A Conceptual Framework for Performance Evaluation in Corporations

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Accounting, Shahid Beheshty University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor in Accounting, Shahid Beheshty University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor in Accounting, Shahid Beheshty University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Professor in Management, Shahid Beheshty University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22103/jak.2022.19462.3707

Abstract

Objective: Every corporation continuously seeks to achieve its predetermined goals. In this regard, the corporation defines its strategy as achieving its goals. In this direction, essential questions are faced by corporations. Questions such as whether the business is moving toward achieving predetermined goals. How can the movement of the business towards its goals be improved? How does each business component play a role in achieving the goals? Sometimes more fundamental questions arise for the corporation. Questions such as whether the purposes of the business are correctly defined. Is the strategy adopted by the business appropriate? In order to answer these questions, businesses constantly check their path towards their goals by using performance evaluation models. Performance evaluation, through clarifying the performance of the business in moving towards the goals, helps managers and other stakeholders to identify the business's strengths and weaknesses, evaluate the business's success in various functional areas and take appropriate measures to correct the deficiencies. Despite numerous studies on performance evaluation and the different models to measure a corporation's performance, there is no clear conceptual framework for performance evaluation in corporations. This has led to the fact that the available performance evaluation models do not comprehensively cover different dimensions of organizational performance. Also, this makes designing new models or choosing from existing models a challenging decision. Therefore, a conceptual framework for performance evaluation is needed in management accounting to clarify the dimensions and characteristics of an appropriate performance evaluation model. The main question of this research is to recognize the phenomenon of performance evaluation and identify the components of the conceptual framework of performance evaluation to be considered as a basis for developing and evaluating performance evaluation models.
 Method: This research has presented the conceptual framework of performance evaluation and the requirements of performance evaluation models using the qualitative research method of grounded theory. Data was collected through in-depth interviews with experts in this field with epistemic and performative expertise. The theoretical sampling method has been used in this research. Also, the interviewees were selected using the snowball method. Sampling and data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Theoretical saturation was achieved by conducting 16 interviews.
 Results: The resulting conceptual framework first identifies the drivers that led to the emergence of the performance evaluation phenomenon. These drivers include intra-organizational and extra-organizational drivers. Extra-organizational drivers have competition and the complexity of the business environment, and intra-organizational drivers include performance control, planning and budgeting, motivating and rewarding employees, and identifying opportunities for performance improvement. All drivers are summarized in better decision-making for optimal resource allocation. In the next step, the performance evaluation master plan is presented in three sections: goal setting, performance measures setting, and evaluation and reporting.
The goal-setting section determines what the organization is looking for and what information requirements the performance evaluation system should answer. The goal-setting section involves identifying the goals and strategies of the organization and its implementation plans, as well as identifying users of performance evaluation information and their requirements. Identifying the users of the performance evaluation system and their information needs is integral to the goal-setting section. Performance evaluation has different business users, including the board of directors, CEO, senior executive managers, department managers, and company employees. The nature of the work of these groups is different so they will have additional information requirements. Therefore, it is necessary to accurately identify the users of the performance evaluation system and their information requirements.
The performance measures setting is the section in which performance measures are defined based on the goal-setting section and factors, including organizational levels, period, criteria, tools, and performance dimensions. Based on the presented conceptual framework, the relationship between performance measures is identified after determining the performance measures, and a quantitative quota is determined for each of them. In addition, performance measures are weighted based on their importance. Performance measures should be transparent and understandable for evaluators and users of the performance evaluation system and communicated to all evaluators from the beginning.
The evaluation and reporting stage includes performance evaluation by comparing the actual performance and the quota of performance measures and reporting and informing the results. In this conceptual framework, the consequences of the performance evaluation systems as well as the factors affecting them, are presented. The consequences of performance evaluation can be favorable or unfavorable. In this regard, limiting creativity, a negative sense of control, and creating a sense of employee discrimination are undesirable consequences of performance evaluation. Improving performance, improving the evaluation and reward system, and identifying weaknesses and strengths are the desirable consequences of performance evaluation. Factors affecting the performance evaluation master plan include organizational culture, level of organizational maturity, and the performance appraiser.
 Conclusion: It should be noted that the information needs of the managers inherently influence management accounting. Since factors such as business environment, organizational culture, management style, etc., are different in different organizations, the information needs of managers in organizations are different. Therefore, a single performance evaluation model cannot be used. The conceptual framework presented in this study has identified macro factors of performance evaluation so that researchers and activists in management accounting can design and implement their own appropriate performance evaluation models based on this conceptual framework. Furthermore, this proposed conceptual framework and its checklist can be used as a criterion for reviewing the completeness of existing performance evaluation models and their implementation plans.
In Iran, attention has recently been increasing to management accounting and its techniques. Performance evaluation is also emerging as one of the critical areas of management accounting in Iranian organizations. The results of this research can be helpful in the development of performance evaluation in Iran's business environment based on scientific studies.

