Performance measurement for a better future

Author/s Hanne Norreklit, Lino Cinquini
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2024/1
Language English Pages 24 P. 15-38 File size 275 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2024-001002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Performance measurement has become increasingly crucial, encompassing both organizational and personal spheres. It assesses how effectively tasks are carried out and is pivotal in determining the value derived from these activities. Tradition-al approaches to performance measurement, rooted in representational realism or social constructivism, present limitations in ensuring trustworthiness. This paper proposes pragmatic constructivism (PC) as an alternative paradigm to enhance the reliability of performance measurement. PC posits that organizational practices are constructed by humans through cognitive processes and offers an epistemolog-ical framework for developing effective measurement systems and a foundation for intentional and valuable outcomes. The paper discusses the shortcomings of traditional paradigms, outlines the principles of PC, and demonstrates its applica-tion in evaluating the three existing measurement frameworks of financial accounting, the Balanced Scorecard, and sustainability framework of Global Report-ing Initiative (GRI).

Keywords: Performance measurement, Performance paradigm, Pragmatic constructivism

  1. Ahrens, T., C. Chapman (2004), Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: a field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain, Contemporary Research in Accounting, 21(2), pp.271-301.
  2. Arbnor I., Bjerke B. (1997), Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge, Thousands Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
  3. Armstrong R. (2019), Critical realism and performance measurement and management: Addressing challenges for knowledge creation, Management Research Review, 42, pp. 568-585.
  4. Baldvinsdottir, G., Burns, J., Nørreklit, H., Scapens, R. (2010), Professional accounting media: accountants handing over control to the system, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management.
  5. Baudrillard, J. (1981), Simulacra and simulations, in Crime and media (pp. 69-85). Routledge.
  6. Bebbington, J., Unerman, J. (2020), Advancing research into accounting and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(7), pp. 1657-1670.
  7. Bhaskar, R. (1975), A Realist Theory of Science, London, Verso.
  8. Carnegie, G.D., Gomes, D., McBride, K. (2022), COVID-19 and accounting as multidimensional technical, social and moral practice: a framework for future research, Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(1).
  9. Carnegie, G., Parker, L., Tsahuridu, E. (2021), It’s 2020: “What is Accounting Today?” Australian Accounting Review, 31(1), pp. 65-73.
  10. Cinquini L., Nørreklit H. (2015), “Management Control” Special Issue: Research perspectives in Performance Management, Management Control, Special Issue 2, pp. 5-12. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2015-002001
  11. Cinquini, L., Nørreklit, H. (a cura di) (2022), Gestire la performance con il costruttivismo pragmatico, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  12. Eco, U. (1999). Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition, Houghton, Mifflin Harcourt.
  13. Feyerabend, P. (1970/2010), Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge, London, Verso.
  14. Flower, J. (2015), The international integrated reporting council: a story of failure, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27, pp. 1-17,
  15. Foucault, M. (1972), The archaeology of knowledge, Tavistock Publications.
  16. Ghoshal, S. (2005), Bad management theories are destroying good management practices, Academy of Management learning & education, 4(1), pp. 75-91. GRI:
  17. Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H. (1976), Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp. 305-360.
  18. Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press.
  19. Kirkpatrick, G. (2009). The corporate governance lessons from the financial crisis, OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 1.
  20. Kure N., Nørreklit. H. and K.M. Røge (2021), Objective and results‐based management of universities: Constructing reality or illusions?, Financial Accountability and Management.
  21. Littleton, Ananias C. (1953), Structure of accounting theory, Urb, Ill., American Accounting Association.
  22. Mari, L. (2007), Measurability. In: Boumans, M. (Ed.), Measurement in Economics, London, Elsevier.
  23. Mauro, S.G., Cinquini, L., Malmmose, M., Nørreklit, H. (2023), University research by the numbers: Epistemic methods of using digitized performance measures and their implications for research practices, Financial Accountability and Management, Online.
