اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات56
تعداد شماره‌ها2,153
تعداد مقالات22,473
تعداد مشاهده مقاله103,418,939
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله49,217,176
Ghalebi, Seyedeh Raja, Khajavai, Shokrollah, Mahmoodi, Ali. (1404). The Effect of Performance Evaluation System Dimensions on Organizational Results: A Financial Approach and Organizational Capabilities. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 9(3), 99-118. doi: 10.22067/ijaaf.2025.45563.1471
Seyedeh Raja Ghalebi; Shokrollah Khajavai; Ali Mahmoodi. "The Effect of Performance Evaluation System Dimensions on Organizational Results: A Financial Approach and Organizational Capabilities". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 9, 3, 1404, 99-118. doi: 10.22067/ijaaf.2025.45563.1471
Ghalebi, Seyedeh Raja, Khajavai, Shokrollah, Mahmoodi, Ali. (1404). 'The Effect of Performance Evaluation System Dimensions on Organizational Results: A Financial Approach and Organizational Capabilities', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 9(3), pp. 99-118. doi: 10.22067/ijaaf.2025.45563.1471
Ghalebi, Seyedeh Raja, Khajavai, Shokrollah, Mahmoodi, Ali. The Effect of Performance Evaluation System Dimensions on Organizational Results: A Financial Approach and Organizational Capabilities. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1404; 9(3): 99-118. doi: 10.22067/ijaaf.2025.45563.1471

The Effect of Performance Evaluation System Dimensions on Organizational Results: A Financial Approach and Organizational Capabilities

