Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department

This paper reports on a developmental approach to performance-measurement systems (PMS). In particular, we look at characteristics of a development process that result in the PMS being perceived by employees as enabling of their work, rather than as primarily a control device for use by senior management. We will refer to such a PMS as “enabling PMS”. The theoretical part of the study builds on ideas of enabling versus coercive formalization [Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (March), 61–89]; on notions of organizational learning (e.g., [Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science 13(3), 339–351]); and on awareness of the incompleteness of performance measures (e.g., [Chapman, C. S. (1997). Reflections on a contingent view of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22, 189–205; Lillis, A. M. (2002). Managing multiple dimensions of manufacturing performance—An exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27, 497–529]). The empirical context entails a mixed-method, 3-year longitudinal study of the logistics department of a medium-sized company in the beverage manufacturing industry. Qualitative data were gathered through interviews, participation in meetings, action research, and review of company documents. We also analyzed two waves of quantitative survey data, gathered from a panel of 42 employees. We find that a development process that is experience-based contributes to the enabling nature of the PMS, as it builds on existing skills, local practices, and know-how on performance measurement to enrich the PMS step-by-step over time. Also, experimentation with specific performance measures was found to enhance the enabling nature of the PMS: testing, reviewing, and refinement of conceptualizations, definitions, data, and presentations of new performance measures. Professionalism was significantly related to positive attitude toward performance measures in our survey data. The results also illustrate that transparency of the PMS itself is key to enabling PMS.

[1]  Robert A. Simons.  How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal , 1994 .

[2]  Arndt Sorge,et al.  The (Non)Sense of Organizational Change: An Essai about Universal Management Hypes, Sick Consultancy Metaphors, and Healthy Organization Theories , 2004 .

[3]  Anne M. Lillis,et al.  The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management control system design , 1995 .

[4]  David Otley,et al.  Performance Management: A Framework for Management Control Systems Research , 1999 .

[5]  Linda Argote,et al.  Individual Experience and Experience Working Together: Predicting Learning Rates from Knowing Who Knows What and Knowing How to Work Together , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[6]  Christopher S. Chapman,et al.  Reflections on a contingent view of accounting , 1997 .

[7]  Sujatha Perera,et al.  Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-financial performance measures: A research note , 1997 .

[8]  Benita M. Beamon,et al.  Measuring supply chain performance , 1999 .

[9]  Sten Jönsson,et al.  Life with a sub-contractor: New technology and management accounting , 1988 .

[10]  G. Ironson,et al.  A General Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale , 2001 .

[11]  S. Piderit.  Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes Toward an Organizational Change , 2000 .

[12]  Richard H. Hall,et al.  Professionalization and Bureaucratization , 1968 .

[13]  Robert S. Kaplan,et al.  Measures for Manufacturing Excellence , 1990 .

[14]  Margaret A. Abernethy,et al.  The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic change: an exploratory study , 1999 .

[15]  M. Frese,et al.  Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance , 2003 .

[16]  Rosemary R. Fullerton,et al.  The role of performance measures and incentive systems in relation to the degree of JIT implementation , 2002 .

[17]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Reporting manufacturing performance measures to workers: An empirical study , 1993 .

[18]  Peter B. B. Turney,et al.  Measuring up : charting pathways to manufacturing excellence , 1991 .

[19]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[20]  Anne M. Lillis,et al.  Managing multiple dimensions of manufacturing performance — an exploratory study , 2002 .

[21]  R. Eccles.  The performance measurement manifesto. , 1991, Harvard business review.

[22]  K. Langfield-Smith,et al.  Antecedents to management accounting change: a structural equation approach , 2003 .

[23]  William E. Snizek,et al.  HALL'S PROFESSIONALISM SCALE: AN EMPIRICAL REASSESSMENT * , 1972 .

[24]  Robert A. Simons.  The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: New perspectives☆ , 1990 .

[25]  Brian H. Maskell,et al.  Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing: A Model for American Companies , 1991 .

[26]  J. Zimmerman.  Accounting for Decision Making and Control , 1994 .

[27]  S. Carmona,et al.  Measures Vs. Actions: The Balanced Scorecard in Swedish Law Enforcement , 2003 .

[28]  Christopher D. Ittner,et al.  Implementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence from Government , 2004 .

[29]  Tony Davila,et al.  Managing budget emphasis through the explicit design of conditional budgetary slack , 2005 .

[30]  D. Otley,et al.  The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation , 2004 .

[31]  Alan D. Lowe,et al.  Emergent Strategy and the Measurement of Performance: The Formulation of Performance Indicators at the Microlevel , 2004 .

[32]  Stephen Swailes,et al.  Professionalism: evolution and measurement , 2003 .

[33]  M Marco de Haas,et al.  Demonstrating the Effect of the Strategic Dialogue: Participation in Designing the Management Control System , 2002 .

[34]  Adam S. Maiga,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Quality Performance , 2005 .

[35]  Derek Steeple,et al.  A FRAMEWORK FOR AUDITING AND ENHANCING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS , 2000 .

[36]  David J. Cooper,et al.  Performance Measures and the Rationalization of Organizations , 2003 .

[37]  Thomas W. Scott,et al.  Performance measurement and managerial teams , 1999 .

[38]  Steven D. Caldwell,et al.  Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: a cross-level study. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[39]  R. Kaplan.  Measuring manufacturing performance: a new challenge for managerial accounting research , 1983 .

[40]  Mary A. Malina,et al.  Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard , 2001 .

[41]  Kenneth A. Merchant,et al.  The Use of Organizational Controls and their Effects on Data Manipulation and Management Myopia: A J , 1996 .

[42]  Eva Labro,et al.  On bringing more action into management accounting research: process considerations based on two constructive case studies , 2003 .

[43]  W. Stede.  The relationship between two consequences of budgetary controls: budgetary slack creation and managerial short-term orientation , 2000 .

[44]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Dysfunctional behavior and management control: An empirical study of marketing managers , 1992 .

[45]  William J. Bruns,et al.  The information mosaic , 1992 .

[46]  A. Edmondson.  Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams , 1999 .

[47]  Andy Neely,et al.  Implementing performance measurement systems: a literature review , 2003 .

[48]  Andy Neely,et al.  Why some performance measurement initiatives fail: lessons from the change management literature , 2003 .

[49]  S. Ramaswami.  Marketing Controls and Dysfunctional Employee Behaviors: A Test of Traditional and Contingency Theory Postulates: , 1996 .

[50]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[51]  Anthony A. Atkinson,et al.  Standards for Field Research in Management Accounting , 1998 .

[52]  T. Ahrens,et al.  Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory , 2005 .

[53]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Experience, experimentation, and the accumulation of knowledge: the evolution of R&D in the semiconductor industry , 2003 .

[54]  Thomas Ahrens,et al.  Accounting for Flexibility and Efficiency: A Field Study of Management Control Systems in a Restaurant Chain , 2004 .

[55]  D. Yanow.  Translating Local Knowledge at Organizational Peripheries , 2004 .

[56]  Robert A. Simons.  Control in an Age of Empowerment , 2008 .

[57]  P. Adler,et al.  Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive , 1996 .

[58]  Robert Simons,et al.  Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems , 1991 .