The judgmental effects of management communications and a fifth balanced scorecard category on performance evaluation

Behavioral Research in Accounting

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 37-56

  Kaplan, Steven E ^a   Wisner, Priscilla S ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Balanced scorecard; Nontraditional strategic objective; Performance evaluations

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955426043     PISSN: 10504753     EISSN: 15588009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/bria.2009.21.2.37     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Baddeley, A. 1994. The magical number seven: Still magic after all these years? Psychological Review (April): 353-356.
2. Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and M. J. Pizzini. 2004. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy. The Accounting Review 79 (1): 1-23.
3. Berry, M. A., and D. A. Rondinelli. 1998. Proactive corporate environment management: A new industrial revolution. Academy of Management Executive 12 (2): 38-50.
4. Bonner, S. E. 1994. A model of the effects of audit task complexity. Accounting, Organizations and Society 19: 213-234.
5. Brown, D. L., J. F. Dillard, and R. S. Marshall. 2005. Strategically informed, environmentally conscious information requirements for accounting information systems. Journal of Information Systems 19 (2): 79-103.
6. Buysse, K., and A. Verbeke. 2003. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal 24: 453-470.
7. Clarkson, P. M., Y. Li, and G. D. Richardson. 2004. The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies. The Accounting Review 79 (2): 329-353.
8. Dias-Sardinha, I., and L. Reijnders. 2005. Evaluating environmental and social performance of large Portuguese companies: A balanced scorecard approach. Business Strategy and the Environment 14: 73-91.
9. Dilla, W. N., and P. J. Steinbart. 2005a. Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers. Behavioral Research in Accounting 17: 43-53.
10. Dilla, W. N., and P. J. Steinbart. 2005b. The effects of alternative supplementary display formats on balanced scorecard judgments. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 6: 159-176.
11. Epstein, M. J., and P. S. Wisner. 2001. Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental Quality Management 11 (Winter): 1-10.
12. Figge, F., T. Hahn, S. Schaltegger, and M. Wagner. 2002. The sustainability balanced scorecard-Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment 11: 269-284.
13. Haynes, C. M., and S. J. Kachelmeier. 1998. The effects of accounting contexts on accounting decisions: A synthesis of cognitive and economic perspectives in accounting experimentation. Journal of Accounting Literature 17: 97-136.
14. Henriques, I., and P. Sadorsky. 1996. The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 381-395.
15. Ittner, C. D., D. F. Larcker, and M. W. Meyer. 2003. Subjectivity and weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review 78: 725-758.
16. Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1992. The balanced scorecard-Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70 (1): 71-79.
17. Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1996a. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
18. Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1996b. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review (January-February): 75-85.
19. Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 2001. Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part II. Accounting Horizons (June): 147-160.
20. Kaplan, S. E., M. Petersen, and J. A. Samuels. 2007. Effects of subordinate likeability and balanced scorecard format on performance-related judgments. Advances in Accounting 23: 85-111.
21. KPMG International. 2002. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002. De Meern, The Netherlands: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.
22. Lammers, J. C. 2003. An institutional perspective on communicating corporate responsibility. Management Communication Quarterly 16 (4): 618-624.
23. Lewis, L. K., A. M. Schmisseur, K. K. Stephens, and K. E. Weir. 2006. Advice on communicating during organizational change: The content of popular press books. Journal of Business Communication 43 (2): 113-137.
24. Libby, T., S. Salterio, and A. Webb. 2004. The balanced scorecard: The effects of assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment. The Accounting Review 79 (4): 1075-1094.
25. Liedtka, S. L., B. K. Church, and M. R. Ray. 2008. Performance variability, ambiguity intolerance, and balanced scorecard-based performance assessments. Behavioral Research in Accounting 20 (2): 73-88.
26. Lipe, M. G., and S. Salterio. 2000. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review 75 (3): 283-298.
27. Lipe, M. G., and S. Salterio. 2002. A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27: 531-540.
28. Maines, L. A., G. L. Salamon, and G. B. Sprinkle. 2006. An information economic perspective on experimental research in accounting. Behavioral Research in Accounting 18: 85-103.
29. Malina, M. A., and F. Selto. 2001. Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research 13: 47-90.
30. Maltz, A. C., A. J. Shenhar, and R. Reilly. 2003. Beyond the balanced scorecard: Refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning 36: 187-204.
31. Marginson, D. E. W. 2002. Management control systems and their effects on strategy formation at middlemanagement levels: Evidence from a U.K. organization. Strategic Management Journal 23 (11): 1019-1031.
32. McDermott, C., and K. K. Boyer. 1999. Strategic consensus: Marching to the beat of a different drummer. Business Horizons 42 (4): 21-28.
33. Miller, G. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for information processing. Psychological Review (March): 81-96.
34. Moller, A., and S. Schaltegger. 2005. The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9 (4): 73-83.
35. Ng, T. B-P., and H-T. Tan. 2007. Effects of qualitative factor salience, expressed client concern, and qualitative materiality thresholds on auditors' audit adjustment decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research 24 (4): 1171-1192.
36. Rapert, M. I., A. Velliquette, and J. A. Garretson. 2002. The strategic implementation process: Evoking strategic consensus through communication. Journal of Business Research 55: 301-310.
37. Roberts, M. L., T. L. Albright, and A. R. Hibbets. 2004. Debiasing balanced scorecard evaluations. Behavioral Research in Accounting 16: 75-88.
38. Simons, R. 1994. How top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal 12: 49-62.
39. Tayler, W. B. 2007. The balanced scorecard as a strategy-evaluation tool: The effects of responsibility and causal-chain focus. Working paper, Emory University.
40. van der Woerd, F., and T. van den Brink. 2004. Feasibility of a responsive business scorecard-A pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics 55: 173-186.
41. Wisner, P. S., M. J. Esptein, and R. Bagozzi. 2006. Organizational antecedents and consequences of environmental performance. In Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, Vol. 3, edited by M. Freedman and B. Jaggi, 146-167. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
42. Wood, R. E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37: 60-82.