Strategi Mengatasi Common Measures Bias dalam Balanced Scorecard

Sekar Akrom Faradiza, Vera Desy Nurmalia



Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a comprehensive performance measurement. BSC is not only used financial indicators but also non financial indicators there are customer, internal process business and learning and growth perspective. By using BSC, evaluators have common and unique measures. When evaluate manager performance, evaluator tends to only use common measures and ignore unique measures. This is called common measures bias. This study aims to investigate whether dissaggregated and aggregated BSC and management communication can overcome common measures bias and intent to BSC approach. This study also will evaluate whether these approach will affect evaluator decision when allocated compensation. We conduct 2x2x2 experiment of undergraduate accounting students. Participant act as a senior manager and evaluate the performance of two divisions and then allocated the bonus. ANOVA repeated measurement are used to conduct hypothesis test. The results showed that dissaggregated BSC and management communication could not overcome common measures bias but effected  management decision when allocated compensation.


common measures bias, dissaggregated, management communication, compensation allocation

Full Text:



Banker, R.D., Hsihui Chang dan Mina J. Pizzini. 2004. The Balanced Scorecard: Jugmental Effects of Performance Measures Linked to Strategy. The Accounting Review. Vol. 79 No. 1. pp 1-24.

Bowman, E. H. 1963. Consistency and Optimality in Managerial Decision Making. Management Science Vol.9 No. 3. pp. 10-321.

Dilla. W. N. and P. J. Steinbart. 2002. The effects of alternative supplementary information display formats on judgments made using the Balanced Scorecard. Working paper. Iowa Stale University.

Einhorn, H. 1. 1972. Expert Measurement and Mechanical Combination. Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes. Feb. Vol. 19. pp. 8-106.

Holmstrom, B. 1979. Moral Hazard and Observability. Bell Journal of Economics. Vol. 10 No. 1. pp. 74-91.

Kaplan. R . and D. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan. Steven E. dan Wisner P. S. 2009. The Jugmental Effects of Management Communication and a Fifth Balanced Scorecard Category on Performance Evaluation. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Vol. 21 No. 2. pp. 17-56.

Kennedy J. 1995. Debiasing the Curse of Knowledge in Audit Judgment. The Accounting Review. Vol. 70 No. 2. pp: 249-273.

Libby, T., S.E. Salterio dan A. Webb. 2004. The Balanced Scorecard: The Effect of Assurance and Process Accountability on Mangerial Judgment. The Accounting Review. Vol. 79 No. 4. pp. 1075-1094.

Lipe. M., and S. Salterio. 2000. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performancen Measures. The Accounting Review. Vol.75 No. 3. pp: 283- 298.

Malina, M. A., and F. H. Selto. 2001. Communicating and controlling strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research. Vol. 3. pp: 47-90.

Roberts. M. L.. T. L. Albright. and A. R. Hibbets. 2002. Improving utilization of unique measures in the Balanced Scorecard: The effects of increased awareness and experience. Working paper. The Umversity of Alabama.

Roberts, M. L., T. L. Albright dan A.R. Hibberts. 2004. Debiasing Balanced Scorecard Evaluation. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Vol. 16. pp. 75-88.

Slovic, P . dan D. MacPhillamy. 1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative Judgment. Organizationai Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 11. pp: 172-194.

Tayler, William B. 2010. The Balanced Scorecare as a Strategy-Evaluation Tool: The Effect of Implementation Involvement and a Causal Cahin Focus. The Accounting Review. Vol. 85 No. 3. pp. 1095-1177.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN 1411-6375. joomla visitors View My Stats