IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hbs/wpaper/16-018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Mandatory Measurement and Peer Reporting Improve Performance?

Author

Listed:
  • Susanna Gallani

    (Harvard Business School, Accounting and Management Unit)

  • Takehisa Kajiwara

    (Kobe University - JapanKobe University - Japan)

  • Ranjani Krishnan

    (Michigan State University)

Abstract

We examine the effect of mandated measurement and peer disclosure of new information on the persistence of performance improvements in a setting without performance incentives. Value of information (VOI) theory posits that information can improve the accuracy of posterior beliefs and thereby have a decision facilitating effect. These effects are more pronounced when the information is new versus an update. Using data from the Japanese National Hospital Organization, we analyze performance trends following regulation requiring standardized measurement and peer disclosure of absolute and relative patient satisfaction performance. After controlling for ceiling effects and regression to the mean, mandatory patient satisfaction measurement and peer disclosure introduce positive and significant mean shifts in performance with larger improvements for poorly performing hospitals. The largest positive effects occur when the information is new. Our study provides empirical evidence of the decision facilitating value of information without confound from its decision influencing value.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanna Gallani & Takehisa Kajiwara & Ranjani Krishnan, 2015. "Does Mandatory Measurement and Peer Reporting Improve Performance?," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-018, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2017.
  • Handle: RePEc:hbs:wpaper:16-018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/pages/download.aspx?name=16-018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Demski, J, 1972. "Information Improvement Bounds," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 58-76.
    2. Margaret A. Abernethy & Jan Bouwens, 2005. "Determinants of accounting innovation implementation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 41(3), pages 217-240, October.
    3. Ittner, CD & Larcker, DF, 1998. "Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36, pages 1-35.
    4. 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.
    5. Florian Ederer, 2010. "Feedback and Motivation in Dynamic Tournaments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 733-769, September.
    6. Khim Ong Kelly, 2007. "Feedback and Incentives on Nonfinancial Value Drivers: Effects on Managerial Decision Making," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 523-556, June.
    7. Sitzia, John & Wood, Neil, 1997. "Patient satisfaction: A review of issues and concepts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(12), pages 1829-1843, December.
    8. Lambert, Richard A., 2001. "Contracting theory and accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 3-87, December.
    9. Jean‐Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra, 2011. "Apparent Overconfidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1591-1625, September.
    10. David Dranove & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2010. "Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 935-963, December.
    11. Pablo Casas-Arce & F. Asís Martínez-Jerez, 2009. "Relative Performance Compensation, Contests, and Dynamic Incentives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1306-1320, August.
    12. Narayanan, V. G. & Davila, Antonio, 1998. "Using delegation and control systems to mitigate the trade-off between the performance-evaluation and belief-revision uses of accounting signals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-282, June.
    13. Venky Nagar & Madhav V. Rajan, 2005. "Measuring Customer Relationships: The Case of the Retail Banking Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 904-919, June.
    14. Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, 2002. "Social Value of Public Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1521-1534, December.
    15. Sugden, Robert, 2003. "Reference-dependent subjective expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 172-191, August.
    16. Sunder Kekre & Mayuram S. Krishnan & Kannan Srinivasan, 1995. "Drivers of Customer Satisfaction for Software Products: Implications for Design and Service Support," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(9), pages 1456-1470, September.
    17. Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, 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. Susanna Gallani & Takehisa Kajiwara & Ranjani Krishnan, 2020. "Value of new performance information in healthcare: evidence from Japan," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 319-357, December.
    2. 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.
    3. de Aguiar, Andson Braga & Pinheiro, Paulo Natal & Oyadomari, José Carlos Tiomatsu, 2014. "How do different performance measures affect managerial time orientation? Empirical evidence from sales managers in the oil and gas industry," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 143-153.
    4. 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.
    5. Grafton, Jennifer & Lillis, Anne M. & Widener, Sally K., 2010. "The role of performance measurement and evaluation in building organizational capabilities and performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 689-706, October.
    6. Murad, Zahra & Starmer, Chris, 2021. "Confidence snowballing and relative performance feedback," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 550-572.
    7. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    8. Francesca Francioli & Alberto Quagli, 2021. "Management accounting change and the rise of Vespa (1884-1965)," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2021(suppl. 2), pages 313-338.
    9. Klein, Arnd Heinrich & Schmutzler, Armin, 2017. "Optimal effort incentives in dynamic tournaments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 199-224.
    10. Gwen-Jiro Clochard & Guillaume Hollard & Julia Wirtz, 2022. "More effort or better technologies? On the effect of relative performance feedback," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/767, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    11. Kurz, Mordecai & Jin, Hehui & Motolese, Maurizio, 2005. "The role of expectations in economic fluctuations and the efficacy of monetary policy," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 2017-2065, November.
    12. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Verbeke, Willem, 2014. "Dynamic incentive effects of relative performance pay: A field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-13.
    13. Arni, Patrick & Dragone, Davide & Goette, Lorenz & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2021. "Biased health perceptions and risky health behaviors—Theory and evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    14. Loukas Balafoutas & E. Glenn Dutcher & Florian Lindner & Dmitry Ryvkin, 2017. "The Optimal Allocation Of Prizes In Tournaments Of Heterogeneous Agents," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 461-478, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Le Coq, Chloé & Sturluson, Jon Thor, 2012. "Does opponents’ experience matter? Experimental evidence from a quantity precommitment game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 265-277.
    17. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    18. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    19. Ghazala Azmat & Nagore Iriberri, 2010. "The provision of relative performance feedback information: An experimental analysis of performance and happiness," Economics Working Papers 1216, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    20. Raphael Guber & Martin G. Kocher & Joachim Winter, 2021. "Does having insurance change individuals' self‐confidence?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(2), pages 429-442, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Value of information; Patient Satisfaction; Mandatory performance measurement; Health care.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • L30 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - General
    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    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:hbs:wpaper:16-018. 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: HBS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/harbsus.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.