Search results

Extant research conceptualizes rankings as measures that fundamentally shape modern life by virtue of being publicly available. Yet, studies seldom explore the act of publishing when accounting for the attention rankings raise in larger stakeholder audiences. In short, we know a lot about the impact of rankings, but considerably less about the organizational practices devised by those who produce them – the rankers. Borrowing from Goffman, the paper conceptualizes modern rankings as public performances carefully prepared on backstages and unfolding on multiple frontstages. Using a qualitative data set, the paper traces the full spectrum of organizational practices that make rankings public performances: on the backstage, launch dates have to be set, numbers packaged, and “teams” prepared; on the frontstage, performances are held through face-to-face interactions (at launch events) as well as in a variety of mediated settings. Overall, the findings indicate that the more ranking organizations seek the attention of larger stakeholder audiences, the more the publication process is transformed into what one of the informants describes as “a big firework.”

Rankings have become a popular topic in the social sciences over the past two decades. Adding to these debates, the present volume assembles studies that explore a variety of empirical settings, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging that there are multiple “Worlds of Rankings.” To this end, the first part of the chapter addresses the implications of two modes of criticism that characterize much of the scholarly work on rankings and summarizes extant conceptual debates. Taking stock of what we know, the second part distinguishes three areas of empirical research. The first area concerns the activities of those who produce rankings, such as the collection of data or different business strategies. Studies in the second area focus on inter-organizational, field-level, or discursive phenomena, particularly how rankings are received, interpreted, and institutionalized. The third area covers the manifold effects that research has unveiled, ranging from the diffusion of practices and changes in organizational identities to emotional distress. Taken together, the contributions to this volume expand our knowledge in all three areas, inviting new debates and suggesting pathways forward.

Boundaries are a popular topic among organizational researchers, many of whom argue that over the past decade we have witnessed a trend toward permeable boundaries and in some cases a blurring between organization and environment. Contrary to received wisdom, we argue that the question as to whether organizational boundaries have become more permeable or not cannot be decided empirically but is mainly a theoretical issue. Whether or not data indicate permeability or impermeability depends on the theoretical lens employed. Against this backdrop, we review how two prominent approaches to the study of boundaries, sociological systems theory and new institutionalism, not only arrive at different conclusions but also mandate diverging avenues of research. We focus in depth on several empirical trends: advances in information and communication technologies, increasingly dynamic fields and markets, invasive transparency regimes, and meta-organizations. We then introduce the contributions in this volume, showing how they elaborate on these and other empirical trends, drawing on different theoretical perspectives, to advance our understanding of the importance of boundaries within and around organizations.

Rankings are widely regarded as particularly well-suited for capturing the public eye, which is considered a reason why they have become ubiquitous. However, we know little about how rankings direct media attention, as well as how media in turn shape and help sustain careers of specific rankings in the public over longer periods of time. To advance our understanding of the discursive dynamics at the intersection of rankings and the press, this study examines the media career of the Global Slavery Index (GSI) by analyzing 361 newspaper and magazine articles, published between the release of index’s inaugural edition in 2013 and until the end of 2019. To interpret the media coverage, the study draws attention to GSI’s universality, highly rationalized character, and a pledge to spotlight violation of the global moral order. The examination of the media coverage points to the following properties of the index as having shaped and helped sustain its career in the public: (1) repeated publication; (2) broad conceptualization of modern slavery; and (3) the construction thereof as a measurable global burden. The study finds that, throughout the period, the media were remarkably consistent in amplifying the most dramatic elements of the index. Over time, however, the index was increasingly more invoked for other purposes, usually either to lend credibility to a story or as a way of embedding local and situational concerns into global narratives.

According to popular belief, transparency is a versatile tool for the governance of organizations: it is supposed to help in mitigating problems such as corruption, economic deficiencies, and a lack of legitimacy. However, is it a truly effective panacea, as it has been envisioned by its advocates? Empirical research gives reason to doubt, indicating that there is a wide gap between the idealized expectations of transparency and its practical merits. Organizations face severe difficulties when they try to implement such measures, especially because their daily activities often deviate significantly from societal expectations. Putting a combination of Erving Goffman’s frontstage/backstage theory and Niklas Luhmann’s sociological systems theory to use, this chapter conceptualizes organizations as social entities constantly engaged in boundary-maintenance, which not only comprises – in Luhmannian terms – “operative closure” (the autonomy of a system from direct influence of its environment) but also boundaries of visibility. It is thus not at all surprising that organizations regularly try to circumvent the implementation of transparency and develop new practices of secrecy. This chapter outlines an integrative conceptualization that enables researchers to reject mundane visions of how transparency ought to improve organizations, and suggests new pathways for empirical research.

