Performance Management as Practice and Knowing in Action:

Experimenting with Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice

S.M CHATURIKA SENEVIRATNE*

Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Sri

Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka and La Trobe Business School, Department of Accounting, La

Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia

E-mail: spseneviratne@latrobe.students.edu.au

ZAHIRUL HOQUE

La Trobe Business School, Department of Accounting,

La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic 3086, Australia

E-mail: z.hoque@latrobe.edu.au

*Corresponding author.

Performance Management as Practice and Knowing in Action:

Experimenting with Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice

Abstract

In this study, we empirically explore the externally imposed performance management

mechanism in its practical sense and how agent-micro processes impact on performance

management practice in a public university setting. Building upon the Bourdieu’s theory of

practice, our findings revealed that internal agents are significant as they possessed necessary

properties in the field where they operate to make effects in determining the practical

tendencies of enabling uses of performance management practice. Further, we document the

dialogue of the micro processual activities by highlighting the significance of exploring the

singularity of agents in terms of their viewpoints, trajectory, capital possession and position

occupy in the field who may not mechanically pushed or pulled by the external enforcements

in the fulfilment of imposition of performance management practice. Opening the non-

rationalist, non-conscious or non-strategic avenues, our study further contributes to the

literature by arguing that performance management as practice may operate beyond the

formal, calculable and abstract form in a public organisational setting.

Key words: performance management practice, field, capital, habitus, agents, public sector,

internal practices, practical knowledge, enabling control approach

Introduction

The focus of this paper centred on understanding the everyday practices taking place through

actor-micro processes which might form, sustain or interrupt the institutions and their

practices. Prior management accounting research informed by institutional theory has largely

overlooked this important phenomenon (Lounsbury, 2008; Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007). As

institutional theory-informed research scarcely focused on micro processes of organisational

practices (Ezzamel, Robson, & Stapleton, 2012), such concerns happen to intensify the scope

of institutional analysis which involves more penetrating investigation entailing agents and

practices (Lounsbury, 2008). Within the new direction of institutional analysis, the

heterogeneity and practice variation is considered recently (e.g.,Lounsbury, 2007; Lounsbury

& Crumley, 2007).

By highlighting the importance of brining the micro aspects in understanding the institutions

and its practices, Oliver (1991) depicts that the manipulation of the regulations may take

place as a result of the active response to the institutional pressures and it directed to

transform the contents of the regulations through tactics which are opportunistically explored.

Given the intent focus on capturing the micro level dynamics, Lawrence and Roy Suddaby

(2006) emphasize the significance of bringing the concerns of actors who may disrupt the

institutions and their social controls. Consistent with the past literature though it is

documented that pursuing legitimacy in organisational structures and practices are critical for

the survival and growth of organisations (Covaleski & Dirsmith, 1983, 1986), it is argued

that legitimacy may be determined as a result of managing diverse interests among different

constituents of the organisation (Pache & Santos, 2010). As a way to analyse the institutions,

giving a more focus on actors to understand foundation for practice variation, while some

management accounting scholars taken a strategic approach by viewing through the

instrumental rationality of which agents direct to divergences in their motives and

behaviour(e.g., Oliver, 1991; Westphal & Zajac, 1994), other researchers intended to focus

on the agents’ behaviour which is premised upon the institutional sources(e.g., DiMaggio &

Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

Within such depiction, nevertheless, micro foundations of neo-institutional theory (NIT) are

not explicitly revealed in the examination of organisational practices (Lawrence & Roy

Suddaby, 2006), there is a burgeoning interest in theorising accounting and institutions from

broader practice based perspective (Lounsbury, 2008). Thus, while bridging gap between

actor micro processes and institutions in contemporary accounting research, the practice

perspective opens up new direction focusing more on actor-micro processes which might be

instrumental to understand the different forms, logics and meanings attached to accounting

practices of the organisation. Accordingly, as a more comprehensive approach, a wider

‘practice turn’ (Lodhia & Jacobs, 2013) became become influential in contemporary

accounting studies(e.g., Ahrens & Chapman, 2007; Gendron, Cooper, & Townley, 2007;

Hopwood & Miller, 1994).

Given that, this paper is different from past institutional studies in management accounting

because the overarching aim of the study is to address the research gap pertinent to the

concerns and implications of actor-micro processual activities from practice perspective

which may operate beyond the formal, calculable and abstract form in a public sector

organisational setting. By bringing the importance of exploring the micro processes in the

management accounting research, current study argues the significance of understanding the

implications made by internal agents beyond the institutional theorists’ assumptions that

actors do not have real essence as they constituted by institutional arrangements (Lounsbury,

2008). To capture the real essence of the agents and actor-micro practices involving in the

PM practice, the current study deployed Bourdieu’s practice approach to explore how

management accounting practices are reconstituted, interrupted or perpetuated by the micro

processes of internal agents in a backdrop where institutional pressure is predominated.

Planning and controlling aspects of performance management system refers to formulate

strategy, set targets in relation to current performance, specify and prioritize operational

actions needed for implementation, and monitor whether the specified objectives are achieved

(Abernethy & Brownell, 1999; Bisbe & Otley, 2004; Simons, 1990, 1995). Therefore,

performance management systems are not only considered as a control device to assess

whether the planned targets/goals are achieved, but also to support formulation of strategy

and execution of operational actions (Wouters & Wilderom, 2008). Thus among

management accounting research which examines the dual roles of MCS, the enabling

control approach is extensively discussed with regard to PM empirically as well as

theoretically (e.g: Ahrens & Chapman, 2004; Henri, 2006; Widener, 2007; Wouters &

Wilderom, 2008).

In attempting to understand enabling use of management control systems, four underlying

generic features are identified namely repair, internal transparency, global transparency, and

flexibility that distinguish enabling (usability) from coercive (deskilling) aspects (Adler &

Borys, 1996; Ahrens & Chapman, 2004). However, still there is a lack of evidence on

understanding how enabling aspects are enlisted in performance management mechanism in

support of enabling/interactive use are impacted by individual differences, opportunism and

self-interest of internal agents in an organizational setting. Therefore, by moving beyond the

formal, conscious and strategic forms of control practices, this paper focuses on the actual

practice of performance management and how far desired forms of enabling controls of

performance management practice (Adler & Borys, 1996; Ahrens & Chapman, 2004) are

sustained or interrupted by diverse desires and specific practices of internal agents in a public

university setting. To understand the enabling control approach within the operation of the

strategy based PM mechanism and the persistent tendencies/counter-tendencies which may

evoke the enabling orientation in public university setting, this study specifically draws on

facets of enabling formalization depicted by Adler & Borys, (1996) and Ahrens & Chapman

(2004) where it appriporiates.

However, quite deviate from other organisational settings, particularly higher education

sector is significant here in two different viewpoints. On the one hand, over the last few

decades, the public university sector has experienced major modifications in span of the

activities, structures, processes, strategic focus, core values and relationships (Parker, 2002)

and they have adopted these changes in different degrees for their survival in the changing

environment. On the other hand, higher education sector is centrally premised upon the

unique atmosphere focusing on dominant knowledge values, thereby exposing to a growing

concern on unsuitability of importing of managerial techniques from the private sector to

public sector tertiary institutions instigating some radical arguments among the scholars

(e.g.,Christopher, 2012; Dillard & Tinker, 1996; Parker, 2002; Parker, 2011). In particular, as

the public university sector has a looser corporate ideology along with some concerns drawn

from the state-owned institutions being difficult to quantify and set-out clear objectives and

enforcing a decision is absolutely difficult (Pettigrew, 2014), it may bring micro implications

on control practices at different degrees in the public research setting. Within this backdrop,

there is paucity of accounting research which focuses on micro practices in understanding the

practice variations, practical logics, tensions and conflicting interests of actors who involved

in the management accounting practices in a public higher education setting.

