Usage of performance measurement and evaluation systems: the impact of evaluator characteristics

This paper discusses the relation between characteristics of the evaluating manager and the way performance measurement and evaluation information is used. First a discussion is provided about the dependent variable. It is recognized that categorization into archetypes (e.g., evaluative styles) is unsatisfactory. Instead the information content/emphasis dimensions financial-non- financial, quantitative-qualitative, process-outcome, past-future and external-internal, along with the dimension flexibility-rigidity of information usage are proposed. An investigation is made of the relation between the scores on those dimensions and char-acteristics of the evaluator. Managers with an external locus of control are supposed to use less information in general, but to use more external information, this latter effect may even be so large that the first effect is obfuscated. Managers with an internal locus of control will particularly em- phasize non-financial, external, process and future-oriented information. Need for achievement will increase the amount of information-in particular quantitative and process information-used and the rigidity with which this information is used. Managers with low tolerance will use more information, as long as this information is not ambiguous and the source is traditional. This implies a preference for quantitative and financial information. Risk aversion will result in the us-age of more information and in particular process oriented information. Managers with previous experience in the function of the evaluatee will place more emphasis on non-financial and process information. Finally, managers will pass on the information preferences of their own superiors .

[1]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[2]  W. Mischel.  Introduction to Personality: A New Look , 1993 .

[3]  F. J. Roethlisberger,et al.  The Elusive Phenomena: An Autobiographical Account of My Work in the Field of Organizational Behavior at the Harvard Business School , 1977 .

[4]  Eric G. Flamholtz,et al.  HUMAN RESOURCE REPLACEMENT COST NUMBERS, COGNITIVE INFORMATION PROCESSING, AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS: A LABORATORY EXPERIMENT , 1978 .

[5]  C. Fisher,et al.  The impact of perceived environmental uncertainty and individual differences on management information requirements: A research note☆ , 1996 .

[6]  A. Furnham.  A content, correlational and factor analytic study of four tolerance of ambiguity questionnaires , 1994 .

[7]  K. Durrheim,et al.  Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct , 1997 .

[8]  A. Hopwood.  [Discussion of An Empirical Study of the Role of Accounting Data in Performance Evaluation]: A Reply , 1972 .

[9]  William H. Glick,et al.  The Selective Perception of Managers Revisited , 1997 .

[10]  J C Andrews,et al.  Effects of Moderating Variables on Product Managers' Behavior , 1990, Psychological reports.

[11]  R. Kaplan,et al.  PUTTING THE BALANCED SCORECARD TO WORK , 1993 .

[12]  Hari Das.  ORGANIZATIONAL AND DECISION CHARACTERISTICS AND PERSONALITY AS DETERMINANTS OF CONTROL ACTIONS: A... , 1986 .

[13]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system , 1996 .

[14]  R. Dorf,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action , 1997, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[15]  A. Lewin,et al.  CEO Attitudes as Determinants of Organization Design: An Integrated Model , 1994 .

[16]  Jr. A. P. Mac Donald,et al.  Revised Scale for Ambiguity Tolerance: Reliability and Validity , 1970 .

[17]  D. Otley.  BUDGET USE AND MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE , 1978 .

[18]  Thomas C. Kinnear,et al.  Individual Differences and Marketing Decision Support System Usage and Satisfaction , 1987 .