基于战略的业务单元业绩评价研究
|
摘要
20世纪80年代以来,企业经营环境和管理方式发生了重大变化,使得传统的基于财务指标的业绩评价体系的局限性日益显现出来。为此,学术界和实务界越来越多地致力于新业绩评价指标的开发。20世纪90年代关于业绩评价改进的探索主要有两种思路,第一种采用EVA等反映经济收益的财务指标,第二种是在财务指标的基础上,增加具有前瞻性的、反映核心竞争力的非财务指标。EVA指标能够揭示企业创造价值增值和股东财富的能力,但仍然不能克服财务指标本身的缺陷。Kaplan和Norton于1992年提出的平衡记分卡(BSC),提倡财务指标与非财务指标的结合和多重业绩评价指标的使用,从财务、顾客、内部经营流程、学习与成长四个各有侧重又相互联系的方面,全面评价企业经营业绩,较好地克服了传统业绩评价的不足。同时,它将企业的战略目标转化为一套具体的业绩评价指标,有助于所有部门和员工更好地理解和执行经营战略。因此,BSC不仅是一种全面的业绩评价体系,而且是一个有效的战略管理工具。BSC自创立以来,已经在越来越多的企业中得到了广泛应用。
第二次世界大战以后,世界各国企业规模急剧扩大,形成了很多实行多元化经营和跨国经营的大公司和企业集团,基于事业部制的分权管理成为多元化企业管理内部组织的主要形式。分权管理赋予各业务单元管理人员根据产品和市场特点进行决策的自主权,大大提高了市场响应速度和决策有效性,并能充分调动管理人员的积极性和创造力。但分权管理也加剧了上下级管理人员之间的信息不对称,使委托代理问题更加突出。全面、正确地评价业务单元的经营业绩,是促进业务单元采取与企业整体利益一致的决策和行为、降低代理成本的重要手段。
当前学术界关于绩效评价的理论研究,基本上是针对企业整体和员工个人两个层次,而忽视了对业务单元业绩评价的研究。仅有整体业绩评价而不考察业务单元在战略执行方面的成绩与问题,无法从根本上实现战略目标、提高经营业绩；同样,员工个人绩效评价只有与业务单元业绩评价结合起来,才能促使全体员工清楚地了解企业和业务单元的战略目标和要求,采取符合企业整体利益的行动。因此,多元化企业对业务单元进行业绩评价具有重要意义,它在企业整体业绩评价和员工绩效评价之间起到了桥梁作用。
多元化企业由不同的业务单元组成,这些业务单元经营不同的产品或服务,在不同的行业和市场领域进行竞争,面临不同的市场机会和风险,因此需要在企业总体战略的框架内制定自己的经营战略。相应地,对业务单元进行业绩评价时,不仅要考虑与企业总体战略的协同,还应当结合业务单元自身的经营战略。BSC是基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系的基本框架。在多元化企业中,除了制定企业层面的BSC,每个业务单元还必须开发出一套适合其独特情况的BSC。
近年来我国学术界关于企业整体业绩评价理论与方法的研究非常众多,但很少有研究涉及战略导向的业务单元业绩评价,有关多重业绩指标应用和提供经验证据的研究,则更是寥寥无几。这些与多重业绩指标应用相关的重要问题包括：基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标设计和选择；业务单元经营战略对业绩评价指标使用的影响,以及业绩指标使用对经营业绩的影响；非财务指标与未来财务业绩的价值相关性,以及情景变量对这一关系的调节作用；公司高管在评价多个业绩单元业绩时的认知偏差及其解决措施。在国外,近几年针对上述问题的实证研究已经成为管理会计研究的热点,并取得了丰富的研究成果。但这些研究由于研究视角、方法和对象的不同,得出的结论也不完全一致。同时,这些研究几乎都是以西方国家为背景,极少有针对中国企业的相关研究,其研究结论是否适用于中国企业还有待验证。正是基于这一考虑,本文综合运用多种研究方法和数据来源,对上述基于战略的业务单元业绩评价中多重业绩指标应用相关问题进行深入的分析和研究,并提供相应的经验证据。本文研究具有较强的理论与现实意义。
本文研究内容包括七章。除了第一章导论外,第二章和第三章的论述旨在形成本文的研究主题——基于战略的业务单元业绩评价。第四到第七章则以多重业绩指标应用为视角,对以BSC为基本框架、以战略为导向的业务单元业绩评价中与多重业绩指标应用相关的四个问题进行研究。各章的主要内容如下：
第1章,导论。本章介绍四个部分的内容。一是交代研究背景和研究意义；二是介绍研究内容和篇章结构安排；三是阐述研究方法；四是总结归纳研究创新点。
第2章,企业经营环境转变与业绩评价体系改进。本章首先阐述了经营业绩评价的基本含义、功能和理论基础,接着在分析企业经营环境和管理方式转变以及传统业绩评价体系特点与不足的基础上,总结了近二十年来业绩评价的改进思路和创新成果,并着重介绍了BSC的基本理论、优点和不足。
第3章,多元化经营、分权管理与业务单元业绩评价。本章阐述企业多元化经营和分权管理组织形式,分权管理引发的委托代理问题以及业绩评价对降低代理成本的作用,企业经营业绩评价的层次性以及多元化企业分层业绩评价体系的构建,业务单元业绩评价的现状和意义,传统业务单元业绩评价模式的不足,以及基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系的构建。
第4章,基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标设计。本章主要阐述基于战略的业绩指标体系设计原则,业务单元的战略分类,并以BSC指标体系为基本框架,探讨如何设计和选择业务单元战略业绩评价指标,最后介绍影响业务单元业绩指标选择的其他权变因素。
第5章,业务单元战略、业绩指标使用与财务业绩相关性的实证研究。本章研究旨在检验业务单元竞争战略对业绩评价指标使用的影响,业绩指标多样化、业绩指标使用与战略之间的匹配是否带来较高的财务业绩。利用93家中国制造企业的调研数据,我们发现：业务单元战略类型及强调程度对财务指标使用没有显著影响；差异化和成本领先战略的强调程度分别与非财务指标、成本效率指标的使用程度正相关；财务指标使用程度对财务业绩没有显著影响；业绩指标多样化程度较高的业务单元,其财务业绩也显著较高；成本效率指标使用与成本领先战略、非财务指标使用与差异化战略之间的匹配对财务业绩有正面影响。
第6章,顾客满意度与财务业绩的相关性研究——产品竞争程度的调节作用。本章研究旨在检验产品顾客满意度与未来财务业绩之间是否存在正相关关系,以及产品竞争程度对这一关系的调节作用。该研究以中国顾客满意度指数(CCSI)为自变量,以6个财务指标为因变量。研究发现,CCSI较高的业务单元和企业,其未来财务业绩也显著较高；产品竞争程度较高的业务单元,CCSI与财务业绩之间的正相关程度更高。
第7章,多业务单元业绩评价中公司高管认知偏差研究——BSC实验研究的证据。以往研究发现公司高管在评价多个业务单元业绩时存在共性指标偏好,大大削弱了BSC的应用价值。本章在分析共性指标偏好形成原因并借鉴已有研究的基础上,提出了两种减轻认知偏差的措施。实验结果表明共性指标偏好在中国管理者中同样存在,无论是改进战略表述还是激发认知努力,都显著提高了评价者赋予独特性指标的权重、减轻了认知偏差的程度。
本文研究的创新点主要体现在以下几个方面：
第一,本文详细阐述了多元化企业中业绩评价的层次性,业务单元业绩评价对解决分权管理代理问题的作用,业务单元业绩评价的意义和现状,并构建了基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系。同时,论文对基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标的设计和选择问题进行了深入探讨。
第二,关于业务单元战略、业绩指标使用和财务业绩相关性的实证研究,本文运用问卷调查获得中国制造企业数据,提供了这方面研究的经验证据。该研究以单一经营企业和业务单元为样本,在测度成本领先或差异化战略类型和战略强调程度的基础上,检验战略选择与业绩指标使用,以及业绩指标使用与财务业绩之间的相关关系。
第三,关于顾客满意度与未来财务业绩的价值相关性研究,本文提供了这方面研究的中国背景证据,在国内首次使用CCSI指数检验非财务指标与财务业绩之间的价值相关性。论文使用6个财务指标反映业务单元和多元化企业的财务业绩,并且引入产品竞争程度这一调节变量,分析其对满意度——财务业绩关系的影响。
第四,关于多业务单元业绩评价中公司高管认知偏差的研究,本文开展实验研究证实共性指标偏好在中国管理人员中间同样存在,并且提出了两种切实可行的、减轻认知偏差的措施并证明具有显著效果,这对于充分发挥BSC的全面业绩评价和战略管理功能,具有较强的理论和实践意义。
Since the 80s of the 20th Century, major changes have occurred in enterprise business environment and management manners, which make increasingly apparent the limitation of the traditional performance measurement system based on financial measures. For this reason, many academics and practitioners made great efforts to develop new performance evaluating measures. There are two main ideas on the exploration of improving the performance evaluation since the 90s of the 20th Century. The first way is to use new financial measures such as EVA reflecting economics income, and the other way is adding nonfinancial measures being forward-looking and reflecting companies'core competence to financial measures. EVA can reveal enterprises'capability creating the value added and stockholder wealth, but still can't overcome the inherent defects of the financial indicators. The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) put forward by Kaplan and Norton in 1992 advocates the combination of nonfinancial measures and financial measures and the use of multiple performance measures, evaluating companies'business performance in the round from four different and interrelated aspects including financial, customer, internal process, learning and development dimensions, thus overcoming effectively the shortcoming of the traditional performance evaluation. Meanwhile, the BSC translates the strategic goals into a series of specific performance evaluation measures, helping all departments and employee understand and complement the business strategy better. Hence, not only is BSC an all-sided performance evaluation system, but also an effective strategy complementation tool. Since its creation, BSC has been widely used in more and more companies.
After World WarⅡ, enterprises around the world expanded their scale rapidly and formed a lot of diversified and multinational large companies or enterprise groups. In this case, decentralized management based on the division structure became the main form of diversified companies to manage their internal organizations. Decentralized management authorizes each business unit manager the right of decision making according to its product and marker features. Doing this can improve largely the marker responding speed and decision-making effectiveness, and fully mobilize the enthusiasm and creativity of business unit managers. On the other side, decentralized management aggravates the extent of information asymmetry between upper and lower managers, making the principle-agent problem more prominent. Evaluating the operating performance of business units is an important means to promote business unit managers adopting decisions and behaviors in line with company entire interests and lower agency costs.
Current academic research on performance evaluation is basically related to company as a whole and individual employee, neglecting performance evaluation for business units. It is not enough to achieve strategic goals and improve business performance that only evaluate the performance of the whole company without assessing achievements and problems of business units in complementing business strategies; Similarly, only when the performance evaluation for individual employee is combined with business unit performance evaluation, can it make all of employees understand clearly strategic goals and requirements of the company and its business units, taking actions consistent with the interests of the company as a whole. Therefore, it is of great significance for the diversified company to evaluate the performance of its business units, which serves as a bridge between the performance measurement of the whole company and individual employees.
A diversified company is composed of a number of different business units, which operate different products and services, compete in different industries and marker areas, and face with different market opportunities and risks, so they need to develop their own business strategies within the framework of the overall company strategy. Accordingly, when evaluating the performance of its business units, not only should company management consider the strategic collaboration between the company and business units, but also combine performance assessment with the specific strategies of business units. BSC acts as a basic., framework of business unit performance evaluation. Therefore, in addition to developing a set of BSC at company level, each business unit must develop its own BSC adapting to its unique condition.
In recent years, researchers in our country have conducted numerous studies on performance evaluation theory and methods for enterprises as a whole, but these studies are seldom involved in the business unit performance evaluation oriented by strategy, and even less studies are related to the application of multiple performance measures and provide empirical evidences. These important issues relevant to the application of multiple performance measures include:the design and choice of performance measures in business unit performance evaluation based on strategy; the impact of business unit strategy on the use of performance measures in its performance assessment, and the impact of the use of performance measures on business unit performance; the value relevance of nonfinancial measures and future financial performance, and the moderating role that contextual factors play in these relationships; the cognitive biases and its solutions when company executives evaluate the performance of business units. Empirical studies addressed on above issues have become research highlights of management accounting in many countries, and have obtained abundant research achievements. However, their research conclusions are not consistent because of their differences in research perspectives, methods and objects. Furthermore, almost all of these studies were addressed under the background of western countries, and there are very few relevant studies aimed at Chinese enterprises, so it has yet to be verified if these study findings are applicable to Chinese enterprises. Just based on this consideration, this article uses a variety of research methods and data sources, and carries out an in-depth analysis and research for above-mentioned questions relating to the application of multiple performance measures in business unit performance evaluation based on strategy, and provides corresponding empirical evidences. This study has strong theoretical and practical significance.
This article is composed of seven chapters. Additional to the introduction in chapter 1, chapter 2 and chapter 3 are aimed at forming the research theme of this article-- strategy-based business unit performance evaluation. From the perspective of the use of multiple performance measures, subsequent four chapters of this article conduct a study on four issues relevant to the application of multiple performance measures with BSC as framework in strategy-based performance evaluation of business units. The main content of each chapter are as follows:
Chapter 1 is the introduction of this article. This chapter presents four parts of content:the first part tells research background and significance of this article; the second part describes research content and their structural arrangement; the third part talks about research methods employed by this article; the fourth one is to summarize the points of research innovation.
