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.

No abstract

This entry describes the main principles that underlie the balanced scorecard (BSC) as presented by Kaplan and Norton in 1992. The BSC has attracted worldwide attention since it was introduced by Kaplan and Norton. With its huge diffusion among organizational practices, the model itself has been subject to a number of interpretations and variations; however, Kaplan and Norton emphasized that some main principles must be present before a model can be called a “real” BSC. This entry has two purposes: first, to describe the main principles that underlie the BSC as presented by Kaplan and Norton in two key publications; and, second, to describe three types of criticism of the BSC that have been put forward in scholarly research.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore the analytical productiveness of a discursive power perspective in understanding interdisciplinary teams' inefficient decision processes, and to discuss the ethical consequences of such an approach. Design/methodology/approach -Based on a case study of an interdisciplinary team in a Danish hospital, the paper analyzes the team's decision practices as a result of discursive power operations that privilege and marginalize groups and persons. Findings -The paper shows that a discourse of equality dominates the team's decision practices. This produces a tendency among members to word observations as reflections whereas expert assessments are rendered unlikely and unwelcome. The paper demonstrates that this analysis is productive in understanding why interdisciplinary teams struggle to develop efficient decision processes. Furthermore, the paper suggests that managers should respond ethically to these discursive power operations with political interventions. Originality/value -A variety of theoretical models have been proposed to understand interdisciplinary teams' problematic decision processes. This paper makes an original contribution to this field by shoving how a discursive framework provides a productive analytical strategy. Moreover, the paper's proposition of political intervention as an ethical way of securing social sustainability is unprecedented.