This is a preview. Log in to get access
Abstract
The balanced scorecard is a new tool that complements traditional measures of business unit performance. The scorecard contains a diverse set of performance measures, including financial performance, customer relations, internal business processes, and learning and growth. Advocates of the balanced scorecard suggest that each unit in the organization should develop and use its own scorecard, choosing measures that capture the unit's business strategy. Our study examines judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard-specifically, how balanced scorecards that include some measures common to multiple units and other measures that are unique to a particular unit affect superiors' evaluations of that unit's performance. Our test shows that only the common measures affect the superiors' evaluations. We discuss the implications of this result for research and practice.
Journal Information
The Accounting Review is the premier journal for publishing articles reporting the results of accounting research and explaining and illustrating related research methodology. The scope of acceptable articles embraces any research methodology and any accounting-related subject. The primary criterion for publication in The Accounting Review is the significance of the contribution an article makes to the literature.
Publisher Information
The American Accounting Association is the world's largest association of accounting and business educators, researchers, and interested practitioners. A worldwide organization, the AAA promotes education, research, service, and interaction between education and practice. Formed in 1916 as the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, the association began publishing the first of its ten journals, The Accounting Review, in 1925. Ten years later, in 1935, the association changed its name to become the American Accounting Association. The AAA now extends far beyond accounting, with 14 Sections addressing such issues as Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence/Expert Systems, Public Interest, Auditing, taxation (the American Taxation Association is a Section of the AAA), International Accounting, and Teaching and Curriculum. About 30% of AAA members live and work outside the United States.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The Accounting Review © 2000 American Accounting Association
Request Permissions
This is a preview. Log in to get access
Abstract
This study examines how different types of performance measures were weighted in a subjective balanced scorecard bonus plan adopted by a major financial services firm. Drawing upon economic and psychological studies on performance evaluation and compensation criteria, we develop hypotheses regarding the weights placed on different types of measures. We find that the subjectivity in the scorecard plan allowed superiors to reduce the "balance" in bonus awards by placing most of the weight on financial measures, to incorporate factors other than the scorecard measures in performance evaluations, to change evaluation criteria from quarter to quarter, to ignore measures that were predictive of future financial performance, and to weight measures that were not predictive of desired results. This evidence suggests that psychology-based explanations may be equally or more relevant than economics-based explanations in explaining the firm's measurement practices. The high level of subjectivity in the balanced scorecard plan led many branch managers to complain about favoritism in bonus awards and uncertainty in the criteria being used to determine rewards. The system ultimately was abandoned in favor of a formulaic bonus plan based solely on revenues.
Journal Information
The Accounting Review is the premier journal for publishing articles reporting the results of accounting research and explaining and illustrating related research methodology. The scope of acceptable articles embraces any research methodology and any accounting-related subject. The primary criterion for publication in The Accounting Review is the significance of the contribution an article makes to the literature.
Publisher Information
The American Accounting Association is the world's largest association of accounting and business educators, researchers, and interested practitioners. A worldwide organization, the AAA promotes education, research, service, and interaction between education and practice. Formed in 1916 as the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, the association began publishing the first of its ten journals, The Accounting Review, in 1925. Ten years later, in 1935, the association changed its name to become the American Accounting Association. The AAA now extends far beyond accounting, with 14 Sections addressing such issues as Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence/Expert Systems, Public Interest, Auditing, taxation (the American Taxation Association is a Section of the AAA), International Accounting, and Teaching and Curriculum. About 30% of AAA members live and work outside the United States.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Terms and Conditions
The Accounting Review © 2003 American Accounting Association
Request Permissions