On Intellectual Capital Management As An Evaluation Criterion For University Managers: A Case Study

Journal of Management and Governance (2020) 24:135–167
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09461-5
On intellectual capital management as an evaluation

criterion for university managers: a case study
Stefania Veltri1 · Pina Puntillo1
Published online: 29 March 2019

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether universities performance manage-
ment systems (PMS), consider intellectual capital (IC) management as a criterion for
evaluating their managers. The issue has been addressed investigating the case study
of the University of Calabria. The evaluation systems for managers of the University
of Calabria were analyzed with a longitudinal approach, investigating two different
systems (2012–2014 and 2015–2017). Two qualitative tools were employed: docu-
ment analysis and semi-structured interviews. From a formal analysis of the evalua-
tion systems for managers of the University of Calabria, it emerges that the reference
to IC and its subcomponents is easier to identify within the individual performance
component, which reduces its weight switching from the 2012–2014 to 2015–2017
evaluation system. From the analysis of semi-structured interviews, it emerges that
the University of Calabria is far from considering IC substantially as a key crite-
rion to evaluate its managers. Focusing on IC will require the development of an IC
specific project addressed to make sense of this new object and of the consequent
new managerial practices to give sense to IC measurements and diffuse them within
the organization. The originality of the paper lies in the novelty of its aim, linking
together the evaluation of universities managers, too often clouded by respect for the
academicians in managerial roles, and the role of IC management as an evaluation
criteria to assess their performance. The paper offers both theoretical contributions
to different streams of the literature, namely the IC and PMS and public sector lit-
erature and practical contributions, filling the void between the evaluation systems
of university managers as provided by theory and the application of these models in
practice, a gap especially significant for public organizations.
Keywords Public sector · Intellectual capital · University managers’ evaluation ·

Performance management systems (PMS) · Case study · Italian HE sector
* Stefania Veltri
stefania.veltri@unical.it
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
136 S. Veltri, P. Puntillo
1 Introductory remarks
The paper aims to investigate the performance management systems (PMSs) of uni-
versities, specifically the formal evaluation systems of university managers, from
an intellectual capital (IC) point of view. In other words, starting from the consid-
eration that IC is a key strategic resource, at the basis of the competitive advantage
of organizations for every kind of organization, and also for universities, the paper
questions whether the formal evaluation systems of universities include as evalua-
tion criterion for the managers their capability to manage IC.1
Universities are an interesting area of investigation, both from an IC and a per-
formance management point of view. Focussing on IC, universities are considered
critical players in the knowledge-based society (Secundo et al. 2015). For this rea-
son, since the beginning of the IC movement, universities have long been a fruitful
research topic, up to becoming the most researched public institutions (Dumay et al.
2015). The research approach followed in the paper is based on what has been called
“the third stage” of IC research (Dumay and Garanina 2013), focused on a critical
examination of IC in practice (Alvesson and Deetz 2000; Dumay 2009a, b). Moreo-
ver, the paper answers a call addressed to public sector IC researchers to continue
the third stage IC research tradition to ensure that public sector IC research is timely,
relevant, impactful and able to contribute to future practice research.
In the context of performance management, the market-like reforms introduced in
many countries inspired by the principles of new public management—NPM (Hood
1995), have increased the pressure on internal control mechanisms (Cantù and Car-
bone 2007; Nuti et al. 2013). This is particularly important in universities, which
have undergone a period of reforms that profoundly changed the environment in
which they operate, characterized by the decrease in public funding and the pressing
requests of university stakeholders for a justification in their use (Ramirez Corcoles
et al. 2011).
The design of PMSs of universities has been historically more oriented to cap-
ture the results coming from “front-office‟ units (professionals) and related to the
final products of education and research addressed to external clients (Cosenz 2014),
leaving aside the contributions of “back-office” units (administrative workers). How-
ever, the importance of professional management within universities is increasing
worldwide, for two kinds of reason. Firstly, some complementary services for which
administrative workers are accountable, such as infrastructures, libraries, student
support services, and so on, become a fundamental part of perceived quality of ser-
vices provided by universities. Secondly, budget cuts, increasing competition, stake-
holder pressure, and new modes of funding make the managerial ability of the uni-
versity managers a key factor for competitive advantage.
The research has been carried out within the Italian university system, which was
chosen because of the substantial reform process that it has undergone. This reform
1
In the article the terms university sector and Higher Education (HE) sector will be used as synony-
mous, although we are aware that the notion of the higher education sector is wider than that of the uni-
versity sector. In the article, we refer to public universities.
13
On intellectual capital management as an evaluation criterion… 137
process has prompted the introduction of a managerial culture focused on perfor-

mance, driven by strategies and objectives, where the funding allocation system has
been at least partially associated with results (Agasisti 2009). This led to the intro-
duction of Legislative Decree 150/2009 (the so-called “Legge Brunetta”), which
introduced the mandatory approach of performance appraisal through objectives and
indicators for public managers, therefore also for university managers. In 2015 the
Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research Institutes
(ANVUR), on the basis of the 150/2009 decree, issued guidelines to manage the
evaluation systems of Universities administrative activities and managers (Rubino
et al. 2017; Aversano et al. 2017, 2018).
In detail, the paper addresses its aim through the case study of a Southern Italian
university, the University of Calabria, which has introduced evaluation for its man-
agers in its performance plans, using the qualitative tool of document analysis and
semi-structured interviews.
Few are the studies focused on performance management systems (PMSs) within
universities and carried out with a practical approach (Busetti and Dente 2014;
Cosenz 2014; Allini et al. 2017; Martin-Sardesai et al. 2017; Prisacaru and Litvin
2017; Nardo et al. 2017; Rubino et al. 2017; Nisio et al. 2018; Angiola et al. 2018),
and even fewer are the studies combining universities’ performance management
with an IC or knowledge management approach (Esposito et al. 2013; Siboni et al.
2013; Secundo and Elia 2014; Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie 2018; Secundo et al.
2018a; Cricelli et al. 2018).2
To the best of our knowledge, this the first practical study investigating a uni-
versity managers’ evaluation system, which is part of the whole PMS, with an IC
approach, that is, to question whether and how the capability of managing IC enters
the formal evaluation systems of university managers. In this novel approach lies the
originality of the paper.
The paper is organized as follows. It starts by illustrating the theoretical bases of
our analysis, i.e. the rationale for proposing IC management in public universities
and the role played by PMSs within universities, concluding with the analysis of
the extant empirical studies investigating universities’ PMSs with an IC approach
(Sect. 2). Then, attention is turned to the method chosen to address the aim of the
paper (Sect. 3). Section 3 comprehends the case study method, the research context,
the case study presentation, the data analysis and the data collection. The empirical
evidence from the documental analysis and the interviews are presented in Sect. 4
and discussed in Sect. 5.
2
IC and knowledge are strictly related concepts, as knowledge is the main constituent of IC, which
could be defined as a dynamic system of intangible, knowledge-based resources and activities capable of
creating value for the stakeholders (European Commission 2006).
13
2 Literature reviews
The section is devoted to illustrating the theoretical bases of our work, which is the
rationale for proposing IC management in public universities, and the role played by
PMSs within universities, and to analysing the extant empirical studies investigating
the PMSs of universities with an IC approach, so positioning our study within the
empirical literature.
2.1 The rationale for proposing IC management in public universities
Knowledge-related resources and activities, which are important for every kind of
organization in the knowledge economy, are also important for the public and non-
profit (NP) sector. The progressive extension of IC concepts and tools to public and
NP organizations is mainly due to the higher weight of intangibles in these sectors
(Kong 2010; Guthrie and Dumay 2015; Secundo et al. 2016; Bronzetti et al. 2011;
Bronzetti and Veltri 2007; Veltri and Bronzetti 2015). These concepts assume a
special significance in the HE sector. There is a growing interest in applying an IC
based approach for managing universities, as universities have knowledge as their
core business: they generate knowledge (research) and transmit knowledge (teach-
ing), they employ knowledge workers, they are committed to improving innovation
capacities and the ability to work with different partners, central to competitiveness
and growth (Sánchez et al. 2009). Intangible resources, based on knowledge, are key
factors in universities (Ramirez and Gordillo 2014).
Moreover, national and supranational organizations recognize the central role
of universities in the present day knowledge-based society (European Commission
2006, 2010, 2011). Since 2006, Europe has recognized Universities as critical insti-
tutional actors for the fulfilment of the Lisbon Agenda related to the creation of a
Europe of Knowledge (OEU 2006), encouraging them to report IC (European Com-
mission 2006). More recently, the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy has recognized explicitly
the central role of universities in helping Europe to become a smarter, greener and
more inclusive economy (European Commission 2010) and, in 2011, the European
Commission recommended universities implement new management tools and gov-
ernance modes (European Commission 2011).
From a managerial perspective, which is the perspective of our research, univer-
sities are required to demonstrate their efficiency and effectiveness by successfully
using their existing resources and, above all, generating and managing effectively
the new resources, which have knowledge as their basic constituent, through the use
of performance measurement and management models which integrate old and new
resources (Mettänen 2005).
2.2 The role of performance management systems in public universities
In analysing public services organizations, it is necessary to broaden the horizons of