When and how did modern rankings emerge? This paper aims to answer that question by taking a closer look at the history of American baseball. In the 1870s, baseball was the first team sport to introduce a competitive system, the league, that determined the champion based on teams’ overall number of wins and losses. The in-depth analysis of the baseball discourse from the 1850s to the 1870s shows that leagues were introduced as a solution to a specific problem: how to identify deserving champions that had proved their ability again and again over the course of a season. The rising awareness of this problem was due to a shift in the baseball discourse of the 1860s, which established a new, statistical understanding of athletic achievement that demanded consistency of performance together with an acceptance that even champions lose a game once in a while. Rankings and other statistics, based on constant scoring of individual plays and increasingly sophisticated methods, helped institutionalize this new understanding of achievement and, in so doing, made the introduction of the league system possible. Moreover, the league system proved to be dependent on rankings – in the form of league tables – that made it possible to observe and experience the championship race, making rankings an essential element of modern competitive sports. Given that today’s rankings apply similar ideas of achievement to other fields (e.g., the “excellence” of universities), the story draws attention to the history of a specific imaginary of achievement that transcends the field of sports and should be studied more widely to understand the institutionalization of rankings in other fields.

The statement that evaluation works differently in different contexts might seem fairly obvious, but given how central it is to virtually all aspects of modern life, it is important to understand how these differences affect the objects of evaluation and the people doing the evaluation. Drawing on a mixed-methods study of evaluation in figure skating and classical music, the author addresses how evaluation practices affect judging and performance. In the early- to mid-2000s, the figure skating world transitioned from a judging system where judges used two overall marks to rank skaters to a much more rigid system where judges rate very specific aspects of performances without actively ranking them. These changes have impacted judges and skaters. In the classical music competitions the author focuses on, judges use deliberations to rank performances. The relative flexibility of these evaluation practices generally does not affect judges or performances as much. Building on research on the effects of measurement and evaluation systems, the author argues that formal, specific rules surrounding evaluation shape judging and performance more than informal, diffuse rules. Focusing on competition settings in skating and music, the author discusses how evaluation practices affect program and repertoire construction and the technical and artistic aspects of judging and performance in these fields. In addition to supplementing research suggesting that evaluation systems actively shape what they are designed to evaluate, this work highlights how different types of evaluation contribute to different responses in terms of the evaluation itself and the objects of evaluation.

The visualization of ranking information in global public policy is moving away from traditional “league table” formats and toward dashboards and interactive data displays. This paper explores the rhetoric underpinning the visualization of ranking information in such interactive formats, the purpose of which is to encourage country participation in reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals. The paper unpacks the strategies that the visualization experts adopt in the measurement of global poverty and wellbeing, focusing on a variety of interactive ranking visualizations produced by the OECD, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation and the ‘Our World in Data’ group at the University of Oxford. Building on visual and discourse analysis, the study details how the politically and ethically sensitive nature of global public policy, coupled with the pressures for “decolonizing” development, influence how rankings are visualized. The study makes two contributions to the literature on rankings. First, it details the move away from league table formats toward multivocal interactive layouts that seek to mitigate the competitive and potentially dysfunctional pressures of the display of “winners and losers.” Second, it theorizes ranking visualizations in global public policy as “alignment devices” that entice country buy-in and seek to align actors around common global agendas.

Organizational metrics – including rankings, ratings, and other forms of public assessment – are inextricably tied to uncertainty. Metrics are not only responses to uncertainty in the organizational environment, but they also create new forms of uncertainty within the organizations they evaluate. Given this, it is productive to consider these metrics in relation to the garbage can model of organizational decision making, a framework that was designed to provide insight into uncertain and ambiguous contexts. In this paper, the authors use the case of patient experience surveys to argue for the value of this model for understanding responses to metrics in particular conditions. Specifically, the authors demonstrate how the different features of the garbage can model manifest themselves within organizations managing numbers, and the authors then use these findings to discuss the measurement conditions that promote garbage can responses, the distinctive types of unintended consequences these responses might produce, and the implications of the garbage can model for the understanding of metrics more generally.