IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/mrrpps/v35y2012i7p637-661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The balanced scorecard: the effects of feedback on performance evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Gerui (Grace) Kang
  • Amy Fredin

Abstract

Purpose - The use of a balanced scorecard (BSC) for performance evaluation is meant to help evaluators make more complete decisions, as they have a variety of financial and non‐financial measures to assess. The problem is that users have difficulty taking all of the measures into consideration. The tendency to place more weight on common measures (measures that are the same across divisions) while either ignoring or placing very little weight on unique measures (measures are unique to a particular division) has become known as a “common measures bias”. The purpose of this paper is to extend a line of research that works to understand how this common measures bias might be mitigated. Design/methodology/approach - This study examines whether the presence of task property feedback, a form of cognitive feedback, prior to a performance evaluation task, can help evaluators overcome the tendency to rely primarily on common measures. This study used a 2×2 experimental design where subjects were asked to evaluate the performance of two managers under either feedback or non‐feedback conditions. In the feedback condition, subjects were provided with their supervisor's suggestions about performance evaluation in the use of BSCs. Findings - This study finds that when subjects were given task property feedback, a form of cognitive feedback, they tended to use more unique measures than if they were not given any feedback information at all. Practical implications - In practice, more straight forward and simple feedback information is likely easier for companies to implement and easier for evaluators to follow. Feedback information that is too complex or that requires too much effort may frustrate evaluators, at which point they may abandon the effort. The authors' findings also indicate that direct and clear guidance from the top manager of a business may be seen as pressure by lower‐level managers. It is important for top managers to create such a performance evaluation environment so that all BSC measures are considered. Originality/value - The paper finds that when evaluators judge the performance of managers through the use of a BSC, they tend to weight common measures more heavily than they do unique measures, unless they are provided cognitive feedback to cue them into the importance of using all measures. This study is one of many, following LS (2000), documenting a finding of common measures bias in the use of BSCs. Where this study contributes to the literature is in the use of task property feedback, a form of cognitive feedback, to overcome this bias. Since the use of unique measures is a key attribute of BSCs as they help users capture the nuances of a specific division's or firm's strategy, it is crucial that performance evaluators pay careful attention to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerui (Grace) Kang & Amy Fredin, 2012. "The balanced scorecard: the effects of feedback on performance evaluation," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(7), pages 637-661, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:mrrpps:v:35:y:2012:i:7:p:637-661
    DOI: 10.1108/01409171211238848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01409171211238848/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01409171211238848/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/01409171211238848?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michael A. Mulvaney, 2019. "Examining the Role of Employee Participation, Supervisor Trust, and Appraisal Reactions for a Pay-for-Performance Appraisal System," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 201-225, June.
    2. Suaad Jassem & Anna Azmi & Zarina Zakaria, 2018. "Impact of Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Types on Environmental Investment Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    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. Jassem Suaad & Zakaria Zarina & Che Azmi Anna, 2020. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Architecture and Environmental Investment Decision-Making," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 193-210, January.

    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:eme:mrrpps:v:35:y:2012:i:7:p:637-661. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.