Prosociality in performance management: integrating second nature

Purpose This study aims to extend emerging prosocial perspectives on performance management (PM) and management control systems (MCS) by critically assessing Pfister et al.’s (2024) prosocial paradigm and proposing amendments. Design/methodology/approach The essay conducts a conceptual analysis of the prosocial approach to PM and MCS in three stages. First, I reconstruct Pfister et al.’s (2024) prosocial paradigm. Second, I assess strengths and limitations of this paradigm. Third, I draw on John McDowell’s concept of “second nature” to extend Pfister et al.’s (2024) prosocial paradigm to incorporate a fuller role for sui generis reasons and norms in organisations. Findings I distinguish two dimensions of prosociality that PM and MCS can affect: (i) cooperation to achieve organisational goals and (ii) commitment to shared rational standards (in second nature). Pfister et al. (2024) convincingly show that cooperative PM and MCS can facilitate organisational goals. However, the inherent functionalism of their evolutionary approach occludes how PM and MCS also implicate wider collective rational standards that can conflict with organisational goals. I propose a dualistic approach to prosociality to explain how PM and MCS affect both dimensions and to enable a fuller critique of harms PM and MCS can cause. Practical implications These refinements can inform PM and MCSs that are effective and just. Originality/value Where accounting research frames PM and MCS as coordinating self-interested actors, the emerging prosocial perspective integrates insights from disciplines that recognise a wider range of motives and group dynamics. I adapt Pfister et al.’s (2024) paradigmatic proposal to integrate how wider internally-validated reasons affect how subjects cooperate (or not) in organisations.