Objective and results-based management of universities: Constructing reality or illusions?
Nikolaj Kure
School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus V, Denmark
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Hanne Nørreklit
School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus V, Denmark
Correspondence
Hanne Nørreklit, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark.
Email: hannenorreklit@mgmt.au.dk
Search for more papers by this authorNikolaj Kure
School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus V, Denmark
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Hanne Nørreklit
School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus V, Denmark
Correspondence
Hanne Nørreklit, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark.
Email: hannenorreklit@mgmt.au.dk
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This paper examines the conceptual qualities of the framework of ‘objective and results-based management’ implemented by Danish governmental institutions for the effective performance management of Danish university institutions. Drawing on pragmatic constructivism, we make a conceptual inquiry into whether this framework contains conceptual qualities that may form the basis for effective performance management of universities. The analysis reveals that the conceptual structure of the model features numerous poorly outlined concepts and mismatches, which gives rise to a language game of pseudo-realism that is liable to produce illusory control practices. We show that poorly developed performance measurement concepts create an environment wherein top managers are not made accountable for results, thus generating a culture of delusions and arbitrary power. We also find a circumvention of the principal–agent model. The assumption of Danish governmental institutions seems to be that management has access to more information about alternative courses of action and their consequences than university scholars. The study adds to the methodological apparatus to conceptualise, understand, and analyse the effectiveness of organisational practices of performance measurement in public sector activities.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available via the publicly available data repositories (https://bibliotek.dk; https://www.fm.dk; https://modst.dk; https://ufm.dk). Specific materials are listed below.
REFERENCES
- Agency for Governmental Management (Økonomistyrelsen) (2010a). Case-samling – inspiration til effekt: Hvordan vælger du mål, metoder, redskaber og resultatkrav, der passer til jeres styringsbehov? Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from https://bibliotek.dk/da/moreinfo/netarchive/870970-basis%253A28603029
- Agency for Governmental Management (Økonomistyrelsen) (2010b). Ramme for case-samlingen – inspiration til effekt: Hvordan vælger du mål, metoder, redskaber og resultatkrav, der passer til jeres styringsbehov? Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from https://bibliotek.dk/da/moreinfo/netarchive/870970-basis%253A28603037
- Agency of Modernization (Moderniseringsstyrelsen) (2014a). Inspiration til strategisk styring med resultater i fokus. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from https://modst.dk/media/16913/20140909-inspirationsmateriale.pdf
- Agency of Modernization (Moderniseringsstyrelsen) (2014b). Strategisk styring med resultater i fokus. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from https://modst.dk/media/16912/strategisk-styring-med-resultater-i-fokus.pdf
- Agency of Modernization (Moderniseringsstyrelsen) (2017a). Mål og resultatplan. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from https://www.modst.dk/media/15316/maal_og_resultatplan_2017_moderniseringsstyrelsen.pdf
- Agency of Modernization (Moderniseringsstyrelsen) (2017b). Inspiration til målformulering med fokus på kerneopgaven. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from https://www.modst.dk/media/16914/inspiration-til-maalformulering-med-fokus-paa-kerneopgaven.pdf
- Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 72–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012181
- Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2016). (Un)Conditional surrender? Why do professionals willingly comply with managerialism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2015-0221
- Alvarez, J. E. (1998). The diffusion and consumption of business knowledge. London, UK: Macmillan Press.
10.1007/978-1-349-25899-4 Google Scholar
- Armstrong, R. (2019). Critical realism and performance measurement and management: Addressing challenges for knowledge creation. Management Research Review, 42, 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2018-0202
- Anthony, R. N., & Young, D. W. (1999). Management control in nonprofit organizations. Irwin Homewood, IL: McGraw-Hill.
- Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/famm.12049
- Bacq, S., & Eddleston, K. A. (2018). A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship: How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 589–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3317-1
- Barcan, R. (2013). Academic life and labour in the new university: Hope and other choices, ( 1–217). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
- Baldvinsdottir, G., Mitchell, F., & Nørreklit, H. (2010). Issues in the relationship between theory and practice in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 21, 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.006
- Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
- Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What's measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English Public Health Care System. Public Administration, 84, 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x
- Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. London, UK: Verso.
- Boje, D. M., Rosile, G. A., Dennehy, R., & Summers, D. J. (1997). Restorying reengineering: Some deconstructions and postmodern alternatives. Communication Research, 24, 631–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650297024006003
- Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (2011). Are students telling us the truth? A critical look at the student evaluation of teaching. Marketing Education Review, 21, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008210201
10.2753/MER1052-8008210201 Google Scholar
- Cuganesan, S., Guthrie, J., & Vranic, V. (2014). The riskiness of public sector performance measurement: A review and research agenda. Financial Accountability and Management, 30, 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12037
10.1111/faam.12037 Google Scholar
- Craig, R., Amernic, J., & Tourish, D. (2014). Perverse audit culture and accountability of the modern public university. Financial Accountability & Management, 30, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.2014.30.issue-1
10.1111/faam.12025 Google Scholar
- Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/259223
- Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a SMART way to write management's goals and objectives. Management Review, 70, 35–36.
- Drucker, P. (2001). The essential Drucker. London, UK: Routledge.
- Earl, M. J., & Hopwood, A. G. (1980). From management information to information management. In H. C. Lucas, F. F. Land, T. J. Lincoln, & K. Supper (Eds.), The information systems environment (pp. pp.3–13). New York, NY: North-Holland.
- Eco, U. (1999). Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
- Feyerabend, P. (1970–2010). Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. London, UK: Verso.
- Franco-Santos, M., & Doherty, N. (2017). Performance management and well-being: A close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28, 2319–2350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1334148
- Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50, 906–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006
- Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102, 460–465.
- Gelman, A. (2017). November 11. The fallacy of objective measurement: The case of gaydar. Retrieved from http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/gaydar.pdf
- Gendron, Y. (2015). Accounting academia and the threat of the paying-off mentality. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1511/2014.111.460.
- Gigerenzer, G., & Marewski, J. N. (2015). Surrogate science: The idol of a universal method for scientific inference. Journal of Management, 41, 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547522
- Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
- Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: Higher costs, more complaints. Governance, 28, 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12150
- Humphrey, C., & Gendron, Y. (2015). What is going on? The sustainability of accounting academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.09.008
- Hyndman, N., & Lapsley, I. (2016). New public management: The story continues. Financial Accountability & Management, 32, 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12100
- Kaplan, R. S., & Atkinson, A. A. (1998). Advanced management accounting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
- Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11, 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.11308
10.1002/nml.11308 Google Scholar
- Kaspersen, L. B., & Nørgaard, J. (2015). Ledelseskrise i konkurrencestaten (Management crisis in the competitive state). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzel. (in Danish).
- Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., & Fisscher, O. A. (2003). Ethical dilemmas in performance measurement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024120428490
- Kristensen, J. E., Nørreklit, H., & Raffnsøe-Møller, M. (2011). University performance management at Danish universities. Copenhagen, Denmark: DJOEF.
- Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Lapsley, I. (2008). The NPM agenda: Back to the future. Financial Accountability & Management, 24, 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2008.00444.x
10.1111/j.1468-0408.2008.00444.x Google Scholar
- Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: The cruellest invention of the human spirit? Abacus, 45, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2009.00275.x
- Laughlin, R. (1996). Principals and higher principals: Accounting for accountability in the caring profession. In R. Munro & J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing (pp. 225–244). London, UK: International Thomson Business Press.
