The characteristics of performance management research: Implications and challenges

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 334-344

  Thorpe, Richard ^a   Beasley, Tony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Organizational performance; Performance management; Research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84986051003     PISSN: 17410401     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/17410400410533917     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bain & Co. (2001), Management Tools: Annual Survey of Senior Executives, Bain & Co., London.
2. Becher, A. (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, The Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
3. Biglan, A. (1973a), “The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 195-203.
4. Biglan, A. (1973b), “Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 204-13.
5. Burgoyne, J. (2000), “Management learning: form history and perspectives”, Emerging Fields in Management: Connecting Learning and Critique, Leeds University working paper series, Leeds Business School, Leeds.
6. Eccles, R.G. (1991), “The performance measurement manifesto”, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 131-7.
7. Economic and Social Research Council (1994), Building Partnerships: Enhancing the Quality of Management Research (The Bain Report), ESRC, Swindon.
8. European Foundation for Quality Management (1998), Self-assessment Guidelines, EFQM, Brussels.
9. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London.
10. Heron, J. and Reason, P. (2001), “The practice of cooperation inquiry research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people”, Handbook of Action Research: Participant Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, Ch. 16.
11. Hicks, P.E. (1977), Introduction to Industrial Engineering and Management Science, McGraw-Hill, London.
12. Laughlin, R. (1995), “Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for ‘middle-range’ thinking”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1.
13. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 71-9.
14. Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
15. Mintzberg, H. (1976), “Planning on the left side and managing on the right”, Harvard Business Review, July/August.
16. Neely, A.D. (2000), “Performance measurement – past, present and future”, Preface, Conference Proceedings, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield.
17. Neely, A.D. and Waggoner, D.B. (1998), “Performance measurement – theory and practice”, Conference Proceedings – Preface, Centre for Business Performance, Cambridge.
18. Olve, N.-G. and Wetter, J.R. (2000), Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard, Wiley, Chichester.
19. Tranfield, D. and Starkey, K. (1998), “The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: towards policy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, pp. 341-53.
20. Bain, G. (1993), Summary Statements of Evidence Submitted to the Commission on Management Research, Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon.
21. Griffiths, P. and Murry, M. (1985), Whose Business? Radical Proposals For The Reform of British Business Schools, Hobart Paper No. 102, Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
22. Performance Measurement Association (2001), Perspectives on Performance, Vol. 1 No. 4.