 

transformed into outputs to develop Annual Performance Plans that will help measure 

the strategic outcomes (DPME, 2020). Following this which are progress reports 

produced on a quarterly and annual basis to provide progress towards the achievement of 

predetermined objectives (Treasury 1991 & Treasury 2001). Noting the above existing 

plans and reports that clearly outline the predetermine objectives for the Gauteng Office 



 9 

of the Premier, I justify for this research to be conducted to establish challenges of 

attaining them. 

 

Furthermore, authors such as Curristine & Lonti & Joumard (2007) have acknowledged 

that government remains to be under pressure to achieve and improve public sector 

performance in line with budget expenditure. This has resulted to citizens taking matters 

into their own hands to hold government accountable for their performance and 

question what they achieve with the taxpayer’s money (Curristine & Lonti & Joumard, 

2007). Further, not attaining predetermined objectives in government is seen to be 

associated with failure. For instance, Carroll (2022) points out that government 

implements programmes however when they fail to meet predetermined objectives of 

the programme, it is considered as a failed intervention that ends up creating social 

welfare harm or economic destabilisation.  

 

Although all these authors highlight a great deal of consequences brought by 

government inability to attain predetermined objectives, I still motivate that an 

intervention be made in the Gauteng Office of the Premier to understand the context 

of the challenges faced in attaining predetermined objectives. I also believe that the 

findings and recommendations of this research will provide insight to the Office of the 

Premier management and the executive to make informed decisions regarding 

predetermined objectives and their achievements. 

 

1.5 Preface to the research report 

Overall, this research consists of six chapters. I have just completed the first chapter 

which was introducing this research. The second chapter, will detail the literature review 

by unpacking and diagnosing the problem, discussing studies that were conducted in the 

past and present, discussing frameworks/theories as well as outlining the conceptual 

framework. Chapter 3 will look at the entire methodology that will be applied to carry 

out this research including limitations, strategy, tools, design, and methods. Then I move 

to chapter 4 which will provide findings and subsequently move to chapter 5 to interpret 

results using the findings, literature, frameworks, and theories identified by this research. 

The last chapter will provide summary and conclusion, that is chapter 6. 



 10 

2 REVIEWING LITERATURE TO DERIVE THE 
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

 

To tackle this chapter, I have divided it into Seven sections. This was done for ease of 

reference in unpacking the conceptual framework. In doing so I have started by unpacking 

section 2.1 & 2.2 to focus on the research problem. Secondly, I focused on section 2.3 

and pointed out the knowledge gap. Thirdly, in section 2.4 till 2.6 I then point out and 

discuss organisational performance field of study as well as its key attributes and 

explanatory frameworks that will be applied when discussing the findings later in chapter 

5. Section 2.7 will be focusing on conceptual framework. In much more detail, this chapter 

reviews literature to describe the research context, diagnose the problem using problem 

tree, provide a sense of what other similar studies have found within our research context 

and review literature to understand which field of study and attribute does the study 

contribute to. In doing so, bureaucracy, government performance management 

frameworks, Government Wide Monitoring and Evaluation systems and programme 

logical model are found to be the most appropriate explanatory frameworks linked to the 

attributes of this research and that is Section 2.6. The last Section (2.7) provides a road 

map of how this research intends to assess organisational performance challenges against 

predetermined objectives in the Gauteng Office of the Premier. 

2.1 The description and history of the Gauteng Office of 
the Premier 

This section is discussing an overview of the Gauteng Office of the Premier to provide 

an understanding of the physical setting understudy. Two components will be the focus 

in this section. The first component will look at the description of Gauteng Office of 

the Premier and the second component will focus on the History of Gauteng Office of 

the Premier. In unpacking the two components of this section, I am setting a precedence 

to understand the context of this research. Lastly this section identified government 

planning, reporting and performance management as the main aspects connecting the 

context to the research problem. However, before I dwell into the details of this section, 

I will display the organogram in figure 2 known as organisational structure of the 

Gauteng Office of the Premier. 

 

 

 



 11 

Figure 2: The organogram of the Gauteng Office the Premier 

 

Source: Gauteng Office of the Premier Annual Report 2021: p35 

 

2.1.1 Description of Gauteng Office of the Premier 

The Gauteng Office of the Premier Strategic Plan (2020) informs us that Gauteng Office 

of the Premier is a government department situated in Gauteng Province, central 

Johannesburg. In describing the Gauteng Office of the Premier as a government 

department, I start by laying out its organisational structure as displayed in Figure 2 

above (Gauteng Office of the Premier Annual Report 2021).  At the bottom of the 

organisational structure there are 5 Branches each led by a Deputy Director General. 

These Branches are namely, (a) Policy, Research and Advisory Services, (b) Executive 

Support and Stakeholder Management, (c) Institutional Development and Integrity 

management, (d) Corporate Management and (e) Provincial Communications Services 

(Gauteng Office of the Premier Annual Report 2021). The middle tier of the 

organisational structure consists of the Director General’s Office and Internal audit as 

well as Organisation risk and integrity Management (Gauteng Office of the Premier 

Annual Report 2021). The bottom layer and the middle tier have a direct reporting line 

to the Accounting Officer of the Gauteng Office of the Premier (Gauteng Office of the 

Premier Annual Report 2021 & South Africa, 1996).  

 

The Accounting Officer therefore becomes accountable to the Premier as per the 

constitutional mandate (South Africa, 1996). The Premier becomes the ultimate political 



 12 

head of the province as elected by members of the Gauteng Provincial Legislature and 

entrusted by the electorate to deliver on the provincial mandate (South Africa, 1996).  

 

Diedericks (2017) points outs that the Office of the Premier has an administrative role 

to oversee the performance of provincial departments in achieving the broader 

provincial priorities and objectives.  Similarly, the Gauteng Office of the Premier 

strategic plan (2020) points out that Office of the Premier plays an administrative role 

by providing leadership, coordination, oversight, and support to 13 provincial 

government departments as well as related government entities. In doing so, the Gauteng 

Office of the Premier strategic plan (2020) has also laid out 7 provincial outcomes in line 

with National outcomes to reinforce the administrative role and focus for the next 5 

years of government administration. The 7 outcomes that best describes the Gauteng 

Office of the Premier administrative focus and role are highlighted in table 1 below. 

