The Balanced Scorecard: The Effects of Assurance and Process Accountability on Managerial Judgment

The balanced scorecard is one of the major developments in management accounting in the past decade (Ittner and Larcker 2001). Lipe and Salterio (2000) find that managers ignore one of the key scorecard features, the inclusion of measures that are unique to the strategic objectives of a business unit, when making performance evaluation judgments. This study identifies and tests two approaches to reducing this “common measures bias.” We examine whether increasing effort via invoking process accountability (i.e., requiring managers to justify to their superior their performance evaluations) and/or improving the perceived quality of the balanced scorecard measures (i.e., via an independent third‐party assurance report on the balanced scorecard) increases managers' usage of unique performance measures in their evaluations. Results suggest that either the requirement to justify an evaluation to a superior or the provision of an assurance report on the balanced scorecard increases the use of unique measures in ...

[1]  Marshall W. Meyer,et al.  Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard , 2003 .

[2]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance , 1992 .

[3]  Itamar Simonson,et al.  The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors , 1992 .

[4]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy , 1996 .

[5]  Ronald A. Dye,et al.  Relative Performance Evaluation And Project Selection , 1992 .

[6]  J. Kagan,et al.  Rational choice in an uncertain world , 1988 .

[7]  D. Medin,et al.  Similarity and Alignment in Choice , 1995 .

[8]  R. Fisch,et al.  Effect of High and Low Motivation on Two Aspects of Attention , 1964, Perceptual and motor skills.

[9]  M. L. Blum,et al.  Industrial Psychology: Its Theoretical and Social Foundations , 1968 .

[10]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  A dual read-out model of word context effects in letter perception: Further investigations of the word superiority effect. , 1994 .

[11]  Kevin J. Murphy,et al.  Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory , 1988 .

[12]  D. Hirst,et al.  Auditors Sensitivity To Source Reliability , 1994 .

[13]  R. K. Mautz,et al.  The philosophy of auditing , 1961 .

[14]  Abbie J. Smith,et al.  An Empirical-Investigation Of The Relative Performance Evaluation Of Corporate-Executives , 1986 .

[15]  R. Arvey,et al.  Performance evaluation in work settings. , 1998, Annual review of psychology.

[16]  Barry L. Lewis,et al.  Determinants of Auditor Expertise , 1990 .

[17]  Steven E. Salterio,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures , 2000 .

[18]  R. Banker,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Performance Measures Linked to Strategy , 2004 .

[19]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[21]  D Kahneman,et al.  On the reality of cognitive illusions. , 1996, Psychological review.

[22]  D. Eric Hirst,et al.  Auditor Sensitivity to Earnings Management , 1994 .

[23]  David W. Blackwell,et al.  The value of auditor assurance: Evidence from loan pricing , 1998 .

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[25]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle.  The Effect of Incentive Contracts on Learning and Performance , 2000 .

[26]  Srikant M. Datar,et al.  Balancing Performance Measures , 2001 .

[27]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Pressure And Performance In Accounting Decision Settings - Paradoxical Effects Of Incentives, Feedback, And Justification , 1990 .

[28]  Shi Zhang,et al.  Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement in Preference Construction , 2001 .

[29]  Sarah E. Bonner,et al.  Expertise In Corporate-Tax Planning - The Issue Identification Stage , 1992 .

[30]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Judgment. , 1974 .

[31]  Robert L. Heneman.  The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. , 1986 .

[32]  Robert Folger,et al.  Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management , 1998 .

[33]  M. W. Nelson,et al.  Experimental Research in Financial Accounting , 2001 .

[34]  Jamie Pratt,et al.  Post-Cognitive Structure - Its Determinants And Relationship To Perceived Information Use And Predictive Accuracy , 1982 .

[35]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Sensitivity, Precision, and Linear Aggregation of Signals for Performance Evaluation , 1989 .

[36]  J. Jaccard,et al.  Interaction effects in multiple regression , 1992 .

[37]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  Cost Knowledge and Cost‐Based Judgment Performance , 2001 .

[38]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Processing Product Unique Features , 2001 .

[39]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  Douglas J. Skinner,et al.  Recommendations on Disclosure of Nonfinancial Performance Measures , 2002 .

[41]  James E. Hunton,et al.  Analysts' Reactions to Earnings Preannouncement Strategies , 2002 .

[42]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[43]  Robert Libby,et al.  Incentives, Effort, And The Cognitive-Processes Involved In Accounting-Related Judgments , 1992 .

[44]  D. Larcker,et al.  Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective , 2001 .

[45]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  Moral Hazard and Observability , 1979 .

[46]  D. Medin,et al.  Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Similarity Judgments with Semantically Rich Stimuli , 1997 .

[47]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

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

[49]  J. S. Adams,et al.  Inequity In Social Exchange , 1965 .

[50]  Robert Libby,et al.  Bankers And Auditors Perceptions Of The Message Communicated By The Audit Report , 1979 .

[51]  Michael H. Kutner.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[52]  R. Dawes.  Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[53]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. , 1990 .

[54]  J. Frank Yates,et al.  Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality , 1996 .

[55]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Overcoming the Early Entrant Advantage: The Role of Alignable and Nonalignable Differences , 1998 .

[56]  Itamar Simonson,et al.  Deescalation Strategies: A Comparison of Techniques for Reducing Commitment to Losing Courses of Action , 1992 .

[57]  Jane Kennedy,et al.  Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment , 1995 .

[58]  Jane Kennedy,et al.  Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results , 1993 .

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

[60]  Miriam Bassok,et al.  What Makes a Man Similar to a Tie? Stimulus Compatibility with Comparison and Integration , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[61]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[62]  H. Arkes.  Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. , 1991 .

[63]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action , 1996 .

[64]  P. Tetlock.  Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[65]  Paul L. Walker,et al.  The effects of instruction and experience on the acquisition of auditing knowledge , 1994 .

[66]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Multitask Principal–Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design , 1991 .

[67]  William N. Dilla,et al.  Relative Weighting of Common and Unique Balanced Scorecard Measures by Knowledgeable Decision Makers , 2005 .

[68]  D. Larcker,et al.  Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measurement. , 2003, Harvard business review.

[69]  C. Cloyd,et al.  Performance in Tax Research Tasks: The Joint Effects of Knowledge and Accountability , 1998 .

[70]  S. J. Motowidlo,et al.  Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. , 1995 .

[71]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Learning by Analogical Bootstrapping , 2001 .

[72]  Rebecca Elmore-Yalch,et al.  The Effect of Numbers on the Route to Persuasion , 1984 .

[73]  Hun-Tong Tan,et al.  Accountability Effects on Auditors' Performance: Influence of Knowledge, Problem-Solving Ability, and Task Complexity , 1999 .

[74]  L. Myaskovsky,et al.  The Easy Path From Many To Much: the Numerosity Heuristic , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[75]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  Moral Hazard in Teams , 1982 .

[76]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accounting for the effects of accountability. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[77]  Dirk Yandell,et al.  Audit Information and Incentives for Efficiency , 1988 .

[78]  William R. Kinney,et al.  The Effects of Domain Experience and Task Presentation Format on Accountants' Information Relevance Assurance , 2001 .

[79]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[80]  Jacqueline L. Reck.  The usefulness of financial and nonfinancial performance information in resource allocation decisions , 2001 .

[81]  Robert Libby,et al.  Earnings Management, Audit Differences, and Analysts' Forecasts , 1999 .

[82]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.