Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts

Chenhall, Robert H., Hall, Matthew and Smith, David (2013) Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38 4: 268-287. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2013.06.002

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Author Chenhall, Robert H.
Hall, Matthew
Smith, David
Title Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts
Journal name Accounting, Organizations and Society   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0361-3682
Publication date 2013-01-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.aos.2013.06.002
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 38
Issue 4
Start page 268
End page 287
Total pages 10
Place of publication Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom
Publisher Pergamon Press
Language eng
Abstract In this paper we develop the concept of compromising accounts as a distinctive approach to the analysis of whether and how accounting can facilitate compromise amongst organizational actors. We take the existence of conflicting logics and values as the starting point for our analysis, and directly examine the ways in which the design and operation of accounts can be implicated in compromises between different modes of evaluation and when and how such compromises can be productive or unproductive. In doing so, we draw on Stark's (2009: 27) concept of 'organizing dissonance', where the coming together of multiple evaluative principles has the potential to produce a 'productive friction' that can help the organization to recombine ideas and perspectives in creative and constructive ways. In a field study of a non-government organization, we examine how debates and struggles over the design and operation of a performance measurement system affected the potential for productive debate and compromise between different modes of evaluation. Our study shows that there is much scope for future research to examine how accounts can create sites that bring together (or indeed push apart) organizational actors with different evaluative principles, and the ways in which this 'coming together' can be potentially productive and/or destructive.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: UQ Business School Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 30 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 36 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sat, 30 Jan 2016, 02:24:09 EST by Karen Morgan on behalf of UQ Business School