Strategi Mengatasi Common Measures Bias dalam Balanced Scorecard
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35917/tb.v15i1.8Keywords:
common measures bias, dissaggregated, management communication, compensation allocationAbstract
Abstract
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.
Downloads
References
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
