Virtual Special Issue: Institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector: “still confused, but on a higher level”?

Evgenii Aleksandrov, Nord University Business School, Bodø, Norway ([email protected]) 

Aziza Laguecir, EDHEC Business School, France ([email protected]) 

Sven Modell, University of Manchester, United Kingdom; NHH – Norwegian School of Economics Bergen, Norway; Turku School of Economics, Finland ([email protected]) 

Tobias Polzer, WU Vienna, Austria ([email protected])

This virtual special issue revisits and expands the debate on the relatively old but still never-ending “ultimate challenge” (Arnaboldi et al., 2015, p.1) of Performance Measurement and Management (PMM) in the public sector. The papers focus particularly on the role of the institutional theoretical perspective as a valuable lens to investigate this phenomenon.

Neo-institutional theory has become one of the main theoretical perspectives used to understand organisational behavior as situated in and influenced by other organisations and wider social forces – especially broader cultural rules and beliefs (Lounsbury and Zhao, 2013). While initial scholarship theorised and documented how the construction of broader cultural rules constituted actors and facilitated “organizational isomorphism” (i.e., the growing similarity of organisations in a field), the scope of the theory was subsequently expanded and today “[m]uch is going on in the big ‘institutional tent’” (Greenwood et al., 2018, p. 1). There has been a broadening of the agenda with the introduction of new concepts such as “institutional logics”, “institutional entrepreneurship” and “institutional work” (Alvesson and Spicer, 2019), as well as the attempt to revisit important concepts such as power, emotions and legitimacy from an institutional perspective (Greenwood et al., 2018). While neo-institutional theory is most closely informed by ideas and debates in sociology and management, it also draws from cognitive and social psychology, anthropology, political science, and economics (Lounsbury and Zhao, 2013). Considering such a broad theoretical progression, reflecting on how PMM research keeps pace with institutional theory(ies) is intricate.

The virtual special issue commences with Modell's (2022) opening paper (Paper #1) reflecting the one-sided application of institutional theory streams to PMM research. This opening paper has generated a set of four reflection papers in connection to institutional theory progression in and for PMM in the public sector (Paper #2: Polzer, 2022; Paper #3: Vakkuri, 2022; Paper #4: Kroll, 2022; Paper #5: Leca and Laguec, 2023).

Paper #1: Evaluating the progression of institutional research on PMM, Modell (2022) concludes that propositions and suggestions that he advanced more than ten years ago (Modell, 2009) are still uncovered to a great extent and that the current progression remains questionable. Particularly, Modell (2022) finds that concepts such as social legitimacy, isomorphism, decoupling, strategic responses, and institutional logics continue to dominate institutional research on PMM. While giving important insights into the PMM phenomenon, contributions have become more and more marginal, requiring new openings in accounting research informed by institutional theory (Modell, 2022). It could even be said that there is now a golden age of institutional research in PMM, raising the question of emancipation from the existing theoretical saturation and even overload. Giving new theoretical insights into PMM becomes thus extremely important, considering its role in the broader agenda of public sector organisations’ management and governance that face new agendas, including sustainability, crisis, and austerity management, along with nature-based and human-made disasters.

As a way forward, Modell (2022) proposes to pay more attention to creating a dialogue with other literature that can challenge existing knowledge by looking at how all PMM frames institutional logics and institutional arrangements in the public sector in general (as referenced in his earlier work in 2019; see also Bourmistrov et al. 2025). He expects this to open discussions on the constitutive role of PMM in institutional arrangements. Moreover, Modell (2022) suggests moving to new literature that might generate new insights from the sociology of valuation/valuation studies (e.g., Kornberger et al., 2015), hybridity (e.g., Grossi et al., 2017) and publicness (e.g., Steccolini, 2019) literature.

Paper #2: The first reflection paper by Polzer (2022) contextualises some of Modell’s (2022) observations against the backdrop of current developments in institutional theory (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2018). The key message is that being multifaceted, PMM indeed becomes part of the hybrid arrangements and related complexity that characterize today’s public sectors.

This complexity and the role of institutional theory should be further expanded via, first, the analysis of the emerging plethora of prevalent organizational forms in the sector (Meyer and Quattrone, 2021). Polzer (2022) suggests accounting for the plethora of different organisational designs in which PMM takes place, such as in network, meta, polycentric, hybrid, fluid and platform organisations. This is relevant as these organisational forms often encounter institutional complexity concerning values, logics, identities and professions. Second, examining the translation of institutional theory, Polzer (2022) notes that instruments of PMM are rarely introduced in isolation; instead, they simultaneously diffuse and are theorized in relation to other ideas and instruments within organizations, leading to an ecology of concepts. This raises new interesting questions. For instance, with what reporting systems does a newly introduced PMM instrument compete within a given institutional environment? Or what existing systems work as facilitators or filters when introducing a new PMM tool? Moreover, methodologically, Polzer (2022) proposes moving forward by using semantic networks to illustrate relationships between PMM instruments. He also points to the need to conceptualise institutions as multimodal accomplishments (e.g., Ronzani and Gatzweiler, 2022), e.g., considering the role of visual artifacts as communicative spaces when examining the organizational effects of PMM systems and practices. Yet, he also warns that such new intellectual bridges will require significant partnership efforts between disciplines.