 

Table 1: Alignment of outcomes that best describes the Gauteng Office of the Premier 

 

Source: Gauteng Office of the Premier strategic plan (2020: p42) 

 

Although I have described the Gauteng Office of the Premier in terms of its 

administrative role and focus above, I do not neglect a different view posed by the 

constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) that confines the description of the 



 13 

Gauteng Office of the Premier within the ambits of the supreme law. More specifically, 

chapter 3 of the constitution that describes the Gauteng Office of the Premier as the 

department that falls within the second sphere of government between National and 

Municipal spheres (South Africa, 1996). This is well known as Trias Politica, the doctrine 

of constitutional separation of powers between National, Provincial and Municipalities 

(Koenane & Mangena, 2017). It is in this regard that the Premier is provided with powers 

to develop and implement provincial policies, legislation, and sign bills amongst other 

constitutional requirements within the jurisdiction of Gauteng Province (South Africa, 

1996) 

 

2.1.2 History of Gauteng Office of the Premier 

 

Figure 3: Gauteng province Map 

 

Source: Municipalities of South Africa (2012).  

 

Historical evidence indicates to us that Gauteng Province was initially known as Pretoria-

Witwatersrand-Vereeniging (PWV) and the birth of the first democratically elected 

Premier of PWV took place after the African National Congress (ANC) won the 1994 

provincial elections by 58 per cent of the majority votes (Independent Electoral 

Commission 1994 & Lodge, 1995). Post winning the 1994 elections we saw the 

demarcation of South Africa into 9 provinces and the renaming of PWV into Gauteng 

Province which is loosely translated into “a place of Gold” from the Sotho language 

(South African History Online (SAHO), 2019). It was this events that necessitated the 



 14 

first government administration of Gauteng and the election of the first Premier of 

Gauteng (Independent Electoral Commission, 1994).  

 

With the above historical basis, I can confirm that the Gauteng Office of the Premier is 

precisely situated in the Gauteng Province covering a total area of 18 178 square 

kilometres or approximately 1.4% of the South African total surface (Municipalities of 

South Africa, 2012). Its governance jurisdictions are bordered by Limpopo, Free State 

and North-West provinces (SAHO, 2019). Further, within the borders of the Gauteng 

Province led by the Premier of Gauteng, we have 5 corridors to date which are namely 

the central corridor governed by City of Johannesburg Municipality, North Corridor 

governed by Tshwane Municipality, East Corridor governed by Ekurhuleni Municipality, 

West Corridor governed by West Rand Municipality and lastly South Corridor governed 

by Sedibeng Municipality (SAHO, 2019 & Strategic Plan of Gauteng Office of the 

Premier, 2020). 

 

While I consider Gauteng Office of the Premier to be governing the smallest province 

in the Republic of South Africa, I also take note of the growing population in the 

province. For instance, the estimates for 2022 Mid-Year Population indicates a total 

migration of 1.5 million people moving into Gauteng for economic opportunities 

between 2016 and 2021 (Statistics South Africa, 2022). 

 

There are also different opinions and views about the history and existence of the Office 

of the Premier. One Camp suggest that Office of the Premier was established to deal 

with the lack of service delivery issues post 1994. This is much more apparent in the 

work of Muchaonyerwa & Khayundi (2014) who points out that the establishment of 

the Office of the Premier was necessary to build confidence between citizens and 

government in light of service delivery.  The second camp turns to differ with the last 

camp by arguing that the Office of the Premier was not established to directly deliver 

services to the citizens. This is more apparent in the work of Gauteng Office of the 

Premier strategic Plan (2020) & Ishmail & Tully (2020) who argues that Office of the 

Premier does not directly deliver services to its citizens however, provincial departments 

are the ones responsible for delivering services, henceforth the office of the Premier was 

historically established to play a role of coordination, oversight, intervention, and 

facilitation of evaluations in departments. Similarly, enhancing coordination through the 



 15 

Office of the Premier assist with better cooperation, design and implementation of 

Annual Performance Plans (APP’s) and integrated Development Plans (IDP) between 

national, provincial and local spheres of government and can also help address 

challenges, share resources and optimise service provision (Mamokhere, 2023). 

 

2.1.3 Aspects connecting the context to the research problem 

2.1.3.1 Government Planning 

Government planning connects the Gauteng Office of the premier to our research 

problem of attaining predetermined objectives because one needs to plan before they 

deliver. Almost all the authors that have written about planning are of the view that 

government planning should be coherent, aligned and must include stakeholders that 

will help achieve the set objectives (Gauteng Office of the Premier, 2020 & Diedericks, 

2017). However, Ishmail & Tully (2020) argues differently that government planning 

cycles includes planning for evaluations with proposed budgets.  

 

2.1.3.2 Government reporting 

The second aspect that connects Gauteng Office of the Premier to our problem is 

government planning. Van der Nest & Erasmus (2011) points that government 

departments are required by legislation to develop Annual Reports to show case 

performance against predetermined objectives and mitigations on underachievement’s. 

Similarly, the constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) as well as Public 

Finance Management Act of 1991 mandates government executives to provide quarterly 

reports against matters of their jurisdiction. These quarterly reports must be evidence 

based for verification and audit (Diedericks, 2017).  

 

However, Muchaonyerwa & Khayundi (2014), Van der Nest & Erasmus (2011) & 

Diedericks (2017) holds a different view by stating that government departments face 

serious challenges when reporting performance information and amongst them includes 

late reporting on matters of service delivery.  Meanwhile, Engela & Ajam (2010) argues 

that government has institutionalised monitoring and reporting systems that work hard 

instead of working smart, for instance, Gauteng provincial departments must report the 

same information to multiple oversight departments such as Premier’s office, Treasury, 

Department of Public Service and Administration.  

