Clicca qui per scaricare

Distorsioni nel sistema di accountability delle Università: analisi di un caso
Titolo Rivista: MANAGEMENT CONTROL 
Autori/Curatori: Andrea Francesconi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2020 Fascicolo: Lingua: Italiano 
Numero pagine:  28 P. 59-86 Dimensione file:  293 KB
DOI:  10.3280/MACO2020-001004
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 




The purpose of this study is to analyze how academics cope with the new audit culture in Higher Education (HE) and its effects on university’s accountability. The study aims to analyze, especially through the perception of department heads, how performance measurement systems (PMSs) are influencing internal choices and the behavior of academics. Department heads, in fact, represent a central fig-ure in university governance and organization because of the combined manage-rial and academic role. The research is based on a case study of an Italian public university selected because of the higher weight of research performance indica-tors in its PMS compared to other universities. Eight out of fourteen departments were selected, and interviews were conducted with department heads and academ-ic staff. The study provides evidence of the impact of PMS on academics’ behav-iors. Findings highlight a high degree of criticism about PMS effectiveness and a different impact on academics’ behaviors. Furthermore, the study provides evidence of a specific gap between theory and practice. The literature has underlined the importance of the active involvement of professionals in defining metrics, while the case analysis suggests that department heads have been passive. The lack of involvement, therefore, favors the develop-ment of opportunistic behaviors and gaming that tend to increase the resistance to organizational change processes.
Keywords: Higher education, Performance measurement systems, University; Ac-countability, Professionals, Academic behavior

