Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems

Andre A. de Waal Maastricht School of Management, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Keywords

Performance management systems, Individual behaviour

Introduction
Performance management systems are defined as:
. . . the formal, information-based routines and procedures managers use to maintain or alter patterns in organizational activities (adapted from Simons, 2000).

Abstract

This paper examines the role behavioral factors play in the successful implementation and use of performance management systems that are based on critical success factors, key performance indicators and the balanced scorecard. Case study research was performed which identified 18 individual behavioral factors to be important. The research also showed that the use stage in a systems implementation project has to be performed well in order to assure a regularly used performance management system.

Andre de Waal's article ``The role of behavioral factors in the successful implementation and use of performance management systems'' (published in Neely et al. (Eds), Performance Measurement and Management: Research and Action, Cranfield School of Management, UK, 2002) received the Highly Commended Paper Award at the Third International Performance Measurement & Management Conference, held in July in Boston, USA. The paper is a summary of the first part of the book Quest for Balance, The Human Element in Performance Management Systems (John Wiley & Sons, 2002).

Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697 # MCB UP Limited [ISSN 0025-1747] [DOI 10.1108/00251740310496206]

These systems focus on conveying financial and nonfinancial information that influence decision making and managerial action. The recording, analyzing, and distributing of this information is embedded in the rhythm of the organization and is often based on predetermined practices at preset times in the business cycle. These systems are designed specifically to be used by managers. According to Neely (2000), there is a natural evolutionary cycle at work in the development of theory and practice in the field of performance measurement and control systems. During this cycle, managers were first concerned that they were measuring the wrong things (late 1980s and early 1990s). After struggling with the adoption of new and alternative systems, like the balanced scorecard (throughout the 1990s), they now turn to the issue of how to use the data provided by these new systems (late 1990s and early 2000s). Zairi and Jarrar (2000) state that the main reason for managers to use data from the performance management system is to influence the behavior of subordinate managers and employees. To do so successfully, these managers need a clear view of human nature and behavior in organizations. Simons (2000) gives several assumptions about the nature of human activity in organizations: . people in organizations want to contribute to an organization of which they can be proud of;
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

people employed by business organizations also know the difference between right and wrong, and generally choose to do right; people strive to achieve even in the absence of external inducements (money, promotion, praise) people will often set a personal goal for themselves; people like to innovate they have an innate desire to experiment by creating new technologies and new ways of doing things; and people want to do competent work, a job well done allows them to exercise their skills and receive satisfaction from their competence.

Simons concludes that people like to have and show good performance.

The human element in performance management

Performance can be considered an outcome of both organizational and human activities. Originally, performance measures were used as surrogates for these outcomes, and a direct link between performance management systems, human nature, and outcomes was not made. This omission was addressed by Argyris (1952) (referred to by Vagneur and Peiperl, 2000, p. 25) and later on by Simon et al. (1954). They explored the human behavioral side of performance management system use, looking specifically at the budgeting system. Both concluded that budgets and budgeting processes could be associated with important human relation problems. These included workermanagement separation, cross-boundary conflict, and job-related tension. Their conclusions were substantial departures from the mechanistic approach to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

[ 688 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

performance measurement found in traditional management theory. Nowadays, the issue of the ``human element'' receives more than before attention in the literature. Simons (2000) states that performance measurement and control systems cannot be designed without taking into account human behavior. Holloway et al. (1995) argue that successful implementation of performance measurement depends above all on understanding and accommodating the human element. A closer look at the literature reveals that a lot of this attention for the human element seems to be still focused on its relationship to the budgeting system. In this respect, Hartmann (2000) remarks that it should be investigated whether personality factors related to individual preferences for risk and uncertainty are important determinants of managerial behavior and attitudinal reactions to budgeting. And Vagneur and Peiperl (2000) state that individual psychological responses to performance assessment should be investigated, taking into account research from the fields of psychology, organizational behavior, behavioral accounting, and systems theory. Next to this, a lot of performance management research focused on the technicalities of implementing a performance management system rather than on behavioral issues (Martins, 2000). In recent years, an increasing number of organizations have implemented performance management systems that are based on critical success factors (CSFs) and key performance indicators (KPIs). A frequently used format in this context is the balanced scorecard (BSC) (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Despite the increase in experience gained with these systems, there is still a lot to be learned about the factors that influence effective use of CSFs, KPIs, and the BSC (Vosselman, 1999). The influence of users' characteristics on the use of a performance management system has been underexposed in scientific and professional literature (Vagneur and Peiperl, 2000; Krause, 2000). Two recent studies into the behavioral aspects of performance management system implementation and performance management system use aim at filling this void. Lipe and Salterio (2000) found that managers' cognitive limitations may prevent organizations to fully benefit from a performance management system, and that cognitive differences between managers may lead them to use the performance management system differently. Malina and Selto (2000) found that positive outcomes

