IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acctbr/v42y2012i4p377-396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on public sector managers’ motivation

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel Van Rinsum
  • Frank H.M. Verbeeten

Abstract

We conduct an explorative study to investigate the effect of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on managerial motivation in public sector organisations. Increased subjectivity can enhance motivation if supervisors are able to provide better informational feedback. However, subjectivity is likely to reduce motivation if it reduces perceived mission clarity or negatively affects relations between supervisors and subordinates. Our analysis is based on a survey among 94 public sector managers in the Netherlands. We predict and find that subjectivity in performance evaluation practices reduces perceived mission clarity, which in turn decreases motivation. We also find that subjectivity negatively affects subordinate managers’ trust in their supervisor, which also reduces motivation. Jointly, these results indicate that the negative effects of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices outweigh its potential positive consequences, suggesting that New Public Management's focus on more objective performance measures can indeed be beneficial. By itself, however, this does not automatically imply that more objective systems in general are optimal in all public sector organisations as such systems may have dysfunctional side effects such as distortion of performance measures, gaming or manipulation. In addition, we find that the effects of subjectivity are moderated by organisational characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel Van Rinsum & Frank H.M. Verbeeten, 2012. "The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on public sector managers’ motivation," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 377-396, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:42:y:2012:i:4:p:377-396
    DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2012.653747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00014788.2012.653747
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00014788.2012.653747?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
    ---><---

    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. Gordon, Lawrence A. & Narayanan, V. K., 1984. "Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: An empirical investigation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 33-47, January.
    2. Lau, Chong M. & Sholihin, Mahfud, 2005. "Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: How do they affect job satisfaction?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 389-413.
    3. Jane Broadbent & James Guthrie, 2008. "Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual” accounting research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(2), pages 129-169, February.
    4. Chong M. Lau & Christen Buckland, 2001. "Budgeting—the Role of Trust and Participation: A Research Note," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 37(3), pages 369-388, October.
    5. Mahfud Sholihin & Richard Pike, 2009. "Fairness in performance evaluation and its behavioural consequences," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 397-413.
    6. Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2007. "Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 667-697, September.
    7. Canice Prendergast, 2007. "The Motivation and Bias of Bureaucrats," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 180-196, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Gibbs, Michael & Merchant, Kenneth A. & Van der Stede, Wim A. & Vargus, Mark A., 2004. "Performance Measure Properties and Incentives," IZA Discussion Papers 1356, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Bushman, Robert M. & Indjejikian, Raffi J. & Smith, Abbie, 1996. "CEO compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 161-193, April.
    11. Rodgers, Waymond & Guiral, Andrés, 2011. "Potential model misspecification bias: Formative indicators enhancing theory for accounting researchers," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 25-50, March.
    12. Hartmann, Frank & Slapnicar, Sergeja, 2009. "How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 722-737, August.
    13. Chong Lau & Kuan Wong & Ian Eggleton, 2008. "Fairness of performance evaluation procedures and job satisfaction: The role of outcome‐based and non‐outcome‐based effects," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 121-135.
    14. Irvine Lapsley, 2009. "New Public Management: The Cruellest Invention of the Human Spirit?1," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 45(1), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Oliver Hart & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1997. "The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(4), pages 1127-1161.
    16. Simon Burgess & Marisa Ratto, 2003. "The Role of Incentives in the Public Sector: Issues and Evidence," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 03/071, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    17. Carol Propper & Deborah Wilson, 2003. "The Use and Usefulness of Performance Measures in the Public Sector," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(2), pages 250-267, Summer.
    18. Cavalluzzo, Ken S. & Ittner, Christopher D., 2004. "Implementing performance measurement innovations: evidence from government," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 243-267.
    19. 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.
    20. Marginson, David & Ogden, Stuart, 2005. "Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 435-456, July.
    21. Ghosh, Dipankar & Lusch, Robert F., 2000. "Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers: some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 411-425, May.
    22. Simon Burgess & Marisa Ratto, 2003. "The Role of Incentives in the Public Sector: Issues and Evidence," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(2), pages 285-300, Summer.
    23. Abernethy, Margaret A. & Brownell, Peter, 1997. "Management control systems in research and development organizations: The role of accounting, behavior and personnel controls," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(3-4), pages 233-248.
    24. Hofstede, Geert, 1981. "Management control of public and not-for-profit activities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 193-211, July.
    25. Kevin Keasey & Philip Moon & Darren Duxbury, 2000. "Performance measurement and the use of league tables: some experimental evidence of dysfunctional consequences," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 275-286.
    26. Bisbe, Josep & Batista-Foguet, Joan-Manuel & Chenhall, Robert, 2007. "Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 789-820.
    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. 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.
    2. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    3. Kelly K. Wang & Maria Cadiz Dyball & Andy Wang, 2023. "The link between formality and procedural fairness: The influences of precision, sensitivity and role clarity," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(S1), pages 1571-1598, April.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. van Rinsum, M., 2019. "Utilizing Incentives and Accountability: In Control in Control?," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA 2019-078-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..
    7. Victor S. Maas & Niels Verdoorn, 2017. "The effects of performance report layout on managers’ subjective evaluation judgments," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(7), pages 731-751, November.
    8. Yu-Lin Chen, 2014. "Determinants of biased subjective performance evaluations: evidence from a Taiwanese public sector organization," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 656-675, December.