  1. Aversano N., Manes Rossi F., Tartaglia Polcini P. (2017), I sistemi di misurazione delle performance nelle università: considerazioni critiche sul sistema italiano, Management Control, 1, pp. 15-36., DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-001002
  2. Arnaboldi M., Azzone G. (2004), Benchmarking University Activities: an Italian Case Study, Financial Accountability and Management, 20(2), pp. 205-220.
  3. Basit T. (2003), Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis, Educational Research, 45, 2, pp. 143-154.
  4. Bevan G., Hood C. (2006), What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the english public healthcare systems, Public Administration, 84, 3, pp 517-538.
  5. Bertaux D. (1981), From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practice”, Bertaux D. (Ed.), Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences, London, Sage, pp. 29-45.
  6. Bouckaert G., Van Dooren W., Halligan J. (2010), Performance Management in the Public Sector, Routledge.
  7. Brenneis D., Shore C., Wright S. (2005), Getting the measure of academia: universities and the politics of accountability, Anthropology in Action, 12, 1, pp. 1-10.
  8. Burke J.C. (2002), Funding Public Colleges and Universities for Performance, Rockefeller Institute Press.
  9. Burke J.C., Serban A.M. (1997), Performance Funding and Budgeting for Public Higher Education: Current status and future prospects, Albany, NY, Rockefeller Institute of Government.
  10. Campbell D.J. (1988), Task complexity: A review and analysis, The Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 40-52.
  11. Cantele S., Campedelli B. (2013), Il performance-based funding nel sistema universitario italiano: un’analisi degli effetti della programmazione triennale, Azienda Pubblica, 3 pp. 309-332.
  12. Cassone L.A., Sacconi L. (a cura di) (2013), Autonomia e responsabilità dell’Università. Governance e accountability, Giuffrè Editore.
  13. Cosenz F. (2015), Una proposta metodologica di rappresentazione della performance accademica in chiave sistemica: l’applicazione del Dynamic Performance Management al governo dell’Università, Azienda Pubblica, 4, pp. 395-411.
  14. Cugini A. (2007), La misurazione della performance negli atenei. Logiche, metodi, esperienze, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  15. De Bruijn H. (2001), Managing Professionals, Routledge.
  16. Denisi A., Smith C.E. (2014), Performance Appraisal, Performance Management, and Firm Level Performance. A Review, a Proposed Model, and New Directions for Future Research, The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), pp. 127-179.
  17. Dougherty K.J., Sosanya M., Jones H., Lahr R.S., Natow L.P., Vikash R. (2016), Performance funding for higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  18. Eisenhardt K.M. (1989), Building Theories form case study research, The Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, pp. 532-550.
  19. Faulkner S.L., Trotter S.P. (2017), Data Saturatio, The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
  20. Fisher C., Downes B. (2008), Performance measurement and metrics manipulation in the public sector, Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 3, pp 245-258.
  21. Francesconi A. (1993), Il coinvolgimento dei professionisti medici nei processi di controllo di gestione, Mecosan, 5.
  22. Francesconi A., Guarini E. (2018), Performance-Based Funding and Internal Resource Allocation: the case of Italian universities, in Anessi Pessina E., Bianchi C., Borgonovi E., (edited by), Outcome-Based performance Management in the Public Sector, Berlin, Springer International Publishing AG, pp. 289-306.
  23. Freidson E. (2001), Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago, IL, Univ. Of Chicago Press.
  24. Heinrich C.J., Marschke G. (2010), Incentives and their dynamycs in public sector performance management systems, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, pp. 183-208.
  25. Gabrovec Mei O. (2016), Programmazione e controllo nelle prospettive dell’integrazione e della sostenibilità, in Mio C. (a cura di), La rendicontazione sociale negli atenei italiani. Valori, modelli, misurazioni, FrancoAngeli Editore.
  26. Gendron Y. (2008), Constituting the academic performer: the spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia, European Accounting Review, 17(1), pp. 97-127.
  27. Giuliani M., Marasca S. (2015), La valutazione della ricerca tramite indici bibliometrici: riflessioni da una prospettiva economico-aziendale, Management Control, 1, pp. 133-151., DOI: 10.3280/MACO2015-001006
  28. Grossi G., Kallio K.M., Sargiacomo M., Skoog M. (2019), Accounting, performance management systems and accountability changes in knowledge-intensive public organizations. A literature review and research agenda, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,, DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-02-2019-3869
  29. Hood C. (1995), The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2-3, pp. 93-109.
  30. Hopwood A., Tomkins C. (1984), Issues in Public Sector Accounting, London, Phillip Allan Publishers Limited.
  31. Jakobsen M.L.F., Mortensen P.B. (2016), Rules and the doctrine of performance management, Public Administration Review, 76, pp. 302-312.
  32. Kallio K.M, Kallio T.J., Tienari J. (2016), Ethos at Stake. Performance management and academic work in universities, Human Relations, 69, 3, pp. 685-709.
  33. Kallio K.M. Kallio, T.J. Grossi G. (2017), Performance measurement in universities: ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity in performance indicators, Public Money & Management, 37, pp. 293-300.
  34. Kettl D.F. (1997), The global revolution in public management: Driving themes, missing links, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 3, pp. 446-462.
  35. Lapsley I, Miller P. (2004), Transforming Universities: The Uncertain Erratic Path, Financial Accountability and Management, 20(02), pp. 103-106.