The current study argues that internal agents who involved in management control practice as

focus of the study may be capable to produce effects and to constitute different forms and

meanings to PM practice in the field where they operate (Bourdieu &Wacquant, 1992, p.

107). Building upon this premise, the present research examines;

What are the internal micro processes by which organizational agents actually operate

performance management and how they opportunistically manipulate the imposition

of performance management, thereby impacting on enabling formalisation of the

performance management practice in an organization?

Theoretical Grounding

Bourdieu’s theory of practice is a multi-layered framework which conceptualizes individuals

as producers of social practices in social space while following specific logics of

practices(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Bourdieu explicates his practice theory by

summarising the interrelatedness between the three concepts as follows: Practice= (habitus×

capital) + field. Thus, ‘relational and interdependent thinking’ is fundamental to the

Bourdieu’s practice theory and there is no explanatory power if it is offered as three

theoretical notions as a stand-alone concepts(Swartz, 2008). In a sense, practice does not

merely a result of one’s habitus, but rather of relations between one’s habitus, power relations

and their current circumstances.

Habitus1 is the primary lens through which Bourdieu sees the social world (Grenfell, 2008).

In any field, people’s behavior or activities (what people do) is governed by array of

dispositions (practical senses) which is notably dubbed as ‘habitus’(Bourdieu, 1990). Habitus

is considered as practical feel for the game and the agents’ strategic actions are informed by

habitus in a given field which are not imputed by rational or conscious choice (Bourdieu,

1990), but generated by the habitus according the ‘practical understanding’ or "practical

1 In this study, habitus is considered in terms of dispositions, actions, perceptions of the agents pertain got the

performance management practice in the research organisation. Although the notion of habitus encompass all

the primary and secondary habitus of the agents, for the study purpose the focus is made on the specific habitus

of the agents in the research organisation particularly in engraining in the performance management

practices.(Kasper, 2009).

mastery2’ of the practice(Grenfell, 2008 , p . 54). According to the definition of habitus, it is

signified as a set of durable and transposable dispositions that are structured and established

primarily through a social connections between the structures prevailing in the social space

(habitus as “structured structure”) and correspondingly, social practices are produced and

structured by habitus of agents (Bourdieu, 1977). For Bourdieu, habitus is considered as the

matrix of perceptions, actions and appreciations which will facilitate to achieve the unlimited

diversifiable actions(Bourdieu, 1977). Even though habitus is structured, it is believed that

individuals as agents acting on the dispositions of the habitus and dispositions function

beyond an actor’s consciousness and deliberate control (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992). Hence, Bourdieu proclaimed that “habitus is source of series of the moves

which are [...] organized as strategies without being the product of a genuine strategic

intention(Bourdieu, 1977, p.73) . In that sense, Bourdieu uses the notion of strategy to denote

the active, creative nature of practices(Grenfell, 2008).

However, it is asserted that “practice cannot reducible to habitus, but rather a phenomenon

emergent from relations between social agents’ habitus and their contextual social fields”

(Grenfell, 2008, p.61). Bourdieu dubbed social space as ‘field’ and developed this notion by

conceiving it as a one way of examining human activity. The notion of field is conceptualized

as configuration of network, of an objective relations between positions (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992) that are hierarchically endowed with diverse types of capital(Oakes,

Townley, & Cooper, 1998). Those positions, networks and forces binding together form the

structure of power relations which attempts to acquire domination or resources over the field

(Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008). In understanding the field, doxa is denoted as a set of pre-

reflexive, commonly shared understanding but unquestioned, taken-for-granted, spontaneous

perceptions and opinions prevails across the social space by determining the natural practice

and sense of limits of habitus of the agents in the particular field (Emirbayer & Williams,

2005; Grenfell, 2008). However, agents who are in dominant positions in the field are granted

the power to mold or shape the doxic elements prevails in the social space what is supposed

to legitimate in the filed under consideration (see Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Wacquant,

1992).

2 To explain the practical understanding of the practice, Bourdieu used similar terms like feel for the game,

practical sense and practical knowledge of the practice.

As explained above, a key tenet to investigate agents’ power relations, the conception of

capital has been introduced. According to Bourdieu, capital is not merely restricted to

economic capital, rather it is perceived more comprehensively corresponding with the field

where it operate. Thus, different forms of capital or resources available to social actors

conceptualized in diverse categories such as economic capital, cultural capital and social

capital.(Bourdieu, 1986). Within this configuration, agents’ positions in a given field are

determined by the volume and composition of different capitals like cultural capital,

economic capital and social capital possessed by them. Firstly, social capital is asserted as

“the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue

of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual

acquaintance and recognition”(Bourdieu, 1986 , p. 88) (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p .119).

Generally, Cultural capital refers to different forms of knowledge, skills, and competencies

and Bourdieu stated three kind of cultural capital named as embodied, objectified and

institutionalized forms (Bourdieu, 1986).

Premised on the concept of capital, Bourdieu reveals the novel approach to understand the

way in which power operates within the social practices in the fields of struggles and

domination (Emirbayer & Williams, 2005). Within the field of struggle, Bourdieu and

Wacquant (1992) denote two different positions as dominant and dominated poles based on

the different combinations and amounts of capital associated with them. Being engaged in

sharply contrasting strategies, on the one hand, the overriding aim of dominant agents is to

pursue conservation strategies to preserve the hierarchical principles to safeguard their

positions within this hierarchy. On the other hand, by operating subversion strategies, the

aim of the dominated agents is to transform the existing system of authority to their own

benefits (Wacquant, 1998).

Contribution of the study

This paper contributes to the existing literature in three different ways. Extending the macro

and meso level observations, the current study particularly considers an analysis of micro

practices of diverse internal agents who possess necessary properties to produce effects on

PM practice in the specific setting where they operate (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992 , p .107).

Rather different to the existing literature on PM, the current paper strived to capture the

detailed analysis of internal agents’ singularity, their point of view or position” (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992, p.107) and power position in exploring how different forms and meanings

are attached to the PM practice in its practical sense. As the study probes into social practices

in its practical sense within natural setting, it compelled to open a non-rationalist, non-

conscious or non-strategic avenues’ in understanding the actual practice of PM in public

university setting. Given that, by drawing theoretical insights from Bourdieu’s theory of

practical actions, the study strived to capture the individual practices which could be operated

far from the normative structures and rule following (Grenfell, 2008) in the policy laden

context. Secondly, by bringing the micro aspects involved in PM practice, the current study

aims to capture the deeper understanding of diverse strategic actions of multiple actors in a

way of exploring practical tendencies of enabling formalization of PM which is scarcely

researched in a public organizational setting. Thirdly, Bourdieu’s practice theory (Bourdieu,

1977, 1990) was the main theoretical framework of the current study as it is useful in

providing the insights to deeply understand how practical actions are constituted of inter-

relatedness among the three concepts of habitus, field and capital in a particular social space.

Rather than limiting to a Bourdieu’s theory of individual (habitus), the current paper

perceives that agents’ individual practices are the result of relations between one’s

dispositions (habitus) and one’s position in the field endowed with a field-relevant capital

within the contemporary state of play in that social domain which is seldom used in

management accounting research (e.g. Baxter & Chua, 2008; Goddard, 2004)

Research Design and data analysis

The strategies of data collection are supported by the Bourdieu’s third methodological

guiding principle of participant objectivation which concerns the reflexive thinking in

bringing the practical knowledge from genuinely knowing the research object of the social

space(Grenfell, 2008 , p . 226). Being a member who belongs to the Sri Lankan university

sector, the principal author had immediacy with specific settings having a general

understanding of how the university operated in its daily activities, as well as of its

hierarchical configuration, functional varieties and the diverse interactions among all staff.

