PENGARUH PERSPEKTIF DAN JENIS UKURAN DALAM BALANCED SCORECARD TERHADAP EVALUASI KINERJA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24034/j25485024.y2012.v16.i4.122Keywords:
Balanced Scorecard, performance evaluation, performance measurementAbstract
This study aims to investigate whether an evaluator has propensity to more weigh common financial measurement than unique financial measurement and common nonfinancial measurement when evaluating performance. We conduct two experiments where participants act as senior management to evaluate two divisions. The first experiment examines the existence of propensity of managers to more weigh common financial measurement than unique financial measurement. The ANOVA repeated measurement show that participants more weigh common financial measurement than unique financial measurement. The second experiment examines the existence of propensity of participants to weigh common financial measurement than common nonfinancial measurement. The result shows that participants more weigh common financial measurement than common nonfinancial measurement in their performance evaluation.
References
Anand, M., B. S. Sahay, dan S. Saha. 2005. Balanced scorecard in Indian companies. Vikalpa 30(3): 11-23.
Banker, R. D., H. Chang, dan M. Pizzini. 2004. The Balanced Scorecard: judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy. The Accounting Review 79(1): 1-23.
. 2009. The judgmental effects of strategy maps in Balanced Scorecard performance evaluations. Working Paper.
Braam, G. J. M. dan E. J. Nijssen. 2004. Performance effect of using the Balanced Scorecard: a note on Dutch expe- rience. Long Range Planning 37: 335-349.
Burney, L. L. dan N. J. Swanson. 2010. The relationship between Balanced Scorecard characteristics and managers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues 22(2): 166-181.
Cardinaels, E. dan P. M .G. V. Veen-Dirks. 2010. Financial versus non-financial information: the impact of information organization and presentation in a Balanced Scorecard, Accounting, Organi zations and Society 35: 565–578.
Cheng, M. M., A. K. D. Schulz, P. F. Luckett, dan P. Booth. 2003. The Effects of Hurdle Rates on the Level of Escalation of Commitment in Capital Budgeting. Behavioral Research in Accounting 15: 63-85.
Davis, S. dan T. Albright. 2004. An investigation of the effect of Balanced Scorecard implementation on financial per- formance. Management Accounting Research 15: 135-153.
DeBusk, G. K., R. M. Brown, dan L. N. Killough. 2003. Components and relative weights in utilization of perfor- mance measurement sys-tems like the Balanced Scorecard. British Accounting Review 35(3): 215–231.
Dilla, W. N., dan P. J. Steinbart. 2005. Relative weighting of common and unique Balanced Scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers. Behavioral Research in Accounting 17: 43-53.
Downing, L. 2000. Progress report on the Balanced Scorecard: a global users’ survey. Balanced Scorecard Report.
Hibbets, A. R., M. L. Roberts, dan T. L. Albright. 2006. Common-measure bias in the Balanced Scorecard: cognitive effort and general problem-solving ability. Working Paper.
Holmstrom, B., dan P. Milgrom. 1991. Multi task principal-agent analy-ses: incen- tive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 7: 24–52.
Hoque, Z dan W. James. 2000. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on organi- zational performance. Journal of Mana- gement Accounting Research, 12: 1-17.
Ittner, C. D., D. F. Larcker dan T. Randall. 2003a. Performance implications of stra tegic performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28(7-8): 715-741.
Ittner, C. D., D. F. Larcker, dan M. W. Meyer. 2003b. Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a Balanced Scorecard. The Accounting Review 78(3): 725-758.
Kaplan, R. S. 2009. Coceptual foundation s of the Balanced Scorecard. Handbook of Management Accounting Research 3: 1253-1269.
Kaplan, R. S. dan D. P. Norton. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70(1).
. 1993. Putting the Balanced Scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review 71(5).
. 1996a. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic managment system. Harvard Business Review 74(1): 75-85.
. 1996b. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Busi ness School Press. Boston, MA. 2001. The Strategy-Focused Organisation: how Balanced Scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA.
Kaufmann, L. dan A. Becker. 2005. Overcoming the barriers during implementation and use of the Balanced Score- card by multinational companies in Brazil. Latin America Business Review 6(3): 39-62.
Kliger, D. dan A. Kudryavtsev. 2010. The Availability Heuristic and Investors’ Reaction to Company-Specific Events. The Journal of Behavioral Finance 11: 50–65.
Lawson, R., T. Hatch, dan D. Desroches. 2008. Scorecard best practices: design, implementation and evaluation. John Wiley and Sons. New Jersey.
Liedtka, S. L., B. K. Church, dan M. R. Ray. 2008. Performance variability, ambiguity intolerance, and Balanced Scorecard-based perfor-mance assessments. Behavioral Research in Accounting 20(2): 73-88.
Lipe, M. G. dan S. Salterio. 2000. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review 75(3): 283-298.
. 2002. A note on the judgmental effects of the Balanced Scorecard’s information organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27: 531–540.
Malina, M. A. dan F. H. Selto. 2001. Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13: 47-75.
Malmi, T. 2001. Balanced Scorecards in Finnish companies: a research note. Management Accounting Research 12: 207-220.
Roberts, M., T. Albright, dan A. Hibbets. 2004. Debiasing Balanced Scorecard evaluations. Behavioral Research in Accou nting 16: 75-88.
Slovic, P., dan D. MacPhillamy. 1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11: 172-194.
Tversky, A., dan D. Kahneman. 1973. Availability: a heuristic for Judging frequen cy and Probability. Cognitive Psychology 4: 207–232.
. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.
Wong-On-Wing, B., L. Guo, W. Li, dan D. Yang. 2007. Reducing conflict in Balanced Scorecard evaluations. Accoun ting, Organizations and Society 32: 363-377.
