This paper examines three questions on the value relevance of customer satisfaction measures: (1) Are customer satisfaction measures leading indicators of accounting performance? (2) Is the economic value of customer satisfaction (fully) reflected in contemporaneous accounting book values? And (3) Does the release of customer satisfaction measures provide new or incremental information to the stock market? Many argue that improvements in areas such as quality, customer or employee satisfaction, and innovation represent investments in firm-specific assets that are not fully captured in current accounting measures. According to these authors, nonfinancial indicators of investments in "intangible" assets may be better predictors of future financial (i.e., accounting or stock price) performance than historical accounting measures, and should supplement financial measures in internal accounting systems (e.g., Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu International [1994] and Kaplan and Norton [1996]).

This study examines the relation between measurement system satisfaction, economic performance, and two general approaches to strategic performance measurement: greater measurement diversity and improved alignment with firm strategy and value drivers. We find consistent evidence that firms making more extensive use of a broad set of financial and (particularly) non-financial measures than firms with similar strategies or value drivers have higher measurement system satisfaction and stock market returns. However, we find little support for the alignment hypothesis that more or less extensive measurement than predicted by the firm's strategy or value drivers adversely affect performance. Instead, our results indicate that greater measurement emphasis and diversity than predicted by our benchmark model is associated with higher satisfaction and stock market performance. Our results also suggest that greater measurement diversity relative to firms with similar value drivers has a stronger relationship with stock market performance than greater measurement on an absolute scale. Finally, the balanced scorecard process, economic value measurement, and causal business modeling are associated with higher measurement system satisfaction, but exhibit almost no association with economic performance. Disciplines Accounting | Finance and Financial Management | Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods AbstractThis study examines the relation between measurement system satisfaction, economic performance, and two general approaches to strategic performance measurement: greater measurement diversity and improved alignment with firm strategy and value drivers. We find consistent evidence that firms making more extensive use of a broad set offmancial and (particularly) non-financial measures than firms with similar strategies or value drivers hav e higher measurement system satisfaction and stock market returns. However, we find little support for the alignment hypothesis that more or less extensiv e measurement than predicted by the firm's strategy or value drivers adversely affect performance. Instead, our results indicate that greater measurement emphasis and diversity than predicted by our benchmark model is associated with higher satisfaction and stock market performance. Our results also suggest that greater measurement diversity relative to firms with similar value drivers has a stronger relationship with stock market performance than greater measurement on an absolute scale. Finally, the balanced scorecard process, economic value measurement, and causal business modeling are associated with higher measurement system satisfaction, but exhibit almost no association with economic performance.

This paper applies a value-based management framework to critically review empirical research in managerial accounting. This framework enables us to place the exceptionally diverse set of managerial accounting studies from the past several decades into an integrated structure. Our synthesis highlights the many consistent results in prior research, identifies remaining gaps and inconsistencies, discusses common methodological and econometric problems, and suggests fruitful avenues for future managerial accounting research. This paper applies a value-based management framework to critically review empirical research in managerial accounting. This framework enables us to place the exceptionally diverse set of managerial accounting studies from the past several decades into an integrated structure. Our synthesis highlights the many consistent results in prior research, identifies remaining gaps and inconsistencies, discusses common methodological and econometric problems, and suggests fruitful avenues for future managerial accounting research.

This study examines how different types of performance measures were weighted in a subjective balanced scorecard bonus plan adopted by a major financial services firm. Drawing upon economic and psychological studies on performance evaluation and compensation criteria, we develop hypotheses regarding the weights placed on different types of measures. We find that the subjectivity in the scorecard plan allowed superiors to reduce the “balance” in bonus awards by placing most of the weight on financial measures, to incorporate factors other than the scorecard measures in performance evaluations, to change evaluation criteria from quarter to quarter, to ignore measures that were predictive of future financial performance, and to weight measures that were not predictive of desired results. This evidence suggests that psychology-based explanations may be equally or more relevant than economicsbased explanations in explaining the firm's measurement practices. The high level of subjectivity in the balanced scorecard plan led many branch managers to complain about favoritism in bonus awards and uncertainty in the criteria being used to determine rewards. The system ultimately was abandoned in favor of a formulaic bonus plan based solely on revenues.

The paper examines the determinants and performance consequences of equity grants to senior-level executives, lower-level managers, and non-exempt employees of "new economy" firms. We find that the determinants of equity grants are significantly different in new versus old economy firms. We also find that employee retention objectives, which new economy firms rank as the most important goal of their equity grant programs, have a significant impact on new hire grants, but not subsequent grants. Our exploratory performance tests indicate that lower than expected grants and/or existing holdings of options are associated with poorer performance in subsequent years. The Structure and Performance Consequences of Equity Grants To Employees of New Economy Firms AbstractThe paper examines the determinants and performance consequences of equity grants to seniorlev el executives, lower-level managers, and non-exempt employees of"new economy" firms . We find that many of the equity grant determinants and their relative importance vary significantly between new and old economy firms. In addition, we find that employee retention objectiv es, which new economy firms rank as the most important goal of their equity grant programs, have a significant impact on new hire grants, but not on annual, ongoing grants. Our exploratory performance tests indicate that lower than expected option grants and/or ex isting option holdings are associated with lower accounting and stock price performance in subsequent years. However, we find that greater than expected option and equity grants and holdings have little consistent association with future performance.