the performance concept used in private organizations, expressed in terms of, almost
13
financial, goals. In analysing universities, it occurs also considering that perfor-

mance should be seen as the contribution originating from a heterogeneous plurality
of organisational and managing activities, often distant in space and time one from
the other, but consistent with the overall objectives of the academic system, aiming
at social, economic and competitive value and meeting education and knowledge
enhancement needs (Cosenz 2013).
Performance management is the challenge confronting public services (Arn-
aboldi et al. 2015; Busetti and Dente 2014; Parisi 2013). In the literature there is a
widespread awareness that universities must become more customer-oriented, more
competitive and make their leaders more accountable, and to achieve such goals,
they must use effective PMS, whose indicators are tools useful for academic deci-
sion-makers, to exercise a management control based on economic, efficient, and
effective criterion (Cosenz 2013).
Consistently with Broadbent and Laughlin (2009) and Ferreira and Otley (2009),
we interpret PMS in a holistic way, including all aspects of organizational control,
beyond accounting. In the paper, therefore, PMS could be interpreted as an inte-
grated technical system to gather and provide information to help managers in their
work and decision-making activities in order to achieve the desired organizational
goals efficiently and effectively, acting on the employees’ motivation and the perfor-
mance assessment (Canonico and Söderlund 2010; Cepiku et al. 2017).
In detail, in the paper we focus on a peculiar aspect of the PMS, that is, the for-
mal evaluation system of university managers. These systems are characterized by
two main peculiarities. The first is that university managers are subordinate not
only functionally, but—most importantly—in a political way (Rutherford and Meier
2015). Governing bodies within universities are totally dominated by academics,
and power structures are tightly connected with management backwardness, which
significantly hampers the functioning of effective PMS (Busetti and Dente 2014).
The second peculiarity is related to the complexity of academic governance: sev-
eral categories of key players actually coexist within universities, whose hierarchi-
cal order is rather difficult to understand when compared to other public or private
organisations (Kennedy 2003). This fragmentation implies on the one hand a need to
interact between several organisational units—often located in different geographi-
cal areas—in order to provide administrative products to end users (Cosenz 2013)
and on the other hand the risk that each manager could be concerned only with his/
her organisational unit, steering away from the goals of the institution as a whole
(Dearlove 1998).
2.3 The empirical researches on universities’ PMSs and the IC management
As regards the empirical studies focused on the role of IC within the PMS of uni-
versities, we can quote the studies of Minelli et al. (2008), Esposito et al. (2013),
Secundo and Elia (2014), Michalak et al. (2017), Secundo et al. (2018a), Cricelli
et al. (2018) and Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie (2018). Minelli et al. (2008) compare
the structure and impact of control systems implemented in Italian public universi-
ties, showing that the evaluation experience has brought an increase in knowledge
13
and transparency and un upgrade in the area of organizational learning. Esposito

et al. (2013) investigate the relationship between PMSs and knowledge in 15 pub-
lic Italian universities to verify how different choices related to PMS affect the
nature of knowledge. Their results show that PMSs in universities could represent
an important social tool to facilitate the management of organizational knowledge,
combining explicit and tacit forms of knowledge. Secundo and Elia (2014) in their
article proposed a PMS able to assess the “third mission” of an HE center operating
in the Italy. Michalak et al. (2017) with their research draw attention to the influence
of NPM on IC management and the way in which IC acts as a source of the com-
petitive advantage of universities. They describe the way in which university IC is
linked to its market value, the knowledge commercialization process that generates
IC in a university and the way in which university-industry collaboration enhances
the value of IC. Secundo et al. (2018a) in their article investigate the third mission
of universities using the case study of Ca’ Foscari university of Venice through the
Secundo et al.’s (2016) collective intelligence framework. Cricelli et al. (2018) in
their article present and discuss a model to analyze the relationship between IC and
university in Colombian public universities. Finally, Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie
(2018) show, using the case study of an Australian public university, how the PMSs
of universities could have unintended consequences that eventually led to a loss in
academic human capital.
No study, to the best of our knowledge, analyzed whether the management of
knowledge-related resources and activities (IC) is considered important for the top
management of universities and, as such, how it is included in the formal univer-
sities performance management systems (PMSs) to evaluate university managers.
This paper would like to address this issue, which is considered timely and an inter-
esting path for the future of IC research in education (Bisogno et al. 2018).3
The main aim of the research has thus been expressed in the following Research
Question (RQ):
How is IC included in universities’ formal PMSs addressed to evaluate univer-
sity managers?
3 Methodology
The methodology section has been organized through sub-sections illustrating the
case study method, the research context, the case study presentation, data analysis
and data collection.
3
“Another intriguing question that deserves attention (i.e. for the future of IC research education) is (to
study) the impact of evaluation systems” (Bisogno et al. 2018, p. 25).
13
3.1 Case study method
We addressed our RQ investigating a case study. A case study approach is appropri-

ate when a researcher needs to conduct a holistic and in-depth analysis of a complex
phenomenon in its real-life context to understand the interactions between the events
and the reference context (Yin 2003, 2013). Moreover, the case study methodology
offers the possibility of investigating accounts from a practical rather than from a
theoretical perspective, through the exploration of a phenomenon in a specific con-
text (Merchant and Van der Stede 2006; Bisogno et al. 2018). Also, in management
accounting, the study of the control systems has been recently associated with the
use of individual cases to interpret in relation with their context (Hopwood 1983;
Scapens 2004; Gatti and Chiucchi 2017).
Our paper has an IC management focus and, as knowledge-related resources and
activities are firm-specific and context-specific, the case study methodology appears
particularly adequate. In the IC field, a case study method lends understanding to the
complexity of the issues being investigated, while providing a good picture of “what
is going on”. Additionally, it makes engagement with organisational processes pos-
sible and allows the researcher to discover practical implications. This is particularly
important when human resources are involved (Guthrie and Dumay 2015).
In IC research on public organizations there is actually a predominance of the
case study method for researchers approaching the third stage approach, as they need
to interpret how IC is used and managed within organizations (Dumay et al. 2017;
Bisogno et al. 2018).4 Studies related to the this stage of IC research discuss how
organisations understand, adapt, and apply IC in their managerial processes (Guthrie
et al. 2012). Also this study, being focused on analyzing how IC is used in evaluating
university managers, needs to approach the research using a third stage approach,
notwithstanding, recently, a fourth and a fifth stage of IC research has been identi-
fied (Dumay et al. 2017).5 Consistently with Dumay et al. (2017), in fact, we believe
4
Originally, Petty and Guthrie (2000) outlined two stages associated with developing IC as a research
field. In the first stage (from the late 1980s to the early 1990s), efforts focused on raising awareness of
IC and understanding its potential for creating and managing a sustainable competitive advantage. The
second stage of IC research (from the late 1990s to the early 2000s) dealt mainly with the process of
measuring and managing IC from a top-down perspective (Guthrie et al. 2012).
5
The fourth stage IC research adds a new IC dimension to the previous ones, namely that of social capi-
tal and it is focused on the interdependencies and knowledge flows between different stakeholders and on
the impact of IC management within the region/ecosystem where the organization is located (Dumay and
Garanina 2013). The fifth stage IC research should develop with no boundaries and researchers should
investigate whether managing IC is a worthwhile endeavour at all and be aware that IC can create value
by interacting with other kind of capitals (Dumay et al. 2017; Secundo et al. 2018b). Declined in the HE
sector, it means that universities should be viewed as stakeholders within a larger system and researchers
could investigate how universities could solve, through IC, societal problems (Bisogno et al. 2018).
13
that the development of a research field needs to have all stages of research in play
for the construction of new knowledge and insights gained in the other stages, since
all the IC research stages are interconnected rather than sequential.
The third stage IC research, like ours, is focused on a critical examination of IC
in practice (Alvesson and Deetz 2000);6 it is a research that can be classified as bot-
tom-up research, as opposed to the top-down research of the second stage, and as
performative research as opposed to the ostensive research (Mouritsen 2006).7
In detail, the type of case study applied in the paper is an explorative case study
(Scapens 2004), as it intends to explore some “how” questions. Explorative case
studies are carried out to acquire useful indications in an area not (or partially
not) explored and their findings constitute just preliminary interpretations of a
phenomenon.
The theoretical paradigm underlying our research is the interpretive model. In
the light of interpretivism, sociological phenomena cannot simply be observed but
must also be interpreted by the researcher. This means that there is not one absolute
reality, but rather, different possibilities are generated by the perspective adopted to
interpret the facts (Ryan et al. 2002).
3.2 Research context
In Italy research, teaching and third mission activities, supported by administra-

tive activities, are delivered by state (public) and non-state universities approved
by the national Ministry of Education (Siboni et al. 2013).8 The public universities
are almost equally distributed in Northern, Central and Southern Italy (36%, 29%
and 35% respectively), while most are medium- and small-sized (42% and 39%
respectively).
The actual evaluation system of university managers is based on the principles of
performance management that, obliging public administration to identify objectives
6
In the Alvesson and Deetz (2000) framework, the term critical is used not to find fault with current
thinking about IC, instead critical is about presenting comments and opinions from a detailed analysis
of IC in action (Dumay 2009a, b). In detail, there are three critical tasks, that is (1) trying to understand
the impact of IC practices on both people and the organizations they belong to (insight); (2) research
the theory and practice of IC at organisational level (critique); (3) managers need to learn new skills to
better understand the evolving insights and critiques of IC (transformative redefinition). In a critical per-
spective, the question is no more “what is IC”, instead it is “How is IC, how IC works and is utilised in
organizations” (Dumay 2009a).
7
Mouritsen (2006) recognized two basic research streams: IC-ostensive vs IC-performative and, conse-
quently, two related but different roles of measurement. According to the IC-ostensive research stream,
IC has a set of fundamental properties that exist prior to any interactions carried out by organizational
actors. The IC-performative research stream instead recognizes that IC is part of a configuration of
knowledge management and, consequently, it is firm and context specific and it is dynamic by nature.
8
In the 2015–2016 academic year, the Italian university system comprised 96 universities, classified
into 66 state and 30 non-state universities. State universities are public entities funded by the national
government for about 90 per cent of their total needs; on the contrary, non-state universities are funded
by the national government for about 10 per cent of their total needs (Sangiorgi and Siboni 2017). Both
state and non-state universities are endowed with legal status and have scientific, teaching, organiza-
tional, and financial autonomy (Agasisti 2009).
13
and measure results, introduced an epochal reform in public administration in west-

ern countries (Moynihan and Pandey 2010; Teelken 2015). In Italy, it is based on the
Italian Legislative Decree 150, issued in 2009 and aimed to increase the efficiency
and transparency of the public sector, which obliged state universities to issue a
3-year performance plan. The Decree 150 aims to favor the introduction of a mana-
gerial culture focused on performance, pursued by improving transparency, effi-
ciency and effectiveness in public sector organizations. Universities, as a part of the
broad public sector, are subjected to the 150 Decree. The 150/2009 Law reform text
distinguishes between organizational performance and individual performance. The
first is an expression of the aggregate contribution of a specific organizational unit
and it has to be interpreted in relation to a product/service of administrative activ-
ity. The individual performance is, instead, referred to the individual contribution of
the single human resource, operating within the specific organizational unit. Under
Law 150/2009 it became obligatory to adopt PMS concerning the performance of
organizational structures, individuals and groups of employees. In 2015 ANVUR
issued specific guidelines for universities, on the basis of 150/2009 Decree. These
guidelines, updated in 2018 on the basis of the 74/2017 decree, aim to give operative
instructions to manage and evaluate administrative activities.9 The 2015 ANVUR
Guidelines for the first time stressed an important concept: to obtain an effective
implementation of integrated management of the performance of Italian universities,
it is necessary to evaluate administrative staff together with the teaching staff, as
the three pillars of the institutional mission of the universities (research, education
and third mission) need the support of the administrative staff (Rubino et al. 2017;
Aversano et al. 2017, 2018). The logic behind the ANVUR guidelines is to integrate
all universities’ programming documents related to administrative performance, in
the light of a wider notion of performance understood as the capability of university
to interact with other public and private organizations in a mutual beneficial and
sustainable relationship. In this context, the objectives assigned to the administrative
staff should be related to the objectives of the research, with the quality of the edu-
cation and with the third mission objectives.
3.3 Case study presentation
The University of Calabria (UniCal), situated in Southern Italy, is a medium-sized

public university (20,000–40,000 students). Established in 1972 with the aim to play
a key role in the development of the surrounding territory, it is a residential univer-
sity. Among its competitors, it has a leading position for service quality and effi-
ciency standards (CENSIS 2013). The University carries out its activities with 707
researchers and teaching staff units and 702 administrative personnel units, of which
1 general manager and 11 university managers, of which 6 high professionals.
9
In brief, all the news introduced by the 74 decree aimed to strengthen the role of nuclei di valutazione
in the universities’ performance management cycle, while the ANVUR guidelines stressed the need to
integrate the performance cycle with the financial programming cycle.
13
Rector Rector’s delegates
Strategy
Academic Senate Board of Directors
General Director Staff Offices
Management
Negotiation Financial Strategic unit for Legal Financial ICT Strategic Unit Residential
activity Area quality and Office Area (Fiscal centre Statistic Service and Centre
area Evaluation area) Decision Support
Fig. 1 The Unical organizational chart of the academic and administrative leadership (2012–2014)
It is important to stress that the managers, the object of our research, are the adminis-
trative managers, in charge for functional areas, and the section will examine the formal
university managers’ evaluation system at the University of Calabria.10 In detail, follow-
ing a longitudinal approach, two different evaluation systems have been investigated,
one in force from 2012 to 2014, and introduced following the national law 150/2009;
the other in force from 2015 to 2017, inspired by the ANVUR (2015) guidelines.
As for the managers to be evaluated, they are the General Director, who is the link
between the academic and administrative areas, and the managers under his domain.
The General Director is designated from the Board of Directors, on the proposal of
the Rector, after consultation with the Academic Senate. He/she is responsible, on
the basis of guidelines provided by the Board of Directors, for the complex manage-
ment and organization of services, human and material resources. The other manag-
ers under his domain are responsible for areas considered strategic to the university.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate respectively the organizational charts of the univer-
sity of Calabria administrative managers for the 2012–2014 period and for the
2015–2017 period.
The formal dimension of the system for measuring and evaluation of managers
emerges from the analysis of the documents relating to the university performance
cycle found on the website of the University of Calabria. From these documents, it
appears that, actually, performance is measured and assessed according to two dis-
tinct aspects:
(a) the Organizational Performance as a whole, connected to institutional aim and

mission. It is obtained from the performance achieved by all the structures of
University;
10
Italian universities suffer from a significant split between academic and administrative functions (Luci-
anelli 2013). In Italian universities, a well in the University of Calabria, strategic decisions are taken by
academic bodies (i.e. the Rector, the Academic Senate and the Board of Directors, as modified by the
240/2010 law, the so-called Gelmini Law), focused on the universities core functions, while the contribu-
tion provided by the administrative managers to the strategic outcomes and core services is hard to trace.
13
Rector Rector’s delegates
Strategy
Academic Senate Board of Directors
Staff Offices
General Director
Management
Assets Financial Complex Legal Human Complex Strategic Strategic Unit Complex Complex Residential
and Area Organizational Office Resources Organizational Unit to General Affairs Organizational Organizational Centre
Negotia Unit Area Unit University Support Unit Services Unit
tion Monitoring, legislation, research Teaching and governance and
activity Quality and Privacy, Anti- Education Post managerial
area Evaluation Corruption and Graduate support
Transparency
Fig. 2 The Unical organizational chart of the academic and administrative leadership (2015–2017)
(b) the Individual Performance, associated to the individuals operating within uni-
versity structures.
The organizational performance of the University organizational strategic func-

tions units is measured by the degree of achievement of the objectives assigned to
the General Manager, subsequently declined to managers of organizational units.
The individual performance aims to measure the contribution of individuals
to the pursuit of university performance objectives and organizational unit objec-
tives, in line with the position held by the individual within the organizational unit.
The contribution of the individual is measured and evaluated both in relation to the
degree of achievement of objectives and in terms of his/her professional and organi-
zational behaviors, in view of the tasks and responsibilities assigned.
In detail, in the 2012–2014 period, for the managers the individual evaluation
was based, for 70%, on the results achieved by the structure they manage (R), and
for 30% on their behavior (C).11
Tables 1 and 2 exemplify respectively the R and C variables.
In the 2015–2017 period, the General Director, and the university managers
(and upper professionals) are evaluated according to the two macro-areas, results
and capabilities.12 Results and capabilities are differently weighted in relation to the
11
On a theoretical level, the R variable should include both the result achieved by the structure man-
aged and the individual contribution to this result; nevertheless, for the first years of application of the
150/2009 law, the result variable for the manager will coincide with the result achieved by the structure
that he/she manages.
12
Performance evaluation involves two distinct actions: assigning goals and measuring results. Objec-
tives are assigned following a cascade (from the Board to the General Director, then from the General
Director to the organizational units) and they are negotiated. Objectives are weighted, expressed through
indicators and for each objective is calculated a minimum value, a target value, and the initial value. The
second phase (results measurement) consists of the collection of useful elements for the assessment. The
13
Table 1 The evaluation sheet of the organizational unit. Source: University managers formal evaluation
system, 2012–2014, University of Calabria
Structure
Organizational unit
Head
Role
Indicators Indicators Indicators Expected results

