企业内部业绩评价的行为影响研究
|
摘要
业绩评价具有跨学科的研究背景,是多学科研究中的重要主题。以业绩评价系统构建研究为主要内容的理论和实务探索,是当前会计学中研究业绩评价问题的主流方向。20世纪90年代以后,知识经济的萌生及全球社会经济环境的重大变化,使无形资产的重要性不断上升,对企业价值及价值驱动因素的关注使源于实务的管理会计研究方法倍受理论和实务界的推崇。非财务业绩计量、经济增加值、平衡计分卡、业绩三棱柱等“新”的管理会计技术和方法的应用,使综合业绩评价系统的构建研究盛极一时。简单回顾中西方对业绩评价问题的研究历史,笔者发现,当前会计学中对业绩评价问题的研究表现出以下两个较为突出的特点：第一,业绩评价研究以对企业整体业绩以及对企业经营者业绩的外部评价研究为主,对企业内部业绩评价研究的关注程度不够；第二,业绩评价的研究成果表现为业绩评价体系的不断创新和完善,对系统影响及业绩后果研究的关注程度不够。鉴于此,本文基于跨学科的研究背景,在借鉴多学科业绩评价研究成果的基础上,以企业内部业绩评价系统及业绩评价指标为研究对象,以行为会计为主要研究范式,采用规范研究与实证研究相结合的方法,对企业内部业绩评价进行基于主体的自下而上的行为影响研究。本研究的层次结构及主要内容如下：
本文从“理论基础→基本理论→实证分析→探索性研究”四个依次递进的层面上展开。除第一章“导论”外,第二章“企业内部业绩评价的行为影响研究综述”和第三章“企业内部业绩评价与行为影响的理论框架”构成本文的理论基础部分。界定了本文的概念前提、研究范围、研究现状、当前业绩评价的发展特征和研究特征等,并在中外相关主题文献述评的基础上,构建了本文的理论基础框架；第四章“内部业绩评价的行为影响模式及研究整体设计”为本文的核心基本理论,是在第三章业绩评价的传统理论基础和行为理论基础框架内建立起来的。主要包括业绩评价的行为影响因素、行为影响路径及行为影响模式。理论基础与基本理论的整合,为后文的实证分析和探索性研究提供了可靠的理论依据。在研究的整体设计中,确定了主要的行为影响变量、行为反应变量以及业绩结果变量；第五章“评价多样性对基层员工行为影响的实证研究”构成本文的实证分析部分。实证研究使用结构方程模型的思想和方法对激励计划中业绩评价多样性水平对基层员工产生的行为影响进行理论模型的构建和检验,其中部分假设得到验证,部分假设未通过检验；第六章“内部业绩评价系统对管理层行为影响的探索性研究”为本文的探索性研究部分。本章以经验研究结论为基础,基于管理层的双重主体地位(业绩主体和评价主体),对综合业绩评价系统对管理层可能产生的双重行为影响进行探索性分析,从而为实务中业绩评价系统的构建提出警示和参考。文章最后是第七章“结束语”,主要对研究结论、研究中的局限和未来的研究方向进行了总结和展望。以上四个层次得出的主要研究结论表现为三个方面：
理论研究结论：本文在第二章和第三章中,通过横向梳理界定了企业业绩评价的相关概念,通过纵向梳理,明确了业绩评价的发展历程、发展特征和研究特征,在文献综述的基础上,提出了行为影响研究的理论基础框架。概括性的研究结论为：第一,业绩是一个基本概念,从字源学、不同学术传统以及不同阐释者对业绩所赋予的不同问题意识考察,业绩的定义有“行为”和“结果”两种导向。业绩是对业绩主体当前行为过程和／或过去行为结果的量化,表现为业绩主体当前和/或过去行为的效率和/或效果。业绩概念中表现出主体性(行为性)、目标性(承诺性)、可度量性和历史性的要素特征。关于业绩评价的定义,国内外学者的观点并不完全统一,对比分析后,本文认为,业绩评价包含着逻辑一致的测量和判断两个环节,量化和判断相辅相成,不能偏废。业绩及业绩评价只有在特定的决策背景下,与特定的决策制定者相关才有意义。第二,以评价主体不同的评价目的为前提,以业绩评价指标的发展变化为依据,本文区分了业绩评价发展的不同阶段：单一评价主体的成本指标阶段,二元评价主体的财务指标阶段和多元评价主体的战略综合指标阶段。中西方业绩评价的发展历程表明,业绩评价是一种变动不居的多层次主体行为。环境变迁是推动业绩评价理论发展和实践创新的根本动力；企业理论、管理理论的发展促成了多层次业绩评价主体的形成,而多层次评价主体评价目的的异质性,又直接决定了内、外部业绩评价主体在评价内容上的差异。为了平衡企业各方利益相关者的不同需求,实现企业价值最大化目标,一种具有综合性、战略性、系统性特征的业绩评价模式被不断创新和发展起来。第三,将企业内部业绩评价的传统理论基础与行为分析理论基础以企业内部业绩评价系统为媒介进行整合,本文建立了内部业绩评价行为影响研究的理论基础框架。其中,传统理论基础包括委托-代理理论,利益相关者理论,预算理论和激励理论等,行为分析理论包括关于人的假设及行为方式理论,动机计算理论和角色理论。
在基础理论框架内,本文进一步构建了行为影响研究的基本理论框架。该研究框架的建立,以一系列重要概念和关系的澄清为前提,包括对企业业绩全貌的把握,对组织业绩、过程业绩、个人业绩关系的辨析,对企业内部业绩评价行为内涵的理解等。本文认为,企业内部业绩评价是企业内部的管理决策行为,是内部业绩评价主体对内部业绩评价客体(即业绩主体)过去行为的效率和/或效果进行量化及综合的价值判断,并在此基础上通过管理决策对业绩评价客体行为实施影响,从而引导业绩主体实现企业目标的行为过程。以企业内部业绩评价的行为过程模型为基础,本文确定了行为影响因素的系统观和指标观,建立了行为影响路径,并最终确立了内部业绩评价的两种行为影响模式,用以指导后续的实证和探索性研究。
实证研究结论：通过综合运用实地研究、档案研究等分析方法,使用结构方程模型的思想和原理,本文对激励计划中业绩评价多样性水平对基层员工产生的行为影响进行研究,得出以下实证结论：第一,激励计划中的评价多样性对员工感受到的角色模糊水平具有直接的正影响。第二,员工感受到的角色模糊水平对个人业绩具有直接的负影响。第三,个人业绩对员工的工作满意度具有直接的正影响。第四,具有较高(低)价值承诺水平的员工,对多样性的激励计划做出行为反应时,经历较低(高)的角色冲突。第五,具有较高(低)价值承诺水平的员工,对多样性的激励计划做出行为反应时,经历较低(高)的角色模糊。第六,在基层员工层次,激励计划中的评价多样性与员工感受到的角色冲突水平之间的正向影响关系假设未通过验证,角色冲突与个人业绩之间的反向影响关系假设未通过验证。这一实证研究的结果可能是由于评价多样性变量测量方法上的缺陷所导致的。但对于基层员工而言,由于其作业任务的结构性较高,需要应对的不确定性程度较低,这种影响关系不成立的结论也具有一定的理论可能性。
探索性研究结论：探索性研究以管理层为研究对象,根据管理层不同的主体地位(业绩主体和评价主体),得出如下两个方面的结论：第一,与基层员工不同,管理层作为管理业绩主体,其管理控制职能的履行对综合业绩信息提出了更高的要求。根据信息原则,多样性的评价指标提供了与组织运行重要方面相关的广泛的指标集合,将业绩评价指标与组织战略和有价值的组织结果综合,将不同职能部门和价值链的业绩评价指标进行整合。因此,针对管理层作为业绩主体(评价客体)的探索性研究的结论为：综合业绩评价系统正向影响管理层的角色清晰水平,角色清晰正向影响管理业绩。第二,面对多样性的业绩评价指标体系,作为评价主体的管理层在选择评价指标和为指标赋权的过程中,受其自身认知能力、决策能力、情感偏好等多方面心理和认知因素的影响。在指标选择和判断的过程中,管理层倾向于使用结果指标、财务指标、客观指标和共同指标。在主观业绩评价的过程中,管理层的评价“偏好主义”将导致对下属评价的信息偏差,从而影响主观业绩评价的准确性。
本研究以业绩评价的跨学科研究为背景,从行为影响的角度选择了当前的研究主题,此类研究在国内管理会计学研究中还并不多见。行为分析理论的运用、以及行为分析范式在全文中的体现是本文的几点创新。当然,作为行为会计研究的一次探索,本文还存在诸多不足,如实证研究中的样本数量、样本分布、潜变量的测量方法等等,仍需要进一步深入、补充和完善。
The study on performance measurement is a multi-disciplinary theme. Accounting researchers concern mainly on the construct of the performance measurement systems. Since the 1990s, development of knowledge-based economy and change of global socio-economic environment require more importance put on the intangible assets, the value of enterprise and the drivers of value. The methodology of management accounting research which developed based on practice pays more attention on the application of new management accounting technologies, such as nonfinancial measures, EVA, Balanced Scorecard and Performance Prism etc. How to establish a comprehensive performance measurement system is a popular topic in recent accounting research. While after a brief review of the history of performance measurement study process, two prominent features are shown up:Firstly, researchers put their effort on the external and enterprise performance measurement as a whole, or concern on the executives' performance measurement while ignore the study on internal performance measurement in some degree. Secondly, research achievements are manifested by the continuous innovation and improvement of the performance systems or in other words, the performance measures, while there is relatively inadequate attention on the effects and consequences of the systems and the measures. In view of this, the dissertation examined the behavioral responses to performance measurement systems balancing multiple performance measures. Behavioral accounting research was the major paradigm employed in this study which combines the use of empirical research and normative research method. The structure and main contents are as follows:
According to the issue, the dissertation analyzed from four aspects including theoretical basis, core theory, empirical research and exploratory analysis which followed by progressive. Chapter one was an introduction. It introduced the backround, motivation and meaning of choosing the topic. Structure, contents and innovations were also mentioned. Chapter two and chapter three constituted the theoretical basis. Chapter two introduced and commented the referred documents related to behaviroal study. Chapter three defined the scope of the study, behavioral connotation of the concept performance measurement, set up the theoretical framework for behavioral analysis in the following chapters, which included the traditional performance measurement theories and the behavioral analytic theories. Chapter four was the core theory and an overall design, made clear of the behavior factors, paths and patterns, defined the behavioral effect variables, the behavioral response variables and the performance outcome variables. Based on chapter four, empirical research and exploratory analysis were conducted. Chapter five was the main body of this dissertation, empirically analyzed the behavioral responses to individual incentive plans balancing multiple performance measures. This dissertation employed SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) for the empirical analysis. The results showed that some hypothesis were confirmed while others were not. Chapter six belonged to the exploratory part. As far as the dual agent position was concerned, the managers were affected by the comprehensive measurement system from two angles. Chapter seven was conclusion, summarized the main ideas of this dissertaiton. Shortages and the next directions of further study were also pointed out. Conclusions from the above chapters are as follows:
In chapter two and chapter three, the dissertation analyzed the concept and connotation horizontally, surveyed the development process and development features vertically, based on the referred documents, the theoretical framework was established. Conclusions of the theoretical parts are as below:firstly, performance is a basic concept. Behavior-orientation and outcome-orientation are the two ways to define performance drawn from the analysis of etymology, multiple discipline and different interpreters. As definition, performance is the quantification of the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions. Features of the concept are shown as agent-based, targeted, measurable and past. After the discussion of the relationship of individual performance, process performance and organizational performance, making clear of the category of different performance measurement, the behavioral connotation of internal performance measurement of enterprise is put forward, that is, enterprise internal performance measurement is essentially a kind of management decision-making behavior. It is the behavioral process of the evaluator to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the evaluatee's past actions through acquisition, collation, sorting, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of appropriate data. Purpose of this measurement process is to ensure decision-making and take appropriate actions. Secondly, according to the performance measures, we can divide the development process of enterprise internal performance measurement into three stages:cost indicators, financial indicators, and comprehensive strategic indicators. Comprehensive performance measurement systems are the focus of the researchers and enterprises. Characteristics of the systems are systematic, strategic and comprehensive. Correspondingly, theoretical research emphasize the establish of the system itself and the methodology is up-bottom and based on the organization. This trend provides new directions for the further study. Thirdly, the theoretical framework is constitutive of traditional performance measurement theories and the behavioral analytic theories, which are integrated by the performance measurement system. Agent theory, stakeholder theory, budgeting theory and incentive theory are the components of the traditional performance measurement theories. Model-of-man, motivation theory and role theory are the main construct of the behavioral analytic theories. This theoretical framework is the basis for the following empirical research and exploratory analysis.