Paper #3: The aforementioned is a starting point for the next reflection paper, where Vakkuri (2022) emphasises that PMM in the public sector is a vague, self-standing discipline with no unified common body of knowledge. Instead, PMM incorporates several different disciplines that, unfortunately, often do not communicate with each other. In this regard, he raises several puzzles to address understanding value creation in PMM and its links to hybrid institutional contexts.

First, research should become more cognisant of the role of the public in PMM (Steccolini, 2019) by integrating more sophisticated institutional theorising that incorporates publicness, the characteristics of politico-administrative systems, and public value into PMM discussions. For example, it would be worthwhile to investigate how the macro-level policies of governments influence the allocation of taxpayers’ money, thereby shaping the design and contents of PMM systems and practices. Second, research should recognize the limitations of our assumptions on how public sector systems work and operate in comparison with, in relation to, and in collaboration with other societal sectors and agencies. The impact of PMM research could be significantly improved by addressing the comprehensive role of PMM in different institutional contexts and in the wider society. Third, Vakkuri (2022) suggests expanding the notion of hybridity in PMM research via systematic dialogue and inter-disciplinary efforts. This includes examining performance-related topics by using hybridity as institutional conditions for the modes of operation, focusing on understanding the impacts of hybridity on PMM design, implementation and use. Moreover, hybridity may be used as a more profound conceptual framework for enabling the actions through PMM principles and schemes. Here, in particular, he calls for investigating the intricate interplay of value creation processes with and through PMM design, imagination, and enactment. This is because the enactment question raises concerns about how PMM interacts with institutional arrangements through mixing, compromising, and legitimising values.

Paper #4: Kroll (2022) continues the reflection on PMM by juxtaposing institutional theory with behavioural theories (e.g., Belardinelli et al., 2018) through a relational perspective. The key assumption is that institutional and behavioural theories focus on two different sites of analysis (organisational vs. individual), forgetting the in-between dimensions of groups of individuals and their collaborations in the development of PMM. Such a relational perspective is suggested as a bridge between two theory perspectives when looking at PMM practice. More specific, the relational perspective is concerned with collaborative routines in social processes and group dynamics that shape collective routines of selecting, defining, and using performance practices and metrics.

Kroll (2022) suggests that future research on PMM could investigate group decision-making, groups as networks and social processes within teams, as there is currently a dearth of PMM research applications. This is concerning, as, on the one hand, teams (and their relational properties) have been found to serve as vehicles that link the individual to the organisation and work groups are powerful prisms through which individuals experience the organization. On the other hand, he sees a way forward in linking sociology of valuation literature to the team level, as traditionally in PMM systems, value is assigned top-down through the definition of intended outcomes, reflecting significant power differentials and the interest of those who can dominate the public discourse. He argues that relational contexts can serve as laboratories to study the social construction of public value, i.e., how value is negotiated laterally in teams.

Paper #5: Finally, Leca and Laguecir (2023) expand this discussion to advocate for including more actor-centric approaches in the institutional analysis of PMM in the public sector. In particular, following concerns from Modell (2022) and the reflection papers on a one-sided view of institutional effects and logics on PMM. These authors highlight the limitations of traditional institutionalist frameworks, which often overlook the micro-level dynamics—specifically, the role of individual and collective actors in shaping, resisting, or transforming institutional practices.

By incorporating actor-centred perspectives, the authors suggest that researchers can better understand how actors navigate, interpret, and influence institutional norms and performance metrics. This approach emphasizes the dynamic interplay between structure and agency, offering a more nuanced understanding of PMM. Leca and Laguecir (2023) point to the case of decoupling as a central scene in structure, agency and PMM discussions. They suggest that actor-centric approaches, such as “inhabited institutionalism” (Bechky, 2011; Halett and Ventresca, 2006; Binder, 2007; Hallett, 2010) and institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) could allow theorising agency as a multi-dimensional phenomenon. As a way forward, the authors suggest fuelling the research on decoupling in PMM with these perspectives. This creates an opportunity to move from a non-monolithic to a more dynamic process and polymorphous phenomenon exhibiting different configurations. These authors suggest examining the complexity of interactions between PMM, agency and institutional pressures, where decoupling should be considered a dynamic processual rather than a dichotomous phenomenon with recursive relations.