Thus, the background understanding of the social setting coupled with personal trajectories of

principal author pertinent to a case site with the reflexive orientation gave way to thoroughly

understand the research construction as it happens in the particular social space.

This study employed in-depth qualitative case-study (more ethnographic oriented) of a Sri

Lankan state university (henceforth Sigma) for a period of six months during 2014/2015. A

total of 353 in-depth semi structured interviews were conducted with diverse agents at various

hierarchical levels within the research organisation and to complete the interview, time varies

from 40 minutes to 120 minutes. The intention of designing these questions was to elicit the

latent and complex narratives of agents to which disclose their day to day experiences,

perceptions, interests power issues, and conflicting interests as they affect in the

accomplishment of PM practice in a university setting. The data were also generated from

observations from the natural setting where it operates were used as way of minimising the

threats to the validity claims on qualitative research (McKinnon, 1988). Being engaged in an

ad-hoc non-participant observations, it was likely to conceptualise myself as ‘active and

reflexive’ in the process of generating data pertaining to the place where it actually

happens(Mason, 2002, p.86). Interview and non-participant observational data were

supplemented by different archival records.

Thematic analysis is commenced as a pre-requisite to making sense, verifications and

drawing conclusions from the empirical findings. These themes were developed relating to

the in-depth understanding of the data generated from interview transcripts and field notes

during the course of field study coincided with the theoretical framework of the study. Once

themes have been finalised, templates were prepared for each and every theme to tag and

place the information from interview transcripts, observational notes, field notes, memos and

archival documents into the identified categories (Cresswell, 1998). To ensure that the

quality and rigor of the research object, all the themes across the data were identified

manually and different types of data were tagged according to thematic arrangements (Welsh,

2002). To fulfil the aims of making sense of data, verifications and drawing conclusion, data

was thoroughly interrogated and to build competing explanations and the interpretations in

the phase of data analysis, it was essential to have a continual iteration between theoretical

insights and the empirical data (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006). Thus, to bring the richness of the

phenomena under study (Lukka & Modell, 2010), the theoretical framework also become an

important guide in searching for the patterns among the coded field evidence, thereby the

3 Over the course of the field study, 35 in-depth interviews were conducted with the university members (32

internal interviews3) and the key policy level personnel (3 external interviews).

sense making process and drawing conclusions were essentially integrated with the

theoretical underpinnings of Bourdieu’s theory of social actions.

The research context

University Sigma is founded upon the public higher education sector and it is a one large

state university in Sri Lanka. At present, University Sigma operates under the enactment of

Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 and it provides powers to the University Grants Commission

(UGC) to intervene directly in specified university operations. This power covers a large

range of routine operational matters relating to decisions on courses to be offered, the

establishment of posts for academic staff, their appointment and promotion procedures, and

the appointment and location of administrative staff. While University Sigma is imperative to

comply with rules and regulations enforced by the UGC and Ministry of Higher Education

(MHE), the usual public sector financial regulations are also applied to University Sigma, as

interpreted by the Treasury and Ministry of Finance and Planning (MFP). As University

Sigma is a fully state owned university, more than 90% of the resource requirements are

supplied by government budgetary allocations. Academic and administrative functions of the

university as well as planning are taken by the official boards empowered under the

Universities Act of 1978 of Sri Lanka4. The governance structures of Sigma University

consists of four official boards named as Administrative Council, Senate (Academic board),

faculty boards and post graduate academic boards of the University. The decisions of these

boards are put into effect by various officers of the University and among them, University

Council is a primary governing body of the University Sigma.

Other than Chancellor, the main officers of the university are recognised in the University act

as vice chancellor, registrar, librarian, bursar (treasurer) and deans of the faculties. Vice-

Chancellor (henceforth denoted as VC) is a full time officer of the university and he is the

chief executive officer and principal academic officer therein who is entitled to convene, be

present and speak at any meeting of any other authority of the Sigma University. While VC

is appointed by President for a period of three years upon the recommendation of the UGC,

other faculty deans are internally appointed. A university Registrar has responsibility for the

administration and such structures are set out in the Universities Act No. 16 of 1978.

4 Universities Act - Part IX : Officers and authorities of a university college and their powers, duties and

functions

The degree of autonomy is central to understand the structuring principles and deep rooted

relations in contemporary Sigma university, because it is inextricably intertwined with the

agents operate in the filed under inquiry (Maton, 2005). Generally, the extent to which

organisation is in a position to shape their own values, internal logics etc. regardless of the

influence of political and economic fields is referred as a relative nature of autonomy. Since

University Sigma is governed and monitored by University Council which consisted of

agents who are originated from higher field of higher education, on surface there could be

strong positional autonomy in University Sigma (Maton, 2005). However, as Vice-

Chancellor of Sigma University is appointed by the President of the country, there is an

apparent influence from the field of politics in occupying the agents in university bodies.

Thus, at present the positional autonomy fluctuates between the strong and weak poles of the

field (Maton, 2005).

In contemporary research context, government increasingly consider higher education sector

as a policy lever in taking gradual steps to achieve “greater competitiveness within a

globalizing context” (Maton, 2005, p.695) in consistent with the president mandates of

Mahinda Chinthana5. Being influenced by policy reforms, Sigma University is increasingly

encouraged to adopt the mechanisms6 with the intention of creating high performing public

university to compete with the emerging private university sector. Since those initiatives are

associated with the ‘aims of efficient and competitive delivery to harness the political desires,

Sigma University become an instrument to serve political sensitive goals by signifying a

weaker relational autonomy(Maton, 2005, p . 699). With that sensibility, it is evident that at

present relatively Sigma University also has undergone a poor autonomous position in

deciding their own values, internal logics, etc. irrespective of the external fields like political

and economics.

The next section illustrates and analyses the PM practice in University Sigma.

From performance management to knowing in action

5 Mahinda Chintana - Vision for the Future, the Department of National Planning , 2010 6 Examples such as research assessment based incentives, quality assurance and accreditations, outcome based

performance management system, performance based funding systems etc.

Consistent with the government policy document, MHE propounded the National Higher

Education Strategic Plan of Sri Lanka7 to emphasize the initiation of the reforms in the higher

education sector of Sri Lanka. To reinforce these reforms under national HE strategic plan, it

was restructured the performance management mechanism with some novel features as

integral to create University Sigma as high performing University. Within the milieu where

the national strategic plan of the HME (2012-2016) is reinforced, the key strategic areas are

stipulated by MHE and performance management mechanisms is in place to ensure that

university is consistent with strategic management process of MHE.

Ensuring that University’s performance is at the cutting edge of relevance and quality in

terms of its teaching, learning and research, university is compelled to adopt all-inclusive

goal setting, annual performance evaluation and continues improvement as a vital part of

university-wide management control practice of university8. The university performance plan

is consisted of vision, mission, strategic goals/areas9, sub-objectives, strategic initiatives

(actions), measures and targets (key performance indicators) projecting for the next five

years. The strategy centred PM process is imposed by MHE to serve as the architecture that

allows all the agents to set expectations at the divisional level for the upcoming years and to

evaluate and discuss the progress of each area. Although it is anticipated that this type of

formal review will occur once in every five years, practically, the upgrading and updating

process is undertaken each year to reflect the periodic and unexpected changes arise in both

university and its institutional setting.

The diversity of practice work-out and diminishing trend in ‘repair’ in the phase of input

gathering

This section demonstrates the distinction of strategies pursued by multiple agents in the input

gathering phase and it seeks to provide empirics on whether bottom-top, experience based

decision activities are enabled to repair the development of detailed objectives during the

planning phase (Ahrens & Chapman, 2004; Wouters & Wilderom, 2008).

