The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures

Accounting Review

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 283-298

  Lipe, Marlys Gascho ^a   Salterio, Steven E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Balanced scorecard; Performance evaluation; Performance measures

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034337004     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2000.75.3.283     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Banker, R., and S. Datar. 1989. Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research 27 (1): 21-39.
2. Chow, C. W., K. M. Haddad, and J. E. Williamson. 1997. Applying the balanced scorecard to small companies. Management Accounting 79 (2): 21-27.
3. Cloyd, B., and B. Spilker. 1999. The influence of client preferences on tax professionals' search for judicial precedents, subsequent judgments and recommendations. The Accounting Review 74 (3): 299-322.
4. Davila, A., and R. Simons. 1997. Citibank: Performance Evaluation. Harvard Business School Case 9-198-048 (revised April 20, 1998). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
5. Dempsey, S., J. F. Gatti, D. J. Grinnell, and W. L. Cats-Baril. 1997. The use of strategic performance variables as leading indicators in financial analysts' forecasts. The Journal of Financial Statement Analysis 2 (4): 61-79.
6. Epstein, M., and J. Manzoni. 1997. The balanced scorecard and Tableau de Bord: Translating strategy into action. Management Accounting 79 (2): 28-36.
7. Holmstrom, B., and P. Milgrom. 1991. Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 7: 24-52.
8. Hsee, C. 1996. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes 67 (3): 247-257.
9. -. 1998. Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11 (2): 107-121.
10. Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1992. The balanced scorecard - Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70 (1): 71-79.
11. -, and -. 1993. Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review 71 (5): 134-147.
12. -, and -. 1996a. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review 74 (1): 75-85.
13. -, and -. 1996b. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
14. Lee, J. Y. 1992. How to make financial and nonfinancial data add up. Journal of Accountancy 174 (3): 62-66.
15. Libby, R., and P. A. Libby. 1989. Expert measurement and mechanical combination in control reliance decisions. The Accounting Review 64 (4): 729-747.
16. McNamara, H., and R. Fisch. 1964. Effect of high and low motivation on two aspects of attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills 19: 571-578.
17. McWilliams, B. 1996. The measure of success. Across the Board 33 (2): 16-20.
18. Nourayi, M. M., and F. P. Daroca. 1996. Performance evaluation and measurement issues. Journal of Managerial Issues 8 (2): 206-217.
19. Payne, J., J. Bettman, and E. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
20. Rucci, A., S. Kirn, and R. Quinn. 1998. The employee-customer-profit chain at Sears. Harvard Business Review 76 (1): 82-97.
21. Schick, A., L. Gordon, and S. Haka. 1990. Information overload: A temporal approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society 15 (3): 199-220.
22. Silk, S. 1998. Automating the balanced scorecard. Management Accounting (May): 38-44.
23. Slovic, P., and D. MacPhillamy. 1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11: 172-194.