Making Intensity of Efforts the Same: Commensuration Work in Target-setting Practices

Abstract

Extant literature on target-setting indicates that responding to achievability-related criticisms towards ex ante targets through repair actions are of significance in restoring fairness and maintaining the legitimacy of performance systems. By drawing on empirical materials on responses to unfairness criticisms raised against target-setting practices in a bank, the study shows that such legitimation work also requires responding to equity-related criticisms. Equity implies that, when situations differ, targets must be differentiated to make the intensity of efforts the same. This study shows that legitimately differentiating targets requires an original and highly complex commensuration work. This work is original because compared to prior commensuration studies it concerns the commensuration of efforts and not of entities. This work is complex because it is difficult to account for all differences during target-setting and because such differentiation can be made mechanically and discretionally, each form of differentiation bringing its own source of illegitimacy. Moreover, it is also complex because it is a distributed work, involving numerous actors with multiple concerns. Such commensuration work then appears to be continuous and dynamic. This complements prior studies in target-setting, which have focussed mainly on dyadic relations between a superior and a subordinate and on single-period adjustments to targets.

Keywords:

• Commensuration work
• Equity
• Target-setting
• Legitimacy
• Fairness

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the insightful comments of two anonymous reviewers and Jan Gerdin.

Notes

1 The data-collection process was organized in four steps (see Table A in the Appendix). In the years following the research, the researcher kept in contact with different actors and was informed about changes to the system but did not play a role in this regard. However, in 2008, he facilitated workshops about possible changes. Additional data collected are not used in this paper, except from the epilogue.

2 This resonates with Merchant and Manzoni (1989), considering that targets are often less tight than motivational studies would have it, as other concerns such as planning or reducing the downside risk of exogenous factors also affect target setting.

3 It must be noted that achievability-related issues were never raised by salespeople when sales challenges were not challenging. The bank dealt with such situations by reducing the unit monetary value of production points to avoid paying an excessive amount of bonuses.

4 See also Giraud et al. (2008) who suggest that factors which negatively affect certain people are more prone to criticisms than factors that affect everyone. Huffman and Cain (2000) consider that flexibility is required to account for ‘circumstances for each particular individual’ (Huffman & Cain, 2000, p. 827).

5 It is also cheaper, as one reviewer noted, since it avoids ongoing personal involvement of managers.