They showed that governments are still very reluctant to publish evaluations when they cannot completely control completely the results. P resentations on contract management in Denmark and on developing strategic results indicators in New Zealand sparked extensive discussion on the issues behind contractual relationships within the public service, particularly those between ministers and public servants. In many countries it was said that ministers push hard to ensure that departments do what they expect, making the lack of trust between political leaders and the career public administration quite obvious and, due to the lack of trust, leading to more and more interventions by ministers into micro-management of the agency. This blurring makes the management of relationships with ministers more complicated. This perspective was reinforced by Allen Schick's report evaluating New Zealand's large-scale reforms in the public sector.
Contracts offer a way to supplement the over-formal nature of targets and indicators.
For example, participants discussed at length the importance of bolstering performance contracting with strategies for conflict resolution, leadership enhancement, and other management tools that focus on the people-side of performance. Several countries emphasised that, while contractualism is gaining new attention in the field of performance management, and is finding new means of expression as in New Zealand, it is a very old practice. For example, in France there have been performance contracts between the State and government business enterprises since the 1940s. The Danish presentation on contract management highlighted the idea that sanctions are not always a necessary element in internal performance contracting. The fact that such a contract is published and serves as a tool for negotiation can be sufficient incentive for both parties to fulfil their contractual obligations.