Resolving contested theories about performance measurement

This paper considers contributions of theory to two alternative perceptions about performance measurement: that it is a useful if not essential contributor to accountability and performance improvement within organisations; or... [ view full abstract ]

This paper considers contributions of theory to two alternative perceptions about performance measurement: that it is a useful if not essential contributor to accountability and performance improvement within organisations; or that there is so much corruption, distortion and cost that it is harmful to an organisation. The binary distinction is felt to be useful to frame the discussion, even if some of the theories are nuanced and therefore contribute to both sides of the argument.  The paper first presents the various theories with a discussion on how they contribute to the two contrasting perceptions, broadly in order from those most supportive, to those most critical, of performance measurement.  The final part of the paper attempts to provide a synthesis of the two opposing theories and adopts a more realist approach of ‘when, and in what circumstances, and for which stakeholders’ is performance measurement effective.  It also reflects some input from the empirical part of this study.  The results can be used to explain the observed differences in the success of performance measurement across jurisdictions and types of organisations.