Search results

This study examines the effect of employees' perceptions of political connections on performance measurement systems (PMS) design choice and firm performance. In addition, this study explores the moderating effect of social networking, a very common and widely used factor by domestic and foreign multinational firms operating in China, and its joint effect with political connections or PMS design choice on firm performance. We collected survey responses from a sample of 110 managers from manufacturing firms in China. Our results reveal that highly politically connected managers use nonfinancial measures, leading to improved firm performance. Our results suggest that social networking interacts significantly with political connections, and nonfinancial and financial measures on firm performance. The theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

Purpose – The adoption of performance measurement and evaluation systems comprising nonfinancial measures has rendered the investigation of behavioral consequences of such measures an increasingly important research issue. The purpose of this study is to investigate the process by which the use of nonfinancial measures affects employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness. It proposes that the effects of nonfinancial measures on procedural fairness are indirect through the mediating variables of (1) job relevant information and (2) role clarity.

Methodology – Data collected from a survey of 276 managers in different functional areas are used to test the models. The data are analyzed using structural equation modeling (Partial Least Square).

Findings – Results from structural models indicate that the use of nonfinancial measures has a positive impact on job relevant information, role clarity, and procedural fairness. In addition, the findings suggest that the use of nonfinancial measures is indirectly related to procedural fairness through job relevant information and role clarity. Specifically, the results indicate that the use of nonfinancial measures affects job relevant information. Job relevant information then influences role clarity. Role clarity, in turn, is positively related to procedural fairness.

Value of paper – This study provides systematic empirical evidence on how the use of nonfinancial measures for performance measurement and evaluation can affect employee perceptions of procedural fairness. It helps organizations to understand how this process occurs and provides them with some assurance that the adoption of nonfinancial measures may be beneficial particularly through the higher information content of such measures and the consequential enhancement of employee role clarity and perception of fairness. By studying the effects of nonfinancial measures, in isolation, this study also helps to demonstrate to organizations that some of the beneficial effects on employee outcomes found by prior management accounting studies involving a combination of financial and nonfinancial measures may be achievable from the use of nonfinancial measures alone without the need of financial measures. This may assist organizations in designing simpler performance measurement systems.

Schiff and Hoffman (1996) found evidence that nonfinancial measures explain more of the variance in evaluations that focus on individual retail department managers while financial measures explain more variance in evaluations of the overall department. These findings are consistent with Attribution Theory, which holds that evaluators of performance ascribe cause to individual or environmental factors as they make judgments. This study expands this research by being the first to examine whether financial and nonfinancial measures affect multidivisional balanced scorecard performance evaluations differently when the focus of the evaluation is on the individual division president versus when the focus is on the overall division. The results of this study suggest that when evaluating individual performance, nonfinancial measures clearly affect the performance evaluations more than financial measures. When the focus is on the division, the influence of nonfinancial and financial measures is not differentiated. Additionally, the results suggest that the participants perceived nonfinancial measures to be more controllable than financial measures.

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the process by which nonfinancial performance measures affect employee perceptions of how fair are their organizations' performance evaluation procedures. With increased interest in performance measurement systems that rely heavily on nonfinancial measures (e.g., balanced scorecard), it is important to understand the ramifications of these measures.

Methodology – Data are drawn from mail survey questionnaire responses of 121 Australian managers and analyzed by structural equation modeling.

Findings – The results provide support for the proposition that employees perceive the use of nonfinancial measures as fair. However, these effects are found to be indirect through (1) the enhancement of employee role clarity, and (2) the enhancement of the trust the employees have in their supervisors.

Research limitations and practical implications – This study does not directly address the issue of whether nonfinancial measures will ultimately lead to improved overall organizational performance. However, the results do suggest that the use of nonfinancial measures for employee performance evaluation is beneficial. Hence, there may scope for increasing their role in the workplace. This may ultimately lead to improved organizational performance.

Value of paper – The current interest in multidimensional performance systems clearly necessitates systematic empirical investigation to ascertain their effectiveness and benefits. This study contributes in this regard by focusing on nonfinancial measures, a key component of multidimensional performance measurement systems. It also adds to our understanding of the process by such systems influence employee reactions and ultimately overall organizational performance.

The widespread adoption of the Balanced Scorecard has led to a need to understand how performance measures affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Despite the growing trend in the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard, there is little research evidence available on the behavioral outcomes resulting from the use of nonfinancial performance measures. This study seeks to address this gap by examining several behavioral outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment and managerial performance, resulting from the use of financial and nonfinancial performance measures.

Data were collected using a mailed questionnaire survey to manufacturing organizations in Singapore. Path analysis technique was employed in this study to investigate the relationships.

The results of the study show that behavioral outcomes are indifferent regardless of the nature and type of performance measures used. However, the relationships between performance measures and behavioral outcomes are indirect through procedural fairness and trust in supervisor.

Survey questionnaire method was used in this study and there are limitations associated with survey questionnaire method. As our sample was selected from large organizations, it is unclear if our results are generalizable to small organizations. Also, as our sample was selected from the manufacturing sector, generalizing our results to the nonmanufacturing sectors should be made with caution.

This study highlights the need for organizations to pay attention to issues pertaining to procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in the design and implementation of performance measurement systems.