- Ministry of Finance (Finansministeriet). (2010). Ansvar for styring – vejledning om styring fra koncern til institution. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author. Retrieved from https://www.fm.dk/publikationer/2010/1962_ansvar-for-styring
- Ministry of Higher Education and Science (Uddanelses- og Forskningsministeriet) (2014a). Ministerens brev vedr. udviklingskontrakter. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author. Retrieved from https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/styring-og-ansvar/udviklingskontrakter/udviklingskontrakter-2015-2017
- Ministry of Higher Education and Science (Uddanelses- og Forskningsministeriet) (2014b). Udviklingskontrakter 2015-2017. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author. Retrieved from https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/styring-og-ansvar/udviklingskontrakter/udviklingskontrakter-2015-2017
- Merchant, K., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2014). Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
- Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
- Miller, P., & O'Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 235–265.
- Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
- Møller, M. Ø., Iversen, K., & Andersen, V. N. (2016). Review af resultatbaseret styring. Copenhagen, Denmark: KORA.
- Newton, J. D. (1988). Using student evaluation of teaching in administrative control: The validity problem. Journal of Accounting Education, 6, 1–14.
10.1016/0748-5751(88)90033-4 Google Scholar
- Nørreklit, H. (2017a). A philosophy of management accounting: A pragmatic constructivist approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.4324/9781315680736 Google Scholar
- Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., & Mitchell, F. (2010). Towards a paradigmatic foundation for accounting practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23, 733–758. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011065844
- Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., & Mitchell, F. (2016). Understanding practice generalisation–opening the research/practice gap. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 13, 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-09-2015-0088
- Nørreklit, L. (1987). Formale Strukturer i den sociale logik [Formal structures in social logic]. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press. (in Danish).
- Nørreklit, L. (2017b). Paradigm of pragmatic constructivism. In H. Nørreklit (Ed.), A philosophy of management accounting: A pragmatic constructivist approach (pp. 21–94). London, UK: Routledge.
10.4324/9781315680736 Google Scholar
- Nørreklit, L., Jack, L., & Nørreklit, H. (2019). Moving towards digital governance of university scholars: Instigating a post-truth university culture. Journal of Management and Governance, 23, 869–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09489-7
- Pianezzi, D., Nørreklit, H., & Cinquni, L. (2019). Academia after virtue: An Inquiry into the Moral Character(s) of Academia. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04185-w
- Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.1515/9781400821617 Google Scholar
- Parker, L. D. (1979). Divisional performance measurement: Beyond an exclusive profit test. Accounting and Business Research, 9, 309–319.
10.1080/00014788.1979.9729172 Google Scholar
- Ridley, C. E., & Simon, H. A. (1938). The criterion of efficiency. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 199, 20–25.
10.1177/000271623819900103 Google Scholar
- Ryan, R., Scapens, R. W., & Theobald, M. (2002). Research methods and methodology in accounting and finance. London, UK: Thomson.
- Røge, K. M. (2017). Contemporary performance measurement and causal thinking (Doctoral dissertation). Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
- Røge, K. M., & Lennon, N. J. (2018). A study on the criteria of internal transparency, efficiency and effectiveness in measuring local government performance. Financial Accountability Management, 34, 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12176
- Shailer, G. (2004). An introduction to corporate governance in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education Australia.
- Solomons, D. (1991). Accounting and social change: A neutralist view. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, 287–295.
- Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 2, 729–757. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
- Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, 397–415. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040729
- Teas, R. K., & Palan, K. M. (1997). The realms of scientific meaning framework for constructing theoretically meaningful nominal definitions of marketing concepts. The Journal of Marketing, 61, 52–67.
- Tinker, T. (1991). The accountant as partisan. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90006-Z
- Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonsales, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
- Van de Walle, S. (2008). Comparing the performance of national public sectors: Conceptual problems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57, 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400810867535
10.1108/17410400810867535 Google Scholar
- Weber, M., Henderson, A. M., & Parsons, T. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Weitz, B. A., & Wensley, R. (2002). Handbook of marketing. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage.
- Wilson, S. (1969). Thinking with concepts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.