IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v63y2023is1p1571-1598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The link between formality and procedural fairness: The influences of precision, sensitivity and role clarity

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly K. Wang
  • Maria Cadiz Dyball
  • Andy Wang

Abstract

This study investigates the complex and not straight‐forward association between formality and procedural fairness. It examines the mediating roles of precision of performance measures, sensitivity of performance measures and role clarity. Using survey responses of functional managers of Australian manufacturing firms, the study finds that the link between formality and procedural fairness is mediated by sensitivity of performance measures and role clarity. Role clarity also mediates the link between sensitivity of performance measures and procedural fairness. Our study contributes to the literature by identifying two important factors through which formal performance evaluation can enhance procedural fairness, which is a source of performance motivation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:s1:p:1571-1598
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.13072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13072
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.13072?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. Mahfud Sholihin & Richard Pike, 2009. "Fairness in performance evaluation and its behavioural consequences," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 397-413.
    3. repec:eme:aaaj00:09513570610709917 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    7. Michael Burkert & Franz Michael Fischer & Florian Hoos & Karl Schuhmacher, 2017. "The relationship between lack of controllability and proactive work behaviour: an empirical analysis of competing theoretical explanations," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 144-171, February.
    8. Moers F, 2000. "The Role of Performance Measure Characteristics in the Design of Incentive Systems: An Empirical Analysis," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    9. Milgrom, Paul R, 1988. "Employment Contracts, Influence Activities, and Efficient Organization Design," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 42-60, February.
    10. Kenneth A. Merchant, 2006. "Measuring general managers' performances," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(6), pages 893-917, November.
    11. Chong M. Lau, 2015. "The effects of nonfinancial performance measures on role clarity, procedural fairness and managerial performance," Pacific Accounting Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 27(2), pages 142-165, April.
    12. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert, 1993. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 355-365, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Merchant, Kenneth A., 1985. "Budgeting and the propensity to create budgetary slack," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 201-210, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    17. Abernethy, Margaret A. & Brownell, Peter, 1997. "Management control systems in research and development organizations: The role of accounting, behavior and personnel controls," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(3-4), pages 233-248.
    18. Moers, F., 2000. "The role of performance measure characteristics in the design of incentive systems: an empirical analysis," Research Memorandum 052, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Sholihin, Mahfud & Pike, Richard & Mangena, Musa & Li, Jing, 2011. "Goal-setting participation and goal commitment: Examining the mediating roles of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in a UK financial services organisation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-146.
    20. HOLMSTROM, Bengt, 1979. "Moral hazard and observability," LIDAM Reprints CORE 379, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    21. 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.
    22. Lau, Chong M. & Sholihin, Mahfud, 2005. "Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: How do they affect job satisfaction?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 389-413.
    23. Chenhall, Robert H. & Brownell, Peter, 1988. "The effect of participative budgeting on job satisfaction and performance: Role ambiguity as an intervening variable," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 225-233, April.
    24. Yadong Luo, 2008. "Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 27-46, January.
    25. Hartmann, Frank & Slapnicar, Sergeja, 2009. "How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 722-737, August.
    26. Lambert, Richard A., 2001. "Contracting theory and accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 3-87, December.
    27. 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.
    28. Govindarajan, V., 1984. "Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 125-135, June.
    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. 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. Sebastian Goebel & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2017. "Effects of management control mechanisms: towards a more comprehensive analysis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 185-219, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Andreas J. Steur & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Properties of feedback mechanisms on digital platforms: an exploratory study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(4), pages 479-526, May.
    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. Nitzl, Christian, 2016. "The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 19-35.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Bol, Jasmijn C. & Kramer, Stephan & Maas, Victor S., 2016. "How control system design affects performance evaluation compression: The role of information accuracy and outcome transparency," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 64-73.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Pauline Beau, 2016. "L'influence de la justice organisationnelle sur le stress : le cas du contrôle des performances individuelles dans les grands cabinets d'audit," Post-Print hal-01902416, HAL.
    16. 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).
    17. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    18. 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.
    19. Engel, Ellen & Hayes, Rachel M. & Wang, Xue, 2003. "CEO turnover and properties of accounting information," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-3), pages 197-226, December.
    20. Lisa-Marie Wibbeke & Maik Lachmann, 2020. "Psychology in management accounting and control research: an overview of the recent literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 275-328, September.

    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:63:y:2023:i:s1:p:1571-1598. 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.