7 2012-2016-mid-term plan

8 priority is to reposition the Sigma University’s existing corporate plan and evaluation mechanism

9 Key strategic areas

Primarily, planning phase is facilitated by a special body called corporate planning

committee. Given that, a member of the corporate committee clearly stated that the

preparation process of performance plan could not be undertaken as independent task since it

should be consisted of expectations of different levels (such as individuals, departments,

service units etc.) of the university. While consistent with the key strategic areas propounded

by UGC, although the detailed goal-setting task is supposed to be accomplished by

incorporating the input gathered from the grass root level of the University as a preferred

way, the practical involvement of the academic departments remained at the minimal level.

Having such concerns, one committee member testified actual situation in the planning

phase:

However, according to my experience, I do not think our other staff members work on

these matters seriously. Another problem is that when we communicate deadlines to

provide information then they prepare the document very quickly and try to give

something. It may not be a realistic one. Sometimes are important things could be left

from the plan. We have concentrated more on those matters when we prepare the

plan. Otherwise important activities may not be attended (committee member-three)

Instead of incorporating the performance targets merely by relying on few people’s desires or

based on imaginary targets, the tremendous effort has been made by the committee members

to obtain the data from all levels of the University. However, the evidence shows that

academic departments tend to ignore the request and respond in a lethargic manner remained

at the poor level of participation. A senior member of the planning committee commented on

the general perceptions of academics what he encountered in the planning phase:

Some of our staff members have a negative attitude that, “this is a useless process and

we can’t operate such performance management mechanism in our state universities”.

[..] As I believe, the supporting or opposing is totally depending on the person’s

attitudes, or the way they perceive these matters. (Committee member one)

Extending the same line of inquiry, a one general academic claimed that; [...] they try to limit

our academic freedom’. We, as academics should have an academic freedom and autonomy;

we highly appreciate these values’. Further probing into action patterns of general academics

revealed that they bear the perception that adoption of performance measurement mechanism

could be detriment for academics’ autonomy what they enjoy in the present context and also

it might negatively affect to their current positions in the university setting. Hence, one can

argue that the social actions of the general academics are hardly emerged as mechanistic

obedience to the rules of PM practice in the University setting, but their actions are attuned

with the “creative rationale” what they pursued by stressing the unsuitability of PM for a

public university setting (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Kloot, 2009 , p. 473). Hence, the poor

level of contribution reflects the inconsistency of desires among the top management and the

general academics in the control process.

In the light of this wide spread negativity, another interviewee from top university

management expressed, ‘to achieve those targets, we should be pro-active to accept our

responsibility. But as I know academic departments do not like to accept this responsibility.

Within the contemporary changes in the university setting, although the autonomous

(relational autonomy) status was challenged due to novel enforcement to restructure the

controlling mechanism, agents’ habitus are hardly informed by such contemporary changes.

Accordingly, along with such widespread misconception on PM mechanism, ‘inertia’ in

agents’ habitus towards the successful accomplishment of the control practice is examined

(Bourdieu, 1990).

Although PM mechanism is adopted in the University Sigma to promote a performance-based

culture, the constructive contribution is hardly evident (Hurtado, 2010a) as academics’

actions, perceptions and appreciations were not attuned positively in the PM practice. Word

of many interviews signified how habitus of the agents is out of the conditions of

performance-based culture university as such constructive contribution is hardly evident in

the planning phase of the PM process in the university setting(Hurtado, 2010a). For

Bourdieu (1990), the mismatch of existing dispositions of the social agents and contemporary

social condition is asserted as ‘hysteresis’ (Grenfell, 2008; Hurtado, 2010b) and such

hysteresis effect is produced from the incompatibility between habitus of the general

academics in day-to-day PM practice and the pressing priority to proper in the current control

practice.

In terms of capital possession, generally departmental academics are endowed with the

institutionalized form of cultural capital refers as certificates, skills and knowledge10

alongside the intellectual capital, as Bourdieu asserted “scientific renown”11 primarily

associated with the scholarly reputation on the basis of research(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 10 This basically includes Batchelor degree, post graduate degree, professorships, and authored in numerous

publications etc.) 11 Scientific renown is referred to intellectual or scientific capital derives from a scholarly reputation and this is

not necessarily connected to position within the institution (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 76).

1992 , p . 76). Therefore, premised upon the sense of the public higher education field, the

institutionalized form of cultural capital and intellectual capital are considered to be

‘advantaged at the outset as the field depends mainly on the such forms of capitals’ (Grenfell,

2008 , p. 69). Since the cultural and intellectual capitals are frequently valued by social

agents who operate in the particular social space, it became symbolic capital in a field where

University Sigma operates. Given that, general academics in research setting are assigned

with symbolic authority grounded upon the specific form of capital and situated relatively in

a better position of a power configuration of Sigma to secure their own benefits of the field

and to enhance their stake in the social field under inquiry. Within this backdrop, academic

members became passive agents by imposing their doxa in terms of “how things should be”

within the practice of PM in an organisational setting (Kloot, 2009 , p . 472).

As the practical actions of the general academics are significantly influenced by the endowed

symbolic power and specific habitus emanated in a social setting under study (Vaughan,

2002 cited in;Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008), it often reveals a struggle to avoid the

transformation of the rules of the control practices that might potentially restrict the academic

freedom and the symbolic power enjoyed in the social setting under investigation. With

reference to the dispositions revealed in the PM practice and as they tend to challenge and

discredit the prevailing rule of PM practice having a less desirable to make the current

practice success(Wacquant, 1998), actions patters of general academics reflect the subversion

type strategies within the MC process.

As empirics revealed that with concerned to the concept of repair, the enabling logic in goal

setting phase is strived to be encouraged by opening the opportunities for agents’

participation in a way of contributing to the development of the specific line of

activity(Adler & Borys, 1996; Ahrens & Chapman, 2004). Within the enabling procedure,

planning is not necessarily implicated by hierarchical relationships in University Sigma, but it

enables the every level of agent to formulate suggestions for the improvement in

designing/updating the performance plan (Ahrens & Chapman, 2004). Accordingly, usability

approach is enlisted as way to be kept well informed of all the activities of employees having

being opened up for the discussions and to resolve university’s performance related problems

interactively with every level of employees (Mundy, 2010; Roberts, 1990; Wouters &

Wilderom, 2008). However, as they tend to be inactive by deploying subversion strategies to

change or transform the given control practice to their own benefit in a more opportunistic

manner, it practically reduced the possibilities to repair efforts of enabling logic in the

planning process during formulating/updating objectives, strategic activities and

performance measures in the research setting(Ahrens & Chapman, 2004).

Apart from the above line of inquiry, the action patterns, attitudes and perceptions of

University administration officers12 can be vividly differentiated from general academics in

the planning phase of PM practice. Several interviewees from the administration and

financial management positions shared similar kind of perceptions and understanding in

relation to their involvement in the planning process and it reflected on the prominence of

participating in the input gathering phase. The following account vividly illustrates how

different hierarchical dispositions influence the individual level actions in terms of what they

said and did (Vaughan, 2008).

In our faculty, I am responsible to provide the information to the committee. Within

our faculty, I provide all the non-academic staff related details to planning meeting of

our faculty. All the time I participate and give my fullest contribution to finalise the

planning matter especially from the non-academic perspective.

(Faculty Bursar-two)

The personal actions of administrative/financial officers are primarily originated as a product

of legitimacy circumstances made through enactment of financial circulars, guidelines, rules

and regulations in the University Sigma aligning with the official authoritative structures of

their social positions in the university hierarchy. A one administration member13 at the

faculty level shared a negative opinion: “[…] however all these documents are prepared with

in the given regulations and sometimes feel that we are stuck in those rules and regulations.

