Contested performance measurement: Market and faith-based justifications under theocratic governance

This study examines how performance measurement and management systems (PMMS) function under theocratic governance where competing orders of worth are incommensurable. Drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot’s Orders of Worth (OW) framework, the paper analyses how PMMS operate not as mediators of compromise but as arenas where entrenched asymmetries of power and governance become visible. A qualitative case study of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), based on interviews, field observations, and organisational documents, explores the coexistence of two parallel evaluation regimes: an HR-led system emphasising industrial and market worths, and a Herasat-led system privileging religious and ideological compliance. The faith-based justifications underlying the Herasat-led system are provisionally interpreted through domestic and civic worths; however, they reflect a distinct theocratic moral grammar that only partially aligns with the original framework. The findings show that when HR’s KPI-driven assessments conflict with Herasat’s faith-based vetting, the latter routinely prevails, producing cycles of veto and renegotiation. The study makes two main contributions. First, it examines the application of the OW framework in an authoritarian, theocratic context, showing how certain orders of worth become structurally institutionalised as dominant veto powers, thereby precluding compromise. Second, it qualifies prior work by demonstrating that under conditions of entrenched asymmetrical power, PMMS may not enable compromise but instead expose and intensify conflict. These insights highlight the role of PMMS in reinforcing exclusion and state ideology in politically charged environments.