from performance management system use were mostly determined by the effectiveness by which the system is used as a management control device (defined in terms of effective measurement, comprehensive performance, and weight of the measurement dimensions), while these outcomes were not attributable to its use as a communication device. Positive outcomes are generated by better strategic alignment of employees and better motivation, which indicates that causal relationships exist between performance management system design, management control use, managerial and employee behavior, and performance. In this paper the line of research into the behavioral aspects of performance management system implementation and use is extended by addressing the research question: Which behavioral factors contribute to the successful implementation and use of a performance management system? (de Waal, 2002). A performance management system is regarded successful if managers use the system on a regular[1] (daily) basis. The research question is answered by studying three organizations that have designed and implemented a performance management system. The research aims to identify the behavioral factors that are responsible for the successful design and implementation of a performance management system.

Criteria for regular use

Since the objective of the research is to identify which behavioral factors are important to the successful implementation and use of a performance management system, criteria for regular use have been formulated on the basis of literature (Bruijn, 1994; Gelderman, 1998a, b). These criteria denote when use of the performance management system, and its CSFs, KPIs and BSC is valuable to the organization and its managers. The criteria are a mix of tangible and intangible benefits but focus more on the intangibles (Mooraj et al., 1999). In the criteria for regular use the ideas of Lewy and Du Mee (1998) are included, who argue that successful implementation and use of a performance management system does not necessarily mean that the organization has its performance management system embedded in the planning and control cycle with periodic reporting and discussion. In their opinion, a successful implementation and use of a performance management system can already be achieved when the managers have an intensified awareness of

[ 689 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

the importance of the performance management system. The seven criteria for regular use are given in the format of interview questions: 1 Are the results of the organization, according to managers, improved through the use of the performance management system? 2 Are the results of the organization, objectively, improved through use of the performance management system? 3 Has the degree of performance management system use by managers increased? 4 Are there plans for follow-up projects? 5 Is there a difference in manager attitude toward performance management, from project start to currently? 6 Is there regular communication about KPI results? 7 Are the CSFs, KPIs and BSC incorporated in the regular management reporting?

Classification scheme
The scientific and professional literature studied mentions many behavioral factors that are potentially important to successful implementation and regular use of a performance management system. Examples given are: ``Managers accept the need for performance management'' and ``Managers accept the promoter''. These factors have been grouped and arranged in a classification scheme (Figure 1).

This classification scheme was developed by linking the factors of effective control as given by De Leeuw (1990) with the control cycle of performance measurement as given by van Tuijl et al. (1995). For effective control, the controlling system (the superior of a manager) and the controlled system (the manager) need a performance management system. Through the performance management system, the controlling system gets information about the performance of the controlled system and the controlled system obtains information about its own performance. The internal and external environments in which the controlling and controlled systems operate also influence the effectiveness of control. In the performance management system, the development method part describes the way in which CSFs, KPIs, and the BSC are developed. The content part gives the quality criteria that CSFs, KPIs, and the BSC have to meet in order to be relevant to both controlling and controlled system. The feedback part describes the way in which information about CSFs, KPIs, and the BSC is conveyed to both controlling and controlled system. Each part of the classification scheme can be divided into subparts. For each subpart, behavioral factors can be found in the literature, so that it can become clear how each part of the classification scheme can be influenced favorably. Another distinction was made, based on the three stages that can be distinguished in

Figure 1 Classification scheme of behavioral factors

[ 690 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

a performance management system implementation project: 1 the starting stage (S), in which the organization decides to implement a performance management system; 2 the development stage (D), in which CSFs, KPIs, and the BSC are developed; and 3 the use stage (U), in which the organization starts to use the performance management system (Kerklaan et al., 1994; Kaplan and Norton, 1996). In total, 40 behavioral factors were identified from the literature (Algera, 1990, 2000; Buckley and Watkins, 2000; Dunk, 1990; Fisher, 1992; Ghobadian and Ashworth, 1994; Hofstede, 1984; Hronec, 1993; Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Kerklaan et al., 1994; Latham and Marchbank, 1994; Likierman, 1994; Locke and Latham, 1990; Marchand et al., 2000; Martins, 2000; McMann and Nanni, 1994; Meer-Kooistra and Vosselman; 2000; Merchant, 1998; Moon and Fitzgerald, 1996; Olve et al., 1999; Samson and Challis, 1999; Scott and Tiessen, 1999; Shields and Shields, 1998; Vosselman, 1999; van Tuijl et al., 1995; Wiersma, 1998; Williams, 1998). The behavioral factors are categorized in Table I along the parts of the classification scheme and their influence on particular project stages.

2000). The researcher approached organizations where either he himself or colleagues had contacts, to solicit for participation. The following organizations were chosen: the academic hospital AZU, the multinational EIS (two departments: EIS-CS and EIS-FA) and Kadaster, an organization in transition from nonprofit to profit. Some information about these organizations is given in Table II. The identified behavioral factors were operationalized by converting them into questions. The questions were distributed over the three sources of information collection that were used during the case study research: a questionnaire, an interview list, and a document research question list. For each of the four case studies, the data from the three information sources was gathered and discussed by the researchers. Based on this discussion, the researchers awarded a score, using the following score scheme: + = the behavioral factor is satisfied; 0 = the behavioral factor is partially satisfied; = the behavioral factor is not satisfied; and NA = insufficient basis to draw a conclusion whether the behavioral factor is satisfied or not. Basically, if the results for a particular behavioral factor from the interviews, document research, and questionnaire were all positive, the researchers awarded a plus (+); if the results were all negative, a minus () was given. If the results were either all 0 or not clearly in one direction (e.g. + 0 0, or + 0), a zero (0) was given by the researchers. A final score for each stage (S, D, and U) was determined by calculating the average of all behavioral factors grouped under that stage. This was done by awarding each (+) with one point, each (0) with zero points and each () with one point, adding these all up and dividing them by the total number of behavioral factors of that stage. If the average was below 0.2 the end result was denoted as being (); for an average above +0.2 the end result was (+) and for an average between 0.2 and +0.2 the end result was (0). An evaluation was also made by the researchers of whether the criteria for regular use were satisfied in each case study, again by combining and discussing all the information gathered. A final score was calculated by taking the average of all criteria scores. The following score scheme was used: + = the criterion was clearly improved by the performance management system use;

Method
To answer the research question, case study research was conducted. The type of case study organization was determined to be profit and nonprofit organizations in The Netherlands. The study object was specified to be the performance management system of the complete organization or of an organizational unit. A prerequisite for participating in the study was that the participating organization should have had the performance management system at their disposal for at least one to two years at the time of this study. The reason for using this time limit is twofold. On the one hand, the performance management system implementation should be relatively fresh in the minds of the interviewees so questions about the starting and development stages could be answered. On the other hand, the organization should have had sufficient practical experience with the performance management system so questions about the use stage could be answered. If the implementation happened too long ago, distortion may occur because managers have to rely on their memory. As a consequence, their opinion about the performance management system can become distorted (Van der Meer-Kooistra and Vosselman,

[ 691 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

Table I Overview of the behavioral factors Classification scheme part Performance management system development method Subpart Development method Behavioral factor Managers accept the need for performance management Managers have an active role during the development stage of the performance management system project Managers agree on the starting time Managers have been involved in decision making about the project starting time Managers are informed about the status of the performance management system project Managers are actively communicating about the performance management system project Managers understand the meaning of KPIs Managers are involved in defining KPIs Managers have insight into the relationship between KPIs and financial results Managers do not get discouraged by the collection of performance data Managers have insight into the relationship between strategy and CSFs/KPIs Managers have insight into the relationship between business processes and CSFs/KPIs Managers are involved in setting KPI targets Managers' KPI sets are aligned with their responsibility areas Managers have insight into the relationship between cause and effect Managers are involved in forecasting Managers trust good-quality forecasts Managers' activities are supported by KPIs Managers' frames of reference contain similar KPIs Managers are involved in making the CSF/KPI/BSC reporting layout Managers understand the CSF/KPI/BSC reporting Managers trust the performance information Managers are involved in making analyses Managers trust good-quality analyses Managers use the CSFs/KPIs/BSC that match their responsibility areas Managers' information processing capabilities are not exceeded by the number of CSFs/KPIs Managers have enough time to work with their CSFs/KPIs/BSC Managers have earlier (positive) experiences with performance management Managers realize the importance of CSFs/KPIs/BSC to their performance Managers do not experience CSFs/KPIs/BSC as threatening Managers can use their CSFs/KPIs/BSC for managing their employees Managers can influence the KPIs assigned to them Managers have sole responsibility for a KPI Managers accept the promoter Managers see the promoter spends enough time on the performance management system implementation Managers clearly see the promoter using the performance management system Managers and their controlling systems have a mutual trust Influence on stage S (1) D (1) S (2) S (3) D (2) D (3) D (4) D (5) U (1) U (2) D (6) D (7) D (8) D (9) U (3) U (4) U (5) U (6) U (7) D (10) D (11) U (8) U (9) U (10) D (12) U (11) U (12) S (4) U (13) U (14) U (15) D (13) U (16) D (14) D (15) U (17) U (18)

Performance management system content

Quality

Registration Purpose

Targets Balance Performance management system feedback Feed forward

Feedback

Controlled system

Management level

Management style

Controlling system

Responsibility Supervision

Relationship with controlled system [ 692 ]

(continued)

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

Table I Classification scheme part Internal environment Subpart Alignment Behavioral factor Managers find the performance management system relevant due to regular evaluations Managers use the performance management system regularly during the planning and control cycle Managers agree on changes in the CSF/KPI set Managers are stimulated to improve their performance Managers work in a stable, relatively tranquil environment Managers' results on CSFs/KPIs/BSC are openly communicated Managers' use of the performance management system is stimulated by the reward structure Managers find the performance management system relevant because only those stakeholders' interests that are important to the organization's success are incorporated Managers find the performance management system relevant because it has a clear internal control purpose Influence on stage U (19) U (20) U (21) U (22) S (5) U (23) U (24) D (16) D (17)

Organizational culture

External environment

External environment

Table II Information about the case study organizations Characteristic Total personnel (full-time equivalents) Number of interviews held Number of questionnaires returned AZU 4,000 14 62 of 150 (41.3%) EIS (CS + FA) 500 6 No questionnaire sent out Kadaster 3,000 18 37 of 80 (46.3%)

0 = it was unclear whether the criterion was improved by the performance management system use; and = the criterion was clearly not improved by the performance management system use.

Analysis
The research question was investigated by applying pattern matching, which allows patterns to be discerned between the various scores of the cases. These patterns tell us which behavioral factors, theoretically predicted to be important, coincide with the criteria for regular use. Pattern matching is applied to identify patterns between the scores on the individual behavioral factors and the criteria for regular use, and between the end scores for the three stages and the scores for the criteria for regular use. The assumption in pattern matching is that the behavioral factors are independent. This is why the factors have not been weighed. For pattern matching, a complete match between the scores of all cases gives a complete coincidence, indicating that these behavioral factors seem to have a general similarity with a successful implementation and use of a performance management system. These behavioral factors can consequently be considered to

be essential. A match between three or two scores gives a partial coincidence, which means that these behavioral factors have a partial similarity with the criteria for regular use. These behavioral factors may be important to the successful implementation and use of a performance management system. Finally, a match between one or none of the scores indicates there is no coincidence, which means that these behavioral factors may not be important to the successful implementation and use of a performance management system. As an example, some of the behavioral factors in the use stage are examined. The scores for four factors (U1, U9, U13, and U15) are compared with the scores for the criteria for regular use. These scores have been transferred into Table III from the four case studies. If factor U9 is examined, a complete match of the four scores is found: score 0 + + of U9 corresponds with the final score 0 + + of the criteria for regular use. Behavioral factors U13 and U15 have three respectively two matches with the final score of the criteria for regular use and therefore partially coincide. Behavioral factor U1 has only one coinciding score and is therefore deemed to be of no importance to the successful implementation and use of a performance management system.

[ 693 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

Table III Example of pattern matching No. U1 U9 U13 U15 Behavioral factor Managers have insight into the relationship between KPIs and financial results Managers are involved in making analyses Managers realize the importance of CSFs/KPIs/BSC to their performances Managers can use their CSFs/KPIs/BSC for managing their employees Final score criteria for regular use (for all four cases) AZU 0 0 + 0 EIS-FA EIS-CS Kad. Importance + + + + + 0 0 + + + + No Yes Partial Partial

Results
The results of the pattern matching indicate that there are 18 individual behavioral factors that coincide with the final score for the criteria for regular use. Therefore, the research question can be answered in the following way: 18 of the behavioral factors, derived from the behavioral factors in the literature, seem to be important to the successful implementation and use of a

performance management system. It is possible to group these 18 important behavioral factors together in categories in such a way that an overview appears of the areas an organization has to pay special attention to, in order to increase the chance of implementing a new performance management system that will be regularly used (Table IV). To identify which stages are most important to the successful implementation

Table IV Overview of the important behavioral factors Classification scheme part Performance management system Areas of attention Managers' understanding a good understanding by managers of the nature of performance management Behavioral factors D4. Managers understand the meaning of KPIs D7. Managers have insight into the relationship between business processes and CSFs/KPIs U7. Managers' frames of reference contain similar KPIs U21. Managers agree on changes in the CSF/KPI set S2. Managers agree on the starting time Managers' attitude a positive attitude of managers toward performance management, toward a performance S4. Managers have earlier (positive) experiences with performance management management system and toward the project U13. Managers realize the importance of CSFs/KPIs/ BSC to their performance U14. Managers do not experience CSFs/KPIs/BSC as threatening D9. Managers' KPI sets are aligned with their Performance management system alignment a good responsibility areas match between managers' responsibilities and the D13. Managers can influence the KPIs assigned to them performance management system U9. Managers are involved in making analyses U15. Managers can use their CSFs/KPIs/BSC for managing their employees Organizational culture an organizational culture focused U23. Managers' results on CSFs/KPIs/BSC are openly communicated on using the performance management system to U22. Managers are stimulated to improve their improve performance U8. Managers trust the performance information U17. Managers clearly see the promoter using the performance management system Performance management system focus a clear focus D16. Managers find the performance management system relevant because it has a clear internal control of the performance management system on internal purpose management and control D17. Managers find the performance management system relevant because only those stakeholders' interests that are important to the organization's success are incorporated

Controlled system

Controlling system

Internal environment

External environment

[ 694 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

and use of a performance management system, pattern matching was also applied to identify patterns between the end scores of the stages and the final scores of the criteria for regular use. The scores for the use stage coincide completely with the final scores for the criteria for regular use. In other words, it seems there is a relationship between a well-executed use stage and a good final score. The scores for the starting and development stages, on the other hand, coincide partially or not at all with the scores for the criteria for regular use. This tells us that there is no relationship between how well these stages have been executed and the final score. So, even a well executed starting and/or development stage is no guarantee for a good final score, that is, a regularly used performance management system. This does not mean that, during these stages, an organization should not pay attention to the behavioral factors that are important to these stages. The three stages are executed sequentially, which means that the first two stages must be executed properly before the use stage can be started. The fact that the use stage contributes most to the success of a performance management system may be explained by the fact that this stage is, in contrast to the starting and development stages, a continuous stage. The consequence of this is that the behavioral factors that are important to the use stage have to be monitored continuously to ensure regular use of the performance management system. In contrast, the attention for behavioral factors that are important to the starting and development stages lies in the past and therefore becomes less significant and visible through time. One may wonder whether the behavioral factors of the use stage and the criteria for regular use are so much alike that finding a relationship between the two is inevitable. However, after looking more closely at both, it becomes apparent that the criteria for regular use do not also appear as behavioral factors in the use stage. This indicates that the positive relationship between the two is not caused by a lack of the researchers making a theoretical distinction between the two.

indicated as being of influence on successful performance management system use. To keep the scope of the research manageable, a selection was made of the behavioral factors that were mentioned in the literature. Consequently, potentially influential factors may thus have been left out of the study. Therefore, a worthwhile avenue of further study is to look at additional behavioral factors. Further research is also needed into other factors, such as environmental or organizational factors. This research may yield more factors that are of great importance to successful implementation and use of a performance management system. The research results show that the use stage is the most important to the success of the performance management system. This means that further study should concentrate on this stage in order to discover (further) reasons why organizations do not use a newly implemented performance management system. Research is also needed into a ``maintenance'' system that makes sure that organizations, and its managers, continue to pay attention to the behavioral factors after the performance management system is put into use in order to make sure that the performance management system remains a success. As the case study organizations examined did not yet dispose of a reward system that was linked to the performance management system, further study should pay special attention to the role of the reward system in the maintenance system.

References

Discussion
The aim of the research was to identify behavioral factors that are important to the successful implementation and regular use of a performance management system. Initially, the research concentrated on identifying behavioral factors that the literature

Algera, J.A. (1990), ``Feedback systems in organizations'', in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 6, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Algera, J.A. (2000), ``Performance management in organisaties, tien jaar ervaring met ProMES'' (``Performance management in organizations, ten years of experience with ProMES''), Bedrijfskunde, Vol. 2, pp. 14-19. Argyris, C. (1952), The Impact of Budgets on People, The Controllership Foundation, Cornell University, New York, NY. Bruijn, R.P. (1994), ``De balanced scorecard in de praktijk'' (``The Balanced Scorecard in practice''), Handboek Management Accounting, Vol. D1815, September, pp. 1-22. Buckley, P. and Watkins, J. (2000), ``Life cycles in vivo: views from the front line in the implementation of a performance management system'', in Neely, A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement Past, Present, and Future, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University, Cranfield.

[ 695 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

Dunk, A.S. (1990), ``Budgetary participation, agreement on evaluation criteria and managerial performance: a research note'', Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 373-98. Fisher, J. (1992), ``Use of nonfinancial performance measures'', Cost Management, Spring, pp. 31-8. Gelderman, M. (1998a), ``A performance measurement framework'', research memorandum, Limperg Instituut, Amsterdam. Gelderman, M. (1998b), Usage of Performance Measurement and Evaluation Systems: The Impact of Evaluator Characteristics, Free University Amsterdam and Limperg Instituut, Amsterdam. Ghobadian, A. and Ashworth, J. (1994), ``Performance measurement in local government: concept and practice'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 35-51. Hartmann, F.G.H. (2000), ``The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 25 No. 4/5, pp. 451-82. Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture's Consequences, International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Holloway, J., Lewis, J. and Mallory, G. (Eds) (1995), Performance Measurement and Evaluation, Sage, London. Hronec, S.M. (1993), Vital Signs, AMACOM, New York, NY. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Kerklaan, L.A.F.M., Kingman, J. and van Kleef, F.P.J. (1994), De Cockpit van de Organisatie (The Cockpit of the Organization), Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen, Deventer. Krause, O. (2000), ``Management knowledge engineering a toolkit to engineer adaptive management systems'', in Neely, A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement Past, Present, and Future, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University, Cranfield, pp. 307-14. Latham, C. and Marchbank, T. (1994), ``Feedback techniques'', in Lee, G. and Bear, D. (Eds), Development Centers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Leeuw, A.C.J. de (1990), Organisaties: Management, Analyze, Ontwerp en Verandering: een Systeemvisie (Organizations: Management, Analysis, Design and Change: A System View), Van Gorcum, Assen. Lewy, C.P. and du Mee, A.F. (1998), ``In de kaart laten kijken, de tien geboden bij BSC-implementaties, versie 1.0'' (``Show one''s cards, the ten commandments of BSC implementations, version 1.0''), Management Control & Accounting, Vol. 2, pp. 32-7.