Mostly, we have to comply with those regulations since we are operating in a state sector

institutions.” As administrative/financial officers are laden with bureaucratic rule

following14in the public university setting, they become possessors of ‘bureaucratic capital’

and also ‘technically-based bureaucratic capital’ through acquiring ‘knowledge of

regulations’ and rationalised procedure pertinent to the control practices by positioning

financial/administrative positions over a longer period in the university hierarchy (Bourdieu,

12 This included middle and top level administrative and finance control officers in the university hierarchy who

are not dealt with any academic or research work.

14 Including budget preparations, budgetary reporting, minuting of financial deliberations, fulfilling budgetary

deadlines etc.

2005 , p . 117). As they are expertise in rules and procedures of the control and administrative

processes, financial/administrative officers are inevitably become possessors of the

significant amount of organisational capital (Bourdieu, 2005) with compared to other agents

in the organisational context. Mostly, the interview had with administrative/financial officers

clearly manifest the nature of dispositions, which have been produced positively to ensure the

continuity of the control process smoothly in accordance with the imposed rules and

guidelines by UGC/MHE.

Encountering different junctures of control, an administrative inclined to share their

disappointment with regard to the difficulty of convincing the general academics to get their

participation towards the control practice by proclaiming that, “I cannot understand why

academics do not provide the necessary information. For example, academics do not tend to

disclose about their intended publications. Academics always think that why should they

listen to our requests?”. According to the given empirics, due to symbolic authority of

general academics in a specific context, regardless of the capacities endowed with

bureaucratic and organisational capital, administrative/financial officers may not in a position

to exert an influence on social practices of general academics to realise the imposed criterion

in the PM process. Accordingly, as they had to follow prescribed action patterns, they are

exposed to limited liberty in choosing their own actions(King, 2005). Thus, being positioned

relatively at the dominated poles of the power configuration, administrative/financial

officers’ actions may reflect successive type strategies to safeguard their exiting position in

the university setting with the inclination to closely follow the rules of PM practice

(Cvetičanin, 2012). While administrative/financial officers are having less capacity to

influence on actions of general academics in preparing the performance plan of a specific

setting, general academics possessed with the symbolic power in the specific setting having

more capacity to act upon their discretion in goal setting phase.

As the practical actions of financial/administrative officers are directed and channelled by

legitimacy with the limited liberty in selecting their own actions (King, 2005), the specific

array of dispositions are persuaded to facilitate the tendencies of enabling control approach

during the goal setting phase. Thus, primarily being informed by bureaucratic capacities

situated at dominated positions, financial/administrative officers are revealed as a group who

tend to respond actively to institutional pressure rather by fulfilling the impositions pertinent

to PM process in the university hierarchy. While subversion strategies emanated from the

departmental agents inclined to obstruct the attempts of mobilizing the departmental agents’

intelligence in the detailed goal setting phase (Adler & Borys, 1996), the practical actions of

financial/ administrative officers reflect a propensity to enable the usability approach through

the active involvement in searching, discussing and and learning opportunities in the line of

their experiences (Wouters & Wilderom, 2008).

Domination over planning phase and increasing counter-tendencies of usability approach

The account below illuminates how strategic actions of key university agents exacerbate the

goal conflict in the finale phase of performance plan and in what ways coercive logics are

constituted as a result of strategic doings of powerful agents in acting upon the imposition of

performance management practice.

Irrespective of an integral function lies with the committee, whether committee members are

given an appropriate power and liberty to prepare the performance targets and strategic

actions is questionable. However, discussions had with corporate committee revealed that

while inspiring key university agents, it is a challenging task to coordinate and re-formulate

the objectives, measures and strategic actions into a realistic plan. The words lend from the

committee member revealed that, “At the final stage we struggle to submit the document

which depicts realistic objectives to the greater extent”. Within this effort, an emphasis was to

incorporate the attainable goals as the actual outcome is evaluated by the MHE. While

recognizing the faculty level expectations, the tension of re-formulating the faculty level

control measures consistent with the government policies and to increase the capabilities of

University Sigma is exemplified by a committee member.

Not like early days now there is a severe intervention from the ministry. So, we have

to think about the planning of our objectives and performance measures seriously.

Since funds will be released based on the actual outcome what we reported to the

ministry, we are responsible not just to include the targets, but to achieve the targets

as we forecasted. Otherwise, UGC may hold the money making a problematic

situation to continue the prospective work. (Committee member-three)

Although faculty level targets are submitted to the planning committee, there could be

overlaps across faculties, incompatibility with strategic properties and incomplete

information pertaining to the given objectives. Eliminating any inconsistencies of

goals/objectives and any gaps in the divisional plans, committee has to complete the final

document according to the stipulated strategic priorities with the involvement of faculty

deans and the faculty representatives. Within this effort, although rationale choice is essential

in determining the performance targets adhering with the vital criterion like key strategic

areas and potential funding constraints, it could be overlooked by key university agents who

tend to pursue actions in ways that reflect their own interest (Gomez, 2010; Swartz, 2002). A

member of the planning committee made on a critical note:

Another problem is our targets are over estimated. This document is prepared to

satisfy particular group rather than addressing the actual needs of the university.

Sometimes I feel that these figures represent some other’s intentions, not university’s

real intentions.

(Committee member- five)

In certain instances , as particular action patterns of key university agents surrounded by the

personal preference which are adapted according to the opportunities provided by the

specific organisational setting(Swartz, 2002), the dispositions of key university agents are

emanated without being a product of clear, conscious or logical rationale in the setting

objectives in specific context under study (see Bourdieu, 1977). Lending more words from an

interview with a faculty administrative officer15 shared her opinion on how top faculty

personnel tend to include some performance targets that may not directly support to attain the

University aims, but to cherish the personal ambitions which might exacerbate completing

interest in the university setting. Corroborating with the above theoretical views, committee

member further depicted when choosing the appropriate objectives and strategic actions, how

key university agents strived to satisfy the desires of the policy level officers regardless of the

intentions to increase university capabilities. Given that, a one can argue that the underlying

reason of such actions reflect the aspiration to uplift the performance of certain strategic areas

of their faculties which might simultaneously pursue their own interests.

With regard to key university agents, as it seems that series of actions in the planning phase

lean upon their habitus to stimulate not the genuine strategic intentions with the focus of long

term optimum solutions (Bourdieu, 1977, p.73) , but to entertain the policy makers in the

review meetings. In a one instance, key university agent stressed his commitment toward the

enhancement of faculty performance, “I always like to see our results. I don’t want to lose

anything what we have ready developed”. Premised upon the strong sense of how things

operate in the specific field through his experience, the practical actions could be produced

informal ways with the firm determination of enhancing the faculty performance anyhow to

fulfil the government objectives (Swartz, 2002). However, it might subsequently cause to

develop their personal credibility and social capital through enhancing the networks with

external policy level personnel in the backdrop where diminishing autonomy is revealed

(Lodhia & Jacobs, 2013). A top-level administrative officer made clearly about the pressure

they confront in performance review meeting at the MHE when they fail to achieve the

performance targets stated in the plan:

Most of the instances when we participate in the performance review meeting, we feel

severity of failure in realizing our targets as ministry expected. By participating in

those meeting, we experienced the harshness, feel embarrassing when we failed to

report the outcome as we targeted, but others may take this task very lightly.