This dissertation employed field study and archival study method in the empirical resarch, examined and confirmed the following conclusions by way of SEM. Firstlty, measurement diversity in incentive plan is positively correlated with the level of role ambiguity experienced by the subordinate. Secondly, role ambiguity experienced by the subordinate is negatively correlated with individual performance. Thirdly, individual performance is positively correlated with job-satisfaction. Fourthly, subordinates with higher (lower) value commitment experience lower (higher) role conflict in response to the measurement diversity in incentive plan. Fifthly, subordinates with higher (lower) value commitment experience lower (higher) role ambiguity in response to the measures diversity in incentive plan. Sixth, measurement diversity in incentive plan is not correlated with the level of role conflict experienced by the subordinate. And role conflict experienced by the subordinate is not correlated with individual performance. The reasons why the two hypothesis were not confirmed maybe attribute to the imperfect measurement models, while on the other hand, there is theoretical rationality for the results.
The exploratory analysis study the managers whose position are special within an organization. Managers are evaluators and at the same time are evaluatees. According to the dual agent status, we reach the following conclusions:Firstly, as evaluatees, managerial performance requires a more comprehensive performance system which provides a broad set of measures related to the important parts of the organization, the integration of measures with strategy and valued organisational outcomes, and the integration of measures across functional boundaries and the value chain. With the comprehensive system, managers were provided with more comprehensive performance information, i.e., measures fully describe the strategic business unit's operations and link to strategy and across the value chain. So we predict that there is a positive relation between comprehensive performance measurement system and role clarity. And there is a positive relation between role clarity and managerial performance. Secondly, as evaluators, managers are restricted by the cognitive ability, decision-making ability and emotions etc, as a result, they prefer the outcome measures, financial measures, objective measures and common measures. Furtherly, subjectivity performance measurement maybe positively related to performance evaluation bias, and result in problems in personnel decisions and future incentives.
This dissertation makes some contributions to discussed issues, theoretical basis and the research method. The study on behavioral responses is still immature in the performance measurement field. Introducing of the new theory and new method will urge the development of research in performance measurement. Definitely, there's a long way to go in order to improve the method concerning the sample, the measurement model etc, while it is the shortcomings that make the research progress.
本文从“理论基础→基本理论→实证分析→探索性研究”四个依次递进的层面上展开。除第一章“导论”外,第二章“企业内部业绩评价的行为影响研究综述”和第三章“企业内部业绩评价与行为影响的理论框架”构成本文的理论基础部分。界定了本文的概念前提、研究范围、研究现状、当前业绩评价的发展特征和研究特征等,并在中外相关主题文献述评的基础上,构建了本文的理论基础框架；第四章“内部业绩评价的行为影响模式及研究整体设计”为本文的核心基本理论,是在第三章业绩评价的传统理论基础和行为理论基础框架内建立起来的。主要包括业绩评价的行为影响因素、行为影响路径及行为影响模式。理论基础与基本理论的整合,为后文的实证分析和探索性研究提供了可靠的理论依据。在研究的整体设计中,确定了主要的行为影响变量、行为反应变量以及业绩结果变量；第五章“评价多样性对基层员工行为影响的实证研究”构成本文的实证分析部分。实证研究使用结构方程模型的思想和方法对激励计划中业绩评价多样性水平对基层员工产生的行为影响进行理论模型的构建和检验,其中部分假设得到验证,部分假设未通过检验；第六章“内部业绩评价系统对管理层行为影响的探索性研究”为本文的探索性研究部分。本章以经验研究结论为基础,基于管理层的双重主体地位(业绩主体和评价主体),对综合业绩评价系统对管理层可能产生的双重行为影响进行探索性分析,从而为实务中业绩评价系统的构建提出警示和参考。文章最后是第七章“结束语”,主要对研究结论、研究中的局限和未来的研究方向进行了总结和展望。以上四个层次得出的主要研究结论表现为三个方面：
理论研究结论：本文在第二章和第三章中,通过横向梳理界定了企业业绩评价的相关概念,通过纵向梳理,明确了业绩评价的发展历程、发展特征和研究特征,在文献综述的基础上,提出了行为影响研究的理论基础框架。概括性的研究结论为：第一,业绩是一个基本概念,从字源学、不同学术传统以及不同阐释者对业绩所赋予的不同问题意识考察,业绩的定义有“行为”和“结果”两种导向。业绩是对业绩主体当前行为过程和／或过去行为结果的量化,表现为业绩主体当前和/或过去行为的效率和/或效果。业绩概念中表现出主体性(行为性)、目标性(承诺性)、可度量性和历史性的要素特征。关于业绩评价的定义,国内外学者的观点并不完全统一,对比分析后,本文认为,业绩评价包含着逻辑一致的测量和判断两个环节,量化和判断相辅相成,不能偏废。业绩及业绩评价只有在特定的决策背景下,与特定的决策制定者相关才有意义。第二,以评价主体不同的评价目的为前提,以业绩评价指标的发展变化为依据,本文区分了业绩评价发展的不同阶段：单一评价主体的成本指标阶段,二元评价主体的财务指标阶段和多元评价主体的战略综合指标阶段。中西方业绩评价的发展历程表明,业绩评价是一种变动不居的多层次主体行为。环境变迁是推动业绩评价理论发展和实践创新的根本动力；企业理论、管理理论的发展促成了多层次业绩评价主体的形成,而多层次评价主体评价目的的异质性,又直接决定了内、外部业绩评价主体在评价内容上的差异。为了平衡企业各方利益相关者的不同需求,实现企业价值最大化目标,一种具有综合性、战略性、系统性特征的业绩评价模式被不断创新和发展起来。第三,将企业内部业绩评价的传统理论基础与行为分析理论基础以企业内部业绩评价系统为媒介进行整合,本文建立了内部业绩评价行为影响研究的理论基础框架。其中,传统理论基础包括委托-代理理论,利益相关者理论,预算理论和激励理论等,行为分析理论包括关于人的假设及行为方式理论,动机计算理论和角色理论。
在基础理论框架内,本文进一步构建了行为影响研究的基本理论框架。该研究框架的建立,以一系列重要概念和关系的澄清为前提,包括对企业业绩全貌的把握,对组织业绩、过程业绩、个人业绩关系的辨析,对企业内部业绩评价行为内涵的理解等。本文认为,企业内部业绩评价是企业内部的管理决策行为,是内部业绩评价主体对内部业绩评价客体(即业绩主体)过去行为的效率和/或效果进行量化及综合的价值判断,并在此基础上通过管理决策对业绩评价客体行为实施影响,从而引导业绩主体实现企业目标的行为过程。以企业内部业绩评价的行为过程模型为基础,本文确定了行为影响因素的系统观和指标观,建立了行为影响路径,并最终确立了内部业绩评价的两种行为影响模式,用以指导后续的实证和探索性研究。
实证研究结论：通过综合运用实地研究、档案研究等分析方法,使用结构方程模型的思想和原理,本文对激励计划中业绩评价多样性水平对基层员工产生的行为影响进行研究,得出以下实证结论：第一,激励计划中的评价多样性对员工感受到的角色模糊水平具有直接的正影响。第二,员工感受到的角色模糊水平对个人业绩具有直接的负影响。第三,个人业绩对员工的工作满意度具有直接的正影响。第四,具有较高(低)价值承诺水平的员工,对多样性的激励计划做出行为反应时,经历较低(高)的角色冲突。第五,具有较高(低)价值承诺水平的员工,对多样性的激励计划做出行为反应时,经历较低(高)的角色模糊。第六,在基层员工层次,激励计划中的评价多样性与员工感受到的角色冲突水平之间的正向影响关系假设未通过验证,角色冲突与个人业绩之间的反向影响关系假设未通过验证。这一实证研究的结果可能是由于评价多样性变量测量方法上的缺陷所导致的。但对于基层员工而言,由于其作业任务的结构性较高,需要应对的不确定性程度较低,这种影响关系不成立的结论也具有一定的理论可能性。
探索性研究结论：探索性研究以管理层为研究对象,根据管理层不同的主体地位(业绩主体和评价主体),得出如下两个方面的结论：第一,与基层员工不同,管理层作为管理业绩主体,其管理控制职能的履行对综合业绩信息提出了更高的要求。根据信息原则,多样性的评价指标提供了与组织运行重要方面相关的广泛的指标集合,将业绩评价指标与组织战略和有价值的组织结果综合,将不同职能部门和价值链的业绩评价指标进行整合。因此,针对管理层作为业绩主体(评价客体)的探索性研究的结论为：综合业绩评价系统正向影响管理层的角色清晰水平,角色清晰正向影响管理业绩。第二,面对多样性的业绩评价指标体系,作为评价主体的管理层在选择评价指标和为指标赋权的过程中,受其自身认知能力、决策能力、情感偏好等多方面心理和认知因素的影响。在指标选择和判断的过程中,管理层倾向于使用结果指标、财务指标、客观指标和共同指标。在主观业绩评价的过程中,管理层的评价“偏好主义”将导致对下属评价的信息偏差,从而影响主观业绩评价的准确性。
本研究以业绩评价的跨学科研究为背景,从行为影响的角度选择了当前的研究主题,此类研究在国内管理会计学研究中还并不多见。行为分析理论的运用、以及行为分析范式在全文中的体现是本文的几点创新。当然,作为行为会计研究的一次探索,本文还存在诸多不足,如实证研究中的样本数量、样本分布、潜变量的测量方法等等,仍需要进一步深入、补充和完善。
The study on performance measurement is a multi-disciplinary theme. Accounting researchers concern mainly on the construct of the performance measurement systems. Since the 1990s, development of knowledge-based economy and change of global socio-economic environment require more importance put on the intangible assets, the value of enterprise and the drivers of value. The methodology of management accounting research which developed based on practice pays more attention on the application of new management accounting technologies, such as nonfinancial measures, EVA, Balanced Scorecard and Performance Prism etc. How to establish a comprehensive performance measurement system is a popular topic in recent accounting research. While after a brief review of the history of performance measurement study process, two prominent features are shown up:Firstly, researchers put their effort on the external and enterprise performance measurement as a whole, or concern on the executives' performance measurement while ignore the study on internal performance measurement in some degree. Secondly, research achievements are manifested by the continuous innovation and improvement of the performance systems or in other words, the performance measures, while there is relatively inadequate attention on the effects and consequences of the systems and the measures. In view of this, the dissertation examined the behavioral responses to performance measurement systems balancing multiple performance measures. Behavioral accounting research was the major paradigm employed in this study which combines the use of empirical research and normative research method. The structure and main contents are as follows:
According to the issue, the dissertation analyzed from four aspects including theoretical basis, core theory, empirical research and exploratory analysis which followed by progressive. Chapter one was an introduction. It introduced the backround, motivation and meaning of choosing the topic. Structure, contents and innovations were also mentioned. Chapter two and chapter three constituted the theoretical basis. Chapter two introduced and commented the referred documents related to behaviroal study. Chapter three defined the scope of the study, behavioral connotation of the concept performance measurement, set up the theoretical framework for behavioral analysis in the following chapters, which included the traditional performance measurement theories and the behavioral analytic theories. Chapter four was the core theory and an overall design, made clear of the behavior factors, paths and patterns, defined the behavioral effect variables, the behavioral response variables and the performance outcome variables. Based on chapter four, empirical research and exploratory analysis were conducted. Chapter five was the main body of this dissertation, empirically analyzed the behavioral responses to individual incentive plans balancing multiple performance measures. This dissertation employed SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) for the empirical analysis. The results showed that some hypothesis were confirmed while others were not. Chapter six belonged to the exploratory part. As far as the dual agent position was concerned, the managers were affected by the comprehensive measurement system from two angles. Chapter seven was conclusion, summarized the main ideas of this dissertaiton. Shortages and the next directions of further study were also pointed out. Conclusions from the above chapters are as follows:
In chapter two and chapter three, the dissertation analyzed the concept and connotation horizontally, surveyed the development process and development features vertically, based on the referred documents, the theoretical framework was established. Conclusions of the theoretical parts are as below:firstly, performance is a basic concept. Behavior-orientation and outcome-orientation are the two ways to define performance drawn from the analysis of etymology, multiple discipline and different interpreters. As definition, performance is the quantification of the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions. Features of the concept are shown as agent-based, targeted, measurable and past. After the discussion of the relationship of individual performance, process performance and organizational performance, making clear of the category of different performance measurement, the behavioral connotation of internal performance measurement of enterprise is put forward, that is, enterprise internal performance measurement is essentially a kind of management decision-making behavior. It is the behavioral process of the evaluator to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the evaluatee's past actions through acquisition, collation, sorting, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of appropriate data. Purpose of this measurement process is to ensure decision-making and take appropriate actions. Secondly, according to the performance measures, we can divide the development process of enterprise internal performance measurement into three stages:cost indicators, financial indicators, and comprehensive strategic indicators. Comprehensive performance measurement systems are the focus of the researchers and enterprises. Characteristics of the systems are systematic, strategic and comprehensive. Correspondingly, theoretical research emphasize the establish of the system itself and the methodology is up-bottom and based on the organization. This trend provides new directions for the further study. Thirdly, the theoretical framework is constitutive of traditional performance measurement theories and the behavioral analytic theories, which are integrated by the performance measurement system. Agent theory, stakeholder theory, budgeting theory and incentive theory are the components of the traditional performance measurement theories. Model-of-man, motivation theory and role theory are the main construct of the behavioral analytic theories. This theoretical framework is the basis for the following empirical research and exploratory analysis.
This dissertation employed field study and archival study method in the empirical resarch, examined and confirmed the following conclusions by way of SEM. Firstlty, measurement diversity in incentive plan is positively correlated with the level of role ambiguity experienced by the subordinate. Secondly, role ambiguity experienced by the subordinate is negatively correlated with individual performance. Thirdly, individual performance is positively correlated with job-satisfaction. Fourthly, subordinates with higher (lower) value commitment experience lower (higher) role conflict in response to the measurement diversity in incentive plan. Fifthly, subordinates with higher (lower) value commitment experience lower (higher) role ambiguity in response to the measures diversity in incentive plan. Sixth, measurement diversity in incentive plan is not correlated with the level of role conflict experienced by the subordinate. And role conflict experienced by the subordinate is not correlated with individual performance. The reasons why the two hypothesis were not confirmed maybe attribute to the imperfect measurement models, while on the other hand, there is theoretical rationality for the results.
The exploratory analysis study the managers whose position are special within an organization. Managers are evaluators and at the same time are evaluatees. According to the dual agent status, we reach the following conclusions:Firstly, as evaluatees, managerial performance requires a more comprehensive performance system which provides a broad set of measures related to the important parts of the organization, the integration of measures with strategy and valued organisational outcomes, and the integration of measures across functional boundaries and the value chain. With the comprehensive system, managers were provided with more comprehensive performance information, i.e., measures fully describe the strategic business unit's operations and link to strategy and across the value chain. So we predict that there is a positive relation between comprehensive performance measurement system and role clarity. And there is a positive relation between role clarity and managerial performance. Secondly, as evaluators, managers are restricted by the cognitive ability, decision-making ability and emotions etc, as a result, they prefer the outcome measures, financial measures, objective measures and common measures. Furtherly, subjectivity performance measurement maybe positively related to performance evaluation bias, and result in problems in personnel decisions and future incentives.
This dissertation makes some contributions to discussed issues, theoretical basis and the research method. The study on behavioral responses is still immature in the performance measurement field. Introducing of the new theory and new method will urge the development of research in performance measurement. Definitely, there's a long way to go in order to improve the method concerning the sample, the measurement model etc, while it is the shortcomings that make the research progress.
引文
① Institute of Management Accountants, Cost Management Group, Cost Management Update,32 (October 1993),49 (March 1995),64 (June 1996),74 (April 1997),105 (March 2000), and 115 (March 2001).
②具体调查结果及分析详见：陈虹.国内企业绩效管理现状调查[J].中国人力资源开发,2003，(11)56-59..
①转引自：韩永斌.行为会计研究范式的兴起与演进[J].财会通讯,2005,(7)：75-78.
①参见在线字源学词典：http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=perform
②参见《牛津英语大词典》(简编本),"The carrying out or fulfillment of a command,duty, purpose, promise, etc" "Something performed or done; an action,a deed, esp. a notable deed or achievement"上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004,P2156-2157。
③参见在线新华字典：http://xh.5156edu.com/
④转引自：[英]理查德·S.威廉姆斯.业绩管理[M].第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.24.
①在《英汉帕尔格雷夫管理词典》以及《英汉双向管理词典》中,均将"performance"及其相关的词条解释为绩效,如绩效考核/评价(performance appraisal)、绩效管理(performance management)等；同时在相关的研究书籍和学术文献中,一般也多使用“绩效”,因此,本文推断,在管理学中使用“绩效”一词的共识性更强。
②关于“概念的生命力与张力”请参阅：汪丁丁.经济学思想史讲义[M].第1版.上海：上海人民出版社,2008.66.
③由于本文将“绩效”和“效绩”概念归入“业绩”这一基本概念之下,因此在下文中,凡引用中出现的“绩效”或“效绩”概念,本文均视为与“业绩”概念等效。
①转引自：赵红.基于利益相关者理论的企业效绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2004.5.
②参见：http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/
①转引自：赵红.基于利益相关者理论的企业效绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2004.5.
②根据[英]安迪·尼利,企业绩效评估,中信出版社,2004，p1-2的相关内容,并结合英文原文对个别词语的翻译进行了修改。安迪·尼利关于业绩评价系统定义的英文表述为：performance measurement system that'enables informed decisions to be made and actions to be taken because it quantifies the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions through acquisition, collation, sorting, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of appropriate data'(Neely,1998, p5-6).
①转引自：陈维义.基于多重委托代理关系的企业职工参与管理研究.东北大学博士学位论文[D].2005.
①转引自：陆庆平.企业绩效评价论——基于利益相关者视角的研究[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.42-44.
①转引自：汪丁丁.经济学视角下的行为与意义[J].学术月刊,2003,(10)：94-102.
①D.McGregor,1960,The Human Side of Enterprise.New York:McGrawHill,PP20.
②关于“经济人”假设的发展,详见：徐传湛、张万成.“经济人”假设的发展[J].当代经济研究,2004,(2)：27-31.
③参见：[英]查尔斯·汉迪.组织的概念[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.26-27.
①参见：新帕尔格雷夫经济学大词典.经济科学出版社.1996,第2卷p57-58,第4卷p73.
①转引自：侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[Ml.第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.169.
①转引自：侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.172.
①转引自：高晨.主观业绩评价研究：述评与启示[J].会计研究,2008，(4)：85.
[1][美]吉尔里A.拉姆勒、艾伦P.布拉奇.绩效改进——消除组织管理图中的空白地带[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.16-17.
[2][美]克里斯·阿吉里斯.个性与组织[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.58-59.
[3][美]罗伯特·A.安东尼、维杰伊·戈文达拉扬.管理控制系统北京[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2004.3.
[4][美]罗伯特·西蒙斯.控制[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2004.71,4.
[5][美]马歇尔 W.迈耶.绩效测量反思——超越平衡计分卡[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.前言,161.
[6][美]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学[M].第10版.北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005.28.
[7][美]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学精要[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2003.44.
[8][英]安迪·尼利、克里斯·亚当斯、迈克·肯尼尔利.战略绩效管理——超越平衡计分卡[M].第1版.北京：电子工业出版社,2004.前言,64.
[9][英]安迪·尼利.企业绩效评估[M].第1版.北京：中信出版社,2004.1-2.
[10][英]鲍勃·瑞安、罗伯特W.斯卡彭斯、迈克尔·西奥博尔德.财务与会计研究方法与方法论[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2004.52-53.
[11][英]查尔斯·汉迪.组织的概念[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.26-29.
[12][英]理查德·S.威廉姆斯.业绩管理[M].第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.24.
[13]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价工作指南[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2002.
[14]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,1999.3.
[15]陈共荣、孙佐清、周鸿.行为观：企业业绩评价的一个新视角[J].湖南财经高等专科学校学报,2004,(3)：39-41.
[16]陈共荣、曾峻.企业绩效评价主体的演进及其对绩效评价的影响[J].会计研究,2005,(4)：65-68.
[17]陈虹.国内企业绩效管理现状调查[J].中国人力资源开发,2003,(11)：56-59.
[18]陈华敏.非财务指标的绩效后果研究[D].厦门大学博士学问论文,2006,71-74.
[19]陈维义.基于多重委托代理关系的企业职工参与管理研究.东北大学博士学位论文[D].2005.
[20]池国华.内部管理业绩评价系统设计研究[M].第1版.大连：东北财经大学出版社,2005.7-14.
[21]邓传洲、刘峻勇、赵春光.基于预算的考核、预算氛围和预算副效应[J].会计研究,2008,(4)：70-77.
[22]杜胜利.企业经营业绩评价[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,1999.215-216.
[23]风笑天.方法论背景中的问卷调查法[J].社会学研究,1994,(3)：13-18.
[24]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].第1版.长沙：湖南人民出版社,2002.216.
[25]冯平.评价论[M].第1版.北京：东方出版社,1995.2-4,31,74.
[26]高晨.主观业绩评价研究：述评与启示[J].会计研究,2008,(4)：84-88.
[27]葛家澍、刘峰.会计大典——会计理论卷[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,1999.26.
[28]韩永斌.行为会计研究范式的兴起与演进[J].财会通讯,2005,(7)：75-78.
[29]何大安.选择行为的理性与非理性融合[M].第1版.上海：上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,2006.15.
[30]贺卫.试论市场经济中的人性——经济人的假设[J].经济研究,1997,(8)：36-39.
[31]赫伯特·西蒙.现代决策理论的基石——有限理性说[M].第1版.北京：经济学院出版社,1989.26.
[32]侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.17-19.
[33]胡奕明.非财务指标的选择——价值相关分析[J].财经研究,2001,(5)：44-49.
[34]黄辉.浅论企业业绩评价的非财务指标设置[J].国有资产管理,2001,(7)：46-48.
[35]黄再胜.企业主观业绩评价理论述评——一种激励的观点[J].当代财经,2005,(3)：81-84.
[36]黄祖辉、胡豹.经济学的新分支：行为经济学研究综述[J].浙江社会科学,2003,(2)：72-79.
[37]蒋琰、茅宁.智力资本与财务资本：谁对企业价值创造更有效——来自于江浙地区企业的实证研究[J].会计研究,2008,(7)：49-55.
[38]李爱梅.心理账户与非理性经济决策行为的实证研究[D].暨南大学博士学问论文,2005.58-63.
[39]李磊、马华维.管理心理学[M].第1版.天津：南开大学出版社,2006.36.
[40]李玲玲.企业业绩评价——方法与运用[M].第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2004.2.
[41]李苹莉、宁超.关于经营者业绩评价的思考[J].会计研究,2000,(5)：22-27.
[42]李晓梅.企业战略业绩评价研究[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2008.6
[43]李永壮.基于个体的绩效管理体系研究[D].天津大学博士学位论文,2006.
[44]林震岩.多变量分析——SPSS的操作与应用[M].第1版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007.184-186.
[45]陆庆平、刘志辉.企业内部绩效评价控制系统的建立研究[J].会计研究,2003,(12)：45-48.
[46]陆庆平.企业绩效评价论——基于利益相关者视角的研究[M]第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.5-7,42-44.
[47]马涛.行为经济学对传统主流经济学的挑战[J].社会科学,2004,(7)：18-26.
[48]孟建民.中国企业效绩评价[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002.2-3.
[49]诺斯.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].第1版.上海：上海三联书店,1994.26.
[50]潘飞、张川.非财务指标与企业财务业绩相关吗?——一项基于客户满意度的实证研究[C].中国会计学年会会议论文集,2005.24-33.
[51]孙绍荣、宗利永、鲁虹.理性行为与非理性行为——从诺贝尔经济学奖获奖理论看行为管理研究的进展[M].第1版.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2007.24-25.
[52]孙永风、李垣.企业绩效评价的理论综述及存在的问题分析[J]预测,2004，(2)：41-47
[53]孙耀君.西方管理思想史[M].第1版.太原：山西人民出版社,1987.80-82.
[54]托马斯·约翰逊、罗伯特·卡普兰.管理会计兴衰史——相关性的遗失[M]第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2004.4-5.
[55]汪丁丁.经济学视角下的行为与意义[J].学术月刊,2003，(10)：94-102.
[56]汪丁丁.经济学思想史讲义[M].第1版.上海：上海人民出版社,2008.66.
[57]王斌、汪丽霞.董事会业绩评价研究[J].会计研究,2005,(2)：46-52.
[58]王化成.企业业绩评价[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.5,45.
[59]王颖.基于价值链的企业业绩评价非财务指标选择研究[D].河海大学硕士学位论文,2005.
[60]温忠麟、侯杰泰、马什赫伯特.结构方程模型检验：拟合指数与卡方准则[J].心理学报,2004,36(2)：186-194.
[61]徐传湛、张万成.“经济人”假设的发展[J].当代经济研究,2004,(2)：27-31.
[62]徐兆铭.企业绩效与激励机制：战略的观点[M].第1版.北京：中国税务出版社,2006.46.
[63]薛求知、黄佩燕、鲁直等.行为经济学——理论与应用[M].第1版.上海：复旦大学出版社,2003.16.
[64]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].第1版.北京：商务印书馆,1972.26，156.
[65]杨海峰.论会计研究中的问卷调查法[J].会计论坛,2004,(2)：101-110.
[66]因内思·马克、大卫·佩雷思.信息经济学引论：激励与合约[M].第1版.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2004.137-143.
[67]余绪缨.管理会计学[M]第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.32.
[68]袁光华.绩效考核指标的选取与组织目标一致性的实现[D].清华大学博士学位论文,2005.
[69]张朝宓、葛燕、张宇.组织内部业绩评价的行为后果研究.“公司财务学术研讨会”征文.
[70]张辉华.管理者的情绪智才及其与工作绩效的关系研究[D].暨南大学博士学位论文,2006.
[71]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002.4.
[72]张维迎.博弈论与信息经济学[M].第1版.上海：上海三联出版社,1996.26.
[73]张先治.内部管理控制论[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004.8.
[74]张学军.结构方程模型应用中的十大问题[J].统计与决策,2007,(5)：130-132.
[75]张勇.公司经营者代理行为的研究[D].西南交通大学博士学位论文,2005.17.
[76]赵红.基于利益相关者理论的企业效绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2004.5.
[77]赵玉洁、王平心.企业经营者界定论[J].学术界,2008，(1)：194-198.
[78]周长青.当代公司业绩评价体系创新的若干问题研究[D].厦门大学博士学位论文,2001.
[79]周仁俊、喻天舒、杨战兵.公司治理激励机制与业绩评价[J].会计研究,2005,(11)：26-31.
[80]周毅.中国企业文化要素与绩效关系研究[D].暨南大学博士学位论文,2007.
[81]Andy Neely.2002, Business Performance Measurement:Theory and Practice. Cambridge University.
[82]Anthony, R. N.,1965, Planning and Control System:A Framework for Analysis. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press.
[83]Argyris, C.,1952, The Impact of Budgets On People. The Controllership Foundation. Cornell University, School of Business and Public Administration.
[84]Atkinson, A.,& Epstein, M.,2000, "Measure for measure:realizing the power of the balanced scorecard. CMA Management, Sep., PP22-28.
[85]Banker, R. D., and S. M. Datar,1989, "Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.,27 (Spring), PP21-39.
[86]Banker, R. D., Chang, H.,& Pizzini, M.,2004, "The balanced scorecard:judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy", The Accounting Review,7 Vol.9, PP1-23.
[87]Banker, R. D., Potter, G., Srinivansan, D.,2000, "An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures", The Accounting Review, Vol.75, PP65-92.
[88]Bar-Hayim, A., Berman, G. S.,1992, "The dimensions of organizational commitment", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.13(4), PP379-87.
[89]Baron, J.,& J. Hershey,1988, "Outcome bias in decision evaluation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.54(4), PP569-579.
[90]Bernadin, H. J., Kane, J. S., Ross, S., et al.,1995, Performance appraisal design, development, and implementaion, Handbook of Human Resoure Management, Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.
[91]Birnberg, J. G.,& Shields, J. F.,1989, " Three decades of behavioral accounting research:A search for order", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.1, PP23-74.
[92]Birnberg, J., Turopolec, L.& Young, S. M.,1983, " The organizational context of accounting", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. (8), PP111-129.
[93]Bommer, W. H., J. L. Johnson, G. A. Rich, et al.,1995, "On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance:A meta-analysis", Personnel Psychology,Vol.48(3), PP587-605.
[94]Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., Young, S. M.,2000, "A Review of the Effects of Financial Incentives on Performance in Laboratory Tasks:Implications for Management Accounting", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.12 (1), PP19-64.
[95]Bonner, S. E., Sprinkle, G. B.,2002, "The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Effort and Task Performance:Theories, Evidence, and a Framework for Research", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.27, May., PP303-345.
[96]Borman, W. C.,& Motowidlo, S. J.,1993, "Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance", In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations, San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass. PP71-98.
[97]Bowen, D. E.,& Lawler, E. E.,1992, "The empowerment of service workers:what, why, how, and when", Sloan Management Review, Vol.,33, PP31-39.
[98]Brownell, P.,1982, "The role of accounting data in performance evaluation, budgetary participation and organizational effectiveness", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. (Spring), PP 12-27.
[99]Buchanan, B.,1974, "Building organizational commitment:The socialization of managers in work organizations", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.19(4), Dec., PP533-546.
[100]Butler, J. K.,1983, "Value importance as a moderator of the value fulfillment-job satisfaction relationship:Group differences", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68(3), PP 420-428.
[101]Campbell J. p., Mchenry J. J., Wise L. L,1990, "Modeling job performance in population of jobs", Personnel Psychology, Vol.43(2), Dec., PP313-575.
[102]Campbell, D, Srikant Datar, M., Kulp, S., Narayanan, V G,2006, "Testing Strategy Formulation and Implementation Using Strategically Linked Performance Measures", Harvard Business School. Working Paper.
[103]Campbell, J. P.,1990, Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology, In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.1,2nd edition, edited by M. D. Dunnette, and L. M. Hough,PP687-732. PaloAlto, CA:Consulting Psychologist Press.
[104]Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A. Oppler, S. H. er al.,1993, A theory of performance, Personnel Selection in Organizations, San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
[105]Cavalluzzo, Ken S.& Christopher D. Ittner,2004, "Implementing performance measurement innovations:evidence from government", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.29(3-4), Apr.-May., PP243-267.
[106]Chenhall, R. H.,2003, "management contron systems design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.28(2-3), PP127-168.
[107]Chenhall, R. H.,2005, "Integrative strategic performance Measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufactuing, learning and strategic outcomes:an exploratory study", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(5), Jul., PP395-422.
[108]Chenhall, R. H., Brownell, P.,1988, "The effect of participative budgeting on job satisfaction and performance:role ambiguity as an intervening variable", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.13(3), Apr., PP225-233.
[109]Collins, F.,1982, " Managerial accounting systems and organizational control:a role perspective", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.,7(2), Apr., PP107-112.
[110]Covaleski, M. A., Evans, J. H., Luft, J. L.,& Shields, M. D.,2003, "Budgeting research:three theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.15, PP3-49.
[111]Datar, S., Kulp, S., Lambert, R.,2001, "Balancing Performance Measures", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.39(1), PP75-92.
[112]Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Donaldson, L.,1997, "Toward a stewardship theory of management", Academy of Management Review, Vol.22(1), PP20-47.
[113]Davis, S., Albright, T.,2004, "An Investigation of the Effect of Balanced Scorecard Implementation on Financial Performance", Management Accounting Research, Vol.15(2),Jun. PP135-153.
[114]Diilla, W. N., Seinbart, P. J.,2005, "Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.17, PP43-53.
[115]Duh, Rong-Ruey, Json Zezhong Xiao, and Chee W. Chow,2008, "An Overview and Assessment of Contemporary Management Accounting Research in China", Journal of Management Accounting Research, accepted.
[116]Dunham, R.B.,1977, "Relationships of perceived job design to job ability requirements and job value", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.62(6), PP760-763.
[117]Epstein, M.,& Manzoni, J.,1998, "Implementing corporate strategy:from tableaux de bord to balanced scorecards", European Management Journal, Vol.16,PP 190-203.
[118]Ewing, D.W,1989, Justice on the Job:Resolving Grievances in the Nonunion Workplace. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[119]Feldman,J. M.,1981, "Beyond attribution theory:Cognitive processes in performance appraisal", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.66(2), PP127-148.
[120]Feltham, G., A.,& Xie, J.,1994, "Performance measure congruity and diversity in multi-task principal/agent relations", The Accounting Review, Vol.,69(3), Jul., PP429-453.
[121]Ferdinand Tesoro,Jack Tootson.1997,mplementing Global Performance Measurement System. College Division Southwestern Publishing Company.
[122]Frederickson,J. R., S. A. Pfeffer,& J. Pratt,1999, "Performance evaluation judgments: Effects of prior experience under different performance evaluation schemes and feedback frequencies", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.37(1), Sep., PP151-165.
[123]Freeman,Richard, and Arin Dube,2000, Shared Compensation Systems and Decision Making in the U.S. Job Market, Draft,Harvard University Department of Economics.
[124]George A. Akerlof,1982, "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.XCV II (4), Nov., PP543-569.
[125]Ghosh, D.,& R. F. Lusch.,2000, "Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers:Some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.25(4-5), May., PP411-425.
[126]Ghosh, D.,2005, "Alternative measures of managers'performance, controllability and the outcome effect", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.17, PP55-70.
[127]Gibbs, M., Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A., et al.,2004, "Determinants and effects of subjectivity in incentives", The Accounting Review, Vol.,79(2), Apr., PP409-436.
[128]Hall, M.,2008, "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.33(2-3), Feb.-Apr., PP141-163.
[129]Harris, M. M., Bladen, A.,1994, "Wording effect in the measurement of role conflict and role ambiguity:a multitrait-multimethod analysis", Journal of Management, Vol.20(4),PP 887-901.
[130]Harrison, G. L.,1992, "The cross-cultural generalizability of the relation between participation, budget emphasis and job-related attitudes", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 17(1), Jan., PP1-15.
[131]Harrison, G. L.,1993, "Reliance on accounting performance measures in superior evaluative style-the influence of national culture and personality", Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Vol.18(4),May., PP319-339.
[132]Hartmann, F. G..,2000, "The appropriateness of RAPM:toward the further development of theory", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.25, May., PP451-482.
[133]Hassan, R., Said A. B. Wier,2005, "The retention of nonfinancial performance measures in compensation contracts" Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.17, PP23-42.
[134]Hauser, J. R., D. I. Siemester, B. Wernerfelt,1994, "Customer satisfaction incentives", Marketing Science, Vol.,13(4)(Fall),PP327-350.
[135]Hawkins, S. A.,& R. Hastie,1990, "Hindsight:Biased judgment of past events after the outcomes are known.", Psychological Bulletin, Vol.107(3), May., PP311-327.
[136]Hemmer, T.,1996, " On the design and choice of'modern'management accounting measures", Jounal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.,8(1), PP87-116.
[137]Heneman, R. L.,1986, "The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance:A meta-analysis", Personnel Psychology, Vol.39(4),PP811-826.
[138]Henri, Jean-Francois,2006, "Organizational culture and performance measurement systems", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.,31(1), Jan., PP77-103.
[139]Holmstrom, B.,1979, " Moral hazard and observability", Bell Jounal of Economics, Vol.,10(1),PP74-91.
[140]Hopwood, A. G,1972, "An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.10, PP156-182.
[141]Hopwood, A. G,1973, An accounting system and managerial behaviour. London: Saxon House (originally an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1971), PP192.
[142]Hoque, Z., James, W.,2000, "Linking the balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:Impact on organizational performance", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.12(1), PP1-17.
[143]Hyvoenen J.,2007, "Strategy, performance measurement techniques and information technology of the firm and their links to organizational performance", Management Accounting Research, Vol.18(3), Sep., PP343-366.
[144]Ilgen, N. B., Fisher, C. D.,& Taylor, M. S.,1979, "Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.,64,PP349-371.
[145]Ittner, C. D.& Larcker, D. F.,1998, "Innovations in performance measurement: Trends and research implications", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.10, PP205-238.
[146]Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., Randall, T.,2003, "Performance implications of strategic measurement in financial services firms", Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol.28, PP715-741.
[147]Ittner, C., Larcker, D.,& Meyer, M.,2003, "Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures:evidence from a balanced scorecard", The Accounting Review, Vol.78, PP725-758.
[148]Jacob G Birnberg,2000, "The Role of Behavioral Research in management Accounting Education in the 21st Century",Issues in Accounting Education,Vol.15(4), Nov., PP713-727.
[149]Jawahar, I. M.,& Williams, C, R.,1997, "Where all the childred are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect", Personnel Psychology, Vol.50(4), PP905-925.
[150]Jensen, M. and K. Murphy,1990, "Performance pay and top-management incentives", Journal of Political Economic, vol.98(2), Apr.,PP225-264
[151]Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D.,& Rosenthal, R. A.,1964, Occupational stress:studies in role conflict and ambiguity, New York:Wiley.
[152]Kaplan, R. S.,& Norton, D. P.,1996, Translating strategy into action:the balanced scorecard, Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
[153]Kaplan, R. S.,& Norton, D. P.,2001, The Strategy-Focused Organization:How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[154]Kaplan, R. S., Atkinson A.,1998, Advanced Management Accounting.3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
[155]Kivetz, R., and I. Simonson,2000, "The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice", Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.37,Nov., PP427-448.
[156]Langfield-Smith, K.,1997, "Management Control Systems and Strategy:A Critical Review", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.22(2),Feb., PP207-232.
[157]Lawler, E. E.,1992, The ultimate advantage:creating the high involvement organization, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[158]Leibenstein, H.,1966, "Allocative efficiency versus'X-efficiency'", The American Economic Review, Vol.56(3), Jun., PP392-415.
[159]Lipe, M. G.,1993, "Analyzing the variance investigation decision:The effects of outcomes, mental accounting, and framing", The Accounting Review, Vol.68(4), Oct., PP748-764.
[160]Lipe, M.,& Salterio, S.,2000, " The balanced scorecard:judgemental effects of common and unique performance measures", The Accounting Review, Vol.75, PP283-298.
[161]Lipe, M.,& Salterio, S.,2002, "A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.27(6), Aug., PP531-540.
[162]Lynch, R. L.,& Cross, K. F.,1992, Measure up-Yardsticks for continuous improvement, Cambridge, MA:Basil Blackwell.
[163]Malina, M. A.,& Selto, F. H.,2001, "Communicating and controlling strategy:an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.13, PP47-90.
[164]Marginson, D., Ogden, S.,2005, "Coping with ambiguity through the budget:the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers'budgeting behaviours", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(5), Jul., PP435-456.
[165]Markman, A. B., and D. L. Medin.1995, "Similarity and alignment in choice", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.63, Aug., PP117-130.
[166]Mayer, R. C., Schoorman, F. D.,1992, "Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.35(3), PP671-684.
[167]Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A.,2006, "Field-Based Research in Accounting: Accomplishments and Prospects", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.18(1), PP117-134.
[168]Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W.,2003, Management Control Systems: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, Pearson/Prentice Hall, London, PP6-7.
[169]Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W., Zheng, L.,2003, "Disciplinary Constraints on the Advancement of Knowledge:The Case of Organizational Incentive Systems", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.28(2-3), PP251-286.
[170]Milkovich, G. T.,& Newman, J. M.,1993, Compensation, Homewood, IL:Irwin.
[171]Mitchell, T.,& L. Kalb,1981, "Effects of outcome knowledge and outcome valence on supervisors'evaluations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.66(4), PP604-612.
[172]Moers, F.,2005, "Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation:The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(1),PP 67-80.
[173]Murphy, K. J.,& Oyer, P.,2001, Discretion in executive incentive contracts:theory and evidence, Working Paper. University of Southern California/Stanford University.
[174]Murphy, K. R.,1990, Job performance and productivity, Pschology in Organizations, Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
[175]Nanni, A. J., Dixon, J. R.,& Vollman, T. E.,1992, "Integrated performance measurement:management accounting to support new manufacturing realities", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.4, PP1-19.
[176]Neely, A., Gregory, M.,& Platts, K.,1995, "Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda", International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.15, PP80-116.
[177]Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., Burton, S.,1990, "Analysis of Role-Conflict and Role Ambiguity in a Structural Equations Framework", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.75(2), PP148-157.
[178]Otley, D., Pollanen, R.,2000, "Budgetary Criteria in Performance Evaluation:A Critical Appraisal Using New Evidence", Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol.25(4-5), May., PP483-496.
[179]Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., Boulian, P.,1974, "Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.59, PP603-609.
[180]Reichers, A.,1985, "A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment", Academy of Management Review, Vol.10,PP 465-476.
[181]Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J.,& Lirtzman, S. I.,1970, "Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations",Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol.15(2),Jun., PP150-163.
[182]Robert N. Anthony, Vijay Govindarajan,1998, Management Control Systems. New York:McGraw-Hill.PP1.