Objectives ∆
(description) (valuation) (RESULT) Limit Target > Target
role covered by university managers. Table 3 illustrates the evaluation system for
managers.
In turn, the macro-area “results” is articulated into results related to the university,
to the organizational unit under the head of the manager, and to further individual
objectives. The macro-area “capabilities” is articulated into the manager’s capability
to differentiate his/her evaluation for his/her subordinates and “professional and organ-
izational capabilities”. Table 4 details the professional and organizational capabilities.
If we compare the two formal evaluation systems, we can highlight three
important features with respect the previous evaluation system for the University
of Calabria managers. The first is that the factor able to capture the IC manage-
ment (and on which we focus on the next section) is identified with the organiza-
tional behaviour in the 2012–2014 evaluation system, with the capabilities in the
2015–2017 evaluation system; the second feature is that the weight assigned to the
behaviour is higher with respect to the weight assigned to the “capabilities” macro-
factor (30% vs. a maximum value of 20 only for upper professionals; the third feature
is that in the second formal evaluation system, the weight is differentiated among the
different figures of managers, and it is surprisingly lesser for the General Director.
3.4 Data analysis
To analyse the data, we needed a framework in which to operationalize the IC con-

tent within universities, switching from a shared theoretical definition of IC to a
working IC definition, useful to analyse the documental data. As for the theoretical
Footnote 12 (continued)
degree of achievement of results is measured by detecting, for each indicator associated with each goal,
the actually realized values, taking into account the assigned weights. The measurement phase includes
both the variance analysis (between what has been achieved and what is expected) and the in-depth anal-
ysis of the contextual factors within which actions took place.
13
Table 2 The observed organizational behavior. Source: University managers formal evaluation system, 2012–2014, University of Calabria
Never, tough Sometimes, Sometimes, Often, if Often, Systematically Notes Weight (%)
requested (0) if requested autonomously requested autono- and autonomously
(10) (20) (40) mously 870) (100)
1. Reliability 10
He/she respects deadlines
He/she carries out the task precisely and
accurately
He/she respects and deploys procedures
2. Autonomy and result-orientation 10
He/she knows his/her rule and his/her autonomy
in making decisions
He/she ensures the compliance of solutions
provided to the indications received
He/she adapts his/her activity to the organiza-
tional priorities
3. Relational skills 10
He/she cares about the external image of the
On intellectual capital management as an evaluation criterion…
Administration
He/she builds up positive relationships with his/
her colleagues
He/she shares the information
4. Team work 10
He/she is flexible, as he/she puts the organiza-
tional aim in first place
He/she interacts in a cooperative way with the
group
He/she involves the team members in a shared
objective
He/she exhibits a high spirit of belonging to the
group
147
13
Table 2 (continued)
148
13
(10) (20) (40) mously 870) (100)
5. Client orientation 10
He/she provides a quality service
He/she meets the client’s needs providing solu-
tions that match the expectations
He/she is timely and effective in providing
answers to the clients
He/she takes care of the problems of the
customers
6. Technical and professional competencies 10
He/she has the knowledge and the needed com-
petencies to carry out the activities requested
by his/her role
He/she provides solutions correctly applying the
knowledge and competencies owned
He/she is available to transfer his/her knowl-
edge/competence to his/her colleagues
7. Professional upgrade 10
He/she is available to follows training courses
He/she participates in the training of the work-
ing processes
He/she uses the knowledge and capabilities
obtained by the exchange with other col-
leagues in his/her job
He/she is available to experiment new working
activities
S. Veltri, P. Puntillo
Table 2 (continued)
(10) (20) (40) mously 870) (100)
8. Working processes 10
He/she manages the processes assigned to his/
her role in an adequate and timely way
He/she identifies and proposes improvements
for these processes
He/she uses the ICT effectively for running the
processes
9. Problem solving capabilities 10
He/she identifies and recognizes critical situa-
tions
He/she activates in a timely way, identifying
alternative solutions and deploying them
He/she analyzes the situations in prospect and
activates to search innovative and improve-
ment solutions
He/she identifies practical problems and solves
them in a timely way
149
13
Table 2 (continued)
150
13
(10) (20) (40) mously 870) (100)
10. Organizational and management capabilities 10
He/she effectively manages the Planning
process
He/she effectively plans his/her work and the
work of his/her team
He/she clearly defines the objectives and share
them with his/her team
He/she is able to address, motivate and evaluate
his/her team
He/she can evaluate the needed resources for
the activities
He/she can manage working problems of his/her
team with the resources
He/she is able to plan, give times, and monitor
the results
Table 3 Evaluation system of managers’ individual performance. Source: University managers formal evaluation system, 2015–2017, University of Calabria
Macro-factors Assessment factor Weight for the general Weight for university Weight for high
manager managers professionals
Results General performance 20 10 5

Organizational performance of structures 60 60 60
Any performance objectives individual and/or group 10 10 10
Capabilities Professional and organizational skills 5 15 20

Differentiation capacity evaluations 5 5 5
Total 100 100 100
151
13
Table 4 Professional and organizational capabilities: elements of detail. Source: University managers formal evaluation system, 2015–2017, University of Calabria
152
Elements of detail: Macro-factors detailed elements “Professional and Organizational Capabilities”

Elements of detail Description Weight figure and category
13
DG Managers EP and D C B
others
responsible
(a) Organizational and managerial capa- Correctly interprets its role and has decision-making autonomy. Adjusts its 35 30 30 5 5 5
bilities and orientation to result activities to the priorities of the reference organizational unit.
It shows collaborative flexibility to amend their positions, if designed to
achieve the results. It involves Group components sharing a common goal.
It demonstrates a high sense of group membership and organization. It is
available to transfer their skills/knowledge to colleagues or those of other
organizational units and/or collaborators. And ‘able to manage processes
and labor issues of its organizational units using supplied resources and
able to use management techniques such as plans of work, timing and
monitoring of results
(b) Problem solving It identifies and recognizes unforeseen and/or critical situations. In the imme- 60 50 30 25 20 5
diate future, it is activated by providing for alternative solutions, selecting
the most effective and carrying it out promptly. Looking ahead, it analyzes
the situations that have been submitted and is activated in the search for
innovative solutions and improvement. It identifies practical problems, also
related to working interconnected processes, and solves them promptly. It
identifies and proposes solutions for improvement of work processes within
its competence.
(c) Orientation to user It strives to provide a quality service to internal and external users. Listens to 5 15 20 20 10 10
user needs, proposing solutions consistent with expectations. And is timely
and exhaustive in providing answers to users. It takes care of users’-mail
problems, addressing them, as appropriate, to the effective competent
structures
Table 4 (continued)
Elements of detail: Macro-factors detailed elements “Professional and Organizational Capabilities”
Elements of detail Description Weight figure and category
DG Managers EP and D C B
others
responsible
(d) Relational capabilities and reliability Respects timing and deadlines; does the work in a complete, accurate and – 5 20 50 65 80
precise manner; it performs its job correctly applying the knowledge and
the skills possessed. Respects and implements policies and procedures. It
deals with the external image of the administration. It builds positive, fruit-
ful and effective relationships with colleagues and shares information
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
153
13
154
13
Table 5 The content of IC subcategories within the HE sector. Source: adapted by Secundo et al. 2016
Human capital (HC) Structural capital (SC) Relational capital (RC)
It can be identified by the sum of the explicit and It is the explicit knowledge relating to the internal It is the extensive collection of economic, political
tacit knowledge of the university staff (professors, process of dissemination, communication and man- and institutional relations developed and maintained
researchers, managers, administration and service agement of the scientific and technical knowledge at between the university and its non-academic partners,
staff) acquired through formal and non-formal educa- the university. It may be divided into organisational that is, enterprises, non-profit organisations, local
tion and refresher processes included in their activi- capital, which includes organisational processes, government and society in general. It also includes
ties (Leitner 2004; Sánchez et al. 2009; Ramirez corporate culture and values, internal procedures, the perception that society has of the university in
Corcoles et al. 2011) information systems etc., and the technological capi- terms of image, appeal, reliability, etc. (Leitner 2004;
tal, which comprehends the technological resources Ramirez Corcoles et al. 2011)
available at the university, such as bibliographical
and documentary resources, archives, patents, soft-
ware, databases, etc. (Leitner 2004; Sánchez et al.
2009; Ramirez Corcoles et al. 2011)
definition of IC, we found useful the definition of IC provided by the European