(Administrative officer one)

Although PM process is organised to promote the discussions with the sense of strategy and

forward-looking and to emphasize the learnings (Tuomela, 2005; Widener, 2007), in actual

action, there is a likelihood to suppress organisational priorities and long term strategic

objectives due to irrational and unconscious choice of key faculty agents who have

propensity to promote the personal agenda in the planning stage. Under the imposition of

institutional pressure to formulate the objectives with the stipulated key strategic areas,

although certain areas are not explicitly attached with strategic importance essentially

contributing to make an enhancement in the university capabilities, the key university agents

inclined to promote those objectives which are highly attractive to policy level officers of

MHE. By doing so, there is a potentiality to increase their personal credibility through

excessively satisfying the policy makers in the backdrop where institutional pressure

predominate. As the individual actions emanated from unconscious ways without necessarily

supported by the genuine strategic intentions (Bourdieu, 1977, p.73), it reflects the

opportunistic engagement in the planning phase with the intention of preservation or

enhancement of the existing positions in a context where university autonomy is deteriorated.

By doing so, although the relevant performance measures are meant to be derived from the

key success areas, objectives and strategies pertinent to the University’s overall strategic plan

(Ferreira & Otley, 2009), it could be overlooked by the actions of powerful agents who may

rather ignore the strategic intention of producing the performance measures. Similarly, a

negative sentiment was expressed by a one senior member of the committee who complained

the difficulty of convincing the top faculty members in the performance committee who are

not much serious about being with the stipulated principles.

According to faculty dean emphasized, due to specific nature of public sector institutions

which is correctly termed as degree of taken for granted awareness, the significance of

upholding the diverse social contacts is recognised as means of increasing the capabilities of

the University Sigma(Swartz, 2002). Thus, despite the rules of PM practice, top agents’

practical actions are inscribed within the property of regularity of the given organisational

field and those are rather informed by the implicit acquisition of generative principles

engraved in the social position where they are situated in an organizational power

configuration(King, 2005). In keeping with the importance of having social networks, faculty

dean remarked how it helps to realize the university objectives:

When we operate in public sector, if we do not have a social exposure, the achieving

of the targets is not easy. As I believe if a leader of the institution is equipped with the

proper links, it will be really beneficial to the institution massively in every aspect.

Actually, without having proper links I can survive in my position, but I cannot

develop my faculty. (Faculty Dean-two)

Corroborating with the fact that if the agent is situated in the best established positions,

possessed with best relations with the most powerful people in the society and the most

favourable distribution of capital, he will be advantaged” (Golsorkhi, Leca, Lounsbury, &

Ramirez, 2009, pp. 782-783), faculty deans are more advantaged in PM practice. Hence,

throughout the controlling process, faculty deans are excessively enable in interpreting their

desires, willingness to talk and to convincing others in the planning meetings (Vaughan, 2008

, p .76) to realize their desires within the planning phase. Although the social position in the

organisational power structure recognised as crucial in those negotiations, it might trigger

some conflicts of interest among the agents not only in planning phase, but also in the

subsequent phases of the PM process in the social space under consideration. Predominantly

relying on the academic capital, a faculty dean expressed how he used his power to dominate

faculty members in getting their participation in the PM practice:

I was arguing with all faculty members, sometimes feel like fighting to convince

about our performance and standard. Nevertheless, the getting their consent was so

difficult. [..]I used so many short cuts to handle the issue. Somehow I suppress those

negative ideas of the faculty members using my strategies. (Dean-one )

In particular, key faculty agents are strong in terms of academic capital which is acquired and

upheld by taking a top position in management hierarchy of the university that enables

domination of other positions and their holders of the given organisational context (Kloot,

2009, p. 474). Such academic capital16 of the key faculty agents is mainly depend on the

principle of legitimation corresponds to the organisational hierarchy fairly aligned with the

social power (Kloot, 2009). Besides the academic capital, as top university agents also

endowed with the high ranked educational and research profiles, they are rich in terms of

institutionalized form of cultural capital and intellectual capital respectively, the most

valuable forms of capital which may assigns symbolic power in the field under inquiry.

Taken together, by analysing comparative power capacities and pattern of personal actions

during the PM practice, key university agents can be assumed as ‘dominant positions’ in a

social space under study. Within the power configuration, as the key university agents are

considered as dominants who possesses significant volume and composition of capital

relatively to the general academics, general academics could be situated fairly at weaker

position in the power configuration. Therefore, by analysing the power position and the

subversion type strategic actions, the agents considered under general academics could be

reasonable to recognise as ‘dominated dominants’ in the contemporary context of the

research organisation.

As goals, strategic actions and performance measures are mostly designed or updated through

a learning and idea creation process with the interactive participation of the top management

and the planning committee members of the University setting (Abernethy & Brownell, 1999;

Burchell, Clubb, Hopwood, Hughes, & Nahapiet, 1980), the usability approach is

superficially evident in performance planning phase (Adler & Borys, 1996). In particular, top

university agents tend to involve actively by bringing different set of information about their

faculties with the indication of organizational priorities and performance objectives followed

by new strategic actions, which could inevitably assist in deriving the knowledge for the

planning committee to progress the strategic plans (Ahrens & Chapman, 2004; Bisbe &

Otley, 2004; Simons, 1995; Wouters & Wilderom, 2008). However, by doing so, whether the

participants are enabled in contributing truly to formulate and evaluate suggestions for the

improvement of university is doubtful as their suggestions became superfluous within the

usability approach (Adler & Borys, 1996). Given that, although the concept of enabling

control approach is superficially is promoted, due to practical actions self-centred agents who

opportunistically engaged in the planning phase, the optimal engagement to enlighten the

intellectual discussions in performance planning are poorly revealed. Accordingly, the repair

of the enabling formalization enlisted in planning phase of the PM could be rather

weakened by the specific actions of key university agents (Ahrens & Chapman, 2004).

Developing counter-tendencies on formalization of enabling orientation

This section offers evidence on how practices of the multiple agents who are situated in

diverse positions of a power configuration develop counter-tendencies in the visions of

enabling orientation of managing, monitoring and continuous evaluation phases of the PM

process.

To achieve the results beyond its expected KPIs (target levels), top officials tend to negotiate

official rules in way to reflect their desires in a specific setting under study (Swartz, 2002, p.

625). Though University Sigma is embedded in a public university setting restrained by

institutionally imposed rules, still the dispositions of agents are emanated to realize the

intended aims in the PM process without being mere conformists to such institutionally

imposed constrains (Lamaison & Bourdieu, 1986). With that sensibility, it is clear that

relying on his personal capacities, how institutionally enforced constraints are overlooked by

top faculty agent to achieve the given targets is asserted as, “Even though I confront

obstacles, strategically those obstacles can be avoided. As I believe, we can avoid such

barriers and for leaders, there are no such obstacles. That is my philosophy”.

Given the present thought of faculty dean, a one can argue that the possibility of achieving

the given targets is fairly linked with an individual’s power capacity which predominantly

lies with the position where agent is situated in the organisational power configuration.

Persuaded by these insights, a senior administrative officer17 recounted how practical

capacities of dominant agents are reinforced by diverse social networks (social capital) to

initiate the targeted activities at the personal level without restricted to governmental

resources in the university setting. He reflected on a critical note that, “Even though there is

an official mechanism to get the things done, due to power and network, there are alternatives

ways to accomplish the given targets.” Rather than purely constrained by the limits enforced

by the government authorities, agents deploy appropriate strategic actions founded upon the

‘strong sense of practical mastery’ on ways of achieving the desirable outcomes consistent

with the pre-planned targets of the university plan (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992,

p.122).Thus, within the day to day functions, agents could produce range of perceptions,

appreciations and actions (Baxter & Chua, 2008) which make sense for the given situation,

and to expedite the attainment of desired level of results as it is expected without being

conformists to the rules, norms and procedures given in an organisational setting (Bourdieu,

1990).

