IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acctbr/v47y2017i7p731-751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of performance report layout on managers’ subjective evaluation judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Victor S. Maas
  • Niels Verdoorn

Abstract

Managers tend to provide subjective performance evaluations that are relatively high (leniency) and not very dispersed (compression). This paper reports on an experiment that investigates whether the layout of performance reports affects the leniency and compression of managers’ subjective evaluations. Relying on psychology theory, we predict that subjective ratings will be higher and more compressed if performance reports contain alphabetically listed indicators rather than categorically listed indicators (as in a balanced scorecard). Moreover, we predict that ratings will be higher and more compressed if performance reports present indicator target and actual values in tables than when this information is presented in graphs. The results from the experiment provide support for the hypothesis that performance ratings are higher if measures are listed in alphabetical order as opposed to presented in a four-category balanced scorecard format. However, there is no support for the other hypotheses. We discuss the implications of the study for accounting research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:47:y:2017:i:7:p:731-751
    DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2017.1324756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00014788.2017.1324756
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00014788.2017.1324756?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. Bettman, James R & Kakkar, Pradeep, 1977. "Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 3(4), pages 233-240, March.
    2. Kristina Rennekamp, 2012. "Processing Fluency and Investors’ Reactions to Disclosure Readability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 1319-1354, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    5. Bol, Jasmijn C. & Kramer, Stephan & Maas, Victor S., 2016. "How control system design affects performance evaluation compression: The role of information accuracy and outcome transparency," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 64-73.
    6. Birnberg, Jacob G. & Shields, Michael D., 1984. "The role of attention and memory in accounting decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(3-4), pages 365-382, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard L. Daft & Robert H. Lengel, 1986. "Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 554-571, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Jane Davison, 2015. "Visualising accounting: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 121-165, February.
    12. Moriarity, S, 1979. "Communicating Financial Information Through Multidimensional Graphics," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(1), pages 205-224.
    13. Cardinaels, Eddy, 2008. "The interplay between cost accounting knowledge and presentation formats in cost-based decision-making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 582-602, August.
    14. Shujun Ding & Philip Beaulieu, 2011. "The Role of Financial Incentives in Balanced Scorecard‐Based Performance Evaluations: Correcting Mood Congruency Biases," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1223-1247, December.
    15. D. Jordan Lowe & Salvador Carmona-Moreno & Philip M.J. Reckers, 2011. "The influence of strategy map communications and individual differences on multidimensional performance evaluations," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 375-391, September.
    16. Lipe, Marlys Gascho & Salterio, Steven, 2002. "A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 531-540, August.
    17. Bouwens, Jan & Kroos, Peter, 2011. "Target ratcheting and effort reduction," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 171-185, February.
    18. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    19. Yasheng Chen & Johnny Jermias & Tota Panggabean, 2016. "The Role of Visual Attention in the Managerial Judgment of Balanced‐Scorecard Performance Evaluation: Insights from Using an Eye‐Tracking Device," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 113-146, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Irene Trapp & Rouven Trapp, 2019. "The psychological effects of centrality bias: an experimental analysis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 155-189, March.
    3. Kai A. Bauch & Peter Kotzian & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2021. "Likeability in subjective performance evaluations: does it bias managers’ weighting of performance measures?," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 35-59, February.
    4. 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..
    5. Hall, Matthew, 2010. "Accounting information and managerial work," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.
    7. Bol, Jasmijn C. & Kramer, Stephan & Maas, Victor S., 2016. "How control system design affects performance evaluation compression: The role of information accuracy and outcome transparency," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 64-73.
    8. 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.
    9. William D. Brink & Karen De Meyst & Tim V. Eaton, 2022. "The Impact of Human Rights Reporting and Presentation Formats on Non-Professional Investors’ Perceptions and Intentions to Invest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Kerry A. Humphreys, 2023. "The balanced scorecard: Do managers need a strategy map when evaluating performance?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4357-4373, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Eddy Cardinaels & Christoph Feichter, 2021. "Forced Rating Systems from Employee and Supervisor Perspectives," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1573-1607, December.
    13. Cheng, Mandy M. & Humphreys, Kerry A. & Zhang, Yichelle Y., 2018. "The interplay between strategic risk profiles and presentation format on managers' strategic judgments using the balanced scorecard," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 92-105.
    14. 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.
    15. Ronzani, Matteo & Gatzweiler, Marian Konstantin, 2022. "The lure of the visual: Multimodality, simplification, and performance measurement visualizations in a megaproject," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Hoque, Zahirul, 2014. "20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-59.
    17. Lisa-Marie Wibbeke & Maik Lachmann, 2020. "Psychology in management accounting and control research: an overview of the recent literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 275-328, September.
    18. Borozan, Miloš & Loreta, Cannito & Riccardo, Palumbo, 2022. "Eye-tracking for the study of financial decision-making: A systematic review of the literature," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    19. Raymond O. S. Zaal, 2011. "Reinforcing Ethical Behavior through Organizational Architecture: A Hypothesized Relationship," Chapters, in: Killian J. McCarthy & Maya Fiolet & Wilfred Dolfsma (ed.), The Nature of the New Firm, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Puhani, Patrick A. & Yang, Philip, 2020. "Does increased teacher accountability decrease leniency in grading?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 333-341.

    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:47:y:2017:i:7:p:731-751. 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.