Making up performance: the construction of “performance” in venture capital firms portfolios
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/propracon.v5i1.25107Keywords:
Performance measurement, KPIs, venture capital industry, pragmatic constructivism, actor reality constructionAbstract
Performance measurement is understood as a corner stone of organizations’ accounting and control function (Chenhall,2003; Merchant & Van der Stede, 2012). In the wake of the relevance lost debate accounting systems have been
criticized for being obsessed with historical financial accounting information making accounting data inadequate for
decision making and insufficiently useful for creating a future alertness in organizations (Johnson & Kaplan, 1987). In
the aftermath of this, more strategically-oriented accounting systems fostering on the non-financial dimension of
performance, as most prominently presented by the balanced scorecard, gained increasingly attention by organizations
and accounting scholars (Ax & Bjørnenak, 2005; Nørreklit, 2000, 2003). Yet, there is a substantial body of research
studying the adoption of MAIs (Management Accounting Innovations) addressing questions of how MAIs such as the
Balanced Scorecard travel and change in the course of diffusion and organizational implementation (e.g. Ax &
Bjørnenak, 2005; Jones & Dugdale, 2002; Qu & Cooper, 2011). What the literature does not reveal in depth is how do
integrated systems for performance measurement and control comprising financial and non-financial KPIs support
organizations in handling uncertainty and complexity (Chenhall & Moers, 2015). In this paper, we aim for exploring
performance measurement and control and thus contributing to existing literature by studying how venture capital firms
mobilize ideas of performance measurement and control to handle uncertainty and complexity in their investment
portfolio. More specifically, we investigate two firms of the venture capital industry that use financial and non-financial
indicators to manage their portfolio and make decisions. Consequently, this paper addresses the following research
questions: How do venture capital firms use performance measurement to manage their investment portfolios? And how
is “performance” constructed in this context?
Exploring how firms from a quite volatile industry use performance measurement is regarded to be interesting
from various perspectives: First of all, we know little about the link between uncertainty and performance measurement.
Second from a theoretical perspective of ActorReality Construction (ARC) there is little empirical evidence on how
organizations construct facts or the factual dimension of accounting and management – facts in the context of our
empirical setting, the venture capital industry, are measures used in the performance measurement system (PMS).
Particularly, venture capital firms having a big stake in early phase seed investments, are uncertain in the sense that
attaching a score or a number to a performance dimension of a portfolio company is maybe not that stable over time and
ambiguous. However, doing the exercise of reviewing each portfolio company according to a dashboard-like PMS gives
the KPIs, despite of their uncertain nature, a factual character. The PMS numbers allow managers to discuss and
evaluate “performance” of the portfolio companies in management meetings as well as to make decisions, on for
example, investing additional money, based on the performance facts of the portfolio company. Interestingly, the
combination of “hard” and “soft” numbers – thus, financial and non-financial indicators, plays a pivotal role for VC
companies in order to be capable to assess “the performance” of the portfolio companies. In other words, it enables
venture capital firms to better take into account the particular organizational contexts of portfolio companies.
References
Bogt, H. J., Helden, G. J., & Kolk, B. (2015). Challenging the NPM Ideas About Performance Management: Selectivity
and Differentiation in Outcome‐Oriented Performance Budgeting. Financial Accountability & Management,
(3), 287-315.
Cinquini, L., Tenucci, A., Campanale, C., Passetti, E. (2013). Understanding performance measurement in public
organization under pragmatic constructivism. The Actor Reality Perspective Conference.
Dobel, J. P. (1978). The corruption of a state. American Political Science Review, 72(03), 958-973.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?. Public administration, 69(1), 3-19.
Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting, organizations and
society, 20(2), 93-109.
Hoskin, K. (2015). What about the box?” Some thoughts on the possibility of ‘corruption prevention’, and of ‘the
disciplined and ethical subject. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 28, 71-81.
Hyndman, N., Liguori, M., Meyer, R. E., Polzer, T., Rota, S., & Seiwald, J. (2014). The translation and sedimentation
of accounting reforms. A comparison of the UK, Austrian and Italian experiences. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 25(4), 388-408.
Johnston, M. (2015). Making transparency real? Accounting and popular participation in corruption control. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 28, 97-101.
Lapsley, I. (2008). The NPM agenda: back to the future. Financial accountability & management, 24(1), 77-96.
Lehman, G. (2010). Perspectives on accounting, commonalities & the public sphere. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 21(8), 724-738.
Lynn Jr, L. E. (1998). The new public management: How to transform a theme into a legacy. Public Administration
Review, 231-237.
Mitchell, F., Nielsen, L. B., Nørreklit, H., & Nørreklit, L. (2013). Scoring strategic performance: a pragmatic
constructivist approach to strategic performance measurement. Journal of Management & Governance,
(1), 5-34.
Morales, J., Gendron, Y., & Guénin-Paracini, H. (2014). The construction of the risky individual and vigilant
organization: A genealogy of the fraud triangle. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(3), 170-194.
Nørreklit, L. (2011), “Actors and reality: a conceptual framework for creative governance”, in Jakobsen, M., Johansson,
I.-L. and Nørreklit, H. (Eds.), An Actor's Approach to Management Conceptual Framework and Company
Practices, Djøf/Jurist- og Økonomforbundet, pp. 7-38.
Nørreklit, L., Nørreklit, H., & Israelsen, P. (2006). The validity of management control topoi: towards constructivist
pragmatism. Management Accounting Research, 17(1), 42-71.
OECD (2007). Performance budgeting in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing.
Robinson, M. (2007). Performance Budgeting: Linking Funding and Results. International Monetary Fund.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1989). The economic role of the state.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Previous and future use of the work
ProPraCon assumes the non-exclusive rights to publish and store the work of its authors, once they have consented to a publication. Since the rights to publish are non-exclusive, authors are free to re-use their work, e.g., to publish it in other media (as ProPraCon aims at publishing proceedings). Hence, it is explicitly allowed that works submitted to ProPraCon may be published in a somehow similar form in other media. Yet, submitting authors warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty.
Permissions
By submitting work to ProPraCon, the authors declare that they have permission to use any content that has not been created by them. Specifically, when using tables, figures or excerpts of more than 400 words, it is expected that the authors…
- …obtain written permission of copyright for the use in print and electronic formats of any of their text, illustrations, graphics, or other material, in their work. This includes any minor adaptations.
- …acknowledge the original source in captions and in the reference list.
