IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v30y2005i1p67-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity

Author

Listed:
  • Moers, Frank

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:30:y:2005:i:1:p:67-80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361-3682(03)00097-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Govindarajan, V. & Gupta, Anil K., 1985. "Linking control systems to business unit strategy: impact on performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 51-66, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Govindarajan, V., 1984. "Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 125-135, June.
    4. Rachel M. Hayes & Scott Schaefer, 2000. "Implicit Contracts and the Explanatory Power of Top Executive Compensation for Future Performance," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 273-293, Summer.
    5. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    6. Srikant Datar & Susan Cohen Kulp & Richard A. Lambert, 2001. "Balancing Performance Measures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 75-92, June.
    7. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert H, 1996. "Favoritism in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 958-978, October.
    8. Wallace, James S., 1997. "Adopting residual income-based compensation plans: Do you get what you pay for?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 275-300, December.
    9. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    10. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert, 1993. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 355-365, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Verbeeten, F.H.M., 2005. "New’ Performance Measures: Determinants of Their Use and Their Impact on Performance," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-054-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Guliang Tang, 2018. "Differential Weighting of Objective Versus Subjective Measures in Performance Evaluation: Experimental Evidence," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 129-148, January.
    3. Neale G. O'Connor & F. Johnny Deng & Pan Fei, 2015. "Observability and Subjective Performance Measurement," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 208-237, June.
    4. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    5. Thiele, Veikko, 2007. "Performance measurement in multi-task agencies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 148-163, September.
    6. 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).
    7. Frederiksen, Anders & Lange, Fabian & Kriechel, Ben, 2017. "Subjective performance evaluations and employee careers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 408-429.
    8. Alberto Bayo-Moriones & Jose E. Galdon-Sanchez & Sara Martinez-de-Morentin, 2017. "Performance Measurement and Incentive Intensity," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 496-546, December.
    9. Moers Frank, 2001. "Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity," Research Memorandum 025, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    10. 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.
    11. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F., 2001. "Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 349-410, December.
    12. Schöttner, Anja, 2005. "Relational contracts and job design," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-052, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    13. Eren, Ozkan, 2023. "Potential in-group bias at work: Evidence from performance evaluations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 296-312.
    14. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2005-052 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. 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.
    16. Ockenfels, Axel & Sliwka, Dirk & Werner, Peter, 2024. "Multi-Rater Performance Evaluations and Incentives," IZA Discussion Papers 16812, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Amizawati Mohd Amir, 2011. "The indirect effects of PMS design on Malaysian service firms' characteristics and performance," Asian Review of Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(1), pages 31-49, May.
    18. Lucia Marchegiani & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2013. "Severity vs. Leniency Bias in Performance Appraisal: Experimental evidence," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS01, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    19. Juho Jokinen & Jaakko Pehkonen, 2021. "The role of personal and relative job performance in promotion decisions," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 35(4), pages 485-499, December.
    20. Thuy‐Van Tran & Janne Järvinen, 2022. "Understanding the concept of subjectivity in performance evaluation and its effects on perceived procedural justice across contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 4079-4108, September.
    21. Isabella Grabner & Frank Moers, 2013. "Managers' Choices of Performance Measures in Promotion Decisions: An Analysis of Alternative Job Assignments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 1187-1220, 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:eee:aosoci:v:30:y:2005:i:1:p:67-80. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.