Chapter 2 discusses changes in enterprise business environment and the improvement in performance evaluation. This chapter at first illustrates the basic meaning, functions and theoretical basis of business performance evaluation. On the basis of the analysis of changes in business environment and management mode, and the features and disadvantages of the traditional performance evaluation system, this chapter summarizes improvement ideas and innovation achievements on performance evaluation, and then sets forth the basic theory, advantages and disadvantages of the BSC.
Chapter 3 addresses diversification, decentralized management and business unit performance evaluation. This chapter describes business diversification and the organizational structure of decentralized management, the principle-agent problem caused by decentralized management and the role that performance evaluation plays in lowering agent costs, the hierarchy of business performance evaluation and the establishment of multilevel performance evaluation in decentralized companies, the current situation and significance of business unit performance evaluation, the shortcoming of the traditional mode business unit performance evaluation, and the establishment of strategy-based business unit performance evaluation.
Chapter 4 discusses the design of performance measures in strategy-based business unit performance evaluation. This chapter talks about the design of performance measures based on strategy, the classification of business unit strategy, and discusses how to design and choose strategic performance evaluating measures of business units, and other contingent factors affecting the use of business unit performance measures.
Chapter 5 talks about the empirical study on the relationship between business unit strategy, the use of performance measures and financial performance. This chapter aims at investigating the impact of the competing strategy of business units on the use of performance evaluation, and whether the diversification of performance measures or the match between the use of performance measures and strategy leads to higher financial performance. Using survey data from 93 Chinese manufacturing firms, we find that:the strategic types of business units and its emphasis degree have no significant impact on the use of financial measures; the emphasis degree of differentiation and cost leadership strategy is positively related to the extent of use of nonfinancial and cost-efficiency measures respectively; the extent of use of financial measures does not affect financial performance significantly; business units with greater diversification of performance measure have significantly higher financial performance; the match between the use of cost-efficiency measures and the cost leadership strategy or between the use of nonfinancial measures and differentiation strategy has positive impact on the financial performance of business units.
Chapter 6 discusses the study on the relationship between customer satisfactory and financial performance-- the moderating effect of product competition. This chapter wants to test if there is a positive relationship between product customer satisfactory and future financial performance, and if product competition exerts a moderating effect on this relationship. This study employs Chinese Customer Satisfactory Index (SSCI) as independent variable and six financial measures as dependent variables. This study suggests that the business units (or companies) with higher product SSCI have significantly higher future financial performance, and for business units (or companies) with higher product competition, there is a stronger positive relevance between CCSI and financial performance.
Chapter 7 discusses the study on the cognitive bias of company executives in the performance evaluation for multiple business units--evidences'from a BSC experimental study. Prior studies found that there is a problem of common measure bias when senior executives evaluate the performance of business units, which impairs greatly the application value of the BSC. This study proposes two methods of alleviating the cognitive bias on the basis of analysis for causes of common measure bias and existing researches, i.e., improving strategy description to enhance evaluators'understanding of the strategy of business units and unique measures, and adopting a disaggregated evaluating pattern with requirement to justify performance evaluation so as to stimulate evaluators'cognitive effort. Results of the experimental study confirm the existence of the common measures bias among Chinese managers, and suggest that either of two measures proposed increases significantly the weight evaluators assign to unique measures, and lighten the degree of the cognitive bias.
The innovation.points of this article are mainly embodied in following aspects:
Firstly, this article illustrates in detailed the hierarchy of business performance evaluation, the role that performance evaluation plays in solving the agent problem, the significance and current situation of business unit performance evaluation, and then develops a strategy-based business unit performance evaluation system. Furthermore, this article conducts an in-depth investigation for the problem of the design and choice of performance measures in strategy-based business unit performance evaluation.
Secondly, as for the empirical study on the relationship between the competitive strategy of business units, the use of performance measures and financial performance, this article uses survey to obtain data of Chinese manufacturing firms, and provides empirical evidences on this kind of research. This study takes single-business firms and business units of diversified companies as research samples, and on the basis of measurement of the strategy types of cost leadership or differentiation and their emphasis degree, investigating the relationship between the strategy choice of business units, the use of performance measures and their financial performance.
Thirdly, as for the study on the relationship between customer satisfactory and future financial performance, this article provides Chinese background evidences about this research theme, and utilizes CCSI for the first time in China to examine the value relevance between nonfinancial and financial measures. This article uses six financial measures to reflect the financial performance of business units and diversified companies, and introduces product competition as moderating variable to examine its impact on the satisfactory-performance relationship.
Fourthly, as for the study on the cognitive bias of company executives in the performance evaluation for multiple business units, this article conducts an experimental study and conforms that there is also common measure bias among Chinese managers, and proposes two feasible measures of alleviating the cognitive bias and finds that either of them has obvious effect. The study in this chapter has strong theoretical and practical significance for exerting fully the function of BSC in all-sided performance evaluation and strategy management.
第二次世界大战以后,世界各国企业规模急剧扩大,形成了很多实行多元化经营和跨国经营的大公司和企业集团,基于事业部制的分权管理成为多元化企业管理内部组织的主要形式。分权管理赋予各业务单元管理人员根据产品和市场特点进行决策的自主权,大大提高了市场响应速度和决策有效性,并能充分调动管理人员的积极性和创造力。但分权管理也加剧了上下级管理人员之间的信息不对称,使委托代理问题更加突出。全面、正确地评价业务单元的经营业绩,是促进业务单元采取与企业整体利益一致的决策和行为、降低代理成本的重要手段。
当前学术界关于绩效评价的理论研究,基本上是针对企业整体和员工个人两个层次,而忽视了对业务单元业绩评价的研究。仅有整体业绩评价而不考察业务单元在战略执行方面的成绩与问题,无法从根本上实现战略目标、提高经营业绩；同样,员工个人绩效评价只有与业务单元业绩评价结合起来,才能促使全体员工清楚地了解企业和业务单元的战略目标和要求,采取符合企业整体利益的行动。因此,多元化企业对业务单元进行业绩评价具有重要意义,它在企业整体业绩评价和员工绩效评价之间起到了桥梁作用。
多元化企业由不同的业务单元组成,这些业务单元经营不同的产品或服务,在不同的行业和市场领域进行竞争,面临不同的市场机会和风险,因此需要在企业总体战略的框架内制定自己的经营战略。相应地,对业务单元进行业绩评价时,不仅要考虑与企业总体战略的协同,还应当结合业务单元自身的经营战略。BSC是基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系的基本框架。在多元化企业中,除了制定企业层面的BSC,每个业务单元还必须开发出一套适合其独特情况的BSC。
近年来我国学术界关于企业整体业绩评价理论与方法的研究非常众多,但很少有研究涉及战略导向的业务单元业绩评价,有关多重业绩指标应用和提供经验证据的研究,则更是寥寥无几。这些与多重业绩指标应用相关的重要问题包括：基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标设计和选择；业务单元经营战略对业绩评价指标使用的影响,以及业绩指标使用对经营业绩的影响；非财务指标与未来财务业绩的价值相关性,以及情景变量对这一关系的调节作用；公司高管在评价多个业绩单元业绩时的认知偏差及其解决措施。在国外,近几年针对上述问题的实证研究已经成为管理会计研究的热点,并取得了丰富的研究成果。但这些研究由于研究视角、方法和对象的不同,得出的结论也不完全一致。同时,这些研究几乎都是以西方国家为背景,极少有针对中国企业的相关研究,其研究结论是否适用于中国企业还有待验证。正是基于这一考虑,本文综合运用多种研究方法和数据来源,对上述基于战略的业务单元业绩评价中多重业绩指标应用相关问题进行深入的分析和研究,并提供相应的经验证据。本文研究具有较强的理论与现实意义。
本文研究内容包括七章。除了第一章导论外,第二章和第三章的论述旨在形成本文的研究主题——基于战略的业务单元业绩评价。第四到第七章则以多重业绩指标应用为视角,对以BSC为基本框架、以战略为导向的业务单元业绩评价中与多重业绩指标应用相关的四个问题进行研究。各章的主要内容如下：
第1章,导论。本章介绍四个部分的内容。一是交代研究背景和研究意义；二是介绍研究内容和篇章结构安排；三是阐述研究方法；四是总结归纳研究创新点。
第2章,企业经营环境转变与业绩评价体系改进。本章首先阐述了经营业绩评价的基本含义、功能和理论基础,接着在分析企业经营环境和管理方式转变以及传统业绩评价体系特点与不足的基础上,总结了近二十年来业绩评价的改进思路和创新成果,并着重介绍了BSC的基本理论、优点和不足。
第3章,多元化经营、分权管理与业务单元业绩评价。本章阐述企业多元化经营和分权管理组织形式,分权管理引发的委托代理问题以及业绩评价对降低代理成本的作用,企业经营业绩评价的层次性以及多元化企业分层业绩评价体系的构建,业务单元业绩评价的现状和意义,传统业务单元业绩评价模式的不足,以及基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系的构建。
第4章,基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标设计。本章主要阐述基于战略的业绩指标体系设计原则,业务单元的战略分类,并以BSC指标体系为基本框架,探讨如何设计和选择业务单元战略业绩评价指标,最后介绍影响业务单元业绩指标选择的其他权变因素。
第5章,业务单元战略、业绩指标使用与财务业绩相关性的实证研究。本章研究旨在检验业务单元竞争战略对业绩评价指标使用的影响,业绩指标多样化、业绩指标使用与战略之间的匹配是否带来较高的财务业绩。利用93家中国制造企业的调研数据,我们发现：业务单元战略类型及强调程度对财务指标使用没有显著影响；差异化和成本领先战略的强调程度分别与非财务指标、成本效率指标的使用程度正相关；财务指标使用程度对财务业绩没有显著影响；业绩指标多样化程度较高的业务单元,其财务业绩也显著较高；成本效率指标使用与成本领先战略、非财务指标使用与差异化战略之间的匹配对财务业绩有正面影响。
第6章,顾客满意度与财务业绩的相关性研究——产品竞争程度的调节作用。本章研究旨在检验产品顾客满意度与未来财务业绩之间是否存在正相关关系,以及产品竞争程度对这一关系的调节作用。该研究以中国顾客满意度指数(CCSI)为自变量,以6个财务指标为因变量。研究发现,CCSI较高的业务单元和企业,其未来财务业绩也显著较高；产品竞争程度较高的业务单元,CCSI与财务业绩之间的正相关程度更高。
第7章,多业务单元业绩评价中公司高管认知偏差研究——BSC实验研究的证据。以往研究发现公司高管在评价多个业务单元业绩时存在共性指标偏好,大大削弱了BSC的应用价值。本章在分析共性指标偏好形成原因并借鉴已有研究的基础上,提出了两种减轻认知偏差的措施。实验结果表明共性指标偏好在中国管理者中同样存在,无论是改进战略表述还是激发认知努力,都显著提高了评价者赋予独特性指标的权重、减轻了认知偏差的程度。
本文研究的创新点主要体现在以下几个方面：
第一,本文详细阐述了多元化企业中业绩评价的层次性,业务单元业绩评价对解决分权管理代理问题的作用,业务单元业绩评价的意义和现状,并构建了基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系。同时,论文对基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标的设计和选择问题进行了深入探讨。
第二,关于业务单元战略、业绩指标使用和财务业绩相关性的实证研究,本文运用问卷调查获得中国制造企业数据,提供了这方面研究的经验证据。该研究以单一经营企业和业务单元为样本,在测度成本领先或差异化战略类型和战略强调程度的基础上,检验战略选择与业绩指标使用,以及业绩指标使用与财务业绩之间的相关关系。
第三,关于顾客满意度与未来财务业绩的价值相关性研究,本文提供了这方面研究的中国背景证据,在国内首次使用CCSI指数检验非财务指标与财务业绩之间的价值相关性。论文使用6个财务指标反映业务单元和多元化企业的财务业绩,并且引入产品竞争程度这一调节变量,分析其对满意度——财务业绩关系的影响。
第四,关于多业务单元业绩评价中公司高管认知偏差的研究,本文开展实验研究证实共性指标偏好在中国管理人员中间同样存在,并且提出了两种切实可行的、减轻认知偏差的措施并证明具有显著效果,这对于充分发挥BSC的全面业绩评价和战略管理功能,具有较强的理论和实践意义。
Since the 80s of the 20th Century, major changes have occurred in enterprise business environment and management manners, which make increasingly apparent the limitation of the traditional performance measurement system based on financial measures. For this reason, many academics and practitioners made great efforts to develop new performance evaluating measures. There are two main ideas on the exploration of improving the performance evaluation since the 90s of the 20th Century. The first way is to use new financial measures such as EVA reflecting economics income, and the other way is adding nonfinancial measures being forward-looking and reflecting companies'core competence to financial measures. EVA can reveal enterprises'capability creating the value added and stockholder wealth, but still can't overcome the inherent defects of the financial indicators. The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) put forward by Kaplan and Norton in 1992 advocates the combination of nonfinancial measures and financial measures and the use of multiple performance measures, evaluating companies'business performance in the round from four different and interrelated aspects including financial, customer, internal process, learning and development dimensions, thus overcoming effectively the shortcoming of the traditional performance evaluation. Meanwhile, the BSC translates the strategic goals into a series of specific performance evaluation measures, helping all departments and employee understand and complement the business strategy better. Hence, not only is BSC an all-sided performance evaluation system, but also an effective strategy complementation tool. Since its creation, BSC has been widely used in more and more companies.
