This article is concerned with the macro-cultural ideal or institutional myth of
excellence as defined and used in the evaluation of academic staff as part of an
institutional logic. Such logics ‘prescribe what constitutes legitimate behaviour
and provide taken-for-granted conceptions of what goals are appropriate and
what means are legitimate to achieve these goals’ as stated by Pache and Santos
Insead. In the case study university, this logic is reflected in the identification of
ostensibly objective, gender-neutral key performance indicators of excellence.
Lamont suggests that evaluation is necessarily subjective. Drawing on 23
qualitative interviews with those involved in such evaluation, this article looks at
variation in the definition of excellence and in the evaluative practices in
decision-making fora. It raises questions about the implications of this for gender
inequality and for the myth of excellence and ultimately for the legitimacy of the
organisation.