Keywords

References

ابوالمعالی، خدیجه (1392). پژوهش کیفی از نظریه تا عمل. تهران: نشر علم. چاپ اول.
آذر، عادل؛ دانشور، مریم؛ خدادادحسینی، سید حمید و عزیزی، شهریار (1390). طراحی مدل ارزیابی عملکرد گروه‌های کاری: رویکرد تحلیل پوششی داده‌های چندسطحی. پژوهش‌های مدیریت منابع سازمانی، ۲(۳)، 22-1.
ازکیا، مصطفی و احمدرش، رشید (1398). روش‌های تحقیق کیفی از نظریه تا عمل. تهران: انتشارات کیهان.
انصاری، منوچهر؛ رحمانی یوشانلویی، حسین؛ دانیالی ده حوض، محمود و مردانی، ایوب (1390). بررسی تأثیر معیارهای مالی و غیرمالی ارزیابی عملکرد بر رضایت شغلی از دیدگاه کارکنان شرکت‎های پذیرفته‌شده در بورس اوراق‌ بهادار. بررسی‏‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 18(63)، 20-1.
باباجانی، جعفر (1394). حسابداری پیشرفته بخش عمومی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.
بختیاری، مسعود؛ کاشانی‌پور، محمد؛ غلامی جمکرانی، رضا و جهانگیرنیا، حسین (1399). مدل‌سازی مؤلفه‌ها و ابعاد ارزیابی عملکرد سازمانی متناسب با شرایط محیطی ایران. حسابداری مدیریت، 13(46)، 29-17.
تدریس حسنی، معصومه؛ امیری، مقصود؛ رحمان‌سرشت، حسین و یوسفلی، امیر (1400). ارائه یک دسته‌بندی جامع از رویکردهای ارزیابی عملکرد و بررسی خلأهای تحقیقاتی موجود در آن‌ها. دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، 10 (37)، 301-285.
خواجوی، شکراله؛ سروری، یوسف. (1391). امکان سنجی اجرای ارزیابی متوازن مطالعه موردی: شرکت‌های پتروشیمی جنوب کشور. حسابداری مدیریت، 5(1)، 49-35.
دانایی‌فرد، حسن؛ الوانی، سیدمهدی و آذر، عادل (1391). روش‌شناسی پژوهش کیفی در مدیریت: رویکردی جامع. تهران: انتشارات صفار.
فراستخواه، مقصود (1388). روش تحقیق کیفی در علوم اجتماعی با تأکید بر نظریه برپایه. تهران: نشر آگاه.
قاسمی، مژده؛ کردستانی، غلامرضا؛ حقیقت، حمید و دریائی، عباسعلی (1399). ارائۀ الگویی برای تدوین طرح پاداش مدیران اجرایی ارشد بر مبنای چارچوب ارزیابی متوازن. مجله دانش حسابداری، 11(2)، 69-31.
مؤمنی، منصور؛ خدایی، سمیه و بشیری، مجتبی (1388). ارزیابی عملکرد سازمان تامین اجتماعی با استفاده از مدل ترکیبی‌ BSC و FDEA. مدیریت صنعتی، 1(3)، 152-137.
نعمتی‌زاده، سینا و حایری میبدی، مهسیما (1394). ارزیابی عملکرد بانک دی با استفاده از مدل کارت امتیازی متوازن. دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، 4(15)، 142-133.
نمازی، محمد و قدیریان‌ آرانی، محمدحسین (1395). حسن شهرت: منظر پنجم ارزیابی متوازن. بررسی‌های حسابداری، 3(12)، 110-83.
References
Abulmaali, KH. (2014). Qualitative research from theory to practice. Tehran: Elm Press [In Persian].
Adams, C., & Neely, A. (2000). The performance prism to boost M&A success. Measuring Business Excellence,. 4(3), 19-23.
Ansari, M., Rahmany Youshanlouei, H., Mahmoud Danialei Dehhoz, M., & Mardani, A. (2011). A survey of the affection of financial and non-financial factors in performance assessment of job satisfaction in the view point of personnel of accepted companies in the Iranian Stock Exchange. Accounting and Auditing Review, 18(63), 1-20 [In Persian].
Aryani, Y.A., & Setiawan, D. (2020). Balanced scorecard: Is it beneficial enough? A literature review. Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives, 13(1), 65-84.
Azar, A., Daneshvar, M., Kodadad, S.H., & Azizi, S. (2012). Designing of working groups performance evaluation model: multi level DEA approach. Organizational Resources Management Researchs, 2(3), 1-22 [In Persian].
Azkia, M., & Ahmadrash, R. (2020). Qualitative research methods from theory to practice. Tehran: Keyhan Press [In Persian].
Babajani, J. (2016). Advanced public sector accounting. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabi' university Press [In Persian].
Bakhtiari, M., KashaniPour, M., Gholami Jamakrani, R., & Jahangirnia, H. (2020). Modeling components and dimensions of organizational performance evaluation adapted to Iranian environmental conditions. Management Accounting, 13(46), 17-29 [In Persian].
Behn, R.D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., & Nudurupati, S. (2012). Performance measurement: challenges for tomorrow. International Journal Of Management Reviews, 14(3), 305-327.
Bititci, U.S. (2015). Managing business performance: The science and the art. John Wiley and Sons.
Bititci, U.S., Bourne, M., Cross, J.A.F., Nudurupati, S.S., & Sang, K. (2018). Towards a theoretical foundation for performance measurement and management.
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S., & McDevitt, L. (1997). Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(5), 522-534.
Carvalho, A.M., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch, E., & Saraiva, P. (2019). 35 years of excellence, and perspectives ahead for excellence 4.0. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 32(11-12), 1215-1248.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. Handbook of emergent methods, 155, 172.
Choong, K.K. (2014). Has this large number of performance measurement publications contributed to its better understanding? A systematic review for research and applications. International Journal of Production Research, 52(14), 4174-4197.
Cook, D., & Zhang, W. (2019). The Baldrige Award’s falling fortunes. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(6), 1972–1994.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