After World WarⅡ, enterprises around the world expanded their scale rapidly and formed a lot of diversified and multinational large companies or enterprise groups. In this case, decentralized management based on the division structure became the main form of diversified companies to manage their internal organizations. Decentralized management authorizes each business unit manager the right of decision making according to its product and marker features. Doing this can improve largely the marker responding speed and decision-making effectiveness, and fully mobilize the enthusiasm and creativity of business unit managers. On the other side, decentralized management aggravates the extent of information asymmetry between upper and lower managers, making the principle-agent problem more prominent. Evaluating the operating performance of business units is an important means to promote business unit managers adopting decisions and behaviors in line with company entire interests and lower agency costs.
Current academic research on performance evaluation is basically related to company as a whole and individual employee, neglecting performance evaluation for business units. It is not enough to achieve strategic goals and improve business performance that only evaluate the performance of the whole company without assessing achievements and problems of business units in complementing business strategies; Similarly, only when the performance evaluation for individual employee is combined with business unit performance evaluation, can it make all of employees understand clearly strategic goals and requirements of the company and its business units, taking actions consistent with the interests of the company as a whole. Therefore, it is of great significance for the diversified company to evaluate the performance of its business units, which serves as a bridge between the performance measurement of the whole company and individual employees.
A diversified company is composed of a number of different business units, which operate different products and services, compete in different industries and marker areas, and face with different market opportunities and risks, so they need to develop their own business strategies within the framework of the overall company strategy. Accordingly, when evaluating the performance of its business units, not only should company management consider the strategic collaboration between the company and business units, but also combine performance assessment with the specific strategies of business units. BSC acts as a basic., framework of business unit performance evaluation. Therefore, in addition to developing a set of BSC at company level, each business unit must develop its own BSC adapting to its unique condition.
In recent years, researchers in our country have conducted numerous studies on performance evaluation theory and methods for enterprises as a whole, but these studies are seldom involved in the business unit performance evaluation oriented by strategy, and even less studies are related to the application of multiple performance measures and provide empirical evidences. These important issues relevant to the application of multiple performance measures include:the design and choice of performance measures in business unit performance evaluation based on strategy; the impact of business unit strategy on the use of performance measures in its performance assessment, and the impact of the use of performance measures on business unit performance; the value relevance of nonfinancial measures and future financial performance, and the moderating role that contextual factors play in these relationships; the cognitive biases and its solutions when company executives evaluate the performance of business units. Empirical studies addressed on above issues have become research highlights of management accounting in many countries, and have obtained abundant research achievements. However, their research conclusions are not consistent because of their differences in research perspectives, methods and objects. Furthermore, almost all of these studies were addressed under the background of western countries, and there are very few relevant studies aimed at Chinese enterprises, so it has yet to be verified if these study findings are applicable to Chinese enterprises. Just based on this consideration, this article uses a variety of research methods and data sources, and carries out an in-depth analysis and research for above-mentioned questions relating to the application of multiple performance measures in business unit performance evaluation based on strategy, and provides corresponding empirical evidences. This study has strong theoretical and practical significance.
This article is composed of seven chapters. Additional to the introduction in chapter 1, chapter 2 and chapter 3 are aimed at forming the research theme of this article-- strategy-based business unit performance evaluation. From the perspective of the use of multiple performance measures, subsequent four chapters of this article conduct a study on four issues relevant to the application of multiple performance measures with BSC as framework in strategy-based performance evaluation of business units. The main content of each chapter are as follows:
Chapter 1 is the introduction of this article. This chapter presents four parts of content:the first part tells research background and significance of this article; the second part describes research content and their structural arrangement; the third part talks about research methods employed by this article; the fourth one is to summarize the points of research innovation.
Chapter 2 discusses changes in enterprise business environment and the improvement in performance evaluation. This chapter at first illustrates the basic meaning, functions and theoretical basis of business performance evaluation. On the basis of the analysis of changes in business environment and management mode, and the features and disadvantages of the traditional performance evaluation system, this chapter summarizes improvement ideas and innovation achievements on performance evaluation, and then sets forth the basic theory, advantages and disadvantages of the BSC.
Chapter 3 addresses diversification, decentralized management and business unit performance evaluation. This chapter describes business diversification and the organizational structure of decentralized management, the principle-agent problem caused by decentralized management and the role that performance evaluation plays in lowering agent costs, the hierarchy of business performance evaluation and the establishment of multilevel performance evaluation in decentralized companies, the current situation and significance of business unit performance evaluation, the shortcoming of the traditional mode business unit performance evaluation, and the establishment of strategy-based business unit performance evaluation.
Chapter 4 discusses the design of performance measures in strategy-based business unit performance evaluation. This chapter talks about the design of performance measures based on strategy, the classification of business unit strategy, and discusses how to design and choose strategic performance evaluating measures of business units, and other contingent factors affecting the use of business unit performance measures.
Chapter 5 talks about the empirical study on the relationship between business unit strategy, the use of performance measures and financial performance. This chapter aims at investigating the impact of the competing strategy of business units on the use of performance evaluation, and whether the diversification of performance measures or the match between the use of performance measures and strategy leads to higher financial performance. Using survey data from 93 Chinese manufacturing firms, we find that:the strategic types of business units and its emphasis degree have no significant impact on the use of financial measures; the emphasis degree of differentiation and cost leadership strategy is positively related to the extent of use of nonfinancial and cost-efficiency measures respectively; the extent of use of financial measures does not affect financial performance significantly; business units with greater diversification of performance measure have significantly higher financial performance; the match between the use of cost-efficiency measures and the cost leadership strategy or between the use of nonfinancial measures and differentiation strategy has positive impact on the financial performance of business units.
Chapter 6 discusses the study on the relationship between customer satisfactory and financial performance-- the moderating effect of product competition. This chapter wants to test if there is a positive relationship between product customer satisfactory and future financial performance, and if product competition exerts a moderating effect on this relationship. This study employs Chinese Customer Satisfactory Index (SSCI) as independent variable and six financial measures as dependent variables. This study suggests that the business units (or companies) with higher product SSCI have significantly higher future financial performance, and for business units (or companies) with higher product competition, there is a stronger positive relevance between CCSI and financial performance.
Chapter 7 discusses the study on the cognitive bias of company executives in the performance evaluation for multiple business units--evidences'from a BSC experimental study. Prior studies found that there is a problem of common measure bias when senior executives evaluate the performance of business units, which impairs greatly the application value of the BSC. This study proposes two methods of alleviating the cognitive bias on the basis of analysis for causes of common measure bias and existing researches, i.e., improving strategy description to enhance evaluators'understanding of the strategy of business units and unique measures, and adopting a disaggregated evaluating pattern with requirement to justify performance evaluation so as to stimulate evaluators'cognitive effort. Results of the experimental study confirm the existence of the common measures bias among Chinese managers, and suggest that either of two measures proposed increases significantly the weight evaluators assign to unique measures, and lighten the degree of the cognitive bias.
The innovation.points of this article are mainly embodied in following aspects:
Firstly, this article illustrates in detailed the hierarchy of business performance evaluation, the role that performance evaluation plays in solving the agent problem, the significance and current situation of business unit performance evaluation, and then develops a strategy-based business unit performance evaluation system. Furthermore, this article conducts an in-depth investigation for the problem of the design and choice of performance measures in strategy-based business unit performance evaluation.
Secondly, as for the empirical study on the relationship between the competitive strategy of business units, the use of performance measures and financial performance, this article uses survey to obtain data of Chinese manufacturing firms, and provides empirical evidences on this kind of research. This study takes single-business firms and business units of diversified companies as research samples, and on the basis of measurement of the strategy types of cost leadership or differentiation and their emphasis degree, investigating the relationship between the strategy choice of business units, the use of performance measures and their financial performance.
Thirdly, as for the study on the relationship between customer satisfactory and future financial performance, this article provides Chinese background evidences about this research theme, and utilizes CCSI for the first time in China to examine the value relevance between nonfinancial and financial measures. This article uses six financial measures to reflect the financial performance of business units and diversified companies, and introduces product competition as moderating variable to examine its impact on the satisfactory-performance relationship.
Fourthly, as for the study on the cognitive bias of company executives in the performance evaluation for multiple business units, this article conducts an experimental study and conforms that there is also common measure bias among Chinese managers, and proposes two feasible measures of alleviating the cognitive bias and finds that either of them has obvious effect. The study in this chapter has strong theoretical and practical significance for exerting fully the function of BSC in all-sided performance evaluation and strategy management.
引文
①张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社，2002，1.
②财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999，1.
③陈思维,王会金,王晓霞,经济效益审计[M].北京：中国时代经济出版社,2002,3.
①冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2002,1.
①财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999,2.
②张兆国.高级财务管理[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2002.
①马璐.企业战略性绩效评价系统研究[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2004,4.
②孟建民.中国企业效绩评价[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002,2-3.
③李苹莉.经营者业绩评价——利益相关者模式[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001,3.
④张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002,3.
①组织行为理论对企业经营业绩评价的影响主要参考：王化成.企业业绩评价[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004,23-25.
①关于传统企业经营业绩评价体系的基本特征和不足的阐述,较多地参考和总结了张蕊和王化成的相关研究论文。
① Christopher D. Ittner, David F. Larcker.1998. Innovation in Performance Measurement:Trends and Research Implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,10,205-238.
② Mark L. Frigo.2002. Nonfinancial performance measures and strategy execution. Strategy Finance [J],8(8): 6-9.
③ Mark L. Frigo.2002. Strategy, performance measures and strategy execution [J]. Strategy Finance,84(8): 6-8.
①彼得·F·德鲁克等.公问绩效测评[M],李焰、江娅译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.
②Lynch, R. and K. Cross.1991. Measure up! yardsticks for continuous improvement [M]. Cambridge, Mass: Basil Blacemell.
①李敬.多元化战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2002,1-2.
① Chandler, A. D.1962. Strategy and structure:Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise [M]. Anchor Books, New York.
① Chandler, A. D.1962. Strategy and Structure:Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
② Chang, S. J., Choi, U.1988. Strategy, Structure and Perfor mance of Korean Business Groups [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,37:141-158.
① Birkinshaw, JA. M. Configuration of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations [J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1995:729-753.
②银温泉.国外企业的内部组织结构[J].管理现代化,1995(04),59-62.
① Jensen, M. C., and W. E. Meckling.1992. Special and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure in Contract Economics [M], edited by L. Werin and H. Wijkander. Cambridge, UK:Blackwell.
①辞海.上海辞书出版社.1989,465
①关于公司战略的类型,主要参考：肖刚.现代企业战略经营学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2008,237-252.
①关于波特的基本竞争战略的分类,主要参考：刘庆元.战略管理：分析、制定与实施.北京：中央广播电视大学出版社,2006,214-228.
①罗伯特·卡普兰,大卫·诺顿著.刘俊勇,孙薇译.平衡记分卡——化战略为行动[M].广州：广东经济出版社,2004,26-28.
[1]艾健明,柯大钢.多元化战略与管理保护：基于中国上市公司进入新行业的视角[J].管理评论,2007(04)：29-34.
[2]彼得·F·德鲁克等.公问绩效测评[M],李焰、江娅译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.
[3]卜令英.企业业绩评价主体多元化的原因及影响[J].财会通讯·理财版,2006(02)：35-36.
[4]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].北京：经济科学出版社.
[5]陈佳俊.企业战略、管理控制与业绩评价的权变分析[D].厦门大学博士论文,2003.
[6]陈幼其.战略管理教程[M].上海：立信会计出版社,2003.
[7]程丹.平衡计分卡在实施中的困难及应注意的问题[J].社会科学家,2005(05)：388-390.
[8]池国华.基于发展逻辑的管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].南开管理评论,2009(02)：24-30.
[9]池国华.基于价值创造的上市公司经营业绩评价指标体系[M].会计之友(上),2009(09)：105-106.
[10]池国华.基于企业生命周期的绩效评价制度研究——以制造业企业为例[J].经济问题探索,2005(07)：66-69.
[11]辞海[M].上海：上海辞书出版社.1989.
[12]杜胜利.平衡计分卡的理论框架和管理体系[J].财政研究,2007(09)：70-73.
[13]范容慧,刘二丽,蓝海林.企业集团管理控制研究综述[J].科技与管理,2009(06)：29-31.
[14]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2002.
[15]冯巧根.组织结构变迁对管理会计研究的影响[J].会计研究,2000(03)：24-30.
[16]高德山,郑少锋,廖正华.平衡计分卡业绩评价体系各层次指标权重的确定[J].当代经济管理,2006(03)：125-128.
[17]高峻.企业经营业绩评价层次性指标体系框架的建立[J].武汉科技大学(社会科学版),2006(06)：63-67.
[18]古继宝,杨春明,梁樑.基于不同竞争战略的平衡记分卡系统[J].科技管理研究,2005(08)：153-155.
[19]郭娟,梁梁.平衡记分卡在不同类型团队绩效评定中的应用[J].管理科学,2004(08)：25-30.
[20]何红渠,孙维.企业成长期战略业绩评价指标选取研究——基于企业财务报表信息[J].财会通讯·综合(中),2009(03)：29-30.
[21]何晴.通用性指标偏好及其实验研究——平衡计分卡在多部门企业中的应用.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(S1).
[22]贺颖奇,陈佳俊.企业战略控制与业绩评价[J].中国审计,2004(16)：61-63.
[23]洪剑峭.企业分权管理和管理控制[J].经济研究,1998(2)：46-50.
