This article explores how universities have implemented research performance systems. It considers how researchers working as managers assume the responsibility for research groups, and how they deal with managerial pressures from higher levels of management and outside forces. Drawing on in-depth interviews with research managers, we discuss how this particular responsibility is shaping up in their practices and perceptions. This article shows how role ambivalence enables research managers to view stricter performance requirements as being both problematic and challenging. These managers engage in alternative ways of moulding and legitimizing their activity by negotiating its terms and conditions with the universities and researchers alike. The notion of resilient compliance is put forward to convey the idea that research managers’ ambivalence regarding prevalent pressures is subsequently reconciled by introducing new organizing elements into the workplace. We argue that because a focus on agency appears lacking in analyses of performance management in universities, academics’ power to deal with potentially adverse situations imposed by managerialism has been largely underestimated.

This article addresses the methodology that can be applied when researching the field of academic research management, in which the adoption of a knowledge-based view (KBV) is especially appropriate. In particular, it discusses whether the adoption of a grounded theory approach (GTA) in this type of research is justifiable, given the contested character of the KBV constituents. GTA, so it is argued, is especially useful for investigating such a field because of three interrelated arguments: (a) that KBV and related debates provide insufficient theoretical guidance, (b) that the research managers' experience and viewpoints should form the basis of theory development and relevancy, and (c) that the concepts of knowledge and management are obscure. Adopting a GTA does not completely remove the KBV perspective from the methodological discussions. Instead, it may be useful for modifying the GTA outcomes, thus engendering theoretical plausibility, applicability, and credibility.

Intellectual Capital Management (ICM) and Knowledge Management (KM), two highly popular topics in current management discussions, are often bracketed together. The common understanding of ICM is that concepts of measurement, reporting and valuation most distinctively define this perspective, whereas KM connects debates about organizational knowledge with possibilities and limitations of management. That raises the question of how the management focus on knowledge in KM discussions is connected to the valuation and measurement approaches of ICM. An extensive review of the literature shows that knowledge plays a background role in Intellectual Capital (IC) measurement discussions. Referral to knowledge as an intangible asset appears more rhetorical than based on in-depth understanding of what knowledge as an organizational resource or capability is or is not. More particularly, the predominant view of knowledge in IC measurement discussions is a neo-functionalist, possession approach, even if flow elements of knowledge are used to supplement stock elements. Critical understanding of knowledge, for instance, as practice-based dispute, are virtually absent from the ICM discussions. What the blind spots identified in the review highlight is that ICM and KM discussions, which are presently mostly developed in isolation, should set up more meaningful and elaborated liaisons than are currently established. Two important areas for building such liaisons include (1) the perusal of the contextual, possibly disputed and power-related nature of knowledge in relation to measurement and (2) developing a systematic approach to understanding what measuring or not measuring does to organizational knowledge.

Value creation is a constitutive and defining aspect in organizational ventures. This is unsurprising, as it is required for organizational survival and sustainability. Approaches based on the creation of economic, social and ecological value draw attention to the multiple and multiplicative nature of value creation. While academia still acknowledges the conceptual value of such approaches, a framework that add a psychological dimension to the established Elkington’s triple-bottom line model seems particularly refreshing and inspiring. Relying on the concepts of psychological value and sustainability, this paper presents the outcomes of an exploratory empirical study involving managers and users/customers of four organizations in the social sector in Portugal. This study discusses how managers and users/customers of these organizations make sense of and value psychological value. The outcomes of the interviews with both managers and users/customers shed light into the unexplored, hazy and neglected analytical links that may exist between psychological value and broader perspectives on sustainability. We conclude that this novel approach enhances our understanding about the impact that a social product can have in societal sustainability.