Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities – implications for work motivation

Abstract

The article focuses on the effects of management-by-results from the perspective of the work motivation of university employees. The study is based on extensive survey data among employees at Finnish universities. According to the results, performance measurement is based on quantitative rather than qualitative measures, and the current management-by-results system has a negative effect on work motivation among experts. The motivation to engage in creative, knowledge-intensive work, such as the work carried out at universities, is typically intrinsic. In the light of the empirical findings of the study it seems that management-by-results is in conflict with intrinsic motivation and the very essence of the expert work undertaken in universities.

• management-by-results
• performance measurement
• universities
• motivation
• New Public Management
• creativity

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Markus Grandlund and Timo Hyvönen for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the article.

Notes

Both authors contributed equally to this work.

For example, when the nation-wide performance-related pay system was introduced in Finnish universities, there were no essential budgetary increases to allow the reward system to work properly.

It should be noted that competition for students does not create significant ‘market pressure’ in Finnish universities. Unlike in many other countries, university rankings and league tables (see, for example, Briggs 2006) play only a minor role in student choice. According to Eurobarometer (European Commission 2009), only 6% of Finnish students (compared with 50% in the UK, for example) strongly agreed that university performance ranking would help them to choose where to study.

Also known as performance appraisal, employee appraisal and performance review.

Of the respondents, 53.9% were men and 46.1% women; 16.7% were full professors and the remaining 83.3% represented other teaching and research staff. Both the distribution of sexes and the numbers of professors represent well the overall distribution of the sexes and the proportion of full professors in Finnish universities.

There are a total of 16 universities in Finland, of which 10 are multidisciplinary.

Typical forms of quantitative evaluation in the Finnish context include the number of journal articles published, the number of citations, the number of credits and degrees, the number of teaching hours, and the amount of external research funding, whereas typical forms of qualitative evaluation include development discussions, feedback from peers/supervisors, awards for achievements in teaching and/or research, publication in top-tier outlets and academic positions of trust.

The ‘missing’ 5% of the respondents stated that research was not included in their work duties.

There were no statistically significant differences in responses arising from the respondents' position, university, field of science, faculty, or sex.