[24]黄璐施.中层经理人员的业绩评价——兼论有关非财务指标的使用[J].中山大学研究生学刊(社会科学版)，2003(04)：103-112.
[25]纪咏梅.权变的业绩衡量——谈企业管理业绩评价指标的选择[J].中央财经大学学报,2000(11)：53-57.
[26]解群鸣.基于组织协同的企业集团战略业绩评价研究[J].特区经济,2008(07)：303-304.
[27]晋自力,多元主体公司治理模式与企业的业绩评价[J].江苏论坛,2009(02)：97-98.
[28]李灿.企业经营战略业绩评价研究[D].中南大学博士论文,2005.
[29]李敬.多元化战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2002,1-2.
[30]李敬树,彭俊.平衡记分卡的不足及其改进对策[J].内蒙古科技与经济,2004(14)：91-93.
[31]李苹莉,宁超.关于经营者业绩评价的思考[J].会计研究,2000(05)： 22-27.
[32]李雪,李娜.非财务指标在上市公司业绩评价中的作用[J].税务与经济,2009(03)：60-62.
[33]刘俊勇.战略地图在业绩评价中的有用性检验[C].第五届会计与财务问题国际研讨会——当代管理会计新发展,2005年7月.
[34]刘庆元.企业战略管理[M].北京：中央广播电视大学出版社,2006.
刘植培.平衡计分卡：一种战略性的企业经营业绩评价方法现代管理科学[J],2003(06)：53-54.
[35]刘志彪,姜付秀,卢二坡.资本结构与产品市场竞争强度[J].经济研究,2003(07)：60-67.
[36]卢毅,黄红星,韩玉启.企业内部业绩评价系统的权变性分析[J].技术经济,2006(06)：95-99.
[37]罗彪,季红梅.从业绩管理工具演进看企业集团业绩管理问题[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(12)：151-156.
[38]罗伯特·卡普兰,大卫·诺顿著.刘俊勇,孙薇译.平衡记分卡——化战略为行动[M].广州：广东经济出版社,2004.
[39]马英华.基于企业生命周期理论的企业内部业绩评价[J].财会月刊(上旬),2009(02)：9-10.
[40]付宏,夏清华.中国创业企业的战略选择：差异化还是低成本战略[J].技术经济与管理研究2009(02)：28-32.
[41]毛育晖.论企业经营效绩评价指标体系的设计[J],冶金财会,2004(04)：35-37.
[42]孟建民.中国企业效绩评价[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002.2-3
[43]裴金翔,魏洁.基于战略的多部门企业业绩评价模式初探[J].武汉市经济管理干部学院学报,2004(06)：75-77.
[44]秦杨勇.平衡记分卡与战略管理[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2007.
[45]芮明杰,李想.差异化、成本领先和价值创新——企业竞争优势的一个经济学解释[J].财经问题研究,2007(01)：37-44.
[46]屈林岩,郑若良,王健,李长荣.战略管理与企业经营战略[M].长沙：中南大学出版社,2001.
[47]尚煜.事业部制理论及对中国商业银行的借鉴[J].前沿,2005,(06).
[48]沈亦灵,多元主体下的企业经营绩效评价体系[J],上海经济研究2001(07)：45-49.
[49]石书玲.企业战略业绩评价指标系统选择的主要影响变量[J]天津商学院学报2004(06)：18-21.
[50]宋旭琴,蓝海林.事业部制与多元化企业集团绩效的关系研究[J].软科学,2008(4)：122-125.
[51]苏文兵,熊焰韧,李运,常家瑛,张吉翔.业绩评价中公司特征与非财务指标的选择[J].山西财经大学学报,2009(05)：66-72.
[52]孙建强,王秀华.对业绩评价体系层次性的思考管理纵横[J].2003(09)：150-151.
[53]孙薇,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价：战略的观点[M].北京：中国税务出版社2005.
[54]孙维.基于企业生命周期的战略业绩评价指标体系研究[D].中南大学硕士论文,2008.
[55]汤谷良,王斌,杜菲,付阳.多元化企业集团管理控制体系的整合观——基于华润集团6S的案例分析[J].2009(02),53-60.
[56]田小宝.传统责任会计与现代责任会计比较[J].四川会计,2000(10)：8-9.
[57]万寿义,赵淑惠.企业内部业绩评价多样性的行为影响研究——基于员工激励计划的实证分析[J].山西财经大学学报,2009(03)：77-84.
[58]王春丽,曹建安,张禾.企业绩效的层次性与企业内部组织单元绩效评价[J].科技进步与对策2006(12)：148-151.
[59]王国顺,李灿.建立战略业绩评价指标体系的基本思路[J].财经理论与实践,2005(03)：113-116.
[60]王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价[M].中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[61]王化成,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价模式研究——兼论中国企业业绩评价模式选择[J].管理世界,2004(4)：82-91.
[62]王怀明,吴春燕.产品市场竞争对董事独立性作用的影响[J].产业经济研究,2007(03)：30-37.
[63]王俊飚.试论企业经营业绩评价中的层次性与多样化[J].会计之友2008(04)：68-69.
[64]王玲俊,邱艳,朱鹭宁.股权投资主体视角下的企业成熟期业绩评价指标体系研究[J].2009(11)：138-139.
[65]王颖.基于价值链的企业业绩评价非财务指标选择研究[D].河海大学硕士论文,2005.
[66]王玉立.基于企业生命周期的业绩评价指标体系设计[D],西南财经大学硕士论文,2004.
[67]王中,李兢.浅析企业业绩评价主体演变[J].大众商务2009(02)：24.
[68]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J].心理学报2005(02)：268-274.
[69]肖刚.现代企业战略经营学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2008,237-252.
[70]熊焰韧,李芳.应用平衡记分卡提高企业的执行力——记分卡主观指标及其权重设置生产力研究[J].2007(12)：127-128.
[71]徐操志,许庆瑞.关于业绩评价新范式的思考——基于智力资本的战略评价体系[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(05)：46-50.
[72]徐岩,王玥,滕钰锋.基于权变理论的企业业绩评价[J].财会月刊(下旬),2009(05)：27-28.
[73]杨春明.基于不同竞争战略的平衡记分卡地图[J].价值工程,2004(06)：80-83.
[74]杨立芳.民营企业顾客满意度与财务业绩的实证研究[M].财会通讯·综合(下),2009(06)：133-135.
[75]殷俊明,王平心,吴清华.平衡记分卡研究述评[J].经济管理·新管理,2005(02)：44-49.
[76]银温泉.国外企业的内部组织结构[J].管理现代化,1995(04),59-62.
[77]于景伟.基于战略的企业集团绩效评价体系研究[D].天津大学硕士论文,2003.
[78]于增彪,张双才.企业集团业绩评价系统设计[J].新理财,2007(12)：20-26.
[79]余立宣.浅议战略管理下的业绩评价指标体系[J].企业经 济,2007(01)：53-55.
[80]俞义樵,张维.基于利益相关者的企业经营者业绩评估研究[J],重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2009(01)：48-53.
[81]张川,潘飞,John Robinson.非财务指标与企业财务业绩相关吗[M].中国工业经济,2006(11)：99-107.
[82]张川，潘飞.国内外综合业绩评价体系的研究评述[J].当代财经,2008(04)：121-123.
[83]张禾,李媛,曹建安.多层次平衡计分卡体系研究——由企业整体层面到企业内部组织单元的绩效评价体系[J].科技进步与对策,2009(08)：73-76.
[84]张禾,王丽,曹建安.基于组织背景的企业战略业务单位绩效评价研究[J].科技进步与对策2006(2)：139-141.
[85]张禾,魏迪迪,曹建安.企业内部组织单元与企业整体绩效评价的比较研究[J].财会通讯·综合版,2006(07)：13-15.
[86]张禾,魏靓,曹建安.平衡记分卡指标偏见研究——基于企业内部组织单元绩效评价[C].中国第七届实证会计国际研讨会,2008年12月.
[87]张凯,赵庆晨.企业集团管理控制模式选择及实施[J].2008(01)：40-41.
[88]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002,3.
[89]张书玲,张禾,曹建安.基于战略的企业多层次绩效管理体系的研究[J].科技管理研究,2007(09)：180-182.
[90]张晓燕,胡玉明.基于企业生命周期的绩效评价制度研究一以制造业企业为例[J].经济问题探讨.2005(07)：66-69.
[91]赵淑惠.企业内部业绩评价的行为影响研究综述及对我国的启示[J].会计师,2009(01)：100-102.
[92]赵莹,秦青.多部门企业平衡记分卡的开发[J].软科学2003(02)：92-95.
[93]周慧.集团公司对成员企业绩效评价方法及应用研究[D].南京理工大学硕士论文,2005.
[94]周秀霞.企业业绩评价的权变分析：综述与启示[J].经济研究参考,2008(63)：22-23.
[95]朱明秀.利益相关者价值导向业绩评价：理性透视[J].财会通讯·综合(下),2009(02)：135-137.
[96]祖明,李光英.论企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系与评价模型[J].安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(03)：153-156.
[97]王昱,赵淑惠.企业业绩评价：定义考察与行为内涵分析[M].财会月刊(中),2009(04)：79-80.
[98]Abernethy, M. A.& Lillis, A. M.1995. The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management control system design [J], Accounting, Organizations and Society,20,241-258.
[99]Abernethy, M. A., Guthrie, C.H.,1994. An empirical assessment of the fit between strategy and management information systems design [J]. Acc. Finance.,33,49-66.
[100]Amir, E. and B. Lev.1996. Value-relevance of nonfinancial information:The wireless communications industry [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22 (1):3-30.
[101]Anderson, E. W., and M. W. Sullivan.1993. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms [J]. Management Science,40 (3):405-417.
[102]Anderson, E. W., C. Fomell, and R. T. Rust.1997. Customer satisfaction, productivity and profitability:Differences between goods and services [J]. Marketing Science,16 (2):129-45.
[103]Anderson, E. W., C. Fomell. and D. R. Lehmann.1994. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability [J]: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing,58 (3):53-66.
[104]Andrea, R. D., W. Jeffrey, and R. S. B. Salter.2007. Empowerment, Motivation, and Performance:Examining the Impact of Feedback and Incentives on Nonmanagement Employees [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,19:71-89.
[105]Anthony, R. N. and Govindarajan, V.2007, Management control systems (12th ed.) [M]. McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
[106]Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., and Wells, R. B.1997. A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 1:25-37.
[107]Baker, G.1992. Incentive contracts and performance measurement [J]. Journal of Political Economy,100(3):598-614.
[108]Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and M. Pizzini,2009. The Judgmental Effects of Strategy Maps in Balanced Scorecard Performance Evaluations. Working Paper, Drexel University.
[109]Banker, R. D., Jose M. P., and Chun W. X.2009. Relative Weights on Performance Measures in a Principal--Agent Model with Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection. Working Paper, Temple University.
[110]Banker, R., and R. Mashruwala.2007. The moderating role of competition in the relationship between nonfinancial measures and financial performance [J]. Contemporary Accounting Research,24:763-793.
[111]Banker, R., and S. Datar.1989. Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation [J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 27:21-39.
[112]Banker, R., G. Potter, and D. Srinivasan.2000. An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial measures [J]. The Accounting Review,75:65-92.
[113]Banker, R.D., Hsihui, C. and Mina, J. P.2004. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy [J]. The Accounting Review,79:1-23.
[114]Behn, B., and R. Riley.1999. Using nonfinancial information to predict financial performance:the case of the U.S. airline industry [J]. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance,14:1-29.
[115]Bernard Wong-On-Wing a, Lan Guo, Wei Li, Dan Yang.2007. Reducing conflict in balanced scorecard evaluations [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,32:363-377.
[116]Bernhardt, K. L., N. Donthu, and P.A. Kennett.2000. A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability [J].Journal of Business Research, 47.
[117]Birkinshaw, J. A. M. Configuration of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1995:729-753.
[118]Blutn, M. L., J. C. Naylor. Industrial Psychology:Its Theoretical and Social Foundation [M]. New York. NY:Harper and Row,1968.
[119]Bouwens, J., and Laurence, V. L.2007. Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,45(4):667-69.
[120]Bryant, L., D. Jones, and S. Widener.2004. Managing value creation within the firm:An examination of multiple performance measures [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research 16:107-131.
[121]Bushman, R., E. Engel, and A. Smith.2006. An analysis of the relation between the stewardship and valuation roles of earnings [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,44:53-83.
[122]Butler, A., S. Letza, and B. Neale.1997. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy [J]. Long Range Planning 30 (2):242-253.
[123]Campbell D.2006. An Empirical Investigation of Implicit Incentives for Nonfinancial Performance Improvement. Working Paper, Temple University, Harvard Business School.
[124]Campbell, D., S. Datar, S. Kulp, and V. G. Narayanan.2004. Using the balanced scorecard as a control system for monitoring and revising corporate strategy. Working paper, Harvard Business School.
[125]Campbell-Hunt, C.2000. What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? a meta-analysis [J]. Strategic Management Journal,21,127-154.
[126]Chandler, A. D.1962. Strategy and Structure:Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise [M], Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
[127]Chang, S. J., Choi, U.1988. Strategy, Structure and Performance of Korean Business Groups [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,37:141-158.
[128]Chen, C. X., E. M. Matsumura, J. Y. Shin.2008. The Effect of Competition on the Contracting Use of Customer Satisfaction:Evidence from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) [J]. Working Paper.