[183]Ross, Stephen A.,1973, "The Economic Theory of Agency:The Principal's Problem", American Economic Review, Vol.63(2), May., PP134-139.
[184]Said, A. A., HassabElnaby, H.R.,& Wier, B.,2003, "An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonnancial measures", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.15, PP193-223.
[185]Sawyer, J. E.,1992, "Goal and process clarity:specication of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.,77(2), PP130-142.
[186]Schecter, D. S.,1985, Value and continuance commitment:a filed test of a dual conceptualization of organizational commitment. Unpublished masters'thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
[187]Schiff, A.D.,& Hoffman, L.R.,1996, "An exploration of the use of financial and nonfinancial measures of performance by executives in a service organization", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.8, PP134-153.
[188]Scott, T. W., Tiessen, P.,1999, "Performance measurement and managerial teams", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.24(3), Apr., PP263-285.
[189]Seiler, R. E, Bartlett, R. W.,1982, "Personality variables as predictors of budget system characteristics", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.7(4), Oct., PP381-403.
[190]Simon, H. A.,1957, Models of man. New York:Wiley.
[191]Simon, H. G. Kozmesky, H. Geutzkow,& G. Tyndall,1954, Centralization vs. Decentralization in Reorganizing the Controller's Department. New York, NY: Controllership Foundation.
[192]Simons, R.,2000, Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy:text and cases, Upper Sadle River:Prentice Hall.
[193]Slovic, P.,& B. Fischhoff,1977, "On the psychology of experimental surprises", Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perceptions and Performance, Vol.3(4), Nov.,PP544-551.
[194]Smith, P.,1995, "On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector", International Journal of Public Administration, Vol.18(2/3), PP277-310.
[195]Taylor, F. W.,1911, The principles of scientific management. New York:Harper and Row.
[196]Thaler R.,1985, "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice", Marketing Science, Vol.4(3), PP199-214.
[197]Tversky, A.& Kahneman, D.,1974, "Judgment under Uncertainty:Heuristics and Biases", Science, New Series, Vol.185(4157), Sep., PP1124-1131.
[198]Tversky, A.& Kahneman, D.,1979, "A Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk", Econometrica, Vol.47(2), Mar., PP263-291.
[199]Vagneur, K., Peiperl, M.,2000, "Reconsidering performance evaluative style", Accounting Organisations and Society,Vol.25(4-5), May., PP:511-525.
[200]Van der Stede, W. A., Young, M. S., Chen, C. X.,2005, "Assessing the Quality of Evidence in Empirical Management Accounting Research:The Case of Survey Studies", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.,30(7-8), Oct.-Nov., PP655-684.
[201]Webb, R. A.,2004, "Managers'commitment to the goals contained in a strategic performance measurement system", Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.21, PP925-958.
[202]Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., Lofquist, L. H.,1967, Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center.
[203]Williamson,O. E.,1975, Markets and Hierachies, New York:The Free Press,PP30-35.
[204]Wim, A., Young., S.M., C. Xiaoling.,2005, "Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research:The case of survey studies", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(7-8), Oct.-Nov., PP655-684.
[205]Zhang, S.,& A. B. Markman,1998, "Overcoming the early entrant advantage:The role of alignable and nonalignable differences", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.35, Nov., PP413-426.
[206]Zhang, S.,& A. B. Markman,2001, "Processing product unique features:Alignability and involvement in preference construction, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.11 (1),PP13-27.
②具体调查结果及分析详见：陈虹.国内企业绩效管理现状调查[J].中国人力资源开发,2003，(11)56-59..
①转引自：韩永斌.行为会计研究范式的兴起与演进[J].财会通讯,2005,(7)：75-78.
①参见在线字源学词典：http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=perform
②参见《牛津英语大词典》(简编本),"The carrying out or fulfillment of a command,duty, purpose, promise, etc" "Something performed or done; an action,a deed, esp. a notable deed or achievement"上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004,P2156-2157。
③参见在线新华字典：http://xh.5156edu.com/
④转引自：[英]理查德·S.威廉姆斯.业绩管理[M].第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.24.
①在《英汉帕尔格雷夫管理词典》以及《英汉双向管理词典》中,均将"performance"及其相关的词条解释为绩效,如绩效考核/评价(performance appraisal)、绩效管理(performance management)等；同时在相关的研究书籍和学术文献中,一般也多使用“绩效”,因此,本文推断,在管理学中使用“绩效”一词的共识性更强。
②关于“概念的生命力与张力”请参阅：汪丁丁.经济学思想史讲义[M].第1版.上海：上海人民出版社,2008.66.
③由于本文将“绩效”和“效绩”概念归入“业绩”这一基本概念之下,因此在下文中,凡引用中出现的“绩效”或“效绩”概念,本文均视为与“业绩”概念等效。
①转引自：赵红.基于利益相关者理论的企业效绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2004.5.
②参见：http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/
①转引自：赵红.基于利益相关者理论的企业效绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2004.5.
②根据[英]安迪·尼利,企业绩效评估,中信出版社,2004，p1-2的相关内容,并结合英文原文对个别词语的翻译进行了修改。安迪·尼利关于业绩评价系统定义的英文表述为：performance measurement system that'enables informed decisions to be made and actions to be taken because it quantifies the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions through acquisition, collation, sorting, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of appropriate data'(Neely,1998, p5-6).
①转引自：陈维义.基于多重委托代理关系的企业职工参与管理研究.东北大学博士学位论文[D].2005.
①转引自：陆庆平.企业绩效评价论——基于利益相关者视角的研究[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.42-44.
①转引自：汪丁丁.经济学视角下的行为与意义[J].学术月刊,2003,(10)：94-102.
①D.McGregor,1960,The Human Side of Enterprise.New York:McGrawHill,PP20.
②关于“经济人”假设的发展,详见：徐传湛、张万成.“经济人”假设的发展[J].当代经济研究,2004,(2)：27-31.
③参见：[英]查尔斯·汉迪.组织的概念[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.26-27.
①参见：新帕尔格雷夫经济学大词典.经济科学出版社.1996,第2卷p57-58,第4卷p73.
①转引自：侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[Ml.第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.169.
①转引自：侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.172.
①转引自：高晨.主观业绩评价研究：述评与启示[J].会计研究,2008，(4)：85.
[1][美]吉尔里A.拉姆勒、艾伦P.布拉奇.绩效改进——消除组织管理图中的空白地带[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.16-17.
[2][美]克里斯·阿吉里斯.个性与组织[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.58-59.
[3][美]罗伯特·A.安东尼、维杰伊·戈文达拉扬.管理控制系统北京[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2004.3.
[4][美]罗伯特·西蒙斯.控制[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2004.71,4.
[5][美]马歇尔 W.迈耶.绩效测量反思——超越平衡计分卡[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.前言,161.
[6][美]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学[M].第10版.北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005.28.
[7][美]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学精要[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2003.44.
[8][英]安迪·尼利、克里斯·亚当斯、迈克·肯尼尔利.战略绩效管理——超越平衡计分卡[M].第1版.北京：电子工业出版社,2004.前言,64.
[9][英]安迪·尼利.企业绩效评估[M].第1版.北京：中信出版社,2004.1-2.
[10][英]鲍勃·瑞安、罗伯特W.斯卡彭斯、迈克尔·西奥博尔德.财务与会计研究方法与方法论[M].第1版.北京：机械工业出版社,2004.52-53.
[11][英]查尔斯·汉迪.组织的概念[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.26-29.
[12][英]理查德·S.威廉姆斯.业绩管理[M].第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.24.
[13]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价工作指南[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2002.
[14]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,1999.3.
[15]陈共荣、孙佐清、周鸿.行为观：企业业绩评价的一个新视角[J].湖南财经高等专科学校学报,2004,(3)：39-41.
[16]陈共荣、曾峻.企业绩效评价主体的演进及其对绩效评价的影响[J].会计研究,2005,(4)：65-68.
[17]陈虹.国内企业绩效管理现状调查[J].中国人力资源开发,2003,(11)：56-59.
[18]陈华敏.非财务指标的绩效后果研究[D].厦门大学博士学问论文,2006,71-74.
[19]陈维义.基于多重委托代理关系的企业职工参与管理研究.东北大学博士学位论文[D].2005.
[20]池国华.内部管理业绩评价系统设计研究[M].第1版.大连：东北财经大学出版社,2005.7-14.
[21]邓传洲、刘峻勇、赵春光.基于预算的考核、预算氛围和预算副效应[J].会计研究,2008,(4)：70-77.
[22]杜胜利.企业经营业绩评价[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,1999.215-216.
[23]风笑天.方法论背景中的问卷调查法[J].社会学研究,1994,(3)：13-18.
[24]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].第1版.长沙：湖南人民出版社,2002.216.
[25]冯平.评价论[M].第1版.北京：东方出版社,1995.2-4,31,74.
[26]高晨.主观业绩评价研究：述评与启示[J].会计研究,2008,(4)：84-88.
[27]葛家澍、刘峰.会计大典——会计理论卷[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,1999.26.
[28]韩永斌.行为会计研究范式的兴起与演进[J].财会通讯,2005,(7)：75-78.
[29]何大安.选择行为的理性与非理性融合[M].第1版.上海：上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,2006.15.
[30]贺卫.试论市场经济中的人性——经济人的假设[J].经济研究,1997,(8)：36-39.
[31]赫伯特·西蒙.现代决策理论的基石——有限理性说[M].第1版.北京：经济学院出版社,1989.26.
[32]侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.17-19.
[33]胡奕明.非财务指标的选择——价值相关分析[J].财经研究,2001,(5)：44-49.
[34]黄辉.浅论企业业绩评价的非财务指标设置[J].国有资产管理,2001,(7)：46-48.
[35]黄再胜.企业主观业绩评价理论述评——一种激励的观点[J].当代财经,2005,(3)：81-84.
[36]黄祖辉、胡豹.经济学的新分支：行为经济学研究综述[J].浙江社会科学,2003,(2)：72-79.
[37]蒋琰、茅宁.智力资本与财务资本：谁对企业价值创造更有效——来自于江浙地区企业的实证研究[J].会计研究,2008,(7)：49-55.
[38]李爱梅.心理账户与非理性经济决策行为的实证研究[D].暨南大学博士学问论文,2005.58-63.
[39]李磊、马华维.管理心理学[M].第1版.天津：南开大学出版社,2006.36.
[40]李玲玲.企业业绩评价——方法与运用[M].第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2004.2.
[41]李苹莉、宁超.关于经营者业绩评价的思考[J].会计研究,2000,(5)：22-27.
[42]李晓梅.企业战略业绩评价研究[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2008.6
[43]李永壮.基于个体的绩效管理体系研究[D].天津大学博士学位论文,2006.
[44]林震岩.多变量分析——SPSS的操作与应用[M].第1版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007.184-186.
[45]陆庆平、刘志辉.企业内部绩效评价控制系统的建立研究[J].会计研究,2003,(12)：45-48.
[46]陆庆平.企业绩效评价论——基于利益相关者视角的研究[M]第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.5-7,42-44.
[47]马涛.行为经济学对传统主流经济学的挑战[J].社会科学,2004,(7)：18-26.
[48]孟建民.中国企业效绩评价[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002.2-3.
[49]诺斯.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].第1版.上海：上海三联书店,1994.26.
[50]潘飞、张川.非财务指标与企业财务业绩相关吗?——一项基于客户满意度的实证研究[C].中国会计学年会会议论文集,2005.24-33.
[51]孙绍荣、宗利永、鲁虹.理性行为与非理性行为——从诺贝尔经济学奖获奖理论看行为管理研究的进展[M].第1版.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2007.24-25.
[52]孙永风、李垣.企业绩效评价的理论综述及存在的问题分析[J]预测,2004，(2)：41-47
[53]孙耀君.西方管理思想史[M].第1版.太原：山西人民出版社,1987.80-82.
[54]托马斯·约翰逊、罗伯特·卡普兰.管理会计兴衰史——相关性的遗失[M]第1版.北京：清华大学出版社,2004.4-5.
[55]汪丁丁.经济学视角下的行为与意义[J].学术月刊,2003，(10)：94-102.
[56]汪丁丁.经济学思想史讲义[M].第1版.上海：上海人民出版社,2008.66.
[57]王斌、汪丽霞.董事会业绩评价研究[J].会计研究,2005,(2)：46-52.
[58]王化成.企业业绩评价[M].第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.5,45.
[59]王颖.基于价值链的企业业绩评价非财务指标选择研究[D].河海大学硕士学位论文,2005.
[60]温忠麟、侯杰泰、马什赫伯特.结构方程模型检验：拟合指数与卡方准则[J].心理学报,2004,36(2)：186-194.
[61]徐传湛、张万成.“经济人”假设的发展[J].当代经济研究,2004,(2)：27-31.
[62]徐兆铭.企业绩效与激励机制：战略的观点[M].第1版.北京：中国税务出版社,2006.46.
[63]薛求知、黄佩燕、鲁直等.行为经济学——理论与应用[M].第1版.上海：复旦大学出版社,2003.16.
[64]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].第1版.北京：商务印书馆,1972.26，156.
[65]杨海峰.论会计研究中的问卷调查法[J].会计论坛,2004,(2)：101-110.
[66]因内思·马克、大卫·佩雷思.信息经济学引论：激励与合约[M].第1版.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2004.137-143.
[67]余绪缨.管理会计学[M]第1版.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.32.
[68]袁光华.绩效考核指标的选取与组织目标一致性的实现[D].清华大学博士学位论文,2005.
[69]张朝宓、葛燕、张宇.组织内部业绩评价的行为后果研究.“公司财务学术研讨会”征文.
[70]张辉华.管理者的情绪智才及其与工作绩效的关系研究[D].暨南大学博士学位论文,2006.
[71]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002.4.
[72]张维迎.博弈论与信息经济学[M].第1版.上海：上海三联出版社,1996.26.
[73]张先治.内部管理控制论[M].第1版.北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004.8.
[74]张学军.结构方程模型应用中的十大问题[J].统计与决策,2007,(5)：130-132.
[75]张勇.公司经营者代理行为的研究[D].西南交通大学博士学位论文,2005.17.
[76]赵红.基于利益相关者理论的企业效绩评价指标体系研究[M].第1版.北京：经济科学出版社,2004.5.
[77]赵玉洁、王平心.企业经营者界定论[J].学术界,2008，(1)：194-198.
[78]周长青.当代公司业绩评价体系创新的若干问题研究[D].厦门大学博士学位论文,2001.
[79]周仁俊、喻天舒、杨战兵.公司治理激励机制与业绩评价[J].会计研究,2005,(11)：26-31.
[80]周毅.中国企业文化要素与绩效关系研究[D].暨南大学博士学位论文,2007.
[81]Andy Neely.2002, Business Performance Measurement:Theory and Practice. Cambridge University.
[82]Anthony, R. N.,1965, Planning and Control System:A Framework for Analysis. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press.
[83]Argyris, C.,1952, The Impact of Budgets On People. The Controllership Foundation. Cornell University, School of Business and Public Administration.
[84]Atkinson, A.,& Epstein, M.,2000, "Measure for measure:realizing the power of the balanced scorecard. CMA Management, Sep., PP22-28.
[85]Banker, R. D., and S. M. Datar,1989, "Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.,27 (Spring), PP21-39.
[86]Banker, R. D., Chang, H.,& Pizzini, M.,2004, "The balanced scorecard:judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy", The Accounting Review,7 Vol.9, PP1-23.
[87]Banker, R. D., Potter, G., Srinivansan, D.,2000, "An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures", The Accounting Review, Vol.75, PP65-92.
[88]Bar-Hayim, A., Berman, G. S.,1992, "The dimensions of organizational commitment", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.13(4), PP379-87.
[89]Baron, J.,& J. Hershey,1988, "Outcome bias in decision evaluation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.54(4), PP569-579.
[90]Bernadin, H. J., Kane, J. S., Ross, S., et al.,1995, Performance appraisal design, development, and implementaion, Handbook of Human Resoure Management, Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.
[91]Birnberg, J. G.,& Shields, J. F.,1989, " Three decades of behavioral accounting research:A search for order", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.1, PP23-74.
[92]Birnberg, J., Turopolec, L.& Young, S. M.,1983, " The organizational context of accounting", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. (8), PP111-129.
[93]Bommer, W. H., J. L. Johnson, G. A. Rich, et al.,1995, "On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance:A meta-analysis", Personnel Psychology,Vol.48(3), PP587-605.
[94]Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., Young, S. M.,2000, "A Review of the Effects of Financial Incentives on Performance in Laboratory Tasks:Implications for Management Accounting", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.12 (1), PP19-64.
[95]Bonner, S. E., Sprinkle, G. B.,2002, "The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Effort and Task Performance:Theories, Evidence, and a Framework for Research", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.27, May., PP303-345.
[96]Borman, W. C.,& Motowidlo, S. J.,1993, "Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance", In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations, San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass. PP71-98.
[97]Bowen, D. E.,& Lawler, E. E.,1992, "The empowerment of service workers:what, why, how, and when", Sloan Management Review, Vol.,33, PP31-39.
[98]Brownell, P.,1982, "The role of accounting data in performance evaluation, budgetary participation and organizational effectiveness", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. (Spring), PP 12-27.
[99]Buchanan, B.,1974, "Building organizational commitment:The socialization of managers in work organizations", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.19(4), Dec., PP533-546.
[100]Butler, J. K.,1983, "Value importance as a moderator of the value fulfillment-job satisfaction relationship:Group differences", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68(3), PP 420-428.
[101]Campbell J. p., Mchenry J. J., Wise L. L,1990, "Modeling job performance in population of jobs", Personnel Psychology, Vol.43(2), Dec., PP313-575.
[102]Campbell, D, Srikant Datar, M., Kulp, S., Narayanan, V G,2006, "Testing Strategy Formulation and Implementation Using Strategically Linked Performance Measures", Harvard Business School. Working Paper.
[103]Campbell, J. P.,1990, Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology, In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.1,2nd edition, edited by M. D. Dunnette, and L. M. Hough,PP687-732. PaloAlto, CA:Consulting Psychologist Press.
[104]Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A. Oppler, S. H. er al.,1993, A theory of performance, Personnel Selection in Organizations, San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
[105]Cavalluzzo, Ken S.& Christopher D. Ittner,2004, "Implementing performance measurement innovations:evidence from government", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.29(3-4), Apr.-May., PP243-267.
[106]Chenhall, R. H.,2003, "management contron systems design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.28(2-3), PP127-168.
[107]Chenhall, R. H.,2005, "Integrative strategic performance Measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufactuing, learning and strategic outcomes:an exploratory study", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(5), Jul., PP395-422.
[108]Chenhall, R. H., Brownell, P.,1988, "The effect of participative budgeting on job satisfaction and performance:role ambiguity as an intervening variable", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.13(3), Apr., PP225-233.
[109]Collins, F.,1982, " Managerial accounting systems and organizational control:a role perspective", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.,7(2), Apr., PP107-112.
[110]Covaleski, M. A., Evans, J. H., Luft, J. L.,& Shields, M. D.,2003, "Budgeting research:three theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.15, PP3-49.
[111]Datar, S., Kulp, S., Lambert, R.,2001, "Balancing Performance Measures", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.39(1), PP75-92.
[112]Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Donaldson, L.,1997, "Toward a stewardship theory of management", Academy of Management Review, Vol.22(1), PP20-47.
[113]Davis, S., Albright, T.,2004, "An Investigation of the Effect of Balanced Scorecard Implementation on Financial Performance", Management Accounting Research, Vol.15(2),Jun. PP135-153.
[114]Diilla, W. N., Seinbart, P. J.,2005, "Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.17, PP43-53.
[115]Duh, Rong-Ruey, Json Zezhong Xiao, and Chee W. Chow,2008, "An Overview and Assessment of Contemporary Management Accounting Research in China", Journal of Management Accounting Research, accepted.
[116]Dunham, R.B.,1977, "Relationships of perceived job design to job ability requirements and job value", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.62(6), PP760-763.
[117]Epstein, M.,& Manzoni, J.,1998, "Implementing corporate strategy:from tableaux de bord to balanced scorecards", European Management Journal, Vol.16,PP 190-203.
[118]Ewing, D.W,1989, Justice on the Job:Resolving Grievances in the Nonunion Workplace. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[119]Feldman,J. M.,1981, "Beyond attribution theory:Cognitive processes in performance appraisal", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.66(2), PP127-148.
[120]Feltham, G., A.,& Xie, J.,1994, "Performance measure congruity and diversity in multi-task principal/agent relations", The Accounting Review, Vol.,69(3), Jul., PP429-453.
[121]Ferdinand Tesoro,Jack Tootson.1997,mplementing Global Performance Measurement System. College Division Southwestern Publishing Company.
[122]Frederickson,J. R., S. A. Pfeffer,& J. Pratt,1999, "Performance evaluation judgments: Effects of prior experience under different performance evaluation schemes and feedback frequencies", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.37(1), Sep., PP151-165.
[123]Freeman,Richard, and Arin Dube,2000, Shared Compensation Systems and Decision Making in the U.S. Job Market, Draft,Harvard University Department of Economics.
[124]George A. Akerlof,1982, "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.XCV II (4), Nov., PP543-569.
[125]Ghosh, D.,& R. F. Lusch.,2000, "Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers:Some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.25(4-5), May., PP411-425.
[126]Ghosh, D.,2005, "Alternative measures of managers'performance, controllability and the outcome effect", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.17, PP55-70.
[127]Gibbs, M., Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A., et al.,2004, "Determinants and effects of subjectivity in incentives", The Accounting Review, Vol.,79(2), Apr., PP409-436.
[128]Hall, M.,2008, "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.33(2-3), Feb.-Apr., PP141-163.
[129]Harris, M. M., Bladen, A.,1994, "Wording effect in the measurement of role conflict and role ambiguity:a multitrait-multimethod analysis", Journal of Management, Vol.20(4),PP 887-901.
[130]Harrison, G. L.,1992, "The cross-cultural generalizability of the relation between participation, budget emphasis and job-related attitudes", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 17(1), Jan., PP1-15.
[131]Harrison, G. L.,1993, "Reliance on accounting performance measures in superior evaluative style-the influence of national culture and personality", Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Vol.18(4),May., PP319-339.
[132]Hartmann, F. G..,2000, "The appropriateness of RAPM:toward the further development of theory", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.25, May., PP451-482.
[133]Hassan, R., Said A. B. Wier,2005, "The retention of nonfinancial performance measures in compensation contracts" Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.17, PP23-42.
[134]Hauser, J. R., D. I. Siemester, B. Wernerfelt,1994, "Customer satisfaction incentives", Marketing Science, Vol.,13(4)(Fall),PP327-350.
[135]Hawkins, S. A.,& R. Hastie,1990, "Hindsight:Biased judgment of past events after the outcomes are known.", Psychological Bulletin, Vol.107(3), May., PP311-327.
[136]Hemmer, T.,1996, " On the design and choice of'modern'management accounting measures", Jounal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.,8(1), PP87-116.
[137]Heneman, R. L.,1986, "The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance:A meta-analysis", Personnel Psychology, Vol.39(4),PP811-826.
[138]Henri, Jean-Francois,2006, "Organizational culture and performance measurement systems", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.,31(1), Jan., PP77-103.
[139]Holmstrom, B.,1979, " Moral hazard and observability", Bell Jounal of Economics, Vol.,10(1),PP74-91.
[140]Hopwood, A. G,1972, "An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.10, PP156-182.
[141]Hopwood, A. G,1973, An accounting system and managerial behaviour. London: Saxon House (originally an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1971), PP192.
[142]Hoque, Z., James, W.,2000, "Linking the balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:Impact on organizational performance", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.12(1), PP1-17.
[143]Hyvoenen J.,2007, "Strategy, performance measurement techniques and information technology of the firm and their links to organizational performance", Management Accounting Research, Vol.18(3), Sep., PP343-366.
[144]Ilgen, N. B., Fisher, C. D.,& Taylor, M. S.,1979, "Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.,64,PP349-371.
[145]Ittner, C. D.& Larcker, D. F.,1998, "Innovations in performance measurement: Trends and research implications", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.10, PP205-238.
[146]Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., Randall, T.,2003, "Performance implications of strategic measurement in financial services firms", Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol.28, PP715-741.
[147]Ittner, C., Larcker, D.,& Meyer, M.,2003, "Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures:evidence from a balanced scorecard", The Accounting Review, Vol.78, PP725-758.
[148]Jacob G Birnberg,2000, "The Role of Behavioral Research in management Accounting Education in the 21st Century",Issues in Accounting Education,Vol.15(4), Nov., PP713-727.
[149]Jawahar, I. M.,& Williams, C, R.,1997, "Where all the childred are above average: the performance appraisal purpose effect", Personnel Psychology, Vol.50(4), PP905-925.
[150]Jensen, M. and K. Murphy,1990, "Performance pay and top-management incentives", Journal of Political Economic, vol.98(2), Apr.,PP225-264
[151]Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D.,& Rosenthal, R. A.,1964, Occupational stress:studies in role conflict and ambiguity, New York:Wiley.
[152]Kaplan, R. S.,& Norton, D. P.,1996, Translating strategy into action:the balanced scorecard, Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
[153]Kaplan, R. S.,& Norton, D. P.,2001, The Strategy-Focused Organization:How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[154]Kaplan, R. S., Atkinson A.,1998, Advanced Management Accounting.3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
[155]Kivetz, R., and I. Simonson,2000, "The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice", Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.37,Nov., PP427-448.
[156]Langfield-Smith, K.,1997, "Management Control Systems and Strategy:A Critical Review", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.22(2),Feb., PP207-232.
[157]Lawler, E. E.,1992, The ultimate advantage:creating the high involvement organization, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[158]Leibenstein, H.,1966, "Allocative efficiency versus'X-efficiency'", The American Economic Review, Vol.56(3), Jun., PP392-415.
[159]Lipe, M. G.,1993, "Analyzing the variance investigation decision:The effects of outcomes, mental accounting, and framing", The Accounting Review, Vol.68(4), Oct., PP748-764.
[160]Lipe, M.,& Salterio, S.,2000, " The balanced scorecard:judgemental effects of common and unique performance measures", The Accounting Review, Vol.75, PP283-298.
[161]Lipe, M.,& Salterio, S.,2002, "A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.27(6), Aug., PP531-540.
[162]Lynch, R. L.,& Cross, K. F.,1992, Measure up-Yardsticks for continuous improvement, Cambridge, MA:Basil Blackwell.
[163]Malina, M. A.,& Selto, F. H.,2001, "Communicating and controlling strategy:an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.13, PP47-90.
[164]Marginson, D., Ogden, S.,2005, "Coping with ambiguity through the budget:the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers'budgeting behaviours", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(5), Jul., PP435-456.
[165]Markman, A. B., and D. L. Medin.1995, "Similarity and alignment in choice", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.63, Aug., PP117-130.
[166]Mayer, R. C., Schoorman, F. D.,1992, "Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.35(3), PP671-684.
[167]Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A.,2006, "Field-Based Research in Accounting: Accomplishments and Prospects", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.18(1), PP117-134.
[168]Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W.,2003, Management Control Systems: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, Pearson/Prentice Hall, London, PP6-7.
[169]Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W., Zheng, L.,2003, "Disciplinary Constraints on the Advancement of Knowledge:The Case of Organizational Incentive Systems", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.28(2-3), PP251-286.
[170]Milkovich, G. T.,& Newman, J. M.,1993, Compensation, Homewood, IL:Irwin.
[171]Mitchell, T.,& L. Kalb,1981, "Effects of outcome knowledge and outcome valence on supervisors'evaluations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.66(4), PP604-612.
[172]Moers, F.,2005, "Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation:The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(1),PP 67-80.
[173]Murphy, K. J.,& Oyer, P.,2001, Discretion in executive incentive contracts:theory and evidence, Working Paper. University of Southern California/Stanford University.
[174]Murphy, K. R.,1990, Job performance and productivity, Pschology in Organizations, Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
[175]Nanni, A. J., Dixon, J. R.,& Vollman, T. E.,1992, "Integrated performance measurement:management accounting to support new manufacturing realities", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.4, PP1-19.
[176]Neely, A., Gregory, M.,& Platts, K.,1995, "Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda", International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.15, PP80-116.
[177]Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., Burton, S.,1990, "Analysis of Role-Conflict and Role Ambiguity in a Structural Equations Framework", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.75(2), PP148-157.
[178]Otley, D., Pollanen, R.,2000, "Budgetary Criteria in Performance Evaluation:A Critical Appraisal Using New Evidence", Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol.25(4-5), May., PP483-496.
[179]Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., Boulian, P.,1974, "Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.59, PP603-609.
[180]Reichers, A.,1985, "A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment", Academy of Management Review, Vol.10,PP 465-476.
[181]Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J.,& Lirtzman, S. I.,1970, "Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations",Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol.15(2),Jun., PP150-163.
[182]Robert N. Anthony, Vijay Govindarajan,1998, Management Control Systems. New York:McGraw-Hill.PP1.
[183]Ross, Stephen A.,1973, "The Economic Theory of Agency:The Principal's Problem", American Economic Review, Vol.63(2), May., PP134-139.
[184]Said, A. A., HassabElnaby, H.R.,& Wier, B.,2003, "An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonnancial measures", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol.15, PP193-223.
[185]Sawyer, J. E.,1992, "Goal and process clarity:specication of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.,77(2), PP130-142.
[186]Schecter, D. S.,1985, Value and continuance commitment:a filed test of a dual conceptualization of organizational commitment. Unpublished masters'thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
[187]Schiff, A.D.,& Hoffman, L.R.,1996, "An exploration of the use of financial and nonfinancial measures of performance by executives in a service organization", Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol.8, PP134-153.
[188]Scott, T. W., Tiessen, P.,1999, "Performance measurement and managerial teams", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.24(3), Apr., PP263-285.
[189]Seiler, R. E, Bartlett, R. W.,1982, "Personality variables as predictors of budget system characteristics", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.7(4), Oct., PP381-403.
[190]Simon, H. A.,1957, Models of man. New York:Wiley.
[191]Simon, H. G. Kozmesky, H. Geutzkow,& G. Tyndall,1954, Centralization vs. Decentralization in Reorganizing the Controller's Department. New York, NY: Controllership Foundation.
[192]Simons, R.,2000, Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy:text and cases, Upper Sadle River:Prentice Hall.
[193]Slovic, P.,& B. Fischhoff,1977, "On the psychology of experimental surprises", Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perceptions and Performance, Vol.3(4), Nov.,PP544-551.
[194]Smith, P.,1995, "On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector", International Journal of Public Administration, Vol.18(2/3), PP277-310.
[195]Taylor, F. W.,1911, The principles of scientific management. New York:Harper and Row.
[196]Thaler R.,1985, "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice", Marketing Science, Vol.4(3), PP199-214.
[197]Tversky, A.& Kahneman, D.,1974, "Judgment under Uncertainty:Heuristics and Biases", Science, New Series, Vol.185(4157), Sep., PP1124-1131.
[198]Tversky, A.& Kahneman, D.,1979, "A Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk", Econometrica, Vol.47(2), Mar., PP263-291.
[199]Vagneur, K., Peiperl, M.,2000, "Reconsidering performance evaluative style", Accounting Organisations and Society,Vol.25(4-5), May., PP:511-525.
[200]Van der Stede, W. A., Young, M. S., Chen, C. X.,2005, "Assessing the Quality of Evidence in Empirical Management Accounting Research:The Case of Survey Studies", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.,30(7-8), Oct.-Nov., PP655-684.
[201]Webb, R. A.,2004, "Managers'commitment to the goals contained in a strategic performance measurement system", Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.21, PP925-958.
[202]Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., Lofquist, L. H.,1967, Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center.
[203]Williamson,O. E.,1975, Markets and Hierachies, New York:The Free Press,PP30-35.
[204]Wim, A., Young., S.M., C. Xiaoling.,2005, "Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research:The case of survey studies", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.30(7-8), Oct.-Nov., PP655-684.
[205]Zhang, S.,& A. B. Markman,1998, "Overcoming the early entrant advantage:The role of alignable and nonalignable differences", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.35, Nov., PP413-426.
[206]Zhang, S.,& A. B. Markman,2001, "Processing product unique features:Alignability and involvement in preference construction, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.11 (1),PP13-27.