 



 16 

2.2 Organisational performance challenges in attaining 
predetermined objectives. 

In this section I am interrogating literature to discuss organisational performance 

challenges in attaining predetermined objectives in the context of Gauteng Office of the 

Premier as one of the components of government departments in Gauteng. I firstly start 

by reviewing and discussing literature on symptoms of the problem of performance 

challenge in the Gauteng office of the Premier. Then I move towards reviewing literature 

to highlight the direct and indirect causes that are interlinked to the problem of 

performance challenges in the Gauteng office of the premier. I also review literature to 

understand the consequences that are interlinked to the problem of performance 

challenges. Towards the end of this section, I develop a proposed intervention for the 

problem identified. However, before I begin to source literature on the above, I firstly 

provide a diagram (figure 4) in a form of a problem tree to paint a picture of the problem 

analysis for the reader to understand the interlink between root causes, symptoms and 

consequences of the main problem. 

 

Figure 4: Problem tree analysis 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.1 Linking symptoms to the problem 

Organisational performance challenges lead to the symptom of reporting non-reliable 

and invalid performance information. For instance, the introduction of audit committees 

Organisational performance challenges in attaining predetermined objectives 

Inadequate 

collaboration between 

government 

departments 

Mass mobilisation and strike 

Setting targets in quantities and not quality 

Lack of relationship between 

planning, budgeting and reporting to measure 

performance 

Audit findings 

Inaccurate, non-reliable and incompleteness 

of performance information 

Lack of investor/citizenry confidence in 

government 

Inability to achieve Annual Operational Plan 

Activities 

Inability to achieve Strategic Plan Outcomes 

Inability to achieve Annual Performance Plan 

outputs 

Inability to achieve Provincial and National 

government Priorities 



 17 

in government was to ensure that the quarterly and annual performance reports of 

government departments are validated, tested and are complete to avoid non-reliable 

and invalid performance information (King 2009). Similarly, Brusc and Montesino, 

(2016) argue that validated performance reports must present performance information 

in an honest and responsible manner while submitting timeously within the prescribed 

timeframes. However, if we do not address the problem of organisational performance 

challenges in attaining predetermined objectives, organisations will continuously see the 

symptoms of reporting non-reliable and invalid performance (Beattie, 2000). Therefore, 

organisations will find it difficult to learn, assess risks for sustainability and facilitate 

decision making (Marr, 2006).  

 

Interlinked to the symptom of non-reliable and invalid performance information is the 

symptom of audit findings experienced by government departments. The constitution 

of the Republic of South Africa (1996) institutionalised the Office of the Auditor 

General (AG) to perform independent audit process against government predetermined 

objectives. It is therefore the role of AG to assess performance information against 

predetermined objectives in government Annual Performance Plans (APP), Strategic 

Plans and the use of allocated budget (South Africa, 1996 & DPME, 2020 & Vyas-

Doorgapersad et al, 2013).  

 

Similarly, Brusc and Montesino, (2016) argues that government performance 

information must be audited to provide sufficient controls and improve performance 

measurements. When we situate audit findings as part of the symptoms of performance 

challenges in the Gauteng provincial government, we note that the non-reliability of 

performance information is fluctuating from 68% in 2017/2018 then regression of 9% 

which resulted to 59% in 2018/2019 and then an improvement of 12% which resulted 

to 71% in the 2019/20 financial year (AG, 2018 & AG, 2019 & AG, 2020). This means 

in 2019/20 a total of 29% of Gauteng government performance information could not 

be relied upon whereas in 2018/2019 the percentage of non-reliable performance 

information increased to 41%. This has to show that the efforts placed by King Code of 

governance (2009) on the requirements to instituting internal audit processes for 

purposes of reliability is still ineffective in the spheres of government.  

  



 18 

Mismanagement of government monetary resources is often brought to the attention of 

the public through AG reports and is one of the symptoms that are interlinked to 

performance challenges against predetermined objectives. For instance, the Auditor 

General of South Africa (2018) reported that the Gauteng provincial government has 

incurred irregular expenditure of R6 367 Million in 2017/2018 financial year and 

subsequently had an increase of irregular expenditure relating to R7 Billion in 2018/2019 

(AG, 2019) and in 2019/2020 there was fruitless and wasteful expenditure of R103 

Million (AG, 2020). Similarly, Bereketeab (2018) labels South African government as one 

of the leading countries in procurement fraud, mismanagement of allocated funds and 

corruption.  

 

Over and above the mismanagement of funds exposed by the audit process, investor 

confidence emerges to be another symptom brought by performance challenges. 

Investors turn to lose interest in organisations that faces performance challenges mainly 

because the interest of investors is vested in performance, growth and value for money 

(Roberts, 2004 & Marr, 2006). Similarly, Bereketeab (2018) argues that when external 

investors of government stop investing in government initiatives, the government will 

have to sanction citizens in a form of tax to meet societal needs. The other camp of 

authors argue that government departments must always be a responsible corporate 

citizen and invest in the wellbeing of the society (King 2009 & Vyas-Doorgapersad et al, 

2013), however, Vyas-Doorgapersad et al (2013) goes on to argue that despite 

investment of resources, government still faces performance challenges against 

predetermined objectives therefore overshadowing its efforts.   

