No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold: to provide a clear picture on the cognitive biases affecting managers’ decision-making process of implementing a performance management system (PMS), and to identify managerial practices, measures and the key challenges to manage the cognitive biases in the corporate strategy. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews, based on theoretical milestones of performance management and cognitive psychology, gathered from 104 experienced professionals’ evaluations on the likelihood and impact of managers’ cognitive biases in PMS implementation, potential solutions as well as drivers and connected criticalities. Findings Recurring cognitive biases, together with considerable impacts, emerged in the first, and most strategic, phases of the PMS implementation. The authors developed a roadmap to support corporate transition to integrate behavioral strategy into the PMS implementation aiming to achieve economically and efficiently sound performance. Research limitations/implications From the view of proper behavioral strategy affirmation in performance management literature, in a small way, the authors contribute to a desirable taxonomy of cognitive biases so differentiated decision-making scenarios may be built to compare results and draw new observations. Behavioral studies could transversally connect the cognitive biases of performance management to actors’ sociodemographic features and personality types. Practitioners may check biases affecting their organizations by means of the questionnaire and, consequently, adopt the framework illustrated to reduce them. Originality/value Performance management literature has constantly investigated positive and negative behavioral factors related to the PMS. This study, instead, makes a theoretical and methodological contribution to the PMS implementation as a decision-making process. The authors propose a theoretical framework that integrates cognitive psychology insights and applies measures to reduce biases.

The first-time adoption of IAS/IFRS accompanied by the issuance of new international accounting standards has provided mixed results regarding their ability to improve accounting quality. A possible reason is that not only the quality of the standard-setting process, but also other factors might affect accounting quality and one of its dimensions, namely, value relevance. By analysing data from a sample of 316 financial entities listed in 43 countries from all over the world and adopting IFRS 9 in place of IAS 39 as of 1st January 2018, this paper tests whether the quality of firm-level corporate governance and country-level investor protection environments affects the value relevance of equity values calculated according to the requirements of IFRS 9 and IAS 39. The results suggest that, despite both accounting standards providing investors with value relevant information, in the presence of high-quality corporate governance or a high-quality investor protection environment, IFRS 9 is more value relevant than IAS 39, whereas the opposite is true in the presence of low-quality corporate governance or a low-quality investor protection environment. The research results provide the first empirical evidence of the value relevance of the new accounting standard on financial instruments and contribute to the debate on the existence of other factors that, together with the quality of the IASB standards, affect the quality of financial reporting.

This paper deals with the First Time Adoption (FTA) of International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) standards by Italian entities, focusing on the cash flow statement (CFS) whose rules are stated by International Accounting Standards 7 (IAS 7). The purpose of this paper is to investigate both the degree of harmonization and compliance in applying IAS 7. To achieve this purpose, the research has been developed by analyzing a sample of 101 financial statements of Italian listed groups issued with reference to 2005. The results of this research show a high degree of heterogeneity in applying IASB standards and a high degree of noncompliance with IAS 7 by Italian groups. The high degree of heterogeneity could impair the comparability of financial statements across entities, requiring further efforts by IASB to reduce options permitted in its standards. The high degree of noncompliance creates the risk of misleading users who read audited financial statements thinking they are prepared according to IASB standards.