  36. Latham G.P., Yukl G.A. (1975), A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 18, pp. 824-845.
  37. Layzell D.T. (1999), Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education, Research in Higher Education, 40(2), pp. 223-46.
  38. Liefner I. (2003), Funding, resource allocation and performance in Higher Education systems, Higher Education, 46(4), pp. 469-89.
  39. Manes Rossi F.R., Bisogno M., Targaglia Policini P. (2016), L’intellectual capital nelle università: identificazione e comunicazione, in Mio C. (a cura di), La rendicontazione sociale negli atenei italiani. Valori, modelli, misurazioni, FrancoAngeli Editore.
  40. Martin B., Whitley R. (2010), The UK Research Assessment Exercise: a case of regulatory capture?, in Whitley R., Gläser J. and Engwall L. (eds), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp.51-80.
  41. Mio C., Granati C. (2018), L’Università: quali performance, come misurarle, come monitorarle, come rendicontarle, Impresa Progetto, 1.
  42. Modell S. (2003), Goals versus institutions: the development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector, Management Accounting Research, 14, pp. 333-359.
  43. Morrissey J. (2013), Governing the academic subject: Foucault, governmentality and the performing university, Oxford Review of Education, 39(6), pp. 797-810.
  44. Moynihan, Donald P. (2008), The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press.
  45. Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., Halligan, J., (2010), Performance management in the public sector, London, Routledge.
  46. Moynihan D.P., Sanjay K.P. (2010), The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information?, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 4, pp. 849-66.
  47. Noordegraaf M. (2007), From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism: Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains, Administration & Society, 39, pp.761-85.
  48. Osborne D., Gaebler T. (1992), Reinventing Government, Reading, Penguin.
  49. Osborne D., Plastrik P. (1997), Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
  50. Paolini A., Quagli A. (2013), Una riflessione sugli strumenti bibliometrici per la valutazione della ricerca e una proposta: il real impact factor, Management Control, 3, pp. 115-128., DOI: 10.3280/MACO2013-003007
  51. Parker L. (2002), It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: a strategic analysis and critique of university change management, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5-6), pp. 603-619.
  52. Parker L. (2011), University corporatisation: Driving redefinition, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, pp. 434-450.
  53. Parker L. (2012), From Privatised to Hybrid Corporatised Higher Education: A Global Financial Management Discourse, Financial Accountability & Management, 28(3), pp. 247-268.
  54. Parker L., Guthrie, J. (2005), Welcome to “the rough and tumble”. Managing accounting research in a corporatised university world, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(1), pp. 5-13.
  55. Pezzani F. (2001), Il ruolo dell’accountability nella società civile, Azienda Pubblica, 4.
  56. Pidd M. (2005), Perversity in public service performance measurement, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54, 5/6, pp. 482-493.
  57. Pollitt C. (2013), The logics of performance management, Evaluation, 19, pp. 346-363.
  58. Pop-Vasileva A., Baird K., Blair B. (2011), University corporatisation. The effect on academic work-related attitudes, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(4), pp. 408-439.
  59. Radin B.A. (2006), Challenge the performance movement, Georgetown University Press.
  60. Rebora G., Turri M. (2009), Governance in Higher Education: an analysis of the Italian experience, in Huisman J. (ed.), International Perspectives on the Governance of Higher Education, Alternative Frameworks for Coordination, Abingdon, Routledge, pp.13-31.
  61. Rubino F., Puntillo P., Veltri S. (2017), Il ruolo dei manager universitari in un’ottica di performance integrata. Analisi di un caso studio, Management Control, 3, pp. 95-122., DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-003007
  62. Stake R.E. (1995), The art of case study research, Thousand Oaks California, SAGE pubblications.
  63. Steccolini I. (2003), L’accountability delle pubbliche amministrazioni. Definizione, profili di classificazione, evoluzione, in Pezzani F. (a cura di), L’accountability delle amministrazioni pubbliche, Egea.
  64. Ter Bogt H., Scapens R. (2012), Performance management at universities, European Accounting review, 21, 3, pp. 451-497.
  65. Thorsen E.J. (1996), Stress in academe: What bother professors?, Higher Education, 31, 4, pp.471-489.
  66. Townley B. (1997), The institutional logic of performance appraisal, Organizational Studies, 18, 2, pp. 261-285.
  67. Tytherleigh M.Y., Webb C., Cooper C.L., Ricketts C. (2005), Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions: A comparative study of all staff categories, Higher Education Research & Development, 24, pp. 41-61.
  68. Van Dooren W., Thijs N. (2010), Paradoxes of improving performance measurement (systems), Public Administration, 2, pp. 13-18.
  69. Van Thiel S., Leeuw F.L. (2002), The performance paradox in the public sector, Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), pp. 267-281
  70. Yin R.K. (2014), Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 5 edition, Thousand Oaks Ca-lifornia, Sage Pubblications.
  71. Zumeta W., Li A.Y. (2016), Assessing the underpinnings of performance funding 2.0: Will this dog hunt?” New York: TIAA Institute. -- Available from: https://www.tiaainstitute.org/public/pdf/ti_assessing_the_underpinnings_of_performance_funding_2.

Andrea Francesconi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli, in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 1/2020, pp. 59-86, DOI:10.3280/MACO2020-001004

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche