The balanced scorecard is a new tool that complements traditional measures of business unit performance. The scorecard contains a diverse set of performance measures, including financial performance, customer relations, internal business processes, and learning and growth. Advocates of the balanced scorecard suggest that each unit in the organization should develop and use its own scorecard, choosing measures that capture the unit's business strategy. Our study examines judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard—specifically, how balanced scorecards that include some measures common to multiple units and other measures that are unique to a particular unit affect superiors' evaluations of that unit's performance. Our test shows that only the common measures affect the superiors' evaluations. We discuss the implications of this result for research and practice.

No abstract

No abstract

It is proposed that all of the major attribution theories are based on the use of counterfactual information (which examines whether the event would have occurred if the proposed cause had not occurred). However, because counterfactual information is difficult to obtain, 2 proxies are often substituted for it. A model based on these proxies—covariation data and information regarding alternative explanations—is proposed. This model is used as a framework for understanding the use and success of Kelley's analysis of variance model; Jones and Davis' correspondent inference theory; Weiner's theory for attributions of success and failure; Jaspars, Hewstone, and Fincham's natural logic model; and Hilton and Slugoski's abnormal conditions focus model. The model is also used to provide an understanding of the fundamental attribution error and actor–observer attributional differences.