IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/pubmgr/v12y2010i2p233-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Performance Management Systems on Key Actors in Universities

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Isabel Melo
  • Cláudia S. Sarrico
  • Zoe Radnor

Abstract

The aim of this article is to understand to what extent the introduction of performance management systems has affected the roles and influences of the key actors in the governance of universities, especially the role of academics, and whether or not the introduction of these systems has altered accountability regimes within universities. Results from a high performing English university show that, in spite of a substantial increase in the measurement of performance in most areas, there seems to be a lack of action, especially regarding individual performance. In relation to the key actors in the governance of the university, it is clear that they are now held more accountable, especially in a managerial way, mainly resulting from pressures coming both from the State and the market, and their roles have changed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Isabel Melo & Cláudia S. Sarrico & Zoe Radnor, 2010. "The Influence of Performance Management Systems on Key Actors in Universities," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 233-254, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:pubmgr:v:12:y:2010:i:2:p:233-254
    DOI: 10.1080/14719031003616479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14719031003616479
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14719031003616479?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood & Oliver James & B. Guy Peters & Colin Scott (ed.), 2004. "Controlling Modern Government," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3290.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dixon, Keith, 2013. "Growth and dispersion of accounting research about New Zealand before and during a National Research Assessment Exercise: Five decades of academic journals bibliometrics," MPRA Paper 51100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Silvia Pilonato & Patrizio Monfardini, 2022. "Managerial reforms, institutional complexity and individuals: an empirical analysis of higher education," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 26(2), pages 365-387, June.
    3. Alessandra Allini & Adele Caldarelli & Rosanna Span? & Annamaria Zampella, 2019. "Legitimating efforts in Performance Plans. Evidences on the thoroughness of disclosure in the Italian Higher Education setting," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(1), pages 143-168.
    4. Juliana Abagsonema Abane & Boon-Anan Phinaitrup, 2020. "The Determinants of Performance Management Outcomes in Public Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa: the Role of National Culture and Organizational Subcultures," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 511-527, September.
    5. Pilonato, Silvia & Monfardini, Patrizio, 2020. "Performance measurement systems in higher education: How levers of control reveal the ambiguities of reforms," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lodge, Martin & Wegrich, Kai & McElroy, Gail, 2008. "Gammelfleisch everywhere? public debate, variety of worldviews and regulatory change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36532, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Mennicken, Andrea, 2013. "Too big to fail and too big to succeed: accounting and privatisation in the Prison Service of England and Wales," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 46366, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Arild Gjertsen, 2014. "Legitimacy in Interlocal Partnerships: Balancing Efficiency and Democracy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(9), pages 1926-1942, July.
    4. Crepaz, Lukas & Huber, Christian & Scheytt, Tobias, 2016. "Governing arts through valuation: The role of the state as network actor in the European Capital of Culture 2010," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 35-50.
    5. Maarten Hillebrandt & Michael Huber, 2020. "Editorial: Quantifying Higher Education: Governing Universities and Academics by Numbers," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-5.
    6. Siguang Li & Xi Weng, 2017. "Random Authority," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(1), pages 211-235, February.
    7. Anthony M. Bertelli, 2008. "Credible Governance? Transparency, Political Control, the Personal Vote and British Quangos," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(4), pages 807-829, December.
    8. Verhoest, Koen & Wynen, Jan, 2016. "The nexus between agencification and horizontal accountability : A multi-country survey analysis," Other publications TiSEM b3e3605c-d9ff-4411-97b2-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. King, Roger, 2006. "Analysing the higher education regulatory state," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36119, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Maarten Hillebrandt, 2020. "Keeping One’s Shiny Mercedes in the Garage: Why Higher Education Quantification Never Really Took Off in Germany," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 48-57.
    11. Christel Koop & Martin Lodge, 2017. "What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 95-108, March.
    12. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    13. B. Peters, 2010. "Bureaucracy and Democracy," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 209-222, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:pubmgr:v:12:y:2010:i:2:p:233-254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPXM20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.