Contesting conformity: how and why academics may oppose the conforming influences of intra-organizational performance evaluations

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical model elaborating on the type of conditions that can inhibit (or at least temporarily hold back) “reactive conformance” in the wake of an increasing reliance on quantitative performance evaluations of academic research and researchers.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title><jats:p>A qualitative study of a research group at a Swedish university who was recurrently exposed to quantitative performance evaluations of their research activities.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title><jats:p>The empirical findings show how the research group under study exhibited a surprisingly high level of non-compliance and non-conformity in relation to what was deemed important and legitimate by the prevailing performance evaluations. Based on this, we identify four important qualities of pre-existing research/er ideals that seem to make them particularly resilient to an infiltration of an “academic performer ideal,” namely that they are (1) central and since-long established, (2) orthogonal to (i.e. very different from) the academic performer ideal as materialized by the performance measurement system, (3) largely shared within the research group and (4) externally legitimate. The premise is that these qualities form an important basis and motivation for not only criticizing, but also contesting, the academic performer ideal.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title><jats:p>Extant research generally finds that the proliferation of quantitatively oriented performance evaluations within academia makes researchers adopt a new type of academic performer ideal which promotes research conformity and superficiality. This study draws upon, and adds to, an emerging literature that has begun to problematize this “reactive conformance-thesis” through identifying four qualities of pre-existing research/er ideals that can inhibit (or at least temporarily hold back) such “reactive research conformance.”</jats:p></jats:sec>

Performance measurement in smart city governance: a case study of an Egyptian city council

“…By contributing to previous literature, the present study is more concerned with the developing context (Egypt) and reveals this potential relationship by accrediting “intra-organisational” performance metrics within a single organisation (city council) to face the political demands and decisions for smart city governance. This further supports the recent study of Englund and Gerdin (2020), arguing for the importance of studying the conforming influences of intra-organisational performance evaluations to better understand their powerful roles within individual organisations (see also Alsaid and Ambilichu, 2020; Steccolini et al , 2020). To go one step further, the present study also revealed that the intra-organisational performance measurement system within the case (individual) organisation has been built on specific (accounting/accountability-based) metrics (integrating a blending of economic and social political performance measurements) rather than just mediating (technological and managerial) instruments as indicated previously in most institutional management accounting case studies on the relationship between performance measurement systems and smart city governance.…”

“…But, its scope was extended to include the powerful role(s) of these “institutionalised” performance measurement systems or metrics in making and remaking political decisions and military actions in the city council. This further supports the most recent study of Steccolini et al (2020) arguing for the role(s) of accounting and performance measurement systems in contemporary public administration (see also Mutiganda et al , 2020; Englund and Gerdin, 2020; Noguchi et al , 2015). Clearly, this goes beyond the Dillard et al ’s (2004) framework which is limited to the cascading (macro-micro) institutionalisation process in organisations.…”

“…This further supports the findings of Alsaid and Ambilichu's recent study (2020) on the influence of institutional pressure on the implementation of a performance measurement system in an Egyptian social enterprise. This further supports the recent study of Englund and Gerdin (2020), arguing for the importance of studying the resulting influences of intra-organisational performance evaluations to better understand their powerful roles within individual organisations (see also Steccolini et al , 2020; Speklé and Verbeeten, 2014). This is in an agreement with Mutiganda et al (2020) and Andon (2012) arguing for public-private participation and its political importance for public investment financing, with a special focus on the role and effect of accounting and accountability therein.…”

“…Urban developments have then created important political problems and pressures at the macro-political level. These urban pressures have politically influenced cities and have institutionalised a system of smart city governance where a performance measurement system plays a powerful role(s) to bring together economic and social political systems (Steccolini et al , 2020; Englund and Gerdin, 2020). By contributing to previous literature (Argento et al , 2019; Lapsley et al , 2010), performance metrics can support smart city governance of self-control and self-measurement in an institutionalised regime of urban developments.…”

Institutional logic and scholars' reactions to performance measurement in universities

“…Previous studies have also shown clear changes occurring in the performance measurement (PM) of universities. Among other topics, scholars have studied the assessment of academic performance (Argento et al, 2020), the use of key performance indicators (Guthrie and Neumann, 2007), research management (Agyemang and Broadbent, 2015), steering (Boitier and Rivi ere, 2013), and the measurement and evaluation of institutional and individual performance (Dobija et al, 2019;Kallio and Kallio, 2014;Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012;Englund and Gerdin, 2019;Chatterjee et al, 2020;Martin-Sardesai et al, 2020;O'Connell et al, 2020a). A common factor in all these studies seems to be the transition in the studied organizations' institutional logic (IL) (Grossi et al, 2020a).…”