In the growing debate about designing new management control systems (MCS) to include stakeholder values, there has been little discussion about information overload. Stakeholder advocates call for including more environmental and related social disclosures but do not consider how information overload might impair the use and interpretation of corporate performance measures. As we know, shareholders and boards of directors are most concerned with market data such as earnings per share, dividend rates, and market value growth. In this chapter, we assert that management control system designers must consider information overload before expanding the MCS to include social and nonfinancial disclosures.

The paradox in expanding MCS is that demand for sustainability performance measures will likely result in overload for both information preparers and information users. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and similar sustainability disclosures are likely to overload MCS and overwhelm the readers and users by performance reports that include multiple dimensions.

CSR affects the design of companies' annual reports because stakeholders are increasingly concerned with how organizations address their social responsibilities and how they disclose their societal responses. Management accountants are accustomed to providing performance measures within an organization and MCS usually have an internal focus. CFOs are often not accustomed to balancing the needs of stakeholders with those of managers and owners. We suggest that companies and CFOs will face an information overload dilemma in making these determinations, and that users will be overloaded in sifting through the multiple dimensions of information that are increasingly being provided. We suggest that the bias toward financial performance measures will distort both the provision of relevant information and the use of sustainability performance measures. We modified the Epstein and Roy sustainability model (2001) to illustrate some of these potential impacts.

We note that the balanced scorecard (BSC) was developed as one such tool to reflect and communicate multiple measures. We summarize a previous study showing how managers ignored multiple performance measures in a performance scorecard study. We then relate our results to some of the information overload literature to support our suggestion that stakeholders will face many of the same information overload issues and constraints when using and processing social disclosures.

Our summary of the information overload literature results in a call for more interdisciplinary information overload research involving real-world contexts and tasks. We note that most of the extant information overload literature is restricted to discipline-based silo-oriented studies and to simplistic evaluations, brand identification, or forecasting tasks. Our study went into some depth to describe the business, its strategies and objectives, and a comparison of actual results to specific goals. As management control systems evolve or are designed to report sustainability data, the issues surrounding increasing complexity and information overload will become exponentially problematic. We suggest that future research also include consideration of information overload conditions facing preparers and disclosers of sustainability measures.

This paper examines potential cognitive difficulties inherent in the use of performance measurement systems. We examine the potential for emphasizing financial measures as compared to nonfinancial measures in the evaluation of an organization's overall performance. The results suggest that users of performance measurement data will emphasize historical financial measures. Two separate experiments provide additional evidence that users of performance measurement data suffer a halo bias, in that an organization's performance on financial measures appears to influence their perception of the organization's performance on nonfinancial measures.

This study explores in the context of the use of the balanced scorecard (BSC) by management, whether the use of both financial and nonfinancial measures by top managers in their evaluations influences middle-level managers’ evaluations of their subordinates. This study uses a 2×2 experimental design where the subjects (MBA students) were asked to evaluate the performance of two lower-level managers under two different manipulation conditions. Subjects acted as middle-level managers of a hypothetical company. They were provided with the same performance information of two low-level managers under both conditions. However, under one condition, subjects were provided with additional information: the top management's evaluation style which used both financial and nonfinancial measures in their performance evaluations. No additional information was provided to subjects under the other manipulation condition. We also manipulated two performance information patterns of the two low-level managers. We predict that if middle-level managers are aware that the top manager uses both financial and nonfinancial measures in the BSC to evaluate their performance, middle-level managers would develop a mindset in which they will evaluate subordinates in a similar style, evaluating their subordinates on the basis of both financial and nonfinancial measures. The results of this study support the hypotheses. The findings of this study suggest that the contagion effect exists in the use of the BSC in performance evaluations.

The aim of this paper is to bridge the gap between the organizational effectiveness (OE) models developed in the field of organizational theory and the performance measurement models presented within the management accounting literature. The specific evolution of these two complementary streams of research stemming from two different fields of research are reconciled and integrated by analyzing their convergences and divergences. As a response to theoretical and practical pressures, the evolution of OE models reflects a construct perspective, while the evolution of performance measurement models mirrors a process perspective. Performance measurement models have moved from a cybernetic view whereby performance measurement was based mainly on financial measures and considered as a component of the planning and control cycle to a holistic view based on multiple nonfinancial measures where performance measurement acts as an independent process included in a broader set of activities. This paper contributes to the performance measurement literature by establishing the origins of the performance measurement models and by shedding light on unexplored fertile areas of future research.

This study examines the impact of different Balanced Scorecard (BSC) formats (table, graph without summary measure, graph with a summary measure) on various decision outcomes: performance ratings, perceived informativeness, and decision efficiency.

Using an original case developed by the researchers, a total of 135 individuals participated in the experiment and rated the performance of carwash managers in two different scenarios: one manager excelled financially but failed to meet targets for all other three BSC perspectives and the other manager had the opposite results.

The evaluators rated managerial performance significantly lower in the graph format compared to a table presentation of the BSC. Performance ratings were significantly higher for the scenario where the manager failed to meet only financial perspective targets but exceeded targets for all other nonfinancial BSC perspectives, contrary to the usual predictions based on the financial measure bias. The evaluators reported that informativeness of the BSC was highest in the table or graph without summary measure formats, and, surprisingly, adding a summary measure to the graph format significantly reduced perceived informativeness compared to the table format. Decision efficiency was better for the graph formats (with or without summary measure) than for the table format.

Ours is the first study to compare tables, graphs with and without a summary measure in the context of managerial performance evaluations and to examine their impact on ratings, informativeness, and efficiency. We developed an original case to test the boundaries of the financial measure bias.