IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v62y2022i3p4079-4108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the concept of subjectivity in performance evaluation and its effects on perceived procedural justice across contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Thuy‐Van Tran
  • Janne Järvinen

Abstract

This study explores the notion of subjectivity in performance evaluation as a multidimensional concept, including ex ante specified and ex post subjective evaluation, which are determined at different phases of an evaluation period. This distinction is important as these subjectivity types have different purposes and varying impacts on organisational outcomes. Based on a survey of 160 Vietnamese middle managers, we uncover their assorted impacts on perceived procedural justice across contexts of formalisation and job autonomy. As such, this study seeks to offer important insights on the literature of subjective evaluation and organisational justice.

Suggested Citation

  • Thuy‐Van Tran & Janne Järvinen, 2022. "Understanding the concept of subjectivity in performance evaluation and its effects on perceived procedural justice across contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 4079-4108, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:62:y:2022:i:3:p:4079-4108
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.12916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12916
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.12916?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcel Van Rinsum & Frank H.M. Verbeeten, 2012. "The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on public sector managers’ motivation," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 377-396, September.
    2. Sungchan Kim & Soyoung Park, 2017. "Diversity Management and Fairness in Public Organizations," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 179-193, June.
    3. Kai A. Bauch & Peter Kotzian & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2021. "Likeability in subjective performance evaluations: does it bias managers’ weighting of performance measures?," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 35-59, February.
    4. Vincent K. Chong & Isabel Z. Wang, 2019. "Delegation of Decision Rights and Misreporting: The Roles of Incentive-based Compensation Schemes and Responsibility Rationalization," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 275-307, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    7. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    8. Podsakoff, Philip M. & Niehoff, Brian P. & MacKenzie, Scott B. & Williams, Margaret L., 1993. "Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitute for Leadership? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier's Situational Leadership Model," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-44, February.
    9. Govindarajan, V. & Gupta, Anil K., 1985. "Linking control systems to business unit strategy: impact on performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 51-66, January.
    10. Chih-Hai Yang & Eric D. Ramstetter & Jen-Ruey Tsaur & Minh Ngoc Phan, 2015. "Openness, Ownership, and Regional Economic Growth in Vietnam," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(S1), pages 224-233, January.
    11. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert, 1993. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 355-365, April.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11661 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Moers, Frank, 2005. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 67-80, January.
    14. Jasmijn C. Bol & Gary Hecht & Steven D. Smith, 2015. "Managers' Discretionary Adjustments: The Influence of Uncontrollable Events and Compensation Interdependence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 139-159, March.
    15. Paula M. G. Veen-Dirks & Marijke C. Leliveld & Wesley Kaufmann, 2021. "The effect of enabling versus coercive performance measurement systems on procedural fairness and red tape," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 269-294, June.
    16. Andy Wang & Maria Cadiz Dyball, 2019. "Management controls and their links with fairness and performance in inter‐organisational relationships," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 59(3), pages 1835-1868, September.
    17. Schminke, Marshall & Cropanzano, Russell & Rupp, Deborah E., 2002. "Organization structure and fairness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 881-905, September.
    18. Carmona, Salvador & Iyer, Govind & Reckers, Philip M.J., 2014. "Performance evaluation bias: A comparative study on the role of financial fixation, similarity-to-self and likeability," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 9-17.
    19. 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.
    20. Casey P Durand, 2013. "Does Raising Type 1 Error Rate Improve Power to Detect Interactions in Linear Regression Models? A Simulation Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-5, August.
    21. 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.
    22. Bushman, Robert M. & Indjejikian, Raffi J. & Smith, Abbie, 1996. "CEO compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 161-193, April.
    23. Frank Hartmann & David Naranjo-Gil & Paolo Perego, 2010. "The Effects of Leadership Styles and Use of Performance Measures on Managerial Work-Related Attitudes," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 275-310.
    24. Bicudo de Castro, Vincent, 2017. "Unpacking the notion of subjectivity: Performance evaluation and supervisor discretion," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 532-544.
    25. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    26. Kevin Baird & Amy Tung & Sophia Su, 2020. "Employee empowerment, performance appraisal quality and performance," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 451-474, December.
    27. Libby, Theresa, 1999. "The influence of voice and explanation on performance in a participative budgeting setting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 125-137, April.
    28. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    29. Shreya Garg & Rajib Dhar, 2017. "Employee service innovative behavior," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 38(2), pages 242-258, May.
    30. Van der Stede, Wim A. & Young, S. Mark & Chen, Clara Xiaoling, 2005. "Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: The case of survey studies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(7-8), pages 655-684.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    2. Bicudo de Castro, Vincent, 2017. "Unpacking the notion of subjectivity: Performance evaluation and supervisor discretion," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 532-544.
    3. 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.
    4. van Rinsum, M., 2019. "Utilizing Incentives and Accountability: In Control in Control?," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA 2019-078-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..
    5. Christoph Feichter & Isabella Grabner, 2020. "Empirische Forschung zu Management Control – Ein Überblick und neue Trends [Empirical Management Control Reserach—An Overview and Future Directions]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 149-181, June.
    6. Iryna Alves & Sofia M. Lourenço, 2022. "The use of non-financial performance measures for managerial compensation: evidence from SMEs," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 151-187, June.
    7. Martin, Rachel & Thomas, Tyler, 2022. "Target setting with compensation discretion: How are ex ante targets affected when superiors have ex post discretion?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    8. Wei Cai & Susanna Gallani & Jee-Eun Shin, 2023. "Incentive Effects of Subjective Allocations of Rewards and Penalties," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 3121-3139, May.
    9. Habib Mahama & Zhichao (Alex) Wang, 2023. "Impact of the interactive and diagnostic uses of performance measurement systems on procedural fairness perception, cooperation and performance in supply alliances," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3253-3296, September.
    10. Kelly K. Wang & Maria Cadiz Dyball & Andy Wang, 2023. "The link between formality and procedural fairness: The influences of precision, sensitivity and role clarity," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(S1), pages 1571-1598, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Juho Jokinen & Jaakko Pehkonen, 2021. "The role of personal and relative job performance in promotion decisions," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 35(4), pages 485-499, December.
    13. Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Guliang Tang, 2018. "Differential Weighting of Objective Versus Subjective Measures in Performance Evaluation: Experimental Evidence," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 129-148, January.
    14. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    15. Neale G. O'Connor & F. Johnny Deng & Pan Fei, 2015. "Observability and Subjective Performance Measurement," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 208-237, June.
    16. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2015. "Inflated reputations: Uncertainty, leniency & moral wiggle room in trader feedback systems," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 06-04, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences, revised 29 Jul 2016.
    17. Terstiege, Stefan, 2013. "Objective versus Subjective Performance Evaluations," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 430, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    18. 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.
    19. Puhani, Patrick A. & Yang, Philip, 2020. "Does increased teacher accountability decrease leniency in grading?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 333-341.
    20. Raymond O. S. Zaal, 2011. "Reinforcing Ethical Behavior through Organizational Architecture: A Hypothesized Relationship," Chapters, in: Killian J. McCarthy & Maya Fiolet & Wilfred Dolfsma (ed.), The Nature of the New Firm, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:acctfi:v:62:y:2022:i:3:p:4079-4108. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    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.