Too rich to learn – when action researchers work against senior management and their use of performance management

Abstract

We analyse and self-reflect on an action research project conducted in a financial organisation twelve years ago. The research question was: What are the challenges of initiating an action research project in a financial organisation with top-down control that uses the Balanced Scorecard? The data came from action learning seminars with line managers, observations, interviews, and meetings in a Norwegian bank (Bank) with approximately 800 employees. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. This study's findings indicate that performance management and top-down senior management control may unintentionally hinder the possibilities for proceeding with action research projects. The researchers lacked open communication with senior management about the purpose of the project, and the managers who participated in the action learning found it difficult to explain to colleagues and senior management what they learned from the processes. Action research did not fit with the Bank's strategic use of performance management. The project may have increased the stress on the line managers as we identified problems without providing the opportunity to make real changes in their organisation. As a result, we determined that action researchers should be cautious in initiating action research without concrete support, active participation and 'common ground' dialogues with senior management.

Institutional pressure and real estate balanced scorecard indicators

“…The result of the research, in this case the BSC developed in the framework of the action research, is presented to a validation committee composed of the pilot P1, the pilot P2 and a second scholar named here “Candid.” Within the framework of the validation committee, the pair of researchers and actors will agree and negotiate on the validation of the knowledge produced at both levels (usefulness for the company and contribution to the management sciences). The objective is the integration of theory and practice (Brydon-Miller et al , 2003; Zuber-Skerritt, 2012; Antonsen et al , 2020). The intervention process lasts one year, from the diagnosis phase to the presentation of the BSC to the validation committee.…”