اندازه گیری عملکرد غیرمالی و مالی : آنها چگونه بر وضوح نقش کارکنان و عملکرد تاثیر می گذارند؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|98||2011||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Advances in Accounting, Volume 27, Issue 2, December 2011, Pages 286–293
Two recent studies have found that comprehensive performance measurement systems comprising both financial and nonfinancial measures (e.g., balanced scorecard) are positively related to managerial performance through role clarity. It is, however, unclear if these results are from the use of financial measures or from the use of nonfinancial measures. It is also unclear if these effects are achievable by using nonfinancial measures alone. This study provides insights into prior studies' findings by distinguishing those effects arising from nonfinancial measures from those arising from financial measures. Based on a sample of 121 managers, the results indicate that nonfinancial measures, by themselves, significantly influence managerial performance through role clarity. More importantly, they also indicate that the effect of nonfinancial measures on role clarity is substantially stronger than that through financial measures.
This study investigates the roles and relative importance of nonfinancial measures vis-à-vis financial measures in influencing managerial (employee) performance through employee role clarity. Recent research in multidimensional performance evaluation systems (e.g., balanced scorecard) has extended its focus on organizational level outcomes to individual employee outcomes. Researchers are increasingly concerned with not only how such performance measurement systems affect organizational performance, but also on how they influence individual employee performance. Burney and Widener (2007) argue that the lack of systematic empirical evidence on the relationships between performance measurement systems and individual behaviors constitutes a black box and an important gap in the literature that needs research attention. Researchers have suggested that the effects of performance measurement systems on managerial performance are likely to be indirect through intervening variables. One of the variables identified as having such important intervening effects is employee role clarity (ambiguity). Two recent studies provide empirical evidence in support of this proposition. Burney and Widener (2007) found that strategic performance measurement systems are significantly related to role clarity (ambiguity) and that role clarity is an important intervening variable in the relationship between strategic performance measurement systems and managerial performance. Hall (2008) similarly found that comprehensive performance measurement systems are significantly related to both process and goal clarity which are subdimensions of role clarity. He also found that they fully mediate the relationship between comprehensive performance measurement systems and managerial performance. There is therefore empirical evidence to suggest that the effect of performance measurement systems on managerial performance is indirect through role clarity. However, the abovementioned two studies have both examined performance measurement systems comprising a combination of financial and nonfinancial measures. Both studies did not isolate and compare the results arising from financial measures with those arising from nonfinancial measures. This leaves some unanswered questions. First, since comprehensive performance measurement systems are likely to comprise both nonfinancial measures and financial measures, are the effects found by the aforementioned two studies derived from using nonfinancial measures or are they from financial measures? Would the use of nonfinancial measures, by themselves, produce the same effects? Would the use of financial measures, by themselves, generate the same results? More importantly, what is the relative importance of nonfinancial measures vis-à-vis financial measures in these relationships? In other words, are the results of Burney and Widener, 2007 and Hall, 2008 driven mainly by nonfinancial measures or mainly by financial measures? Our study contributes to the literature by addressing these unresolved issues. Fig. 1 depicts the model used in our study. It indicates that role clarity is affected by two separate constructs, nonfinancial measures and financial measures. Role clarity, in turn, is related to managerial performance. This model extends prior studies by isolating the effects of nonfinancial measures on role clarity and managerial performance from those arising from financial measures. This will allow us to ascertain if the effects of comprehensive performance on managerial performance are derived from nonfinancial measures alone, financial measures alone, or from both nonfinancial and financial measures, as well as the relative importance of each category of measures.The study of the isolated effects of nonfinancial measures, by themselves, is important for several reasons. First, three of the four perspectives in balanced scorecard are nonfinancial. Nonfinancial measures are therefore a dominant feature of multidimensional performance measurement systems. Second, while the use of a combination of financial measures and nonfinancial measures may be appropriate to evaluate organizational performance, the use of such a comprehensive system to evaluate individual manager's performance is questionable. Meyer (2002) suggests that while financial measures (e.g., return on equity, profits) may be relevant to managers at strategic business unit level, they are inappropriate for the evaluation of managers at below business unit level because at such levels, operations and performance are generally unique and specialized and hence employee performance evaluations require nonfinancial measures that are customized to the unique situations. Abdel-Maksoud, Dugdale, and Luther (2005) found that at shop-floor level, much of the performance measurement is nonfinancial. Their results led them to develop a “shop-floor scorecard” comprising only nonfinancial measures. Consequently, for some organizations and in some situations, an understanding of the isolated effects of nonfinancial measures and the isolated effected of financial measures may be more relevant than the combined effects of nonfinancial and financial measures. Hence, a study of the effects of nonfinancial measures on employee outcomes is therefore not only important in the understanding of multidimensional performance measurement systems, but is also important in its own rights. An understanding of such issues may also assist organizations to expend the appropriate amount of attention to the performance measures commensurate with their importance in influencing employee performance. The development of an appropriate performance evaluation system in general, and the selection of the correct performance measures in particular, are a difficult, time consuming and costly exercise. More importantly, performance evaluations are important to employees because such evaluations are generally tied to their remuneration and promotions. Hence, the development and selection of inappropriate performance evaluation measures and procedures may lead to serious adverse employee reactions which are detrimental to organizational interest. Top management should therefore ensure that its employee performance evaluation systems are sound. The evidence uncovered in our study may provide some guidance particularly with regard to the use of nonfinancial measures. It would assist them to decide whether the adoption of nonfinancial measures as performance evaluation criteria is worthwhile or indeed even necessary. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The following section provides the relevant theoretical justification for the hypotheses. This is followed by a discussion of the method used. The next section presents the results of the statistical analysis. The final section includes a discussion of the findings and the conclusions of the study.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study investigates issues relating to the use of nonfinancial measures for employee performance evaluation. It attempts to provide systematic empirical evidence for the following research questions. First, would the use of nonfinancial measures as performance evaluation criteria affect managerial performance? If so, are these effects indirect through the enhancement of employee role clarity, which in turn, affects managerial performance? More importantly, are these effects of nonfinancial measures similar to or different from those generated by the use of financial measures? Answers to such questions are important and timely given the current interest in multidimensional performance measurement systems such as the balanced scorecard in general, and the increasing importance of nonfinancial measures in particular in such systems. They are also important in helping to resolve gaps in the literature arising from prior studies' findings. The study is based on the responses of 121 managers from manufacturing organizations. Structural equation modeling technique based on AMOS version 17 is used to analyze the data. The results are as follows. First, the use of nonfinancial measures for employee performance evaluation is significantly related to managerial performance. However, these effects are indirect through role clarity. Role clarity fully mediates the relationship between nonfinancial measures and managerial performance. The indirect effects are both significant and meaningful. Second, similar results are found for financial measures. Financial measures affect managerial performance indirectly through role clarity. Third, the effect of nonfinancial measures on role clarity is more than twice that of financial measures. The path coefficient for the relationship between nonfinancial measures and role clarity is 0.475 compared with 0.233 for the relationship between financial measures and role clarity. Several important conclusions can be drawn from these findings. First, the use of nonfinancial performance measures can affect managerial performance. Second, role clarity is clearly an important meditating variable. The mechanism by which nonfinancial measures affect managerial performance is through the enhancement of role clarity. Performance measures provide direction to employees. They indicate to employees what is expected of them, how they can contribute to organizational goals, thereby clarifying their roles within the organization. Third, the mechanism by which nonfinancial measures affect managerial performance through role clarity is not different from that of financial measures. However, the strength of relationship between nonfinancial measures and role clarity is very much stronger than that between financial measures and role clarity. This not only provides support for the findings of prior studies but also additional useful insights. Burney and Widener, 2007 and Hall, 2008 both found that performance measurement systems comprising both financial and nonfinancial measures are associated with role clarity. Our results provide support for these findings. They indicate that performance measures enhance role clarity. They also provide additional insights. They indicate that such effects can be derived by using financial measures alone or by using nonfinancial measures alone. More importantly, they indicate that much of the effects may be derived from just nonfinancial measures rather than from financial measures. Hence, the inclusion of nonfinancial measures in multidimensional performance measurement systems can make a difference in the extent of employee role clarity. These conclusions are also important to organizations in their decisions on the extent of attention to be placed on nonfinancial measures vis-à-vis financial measures. An issue with multidimensional performance measurement systems such as the balanced scorecard is the concern that the use of multiple performance measures may be dysfunctional and counterproductive because of the trade-offs that managers have to make when they are required to comply with too many performance measures (Lillis, 2002). In such situations, organizations wanting to enhance employee role clarity may choose to focus employee attention on only nonfinancial measures as our results indicate that these measures are not only able to enhance clarity by themselves, but is also far more effective than financial measures. There are a number of limitations in the study. First, the generalisability of the findings may be affected by the sample comprising solely of relatively large manufacturing companies. How applicable the results will be to organizations of other sizes and from other industries, such as the financial service industry, is unclear. Second, the sample was also drawn from only managers at below business unit level. Hence, it is unclear if our results can be generalized to managers at strategic business unit level. Third, only one mediating variable, role clarity, is included in the study. Other possible mediating variables such as fairness, interpersonal trust, satisfaction and commitment are not investigated. Much more research is needed before the behavioral effects from the use of financial and nonfinancial measures can be fully understood. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, by distinguishing the effects of nonfinancial measures from those of financial measures, our study contributes to the literature by providing additional insights into how nonfinancial measures, by themselves, and financial measures, by themselves, can influence role clarity and managerial performance.