Overall, this virtual special issue raises more questions than answers to the never-ending story of PMM in the public sector. The five papers remind us of the proverb “still confused, but on a higher level,” which has been attributed to the Italian nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi. Firstly, regarding the “higher level” part of the proverb, on the one hand, the papers converge on the idea that dialogue across academic disciplines is required to expand the knowledge about PMM in the public sector. As a part of the theoretical pluralism agenda, this can be achieved by mobilising complementary perspectives, such as valuation studies and publicness. On the other hand, there is consensus that future studies need to draw upon the recent evolutions of institutional research, as outlined above. Secondly, regarding the areas where research is “still confused,” several avenues are proposed. Suggestions here relate to the purposes of PMM (e.g., considering the role of hybrid values and forms of value creation (Grossi et al., 2024), the locus of PMM (e.g., investigating the relational character of PMM), the implications of PMM (e.g., coupling and decoupling), and methodological advances (e.g., multimodal research on PMM systems).

To conclude, one can claim that the (c)age of institutional theory and its progression also has become a (c)age for PMM research. Criticism has been raised that institutional theory has become increasingly vague with unclear boundaries and progression (Alvesson and Spicer, 2019). Conversely, based on the papers from this virtual special issue, similar criticism applies to PMM research. Breaking free from this (c)age and elevating research on PMM requires much effort. Two ways are seen how this can be achieved. First, it could be drawn on the multiple current streams of institutional theory. And second, there are claims to combine institutional theory with other theories, such as actor-network theory (e.g., Modell et al., 2017) – with the caveat that the supplementary theories have to be compatible, for example regarding their respective assumptions on phenomenology. Such effort is not only required from authors but also from session organisers, editors, and reviewers in journals in various disciplines – all encounters in these settings are important for how PMM research is advanced. In so doing, experimenting with the different streams of institutional theory should be embraced or tolerated to explore new theoretical and methodological advancements, including suggestions from the papers in this special issue and beyond.

The articles listed above are freely accessible from 20th March to 23rd April 2025.

References

Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2019), “Neo-institutional theory and organization studies: a mid-life crisis? Organization Studies, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 199-218. 

Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I. and Steccolini, I. (2015), “Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-22. 

Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., Sicilia, M. and Steccolini, I. (2018), “Framing effects under different uses of performance information: An experimental study on public managers”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 841-851. 

Bechky, B. A. (2011), “Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders”, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 1157-1167.

Binder, A. (2007), “For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics”, Theory and Society, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 547-571. 

Bourmistrov, A., Haldma, T., Kallio, K. M., Pettersen, I. J., & Skoog, M. (2025). Global warnings and the role of national filters in shaping formal governance of university performance. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Meyer, R.E. (2018), “Introduction: Into the fourth decade”, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Meyer, R.E. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage, pp. 1-23. 

Grossi, G., Laguecir, A., Ferry, L. and Tucker, B. (2024), “Accounting and accountability for managing diversity tensions in hybrid organisations”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 56 No. 5, p. 101470.

Grossi, G., Reichard, C., Thomasson, A. and Vakkuri, J. (2017), “Editorial. Theme: Performance measurement of hybrid organizations – emerging issues and future research perspectives”, Public Money & Management, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 379-386. 

Hallett, T. (2010), “The myth incarnate: recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 52-74.

Hallett, T. and Ventresca, M.J. (2006), “Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy”, Theory & Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 213-236. 

Kornberger, M., Justesen, L., Madsen, M. K., & Mouritsen, J. (2015). Making Things Valuable. Oxford University Press. 

Kroll, A. (2022), “Behavioral and institutional performance management theories are popular. Here is why we need to add a relational perspective”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-11. 

Lawrence, T.B. and Suddaby, R. (2006), “Institutions and institutional work”, in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B. and Nord, W.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, pp. 215-254. 

Leca, B. and Laguecir, A. (2023), “Expanding public sector performance measurement and management research with actor-centred approaches in new institutionalism”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 608-620. 

Lounsbury, M. and Zhao, E. Y. (2013), “Neo-institutional Theory”, In Oxford Bibliographies.

Meyer, R.E. and Quattrone, P. (2021), “Living in a post-truth world? Research, doubt and organization studies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 1373-1383. 

Modell, S. (2009), “Institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector accounting literature: A review and assessment”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 277-303. 

Modell, S. (2019), “Constructing institutional performance: a multi-level framing perspective on performance measurement and management”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 428-453. 

Modell, S. (2022), “New developments in institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 353-369. 

Modell, S., Vinnari, E., & Lukka, K. (2017), “On the virtues and vices of combining theories: The case of institutional and actor-network theories in accounting research.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 60, pp. 62-78. 

Polzer, T. (2022), “‘What is going on in the “big tent”?’ Current developments in (new) institutional theory and performance measurement and management research”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 137-145. 

Ronzani, M. and Gatzweiler, M.K. (2022), “The lure of the visual: Multimodality, simplification, and performance measurement visualizations in a megaproject”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 97. 

Steccolini, I. (2019), “Accounting and the post-new public management: Re-considering publicness in accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 255-279. 

Vakkuri, J. (2022), “PMM and beyond – reflections on the paper ‘new developments in institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector’”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 501-511.