Purpose: Performance evaluation systems in the public sector are designed to enhance accountability, transparency, and the continuous improvement of public services. However, existing evidence and the research literature indicate that, in practice, these systems often deviate from their ultimate objectives and are reduced to bureaucratic instruments. The primary aim of this study is to conduct an in-depth diagnostic analysis and identify the fundamental challenges embedded in the performance evaluation system of county governorates. As the highest representatives of the central government at the local level, governorates play a critical role in coordination and oversight; nevertheless, the current evaluation framework appears to suffer from structural and procedural inefficiencies. Prior studies have shown that, in many public organizations, performance evaluation is neither grounded in the scientific principles governing this field nor capable of achieving strategic objectives. Issues such as formalism, a ceremonial approach to management, and the absence of a meaningful link between evaluation outcomes and organizational improvement have transformed performance evaluation from a driver of development into an annual, routine, and largely symbolic administrative exercise. Accordingly, this study seeks to move beyond the superficial aspects of formal procedures and penetrate the deeper layers of organizational experience in order to understand why performance evaluation in governorates has failed to lead to meaningful improvements in activities and processes, and to identify the barriers that undermine its effectiveness.
Methodology: This study adopts an interpretive paradigm and employs a qualitative research approach to explore the contextual and behavioral complexities within governorates. Unlike quantitative methods, which focus primarily on the measurement of variables, the qualitative approach adopted here enables a deep understanding of the subjective meanings and lived experiences of individuals involved in the evaluation process. Data were collected through a combination of three primary methods: semi-structured interviews, direct observation, and document analysis. To analyze the extensive qualitative data, thematic analysis was employed, involving systematic coding and the extraction of main and sub-themes. Several strategies were used to ensure the rigor and credibility of the study, including triangulation of data sources and methods, prolonged engagement to gain an in-depth understanding of the organizational context, and member checking to validate the researcher’s interpretations from the participants’ perspectives.
Findings: The analysis led to the identification of several key deficiencies in the performance evaluation system of governorates. One major issue is the misalignment between assigned authorities and performance evaluation indicators. The findings reveal that existing evaluation guidelines include indicators for assessing governorates’ success in areas over which they lack the necessary tools, financial resources, and direct legal authority. In many of these indicators, the governor and the governorate function not as implementers or leaders, but merely as coordinating or inquiry-based entities responsible for collecting information from other county-level agencies. This substantial gap between expected responsibilities and granted authority results in evaluation scores that fail to reflect the governorate’s actual performance, thereby reducing the evaluation process to a data-gathering exercise. Another critical deficiency is the lack of inclusive participation in the evaluation process. The findings indicate that the necessary infrastructure for the participation of all stakeholders-including employees, middle managers, and even service recipients-has not been adequately established. Rather than operating as a continuous and organization-wide process, performance evaluation remains confined to a small group of specialists. This limited participation has produced two adverse consequences. First, the accuracy and credibility of evaluations are diminished due to the absence of multi-source feedback. Second, for the few individuals involved, the process is perceived not as a strategic function but as an additional and exhausting workload that must be completed as quickly as possible, even if only in a formal or symbolic manner.
Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the current performance evaluation system in governorates requires fundamental revision. The continuation of the existing approach not only fails to contribute to the improvement of local governance but also leads to resource waste and fosters skepticism among employees toward performance evaluation as a managerial tool. Based on the findings, it is recommended that policymakers and guideline designers—particularly within the Ministry of Interior—develop evaluation indicators that are strictly aligned with the governorates’ actual governmental, supervisory, and coordination mandates, rather than operational indicators that fall under the responsibility of other executive agencies. Furthermore, a transition from a centralized to a participatory approach is essential. The performance evaluation system should be redesigned in a manner that fosters a sense of shared responsibility across all organizational levels. Achieving this requires targeted training, performance-related incentives, and the distribution of evaluative responsibilities throughout the organization, thereby transforming performance evaluation from a symbolic administrative obligation into a dynamic instrument for monitoring and enhancing administrative integrity.