IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v47y2007i2p221-242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of perceived conflict among multiple performance goals and goal difficulty on task performance

Author

Listed:
  • Mandy M. Cheng
  • Peter F. Luckett
  • Habib Mahama

Abstract

Contemporary performance measurement systems, such as the balanced scorecard, often advocate the use of an array of financial and non‐financial measures. Despite many claimed advantages for these systems, recent research shows that the inclusion of multiple performance measures sometimes has undesirable effects. The present study examines one of the potential problems of implementing these systems; namely, the impact of perceived goal conflict on task performance. Using survey data from employees working in multiple call centres in a telecommunication company, we find that perceived goal difficulty increases perceived goal conflict. Additionally, perceived goal difficulty also has a negative, indirect effect of task performance, through the mediating role of perceived goal conflict. Our results have important implications for both the research literature and the designers of performance measurement systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Mandy M. Cheng & Peter F. Luckett & Habib Mahama, 2007. "Effect of perceived conflict among multiple performance goals and goal difficulty on task performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(2), pages 221-242, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:47:y:2007:i:2:p:221-242
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00215.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00215.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00215.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banker, Rajiv D. & Chang, Hsihui & Janakiraman, Surya N. & Konstans, Constantine, 2004. "A balanced scorecard analysis of performance metrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(2), pages 423-436, April.
    2. Lillis, Anne M., 2002. "Managing multiple dimensions of manufacturing performance -- an exploratory study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 497-529, August.
    3. Tuttle, Brad & Burton, F. Greg, 1999. "The effects of a modest incentive on information overload in an investment analysis task," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(8), pages 673-687, November.
    4. Erez, Miriam & Gopher, Daniel & Arzi, Nira, 1990. "Effects of goal difficulty, self-set goals, and monetary rewards on dual task performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 247-269, December.
    5. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F. & Randall, Taylor, 2003. "Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 715-741.
    6. Véronique Malleret & Annick Bourguignon & Hanne Norreklit, 2004. "The American balanced scorecard versus the French tableau de bord : the ideological dimension," Post-Print hal-00486648, HAL.
    7. Wright, Patrick M. & Hollenbeck, John R. & Wolf, Samantha & McMahan, Gary C., 1995. "The Effects of Varying Goal Difficulty Operationalizations on Goal Setting Outcomes and Processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 28-43, January.
    8. Moers, Frank, 2005. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 67-80, January.
    9. Vandenbosch, Betty, 1999. "An empirical analysis of the association between the use of executive support systems and perceived organizational competitiveness," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 77-92, January.
    10. John Hulland, 1999. "Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, February.
    11. Chenhall, Robert H., 2005. "Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 395-422, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Emsley & Lai Hong Chung, 2010. "How Management Accountants' Cognitive Style and Role Involvement Combine to Affect the Effort Devoted to Initiating Change," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 46(3), pages 232-257, September.
    2. David J. Cooper & Mahmoud Ezzamel & Keith Robson, 2019. "The Multiplicity of Performance Management Systems: Heterogeneity in Multinational Corporations and Management Sense‐Making," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 451-485, March.
    3. Zarinah Abdul Rasit & Che Ruhana Isa, 2019. "Relative Comprehensiveness of Performance Measurement System: Organisational Ownership Structure and Size," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 10(3), pages 380-391, May.
    4. Smith, Steven D. & Thomas, Tyler F., 2024. "The effects of strategic alignment and strategic clarity on multidimensional task performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Aziz Ariwibowo & Adi Afiff & Riani Rachmawati & Ratih Kusumastuti, 2024. "The impact of boundary spanning activities and resource orchestration in improving performance of Indonesian state-owned bank branches," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Sharul Effendy Janudin & Farahaini Mohd Hanif & Noor Shafeeza Zainuddin, 2016. "Developing Contemporary Performance Measurement System Performance Model for Co-operatives in Malaysia: Is it Necessary?," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6(11), pages 436-448, November.
    7. Marco Giovanni Rizzo, 2014. "La relazione tra il livello di coinvolgimento nel processo di budget, il commitment verso gli obiettivi, la soddisfazione lavorativa e i relativi risvolti sulla performance manageriale. I risultati di," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 9-34.
    8. manuela S. Macinati & Marco G. Rizzo & Gianluca D'Agostino, 2014. "Partecipazione al processo di budget, accuratezza e utilit? delle informazioni di budget e performance. I risultati di un caso studi," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(92), pages 55-75.
    9. Kazeem O. Akinyele & Vicky Arnold & Steve G. Sutton, 2022. "Motivating unrewarded task performance: The dual effects of incentives and an organisational value statement in a discretionary task setting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2439-2466, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hall, Matthew, 2008. "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 141-163.
    2. van Veen-Dirks, Paula, 2010. "Different uses of performance measures: The evaluation versus reward of production managers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 141-164, February.
    3. Nguyen, Thi Thu & Mia, Lokman & Winata, Lanita & Chong, Vincent K., 2017. "Effect of transformational-leadership style and management control system on managerial performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 202-213.
    4. Thi Cam Tu Luong & Ann Jorissen & Ine Paeleman, 2019. "Performance Measurement for Sustainability: Does Firm Ownership Matter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-35, August.
    5. Hall, Matthew, 2011. "Do comprehensive performance measurement systems help or hinder managers' mental model development?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Margaret A. Abernethy & Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2013. "The Role of Performance Measures in the Intertemporal Decisions of Business Unit Managers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 925-961, September.
    7. Jinhwan Kim & Hyeob Kim & HyukJun Kwon, 2020. "The Impact of Employees’ Perceptions of Strategic Alignment on Sustainability: An Empirical Investigation of Korean Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Iryna Alves & Sofia M. Lourenço, 2022. "The use of non-financial performance measures for managerial compensation: evidence from SMEs," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 151-187, June.
    9. Nitzl, Christian, 2016. "The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 19-35.
    10. Chenhall, Robert H., 2005. "Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 395-422, July.
    11. Chapman, Christopher S. & Kihn, Lili-Anne, 2009. "Information system integration, enabling control and performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 151-169, February.
    12. Paul Andon & Jane Baxter & Habib Mahama, 2005. "The Balanced Scorecard: Slogans, Seduction, and State of Play," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 15(35), pages 29-38, March.
    13. Irene Eleonora Lisi, 2018. "Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 225-251, September.
    14. David Marginson & Laurie McAulay & Melvin Roush & Tony Van Zijl, 2010. "Performance measures and short‐termism: An exploratory study," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 353-370.
    15. Francesca Francioli, 2018. "Strategic performance management systems in Italian banks. A research note," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(2), pages 155-178.
    16. Henri, Jean-Francois, 2006. "Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 529-558, August.
    17. Jazayeri, Mostafa & Scapens, Robert W., 2008. "The Business Values Scorecard within BAE Systems: The evolution of a performance measurement system," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 48-70.
    18. David J. Cooper & Mahmoud Ezzamel & Keith Robson, 2019. "The Multiplicity of Performance Management Systems: Heterogeneity in Multinational Corporations and Management Sense‐Making," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 451-485, March.
    19. Bicudo de Castro, Vincent, 2017. "Unpacking the notion of subjectivity: Performance evaluation and supervisor discretion," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 532-544.
    20. Paolo Perego & Frank Hartmann, 2009. "Aligning Performance Measurement Systems With Strategy: The Case of Environmental Strategy," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 45(4), pages 397-428, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:47:y:2007:i:2:p:221-242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.