Commission, according to which IC could be defined as a dynamic system of intan-
gible, knowledge-based resources and activities capable of creating value for the
stakeholders (European Commission 2006). As for the working definition of IC (i.e.
its conceptualization in a form useful for the researches), we used Secundo et al.’s
(2016) IC framework, summarized in Table 5.
This IC tripartition, which confirms the taxonomy validated by the IC literature,
according to which IC could be structured in three blocks: human capital, structural
capital and relational capital, is proper of a more mature stage of IC research, and
for this reason useful for the third (and fourth) stage of IC researchers (Bisogno et al.
2018).13
On the basis of this framework, we read the documents on which is based the for-
mal administrative university of Calabria managers evaluation systems. The docu-
ments have been our main source, owing to the formulation of our research ques-
tion, that is to investigate whether IC management is an evaluation criteria in the
formal university managers’ evaluation systems. Nevertheless, to complement the
documents data, consistently with Lombardi et al. (2019), we also interviewed peo-
ple affected by the formal university managers’ evaluation systems, to deepen some
points not emerging from documental data.
For this reason, we prepared questions for the interviews carefully, guided by
identifying themes in a consistent and systematic manner, to address the motivation
of this part of the study, which could be synthetized as investigating the “informal”
dimension of the evaluation systems, to complement the formal dimension. In detail,
the motivation of this part of the study has been broken down into three themes to be
covered in the interviews, constituting the framework developed by us for the second
part of the analysis. The three themes are the following:
1. The functioning in practice of the formal university managers’ evaluation systems;

2. The consciousness of the managers to be evaluated (also) in terms of their capa-
bilities to manage IC;
3. The eventual resistances to evaluation criteria included in the formal university
managers’ evaluation systems.
The first theme aims at uncovering whether the formal university managers’
evaluation systems are really working. The second theme aims at uncovering the
13
In the IC literature there are several definitions which have been proposed for Universities (Ramírez-
Córcoles et al. 2007, p. 734; Veltri et al. 2014, p. 179), and even though the typical IC components
remained the main basis for discussions (Siboni et al. 2013), some authors identify an organisational
capital, as opposed to structural capital, which includes elements related to both infrastructure and inno-
vation/knowledge (OEU 2006; Sánchez et al. 2009), some others stressed the difference within struc-
tural capital by identifying “organisational” and “technological” resources (Ramírez-Córcoles and
Manzaneque-Lizano 2015), some others more identified new subcomponents of the existing capitals or
entirely new ones, like Bezhani (2010), which identified also “research”, “commercialising” (related to
spinoffs) and “services” (as laboratory services), and Rodríguez Castellanos et al. (2004), who consider
research-development-transfer capital as the most important part of IC in universities.
13
eventual resistances to the functioning of the systems as expressed by individuals

who are evaluated, whilst the third theme aims at uncovering whether the managers
are conscious to be evaluated on their capability to manage IC.
3.5 Data collection
To address our main RQ, that is to verify whether IC management is an evaluation

criterion for administrative university managers in the University of Calabria’s for-
mal evaluation systems, document analysis (Bowen 2009) was the main tool to col-
lect the data. The main documents examined were the official documents related to
the university managers’ evaluation, triangulated with other documental sources of
evidence (i.e. other documents of the University of Calabria somehow related to the
evaluation of university managers). Table 6 illustrates the documental sources used
for the study.
The collection and storage of the data was carried out through the University
website that, in order to answer to a transparency duty (law 150/2009), publishes
online its main documents, but also directly from the organizational units in charge
of handling the documents we needed.
Consistently with Bowen (2009), we follow three stages to analyze relevant data
for our research: (1) skimming (i.e. looking at data in a brief way); (2) reading (thor-
ough examination); (3) interpretation. Specifically, we organized information into
categories related to the central question of the research, without using software to
do a “formal” content analysis, instead we examined the documents manually in the
light of the framework illustrated in the previous section.14
The process thus entailed a first-pass document review, in which meaningful and
relevant passages of text or other data were identified, then we did a careful, more
focused re-reading and review of the data to uncover themes pertinent to the phe-
nomenon investigated. Moreover, our documental data source varied based on the
times when data were collected (i.e. the 2012–2014 3 year period and the 2015–2017
3 year period) and the location of the collection (i.e. the official website and the
organizational units in charge for handling the documents we needed. The data
was separately collected, coded and compared by the authors, in order to achieve
an investigator triangulation. In order to ensure the data reliability, the authors held
several meetings to define the IC framework to use in analyzing the University of
Calabria’s formal evaluation systems. Issues emerged related to the classification of
IC subcomponents were clarified through discussions between the authors. Given all
decisions were made by consensus during the course of the process, the authors did
not conduct a formal reliability check; this was deemed unnecessary as there was lit-
tle disagreement about the analysis among the authors.
Furthermore, the research has been complemented also relying on qualita-
tive data deriving from interviews with key organisational figures involved in the
14
Consistently Silverman (2000) and with more recent articles of Dumay and Cai (2014, 2015), we
exclude from our analysis the quantification typical of conventional mass media content analysis, which
obscures the interpretive processes that turn talk into text.
13
Table 6 Documental sources used for the study
Source Documents Code
University documents The formal documents used for the evaluation of management for the 2012–2014 and 2015–2017 periods UC1
The documents related to the performance management cycle within the several years in which it was implemented UC2
The reports on the university performance results UC3
The documents of the nuclei di valutazione certifying the reports of the university performance results UC4
The reports of the nuclei di valutazione on the evaluation system of the university UC5
General documents relating to the university investigated, such as the organic chart of the university, the reports of the UC6
nuclei di valutazione on the university, and the strategic plans of the university
National documents 150/2009 decree N1
2015 ANVUR Guidelines N2
2018 ANVUR Guidelines N3
157
13
Table 7 The semi-structured interviews

University of Calabria Role of the interviewee
Interview 1 The manager of the complex organizational unit “Monitoring, Quality and
Evaluation”
Interview 2 The manager of the “Strategic Unit General Affairs”
Interview 3 The head of the “Service labor relations and decentralized negotiation”
Interview 4 An external consultant of the nucleo di valutazione of the University of Calabria
Interview 5 An employee in charge of the area “management control and performance”
Interview 6 An employee belonging to the complex organizational unit “Monitoring, Quality
and Evaluation”
design of the formal evaluation systems or evaluated by these systems. The text of
the interviews has been prepared on the basis of a careful literature review (Leedy
and Ormrod 2013), with the aim to address the second, complementary part of the
study, which is the “informal” dimension of the University of Calabria’s managers
evaluation systems. The use of another source of data (i.e. data deriving from the
semi-structured interviews) during the study, even if addressed to analyze another
dimension of university managers evaluation systems, allowed us to guarantee a data
triangulation (Denzin 1970; Joslin and Müller 2016). To ensure reliability of data
deriving from interviews, we establish a research protocol to define the people to
interview, the average expected length of each interview and the questions to ask
(Yin 2013).
Table 7 illustrates the people at university of Calabria interviewed and their role
with respect the formal university managers evaluation systems.
We interviewed six university staff, in detail three university managers involved
in the evaluation process, an external consultant and two employees who managed
data deriving from the formal PMSs. Each interview lasted almost 1 h and was con-
ducted in a semi-structured form by both authors together, who shared the list of
topics to be discussed at length.15 Interviews were recorded and type-scripted verba-
tim independently by both researchers to ensure data reliability and were supported
by notes taken during the interview. The interview data was then broken down and
analyzed according to the three interview question themes. To avoid potential mis-
understandings, a further shorter interview was scheduled in some cases to clarify or
go into more detail on some of the aspects already investigated. Once type-scripted,
interviews were submitted to the interviewees, giving them the opportunity to check
for potential inconsistencies or errors. At the beginning of the interview, in order
to establish a good relationship with our interviewees, we introduced ourselves and
15
There are a variety of interview methods, including the standardized (structured), the unstandardized
(informal) and the semi-standardized (semi-structured) interview (Qu and Dumay 2011). Semi-structured
interviews were employed for this research due to their flexibility and propensity to allow interviewees
to disclose relevant yet sometimes hidden information. In fact, it allows stressing the interviewees’ per-
spective, as it enables them to express their opinion in their own style and words and to participate in the
interview process together with the interviewer, producing questions and answers within a complex inter-
personal talk (Qu and Dumay 2011).
13
our research. The interview was thus conducted using a guideline for interactions,
allowing open-ended questions. Before interviewing the university staff, we pre-
tested the script to identify ambiguous, unclear and unnecessary questions and then
it was reformulated by clarifying some questions and rewriting others. While all the
interviewees were generally asked the same questions, the interviewers adapted the
formulation of the questions according to the role of the respondent(Welman and
Kruger 2001). Before closing each interview, we ensured that all the interview ques-
tion themes were addressed.
4 Main findings
4.1 Findings from the documental analysis
An investigation of the formal managers’ evaluation system, a section of the per-

formance cycle of the University of Calabria, has been conducted for two subse-
quent periods, the 2012–2014 3-year period and the 2015–2017 3-year period. Since
the RQ was to investigate whether IC management was used as evaluation criteria
for administrative university managers, we needed to conduct an analysis on doc-
uments able to unveil such an issue. For this reason, the analysis was conducted
for the 2012–2014 formal evaluation systems on the C variable (Table 2) and for
the 2015–2017 formal evaluation systems on the “professional and organizational
skills” variable (Table 4). The results were read in the light of the Secundo et al.
(2016) university IC framework.
Human Capital (HC), Structural Capital (SC) and Relational Capital (RC)
dimensions. If we examine the 2012–2014 managers’ evaluation system through
the IC lens, we can see that the C variable includes ten areas, measured by several
parameters and weighted equally (10%). The area related to the human capital is
dominant, as it is covered by several areas (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10), then the relational
capital (areas 3, 5) and, finally, structural capital (area 8). If we turn our attention to
the 2015–2017 managers’ evaluation system, we can notice, examining the compo-
sition of the “professional and organizational skills” variable, that there are precise
references to the IC subcomponents. In detail, the elements contained in the subcat-
egory “organizational and managerial capabilities and orientation to result” could be
equated to SC items; the elements contained in the subcategory “Problem solving”
could be equated to HC items; the elements contained in the subcategories “orien-
tation to user” and “relational capabilities and reliability” could be equated to RC
items. As regards the weight of each IC subcategory, we can say that HC is the most
important IC component for each managerial figure (as in the 2012–2014 evaluation
model), followed by SC and then by RC.
4.2 Findings from the semi‑structured interviews
We read the findings from the semi-structured interviews under the three main
themes that guided the preparation of the questions.
13
“The functioning in practice of the formal university managers’ evaluation sys-

tems” theme A first issue emerging from all interviews is that the formal university’s
managers evaluation system became effective in 2016, after a process started since
2006; this means that only the 2015–2017 performance evaluation system for Uni-
versity of Calabria managers has been implemented, while the 2012–2014 one was
not applied.
“The eventual resistances to evaluation criteria included in the formal university
managers’ evaluation systems” theme The manager of the “Strategic Unit General
Affairs” stressed the resistances of the unions and managers to be evaluated on the
basis of levers that they do not control, like their capabilities to manage IC. Accord-
ing to the manager “a wrong evaluation would bring to a loss of motivation of the
human capital; this is a difficult and complex issue that should be considered care-
fully, as it is one of the drivers of the managerial improvement of the whole struc-
ture”, and the head of the “Service labor relations and decentralized negotiation”
confirmed the fear of a lack of homogeneity in the evaluation of the university man-
agers before the system was implemented. The external component of the Nucleo
di Valutazione, an organ which has to express judgments as regards, among other
things, the effectiveness of the administrative activities of the university, instead
believes that the “General Director assumes the responsibility for formally evalu-
ating the university managers on the criteria included in Table 4, and that the real
problem is a measurement problem, as for instance the item ‘problem solving’ is not
expressed as a ratio. Moreover, it could be interesting if the managers were evalu-
ated not only by the General Director but also by their staff”.
“The consciousness of the managers to be evaluated (also) in terms of their capa-
bilities to manage IC” theme As regards the consciousness of the managers to be
evaluated (also) in terms of their capabilities to manage IC, the manager of the com-
plex organizational unit “Monitoring, Quality and Evaluation” told us that “owing
to the difficulties in finding an objective criteria to measure managers’ capability
to manage IC, the General Director gave all the managers the highest evaluation,
to avoid conflicts on “subjective” criteria, as the remuneration is linked to the judg-
ment on the managers capabilities expressed by the General Director”. The manager
believes that “it could be a good choice to guarantee the standard remuneration to all
managers, then to manage the surplus (related to specific projects) linking it to a real
evaluation on the criteria illustrated in Table 4”. The two employees, that are not to
so inside the system, positively evaluate the inclusion of IC criteria in the evaluation
of university managers. They believe that “the system works and the proof is that it
will be extended in 2018 to all intermediate figures of university staff”.
Owing to the novelty of the approach, a comparison with the results of previous
studies on the same argument is not feasible, at least for the formal investigation of
the use of IC management as evaluation criteria for university managers, but it is
interesting at this stage to compare the results of the qualitative part of our study
(i.e. the results of the semi-structured interviews) with the results of the Martin-
Sardesai and Guthrie (2018) study and with the Busetti and Dente (2014) study. Our
study, like the Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie (2018) study, examines the use of IC
for management control purposes, a use questioned both by Sveiby (2010) and by
Gowthorpe (2009), who argued whether measuring IC performance could be a new
13
way to bully employees. Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie (2018) show how the PMS
has unintended negative consequences in the form of fear and anxiety and increased
workload, leading to a loss of academic human capital. Also the analysis of data
deriving from semi-structured interviews of our case study underlines these feel-
ings of fear and anxiety and probable loss of motivation deriving from an (possi-
ble) wrong valuation linked to not understood evaluation criteria. Consistently with
Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie (2018), we believe that formal evaluation systems that
measures intangibles is a complex and sensitive issue, and it cannot be implemented
without considering its potential negative effects. The results of our study could
also be compared with the results of the study of Busetti and Dente (2014), carried
out in 2010, before universities were obliged to comply with the 150/2009 Decree.
The results of Busetti and Dente (2014) suggest that legally binding obligations
may introduce apparently modern systems in administrations that are not modern in
any other respect, making room for formal compliance and substantial failures. Our
study was carried out after the 150/2009 but the risk, signalled by the two authors,
of a neutralization of the potential benefits of the reform caused by a formal imple-
mentation is still alive. The formalism with which management tools are often set up
in the university sector rows against a real change in terms of performance improve-
ment and this is what somehow emerges also from our study. The professional and
educational capabilities of the university managers are well detailed within the for-
mal evaluation systems but the General Director, asked for evaluating managers for
their capabilities, rewards the managers with the highest evaluation to avoid con-
flicts due also to the difficulties to measure intangible capabilities, so neutralizing
the potential beneficial effects of the reform.
5 Discussion and conclusions
Our study analyzes the performance evaluation system of university managers