 

Organisational performance challenges against predetermined objectives have a direct 

link to the inability of achieving Annual Operational Plans (AOP), Annual Performance 

Plans (APP), and 5-year Strategic Plan of the Gauteng office of the Premier (Diedericks, 

2017). For instance, DPME (2020) argues that the operational activities that are stated 

in the AOP contribute to the budgeted high-level APP outputs which will therefore 

enable the broader achievement of the 5-year Strategic Plan outcomes. This is what Marr 

(2006) refers to as single loop learning process where the Gauteng Office of the 

Premier’s executive mangers as well as the public will require feedback relating to the 

successful executions of plans. Even more importantly, feedback will be required to 

inform decision making relating to the viability of the Gauteng Office of the Premier 



 19 

(Van der Nest & Erasmus, 2011 & Marr, 2006). Similarly, the viability of the strategy is 

likely to be hampered should we not attend to the problem of performance challenges 

through the implementation of remedial action plans (King, 2009)   

 

The Gauteng Office of the Premier has a provincial plan called Growing Gauteng 

Together (GGT) which therefore becomes the broader predetermined objective towards 

achieving the 2030 provincial vision (GGT, 2020). All AOP, APP and 5-Strategic Plan 

of the Office of the Premier are aligned to feed into the GGT 2030 vision (Gauteng 

Office of the Premier, 2020). Vyas-Doorgapersad (2013) argues that each individual 

government department including Gauteng Office of the Premier have a significant role 

towards the achievement of a common plan. However, noting the performance 

challenges that result to the inability to achieve AOP and APPs I can argue that the 2030 

vision is likely to be in a shortfall. According to DPME (2020) the Gauteng Office of 

the Premier inability to sufficiently achieve the GGT 2030 will have a direct bearing to 

the achievement of the NDP priorities. King (2009) argues that the executive will be 

held accountable for failing to perform and manage operations of the organisation.  

 

2.2.2 Linking root causes to the problem 

In reviewing the literature, I also point out the root causes that have a direct and indirect 

causal link to the problem of organisational performance challenges in attaining 

predetermined objectives. Inadequate intergovernmental collaboration between 

government departments is one of the standalone direct root causes of performance 

challenges. For instance, The Public Service Act (1994) leveraged on this direct root 

cause by clearly situating the role of Gauteng Office of the Premier as an oversight 

department responsible for overseeing Gauteng provincial government performance 

and therefore collaborating with all departments. Similarly, through the Constitution, the 

Gauteng Office of the Premier is at the centre of Gauteng Provincial administration and 

therefore leveraging on collaboration with other departments (South Africa, 1996). 

However, Marr (2006) argues that the lack of collaboration still exists because 

performance information is kept in individual spreadsheets that are not designed to 

promote collaboration amongst departments.   

 

Similarly, to the argument made by Marr (2006), Vyas-Doorgapersad et al (2013) also 

argues that lack of collaboration affects systematic relationship between various 



 20 

components of government departments. For instance, inadequate collaboration will 

affect the role of Gauteng Office of the Premier to oversee provincial performance and 

subsequently affect the functionality of governance system and separation of powers 

(South Africa, 1996). King (2009) maintains a different view by arguing that inadequate 

collaboration might not necessarily have direct link to performance challenges but 

indirect link to an increase in corruption and decrease in practice standards as well as 

isolated codes of conducts, integrity pacts and policy initiatives of performance.   

 

Setting of indicators in quantities instead of setting quality indicators has become one of 

the indirect root causes of organisational performance challenges. For instance, Figure 

5 below indicate that during the 2014/2015 financial year, the Gauteng Office of the 

Premier APP had 149 performance indicators (Gauteng Office of the Premier, 2014) 

and has only achieved 85% of the set performance indicators (Gauteng office of the 

Premier, 2015) meanwhile in 2020/21 financial year, they only had 95 performance 

indicators (Gauteng office of the Premier, 2020b) with an achievement of 79% (Gauteng 

office of the Premier, 2021). Almost all the authors from literature agree that 

organisations must set quality performance measurements that are monitorable and 

attainable with the ability to guide everyday decision-making processes (Marr, 2006 & 

King, 2009 & Vyas-Doorgapersad et al., 2013) 

 

Figure 5: Number of performance indicators in the Gauteng Office of the Premier  

 

Source: Gauteng Office of the Premier annual reports 2014/15 till 2018/19 

 

Lack of relationship between planning, budgeting and reporting to measure performance 

also comes out as a result of not addressing the problem of performance challenges. For 

instance, Marr (2006) argues that planning in silos contributes to employees seeing the 

organisations as individual parts and not as a whole functioning system that integrates 

planning with budgeting and reporting to achieve its mandate. Similarly, if government 



 21 

departments like Gauteng office of the premier are failing to plan in line with the budget 

this will have an impact on budget controls and process as well as the inability to 

restructure public spending (Vyas-Doorgapersad et al., 2013). Evidence based reporting 

from literature also came out strongly as one of the interlinked causes of performance 

challenges against predetermined objectives. For example, organisations such as the 

Office of the Premier test and validate their performance based on evidence (Marr, 

2006). The same evidence is used by auditors to assess if the assumptions of performance 

hold true (King, 2009).  

 

2.2.3 Linking consequences to the problem 

Over and above symptoms and root causes of performance challenges in attaining 

predetermined objectives, there are also consequences that arise, henceforth the 

motivation of conducting research to understand the problem. Almost all the authors 

agree that government performance challenges lead to lack of citizenry confidence in 

government and increased complaints against government inefficiencies. For example, 

Vyas-Doorgapersad et al. (2013) argues that government has been overly criticised for 

being bureaucratic, slow in response of citizens demands and ineffective in providing 

services. Similarly, Brusc & Montesino (2016) argues that there is an increase in 

complaints of citizens about government performance and this increase is observed 

through participation in evaluation process of government in partnership with citizens. 

Particularly in the Gauteng province where Gauteng Office of the Premier is situated, 

only 19% of the population is satisfied with government performance to grow the 

economy (GRCO, 2021).    

 

A potential consequence arising from dissatisfaction of citizens about government 

performance challenges also leads to mass mobilisation. For instance, Lancaster (2016) 

indicates that Civil protests and strike action are common consequences of government 

performance in South Africa. Similarly, when citizens are not satisfied with government 

performances the only language that seems to awaken government to pay attention and 

render quality services to the citizens is though threat of violence or strike (Vyas-

Doorgapersad et al., 2013).  

