IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v27y2018i1p129-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differential Weighting of Objective Versus Subjective Measures in Performance Evaluation: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Narisa Tianjing Dai
  • Xi (Jason) Kuang
  • Guliang Tang

Abstract

In this paper, we conduct two experiments to investigate how managers’ differential weighting of objective versus subjective measures affects their performance-evaluation decisions. Drawing on psychological theory, we predict that managers heuristically perceive objective measures to be more scientific than subjective measures. As a result, their performance-evaluation decisions are influenced more by objective measures than by subjective measures. Experimental results are consistent with our prediction. Supplemental analyses further support our theory by showing that participants do not perceive objective measures to be more important for performance evaluation nor do they perceive subjective measurement to be inappropriate. The implications of our findings for management accounting research and practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:129-148
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2016.1234402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09638180.2016.1234402
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638180.2016.1234402?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. Baker, George P & Jensen, Michael C & Murphy, Kevin J, 1988. " Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 43(3), pages 593-616, July.
    2. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
    3. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    4. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Decision Making under Ignorance: Arguing with Yourself," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-36, January.
    5. Yan Du & Marc Deloof & Ann Jorissen, 2013. "Headquarters−Subsidiary Interdependencies and the Design of Performance Evaluation and Reward Systems in Multinational Enterprises," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 391-424, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Rachel M. Hayes & Scott Schaefer, 2000. "Implicit Contracts and the Explanatory Power of Top Executive Compensation for Future Performance," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 273-293, Summer.
    8. Wendy J. Bailey & Gary Hecht & Kristy L. Towry, 2011. "Dividing the Pie: The Influence of Managerial Discretion Extent on Bonus Pool Allocation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1562-1584, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Fedor, Donald B. & Eder, Robert W. & Buckley, M. Ronald, 1989. "The contributory effects of supervisor intentions on subordinate feedback responses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 396-414, December.
    12. R. Duane Ireland & Michael A. Hitt & Richard A. Bettis & Deborah Auld De Porras, 1987. "Strategy formulation processes: Differences in perceptions of strength and weaknesses indicators and environmental uncertainty by managerial level," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(5), pages 469-485, September.
    13. Jörg Budde, 2007. "Performance Measure Congruity and the Balanced Scorecard," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 515-539, June.
    14. George Baker, 2000. "The Use of Performance Measures in Incentive Contracting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 415-420, May.
    15. Hoyer, Wayne D, 1984. "An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(3), pages 822-829, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Y. Du & M. Deloof & A. Jorissen, 2013. "The impact of headquarters-subsidiary interdependencies on the design of performance evaluation and reward systems in multinational enterprises," Post-Print hal-00841920, HAL.
    18. 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.
    19. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    20. 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.
    21. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert H, 1996. "Favoritism in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 958-978, October.
    22. 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.
    23. James P. Walsh, 1995. "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 280-321, June.
    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. Au, Pak Hung & Chen, Bin R., 2019. "Objective and subjective indicators in long-term contracting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 309-331.
    2. 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.
    3. 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..
    4. Irene Trapp & Rouven Trapp, 2019. "The psychological effects of centrality bias: an experimental analysis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 155-189, March.
    5. 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.

    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. Kroos, P., 2009. "The incentive effects of performance measures and target setting," Other publications TiSEM 944001f9-198b-4b81-8824-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Merchant, Kenneth A. & Van der Stede, Wim A. & Zheng, Liu, 2003. "Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 251-286.
    3. Jörg Budde, 2007. "Performance Measure Congruity and the Balanced Scorecard," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 515-539, June.
    4. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    5. Delfgaauw, Josse & Souverijn, Michiel, 2016. "Biased supervision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 107-125.
    6. Thiele, Veikko, 2007. "Performance measurement in multi-task agencies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 148-163, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Robert Gibbons, 2005. "Incentives Between Firms (and Within)," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 2-17, January.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Michael Raith, 2008. "Specific knowledge and performance measurement," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 1059-1079, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Thiele, Veikko, 2007. "Task-Specific Abilities in Multi-Task Agency Relations," MPRA Paper 2470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Uwe Jirjahn & Erik Poutsma, 2013. "The Use of Performance Appraisal Systems: Evidence from Dutch Establishment Data," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 801-828, October.
    15. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pb:p:2373-2437 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Heike Kreienbaum, 2017. "What guides subjective performance evaluation: Incentive alignment or norm enforcement?," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 933-957, October.
    17. Dirk Sliwka, 2002. "On the Use of Nonfinancial Performance Measures in Management Compensation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 487-511, September.
    18. Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2003. "Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 287-318.
    19. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.
    20. Budde, Jörg, 2006. "Distorted performance measurement and relational contracts," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 203, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    21. Ola Kvaløy & Trond E. Olsen, 2023. "Balanced Scorecards: A Relational Contract Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 619-652, May.

    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:taf:euract:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:129-148. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REAR20 .

    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.