    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. Kelly K. Wang & Maria Cadiz Dyball & Andy Wang, 2023. "The link between formality and procedural fairness: The influences of precision, sensitivity and role clarity," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(S1), pages 1571-1598, April.
    2. Frank H.M. Verbeeten, 2008. "Performance management practices in public sector organizations," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(3), pages 427-454, March.
    3. Christoph Feichter & Isabella Grabner, 2020. "Empirische Forschung zu Management Control – Ein Überblick und neue Trends [Empirical Management Control Reserach—An Overview and Future Directions]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 149-181, June.
    4. Sholihin, Mahfud & Pike, Richard & Mangena, Musa & Li, Jing, 2011. "Goal-setting participation and goal commitment: Examining the mediating roles of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in a UK financial services organisation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-146.
    5. 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.
    6. van Rinsum, M., 2019. "Utilizing Incentives and Accountability: In Control in Control?," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA 2019-078-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..
    7. Bellavance, François & Landry, Suzanne & Schiehll, Eduardo, 2013. "Procedural justice in managerial performance evaluation: Effects of subjectivity, relationship quality, and voice opportunity," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 149-166.
    8. Dietrichson, Jens, 2013. "Coordination Incentives, Performance Measurement and Resource Allocation in Public Sector Organizations," Working Papers 2013:26, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Noeverman, J., 2010. "Not Just Because it is Fair - The Role of Feedback Quality and Voice in Performance Evaluation," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2010-048-ORG, 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.
    10. Makris, Miltiadis, 2009. "Incentives for motivated agents under an administrative constraint," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 428-440, August.
    11. Tobias Johansson & Gabriella Wennblom, 2017. "In female supervisors male subordinates trust!? An experiment on supervisor and subordinate gender and the perceptions of tight control," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 321-345, October.
    12. Carolyn J. Heinrich & Gerald Marschke, 2010. "Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 183-208.
    13. Radtke, Robin R. & Speklé, Roland F. & Widener, Sally K., 2023. "Flourish or flounder: Do trust-centric management controls encourage knowledge sharing and team performance?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Maria Cadiz Dyball & Andy Fengfei Wang, 2017. "The Links Among Characteristics, Controls And Performance Of Inter-Firm Innovation Projects," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06), pages 1-33, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    17. Pauline Beau, 2016. "L'influence de la justice organisationnelle sur le stress : le cas du contrôle des performances individuelles dans les grands cabinets d'audit," Post-Print hal-01902416, HAL.
    18. Yu-Lin Chen, 2014. "Determinants of biased subjective performance evaluations: evidence from a Taiwanese public sector organization," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 656-675, December.
    19. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    20. Antonio Sánchez Soliño, 2019. "Sustainability of Public Services: Is Outsourcing the Answer?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-12, 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:taf:acctbr:v:42:y:2012:i:4:p:377-396. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RABR20 .

    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.