 

 

 



 22 

2.2.4 Gauteng Office of the Premier results chain framework 

Most interventions like the one of Gauteng Office of the Premier in table 2 below, 

requires the use of results chain framework to explicitly outline relevant objectives and 

indicators that will be monitored and evaluated overtime to assess the achievement of 

the intended impact (Johnson, 2013). It is in this regard that this section will define the 

elements of results chain framework with reference to the Gauteng Office of the 

Premier.   

 

At the top of the results chain framework is the element of impact. Several authors for 

example Wotela (2017) have discussed the concept of impact. Despite different opinions 

and approaches I can argue that an impact is a long-term aspiration towards which an 

intervention must contribute. Almost all authors are of the view that impact is the end-

result required to be achieved, for example USAID (2016) argues that an impact is a 

central point of interest that a program seeks to achieve. Similarly, Kinyuira & Kenyatta 

(2019) had argued that impact is a long-term effect of activities that are related to broad 

national and international goals and its only debatable after months or even years. 

 

Activities, outputs and outcomes are some of the critical elements aligned towards the 

realisation of the impact (USAID, 2016). Activities according to Norad (1999) refers to 

the tasks carried out by the people involved in the intervention.  Outputs are services or 

products delivered as a result of the implementation of activities (Kinyuira & Kenyatta, 

2019). Then outcomes are defined as expected short to medium term results brought by 

the implementation of interventions outputs (Wotela, 2017). All these elements are 

accompanied by indicators, which according to Norad (1999) are used to define 

performance standards. Below I propose an intervention by applying the 

abovementioned elements in the context of the Gauteng Office of the Premier  

 

For the purpose of this research and intervention, the proposed impact of the Gauteng 

Office of the Premier is to enhance Gauteng Office of the Premier's performance against 

predetermined objectives to achieve a liveable, equitable, inclusive and united Gauteng 

City Region (Gauteng Office of the Premier, 2020). This ultimate impact is therefore 

measured based on achieving 100% of predetermined objectives stipulated in the annual 

performance plan which will subsequently realise the achievement of the 5-year plan 

stipulated in the 2020/21 till 2024/25 strategic plan. Over and above the achievement 



 23 

of predetermined objectives as a measure, the fiscal budget expenditure and the human 

development index of Gauteng citizens is also a measure to realise the impact of Gauteng 

office of the Premier. Below are there three outcomes interlinked towards the 

achievement of the Gauteng Office of the Premier impact and intervention under study. 

 

Outcome 1 indicates that the intervention must achieve a capable Gauteng Office of the 

Premier, which is also interlinked to chapter 14 of the NDP 2030 vision that aims to 

also achieve a capable state at the national level (National Planning Commission, 2011). 

Similarly, Du Plessis (2016) defines a capable state as the ability of government to realise 

its objectives and render quality and acceptable services for public consumption which 

will in turn increase government performance credibility. To measure the capability of 

Gauteng Office of the Premier in line with the definition provided, I have proposed two 

indictors. The first indicator will measure the total percentage of service delivery cases 

resolved while the second proposed indicator will subsequently measure the percentage 

of Gauteng citizens feeling good about government services and performance.  

 

Interlinked to Outcome 1 are three outputs. The first proposed output requires Gauteng 

Office of the Premier to perform against the reduction of corruption incidents in the 

Gauteng province. Similarly, the National Planning Commission (2011) argues that to 

achieve a capable state (which in this case is our Outcome 1) we must have an ethical 

state. This output is therefore measured through the percentage reduction in incidents 

of corruption in the Gauteng province received from the National and Provincial anti-

corruption Hotline.  

 

The second proposed output requires the Gauteng Office of the Premier to get a clean 

audit opinion. Clean audit refers to unqualified opinion issued by Auditor General of 

South Africa on non-material findings, compliance with key legislation of financial 

statements and quality of performance reports (Auditor General of South Africa 

(AGSA), 2020). Clean audit will therefore be measured using management reports issued 

by AGSA. The last proposed output contributing to outcome 1 refers to the achievement 

of a Skilled public work force. The Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) of 

2019/2024 indicates that to achieve a capable state (Outcome 1) we need a capable and 

skilled public workforce that is committed to deliver high quality services (DPME, 2019). 

We are therefore going to measure by assessing personnel skills.  



 24 

 

Outcome 2 indicates that the intervention must achieve Medium-term strategic 

outcomes provided by the Presidency. All departments in South Africa including the 

Gauteng Office of the Premier are expected to plan and align their performance to the 

Medium-term outcomes in this case being National Priorities (DPME, 2020). Two 

measurements have been proposed to measure the performance against national 

priorities. The first measure will assess the percentage contribution of OoP performance 

towards the achievement of national priorities. Similarly, Diedericks (2017) argues that 

provincial performance must align and contribute to national performance. The second 

measure will assess the percentage of alignment between OoP priorities and national 

priorities. The 2020 revised framework for strategic plans and annual performance plans 

argues that planning must be mainstreamed from local, provincial and national sphere 

(DMPE, 2020). Similarly, the RSA Constitution supports separation of powers with 

unified approach (RSA, 1997).  

 

Interlinked to Outcome 2 are three outputs. The first proposed output requires Gauteng 

Office of the Premier to develop and finalise a strategic plan in line with national 

priorities. The second proposed outputs require the Gauteng Office of the Premier to 

develop an Annual Performance Plan (APP) aligned to the strategic plan on an annual 

basis. The third proposed outputs require the Gauteng Office of the Premier to develop 

Annual Operational Plans (AOP) aligned to employee contracts and APP. Strategic 

Plans, APP’s and AOP’s are all planning documents of government departments and 

must be mainstreamed for ease of performance reporting and achievement of Medium-

term strategic outcomes (DMPE, 2020).   

