1. Performance Management of Higher Education: A Conceptual and
Empirical Analysis
By
Jane Broadbent, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Provost and Professor of Accounting,
Roehampton University, London, UK
Richard Laughlin, Emeritus Professor of Accounting, King’s College London, University of
London, London, UK
Using the concept of ‘steering’, drawn from the thinking of Jurgen Habermas, the argument
of this presentation is that Performance Management Systems (PMS) are central in the
societal regulation and internal control of organisations. A conceptual model of PMS is
developed building on some key ideas in the sociological, management, management control
and management accounting literatures. This model moves away from the over-concentration
on ex post performance measurement, as distinct from a concern for ex ante performance
management, in too much of this literature. The PMS conceptual model is ‘middle range’
(Laughlin, 1995, 2004; Broadbent and Laughlin, 1997) in the sense it informs, but also needs,
empirical application to make the model meaningful. The conceptual model develops a range
of alternative forms of PMS lying on a continuum from what is referred to as ‘transactional’
at one end to ‘relational’ at the other built on underlying instrumental and communicative
rationalities and guided by a range of managerial and contextual factors.
The empirical application of the conceptual model in this presentation is Higher Education
(HE) in England. It is hoped that this country-based case study will have resonances with
what is happening in HE in Australia. But, possibly more importantly, it is introduced to
demonstrate the power of this conceptual thinking to provide new levels of understanding to
the nature and workings of PMS in all empirical situations. In HE in England two dominant
institutional steering media are identified: regional Funding Councils, (in England, the Higher
Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE)) and the Research Councils (RC).
Regulation of funding flows from the two bodies is described using the conceptual
framework developed. HEFCE’s regulations are more ‘relational’ in nature relative to the
RCs more ‘transactional’ systems. Located in two different Government Departments until
June 2007, these two funding organisations are now both responsible to the Department of
Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS). The presentation ends with some evaluatory
reflections conceptually and in relation to the regulatory processes of HE in England
following this and more recent changes.
The conceptual ideas for this presentation are drawn from Broadbent and Laughlin (2009)
whilst some of the empirical material comes from Broadbent, Gallop and Laughlin (2010).
However, because the regulation of HE in England is changing rapidly some of the latter
material will be brought up to date but much of what is happening to-day is traceable to the
detail contained in this 2010 paper and in the predictions made.

2. Key Words: regulation; steering; performance management systems (PMS); transactional
PMS; relational PMS; Higher Education in England.
References:
Broadbent, J and Laughlin, R. (1997) Developing Empirical Research in Accounting: An
Example Informed by a Habermasian Approach, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 10(5), 622-648
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2009) Performance Management Systems: A Conceptual
Model, Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 283-295
Broadbent, J., Gallop, C. and Laughlin, R. (2010) Analysing Societal Regulatory Control
Systems with Specific Reference to Higher Education in England, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 23(4), 506-531
Laughlin, R. (1995) Empirical Research in Accounting: Alternative Approaches and a Case
for ‘Middle Range’ Thinking’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(1), 63-87
Laughlin, R. (2004) Putting the Record Straight: A Commentary on ‘Methodological Choices
and the Construction of Facts: Some Implications from the Sociology of Knowledge’,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(2), 261-277