[129]Chen, Tien-Hui.2009. Performance measurement of an enterprise and business units with an application to a Taiwanese hotel chain [J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management,8:415-422.
[130]Chenhall, R.,2003. Management control systems design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,28,127-168.
[131]Chenhall, R., Langfield-Smith, K.,1998a. The relationship between strategic priorities, management accounting techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using a systems approach [J]. Ace. Organ. Soc.,23, 243-264.
[132]Chenhall, R., Langfield-Smith, K.,1998b. Adoption and benefits of management accounting practices:an Australian study [J]. Manage. Ace. Res.,9,1-19.
[133]Chenhall, R., Morris, D.,1995. Organic decision and communication processes and management accounting systems in entrepreneurial and conservative business organizations [J]. Omega,23,485-497.
[134]Chong M., Mahfud, S.2005. Financial and nonfinancial performance measures:How do they affect job satisfaction? [J]. The British Accounting Review,37:389-413.
[135]Chong, V. K., Chong, K. M.1997. Strategic choices, environmental uncertainty and SBU performance:a note on the intervening role of management accounting systems [J]. Accounting and Business Research,27, 268-276.
[136]Chow, C. W., K. M. Haddad, and J. E. Williamson.1997. Applying the balanced scorecard to small companies [J]. Management Accounting,79 (2): 21-27.
[137]Chow, C. W., Shields, M. D., and Wu, A.1999. The importance of national culture in the design of and preference for management controls for multi-national operations [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(5-6):441-453.
[138]Christopher D. Ittner, David F. Larcker.1998. Innovation in Performance Measurement:Trends and Research Implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,10,205-238.
[139]Clinton, B. D., and K. C. Hsu.1997. JIT and the balanced scorecard:Linking manufacturing control to management control [J]. Management Accounting 79(3):18-24.
[140]Cohn, E., and S. Cohn.1994. Graphs and learning principles of economics [J]. The American Economic Review,84 (2):197-200.
[141]Datar, S., S. Kulp, and R. Lambert.2001. Balancing performance measures [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,39 (1):75-92.
[142]Daugart, J.2005. Divisional Performance Measurement and Investment Incentives:Residual Income, Multiple Divisions, and Externalities. Working Paper, University of Hanover.
[143]David Upton. Just-in-time and performance measurement systems [J].1998. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,18(11): 1101-1110.
[144]Davide Rizzotti. Incentives, Performance Measurement Systems and Managerial Effort Allocation. Working Paper, University of Catania.
[145]Demers, E. A., Margaret, B. S., and S. K. Widener.2006. Do the Determinants of Performance Measures Used for Evaluation Differ Across Four Categories of Measures? Evidence From High-Tech Firms [J]. Working Paper, University of Rochester.
[146]DeSarbo, W. S., Di Benetto, C.A., Song, M., Sinha, I.2005. Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework:uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,26,47-74.
[147]Dilla, W. N., and P. J. Steinbart.2005. Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,17:43-54.
[148]Dossi, A., L. Patelli.2008. The decision-influencing use of performance measurement systems in relationships between headquarters and subsidiaries [J]. Management Accounting Research,19:126-148.
[149]Eisenhardt, K., and Bourgeois, L. J.1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments:Toward a midrange theory [J]. Academy of Management Journal,31(4):737-770.
[150]Eric Dooms, Aswin van Oijen.2005. Control differentiation, Resource sharing and performance of business units [J]. Schmalenbach Business Review,10:320-331.
[151]Feltham, G. A., and J. Xie.1994. Performance measure congruity and diversity in multi-task principal-agent relations [J]. The Accounting Review, 69 (3):429-453.
[152]Fisher, J.1992. Use of nonfinancial performance measures [J]. Journal of Cost Management,6 (1):31-38.
[153]Fisher, J. 1995. Contingency-based research on management control systems: Categorization by level of complexity [J]. Journal of Accounting Literature, 14:24-53.
[154]Fornell, C., M. Johnson, E. Anderson, J. Cha, and B. Bryant.1996. The American Customer Satisfaction Index:nature, purpose, and findings [J]. Journal of Marketing,60:7-18.
[155]Foster, G., Young, S.M.,1997. Frontiers of management accounting research [J]. Manage. Acc. Res.,9,63-77.
[156]Ghosh, D., and R. F. Lusch.2000. Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers:Some evidence from multi-outlet businesses [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,25 (4/5):411-425.
[157]Glenberg, A., and W. Langston.1992. Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models [J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 31:129-151.
[158]Gomes, C. F., M. M. Yasin, and V. Lisboa.2004. A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context:a framework and direction for future research [J]. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,15(6):511-530.
[159]Gordon, L. A., and Miller, D.1976. A contingency framework for the design of accounting information systems [J]. Accounting Organizations and Society,1(1):59-69.
[160]Govindarajan, V.1984. Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation:an empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,9:125-135.
[161]Govindarajan, V.,1988. A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level:integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy [J]. Acad. Manage.,31,828-853.
[162]Govindarajan, V., and A. Gupta.1985. Linking control systems to business unit strategy:Impact on performance [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,10(1):51-66.
[163]Govindarajan, V., Fisher,1990. Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing:effects on business-unit performance [J]. Acad. Manage.,33: 259-285.
[164]Green, F.B., Amenkhienan, F. and Johnson, G.1991. Performance measures and JIT [J]. Management Accounting (USA),72(8):50-63.
Gupta, A. K.,1987. SBU strategies, corporate-SBU relations, and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation [J].Acad. Manage.,30:477-500.
[165]Gupta, A. K., Govindarajan, V.,1984. Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation [J]. Acad. Manage.,27:25-41.
[166]Hall, M.2008. The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,33 (2-3):141-163.
[167]Hansen, A.2007. Multiple performance measures, causality and decision making--Exploring ostensive and performative aspects of causality:Evidence from a new product development process.
[168]Hemmer, T.1996. On the design and choice of "modern" management accounting measures [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,8: 87-116.
[169]Heneman, R. L.1986. The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance:A meta analysis [J]. Personnel Psychology,39(4):811-826.
[170]Henri, J. F.2006. Management control systems and strategy:a resource-based perspective [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,31: 529-558.
[171]Henri, J. F.2006. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems Accounting [J], Organizations and Society,31:77-103.
[172]Hill, C. W. L.1988. Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost:a contingency framework [J]. Academy of Management Review,13, 401-412.
[173]Hoffecker, J., Goldenberg, C.1994. Using the balanced scorecard to develop companywide performance measures. Cost Management,8:5-17.
[174]Holmstrom, B., and P. Milgrom.1991. Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design [J]. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,7:24-52.
[175]Hoque, Z. and Hopper, T.1997. Political and industrial relations turbulence, competition and budgeting in the nationalised jute mills of Bangladesh [J]. Accounting and Business Research,27(2):125-143.
[176]Hoque, Z., and W. James.2000. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:Impact on organizational performance [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,12:1-17.
[177]Hoque, Z., Mia, L., and Alam, M.2001. Market competition, computer-aided manufacturing and use of multiple performance measures:An empirical study. British Accounting Review,33:23-45.
[178]Ittner, C, and D. Larcker.2001. Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting:A value based management perspective [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,32:349-410.
[179]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker, and M. V. Rajan.1997. The choice of performance measures in annual bonus contracts [J]. The Accounting Review 72 (2):231-255.
[180]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1995. Total quality management and the choice of information and reward systems [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,33 (Supplement):1-34.
[181]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1997. Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (3/4):293-314.
[182]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1998a. Innovations in performance measurement:Trends and research implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10:205-38.
[183]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1998b. Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance:An analysis of customer satisfaction [J]. Journal of Accounting Research 36 (Supplement):1-35.
[184]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker. and M. Meyer.2003. Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures:Evidence from a balanced scorecard [J]. The Accounting Review 78 (3):725-758.
[185]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker. and T. Randall.2003. Performance implications of strategic performance measures in financial services firms [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (7/8):715-741.
[186]Ittner, C., D. Larcker, and R. Lambert.2003b. The structure and performance consequences of equity grants to employees of new economy firms [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,34:89-127.
[187]Jensen, M. C., and W. E. Meckling.1992. Special and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure in Contract Economics [M], edited by L. Werin and H. Wijkander. Cambridge, UK:Blackwell.
[188]Kald, M., F. Nilsson, and B. RappOn.2000. Strategy and Management Control:The Importance of Classifying the Strategy of the Business [J]. British Journal of Management,11:197-212.
[189]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1993. Putting the balanced scorecard to work [J]. Harvard Business Review 71 (5):134-142.
[190]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1996a. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system [J]. Harvard Business Review 74 (1):75-85.
[191]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1996b. The Balanced Scorecard:Translating Strategy into Action [M]. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[192]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1996c. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy [J]. California Management Review 39(1):53-79.
[193]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.2000. Having trouble with your strategy: Then map it [J]. Harvard Business Review,78 (5):167-176.
[194]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.2001. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[195]Kaplan, S. and A. Atkinson.1989. Advanced Management Accounting. Second edition [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
[196]Kaplan, S. and D. Norton.1992. The balanced-scorecard:Measures that drive performance [J]. Harvard Business Review (January-February):71-79.
[187]Keaveney, S.1995. Customers switching behavior in service industries:An exploratory study [J]. Journal of Marketing,59(4):71-82.
[198]Kelly, K.2009. Accuracy of Relative Weights on Multiple Leading Performance Measures:Effects on Managerial Performance and Knowledge. Working Paper, University of Waterloo.
[199]Kennedy, J.1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability:A framework and experimental results [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,31 (3):231-245.
[200]Khandwalla, P.1972. The effects of different types of competition on the use of management controls [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,10(2): 275-285.
[201]Kourilsky, M., and M. Wittrock.1987. Verbal and graphical strategies in the teaching of economics [J]. Teaching & Teacher Education,3 (1):1-12.
[202]Lambert, R.1998. Discussion of:are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,36 (Supplement):36-46.
[203]Lambert, R.2001. Contracting theory and accounting [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32 (1/3):3-87.
[204]Landry, S., and E. Schiehll.2009. subjectivity, performance evaluation and procedural justice. Working Paper.
[205]Landy, F. J., and Farr, J.1980. Performance rating [J]. Psychological Bulletin, 87:72-107.
[206]Langfield-Smith, K.1997. Management control systems and strategy:A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society,22 (2):207-232.
[207]Lemer, J. S., and P. E. Tetlock.1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability [J]. Psychological Bulletin,125 (2):255-275.
[208]Li, M., Ye, L.,1999. Information technology and firm performance:linking with environmental, strategic and managerial contexts [J]. Inf. Manage.,35, 43-51.
[209]Libby, T., S. Salterio, and A. Webb.2004. The balanced scorecard:The effects of assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment [J]. The Accounting Review,79 (4):1075-1094.
[210]Likert, R..1961. New patterns of management [J]. New York:McGraw Hill.
[212]Lillis, A. M. and van Veen-Dirks, P.M.G.2006. The influence of mixed strategies on performance measurement system design, Working paper, University of Melbourne.
[213]Lillis, A.,2002. Managing multiple dimensions of manufacturing performance—an exploratory study [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,27,497-529.
[214]Lingle, J., and W. Schiemann.1996. From balanced scorecard to measurement [J]. Management Review (March):56-61.
[215]Lipe, M. G., and S. E. Salterio.2000. The balanced scorecard:Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review,75 (3):283-298.
[216]Lipe, M. G., and S. E. Salterio.2002. A note on the judgment effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society,27 (6):531-540.
[217]Luft, J.L., Shields, M.D.,2000. The effects of financial and nonfinancial performance Measures of judgment and decision performance. Unpublished working paper, Michigan State University.
[218]Lynch, R. and K. Cross.1991. Measure up! yardsticks for continuous improvement [M]. Cambridge, Mass:Basil Blacemell.
[219]Malina, M. A. and F. H. Selto.2004. Choice and Change of Measures in Performance Measurement Models. Working Paper, University of Colorado at Boulder.
[220]Merchant, K. A.,1985. Organizational Controls and Discretionary Program Decision Making:A Field Study [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,10,67-85.
[230]Michael C. J., W. H. Meckling..2009. Specific Knowledge and Divisional Performance Measurement [J]. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,21(2): 49-57.
[240]Miles, R.W., Snow, C.C.,1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process [M]. McGraw Hill, New York.
[241]Miller, D., Friesen, P. H.,1986. Porter's (1980) generic strategies and performance:an empirical examination with American data:part 1:testing Porter [J]. Organ. Stud.,7,37-55.
[242]Miller, J. G., De Meyer, A., Nakane, J.1992. Benchmarking Global Manufacturing [M]. Homewood, Illinois, Irwin.
[243]Mittal, V., and W. A. Kamakura.'2001. Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics [J]. Journal of Marketing Research,38 (2):131-142.
[244]Moers F.2005. Discretion and bias in performance evaluation:the impact of diversity and subjectivity [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,30: 67-80.
[245]Nagar, V., and M. Rajan.2001. The revenue implication of financial and operational measures of product quality [J]. The Accounting Review,76: 495-513.
[246]Neely, A.1999. The performance measurement revolution:Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19 (2):205-228.
[247]Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K., and Bourne, M.1997. Design performance measures:A structured approach [J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,17(11):1131-1152.
[248]Okuyama, N., and Gavin F.2006. Disentangling Cognitive Bias in the Assessment of Investment Decisions:Derivation of Generalized Conditional Risk Attribution [J]. The Journal of Behavioral Finance,7(2):75-87.