 

The last proposed Outcome 3 indicates that the intervention must achieve alignment 

between planning, budgeting and reporting of targets. Diedericks (2017) argues that 

planning, budgeting and reporting are part and parcel of enforcing accountability in 

order to track and measure performance, in this case being the achievement of our stated 

impact. Two measures are proposed to measure Outcome 3. The first measure assesses 

the percentage alignment of expenditure and reporting of targets. Diedericks (2017) & 

PFMA Act of 1999 emphasises the alignment of reporting performance information and 

expenditure of allocated budget. The second measure assess the allocation of budget in 

line with plans to avoid over budgeting and underbudgeting (RSA, 1999).  



 25 

 

Interlinked to Outcome 3 are three outputs. The first proposed output requires the 

Gauteng office of the Premier to align their performance indicators to the budget 

allocation. The second proposed output requires the Gauteng Office of the Premier to 

reduce overspending while the third proposed output focuses on reduction of under 

expenditure of the allocated budget. The measurement focus on underspending and 

overspending is motivated by AGSA (2020) who argues that financial health of 

government departments is alarming due to persistent unauthorised expenditure caused 

by overspending and underspending. 

 

In conclusion, section 2.2 has conducted a trend analysis of performance challenges in 

the context of Office of the Premier as one component of government departments 

both in Gauteng province as well as South Africa. The trend analysis included discussing 

symptoms, root causes then consequences of not treating the problem of performance 

challenges. Furthermore, I explored the results chain framework to propose an 

intervention that will assist us to remedy the problem. This section (section 2.2) was 

completed to prepare us for the following section (section 2.3.) which will look at data, 

methods, conclusions, and findings of studies on and evaluation of organisational 

performance challenges. 

 

 



 26 

Table 2: Results Chain-Framework for Gauteng Office of the Premier’s performance 

 

Source: Author 



 27 

2.3 Methods, data, findings, and conclusions of studies on 
and evaluation of organisational performance 
challenges in attaining predetermined objectives 

This section will identify the research knowledge gap by reviewing the past and current 

primary and empirical research articles in the context of organisational performance as 

well as the research topic under study. I am doing so to point out what other authors in 

similar studies have pursued. When unpacking this, I bring your attention to research 

strategies, designs, procedures, and methods applied by different authors within the field 

of organisational performance in government. This will also include the collected data, 

the methods used to analyse empirical results, the findings of the research as well as the 

frameworks used to interpret the research findings. Moreover, the research conclusions 

and limitations. It is also important to note that this section is only limited to identifying 

similar studies and not identical studies so that I can establish the knowledge gap.  

 

2.3.1 Aim and objectives of previous research studies on 
organisational performance challenges 

Several authors for example Cheruiyot, Katumba & Chris Wray (2019) have conducted 

research on organisational performance challenges. Notwithstanding different views and 

approaches, I can clearly argue that the aspect of challenges in attaining predetermined 

objectives as part of organisational performance challenges remains to be a gap that 

requires to be studied. To justify this conclusion, Diedericks (2017) aimed “to establish 

challenges faced by Limpopo provincial government” by solely focusing on challenges 

of reporting predetermined objectives to Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA). 

However, reporting to AG does not necessarily mean one will attain and achieve the 

predetermined objectives and hence the gap of this research.  

 

Almost all the authors who wrote about organisation performance challenges in 

government are accounting for the existence of government organisational challenges in 

the context of municipalities compared to organisational challenges in the context of 

Premiers Offices as the centre of governance in the province. For example, Khunoethe, 

Reddy & Mthuli (2021) study examines performance challenges in a Local Municipality 

called Msunduzi. Similarly, Olivier (2017) determines organisational performance 

challenges of municipalities in South Africa as a whole, while Ndevu (2019) explores 

relationships between trust and performance within municipal environment. 



 28 

 

However, there are divergent approaches to the studies conducted around government 

organisational performance challenges. One camp suggests that organisational 

performance challenges in government can be understood through separation of 

powers. This is much more evident in the work of Cheruiyot et al (2019) who has 

explored citizens performance dissatisfaction of three government spheres in South 

Africa.  

 

2.3.2 Interpretive/theoretical frameworks considered by previous 
studies on organisational performance 

Several authors for example, Ndevu (2019) have used interpretive/theoretical 

frameworks to unpack government organisation performance challenges. Despite 

different views and approaches I can argue that interpretive/theoretical framework 

provides the basis of arguments which the research will limit its scope and structure.  

 

Almost all the authors used New Public Management (NPM) as the most relevant 

interpretative/theoretical framework to study government organisational performance 

challenges. For example, Khunoethe et al (2021) argues that limiting the study of 

organisational performance challenges within the interpretative framework of NPM 

motivates for improved performance in public institutions. Similarly, Makoba & Ruffin 

(2016) had earlier stated that NPM interpretative framework is introduced to “measure 

and improve government performance through the observation of three Es which are 

namely Effectiveness, Efficiency and Economy”. 

 

However, there are divergent interpretative frameworks adopted by different authors. 

One camp suggests that triangulation is the best interpretative framework to adopt when 

studying organisational challenges. This is more apparent in the work of Deidericks 

(2017), who argues that data triangulation provides for multiple data collection such as 

researching relevant literature pertaining to government performance information. The 

second camp of authors is of the view that organisational performance challenges can 

be studied through regression model. For example, Cheruiyot et al (2019) argues that 

regression model can be used to account for spatial effects to ensure robust results of 

understanding government performance challenges based on geographical areas. The 

last camp seems to be emphasising the use of Burk-Litwin model to better study 



 29 

organisational performance challenges. This view was most notable in Olivier (2017) 

who argues that Burke-Litwin model of organisational performance explains causal 

effect relationship by linking elements that contribute to organisational performance.  

 

2.3.3 Research strategy and design used by previous studies on 
organisational performance 

Multiple authors for example, Khunoethe et al (2021) adopted research strategies and 

designs for organisational performance studies. Besides different views and approaches, 

I can argue that both qualitative and quantitative strategies are more common in the 

studies of organisational performance. 

 

Almost all authors are of the view that qualitative strategy is best suited to understand 

the depth of organisational challenges. For example, Diedericks (2017), Khunoethe et al 

(2021) & Ndevu (2019) have applied qualitative strategy to research about government 

organisational performance. This is because it focuses on understanding own 

interpretations and make sense of the phenomenon of systems, process and structure 

under study (Ndevu 2019).  However, a different view is taken by other authors who 

argue for the use of mixed methods when intending to research about government 

organisational performance. For example, Makoba & Ruffin (2016) and Olivier (2017) 

argued that mixed methods advocated for validity of collected data and further provides 

for triangulation.  

 

However, it is important to also note that qualitative strategy must be relatable to the 

adopted research design. For example, Diedericks (2017), Khunoethe et al (2021) & 

Makoba & Ruffin (2016) identified the use of case study as the suitable research design 

when using a qualitative strategy to better understand organisational performance 

challenges in a specific context of research.  Other authors are taking a different view. 

For example, Cheruiyot et al. (2019) advocates for comparative research design while 

Ndevu (2019) argues for the use of grounded theory to study organisational performance 

challenges when one has adopted mixed methods. 

 

 

 



 30 

2.3.4 Data collection instruments used by previous authors on 
organisational development  

Data collection instruments must also be aligned to the strategy and design of the 

research so that one can be able to collect relevant and reliable data. For example, in the 

context of qualitative research strategy, Diedericks (2017), Khunoethe et al (2021) and 

Makoba & Ruffin (2016) argue that one need to use primary data collected through 

interviews, and municipal or government documents/ policies/ frameworks/ guidelines. 

However, in the context of mixed strategy there are different data collection instruments 

used compared to qualitative strategy. For example, Ndevu (2019), Olivier (2017) and 

Makoba (2016) argue that mixed methods use both interviews and surveys as 

instruments to collect data.  

 

2.3.5 Sampling technique and limitations from previous studies on 
organisational performance 

Sampling techniques are there to determine the sample out of the population that one 

needs to study. Khunoethe et al (2021) and Diedericks (2017) have adopted purposive 

sampling technique where participants are top management and are selected based on 

judgement that they are suitable for the study. Directors in government are primarily 

responsible for performance of various units. However, Cheruiyot et al (2019) uses a 

different sampling technique called random sampling while Makoba & Ruffin (2016) 

uses nonprobability sampling technique. 

 

2.3.6 Data collection process, processing, and analysis from 
previous studies on organisational performance 

Aligned to qualitative strategy, Diedericks (2017), argues that qualitative data is collected 

through existing legislation and official documents of the department. However, 

Khunoethe et al (2021) takes a different view that data in qualitative strategy is collected 

through interviews. Contrary to qualitative strategy, the quantitative strategy data 

collection processes contain survey. For example, Cheruiyot et al (2019) argues that data 

must be collect through surveys with close ended questions. 

 

Data is also processed after being collected. For example, Ndevu (2019) argues that data 

must be coded for processing, where keywords or phrases are identified for comparison. 

Similarly, Diedericks (2017) argues that close ended questions are categorised for 



 31 

purposes of processing such as providing a range to a score e.g., a range from 1 to 5. 

However, different to the above Olivier (2017) argues that quantitative numeric data is 

processed using systems such as SPSS.  

 

Data analysis process of qualitative strategy are different to mixed strategies or qualitative 

strategies. In the previous conducted studies on organisational performance, qualitative 

data analysis includes interpreting data into themes (Diedericks, 2017). Similarly, Makoba 

& Ruffin (2016) and Khunoethe et al (2021) argues that data can be analysed through 

combination of thematic analysis, content and matrix. Computer software system such 

as SPSS are also used to analyse numeric data (Olivier, 2017). 

 

2.3.7 Key empirical results presented by previous studies on 
organisational performance 

Several authors for example, Makoba & Ruffin (2016) have presented empirical results 

on performance challenge. Despite different views or perspectives, I can argue that the 

results on government organisational performance challenges are administrative in 

nature. 

 

Almost all authors presented results on performance management. For instance, 

Diedericks (2017) argues that performance management is interlinked to four element 

which are namely, “Strategic planning and performance management, performance 

reporting, auditing of performance as well as monitoring and evaluating performance”. 

reporting, Similarly, Khunoethe et al (2021) argues that performance requires the 

alignment of three elements to be achieved, which are namely the strategic objectives in 

the Integrated Development Plan (IDP), Key Performance Areas (KPA’s) and 

Performance indicators (PI’s).  

 

However, there are different views provided as well, for example, Cheruiyot et al (2019) 

argues that government organisational challenges results to citizen dissatisfaction. While 

Ndevu (2019) argue that organisational performance challenges are related to elected 

administrative leaders and they also have direct and indirect relation to political 

factionalism, power relations, lack of active participation and gaps in employee skills and 

capacity as well as budget constraints. 

 



 32 

2.3.8 Research findings from previous studies on organisational 
performance 

Most of the findings are because of poor planning. For instance, poor alignment between 

indicators and IDP policy documents for the realisation of organisational impact was at 

the core of findings identified by Khunoethe et al, (2021). Similarly, Cheruiyot et al 

(2019) found that apartheid spatial planning resulted to citizens experiencing different 

level of dissatisfaction about government performance due to some municipal wards 

being previously economically excluded under apartheid.   

 

Different findings have also been presented. For example, Diedericks (2017) argues that 

performance challenges are a result of not paying necessary attention to performance 

reporting in government departments. The second camp argues differently as well, and 

this is evident in the work of Olivier (2017) who argues that Burke and Litwin Model is 

a valid and accurate model to remedy organisational challenges and improve 

organisational performance.  

 

2.3.9 Limitations from previous studies of organisational 
performance 

Upon reviewing the literature, Cheruiyot et al (2019) used Provincial Quality of Life 

survey data to sample the population and instead neglected to make comparison of the 

Quality-of-Life Survey with Municipal data indicators which therefore means that the 

Quality-of-Life Survey might have had weaknesses of zooming into Municipalities. 

Similarly, Khunoethe et al (2021) study had its own limitations which indicates that the 

study is only limited to development policy alignment in municipalities and their 

performance which can therefore not be generalised to the other spheres of government.  

 

Inconclusion, this section reviewed literature to understand performance challenges, by 

discussing previously used frameworks, data collection methods, processing, collection 

and analysis as well as sampling techniques. I further looked at the findings and 

discussions identified by previous studies.  

 

 



 33 

2.4 Introduction to organisational performance studies 
and its components and processes 

This section aims to discuss organisational performance as the relevant academic field of 

study for this research. In doing so, I adopt Wotela (2016) approach of decoding academic 

field of study. I also applied systems thinking methodology originally described in 

Gharajedaghi (2006:107) “to see through chaos and understand the complexities” of 

organisational performance field of study. I do this by interrogating literature directed by 

the following six questions. (1) What is organisational performance? (2) What is the 

purpose of organisational performance? (3) What are key issues and debates of 

organisational performance? (4) What are the established facts in Organisational 

performance? (5) What are the processes of organisational performance?  and (6) What 

are the components of organisational performance?  

 

Figure 6: components of Organisational performance in government  

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Author  

 

2.4.1 Describing organisational performance 

Multiple authors, for example Elena-Iuliana & Maria (2016) have discussed the concept 

of organisational performance. Notwithstanding different views and approaches we can 

argue that organisational performance is an overall result of the organisation against the 

set objectives or targets.  For example, Silitonga (2017) argues that organisational 

performance is the efforts to achieve organisational predetermined objectives in line with 

ethical and moral standards. Similarly, Ovadje & Aryee (2019) states that organisational 

Organisational performance (Academic field of study)  

Organisational Structure 

Outcomes 

Outputs 

Enablers 

Formulate indicators 

Measure level of 

achievement 

Performance evaluation 

Organisational 

strategy 
Measures of 

performance 

Establishing goals National 

departments 

Provincial 

departments 

Local 

Municipalities 

Separation of 

powers 



 34 

performance is the ability to acquire maximum and valuable outputs from the allocated 

set of limited resources.  

 

However, there are different views about the concept of organisational performance. 

For instance, Marr (2008) argues that organisational performance is the involvement of 

employees in the organisational strategy and its execution so that individual performance 

can contribute to the ultimate organisational performance.  The other camp is of the 

view that organisational performance is aligned to the predetermined plan. For example, 

Khunoethe & Reddy & Mthuli (2021), argues that government has milestones, indicators 

and key performance areas that are necessary for the implementation of Integrated 

Development Plans, Annual Performance Plans and Strategic Plans.  

 

2.4.2 The purpose of organisational performance 

I can clearly argue that the purpose of organisational performance is to evaluate and 

assess the achievement of predetermined objectives (Ovadje & Aryee, 2019). For 

instance, Marr (2008) argues that organisational performance purpose is to assess, 

implement, clarify, and continuously improve the organisational strategy and its 

implementation. Similarly, Khunoethe et al (2021) argues that organisational 

performance clarifies and translate organisational vision and strategy into achieved 

actions and goals. 

 

However, other authors share different views on the purpose of organisational 

performance. For example, Vyas-Doorgapersad & Muhiya & Ababio (2013) argues that 

organisational performance purpose in government is to provide a sense of achieving 

public interest values such as accountability, transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness. 

While Silitonga (2017) argues that organisational performance purpose is to examine 

whether the organisation has done a good job or whether the established indicators and 

targets have been achieved or not.  

 

2.4.3 Established facts in organisational performance. 

The are several facts established in organisational performance studies. For example, 

Vyas-Doorgapersad (2013) points out that organisational performance is detrimentally 

undermined by corruption regardless of its forms leading to the decrease in public 

service performance and  dissatisfaction. Similarly, the quality of leadership plays a vital 



 35 

role to ensure that corruption does not affect the performance of the organisation. This 

is more apparent in the work of Ovadje & Aryee (2019) who argues that the quality of 

leadership has an immense impact on organisational performance as well as its 

operations, henceforth the organisational leadership is regarded as a valuable layer of any 

organisation.  

 

It is a known fact that economic conditions influence how organisations perform. This 

is more evident in the work of Elena-iuliana & Maria (2016) who states that global 

financial crisis turns to manifests worldwide and affect organisations and how they 

perform, and only powerful organisations can adapt, meet customer satisfaction, add 

value to shareholders and create an enabling environment for employees to continuously 

implement the organisational mandate.  

 

Different facts are also established by different authors in organisational performance. 

One camp points to the fact that organisational performance is influenced by 

relationships. This more apparent in the work of Marr (2008) who states that 

organisational performance levels are increased by good relations between employees 

and citizens/customers which in turns increases loyalty and trust. The second camp 

points to the fact that job satisfaction is a determinant of organisational performance. 

For example, Silitonga (2017) states that it is a fact for organisational performance to 

increase if the executor of the task is satisfied.  

 

2.4.4 Key issues and debates in the study of organisational 
performance 

There are several key issues and debates in organisational performance and one of the 

heated issues and debate emanates from the definition of organisational performance 

itself. For instance, Elena-iuliana & Maria (2016) points out that organisational 

performance must not only be viewed or defined as term for enterprise performance 

because performance of an organisation has determinants such as activities, employees 

like mangers, departments/units, and other performers. Similarly, Marr (2018) support 

the latter by debating that there is no need to work in silos, however there is a need to 

mainstream the dialogue and definition of organisational performance because this is 

where organisational lifeless data and information from individual components is 



 36 

transformed into useful and meaningful knowledge, wisdom, insight and information 

that will lead to decision making as well as interactive learning.     

 

Secondly, there is a rising debate between managing relationships to improve 

organisational performance vice versa getting efficiency rather than good relationship. 

This is more apparent in the work of Ovadje & Aryee (2019) who points out that one 

part of the debate and issue informs us that organisational performance outcomes and 

productivity are based on healthy relationship between operational employees and 

managers while the second counter debate and issue inform us that organisational 

performance is about increasing efficiency at the e