Iranian Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance
مقاله 6، دوره 9، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 32، آبان 2025، صفحه 99-118    اصل مقاله (711.27 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/ijaaf.2025.45563.1471
نویسندگان
Seyedeh Raja Ghalebi1؛ Shokrollah Khajavai* 2؛ Ali Mahmoodi3
1PhD student, Department of Accounting, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
2Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Commerce and Trade , University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده
The comprehensive Performance Measurement System (PMS) clearly emphasizes the managers' role by explaining strategic purposes and various dimensions of performance. The present study aims to analyze empirical evidence about the effect of managers' emphasis on a particular type of function and complexity levels of PMS on its benefits and organizational performance based on Levers of Control (LOC) and Contingency Theory (CT). The study was conducted in 46 companies active in Persian Gulf Petrochemical Holding in 2022. Results from data modeling using partial least squares structural equations indicate that a higher emphasis on the interactive function of PMS increases its benefits in the studied sample, with no influence from the complexity level of PMS. In other words, the effect of diagnostic and interactive functions of PMS on its benefits have no significant difference in simple and complex systems. Results from the model's sensitivity analysis show the stability of findings based on different assumptions.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Diagnostic and Interactive Functions؛ Performance Measurement System؛ Complexity Level of Performance Measurement System
مراجع
  1. Agostino, D. and Arnaboldi, M. (2012). Design issues in balanced scorecards: The “what” and “how” of control. European Management Journal, 30(4), pp. 327-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.02.001
  2. Alamri, A. M. (2019). Association between strategic management accounting facets and organizational performance. Baltic Journal of Management, 14(2), pp. 212-234. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-12-2017-0411
  3. Bedford, D., Bisbe, J. and Sweeney, B. (2023a). Enhancing external knowledge search: The influence of performance measurement system design on the absorptive capacity of top management teams. Technovation, 118, A. 102586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102586
  4. Bedford, D. S., Bisbe, J. and Sweeney, B. (2022b). The joint effects of performance measurement system design and TMT cognitive conflict on innovation ambidexterity. Management Accounting Research, 57, A. 100805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2022.100805
  5. Bellora-Bienengräber, L., Derfuss, K. and Endrikat, J. (2023). Taking stock of research on the levers of control with meta-analytic methods: Stylized facts and boundary conditions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 106, A. 101414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101414
  6. Bisbe, J. and Malagueño, R. (2012). Using strategic performance measurement systems for strategy formulation: does it work in dynamic environments?. Management Accounting Research, 23(4), pp. 296-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.05.002
  7. Bititci, U. S., Bourne, M., Cross, J. A. F., Nudurupati, S. S. and Sang, K. (2018). Towards a theoretical foundation for performance measurement and management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), pp. 653-660. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12185
  8. Cupertino, S., Vitale, G. and Taticchi, P. (2023). Interdependencies between financial and non-financial performances: a holistic and short-term analytical perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 72(10), pp. 3184-3207. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2022-0075
  9. Daowadueng, P., Hoozée, S., Jorissen, A. and Maussen, S. (2023). Do costing system design choices mediate the link between strategic orientation and cost information usage for decision making and control?. Management Accounting Research, 61, A. 100854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2023.100854
  10. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., Giannakis, M. and Roubaud, D. (2017). Examining the effect of external pressures and organizational culture on shaping performance measurement systems (PMS) for sustainability benchmarking: Some empirical findings. International Journal of Production Economics, 193, pp. 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.029
  11. Endrikat, J., Guenther, T. W. and Titus, R. (2020). Consequences of strategic performance measurement systems: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 32(1), pp. 103-136. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52575
  12. Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L. and Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research, 23(2), pp. 79-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.001
  13. Heggen, C. and Sridharan, V. G. (2021). The effects of an enabling approach to eco-control on firms’ environmental performance: a research note. Management Accounting Research, 50, A. 100724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2020.100724
  14. Heinicke, A., Guenther, T. W. and Widener, S. K. (2016). An examination of the relationship between the extent of a flexible culture and the levers of control system: the key role of beliefs control. Management Accounting Research, 33, pp. 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.03.005
  15. Henri, J. F. (2006a). Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(1), pp. 77-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2004.10.003
  16. Henri, J. F. (2006b). Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), pp. 529-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.07.001
  17. Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), pp. 33-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003 \
  18. Johnson, R., Lee, S. and Kim, H. (2019). Interactive performance measurement systems and employee turnover rates. Human Resource Management Journal, 38(2), pp. 234-256. DOI:10.1108/IJPPM-03-2020-0111
  19. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2002). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Boston
  20. Khourshed, N. and Beshr, M. (2024). Evaluating supply chain performance measurement system (SCPMS) lifecycle during unexpected events. Production & Manufacturing Research, 12(1), A. 2345616. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2024.2345616
  21. Koufteros, X., Verghese, A. J. and Lucianetti, L. (2014). The effect of performance measurement systems on firm performance: a cross-sectional and a longitudinal study. Journal of Operations Management, 32(6), pp. 313-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.06.003
  22. Lucianetti, L., Jabbour, C. J. C., Gunasekaran, A. and Latan, H. (2018). Contingency factors and complementary effects of adopting advanced manufacturing tools and managerial practices: effects on organizational measurement systems and firms' performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 200, pp. 318-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.04.005
  23. Mahmoudi Yekebaghi, R., Vadeei, M. H. and Darvishi, M. (2025). Operational use, responsibility and performance measurement. Iranian Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 9(1), pp. 15-31. https://doi.org/10.22067/ijaaf.2025.44947.1411
  24. Micheli, P. and Manzoni, J. F. (2010). Strategic performance measurement: benefits, limitations and paradoxes. Long range planning, 43(4), pp. 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.004
  25. Müller-Stewens, B., Widener, S. K., Möller, K. and Steinmann, J. C. (2020). The role of diagnostic and interactive control uses in innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 80, 101078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2019.101078
  26. Mura, M., Micheli, P. and Longo, M. (2021). The effects of performance measurement system uses on organizational ambidexterity and firm performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(13), pp. 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2021-0101
  27. Pešalj, B., Pavlov, A. and Micheli, P. (2018). The use of management control and performance measurement systems in SMEs: a levers of control perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(11), pp. 2169-2191. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2016-0565
  28. Rajnoha, R., Lesníková, P. and Korauš, A. (2016). From financial measures to strategic performance measurement system and corporate sustainability: Empirical evidence from Slovakia. Economics and Sociology, 9(4), pp. 134-152 DOI:14254/2071-789X.2016/9-4/8
  29. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Moisescu, O. I. and Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics, 26(4), pp. 531-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618823921
  30. Simons, R. (1994). How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), pp. 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150301
  31. Simons, R. (1995). Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), pp. 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120105
  32. Simons, (2014). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. Pearson، Harlow, England
  33. Speckbacher, G. and Wentges, P. (2012). The impact of family control on the use of performance measures in strategic target setting and incentive compensation: a research note. Management Accounting Research, 23(1), pp. 34-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2011.06.002
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 418
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 394


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب