Performance indicators in academic research: Do they improve performance?

Performance management is at the core of public sector reforms that have spread across many Western countries and beyond, although there is mixed and inconclusive evidence as to whether the use of performance indicators... [ view full abstract ]

Performance management is at the core of public sector reforms that have spread across many Western countries and beyond, although there is mixed and inconclusive evidence as to whether the use of performance indicators actually improves performance. A subfield of the public sector where the implications of performance indicators are particularly unclear is research in public universities and colleges. Based on self-determination, motivation crowding, and cognitive evaluation theory, we propose that the effects of performance indicators in academia vary with the control targets to which they are applied (i.e., input and output targets). The empirical test of our hypotheses is based on 1,976 observations from an online survey across different national and institutional contexts of academic research. The overall results suggest that there is no substantial and significant effect of performance indicators on research performance in terms of publications. However, a more detailed analysis reveals that the use of performance indicators is positively and significantly related to publication performance when they are applied to input targets, such as personnel selection and promotion. On the contrary, we find unintended negative effects for indicators applied to output targets, such as funding and bonus payments. Public managers in higher education should consider these countervailing effects of performance indicators when they compose and use control systems of academic institutions.