Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStringer, Carolynen_NZ
dc.date.available2011-04-07T03:01:59Z
dc.date.copyright2009en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationStringer, C. (2009). PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Accountancy Working Paper Series presented at the PMA Conference, Otago 2009.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/717
dc.description.abstractPerformance evaluations systems are a critical part of overall performance management systems. This intensive case study provides insights into how the use of subjective performance evaluations in a complex organisational setting has led to perceptions of injustices (e.g., procedural, distributional, interactional), and unintended consequences. The key injustices were mixed practices, unclear criteria, financial focus, little differentiation between good and poor performers, stickiness in ratings, inequities in target setting, higher ratings at higher grades, and the predetermined theory. The consequences include the lack of trust, generous bonuses, gaming, inability to influence, resource allocation, bonuses are expected and not performance-related, and the system is costly to administrate. Multiple sources of evidence support the findings, and the patterns are consistent over a three year period. Future research needs to develop a deeper understanding of how these parts interrelate, where subjective performance evaluations work, and where they do not work, and to encourage breaking down the divide between functional specialisations (e.g., human resources, accounting).en_NZ
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAccountancy Working Paper Seriesen_NZ
dc.relation.replaces789en_NZ
dc.subjectperformance evaluationsen_NZ
dc.subjectincentivesen_NZ
dc.subjectperformance managementen_NZ
dc.subjectforced distributionen_NZ
dc.subjectbalanced scorecarden_NZ
dc.subjectEVA®.en_NZ
dc.subject.lcshHF5601 Accountingen_NZ
dc.titlePERFORMANCE EVALUATIONen_NZ
dc.typeConference or Workshop Item (Paper)en_NZ
dc.description.versionUnpublisheden_NZ
otago.date.accession2010-03-31 20:46:49en_NZ
otago.openaccessOpen
dc.identifier.eprints863en_NZ
dc.description.refereedNon Peer Revieweden_NZ
otago.school.eprintsAccountancy & Business Lawen_NZ
dc.description.referencesAdams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299. Ahrens, T. and Dent, J.F. (1998). Realizing the richness of field research, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, p.1-39. Alvesson, M., and Skoldberg K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research, SAGE Publications: London. Baker, G.P., Jensen, M.C., and Murphy, K.J. (1988). Compensation and incentives: practice vs. theory. The Journal of Finance, 43 (3), 593-616. Banker, R.D., Chang, H. and Pizzini, M. (2004). The balanced scorecard: Judgment effects of performance measures linked to strategy. The Accounting Review, 79 (1), 1-23. Castellano, J.F. & Lighte, S.S. (2005). “Using Cultural Audits to Assess the Tone at the Top”, The CPA Journal, 6-11. Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M. & Levy, P.E. (1998). Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Field Investigations, Journal of Appplied Psychology, 83 (4), 615-633. Chan Kim, W., and Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy, Harvard Business Review, January, 127-136. Reprinted from 1997. Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P.E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta- Analysis, Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2) 278-321. Detert, J.R. & Burris, E.T. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 869-884. Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals, Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555-578. Gibbs, M., Merchant, K.A., Van der Stede, W.A., Vargus, M.E. (2004). Determinants and Effects of Subjectivity in Incentives, The Accounting Review, 79 (2), 409-436. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16 (2), 399-432. Heneman, R.L., (2002). Merit Pay. In Heneman, R.L. (ed.), Strategic reward Management: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation, Information Age Publishing: Connecticut, p.379-393. 18 Heneman, R.L. and Gresham, M.T. (2002). Performance-based pay plans, 75-109. In Heneman, R.L. (ed.), Strategic reward Management: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation, Information Age Publishing: Connecticut. Hopwood, A.G. (1974). Accounting and Human Behavior, Prentice Hall: New Jersey. Hubble, J. (1972). Management by Objectives, Gower Press: England. Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F. and Meyer, M.W. (2003). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard, The Accounting Review, 78 (3), 725-759. Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. (1996). Translating strategy into action, The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Massachusetts. Konovsky, M.A. (2000). Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business Organizations, Journal of Management, 26 (3), 489-511. Korsgaard, M.A. & Roberson, L., (1995). Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation: The Role of Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Evaluation Discussions. Journal of Management. 21 (4), 657-669. Lawler, E. E. III. (1990). Strategic Pay, Aligning Strategies and Pay Systems, Jossey-Bass Inc: San Francisco. Lawler, E. E. III. (2000). Rewarding Excellence, Pay Strategies for the New Economy, Jossey-Bass Inc: San Francisco. Lee, R.M. (1993). Doing Research on sensitive topics. Sage Publications, London. Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004). The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future. Journal of Management, 30 (6), 881-905. Llewellyn, S. (2003). What counts as ‘theory” in qualitative management and accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16 (4), 662-708. Mattimoe, R. & Seal, W. (2009). Pricing in a service sector context: accounting and marketing logics in the hotel industry, seminar paper presented at Department of Accountancy & Business Law, March. Merchant, K. A., and Riccaboni, A. (1990). Performance-based management incentives at the Fiat Group: a field study. Management Accounting Research, 1, 281-303. Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W., and Zheng, L. (2003). Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems, Accounting Organizations & Society, 28, 251-286. Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H., (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (1), 123-136. 19 Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., (2004). An expanded Sourcebook, Qualitative Data Analysis, Second edition, Sage Publications: California. Moers, F. (2005). Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity, Accounting, Organizations & Society, 30, 67-80. Nørreklit, L. Nørreklit, H. and Israelsen, P. (2006). The validity of management control topoi. Towards constructivist pragmatism, Management Accounting Research 17, pp. 42–71. Otley, D. (1992). United Bank: A Case Study on the Implementation of a Performance- Related Reward Scheme, Chapter 4, 97-121, In Bruns, W.J. Jr. (ed.) Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10, 363-382. Otley, D.T. (2002). Measuring performance: The accounting perspective. In A. Neely (ed), In Business performance measurement, Theory and practice, Cambridge University Press: UK, p. 3-21. Ott, J.S. (1989). The organizational cultural perspective. KY Dorsey Press: Florence. Patton, M.D. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications: California. Stringer, C. P. (2006). Performance management: An empirical study. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago, 465p. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Reference Number: 0020060331. Stringer, C.P. & Pillai, P. (2009). The use of objective and subjective measures: implications for incentive system design. Paper to be presented at the Performance Measurement Association Conference, Dunedin, 14-17 April, 2009. Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K., Harrison, J.K., Carroll, S.J. (1995). Due Process in Performance Appraisal: A Quasi-experiment in Procedural Justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523. Tyler T.R., & Biers, R.J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J.S. Carroll (Ed.) Applied social psychology and organizational settings (77-98) Hillsdale, N.J., Erlbaum.en_NZ
otago.event.dates14 - 17 April 2009en_NZ
otago.event.placeOtago University, Dunedin, New Zealanden_NZ
otago.event.typeconferenceen_NZ
otago.event.titlePMA Conference, Otago 2009en_NZ
otago.relation.number11
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

VersionItemEditorDateSummary

*Selected version