pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 17 The remainder of this chapter is organized in four sections. Section 2.2 provides the theoretical background of RPE, the theoretical model and the development of the hypotheses. The measurement is described in section 2.3, and the analyses and results in section 2.4. Section 2.5 addresses the findings, and the conclusions. 2.2 Theoretical Background and Development of the Hypotheses As described in the introduction of this chapter, RPE can reduce two types of target-setting problems: 1) problems that arise from outside the business unit (external problems), and 2) problems that arise within the business unit (internal problems). Based on prior literature, I argue that the presence of both types of problems can induce RPE use. The conceptual relations between target-setting problems and RPE are presented in figure 2.1. This section describes the nature of the two types of target-setting problems in terms of their relation to noise in the performance evaluation and room for managerial opportunism, and operationalizes these factors as common uncertainty and information asymmetry, respectively. These antecedents of RPE (common uncertainty and information asymmetry) are assumed to increase the noise and opportunism-levels which drive organizational reliance on RPE 2 . This section develops three research hypotheses based on these antecedents and ends with the introduction of control variables. External Target Setting Problems Internal Target Setting Problems Figure 2.1: Conceptual Model Positive Positive RPE use 2 In addition to common uncertainty and information asymmetry, other factors exist that influence noise and opportunism, including ’uncommon’ or idiosyncratic uncertainty. The current chapter focuses on common uncertainty because, unlike idiosyncratic uncertainty, it can be reduced by RPE use. Chapters 3 and 4 assess a more comprehensive list of noise and opportunism drivers. ❄ ✻
18 CHAPTER 2. RPE AT THE BUSINESS UNIT MANAGER LEVEL 2.2.1 RPE and Noise Reduction: Reducing the Effect of External Factors on the Performance Evaluation This section describes how RPE can reduce target-setting problems that originate from outside of the business unit. These external factors include events that occur in the environment of the business unit. Examples include rising prices and declining demand. External factors affect the performance of the business unit and thus the difficulty of the performance target. Windfall gains can cause the target to be achieved easily. This reduces the motivation of the business unit manager to provide maximum effort; his performance target is achieved due to good luck, and requires less effort. On the other hand, bad luck can make the target impossible to achieve. This also reduces the motivation of the manager, who cannot achieve his target, even when providing his maximum effort. External events increase the ‘noisiness’ of the performance metrics. Measured performance is the result not only of effort, but also of uncontrollable factors. This reduces the informativeness of the performance metrics about the agent’s performance. Overall, noise reduces the quality of the performance evaluation, which aims to reward the agent for the provision of effort, not for uncontrollable events. However, RPE can reduce the noise in the performance evaluation, insulating the performance evaluation from the effects of external events. In the literature, noise reduction is the primary explanation for RPE use (see Holmstrom 1982). RPE reduces noise in the evaluation by incorporating information about peer performance into the performance contract between the principal and the agent (Holmstrom 1982). Because the agent and his peers have partially similar exposure to uncontrollable external events, their performance is similarly affected by these events. Comparing the agent’s performance to the performance of his peers provides the principal with more information about what performance level is achievable under the current circumstances. Thus, by judging the agent’s performance relative to his peers, the principal is informed about the quality of the agent’s performance under the (often uncontrollable) external circumstances. This reduces the effects of external uncontrollable factors on the performance evaluation. Due to this noise reduction and increased informativeness, RPE can improve the quality of performance evaluation. 2.2.1.1 Common Uncertainty The noise-reduction perspective on RPE informs my model with the effect of uncertainty on the use of RPE. Uncertainty is a widely researched antecedent for many control instruments (Chenhall 2003). Uncertainty can introduce noise in the performance evaluation if uncertainty is uncontrollable for the evaluated agent, and influences his performance.
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 11 and 12: 2 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION I
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 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
Page 60 and 61: 2.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 51
Page 62 and 63: 2.6. CONTRACTIBILITY MIMIC MODEL (A
Page 64 and 65: 2.6. CONTRACTIBILITY MIMIC MODEL (A
Page 66 and 67: 2.7. ANALYSES FOR FOR-PROFIT BUS (A
Page 68 and 69: Chapter 3 Does Relative Performance
Page 70 and 71: 3.1. INTRODUCTION 61 Holmstrom’s
Page 72 and 73: 3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 63 3.
Page 74 and 75: 3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 65 RP
Page 76 and 77:
3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 67 3.3
Page 78 and 79:
3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 69 3.3.
Page 80 and 81:
3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 71 Tabl
Page 82 and 83:
3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 73 Tabl
Page 84 and 85:
3.4. ANALYSES 75 3.4 Analyses This
Page 86 and 87:
3.4. ANALYSES 77 Table 3.9: Pearson
Page 88 and 89:
3.4. ANALYSES 79 Table 3.10: Result
Page 90 and 91:
3.4. ANALYSES 81 Table 3.11: Result
Page 92 and 93:
3.4. ANALYSES 83 Larcker & Rusticus
Page 94 and 95:
3.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 85
Page 96 and 97:
Chapter 4 Does Relative Performance
Page 98 and 99:
4.1. INTRODUCTION 89 Moreover, chap
Page 100 and 101:
4.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 91 is
Page 102 and 103:
4.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 93 Sp
Page 104 and 105:
4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 95 4.3
Page 106 and 107:
4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 97 To i
Page 108 and 109:
4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 99 of R
Page 110 and 111:
4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 101 Tab
Page 112 and 113:
4.4. ANALYSES 103 Table 4.8: Items
Page 114 and 115:
4.4. ANALYSES 105 RPE use ✻ Posit
Page 116 and 117:
4.4. ANALYSES 107 The model does sh
Page 118 and 119:
4.4. ANALYSES 109 RPE and RFMO. Mor
Page 120 and 121:
4.4. ANALYSES 111 room for manageri
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Chapter 5 Conclusion 5.1 Summary, C
Page 128 and 129:
5.1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCU
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
5.2. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE 125
Page 136 and 137:
5.3. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FO
Page 138 and 139:
Appendix Overview of Questionnaire
Page 140 and 141:
Q5 How often do the following thing
Page 142 and 143:
Q14 When serving your clients, how
Page 144 and 145:
Q23 Please indicate whether you agr
Page 146 and 147:
Noise Q34 NOISE (primary measure) P
Page 148 and 149:
References 1. Abernethy, M.A., Bouw
Page 150 and 151:
26. Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J.
Page 152 and 153:
52. Himmelberg, C.P. & Hubbard R.G.
Page 154:
83. Towry, K. 2003. ‘Control in a
Page 157 and 158:
148 beïnvloeden, veroorzaken ruis
Page 160 and 161:
Biography Hilco van Elten (1979) ho
show all

pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?