Target difficulty, intra-year target revisions and firm performance: evidence from business units' targets

Target difficulty is often argued to increase performance. While this association is well established in experimental research, empirical evidence in field research is rather mixed. We attempt to explain this inconsistency by analyzing the importance of intra-year target revisions, which are especially prevalent in real-world field settings. Using survey and archival data from 97 firms, we find that firms with more challenging business unit targets revise targets more often, in line with asymmetric, downward target revisions. Results further show that the degree to which targets are revised during a period results in negative effects on firm performance, as the anticipation of revision negatively affects the business unit management’s performance incentives. Additionally, we find that using targets predominantly for either decision-making or control influences the overall performance effects of target revisions. Our findings may partially explain the mixed field study evidence regarding the effects of target difficulty.

The direct-democratic challenge to evidence-based policy making: Questioning the governmental PISA narrative in Swiss school policy

The democratic deficit of evidence-based policymaking and the little attention the approach pays to values and norms have repeatedly been criticized. This article argues that direct-democratic campaigns may provide an arena for citizens and stakeholders to debate the belief systems inherent to evidence. The study is based on a narrative analysis of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reports, as well as of newspaper coverage and governmental information referring to PISA in Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on a variety of school policy issues. The findings show that PISA reports are discursive instruments rather than ‘objective evidence’. The reports promote a narrative of economic progress through educational evidence that is adopted without scrutiny by governmental coalitions in direct-democratic campaigns to justify school policy reforms. Yet, the dominant PISA narrative is contested in two counter-narratives, one endorsed by numerous citizens, the other by a group of experts. These counter-narratives question how PISA is used by an ‘expertocracy’ to prescribe reforms, as well as the performance ideology inherent to. Overall, these findings suggest that direct-democratic campaigns may make more transparent how evidence is produced and used according to existing belief systems. Evidence, on the other hand, may be a stimulus for democratic discourse by feeding the debate with potential policy problems and solution. Thus, direct-democratic debates may reconcile normative positions of citizens with the desire to base decisions on empirical evidence.