[249]Oliva, T. A., D. L. Day, and W. S. DeSarbo.1987. Selecting competitive tactics:Try a strategy map [J]. Sloan Management Review,28:5-15.
[250]Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F.2002. The balanced scorecard, competitive strategy, and performance [J]. Business Horizons,45(3),11-16.
[251]Paula van Veen-Dirks.2009. Different uses of performance measures:The evaluation versus reward of production managers [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,2:1-24.
[252]Perera, S., G. Harrison, and M. Poole.1997. Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operation-based nonfinancial performance measures:A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society,22 (6):557-572.
[253]Perera, S., Harrison,G., Poole,M.,1997. Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-financial performance measures: a research note [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,22,557-572.
[254]Ping, R.1993. The Effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect [J]. Journal of Retailing,69(3):320-52.
[255]Porter, M. E.,1980. Competitive strategy [M]. Free Press, New York.
[256]Porter, M. E.,2001. Strategy and the internet. [M] Harvard Business Rev.79, 63-78.
[257]Rees, W., and C. Sutcliffe.1994. Quantitative non-financial information and income measures:The case of long-term contracts [J]. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting,4:331-347.
[258]Riley. R., T. Pearson, and G. Trompeter.2003. The value-relevance of non-financial performance variables and accounting information:the case of airline industry [J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,22:231-254.
[259]Roberts, M. L., T. L. Albright, and A. R. Hibbets.2004. Debiasing balanced scorecard evaluations [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,16:75-88.
[260]Rust, R. T., and A. J. Zahorik.1993. Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share [J]. Journal of Retailing 69 (2):193-215.
[261]Said, A., H. HassabElnaby, and B. Wier.2003. An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonfinancial measures [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,15:193-223.
[262]Scott, T. W., and P. Tiessen.1999. Performance measurement and managerial teams [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,24 (3): 263-286.
[263]Segev, E.1987. Strategy, strategy making and performance:an empirical investigation [J]. Management Science,33,258-268.
[264]Simon, H. A., Guetzkow, H., Kozmetsky, G., and Tyndall, G.1954. Centralization vs decentralization in organizing the controllers'department [M]. New York:Controllership Foundation Inc.
[265]Simons, R.1999. Performance Measurement & Control Systems for Implementing Strategy [M]. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
[266]Simons, R.,1987. Accounting control systems and business strategy:an empirical analysis [J]. Ace. Organ. Soc.,12,357-374.
[267]Simons, R.,1990. The role of management accounting systems in creating competitive advantage:new perspectives [J]. Ace. Organ. Soc.,1/2, 127-143.
[268]Slater, S. and, J. Narver.1994. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation performance relationship? [J] Journal of Marketing,58: 46-55.
[269]Slater, S., and Olson, E.2001. Marketing's contribution to the implementation of business strategy:An empirical analysis [J]. Strategic Management Journal,22,1055-1067.
[270]Slovic, P., and D. MacPhillamy.1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,11:172-194.
[271]Srinivasan, D., A. Sayrak, and N. Nagarajan.2003. Executive compensation and nonfinancial performance measures:a study of major U.S. airlines. Working paper, University of Pittsburgh.
[272]Tan, H. T., and A. Kao:1999. Accountability effects on auditors' performance:The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,37 (1):209-223.
[273]Tornow, Walter W., and Wiley, Jack W.1991. Service Quality and Management Practices:A Look at Employee Attitudes, Customer Satisfaction, and Bottom-line Consequences [J]. Human Resource Planning, 14:85-94.
[274]Van der Stede, W. A., Chow, C. W. and Lin, T. W.2006. Strategy, choice of performance measures, and performance [J], Behavioral Research in Accounting,18,185-205.
[275]Van der Stede, W. A., S. M. Young, and X. C. Chen.2005. Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research:The case of survey studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society,30 (7/8):655-684.
[276]Wittrock, M.1974. Learning as generative processes [J]. Educational Psychologist,11:87-95.
[277]Yim, A. T.2001. Renegotiation and Relative Performance Evaluation:Why An Informative Signal May Be Useless [J]. Review of Accounting Studies,6: 77-108.
[278]Zhang, S., and A. B. Markman.1998. Overcoming the early entrant advantage:The role of alignable and nonalignable differences [J]. Journal of Marketing Research,35 (11):413-426.
②财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999，1.
③陈思维,王会金,王晓霞,经济效益审计[M].北京：中国时代经济出版社,2002,3.
①冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2002,1.
①财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999,2.
②张兆国.高级财务管理[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2002.
①马璐.企业战略性绩效评价系统研究[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2004,4.
②孟建民.中国企业效绩评价[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002,2-3.
③李苹莉.经营者业绩评价——利益相关者模式[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001,3.
④张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002,3.
①组织行为理论对企业经营业绩评价的影响主要参考：王化成.企业业绩评价[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004,23-25.
①关于传统企业经营业绩评价体系的基本特征和不足的阐述,较多地参考和总结了张蕊和王化成的相关研究论文。
① Christopher D. Ittner, David F. Larcker.1998. Innovation in Performance Measurement:Trends and Research Implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,10,205-238.
② Mark L. Frigo.2002. Nonfinancial performance measures and strategy execution. Strategy Finance [J],8(8): 6-9.
③ Mark L. Frigo.2002. Strategy, performance measures and strategy execution [J]. Strategy Finance,84(8): 6-8.
①彼得·F·德鲁克等.公问绩效测评[M],李焰、江娅译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.
②Lynch, R. and K. Cross.1991. Measure up! yardsticks for continuous improvement [M]. Cambridge, Mass: Basil Blacemell.
①李敬.多元化战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2002,1-2.
① Chandler, A. D.1962. Strategy and structure:Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise [M]. Anchor Books, New York.
① Chandler, A. D.1962. Strategy and Structure:Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
② Chang, S. J., Choi, U.1988. Strategy, Structure and Perfor mance of Korean Business Groups [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,37:141-158.
① Birkinshaw, JA. M. Configuration of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations [J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1995:729-753.
②银温泉.国外企业的内部组织结构[J].管理现代化,1995(04),59-62.
① Jensen, M. C., and W. E. Meckling.1992. Special and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure in Contract Economics [M], edited by L. Werin and H. Wijkander. Cambridge, UK:Blackwell.
①辞海.上海辞书出版社.1989,465
①关于公司战略的类型,主要参考：肖刚.现代企业战略经营学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2008,237-252.
①关于波特的基本竞争战略的分类,主要参考：刘庆元.战略管理：分析、制定与实施.北京：中央广播电视大学出版社,2006,214-228.
①罗伯特·卡普兰,大卫·诺顿著.刘俊勇,孙薇译.平衡记分卡——化战略为行动[M].广州：广东经济出版社,2004,26-28.
[1]艾健明,柯大钢.多元化战略与管理保护：基于中国上市公司进入新行业的视角[J].管理评论,2007(04)：29-34.
[2]彼得·F·德鲁克等.公问绩效测评[M],李焰、江娅译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.
[3]卜令英.企业业绩评价主体多元化的原因及影响[J].财会通讯·理财版,2006(02)：35-36.
[4]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价问答[M].北京：经济科学出版社.
[5]陈佳俊.企业战略、管理控制与业绩评价的权变分析[D].厦门大学博士论文,2003.
[6]陈幼其.战略管理教程[M].上海：立信会计出版社,2003.
[7]程丹.平衡计分卡在实施中的困难及应注意的问题[J].社会科学家,2005(05)：388-390.
[8]池国华.基于发展逻辑的管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].南开管理评论,2009(02)：24-30.
[9]池国华.基于价值创造的上市公司经营业绩评价指标体系[M].会计之友(上),2009(09)：105-106.
[10]池国华.基于企业生命周期的绩效评价制度研究——以制造业企业为例[J].经济问题探索,2005(07)：66-69.
[11]辞海[M].上海：上海辞书出版社.1989.
[12]杜胜利.平衡计分卡的理论框架和管理体系[J].财政研究,2007(09)：70-73.
[13]范容慧,刘二丽,蓝海林.企业集团管理控制研究综述[J].科技与管理,2009(06)：29-31.
[14]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2002.
[15]冯巧根.组织结构变迁对管理会计研究的影响[J].会计研究,2000(03)：24-30.
[16]高德山,郑少锋,廖正华.平衡计分卡业绩评价体系各层次指标权重的确定[J].当代经济管理,2006(03)：125-128.
[17]高峻.企业经营业绩评价层次性指标体系框架的建立[J].武汉科技大学(社会科学版),2006(06)：63-67.
[18]古继宝,杨春明,梁樑.基于不同竞争战略的平衡记分卡系统[J].科技管理研究,2005(08)：153-155.
[19]郭娟,梁梁.平衡记分卡在不同类型团队绩效评定中的应用[J].管理科学,2004(08)：25-30.
[20]何红渠,孙维.企业成长期战略业绩评价指标选取研究——基于企业财务报表信息[J].财会通讯·综合(中),2009(03)：29-30.
[21]何晴.通用性指标偏好及其实验研究——平衡计分卡在多部门企业中的应用.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(S1).
[22]贺颖奇,陈佳俊.企业战略控制与业绩评价[J].中国审计,2004(16)：61-63.
[23]洪剑峭.企业分权管理和管理控制[J].经济研究,1998(2)：46-50.
[24]黄璐施.中层经理人员的业绩评价——兼论有关非财务指标的使用[J].中山大学研究生学刊(社会科学版)，2003(04)：103-112.
[25]纪咏梅.权变的业绩衡量——谈企业管理业绩评价指标的选择[J].中央财经大学学报,2000(11)：53-57.
[26]解群鸣.基于组织协同的企业集团战略业绩评价研究[J].特区经济,2008(07)：303-304.
[27]晋自力,多元主体公司治理模式与企业的业绩评价[J].江苏论坛,2009(02)：97-98.
[28]李灿.企业经营战略业绩评价研究[D].中南大学博士论文,2005.
[29]李敬.多元化战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2002,1-2.
[30]李敬树,彭俊.平衡记分卡的不足及其改进对策[J].内蒙古科技与经济,2004(14)：91-93.
[31]李苹莉,宁超.关于经营者业绩评价的思考[J].会计研究,2000(05)： 22-27.
[32]李雪,李娜.非财务指标在上市公司业绩评价中的作用[J].税务与经济,2009(03)：60-62.
[33]刘俊勇.战略地图在业绩评价中的有用性检验[C].第五届会计与财务问题国际研讨会——当代管理会计新发展,2005年7月.
[34]刘庆元.企业战略管理[M].北京：中央广播电视大学出版社,2006.
刘植培.平衡计分卡：一种战略性的企业经营业绩评价方法现代管理科学[J],2003(06)：53-54.
[35]刘志彪,姜付秀,卢二坡.资本结构与产品市场竞争强度[J].经济研究,2003(07)：60-67.
[36]卢毅,黄红星,韩玉启.企业内部业绩评价系统的权变性分析[J].技术经济,2006(06)：95-99.
[37]罗彪,季红梅.从业绩管理工具演进看企业集团业绩管理问题[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(12)：151-156.
[38]罗伯特·卡普兰,大卫·诺顿著.刘俊勇,孙薇译.平衡记分卡——化战略为行动[M].广州：广东经济出版社,2004.
[39]马英华.基于企业生命周期理论的企业内部业绩评价[J].财会月刊(上旬),2009(02)：9-10.
[40]付宏,夏清华.中国创业企业的战略选择：差异化还是低成本战略[J].技术经济与管理研究2009(02)：28-32.
[41]毛育晖.论企业经营效绩评价指标体系的设计[J],冶金财会,2004(04)：35-37.
[42]孟建民.中国企业效绩评价[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002.2-3
[43]裴金翔,魏洁.基于战略的多部门企业业绩评价模式初探[J].武汉市经济管理干部学院学报,2004(06)：75-77.
[44]秦杨勇.平衡记分卡与战略管理[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2007.
[45]芮明杰,李想.差异化、成本领先和价值创新——企业竞争优势的一个经济学解释[J].财经问题研究,2007(01)：37-44.
[46]屈林岩,郑若良,王健,李长荣.战略管理与企业经营战略[M].长沙：中南大学出版社,2001.
[47]尚煜.事业部制理论及对中国商业银行的借鉴[J].前沿,2005,(06).
[48]沈亦灵,多元主体下的企业经营绩效评价体系[J],上海经济研究2001(07)：45-49.
[49]石书玲.企业战略业绩评价指标系统选择的主要影响变量[J]天津商学院学报2004(06)：18-21.
[50]宋旭琴,蓝海林.事业部制与多元化企业集团绩效的关系研究[J].软科学,2008(4)：122-125.
[51]苏文兵,熊焰韧,李运,常家瑛,张吉翔.业绩评价中公司特征与非财务指标的选择[J].山西财经大学学报,2009(05)：66-72.
[52]孙建强,王秀华.对业绩评价体系层次性的思考管理纵横[J].2003(09)：150-151.
[53]孙薇,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价：战略的观点[M].北京：中国税务出版社2005.
[54]孙维.基于企业生命周期的战略业绩评价指标体系研究[D].中南大学硕士论文,2008.
[55]汤谷良,王斌,杜菲,付阳.多元化企业集团管理控制体系的整合观——基于华润集团6S的案例分析[J].2009(02),53-60.
[56]田小宝.传统责任会计与现代责任会计比较[J].四川会计,2000(10)：8-9.
[57]万寿义,赵淑惠.企业内部业绩评价多样性的行为影响研究——基于员工激励计划的实证分析[J].山西财经大学学报,2009(03)：77-84.
