IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

New’ Performance Measures: Determinants of Their Use and Their Impact on Performance

Listed author(s):
  • Verbeeten, F.H.M.
Registered author(s):

    This study investigates the extent to which Dutch organizations use ‘new’ performance measures to deal with the perceived inadequacies of traditional accounting performance measures. In addition, the determinants of the use of these ‘new’ performance measures are documented; finally, the alignment hypothesis is tested. Using survey data from Dutch firms, I find that non-financial measures appear to be used most often in addition to more traditional performance measures; economic value measures and subjective measures appear to be used to a lesser extent. Second, the results indicate that the importance of the shareholder value goal and size are positively related to the use of economic value measures. The importance of the shareholder value goal, a growth mission, task culture and size are all positively associated with the use of non-financial measures. The (relative) use of subjective measures is negatively related to size. Finally, I find no support for the alignment hypothesis that a mismatch between the firm’s strategic and contextual characteristics and its performance measurement system adversely affect performance.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/6993/ERS-2005-054-F&A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by 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 in its series ERIM Report Series Research in Management with number ERS-2005-054-F&A.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 14 Oct 2005
    Handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:6993
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    RSM Erasmus University & Erasmus School of Economics, PoBox 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam

    Phone: 31-10-408 1182
    Fax: 31-10-408 9020
    Web page: http://www.erim.eur.nl/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Christie, Andrew A. & Joye, Marc P. & Watts, Ross L., 2003. "Decentralization of the firm: theory and evidence," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 3-36, January.
    2. Gordon, Lawrence A. & Miller, Danny, 1976. "A contingency framework for the design of accounting information systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 59-69, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F., 2001. "Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 349-410, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Sunil Dutta & Stefan Reichelstein, 2003. "Leading Indicator Variables, Performance Measurement, and Long-Term Versus Short-Term Contracts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 837-866, December.
    7. Langfield-Smith, Kim, 1997. "Management control systems and strategy: A critical review," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 207-232, February.
    8. Cavalluzzo, Ken S. & Ittner, Christopher D., 2004. "Implementing performance measurement innovations: evidence from government," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 243-267.
    9. Robert E. Quinn & Kim Cameron, 1983. "Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 33-51, January.
    10. Kevin B. Hendricks & Vinod R. Singhal, 2001. "The Long-Run Stock Price Performance of Firms with Effective TQM Programs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(3), pages 359-368, March.
    11. Abernethy, Margaret A. & Lillis, Anne M., 1995. "The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management control system design," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 241-258, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F., 1997. "Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(3-4), pages 293-314.
    14. 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.
    15. George Baker, 2002. "Distortion and Risk in Optimal Incentive Contracts," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 728-751.
    16. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert H, 1996. "Favoritism in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 958-978, October.
    17. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    18. Chenhall, R. H. & Langfield-Smith, K., 1998. "The relationship between strategic priorities, management techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using a systems approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 243-264, April.
    19. William G. Ouchi, 1979. "A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(9), pages 833-848, September.
    20. Abernethy, Margaret A. & Brownell, Peter, 1999. "The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic change: an exploratory study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 189-204, April.
    21. 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.
    22. Chenhall, Robert H., 2003. "Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 127-168.
    23. Wallace, James S., 1997. "Adopting residual income-based compensation plans: Do you get what you pay for?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 275-300, December.
    24. Waterhouse, J. H. & Tiessen, P., 1978. "A contingency framework for management accounting systems research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 65-76, February.
    25. Chapman, Christopher S., 1997. "Reflections on a contingent view of accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 189-205, February.
    26. Joel M. Stern & G. Bennett Stewart & Donald H. Chew, 1995. "The Eva® Financial Management System," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 8(2), pages 32-46.
    27. Gerald T. Garvey & Todd T. Milbourn, 2000. "EVA versus Earnings: Does it Matter which is More Highly Correlated with Stock Returns?," Claremont Colleges Working Papers 2000-52, Claremont Colleges.
    28. repec:bla:joares:v:38:y:2000:i::p:209-245 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. Biddle, Gary C. & Bowen, Robert M. & Wallace, James S., 1997. "Does EVA(R) beat earnings? Evidence on associations with stock returns and firm values," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 301-336, December.
    30. Robert E. Quinn & John Rohrbaugh, 1983. "A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 363-377, March.
    31. Henry Mintzberg, 1978. "Patterns in Strategy Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(9), pages 934-948, May.
    32. Dent, Jeremy F., 1990. "Strategy, organization and control: Some possibilities for accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 3-25.
    33. Canice Prendergast, 2002. "The Tenuous Trade-off between Risk and Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 1071-1102, October.
    34. Perera, S. & Harrison, G. & Poole, M., 1997. "Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-financial performance measures: A research note," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 557-572, August.
    35. Simons, Robert, 1987. "Accounting control systems and business strategy: An empirical analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 357-374, June.
    36. Kevin B. Hendricks & Vinod R. Singhal, 1997. "Does Implementing an Effective TQM Program Actually Improve Operating Performance? Empirical Evidence from Firms That Have Won Quality Awards," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(9), pages 1258-1274, September.
    37. Otley, David T., 1980. "The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 413-428, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:6993. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (RePub)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.