Likierman, A. (1994), ``20 early lessons for effective use of performance measures'', Public Money & Management, October/December. Lipe, M.G. and Salterio, S.E. (2000), ``The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures'', Accounting Review, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 283-98. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. McMann, P. and Nanni, A.J. Jr (1994), ``Is your company really measuring performance?'', Management Accounting, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 55-8. Malina, M.A. and Selto, F.M. (2000), ``Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard'', paper presented at the AAA Annual Conference, Philadelphia, August, pp. 13-16. Marchand, D.A., Davenport, T.H. and Dickson, T. (Eds) (2000), Mastering Information Management, Complete MBA Companion in Information Management, Prentice-Hall, Financial Times, Harlow. Martins, R.A. (2000), ``Use of performance measurement systems: some thoughts towards a comprehensive approach'', in Neely, A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement Past, Present, and Future, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University, Cranfield, pp. 363-70. Meer-Kooistra, J. van der, and Vosselman, E. (2000), ``De balanced scorecard: adoptie en toepassing'' (``The balanced scorecard: adoption and application''), Bedrijfskunde, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 85-95. Merchant, K.A. (1998), Modern Management Control Systems: Text and Cases, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Moon, P. and Fitzgerald, L. (1996), ``Delivering the goods at TNT: the role of the performance measurement system'', Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, pp. 431-57. Mooraj, S., Oyon, D. and Hostettler, D. (1999), ``The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or an unnecessary evil?'', European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 481-91. Neely, A. (Ed.) (2000), Performance Measurement Past, Present, and Future, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University, Cranfield. Olve, N.G., Roy, J. and Wetter, M. (1999), Performance Drivers, A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Samson, D. and Challis, D. (1999), Patterns of Excellence, The New Principles of Corporate Success, Prentice-Hall, Financial Times, Harlow. Scott, T.W. and Tiessen, P. (1999), ``Performance measurement and managerial teams'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 264-85.

[ 696 ]

Andre A. de Waal Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance management systems Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 688-697

Shields, J. and Shields, M. (1998), ``Antecedents of participative budgeting'', Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 49-76. Simon, H., Guetzkow, H. Kozmetsky, K. and Tyndall, G. (1954), Centralization vs Decentralization in Organizing the Controllers Department'', Controllership Foundation, New York, NY. Simons, R. (2000), Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy: Text and Cases, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Vagneur, K. and Peiperl, M. (2000), ``Reconsidering performance evaluative style'', Accounting, Organisations, and Society, Vol. 25 No. 4/5, pp. 511-25. van Tuijl, H.F.J.M., Kleingeld, P.A.M. and Algera, J.A. (1995), ``Prestatiemeting en beloning: contextafhankelijk ontwerpen'') (``Performance measurement and reward: context-bound design''), Gedrag en Organisatie, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 419-38. Vosselman, E.G.J. (1999), Accounting en Gedrag: Zichtbare en Onzichtbare Effecten van

Management Accounting, Accounting and Behavior: Visible and Invisible Effects of Management Accounting), Kluwer, Deventer. Waal, A.A. de (2002), Quest for Balance, the Human Element in Performance Management Systems, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Wiersma, E. (1998), ``Het gebruik van niet financiele prestatiemaatstaven: een literatuuroverzicht'' (``The use of nonfinancial performance indicators: a literature overview''), Tijdschrift BedrijfsAdministratie, Vol. 102 No. 1216, October, pp. 350-5. Williams, R.S. (1998), Performance Management, Perspectives on Employee Performance, International Thomson Business Press, London. Zairi, M. and Jarrar, Y. (2000), ``Becoming world class through a culture of measurement'', in Neely, A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement Past, Present, and Future, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University, Cranfield, pp. 688-94.

[ 697 ]