[58]王春丽,曹建安,张禾.企业绩效的层次性与企业内部组织单元绩效评价[J].科技进步与对策2006(12)：148-151.
[59]王国顺,李灿.建立战略业绩评价指标体系的基本思路[J].财经理论与实践,2005(03)：113-116.
[60]王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价[M].中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[61]王化成,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价模式研究——兼论中国企业业绩评价模式选择[J].管理世界,2004(4)：82-91.
[62]王怀明,吴春燕.产品市场竞争对董事独立性作用的影响[J].产业经济研究,2007(03)：30-37.
[63]王俊飚.试论企业经营业绩评价中的层次性与多样化[J].会计之友2008(04)：68-69.
[64]王玲俊,邱艳,朱鹭宁.股权投资主体视角下的企业成熟期业绩评价指标体系研究[J].2009(11)：138-139.
[65]王颖.基于价值链的企业业绩评价非财务指标选择研究[D].河海大学硕士论文,2005.
[66]王玉立.基于企业生命周期的业绩评价指标体系设计[D],西南财经大学硕士论文,2004.
[67]王中,李兢.浅析企业业绩评价主体演变[J].大众商务2009(02)：24.
[68]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J].心理学报2005(02)：268-274.
[69]肖刚.现代企业战略经营学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2008,237-252.
[70]熊焰韧,李芳.应用平衡记分卡提高企业的执行力——记分卡主观指标及其权重设置生产力研究[J].2007(12)：127-128.
[71]徐操志,许庆瑞.关于业绩评价新范式的思考——基于智力资本的战略评价体系[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(05)：46-50.
[72]徐岩,王玥,滕钰锋.基于权变理论的企业业绩评价[J].财会月刊(下旬),2009(05)：27-28.
[73]杨春明.基于不同竞争战略的平衡记分卡地图[J].价值工程,2004(06)：80-83.
[74]杨立芳.民营企业顾客满意度与财务业绩的实证研究[M].财会通讯·综合(下),2009(06)：133-135.
[75]殷俊明,王平心,吴清华.平衡记分卡研究述评[J].经济管理·新管理,2005(02)：44-49.
[76]银温泉.国外企业的内部组织结构[J].管理现代化,1995(04),59-62.
[77]于景伟.基于战略的企业集团绩效评价体系研究[D].天津大学硕士论文,2003.
[78]于增彪,张双才.企业集团业绩评价系统设计[J].新理财,2007(12)：20-26.
[79]余立宣.浅议战略管理下的业绩评价指标体系[J].企业经 济,2007(01)：53-55.
[80]俞义樵,张维.基于利益相关者的企业经营者业绩评估研究[J],重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2009(01)：48-53.
[81]张川,潘飞,John Robinson.非财务指标与企业财务业绩相关吗[M].中国工业经济,2006(11)：99-107.
[82]张川，潘飞.国内外综合业绩评价体系的研究评述[J].当代财经,2008(04)：121-123.
[83]张禾,李媛,曹建安.多层次平衡计分卡体系研究——由企业整体层面到企业内部组织单元的绩效评价体系[J].科技进步与对策,2009(08)：73-76.
[84]张禾,王丽,曹建安.基于组织背景的企业战略业务单位绩效评价研究[J].科技进步与对策2006(2)：139-141.
[85]张禾,魏迪迪,曹建安.企业内部组织单元与企业整体绩效评价的比较研究[J].财会通讯·综合版,2006(07)：13-15.
[86]张禾,魏靓,曹建安.平衡记分卡指标偏见研究——基于企业内部组织单元绩效评价[C].中国第七届实证会计国际研讨会,2008年12月.
[87]张凯,赵庆晨.企业集团管理控制模式选择及实施[J].2008(01)：40-41.
[88]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002,3.
[89]张书玲,张禾,曹建安.基于战略的企业多层次绩效管理体系的研究[J].科技管理研究,2007(09)：180-182.
[90]张晓燕,胡玉明.基于企业生命周期的绩效评价制度研究一以制造业企业为例[J].经济问题探讨.2005(07)：66-69.
[91]赵淑惠.企业内部业绩评价的行为影响研究综述及对我国的启示[J].会计师,2009(01)：100-102.
[92]赵莹,秦青.多部门企业平衡记分卡的开发[J].软科学2003(02)：92-95.
[93]周慧.集团公司对成员企业绩效评价方法及应用研究[D].南京理工大学硕士论文,2005.
[94]周秀霞.企业业绩评价的权变分析：综述与启示[J].经济研究参考,2008(63)：22-23.
[95]朱明秀.利益相关者价值导向业绩评价：理性透视[J].财会通讯·综合(下),2009(02)：135-137.
[96]祖明,李光英.论企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系与评价模型[J].安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(03)：153-156.
[97]王昱,赵淑惠.企业业绩评价：定义考察与行为内涵分析[M].财会月刊(中),2009(04)：79-80.
[98]Abernethy, M. A.& Lillis, A. M.1995. The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management control system design [J], Accounting, Organizations and Society,20,241-258.
[99]Abernethy, M. A., Guthrie, C.H.,1994. An empirical assessment of the fit between strategy and management information systems design [J]. Acc. Finance.,33,49-66.
[100]Amir, E. and B. Lev.1996. Value-relevance of nonfinancial information:The wireless communications industry [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22 (1):3-30.
[101]Anderson, E. W., and M. W. Sullivan.1993. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms [J]. Management Science,40 (3):405-417.
[102]Anderson, E. W., C. Fomell, and R. T. Rust.1997. Customer satisfaction, productivity and profitability:Differences between goods and services [J]. Marketing Science,16 (2):129-45.
[103]Anderson, E. W., C. Fomell. and D. R. Lehmann.1994. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability [J]: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing,58 (3):53-66.
[104]Andrea, R. D., W. Jeffrey, and R. S. B. Salter.2007. Empowerment, Motivation, and Performance:Examining the Impact of Feedback and Incentives on Nonmanagement Employees [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,19:71-89.
[105]Anthony, R. N. and Govindarajan, V.2007, Management control systems (12th ed.) [M]. McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
[106]Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., and Wells, R. B.1997. A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 1:25-37.
[107]Baker, G.1992. Incentive contracts and performance measurement [J]. Journal of Political Economy,100(3):598-614.
[108]Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and M. Pizzini,2009. The Judgmental Effects of Strategy Maps in Balanced Scorecard Performance Evaluations. Working Paper, Drexel University.
[109]Banker, R. D., Jose M. P., and Chun W. X.2009. Relative Weights on Performance Measures in a Principal--Agent Model with Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection. Working Paper, Temple University.
[110]Banker, R., and R. Mashruwala.2007. The moderating role of competition in the relationship between nonfinancial measures and financial performance [J]. Contemporary Accounting Research,24:763-793.
[111]Banker, R., and S. Datar.1989. Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation [J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 27:21-39.
[112]Banker, R., G. Potter, and D. Srinivasan.2000. An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial measures [J]. The Accounting Review,75:65-92.
[113]Banker, R.D., Hsihui, C. and Mina, J. P.2004. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy [J]. The Accounting Review,79:1-23.
[114]Behn, B., and R. Riley.1999. Using nonfinancial information to predict financial performance:the case of the U.S. airline industry [J]. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance,14:1-29.
[115]Bernard Wong-On-Wing a, Lan Guo, Wei Li, Dan Yang.2007. Reducing conflict in balanced scorecard evaluations [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,32:363-377.
[116]Bernhardt, K. L., N. Donthu, and P.A. Kennett.2000. A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability [J].Journal of Business Research, 47.
[117]Birkinshaw, J. A. M. Configuration of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1995:729-753.
[118]Blutn, M. L., J. C. Naylor. Industrial Psychology:Its Theoretical and Social Foundation [M]. New York. NY:Harper and Row,1968.
[119]Bouwens, J., and Laurence, V. L.2007. Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,45(4):667-69.
[120]Bryant, L., D. Jones, and S. Widener.2004. Managing value creation within the firm:An examination of multiple performance measures [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research 16:107-131.
[121]Bushman, R., E. Engel, and A. Smith.2006. An analysis of the relation between the stewardship and valuation roles of earnings [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,44:53-83.
[122]Butler, A., S. Letza, and B. Neale.1997. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy [J]. Long Range Planning 30 (2):242-253.
[123]Campbell D.2006. An Empirical Investigation of Implicit Incentives for Nonfinancial Performance Improvement. Working Paper, Temple University, Harvard Business School.
[124]Campbell, D., S. Datar, S. Kulp, and V. G. Narayanan.2004. Using the balanced scorecard as a control system for monitoring and revising corporate strategy. Working paper, Harvard Business School.
[125]Campbell-Hunt, C.2000. What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? a meta-analysis [J]. Strategic Management Journal,21,127-154.
[126]Chandler, A. D.1962. Strategy and Structure:Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise [M], Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
[127]Chang, S. J., Choi, U.1988. Strategy, Structure and Performance of Korean Business Groups [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,37:141-158.
[128]Chen, C. X., E. M. Matsumura, J. Y. Shin.2008. The Effect of Competition on the Contracting Use of Customer Satisfaction:Evidence from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) [J]. Working Paper.
[129]Chen, Tien-Hui.2009. Performance measurement of an enterprise and business units with an application to a Taiwanese hotel chain [J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management,8:415-422.
[130]Chenhall, R.,2003. Management control systems design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,28,127-168.
[131]Chenhall, R., Langfield-Smith, K.,1998a. The relationship between strategic priorities, management accounting techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using a systems approach [J]. Ace. Organ. Soc.,23, 243-264.
[132]Chenhall, R., Langfield-Smith, K.,1998b. Adoption and benefits of management accounting practices:an Australian study [J]. Manage. Ace. Res.,9,1-19.
[133]Chenhall, R., Morris, D.,1995. Organic decision and communication processes and management accounting systems in entrepreneurial and conservative business organizations [J]. Omega,23,485-497.
[134]Chong M., Mahfud, S.2005. Financial and nonfinancial performance measures:How do they affect job satisfaction? [J]. The British Accounting Review,37:389-413.
[135]Chong, V. K., Chong, K. M.1997. Strategic choices, environmental uncertainty and SBU performance:a note on the intervening role of management accounting systems [J]. Accounting and Business Research,27, 268-276.
[136]Chow, C. W., K. M. Haddad, and J. E. Williamson.1997. Applying the balanced scorecard to small companies [J]. Management Accounting,79 (2): 21-27.
[137]Chow, C. W., Shields, M. D., and Wu, A.1999. The importance of national culture in the design of and preference for management controls for multi-national operations [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(5-6):441-453.
[138]Christopher D. Ittner, David F. Larcker.1998. Innovation in Performance Measurement:Trends and Research Implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,10,205-238.
[139]Clinton, B. D., and K. C. Hsu.1997. JIT and the balanced scorecard:Linking manufacturing control to management control [J]. Management Accounting 79(3):18-24.
[140]Cohn, E., and S. Cohn.1994. Graphs and learning principles of economics [J]. The American Economic Review,84 (2):197-200.
[141]Datar, S., S. Kulp, and R. Lambert.2001. Balancing performance measures [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,39 (1):75-92.
[142]Daugart, J.2005. Divisional Performance Measurement and Investment Incentives:Residual Income, Multiple Divisions, and Externalities. Working Paper, University of Hanover.
[143]David Upton. Just-in-time and performance measurement systems [J].1998. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,18(11): 1101-1110.
[144]Davide Rizzotti. Incentives, Performance Measurement Systems and Managerial Effort Allocation. Working Paper, University of Catania.
[145]Demers, E. A., Margaret, B. S., and S. K. Widener.2006. Do the Determinants of Performance Measures Used for Evaluation Differ Across Four Categories of Measures? Evidence From High-Tech Firms [J]. Working Paper, University of Rochester.
[146]DeSarbo, W. S., Di Benetto, C.A., Song, M., Sinha, I.2005. Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework:uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,26,47-74.
[147]Dilla, W. N., and P. J. Steinbart.2005. Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,17:43-54.
[148]Dossi, A., L. Patelli.2008. The decision-influencing use of performance measurement systems in relationships between headquarters and subsidiaries [J]. Management Accounting Research,19:126-148.
[149]Eisenhardt, K., and Bourgeois, L. J.1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments:Toward a midrange theory [J]. Academy of Management Journal,31(4):737-770.
[150]Eric Dooms, Aswin van Oijen.2005. Control differentiation, Resource sharing and performance of business units [J]. Schmalenbach Business Review,10:320-331.
[151]Feltham, G. A., and J. Xie.1994. Performance measure congruity and diversity in multi-task principal-agent relations [J]. The Accounting Review, 69 (3):429-453.
[152]Fisher, J.1992. Use of nonfinancial performance measures [J]. Journal of Cost Management,6 (1):31-38.
[153]Fisher, J. 1995. Contingency-based research on management control systems: Categorization by level of complexity [J]. Journal of Accounting Literature, 14:24-53.
[154]Fornell, C., M. Johnson, E. Anderson, J. Cha, and B. Bryant.1996. The American Customer Satisfaction Index:nature, purpose, and findings [J]. Journal of Marketing,60:7-18.
[155]Foster, G., Young, S.M.,1997. Frontiers of management accounting research [J]. Manage. Acc. Res.,9,63-77.
[156]Ghosh, D., and R. F. Lusch.2000. Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers:Some evidence from multi-outlet businesses [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,25 (4/5):411-425.