  24. Merchant, K., Van der Stede, W.A. (2014), Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, New Jersey, USA, Pearson Prentice Hall.
  25. Micheli, P., Mari, L. (2014), The theory and practice of performance measurement, Management accounting research, 25(2), pp. 147-156.
  26. Miller, P., O’Leary, T. (1987), Accounting and the construction of the governable person, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, pp. 235-265.
  27. Mitchell, F., Nielsen, L., Nørreklit, H. and Nørreklit, L. (2013), Scoring Strategic Performance – A Pragmatic Constructivist Approach to Strategic Performance Measurement, Journal of Management and Governance, 17(1), pp. 5-34.
  28. Mitchell, F., Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Cinquini, L., Koeppe, F., Magnacca, F., Mauro, S. G., Jakobsen, M., Korhonen, T., Laine, T. Liboriussen, J.M. (2021), Evaluating performance management of COVID-19 reality in three European countries: a pragmatic constructivist study, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(6), pp. 1345-1361.
  29. Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Cinquini, L., Mitchell, F. (2024), Accounting for a better world: towards a conceptual framework to enable corporate reporting to contribute to the sustainability of the Good Life, Working paper.
  30. Nørreklit, H. (2017), A philosophy of management accounting: A pragmatic constructivist approach, Taylor and Francis.
  31. Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Mitchell, F. (2010). Towards a Paradigmatic Foundation for Accounting Practice, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(6), pp. 733-758.
  32. Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Mitchell, F., (2016). Understanding practice generalisation – Opening the research/practice gap, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 13, pp. 278-302.
  33. Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Mitchell, F. (2007), Theoretical Conditions for Validity in Accounting Performance Measurement, in A. Neely (edited by), Business Performance Measurement - Frameworks and Methodologies, pp. 179-217. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  34. Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Mitchell, F. and Bjørnenak, T. (2012), The Rise of the Balanced Scorecard! - Relevance Regained?, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(4), pp. 490-510.
  35. Nørreklit, L. (2017), Actor-reality construction, in A philosophy of management accounting (pp. 23-71), Routledge.
  36. Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Mitchell, F. (2017), The validity of financial statement measurement, in Nørreklit H., A philosophy of management accounting: a pragmatic constructivist approach, Taylor & Francis.
  37. Nørreklit, L. (2011), Actors and reality: a conceptual framework for creative governance, In M. Jakobsen, I.-L. Johanson, and H. Nørreklit (edited by), An Actor’s Approach to Management: Conceptual Framework and Company Practices, pp. 7-37, Copenhagen, DJOEF.
  38. Nørreklit, L.. Nørreklit, H., Israelsen, P. (2006), Validity of Management Control Topoi? Towards Constructivist Pragmatism, Management Accounting Research. 17(1), pp. 42-71.
  39. Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A., Spangenberg, J. H. (2019), Decoupling debunked. Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability, A study edited by the European Environment Bureau EEB.
  40. Pelger, C. (2016), Practices of standard-setting – An analysis of the IASB’s and the FASB’s process of identifying the objective of financial reporting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 50, pp. 51-73.
  41. Porter, T.M. (1996), Trust in numbers, Princeton University Press.
  42. Searle, J. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, London, P.
  43. Shearer, T. (2002), Ethics and accountability: from the for-itself to the for-the-other, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6), pp. 541-573.
  44. Sobkowiak, M., Cuckston, T., Thomson, I. (2020), Framing sustainable development challenges: accounting for SDG-15 in the UK, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(7), pp. 1671-1703.
  45. Sterling, R.R. (1979), Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income. Lawrence: The University Press of Kansas.
  46. Tinker, A. M. (1991), The accountant as partisan, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(3): 297-310.
  47. Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophical investigations, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
  48. Zhang, Y., Andrew, J. (2014), Financialisation and the conceptual framework, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(1), pp. 17-26.

Hanne Norreklit, Lino Cinquini, Performance measurement for a better future in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 1/2024, pp 15-38, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2024-001002