No abstract

This study examines the effect that two key balanced scorecard (BSC) framework elements-causal linkages between strategic objectives in the strategy map and performance measures categorized by scorecard perspective-have on managers' ability to interpret the strategic relevance of external information and use this information to evaluate the appropriateness of an organization's strategy. We conduct two experiments, finding that presenting a set of strategic objectives as a strategy map enhances both managers' information relevance and strategy appropriateness judgments. We attribute this improvement to the explication of causal linkages between objectives in a strategy map. In contrast, presenting performance measures categorized by scorecard perspective only improves managers' strategy appropriateness judgments when the managers are provided with a set of strategic objectives that are not presented in a strategy map structure. Our study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that these two elements of the BSC framework have differential decision-facilitating impacts on managers' strategic judgments.

Judging divisional performance using the balanced scorecard is a complex task, with prior research finding a bias toward measures common to two divisions when managerial performance is evaluated. We conduct two experiments investigating the role of strategy information and strategically linked performance measures in eliminating this bias and establish a boundary condition for the common measures bias. We demonstrate that when strategy information is provided to managers and only some measures are strategically linked, the common measures bias exists (consistent with Banker et al. 2004). We find that when all the performance measures are strategically linked, but no strategy information is provided, the common measures bias also exists. However, if strategy information is provided and all measures are strategically linked (a condition which did not exist in previous research), the common measures bias is eliminated.

This study examines the effects that two balanced scorecard framework (BSF) elements, causal linkages between strategic objectives (“causal linkages”) and time delay information (“delays”) in a strategy map, have on long-term profit performance in a dynamic decision-making environment. Using a computer-based simulation task, we conduct a 3 × (4) experiment (control group; causal linkages without delays; causal linkages with delays; four simulation rounds) and find that managers presented with causal linkages without delays generate greater long-term profit compared to a control group. For managers presented with causal linkages with delays, long-term profit generation is higher than the control group, but is not significantly different from the causal linkages without delays treatment. Those managers presented with causal linkages with delays, however, demonstrate learning across the four simulation rounds. In contrast, learning is found to plateau for the causal linkages without delays treatment and is not present for the control group. We also examine the cognitive mechanism through which these two BSF elements impact performance, by measuring the accuracy of two components of managers' mental models. Data Availability: Experimental materials are available upon request from the authors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed the ways auditors work and interact with team members and others in the financial reporting process. In particular, there has been a move away from face-to-face interactions to the use of virtual teams, with strong indications many of these changes will remain post-pandemic. We examine the impacts of the pandemic on group judgment and decision making (JDM) research in auditing by reviewing research on auditor interactions with respect to the review process (including coaching), fraud brainstorming, consultations within audit firms, and parties outside the audit firm such as client management and the audit committee. Through the pandemic lens and for each auditor interaction, we consider new research questions for audit JDM researchers to investigate and new ways of addressing existing research questions given these fundamental changes. We also identify potential impacts on research methods used to address these questions during the pandemic and beyond.

Judgment and decision making (JDM) research in accounting focuses on the judgments and decisions of preparers, users and auditors/assurance providers of financial and non‐financial information, including sustainability information. However, the environment in which these judgments are made and how groups interact has changed substantially during the COVID‐19 pandemic, and likely post‐pandemic. We focus on the impact of these changes for corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting, including managers’ decisions on the preparation and use of CSR information, demand for CSR assurance, and the effect of CSR reports and assurance on investors’ judgments. We then outline implications for the research questions addressed and experimental designs used.

No abstract

Purpose Strategic uncertainty from emerging threats and opportunities in the business environment can significantly impact managers’ abilities to successfully implement their business strategy. A key strategic control and governance mechanism designed to enable managers to respond to strategic uncertainty is a strategic performance measurement system, such as the balanced scorecard (BSC). This study aims to investigate whether strategic uncertainty is associated with the diversity and types of performance measures in a BSC, which are used by managers for various strategic control and governance purposes. Design/methodology/approach A survey of senior-level managers within strategic business units of Australian Stock Exchange listed organizations was conducted. Findings This study finds that the extent to which managers face strategic uncertainty is positively associated with performance measurement diversity. Further, managers faced with greater strategic uncertainty use performance measures relatively more to evaluate subordinates’ performance, communicate business strategy, track performance against targets, identify problem areas and guide future directions. Outcome measures are used to a greater extent for all five purposes, whereas leading measures are used more only for future-oriented purposes. Practical implications Strategic performance measurement systems, such as the BSC, can and are being used to provide managers with the information and control mechanisms necessary to meet the challenges associated with strategic uncertainty. Originality/value This study provides the first evidence on the relations between strategic uncertainty, performance measurement diversity and managers’ use of performance measures for five key purposes. Understanding these relations is important, as managers need to formulate appropriate responses to strategic uncertainty, to protect and create value by exploiting emerging opportunities and managing associated threats.