after the introduction of 150/2009 law and the 2015 ANVUR guidelines. The main
research aim is to focus on the performance of the university administrative man-
agers (excluding technical and academic categories) of an Italian public university,
trying to highlight whether the capability to manage knowledge and IC is an evalu-
ation criterion for the performance of the university managers. The focus on the IC
management is justified by the consideration that the literature recognizes IC as the
main driver for the competitive advantage for each kind of organization, while the
focus on the PMSs of the universities, in detail on the evaluation systems of univer-
sity managers, is worthy of analysis, as several legal reforms have been introduced
worldwide to address the increasing request of stakeholders for more efficient and
effective performance of universities. As in other countries, also in Italy, for a long
time evaluation has been to the evaluation of the academic component, assuming
that its improvement was substantial enough to ensure the results of the universi-
ties. In the Italian context, it was the 150/2009 Law that introduced, for the public
administration sector and thus for universities, an effective evaluation of administra-
tive managers, so recognizing that not only the academic, but also the administra-
tive component becomes a key driver of the competitive advantage of universities.
13
ANVUR 2015 guidelines, developed on the basis of the 150/2009 Law specifically
for universities, strengthened this view, by issuing guidelines to measure the perfor-
mance and evaluate universities’ administrative managers.
A strong point of the paper is that, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first
study analyzing whether university managers are also evaluated for their ability to
manage IC. This affirmation is justified by the analysis of the recent empirical lit-
erature of the PMSs in an IC context, which highlighted that no other paper started
from our research question. Therefore, the originality of the paper lies in the novelty
of its research question, which links together the evaluation of universities manag-
ers, too often clouded by respect for the academicians in managerial roles, and the
use of IC as an evaluation criterion to assess their performance.
The research aim has been addressed using the case study of the University of
Calabria. In detail the article analyzes two different subsequent formal evaluation
systems of university managers within the University of Calabria, following a longi-
tudinal approach. There are several key points that could be highlighted in analyzing
these managers’ evaluation systems. Firstly, most of the evaluation is given by an
evaluation of the structure (70% in the first evaluation system, from 80 to 95% in the
second evaluation system). Secondly, from the analysis of the individual evaluation
variable, reference to IC in its subcomponents could be found, in detail HC mostly,
than SC and RC, and the reference to IC subcomponents is easier to identify within
the individual performance component switching from the first to the second evalu-
ation system.
Nevertheless, if we analyze the informal dimension of the evaluation systems, on
the basis of interviews addressed to uncover three main key themes (specifically the
functioning in practice of the formal university managers’ evaluation systems; the
eventual resistances to evaluation criteria included in the formal university manag-
ers’ evaluation systems and the consciousness of the managers to be evaluated (also)
in terms of their capabilities to manage IC), we can observe that from the analysis it
emerges that the University of Calabria is far from considering IC substantially as a
key criterion to evaluate its managers.
Nevertheless, we have to underline that the managers’ evaluation system at the
University of Calabria is an ongoing process, which it has changed formally from
the 2012–2014 to the 2015–2017 3-year period to the other and that likely it will
change again before finding its final layout to be implemented. Therefore, focusing
on IC will require the development of an IC specific project addressed to make sense
of this new object (i.e. assign it a meaning) and of the consequent new managerial
practices to give sense to IC measurements and diffuse them within the organization
(Giuliani 2016).
Also our findings could also be useful for university’s managers, general direc-
tors, rectors and policy makers in understanding functional and dysfunctional out-
comes of implementing reforms addressed to improve performances in universities.
In fact the difficulties of implementation of reforms, if not faced, could neutralize
the potential beneficial effects of the reforms. A PMS measuring intangibles needs
to be implemented considering both its potential negative effects and the neutraliz-
ing forces, and it requires to work to create a climate favourable to performance and
evaluation by sharing scopes and aims between managers and university staff.
13
The paper contributes both theoretically and practically to the literature. From a
theoretical point of view, the paper contributes to several literature streams, that is,
the IC and the PMSs and the public sector literatures. Bringing together issues that
are usually dealt with in separate domains of IC and PMSs literatures, the paper
contributes to illustrate how each literature can strengthen the other and illustrates
new types of individual-level questions to explore when drawing on this connec-
tion. Specifically, IC provides input to PMSs scholars to investigate IC management
from the side of the public sector (university) managers and of their contribution to
organizational performance.
From a practical point of view, the paper’s results contribute to fill the void
between the evaluation systems of university managers as provided by theory and
the application of these models in practice, a gap especially significant for public
organizations (Caldarelli et al. 2013). In addition, this paper, being focused on a case
study, contributes to add knowledge on how IC works in the real life, so expanding
“third stage” IC research findings, thereby answering to a precise suggestion to IC
researchers to continue their investigation on IC practices inside educational institu-
tions (Bisogno et al. 2018).
This study suffers from the limits of all studies based on case studies, which is
the difficulty to generalize the findings. One possible solution (and a future research
direction) could be to compare the findings of our case study with the findings of
other universities, nationally or abroad. Additionally, the results obtained are based
on the authors’ analysis and interpretation in the light of the interpretative approach,
according to which the investigator is the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis and filters data through his/her interpretive lens. This is unavoidable and
typical of any form of qualitative inquiry based on interpretivism.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. While the paper is
the result of a joint effort of the authors, the individual contributions are as follows: Stefania Veltri wrote
Sects. 2.1, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 4.2 and 5; Pina Puntillo wrote Sects. 1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3 and 4.1.
References
Agasisti, T. (2009). Market forces and competition in university systems: Theoretical reflections and
empirical evidence from Italy. International Review of Applied Economics, 23(4), 463–483.
Allini, A., Caldarelli, A., & Spanò, R. (2017). La disclosure nei Piani della Performance delle università
italiane. Intenti simbolici vs approcci sostanziali di legittimazione. Management Control, 1, 37–59.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
Angiola, N., Bianchi, P., & Damato, L. (2018). Performance management in public universities: Over-
coming bureaucracy. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(4),
736–753.
ANVUR. (2015). Linee Guida per la gestione integrata del Ciclo della Performance delle università
statali italiane.
Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The
ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1–22.
Aversano, N., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2017). I sistemi di misurazione della performance
nelle università: considerazioni critiche sul sistema italiano. Management Control, 1, 15–36.
Aversano, N., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). Performance measurement systems in uni-
versities: A critical review of the Italian system. In E. Borgonovi, et al. (Eds.), Outcome-based per-
formance management in the public sector (pp. 269–287). Cham: Springer.
13
Bezhani, I. (2010). Intellectual capital reporting at UK universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2),
179–207.
Bisogno, M., Dumay, J., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). Identifying future directions for
IC research in education: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 10–33.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40.
Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2009). Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Manage-
ment Accounting Research, 20, 283–295.
Bronzetti, G., Mazzotta, R., Puntillo, P., Silvestri, A., & Veltri, S. (2011). Intellectual capital reporting
practices in the non-profit sector. Sumi: Virtus Interpress.
Bronzetti, G., & Veltri, S. (2007). Intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. Rome: Aracne.
Busetti, S., & Dente, B. (2014). Focus on the finger, overlook the moon: The introduction of performance
management in the administration of Italian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 36(2), 225–237.
Caldarelli, A., Fiondella, C., Maffei, M., Spanò, R., & Aria, M. (2013). CEO performance evaluation
systems: Empirical findings from the Italian health service. Public Money & Management, 33(5),
369–376.
Canonico, P., & Söderlund, J. (2010). Getting control of multi-project organizations: Combining contin-
gent control mechanisms. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 796–806.
Cantù, E., & Carbone, C. (2007). I sistemi di finanziamento: strumenti per governare i comportamenti
degli erogatori di prestazioni sanitarie? In E. Anessi Pessina & E. Cantù (Eds.), Rapporto OASI
2006 sullo stato dell’aziendalizzazione nella sanità italiana. Milan: Egea.
CENSIS. (2013). La grande guida università 2013–2014. Torino: La Repubblica.
Cepiku, D., Hinna, A., Scarozza, D., & Bonomi Savignon, A. (2017). Performance information use in
public administration: An exploratory study of determinants and effects. Journal of Management
and Governance, 21(4), 963–991.
Cosenz, F. (2013). The ‘entrepreneurial university’: A preliminary analysis of the main managerial and
organisational features towards the design of planning & control systems in European academic
institutions. Management Research and Practice, 5(4), 19–36.
Cosenz, F. (2014). A dynamic viewpoint to design performance management systems in academic insti-
tutions: Theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(13), 955–969.
Cricelli, L., Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., Lianes, D., & Leidy, P. (2018). Intellectual capital and university
performance in emerging countries: Evidence from Colombian public universities. Journal of Intel-
lectual Capital, 19(1), 71–95.
Dearlove, J. (1998). The deadly dull issue of university “administration”? Good governance, managerial-
ism and organising academic work. Higher Education Policy, 11, 59–79.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York:
Aldine.
Dumay, J. (2009a). Intellectual capital measurement: A critical approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
10(2), 190–210.
Dumay, J. (2009b). Reflective discourse about intellectual capital: Research and practice. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 10(4), 489–503.
Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2014). A review and critique of content analysis as a methodology for inquiring
into IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(2), 264–290.
Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2015). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellec-
tual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 121–155.
Dumay, J., & Garanina, T. (2013). Intellectual capital research: A critical examination of the third stage.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 10–25.
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Puntillo, P. (2015). IC and public sector: A structured literature review. Journal
of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 267–284.
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Nielsen, C. (2017). Intellectual capital management in public uni-
versities. In J. Guthrie, J. Dumay, F. Ricceri, & C. Nielsen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to
intellectual capital. London: Routledge.
Esposito, V., De Nito, E., Pezzillo Iacono, M., & Silvestri, L. (2013). Dealing with knowledge in the
Italian public universities: The role of performance management systems. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 14(3), 431–450.
13
European Commission. (2006). RICARDIS (Reporting intellectual capital to augment research develop-
ment and innovation in SMEs). Report to the commission from the High Level Expert Groups on
RICARDIS, Directorate General of Research, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,
COM(2010) 2020 final. CEC, Brussels.
European Commission. (2011). Connecting universities to regional growth: A practical guide. Brussels:
European Commission.
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.
Gatti, M., & Chiucchi, M. S. (2017). Context matters. Il ruolo del contesto negli studi di controllo di ges-
tione. Management Control, 3, 5–10.
Giuliani, M. (2016). Sensemaking, sensegiving and sensebreaking: The case of intellectual capital meas-
urements. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 218–237.
Gowthorpe, C. (2009). Wider still and wider? A critical discussion of intellectual capital recognition,
measurement and control in a boundary theoretical context. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
20(7), 823–834.
Guthrie, J., & Dumay, J. (2015). New frontiers in the use of intellectual capital in the public sector. Jour-
nal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 258–266.
Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital
accounting research. The British Accounting Review, 44(2), 68–92.
Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organi-
zations and Society, 20(2/3), 93–110.
Hopwood, A. G. (1983). On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 8(2–3), 287–305.
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). Identifying interesting project phenomena using philosophical and meth-
odological triangulation. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 1043–1056.
Kennedy, K. J. (2003). Higher education governance as a key policy issue in the 21st century. Educa-
tional Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 55–70.
Kong, E. (2010). Intellectual capital and non-profit organizations in the knowledge economy: Editorial
and introduction to special issue. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), 97–106.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Leitner, K.-H. (2004). Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and applica-
tion for Austrian universities. Research Evaluation, 13(2), 129–140.
Lombardi, R., Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Nappo, F. (2019). Entrepreneurial universities and strategy: The
case of the University of Bari. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2018-0690.
Lucianelli, G. (2013). University governance at the crossroads: The Italian case. International Journal of
Business Research and Development, 2(2), 20–34.
Martin-Sardesai, A., & Guthrie, J. (2018). Human capital loss in an academic performance measurement
system. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 53–70.
Martin-Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S., & Guthrie, J. (2017). Organizational change in an Austral-
ian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise. The British Accounting Review, 49(4),
399–412.
Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. (2006). Management control systems, performance measurement,
evaluation and incentives. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Mettänen, P. (2005). Design and implementation of a performance measurement system for a research
organization. Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations, 16(2), 178–188.
Michalak, J., Krasodomska, J., Rimmel, G., Sort, J., & Trzmielak, D. (2017). The past, present and future
for intellectual capital research: An overview. In J. Guthrie, J. Dumay, F. Ricceri, & C. Nielsen
(Eds.), The Routledge companion to intellectual capital. London: Routledge.
Minelli, E., Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2008). How can evaluation fail? The case of Italian universities.
Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 157–173.
Mouritsen, J. (2006). Problematising intellectual capital research: Ostensive versus performative IC.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do man-
agers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4),
849–866.
13
Nardo, M. T., Sangiorgi, D., & Siboni, B. (2017). Indagine sulla qualità dei piani della performance nelle
università italiane. Quali prospettive per il futuro? Economia Aziendale Online, 8(1), 57–68.
Nisio, A., Carolis, R. D., & Losurdo, S. (2018). Introducing performance management in universities:
The case of a university in Southern Italy. International Journal of Management in Education,
12(2), 132–153.
Nuti, S., Seghieri, C., & Vainieri, M. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of a performance evaluation
system in the public health care sector: Some novel evidence from the Tuscany region experience.
Journal of Management and Governance, 17(1), 59–69.
OEU—Observatory of the European University. (2006). Methodological guide—Strategic management
of university research activities, Prime, European Commission.
Parisi, C. (2013). The impact of organisational alignment on the effectiveness of firms’ sustainability
strategic performance measurement systems: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management and
Governance, 17(1), 71–97.
Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement, reporting and manage-
ment. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155–176.
Prisacaru, V., & Litvin, A. (2017). Quality management in the higher education of the Republic of Mol-
dova as a framework for university performance. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business,
64(4), 431–446.
Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting
and Management, 8(3), 238–264.
Ramirez Corcoles, Y., Santos Penalver, J. F., & Tejada Ponce, A. (2011). Intellectual capital in Span-
ish public universities: Stakeholders’ information needs. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(3),
356–376.
Ramirez, Y., & Gordillo, S. (2014). Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital in Spanish uni-
versities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(1), 173–188.
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Lorduy, C., & Rojas, J. A. (2007). Intellectual capital management in Spanish uni-
versities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 732–748.
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., & Manzaneque-Lizano, M. (2015). The relevance of intellectual capital disclo-
sure: Empirical evidence from Spanish universities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice,
13(1), 31–44.
Rodríguez Castellanos, A., Landeta Rodríguez, J., & Youlianov Ranguelov, S. (2004). University
R&D&T capital: What types of knowledge drive it? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3), 478–499.
Rubino, F., Puntillo, P., & Veltri, S. (2017). Il ruolo dei manager universitari in un’ottica di performance
integrata. Analisi di un caso studio. Management Control, 3, 95–122.
Rutherford, A., & Meier, K. J. (2015). Managerial goals in a performance-driven system: Theory and
empirical tests in higher education. Public Administration, 93(1), 17–33.
Ryan, B., Scapens, R., & Theobald, M. (2002). Research method and methodology in finance and
accounting. London: Thomson.
Sánchez, M. P., Elena, S., & Castrillo, R. (2009). Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: A report-
ing model. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 307–324.
Sangiorgi, D., & Siboni, B. (2017). The disclosure of intellectual capital in Italian universities: What has
been done and what should be done. Journal of intellectual capital, 18(2), 354–372.
Scapens, R. W. (2004). Doing case study research. In C. Humphrey & B. H. K. Lee (Eds.), The real life
guide to accounting research: A behind-the-scenes view of using qualitative research methods (pp.
257–279). Oxford: Elsevier.
Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2016). Managing intellectual capital through a
collective intelligence approach: An integrated framework for universities. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 17(2), 298–319.
Secundo, G., Elena-Perez, S., Martinaitis, Ž., & Leitner, K.-H. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity
model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities: A dynamic approach.
Secundo, G., & Elia, G. (2014). A performance measurement system for academic entrepreneurship: A
case study. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(3), 23–37.
Secundo, G., Lombardi, R., & Dumay, J. (2018a). Intellectual capital in education. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 19(1), 2–9.
Secundo, G., Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Bagnoli, G. (2018b). Intellectual capital management in the
fourth stage IC research: A critical case study in university settings. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
19(1), 157–177.
13
Siboni, B., Nardo, M. T., & Sangiorgi, D. (2013). Italian state university contemporary performance
plans: An intellectual capital focus? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 414–430.
Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 821–834). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sveiby, K. E. (2010). Methods for measuring intangible assets. Accessed February 22, 2012, from www.
sveiby.com/portals/0/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm.
Teelken, C. (2015). Hybridity, coping mechanisms, and academic performance management: Comparing
three countries. Public Administration, 93(2), 307–323.
University of Calabria Performance Plan 2012–2014, 2013 with annexes, 2014–2016 (year 2014) with
annexes, Strategic three-year plan 2010–2012 (annex 2-Performance Measurement). Accessed Feb-
ruary 22, 2014, from http://unical.it/portale/ateneo/amministrazione/aree/arrisumane/trasparenza/
ammtrasparente/6/performance/.
University of Calabria Report on the Performance measurement 2011, 2012, 2013. Accessed February
22, 2014, from http://unical.it/portale/ateneo/amministrazione/aree/arrisumane/trasparenza/ammtr
asparente/6/relazione.
Veltri, S., & Bronzetti, G. (2015). A critical analysis of the intellectual capital measuring, managing, and
reporting practices in the non-profit sector: Lessons learnt from a case study. Journal of Business
Ethics, 131(2), 305–318.
Veltri, S., Mastroleo, G., & Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. (2014). Measuring intellectual capital in the uni-
versity sector using a fuzzy logic expert system. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12,
175–192.
Welman, C., & Kruger, S. J. (2001). Research methodology for the business and administrative sciences.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3),
321–332.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Stefania Veltri is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Assistant Professor teaching Business Econom-
ics. She is department member at the Department of Business Administration and Law, University of
Calabria. Her main research interests are related to the value relevance of accounting and extra-account-
ing information and the systems of measurement, management and reporting of intellectual capital. All
these arguments are pursued employing both quantitative and qualitative methods. On these research
themes she has published books, book chapters, journal articles (such as Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Corporate Communications, Journal of Management and Governance) and she has presented papers to
national and international congresses.
Pina Puntillo is assistant professor in Public Administration within the University of Calabria. Her main
research interests are related to local government, performance of public organizations, systems of meas-
urement of intellectual capital, Planning and control in public administration. On these research themes
she has published books, journal articles and presented papers to national and international congresses.
Affiliations
Stefania Veltri1 · Pina Puntillo1

Pina Puntillo
pina.puntillo@unical.it
1
Department of Business Administration and Law, University of Calabria,
87036 Arcavacata di Rende, CS, Italy
13

On Intellectual Capital Management As An Evaluation Criterion For University Managers: A Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Intellectual Capital Management As An Evaluation Criterion For University Managers: A Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management and Governance (2020) 24:135–167

On intellectual capital management as an evaluation

Stefania Veltri1 · Pina Puntillo1

Published online: 29 March 2019

Keywords Public sector · Intellectual capital · University managers’ evaluation ·

process has prompted the introduction of a managerial culture focused on perfor-

2.1 The rationale for proposing IC management in public universities

2.2 The role of performance management systems in public universities

In analysing public services organizations, it is necessary to broaden the horizons of

financial, goals. In analysing universities, it occurs also considering that perfor-

2.3 The empirical researches on universities’ PMSs and the IC management

and transparency and un upgrade in the area of organizational learning. Esposito

3.1 Case study method

We addressed our RQ investigating a case study. A case study approach is appropri-

In Italy research, teaching and third mission activities, supported by administra-

and measure results, introduced an epochal reform in public administration in west-

3.3 Case study presentation

The University of Calabria (UniCal), situated in Southern Italy, is a medium-sized

Rector Rector’s delegates

General Director Staff Offices

(a) the Organizational Performance as a whole, connected to institutional aim and

Rector Rector’s delegates

The organizational performance of the University organizational strategic func-

Indicators Indicators Indicators Expected results

To analyse the data, we needed a framework in which to operationalize the IC con-

Results General performance 20 10 5

Capabilities Professional and organizational skills 5 15 20

Elements of detail: Macro-factors detailed elements “Professional and Organizational Capabilities”

definition of IC, we found useful the definition of IC provided by the European

1. The functioning in practice of the formal university managers’ evaluation systems;

eventual resistances to the functioning of the systems as expressed by individuals

To address our main RQ, that is to verify whether IC management is an evaluation

Table 7 The semi-structured interviews

4.1 Findings from the documental analysis

An investigation of the formal managers’ evaluation system, a section of the per-

4.2 Findings from the semi‑structured interviews

“The functioning in practice of the formal university managers’ evaluation sys-

5 Discussion and conclusions

Our study analyzes the performance evaluation system of university managers

Stefania Veltri1 · Pina Puntillo1

You might also like

2.1 The rationale for proposing IC management in public universities

2.2 The role of performance management systems in public universities

2.3 The empirical researches on universities’ PMSs and the IC management

3.1 Case study method

3.3 Case study presentation

4.1 Findings from the documental analysis

4.2 Findings from the semi‑structured interviews

5 Discussion and conclusions