Danaeifard, H., Alvani, S.M., & Azar, A. (2013). Qualitative research methodology in management: Comprehensive approach. Tehran: Saffar press [In Persian].
EFQM. (2020). EFQM 2020 Model - EFQM. Retrieved May 20, 2019, from https://www.efqm.org/index.php/ efqm-model/download-your-free-short-copy-of-the-efqm-model/
Enquist, B., Johnson, M., & Rönnbäck, Å. (2015). The paradigm shift to business excellence 2.0. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7(2/3), 321–333.
Evans, J., & Lindsay, W. (2017). Managing for quality and performance excellence. Cengage Learning.
Ferasatkhah, M. (2010). Qualitative research method in social science: Grounded theory. Tehran: Agah Press [In Persian].
Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263-282.
Fitzgerald, L., Johnson, R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R., & Vos, C. (1991). Performance Measurement in Service Businesses. London: The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.
Fonseca, L. (2021). The EFQM 2020 model. A theoretical and critical review. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 33(9-10), 1011-1038.
Franco‐Santos, M., & Otley, D. (2018). Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 696-730.
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research, 23(2), 79-119.
Ghasemi, M., Kordestani, G., Haghighat, H., & Daryae, A. (2020). Developing a model for executive directors compensation plan based on balanced scorecard framework. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 11(2), 31-69 [In Persian].
Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. Sociology Press.
Goshu, Y.Y., & Kitaw, D. (2017). Performance measurement and its recent challenge: A literature review. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 18(4), 381-402.
Hudson, M., Smart, A., & Bourne, M. (2001). Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21, 1096–1115.
Ibrahimi, M., & Naym, S. (2019). The contingency of performance measurement systems in Moroccan public institutions and enterprises. Meditari Accountancy Research, 27(4), 613-632.
Jääskeläinen, A., Laihonen, H., Lönnqvist, A., Palvalin, M., Sillanpää, V., Pekkola, S., & Ukko, J. (2012). A contingency approach to performance measurement in service operations. Measuring Business Excellence, 16(1), 43-52.
Kanji, G.K., & Moura e Sá, P. (2002). Kanji’s Business Scorecard. Total Quality Management, 13, 13-27.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 71–79.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (2000). The strategy-focused organisation: how balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Khajavi, S., & Sarvari, Y. (2012). The feasibility of balanced scorecard in petroleum company. Journal of Management Accounting, 5(1), 49-135 [In Persian].
Lynch, R.L., & Cross, K.F. (1991). Measure Up: The essential guide to measuring business performance. London: Mandarin.
Momeni, M., Khodaee, S., & Bashiri, M. (2009). Evaluating the operations of social security organization of the cities in Tehran province by using the synthetic model BSC & FDEA. Industrial Management Journal, 1(3), 137-152 [In Persian].
Murphy, K.R. (2020). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 13-31.
Namazi, M., & Ghadirian-Arani, M. (2016). Reputation: The 5th perspective of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Iranian Accounting Review, 3(12), 83-110 [In Persian].
Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design-a literature review and research Agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1228-1263.
Nematizadeh, S., & Hayeri Meybodi, M. (2015). Evaluation of day bank by balanced scored card (BSC) model. Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 4(15), 133-142 [In Persian].
Okwir, S., Nudurupati, S.S., Ginieis, M., & Angelis, J. (2018). Performance measurement and management systems: A perspective from complexity theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 731-754.
Pun, K.F., & White, A.S. (2005). A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation: A review of systems and frameworks. International journal of management reviews, 7(1), 49-71.
Rouse, P., & Putterill, M. (2003). An integral framework for performance measurement. Management decision, 41(8), 791-805.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
Tadris, M., Amiri, M., Rahmanseresht, H., & Usefli, A. (2021). Provide a comprehensive classification of performance appraisal approaches and examine the research gaps in them. Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 10(37), 285-301 [In Persian].
Weinstein, B.D. (1993). What is an expert? Theoretical Medicine, 14(1), 57-73.
Wongrassamee, S., Simmons, J.E., & Gardiner, P.D. (2003). Performance measurement tools: The balanced scorecard and the EFQM excellence model. Measuring Business Excellence. 7(1), 14-29.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 07 May 2022
  • Revise Date: 09 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 16 August 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics