Performance management is a tool to improve the performance and productivity of individuals, teams and organizations. In the public sector, it is increasingly important to respond to budgetary and budgetary pressures, increasing demands on public services and the need for greater transparency in reporting on the use of state resources. A two-headed arrow rotates from left to right under the fourth field, indicating that the activities identified in the statement occur throughout the performance management cycle. Its successful implementation in the public service can help build and maintain trust between employer and worker and create conditions for all employees to maximize their contributions and provide quality service to Canadians. Performance management is an ongoing process that includes planning, development, coaching, feedback and evaluation of staff performance. The procedure must be in line with the requirements of the Official Languages Directive for the management of persons. This research article examined the approaches to new public management (NPM) that have been implemented to improve Thailand`s public sector. The study was conducted on the basis of the Performance Agreement (PA) as a management tool at the Ministry of Justice as a case study. Documentary research and in-depth interviews were conducted by three groups. The target group was: 1) a central administrator (office of the Public Sector Development Commission); 2) 11 middle managers in the Department of Justice; and 3) two experts who had been public sector advisors. The results were verified by Department of Justice staff who were not included in the target group. The data were analyzed through content analysis.
Analysis of the data showed that the implementation of the document performance agreement was successful, but it did not reflect the achievement of the objectives of the line agencies, since: 1) the indicators developed within the Palestinian Authority did not meet the objectives of the Organization, as a result of the centralization of the authority to determine the framework for evaluation of the central agency and the lack of participation of the online agencies; 2) the PA frame is “one size fit all”; and 3) the instruments of the Palestinian Authority have not been used in accordance with the principles, which has led to a decrease in cooperation within the Agency, an unfair allocation of incentives, falsification of documents and setting targets too low to ensure the achievement of these objectives.