The Influence of Performance Management Systems on Key Actors in Universities

Abstract

The aim of this paper 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.

The characteristics of Portuguese management academics and their fit with teaching accreditation standards

“…These tensions relate very much to different accountabilities: in addition to the traditional professional accountability, academics face increasing managerial accountability (Melo et al, 2010). A balance between the two may not always be achieved (Hallinger, 2010;Ryan and Guthrie, 2009).…”

Current Developments at Higher Education Institutions and Interview-Based Recommendations to Foster Work Motivation and Work Performance

“…A participative management style aims at increasing communication in all directions in an institution and offers members of the institution the opportunity to participate in decision making (Pouliakas and Theodossiou 2012 ;Somech 2005 ). A participative management style may be essential for successfully adjusting the governance mechanisms that were introduced in the course of New Public Management because highly educated employees usually strive for autonomy and some sort of control over the work that they do (Dilger 2010 ;McCormack et al 2014 ;Melo et al 2010 ;Minssen and Wilkesmann 2003 ). The strive for control is similar to the aim of procedural justice, which is perceived when one receives the opportunity to voice one's opinion in the process of decision making.…”

“…The undesired developments in higher education are (at least in part) claimed to be a result of S. Ringelhan (*) • J. Stumpf-Wollersheim • I. M. Welpe Strategy and Organization , Technische Universität München , Munich , Germany e-mail: s.ringelhan@tum.de; wollersheim@tum.de New Public Management (Osterloh et al 2015 ). New Public Management was widely introduced in many higher education institutions worldwide to increase, among other things, effi ciency (Geuna and Martin 2003 ;Lange 2008 ;Melo et al 2010 ;Wissenschaftsrat 2014 ) in reaching higher education institutions' characteristic strategic goals, for example, excellence in research and teaching (Franceschini and Turina 2011 ;Rabovsky 2014 ). Increased effi ciency is sought by transferring existing performance management tools, such as performance-based payment, competition and target agreements (Binswanger 2011 ;Hicks 2012 ;Jaeger 2006a , b ;Wissenschaftsrat 2014 ), from business organizations to higher education institutions (Miner 2003 ;Ringelhan et al 2013 ;Wilkesmann and Würmseer 2009 ).…”

Innovation failure in the eye of the beholder: towards a theory of innovation shaped by competing agendas within higher education

“…Like many other public services, notably social services and health, the demand for higher education is ever growing while at the same time the resources to meet such demands are decreasing (Melo et al 2010). Practicality met ideology in much of the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s and 1990s across the globe, bringing in market forces and market-driven mind sets into academia alongside other public services.…”

“…Their centrality is in their numbers (they are by far the largest stakeholders' group), as well as in the funding they contribute to higher education (Melo et al 2010). Institutional reputation is therefore important (McLaren 2002): as university enrolment rates are ever higher and entry requirements, less stringent; universities face greater competition for students and, implicitly, for public funding which is normally linked to quantitative outputs such as student numbers and student retention (Sadler 2011).…”