It is clear that being an agent who possessed relatively larger volume and composition of

resources in the Sigma setting, faculty deans are at strong social positions inevitably

assigned with greater liberty to find alternative funding sources to extend their practical

capacities in realising intended plans in the day to day activities. Once a senior

administrative18 officer exemplified that rather by overseeing the strategic objectives of

performance plan, there is a tendency to act irrationally to safeguard their personal image in

the performance review meeting. By sharing negative sentiments, he spelt-out:

At present Ministry makes special attention on the areas like employability and world

ranking and enforces university to achieve the intended outcome. Personally I am not

happy about such indicators. So my concern is ‘do we need to spend huge money on

what university does not really want to achieve’?

(Administrative officer-one)

In a similar tone, bursar indicated how key university agents pursue practical actions in a way

to reflect their own desires which might not necessarily nurture the university aims, but

satisfy politically inspired ambitions of external individuals. In the backdrop where university

becomes a lever to achieve the political desirables, key university agents tends to achieve the

outcome excessively regardless of its repercussions to realise the outcome of other important

key results areas and genuine strategic intention to enable the functions in facilitating the

corporate objectives (Bourdieu, 1977).

When one closely examines this situation, the rationale behind such non-strategic initiatives

is not only to prosper the intended outcomes under stipulated key result areas, but also to

entertain the external policy level officers19 at the performance review meetings with the

19 Policy level officials are the individuals who are actively engage in the strengthening the strategic

management process in state university and primarily such performance management process is initiated by the

propensity to preserve in the specific field. However, the actions deployed in a more

opportunistic manner could positively facilitate the obtaining of more finances for the future

projects through satisfying the policy makers. Thus, the practical sense of actions in the

achieving the intended outcome is not understood merely by reducing to the actions of

agents, but such practices are constituted as a “compromised outcomes” (Swartz, 2008 , p .

48) of the whole complex phenomenon armed with diverse power relations in their stances of

the research organisation.

According to Adler and Borys (1996), the enabling formalisation could be encouraged as

agents are expected to deal efficiently in achieving the enhancement of organisational

capabilities and taking spontaneous decisions in inevitable contingencies. With referred to

the global transparency, through deploying detailed strategic plans, control plans, action plans

and KPIs, it is expected that agents are aware of specific tasks according to the organisational

significance and everyone would perform specific tasks as prioritized previously(Ahrens &

Chapman, 2004). However, quite differently, such detailed strategic plans, control plans and

action plans etc. are overlooked by the doings of powerful agents which are deployed

haphazardly to fulfil excessively the certain strategic areas imposed by MHE which might not

necessarily aligned with the wider organizational significance as prioritized previously.

Hence, one can suggest that the enlisted usability approach in performing the day to day

activities could be manipulated as powerful agents inclined to pursue actions

opportunistically to fulfill the imposition of PM practice rather ignoring the priority of

implementing the tasks as recognized in university plan (Ahrens & Chapman, 2004).

Sigma University operates an internal mechanism to review the actual level of performance

against the expected level of performance. As agents are well aware of the specific activities

to be undertaken according to organizational significance, departmental performance is

specifically supposed to be reported at the end of each month aligning with the given

strategic initiatives. Although it required providing the status of actual outcome, there could

be instances where departmental performance might not be conveyed appropriately. A

member from the reviewing committee expressed how monitoring function could be

weakened due to inadequacy participation of departmental members and how academic

agents became passive participants as they tend to simply ignore the significance of reporting

people who are politically appointed and having political biasness and close relationships with the current

political party which govern the county.

their actual outcome in the reviewing phase in providing the status of their actual

performance.

A committee member explained the confusions that they encountered in determining the

actual level of KPIs against the planned level of performance. In the absence of precisely

defined mechanism to measure the actual performance, there is a tendency to apply

mechanisms in deciding the actual outcome in non-rationale ways to exaggerate actual level

of KPIs by creating a positive image about the faculty performance. By doing so, they

inclined to validate the mechanism what they used in deciding the actual level of performance

to the monitoring committee. As Adler and Borys (1996) depicted that enabling procedure is

concerned with the deviations “which are not only as risks but also as learning

opportunities”(p.74). However, as the actual performance is not properly reported by the

departmental agents, there is a difficulty of finding not only exceptions and deviations from

pre-set targets, but also to identifying learning and future development opportunities in

promoting the enabling formalisation in the reviewing phase (Mundy, 2010; Tuomela, 2005).

Within such enabling control encouraged context, although the committee members assume

that top university agents endowed with appropriate skills, training and capabilities regarding

the involvement in the decision making process(Adler & Borys, 1996), rather diluting the

such uses, their actions deployed in irrational ways without necessarily making positive effect

on the reviewing process(Adler & Borys, 1996). Further, as the key university agents are

primarily informed by the desires to report the higher level outcomes in relation to their

respective faculties without actually carrying any intention for learning opportunities, their

actions become distrustful in the reviewing process without inevitably encouraging the

enabling formalisation during the performance review meetings. Hence, the above evidence

reflects that the formalisation of enabling control approach is negatively influenced by the

key university agents at the practice level, although it has been developed with the extensive

participation of the top university management interactively in the reviewing phase of

performance plan of University Sigma.

Conclusion

Consistent with the aim of better understanding the impacts of agents’ specific practices on

performance management, the discussions concluded that institutionally imposed

performance management mechanism are manipulated by specific actions and conflicting

interests pursued by agents in University Sigma. Consistent with Adler and Borys (1996) and

Ahrens and Chapman (2004), although the findings supported the visions of enabling

controls entrenched in the structural formalization of performance management primarily

associated with identifying improvement opportunities, assist prioritizing activities and

identifying problems etc. (Wouters & Wilderom, 2008), the current study empirically found

that such enabling controls are more likely to be undermined due to opportunistic practices

and self-centred power actions emanated in a public university setting.

The findings from the current study iterated with Bourdieu’s assertions of practice theory,

which illustrated regardless of the dominant or dominated position in the power

configuration, agents became significant possessing necessary properties to be effective and

to produce effects in responding to the imposition of PM practice in a public university

setting (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Although agents become significant in producing the

effects on the operation of PM practice, it could be seen a distinction between the strategies

stem from the agents who occupy diverse positions in a power configuration of research

setting by way of responding differently to the institutionally imposed PM practice. By

deploying specific array of practical actions, key university agents became crucial as most

dominant agents in the research setting. Although key university agents had a persistent

commitment in fulfilling the impositions of PM practice, their strategic actions emanated

quite opposed to the conscious and strategic ways over a diverse phases of PM (Bourdieu,

1977). By doing so, such actions are pursued opportunistically primarily being centred on the

self-interest with the overriding aim to safeguard or even to enhance their position in the

university hierarchy within the backdrop where institutional pressure predominate

(Emirbayer & Williams, 2005). Quite differently from the key university agents, by

positioning fairly at the dominated poles in the power configuration and exposing to the

limited capacity in selecting the individual practices, the successive type strategies are

reflected pertinent to the administrative/finance agents during the pervasive engagement in

responding actively to prevailing institutional pressure in research setting (Cvetičanin, 2012).

It is indicated that as general academics (department level agents) tend to challenge the extant

rule and procedures with the intention of transforming the PM practice to their own benefit in

a given field (Emirbayer & Williams, 2005 , p . 702), the subversion strategies are developed

opportunistically rather incompatible with the organizational interests by way of responding

to the institutional pressure.

Despite the desired forms of enabling control tendencies of performance management

practice, the micro forces stem from the strategic actions of organizational agents became

significant as they constitute a propensity towards the weakening forms of enabling controls

of performance management in the context where diminishing autonomy is evident.

