The adoption and imitation of private sector practices make knowledge-intensive public organizations into ‘hybrid’ organizations. Universities have been modernizing their management systems and moving towards private operating logic, thus they are becoming hybrid. As a result, most academic institutions have introduced some sort of performance measurement tools into their management and control systems. However, the applied performance measurement systems in universities have proven to be challenging, with contradicting goals.

This study is based on thematic interviews of the administrative managers of twelve university faculties in Finland and, consequently, four faculties in each. As a theoretical framework, we use the dilemma theory and define these dilemmas as two equally desirable managerial and/or organizational values and goals. Given that these goals are put together as pairs and aimed at simultaneously, they are determined to create tensions, contradictions and potential paradoxical outcomes. The current performance measurement system in Finland has brought up these kinds of tensions.

In our preliminary analysis we have identified four core dilemma pairs consisting of conflicting organizational goals and values in the higher education performance measurement context, which are:

1.1. The idea of rewarding good performance versus the efficient use of scarce economic resources

1.2. Individual-level performance versus faculty-level performance

1.3 Performance measurement versus academic freedom

1.4 Performance in teaching versus performance in research

In our consequent data analysis, we have analyzed the dilemmas associated with individual performance measurements in a university setting during hybrid times, and suggested possible dilemma reconciliations. In our empirical analysis, we found that there was great variety between the case organizations concerning the execution of their PM systems. However, the core of the dilemma reconciliation for all of the four dilemmas identified, as well as the 12 faculties studied, is that both the applied PM indicators and the rewards need to be balanced.