pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit
pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit
Chapter 1 General Introduction 1.1 The Problem of Goal Alignment “Organizations are social units deliberately constructed to seek specific goals.” (Etzioni 1961) Many scholars have sought to answer the question of what an organization is. Although a definite and undisputed definition of organizations may never be found, we can at least acknowledge certain characteristics. As posited by Etzioni (1961), one defining characteristic of organizations is that they are social entities seeking the realization of specific goals. These goals are often captured by an organization’s owners and/or top management in the organization’s vision, mission and strategy. For an organization to successfully pursue its goals, it is important that all individual members of the organization collaborate on achieving these goals. However, realizing collaboration is not an easy task. One reason for this difficulty is that organizations consist of many individuals who have their own goals as well. This is challenging because the organizational goals often differ from the goals of its individual members. In other words, collective and individual goals are not aligned automatically. More importantly, the goals of the individual members of the organization often conflict directly with organizational goals. For example, it is likely in the best interest of the organization that its members maximize their efforts to contribute to the organization’s long-term value. However, an individual employee can have different goals. He may prefer to reduce his efforts by procrastinating. Additionally, it is possible that the self-interest seeking employee does not reduce his efforts per se, but repeatedly strays from organizational goals by, for example, adopting pet projects. Both cases have similar effects; long-term firm value is not optimized. Such behaviours are undesirable to the organization’s owner, because they directly hamper the realization of organizational goals. 1
2 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION If any organization wants to successfully pursue its goals, the goals of the owner and the individual members of the organization need to be aligned. If goals are aligned, the members of the organization have the same interests as the owner. This is a necessary condition for successfully pursuing the achievement of organizational goals. The academic field of Management Control addresses this problem of goal alignment. In general, Management Control studies how to motivate the members of the organization to act congruently with organizational goals. Management Control often relies on economicsbased theorizing to address goal congruency issues. Economic reasoning argues that it is possible to rely on the provision of incentives to align the goals of the organization and its individual members. Such an incentive would be to reward individuals for goal-congruent behaviour. A typical reward would be a bonus for good performance. However, it is also possible that the reward is non-financial in nature. Examples of non-financial rewards include increased career prospects, or an acknowledgement from higher management, for example, as ‘teacher of the year’ or ‘salesman of the month’. Both financial and nonfinancial rewards can be considered as a form of pay for performance. The general idea is that pay for performance aligns the goals of individual employees with the owner’s goals. After all, providing effort congruent with organizational goals is now in the employee’s self-interest. The employee receives a reward when he performs well or, in other words, when he attains his performance target. Aligning the goals of the organization with those of its individual members by providing incentives is a delicate task that requires careful consideration of all of the elements of such an ‘incentive system’. Several design aspects must be determined before an incentive system can function properly, including: 1) the choice of the performance metrics, 2) the strength of the pay-performance relationship, and 3) the determination of the performance target level. This dissertation addresses this last aspect of incentive structure design, as will be explained in more detail in the remainder of this chapter. First, the three design aspects are discussed briefly. The first design aspect concerns the choice of performance metrics. Performance measurement is an essential part of the design of any incentive system (Baker 2002). The basic question is how to measure performance in a reasonably undistorted manner. A performance measure is congruent or undistorted to the extent that it is systematically aligned with the organization’s true objective (Bouwens & Speklé 2007). A wide variety of financial and non-financial performance measures exists. Examples include: profits, revenues, market share and customer satisfaction. However, it is also possible to select measures at the personal level, such as the development of professional skills and participation in permanent education programmes. To create a congruent performance measurement system, one must select those metrics that accurately measure what the owner desires of the
- Page 2 and 3: Relative Performance Evaluation in
- Page 4 and 5: NYENRODE BUSINESS UNIVERSITEIT Rela
- Page 6 and 7: Table of Contents Preface 1 General
- Page 8: Preface Why do people make things h
- Page 13 and 14: 4 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION o
- Page 15 and 16: 6 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION T
- Page 17 and 18: 8 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION F
- Page 19 and 20: 10 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
- Page 22 and 23: Chapter 2 The Use of Relative Perfo
- Page 24 and 25: 2.1. INTRODUCTION 15 is not a promi
- Page 26 and 27: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 17 The
- Page 28 and 29: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 19 Sinc
- Page 30 and 31: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 21 who
- Page 32 and 33: 2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 23 suff
- Page 34 and 35: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 25 2.2.
- Page 36 and 37: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 27 2.3.
- Page 38 and 39: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 29 can
- Page 40 and 41: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 31 Comp
- Page 42 and 43: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 33 this
- Page 44 and 45: 2.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 35 Emph
- Page 46 and 47: 2.4. ANALYSES 37 2.4 Analyses This
- Page 48 and 49: 2.4. ANALYSES 39 Table 2.8: RPE use
- Page 50 and 51: 2.4. ANALYSES 41 2.4.2 Correlations
- Page 52 and 53: 2.4. ANALYSES 43 Concerning the con
- Page 54 and 55: 2.4. ANALYSES 45 Table 2.13: Result
- Page 56 and 57: 2.4. ANALYSES 47 Table 2.15: Summar
- Page 58 and 59: 2.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 49
Chapter 1<br />
General Introduction<br />
1.1 The Problem of Goal Alignment<br />
“Organizations are social units deliberately constructed to seek specific goals.”<br />
(Etzioni 1961)<br />
Many scholars have sought to answer the question of what an organization is. Although<br />
a definite and undisputed definition of organizations may never be found, we can at least<br />
acknowledge certain characteristics. As posited by Etzioni (1961), one defining characteristic<br />
of organizations is that they are social entities seeking the realization of specific goals.<br />
These goals are often captured by an organization’s owners and/or top management in<br />
the organization’s vision, mission and strategy. For an organization to successfully pursue<br />
its goals, it is important that all individual members of the organization collaborate on<br />
achieving these goals. However, realizing collaboration is not an easy task. One reason<br />
for this difficulty is that organizations consist of many individuals who have their own<br />
goals as well. This is challenging because the organizational goals often differ from the<br />
goals of its individual members. In other words, collective and individual goals are not<br />
aligned automatically. More importantly, the goals of the individual members of the organization<br />
often conflict directly with organizational goals. For example, it is likely in the<br />
best interest of the organization that its members maximize their efforts to contribute to<br />
the organization’s long-term value. However, an individual employee can have different<br />
goals. He may prefer to reduce his efforts by procrastinating. Additionally, it is possible<br />
that the self-interest seeking employee does not reduce his efforts per se, but repeatedly<br />
strays from organizational goals by, for example, adopting pet projects. Both cases have<br />
similar effects; long-term firm value is not optimized. Such behaviours are undesirable to<br />
the organization’s owner, because they directly hamper the realization of organizational<br />
goals.<br />
1