Exploring the Persuasiveness of Accounting Numbers in the Framing of ‘Performance’ – A Micro-Level Analysis of Performance Review Meetings

Abstract

Based on a micro-level analysis of performance review meetings and drawing on an interactional framing perspective, this paper analyses the role of accounting numbers as ‘framing devices’ in discussions about performance. Analyzing interactions between superiors and subordinates, we examine how and why these two groups of actors mobilize different accounting numbers to make claims about performance and try to persuade the other party. Our interest is with the choice of accounting numbers and how they come to be seen as persuasive. The main theoretical argument developed in this paper is that whether a specific accounting number or indicator comes to be seen as persuasive or not in a particular situation is both a matter of how legitimate the underlying indicator is to the actors involved as well as whether they regard the signal it provides, i.e. the actual outcome on this particular indicator, as salient when compared to the actual outcomes on alternative indicators. Taken together, our findings suggest that persuasiveness is not an ‘objective’ quality of accounting numbers, but a situated achievement that results from interactive alignments between different actors with potentially competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the National Employment Agency and especially our contact persons for their willingness to participate in our research. We thank the participants of the research seminar at the University of Innsbruck in October 2013 for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the paper. We also acknowledge with thanks the comments from Matthias Mahlendorf, Andrea Mennicken (Associate Editor), and two anonymous reviewers. Simone Mack gratefully acknowledges support by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.

Notes

1 While in our setting diagnostic and motivational framing could be identified as dominant framing tasks, prognostic framing played a somewhat minor role. Empirically, this can be explained by the fact that within the organization studied, local units were granted responsibility and operative autonomy. We hence focus in our analysis on diagnostic and motivational framing and the role accounting numbers play in this context.

2 Although the structuring of our empirical analysis appears sequential, it does not mean, for instance, that in a motivational framing sequence diagnostic framing was entirely absent. Trying to motivate a subordinate to improve her/his performance, of course, also means implicitly that one has the view that her/his performance is suboptimal. Elements of a diagnostic framing may thus be implied in a motivational framing (and vice versa). The question, however, is which framing task or purpose is the prevalent one in a particular episode.

3 Amount paid to all supported individuals excluding the amount paid by the local governments for rent and heating.

4 Integrations divided by the number of claimants.

5 Claimants who received benefits for at least 21 months during the previous 24 months.

6 Calculated based on five processes.

7 Calculated based on 45 questions in the categories counselling, benefits, employees and general conditions.

8 In the following we use the term ‘superior’ in order to refer to both upper level managers (e.g. regional CEOs) as well as their respective management accountants who support them in the performance review process and due to their accounting knowledge often speak on their behalf in the meetings.

9 Some members of NEA even published articles in practitioner-oriented magazines about the importance of the target system within the NEA and target achievement as a prerequisite for a successful career within the organization. One article was entitled ‘Those who achieve their targets make it to the top!’