Abstract
Drawing on a case study of a large Australian business school, we examine how the formalisation of grant income as an additional performance metric reopened and reconfigured evaluative arrangements among academics. Mobilising the Economies of Worth framework [Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006)], we conceptualise proliferating metrics as contested tests of worth that reopen workable evaluative settlements rather than simply extending existing control systems. Our analysis shows that the implementation of grant income marked a critical moment, intensifying tensions between coexisting worlds and prompting renewed justificatory work among Heads of Department (HoDs) and academics. Across four departments, we identify three distinct evaluative settlements, each reflecting different accommodations of metric proliferation. These settlements differed in how grant income was justified, which orders of worth were selectively mobilised, and how HoDs as middle managers mediated institutional expectations through departmental implementation. We contribute to research on academic performance measurement by showing how metric proliferation can produce distinct settlements rather than uniform responses, and by highlighting the pivotal role of HoDs as middle managers in implementing new evaluative demands amid enduring plurality. We also highlight how, in the reframed settlement, market-based justifications of industry funding supported the emergence of a new academic identity: the entrepreneurial academic.