An examination of the effect of positive and negative performance on the relative weighting of strategically and non-strategically linked balanced scorecard measures

Steven Kaplan, Michael J. Petersen, Janet A. Samuels

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996) espouse that performance measures in a balanced scorecard (BSC) should be linked to strategy. However, the BSCs of many firms include both strategically linked and non-strategically linked measures. Banker et al. (2004) provide initial evidence on evaluators' weightings of strategically linked (SL) and non-strategically linked (NSL) measures when evaluating performance in settings in which managers always performed better than the target level on every performance measure. They found that when evaluators have a sufficient understanding of the firm's strategy, they weight SL measures more than NSL measures when evaluating performance. The purpose of the current study is to examine performance evaluations when, relative to the target level of performance, managers exhibit favorable performance on some measures and unfavorable performance on other measures. We contend that evaluators will exhibit a negativity bias such that negative performance information is weighted more heavily than positive performance information for both SL and NSL measures. Consequently, we predict that the findings from Banker et al. (2004) will not hold in settings involving unfavorable performance. Specifically, when performance on NSL measures is unfavorable for one manager, we find that NSL measures are weighted more than SL measures. Implications of this finding for theory and practice are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)133-151
Number of pages19
JournalBehavioral Research in Accounting
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Weighting
Balanced score card
Evaluator
Managers
Performance measures
Firm strategy
Relative performance evaluation

Keywords

  • Balanced scorecard
  • Neaativitv bias
  • Performance measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Accounting
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Cite this

@article{3bb578b4d96d48e9934b64f18062b6f3,
title = "An examination of the effect of positive and negative performance on the relative weighting of strategically and non-strategically linked balanced scorecard measures",
abstract = "Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996) espouse that performance measures in a balanced scorecard (BSC) should be linked to strategy. However, the BSCs of many firms include both strategically linked and non-strategically linked measures. Banker et al. (2004) provide initial evidence on evaluators' weightings of strategically linked (SL) and non-strategically linked (NSL) measures when evaluating performance in settings in which managers always performed better than the target level on every performance measure. They found that when evaluators have a sufficient understanding of the firm's strategy, they weight SL measures more than NSL measures when evaluating performance. The purpose of the current study is to examine performance evaluations when, relative to the target level of performance, managers exhibit favorable performance on some measures and unfavorable performance on other measures. We contend that evaluators will exhibit a negativity bias such that negative performance information is weighted more heavily than positive performance information for both SL and NSL measures. Consequently, we predict that the findings from Banker et al. (2004) will not hold in settings involving unfavorable performance. Specifically, when performance on NSL measures is unfavorable for one manager, we find that NSL measures are weighted more than SL measures. Implications of this finding for theory and practice are discussed.",
keywords = "Balanced scorecard, Neaativitv bias, Performance measures",
author = "Steven Kaplan and Petersen, {Michael J.} and Samuels, {Janet A.}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.2308/bria-50114",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "133--151",
journal = "Behavioral Research in Accounting",
issn = "1050-4753",
publisher = "American Accounting Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An examination of the effect of positive and negative performance on the relative weighting of strategically and non-strategically linked balanced scorecard measures

AU - Kaplan, Steven

AU - Petersen, Michael J.

AU - Samuels, Janet A.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996) espouse that performance measures in a balanced scorecard (BSC) should be linked to strategy. However, the BSCs of many firms include both strategically linked and non-strategically linked measures. Banker et al. (2004) provide initial evidence on evaluators' weightings of strategically linked (SL) and non-strategically linked (NSL) measures when evaluating performance in settings in which managers always performed better than the target level on every performance measure. They found that when evaluators have a sufficient understanding of the firm's strategy, they weight SL measures more than NSL measures when evaluating performance. The purpose of the current study is to examine performance evaluations when, relative to the target level of performance, managers exhibit favorable performance on some measures and unfavorable performance on other measures. We contend that evaluators will exhibit a negativity bias such that negative performance information is weighted more heavily than positive performance information for both SL and NSL measures. Consequently, we predict that the findings from Banker et al. (2004) will not hold in settings involving unfavorable performance. Specifically, when performance on NSL measures is unfavorable for one manager, we find that NSL measures are weighted more than SL measures. Implications of this finding for theory and practice are discussed.

AB - Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996) espouse that performance measures in a balanced scorecard (BSC) should be linked to strategy. However, the BSCs of many firms include both strategically linked and non-strategically linked measures. Banker et al. (2004) provide initial evidence on evaluators' weightings of strategically linked (SL) and non-strategically linked (NSL) measures when evaluating performance in settings in which managers always performed better than the target level on every performance measure. They found that when evaluators have a sufficient understanding of the firm's strategy, they weight SL measures more than NSL measures when evaluating performance. The purpose of the current study is to examine performance evaluations when, relative to the target level of performance, managers exhibit favorable performance on some measures and unfavorable performance on other measures. We contend that evaluators will exhibit a negativity bias such that negative performance information is weighted more heavily than positive performance information for both SL and NSL measures. Consequently, we predict that the findings from Banker et al. (2004) will not hold in settings involving unfavorable performance. Specifically, when performance on NSL measures is unfavorable for one manager, we find that NSL measures are weighted more than SL measures. Implications of this finding for theory and practice are discussed.

KW - Balanced scorecard

KW - Neaativitv bias

KW - Performance measures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867619103&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867619103&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2308/bria-50114

DO - 10.2308/bria-50114

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84867619103

VL - 24

SP - 133

EP - 151

JO - Behavioral Research in Accounting

JF - Behavioral Research in Accounting

SN - 1050-4753

IS - 2

ER -