Although MHE stipulated the key strategic areas, the flexibility of formulating the respective

strategic objectives and performance measures is given to every level of organizational agent

not necessarily relying on the hierarchical relationships(Ahrens & Chapman, 2004). Thus,

repair aspect in the planning of performance objectives/ measures is evident as a result of the

opportunity given to the every level of agents to participate in discussions by way of

contributing to the development of the specific line of activity (Adler & Borys, 1996;

Ahrens & Chapman, 2004). However, in actual practice while departmental agents tend to

pursue subversion strategies by challenging and undermining the enabling logics embedded

in the planning phase of performance objectives/measures, conservation strategies are

emanated from the key university agents who tend to impose their desires by encouraging

some coercive logics in the planning phase. Although the global transparency is revealed

where the agents are given awareness of the specific tasks to be achieved according to the

organisational significance as prioritized in the performance plan (Adler & Borys, 1996),

such detail specific plans are overlooked by the key university agents whose intentions might

not necessarily aligned with the wider organizational significance as prioritized previously.

Similarly, the internal reviewing of performance measures integrate with the criterion of

flexibility as it conducted mostly to enlighten the intellectual discussions by assuming that

participants may possess with necessary technical skills to promote the future learning and

development opportunities (Adler & Borys, 1996). Contrarily in the actual practice, as key

faculty agents’ desires and actions are pursued with propensity to highlight faculty

performance in an irrational ways rather limiting the learning opportunities, the enabling

logics would not be realized in the review phase.

Reference

Abernethy, M. A., & Brownell, P. (1999). The role of budgets in organizations facing

strategic change: an exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(3),

189-204.

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 61-89.

Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2004). Accounting for Flexibility and Efficiency: A Field

Study of Management Control Systems in a Restaurant Chain*. Contemporary

accounting research, 21(2), 271-301.

Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2007). Management accounting as practice. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 32(1), 1-27.

Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2008). Be (com) ing the chief financial officer of an organisation:

Experimenting with Bourdieu's practice theory. Management Accounting Research,

19(3), 212-230.

Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control

systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(8), 709-

737.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice" translated by R. Nice: Cambridge.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. E. Thompson (Ed.), Handbook of theory of

Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 81-93): Greenwood Press, Westport,

CT.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy: Cambridge : Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology: University of

Chicago Press.

Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., & Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of

accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1),

5-27.

Christopher, J. (2012). Tension between the corporate and collegial cultures of Australian

public universities: The current status. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(7),

556-571.

Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1983). Budgeting as a means for control and loose

coupling. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(4), 323-340.

Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1986). The budgetary process of power and politics.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(3), 193-214.

Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions: Sage Publications.

Cvetičanin, P. (2012). Bourdieu's Theory of Practice. In P. Cvetičanin (Ed.), Social and

Cultural Capital in Serbia (pp. 25). Sven, Niš

Dillard, J. F., & Tinker, T. (1996). Commodifying business and accounting education: the

implications of accreditation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7(1), 215-225.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and

institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,

48(2), 147-160.

Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and

Society, 37(1), 1-44.

Emirbayer, M., & Williams, E. M. (2005). Bourdieu and social work. Social Service Review,

79(4), 689-724.

Ezzamel, M., Robson, K., & Stapleton, P. (2012). The logics of budgeting: Theorization and

practice variation in the educational field. Accounting, Organizations and Society,

37(5), 281-303.

Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems:

An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263-

282.

Gendron, Y., Cooper, D. J., & Townley, B. (2007). The construction of auditing expertise in

measuring government performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(1),

101-129.

Goddard, A. (2004). Budgetary practices and accountability habitus: a grounded theory.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4), 543-577.

Golsorkhi, D., Leca, B., Lounsbury, M., & Ramirez, C. (2009). Analysing, accounting for

and unmasking domination: on our role as scholars of practice, practitioners of social

science and public intellectuals. Organization, 16(6), 779-797.

Gomez, M.-L. (2010). A Bourdieusian perspective on strategizing. In D. Golsorkhi, B. Leca,

M. Lounsbury, & C. Ramirez (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as

Practice (pp. 141-154): Cambridge University Press

Grenfell, M. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu: key concepts: Acumen Stocksfield.

Henri, J.-F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), 529-558.

Hopwood, A. G., & Miller, P. (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice (Vol.

24): Cambridge University Press.

Hurtado, P. S. (2010a). Assessing the use of Bourdieu's key concepts in the strategy-as-

practice field. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal

incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness, 20(1), 52-61.

Hurtado, P. S. (2010b). Assessing the use of Bourdieu's key concepts in the strategy-as-

practice field. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 20(1), 52-

61.

Kasper, D. V. (2009). Ecological habitus: Toward a better understanding of socioecological

relations. Organization & Environment, 22(3), 311-326.

King, A. (2005). The habitus process: A sociological conception. Journal for the Theory of

Social Behaviour, 35(4), 463-468.

Kloot, B. (2009). Exploring the value of Bourdieu's framework in the context of institutional

change. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 469-481.

Lamaison, P., & Bourdieu, P. (1986). From Rules to Strategies: An Interview with Pierre

Bourdieu. Cultural Anthropology, 110-120.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. . (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In W. N. In S.

Clegg, & C. Hardy (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215–

254): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). institutions and institutional work. In W. N. S.

Clegg, & C. Hardy (Ed.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254): Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lodhia, S., & Jacobs, K. (2013). The practice turn in environmental reporting: A study into

current practices in two Australian commonwealth departments. Accounting, Auditing

& Accountability Journal, 26(4), 595-615.

Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the

professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289-307.

Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: new directions in the

institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 349-

361.

Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective

on innovation. Organization studies, 28(7), 993-1012.

Lukka, K., & Modell, S. (2010). Validation in interpretive management accounting research.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 462-477.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching: Sage.

Maton, K. (2005). A question of autonomy: Bourdieu’s field approach and higher education

policy. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), 687-704.

McKinnon, J. (1988). Reliability and validity in field research: some strategies and tactics.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1(1), 34-54.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth

and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340-363.

Mundy, J. (2010). Creating dynamic tensions through a balanced use of management control

systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(5), 499-523.

Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: language

and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 257-

292.

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management

review, 16(1), 145-179.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of

organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of

management review, 35(3), 455-476.

Parker, L. D. (2002). It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: a strategic analysis and

critique of university change management. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,

13(5), 603-619.

Parker, L. D. (2011). University corporatisation: driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives on

Accounting, 22(4), 434-450.

Pettigrew, A. M. (2014). The politics of organizational decision-making: Routledge.

Roberts, J. (1990). Strategy and accounting in a UK conglomerate. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 15(1), 107-126.

Simons, R. (1990). The role of management control systems in creating competitive

advantage: New perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1), 127-143.

Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive

strategic renewal: Harvard Business Press.

Swartz, D. L. (2002). The sociology of habit: The perspective of Pierre Bourdieu.

Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 22, 61S-69S.

Swartz, D. L. (2008). Bringing Bourdieu’s master concepts into organizational analysis.

Theory and Society, 37(1), 45-52.

Tuomela, T.-S. (2005). The interplay of different levers of control: A case study of

introducing a new performance measurement system. Management Accounting

Research, 16(3), 293-320.

Vaughan, D. (2008). Bourdieu and organizations: the empirical challenge. Theory and

Society, 37(1), 65-81.

Wacquant, L. (1998). Pierre Bourdieu. Key sociological thinkers, 215-229.

Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process.

Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social

Research.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Substance and Symbolism in CEOs' Long-term

Incentive Plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 367-390.

Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 32(7), 757-788.

Wouters, M., & Wilderom, C. (2008). Developing performance-measurement systems as

enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 488-516.