[157]Glenberg, A., and W. Langston.1992. Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models [J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 31:129-151.
[158]Gomes, C. F., M. M. Yasin, and V. Lisboa.2004. A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context:a framework and direction for future research [J]. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,15(6):511-530.
[159]Gordon, L. A., and Miller, D.1976. A contingency framework for the design of accounting information systems [J]. Accounting Organizations and Society,1(1):59-69.
[160]Govindarajan, V.1984. Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation:an empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,9:125-135.
[161]Govindarajan, V.,1988. A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level:integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy [J]. Acad. Manage.,31,828-853.
[162]Govindarajan, V., and A. Gupta.1985. Linking control systems to business unit strategy:Impact on performance [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,10(1):51-66.
[163]Govindarajan, V., Fisher,1990. Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing:effects on business-unit performance [J]. Acad. Manage.,33: 259-285.
[164]Green, F.B., Amenkhienan, F. and Johnson, G.1991. Performance measures and JIT [J]. Management Accounting (USA),72(8):50-63.
Gupta, A. K.,1987. SBU strategies, corporate-SBU relations, and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation [J].Acad. Manage.,30:477-500.
[165]Gupta, A. K., Govindarajan, V.,1984. Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation [J]. Acad. Manage.,27:25-41.
[166]Hall, M.2008. The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,33 (2-3):141-163.
[167]Hansen, A.2007. Multiple performance measures, causality and decision making--Exploring ostensive and performative aspects of causality:Evidence from a new product development process.
[168]Hemmer, T.1996. On the design and choice of "modern" management accounting measures [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,8: 87-116.
[169]Heneman, R. L.1986. The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance:A meta analysis [J]. Personnel Psychology,39(4):811-826.
[170]Henri, J. F.2006. Management control systems and strategy:a resource-based perspective [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,31: 529-558.
[171]Henri, J. F.2006. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems Accounting [J], Organizations and Society,31:77-103.
[172]Hill, C. W. L.1988. Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost:a contingency framework [J]. Academy of Management Review,13, 401-412.
[173]Hoffecker, J., Goldenberg, C.1994. Using the balanced scorecard to develop companywide performance measures. Cost Management,8:5-17.
[174]Holmstrom, B., and P. Milgrom.1991. Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design [J]. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,7:24-52.
[175]Hoque, Z. and Hopper, T.1997. Political and industrial relations turbulence, competition and budgeting in the nationalised jute mills of Bangladesh [J]. Accounting and Business Research,27(2):125-143.
[176]Hoque, Z., and W. James.2000. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:Impact on organizational performance [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,12:1-17.
[177]Hoque, Z., Mia, L., and Alam, M.2001. Market competition, computer-aided manufacturing and use of multiple performance measures:An empirical study. British Accounting Review,33:23-45.
[178]Ittner, C, and D. Larcker.2001. Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting:A value based management perspective [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,32:349-410.
[179]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker, and M. V. Rajan.1997. The choice of performance measures in annual bonus contracts [J]. The Accounting Review 72 (2):231-255.
[180]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1995. Total quality management and the choice of information and reward systems [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,33 (Supplement):1-34.
[181]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1997. Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (3/4):293-314.
[182]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1998a. Innovations in performance measurement:Trends and research implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10:205-38.
[183]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker.1998b. Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance:An analysis of customer satisfaction [J]. Journal of Accounting Research 36 (Supplement):1-35.
[184]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker. and M. Meyer.2003. Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures:Evidence from a balanced scorecard [J]. The Accounting Review 78 (3):725-758.
[185]Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker. and T. Randall.2003. Performance implications of strategic performance measures in financial services firms [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (7/8):715-741.
[186]Ittner, C., D. Larcker, and R. Lambert.2003b. The structure and performance consequences of equity grants to employees of new economy firms [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,34:89-127.
[187]Jensen, M. C., and W. E. Meckling.1992. Special and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure in Contract Economics [M], edited by L. Werin and H. Wijkander. Cambridge, UK:Blackwell.
[188]Kald, M., F. Nilsson, and B. RappOn.2000. Strategy and Management Control:The Importance of Classifying the Strategy of the Business [J]. British Journal of Management,11:197-212.
[189]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1993. Putting the balanced scorecard to work [J]. Harvard Business Review 71 (5):134-142.
[190]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1996a. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system [J]. Harvard Business Review 74 (1):75-85.
[191]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1996b. The Balanced Scorecard:Translating Strategy into Action [M]. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[192]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.1996c. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy [J]. California Management Review 39(1):53-79.
[193]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.2000. Having trouble with your strategy: Then map it [J]. Harvard Business Review,78 (5):167-176.
[194]Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton.2001. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[195]Kaplan, S. and A. Atkinson.1989. Advanced Management Accounting. Second edition [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
[196]Kaplan, S. and D. Norton.1992. The balanced-scorecard:Measures that drive performance [J]. Harvard Business Review (January-February):71-79.
[187]Keaveney, S.1995. Customers switching behavior in service industries:An exploratory study [J]. Journal of Marketing,59(4):71-82.
[198]Kelly, K.2009. Accuracy of Relative Weights on Multiple Leading Performance Measures:Effects on Managerial Performance and Knowledge. Working Paper, University of Waterloo.
[199]Kennedy, J.1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability:A framework and experimental results [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,31 (3):231-245.
[200]Khandwalla, P.1972. The effects of different types of competition on the use of management controls [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,10(2): 275-285.
[201]Kourilsky, M., and M. Wittrock.1987. Verbal and graphical strategies in the teaching of economics [J]. Teaching & Teacher Education,3 (1):1-12.
[202]Lambert, R.1998. Discussion of:are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,36 (Supplement):36-46.
[203]Lambert, R.2001. Contracting theory and accounting [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32 (1/3):3-87.
[204]Landry, S., and E. Schiehll.2009. subjectivity, performance evaluation and procedural justice. Working Paper.
[205]Landy, F. J., and Farr, J.1980. Performance rating [J]. Psychological Bulletin, 87:72-107.
[206]Langfield-Smith, K.1997. Management control systems and strategy:A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society,22 (2):207-232.
[207]Lemer, J. S., and P. E. Tetlock.1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability [J]. Psychological Bulletin,125 (2):255-275.
[208]Li, M., Ye, L.,1999. Information technology and firm performance:linking with environmental, strategic and managerial contexts [J]. Inf. Manage.,35, 43-51.
[209]Libby, T., S. Salterio, and A. Webb.2004. The balanced scorecard:The effects of assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment [J]. The Accounting Review,79 (4):1075-1094.
[210]Likert, R..1961. New patterns of management [J]. New York:McGraw Hill.
[212]Lillis, A. M. and van Veen-Dirks, P.M.G.2006. The influence of mixed strategies on performance measurement system design, Working paper, University of Melbourne.
[213]Lillis, A.,2002. Managing multiple dimensions of manufacturing performance—an exploratory study [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,27,497-529.
[214]Lingle, J., and W. Schiemann.1996. From balanced scorecard to measurement [J]. Management Review (March):56-61.
[215]Lipe, M. G., and S. E. Salterio.2000. The balanced scorecard:Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review,75 (3):283-298.
[216]Lipe, M. G., and S. E. Salterio.2002. A note on the judgment effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society,27 (6):531-540.
[217]Luft, J.L., Shields, M.D.,2000. The effects of financial and nonfinancial performance Measures of judgment and decision performance. Unpublished working paper, Michigan State University.
[218]Lynch, R. and K. Cross.1991. Measure up! yardsticks for continuous improvement [M]. Cambridge, Mass:Basil Blacemell.
[219]Malina, M. A. and F. H. Selto.2004. Choice and Change of Measures in Performance Measurement Models. Working Paper, University of Colorado at Boulder.
[220]Merchant, K. A.,1985. Organizational Controls and Discretionary Program Decision Making:A Field Study [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,10,67-85.
[230]Michael C. J., W. H. Meckling..2009. Specific Knowledge and Divisional Performance Measurement [J]. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,21(2): 49-57.
[240]Miles, R.W., Snow, C.C.,1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process [M]. McGraw Hill, New York.
[241]Miller, D., Friesen, P. H.,1986. Porter's (1980) generic strategies and performance:an empirical examination with American data:part 1:testing Porter [J]. Organ. Stud.,7,37-55.
[242]Miller, J. G., De Meyer, A., Nakane, J.1992. Benchmarking Global Manufacturing [M]. Homewood, Illinois, Irwin.
[243]Mittal, V., and W. A. Kamakura.'2001. Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics [J]. Journal of Marketing Research,38 (2):131-142.
[244]Moers F.2005. Discretion and bias in performance evaluation:the impact of diversity and subjectivity [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,30: 67-80.
[245]Nagar, V., and M. Rajan.2001. The revenue implication of financial and operational measures of product quality [J]. The Accounting Review,76: 495-513.
[246]Neely, A.1999. The performance measurement revolution:Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19 (2):205-228.
[247]Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K., and Bourne, M.1997. Design performance measures:A structured approach [J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,17(11):1131-1152.
[248]Okuyama, N., and Gavin F.2006. Disentangling Cognitive Bias in the Assessment of Investment Decisions:Derivation of Generalized Conditional Risk Attribution [J]. The Journal of Behavioral Finance,7(2):75-87.
[249]Oliva, T. A., D. L. Day, and W. S. DeSarbo.1987. Selecting competitive tactics:Try a strategy map [J]. Sloan Management Review,28:5-15.
[250]Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F.2002. The balanced scorecard, competitive strategy, and performance [J]. Business Horizons,45(3),11-16.
[251]Paula van Veen-Dirks.2009. Different uses of performance measures:The evaluation versus reward of production managers [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,2:1-24.
[252]Perera, S., G. Harrison, and M. Poole.1997. Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operation-based nonfinancial performance measures:A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society,22 (6):557-572.
[253]Perera, S., Harrison,G., Poole,M.,1997. Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-financial performance measures: a research note [J]. Acc. Organ. Soc.,22,557-572.
[254]Ping, R.1993. The Effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect [J]. Journal of Retailing,69(3):320-52.
[255]Porter, M. E.,1980. Competitive strategy [M]. Free Press, New York.
[256]Porter, M. E.,2001. Strategy and the internet. [M] Harvard Business Rev.79, 63-78.
[257]Rees, W., and C. Sutcliffe.1994. Quantitative non-financial information and income measures:The case of long-term contracts [J]. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting,4:331-347.
[258]Riley. R., T. Pearson, and G. Trompeter.2003. The value-relevance of non-financial performance variables and accounting information:the case of airline industry [J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,22:231-254.
[259]Roberts, M. L., T. L. Albright, and A. R. Hibbets.2004. Debiasing balanced scorecard evaluations [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,16:75-88.
[260]Rust, R. T., and A. J. Zahorik.1993. Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share [J]. Journal of Retailing 69 (2):193-215.
[261]Said, A., H. HassabElnaby, and B. Wier.2003. An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonfinancial measures [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,15:193-223.
[262]Scott, T. W., and P. Tiessen.1999. Performance measurement and managerial teams [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,24 (3): 263-286.
[263]Segev, E.1987. Strategy, strategy making and performance:an empirical investigation [J]. Management Science,33,258-268.
[264]Simon, H. A., Guetzkow, H., Kozmetsky, G., and Tyndall, G.1954. Centralization vs decentralization in organizing the controllers'department [M]. New York:Controllership Foundation Inc.
[265]Simons, R.1999. Performance Measurement & Control Systems for Implementing Strategy [M]. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
[266]Simons, R.,1987. Accounting control systems and business strategy:an empirical analysis [J]. Ace. Organ. Soc.,12,357-374.
[267]Simons, R.,1990. The role of management accounting systems in creating competitive advantage:new perspectives [J]. Ace. Organ. Soc.,1/2, 127-143.
[268]Slater, S. and, J. Narver.1994. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation performance relationship? [J] Journal of Marketing,58: 46-55.
[269]Slater, S., and Olson, E.2001. Marketing's contribution to the implementation of business strategy:An empirical analysis [J]. Strategic Management Journal,22,1055-1067.
[270]Slovic, P., and D. MacPhillamy.1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,11:172-194.
[271]Srinivasan, D., A. Sayrak, and N. Nagarajan.2003. Executive compensation and nonfinancial performance measures:a study of major U.S. airlines. Working paper, University of Pittsburgh.
[272]Tan, H. T., and A. Kao:1999. Accountability effects on auditors' performance:The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,37 (1):209-223.
[273]Tornow, Walter W., and Wiley, Jack W.1991. Service Quality and Management Practices:A Look at Employee Attitudes, Customer Satisfaction, and Bottom-line Consequences [J]. Human Resource Planning, 14:85-94.
[274]Van der Stede, W. A., Chow, C. W. and Lin, T. W.2006. Strategy, choice of performance measures, and performance [J], Behavioral Research in Accounting,18,185-205.
[275]Van der Stede, W. A., S. M. Young, and X. C. Chen.2005. Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research:The case of survey studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society,30 (7/8):655-684.
[276]Wittrock, M.1974. Learning as generative processes [J]. Educational Psychologist,11:87-95.
[277]Yim, A. T.2001. Renegotiation and Relative Performance Evaluation:Why An Informative Signal May Be Useless [J]. Review of Accounting Studies,6: 77-108.
[278]Zhang, S., and A. B. Markman.1998. Overcoming the early entrant advantage:The role of alignable and nonalignable differences [J]. Journal of Marketing Research,35 (11):413-426.