IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/metrik/v23y2012i2p97-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating conflicting performance on driver and outcome measures: the effect of strategy maps

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Mastilak
  • Linda Matuszewski
  • Fabienne Miller
  • Alexander Woods

Abstract

This study examines how strategy maps affect balanced scorecard (BSC) evaluators’ assessments of managerial performance. We examine a setting in which managers achieve target levels of performance on driver measures but not outcome measures. Without a strategy map, the more evaluators believe the outcome was beyond the manager’s control, the more they indemnify the manager. In contrast, evaluators with strategy maps do not use their beliefs about the uncontrollability of the outcome when making evaluation decisions. Rather, evaluators with strategy maps evaluate the manager without regard to the extent to which they believed the poor outcome was due to uncontrollable factors. Thus, strategy maps affect how evaluators implement control over the firm’s strategy. The finding suggests that the use of strategy maps, which is an integral part of the BSC, may actually have detrimental effects for organizations whose outcomes are influenced significantly by uncontrollable factors. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Mastilak & Linda Matuszewski & Fabienne Miller & Alexander Woods, 2012. "Evaluating conflicting performance on driver and outcome measures: the effect of strategy maps," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 97-114, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:metrik:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:97-114
    DOI: 10.1007/s00187-012-0159-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00187-012-0159-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00187-012-0159-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F. & Randall, Taylor, 2003. "Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 715-741.
    2. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    3. Banker, Rd & Datar, Sm, 1989. "Sensitivity, Precision, And Linear Aggregation Of Signals For Performance Evaluation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 21-39.
    4. Levi, Ariel S. & Pryor, John B., 1987. "Use of the availability heuristic in probability estimates of future events: The effects of imagining outcomes versus imagining reasons," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 219-234, October.
    5. Srikant Datar & Susan Cohen Kulp & Richard A. Lambert, 2001. "Balancing Performance Measures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 75-92, June.
    6. van Veen-Dirks, Paula, 2010. "Different uses of performance measures: The evaluation versus reward of production managers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 141-164, February.
    7. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Erratum to "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research" [Accounting Organizations and Society 28 (2003) 169-249]," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 815-815.
    8. Ghosh, Dipankar & Lusch, Robert F., 2000. "Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers: some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 411-425, May.
    9. Banker, Rajiv D. & Chang, Hsihui & Pizzini, Mina, 2011. "The judgmental effects of strategy maps in balanced scorecard performance evaluations," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 259-279.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brian D. Knox, 2020. "A strategy map’s effect on the feedback that middle managers pass along to upper management," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 381-404, February.
    2. Pasi Aaltola, 2019. "Strategic thinking and accounting: potentials and pitfalls from a managerial perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 323-351, October.
    3. Federico Cosenz & Lidia Noto, 2015. "Combining system dynamics modelling and management control systems to support strategic learning processes in SMEs: a Dynamic Performance Management approach," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 225-248, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Margaret A. Abernethy & Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2013. "The Role of Performance Measures in the Intertemporal Decisions of Business Unit Managers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 925-961, September.
    2. Artz, Martin & Homburg, Christian & Rajab, Thomas, 2012. "Performance-measurement system design and functional strategic decision influence: The role of performance-measure properties," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 445-460.
    3. Verbeeten, F.H.M., 2005. "New’ Performance Measures: Determinants of Their Use and Their Impact on Performance," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-054-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Discussion Paper 2003-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Hall, Matthew, 2008. "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 141-163.
    6. Widener, Sally K., 2007. "An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 757-788.
    7. Arnold, Markus C. & Artz, Martin, 2015. "Target difficulty, target flexibility, and firm performance: Evidence from business units’ targets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 61-77.
    8. van Veen-Dirks, Paula, 2010. "Different uses of performance measures: The evaluation versus reward of production managers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 141-164, February.
    9. Irene Eleonora Lisi, 2018. "Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 225-251, September.
    10. David Marginson & Laurie McAulay & Melvin Roush & Tony Van Zijl, 2010. "Performance measures and short‐termism: An exploratory study," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 353-370.
    11. Grafton, Jennifer & Lillis, Anne M. & Widener, Sally K., 2010. "The role of performance measurement and evaluation in building organizational capabilities and performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 689-706, October.
    12. Burney, Laurie L. & Henle, Christine A. & Widener, Sally K., 2009. "A path model examining the relations among strategic performance measurement system characteristics, organizational justice, and extra- and in-role performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 305-321, April.
    13. Bellavance, François & Landry, Suzanne & Schiehll, Eduardo, 2013. "Procedural justice in managerial performance evaluation: Effects of subjectivity, relationship quality, and voice opportunity," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 149-166.
    14. Bisbe, Josep & Batista-Foguet, Joan-Manuel & Chenhall, Robert, 2007. "Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 789-820.
    15. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Other publications TiSEM 46a62de7-d051-4620-93bb-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Margaret A. Abernethy & Henri C. Dekker & Axel K‐D. Schulz, 2015. "Are Employee Selection and Incentive Contracts Complements or Substitutes?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 633-668, September.
    17. Abdel-Maksoud, A. & Cerbioni, F. & Ricceri, F. & Velayutham, S., 2010. "Employee morale, non-financial performance measures, deployment of innovative managerial practices and shop-floor involvement in Italian manufacturing firms," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 36-55.
    18. Prabhu Sivabalan & Peter Booth & Teemu Malmi & David A. Brown, 2009. "An exploratory study of operational reasons to budget," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(4), pages 849-871, December.
    19. Hall, Matthew, 2010. "Accounting information and managerial work," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Joan Luft & Michael Shields, 2002. "Zimmerman's contentious conjectures: describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 795-803.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:metrik:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:97-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.