Corporate Corporate strategy employees attitudes toward the balanced scorecardStrategy Employees Attitudes Toward the Balanced Scorecard

7/23/2019 Corporate Corporate strategy employees attitudes toward the balanced scorecardStrategy Employees Attitudes To

1/36

Advances in Management AccountingCorporate Strategy, Employees Attitudes Toward the Balanced Scorecard, and

Corporate Performance: A Contingency Approach

Majidul Islam, Hani Tadros

Article information:

To cite this document:Majidul Islam, Hani Tadros. "Corporate Strategy, EmployeesAttitudes Toward the Balanced Scorecard, and Corporate Performance: A ContingencyApproach" InAdvances in Management Accounting. Published online: 09 Mar 2015;149-182.

Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000021012

Downloaded on: 31 October 2015, At: 04:58 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 33 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 390 times since NaN*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Adam S. Maiga, (2012),"The Effects of Information Technology Integration on

Manufacturing Financial Performance: The Role of Cost Control Systems",Advances in Management Accounting, Vol. 21 pp. 183-206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000021013

Gerui (Grace) Kang, Alan C. Roline, (2012),"The Contagion Effect inPerformance Evaluations in the Context of Balanced Scorecards", Advancesin Management Accounting, Vol. 20 pp. 101-124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000020011

Lan Guo, Bernard Wong-On-Wing, Gladie Lui, (2012),"Motivational Effects of LinkingIncentives to Different Measures in Strategic Performance Measurement Systems:Implications for Proactive Strategic Behavior", Advances in Management Accounting,

Vol. 20 pp. 209-240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000020015

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:393990 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then pleaseuse our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which

DownloadedbyUniversityoftheSunshin

eCoastAt04:5831October2015(PT)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000021012


2/36

publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 booksand book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online productsand additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partnerof the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and theLOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at

time of download.




3/36

CORPORATE STRATEGY,

EMPLOYEES ATTITUDES TOWARD

THE BALANCED SCORECARD,

AND CORPORATE PERFORMANCE:A CONTINGENCY APPROACH

Majidul Islam and Hani Tadros

ABSTRACT

Behavioral aspects and positive attitudes toward the balanced scorecard

(BSC) could be a determinant factor in the success of BSC implementa-

tion. In the study we use the contingency theory framework to examine

whether adopting a planned strategy improves employees buying into the

BSC and helps to maximize the benefits of BSC implementation by

enhancing corporate performance. We hypothesize that employees

attitudes and perceptions toward the implementation of the BSC are

contingent upon the type of strategy the firm is employing and the

suitability of deploying the BSC with this strategy in place. We use a path

model that draws an association between the firms strategy and employee

attitudes toward BSC implementation and employs OLS regression to

test the association between the variables. We also examine whether

employees positive attitudes help to improve a firms performance as

proxied by the customer, internal processes, learning and innovation, and

Advances in Management Accounting, Volume 21, 149182

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing LimitedAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1474-7871/doi:10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000021012

149




4/36

financial perspectives of the BSC. We sent a mail survey to Canadian andUS firms to collect the necessary data in order to conduct this study.

Conforming to our expectations, we find that firms that carefully plan

their strategic objectives are more likely to have a positive impact on their

employees perception of the BSC. A deliberate strategy or planned

strategy as defined by Mintzberg (1978) is associated with higher levels

of BSC awareness, perceptions of BSC ease of use, perceptions of BSC

usefulness, and intentions to use the BSC. We also find that higher

perceptions of BSC ease of use are positively associated with aspects of a

firms performance, such as from the customer, internal processes, andlearning and innovation perspectives. Hence, we conclude that firms

implementing the BSC need to take into consideration that the successful

implementation of the BSC requires careful planning to ensure that the

firms strategic objectives are well formulated, in agreement with BSC

measures, and effectively communicated to BSC users.

INTRODUCTION

Since Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed the balanced scorecard (BSC)

for performance and strategic management, the tool has gained prominence

in industry and academic research. The BSC relies on the interaction and the

complementarities between four aspects of the firm financial, customer,

internal business, and innovation and learning perspectives to drive the

firms future financial success in a sustainable manner. There is some

empirical evidence that firms that implement the BSC achieve some form of

success and enhanced financial performance (Bento & White, 2010; DeGeuser, Mooraj, & Oyon, 2009; Hoque & James, 2000; Maiga & Jacobs,

2003). The normative approach advocates that a blend of measures drawn

from the four scorecard perspectives would contribute toward organiza-

tional performance (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, 1996).Van der Stede, Chow,

and Lin (2006)emphasize that performance measures play a very important

role in translating an organizations strategy into desired organizational

behaviors and consequent results, as well as in helping to communicate

expectations, monitor progress, provide feedback, and on the other hand,

motivate employees who would be under the BSC control system throughperformance-based rewards. Nevertheless, the difficulty in implementing

the BSC impedes companies, on numerous occasions, from achieving the

MAJIDUL ISLAM AND HANI TADROS150




5/36

desired results (Chen & Jones, 2009; Johanson, Skoog, Backlund, &Almqvist, 2006).

Research studies cite employees behavioral issues as a potential

demotivator to the use of management control systems. The technology

acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989;Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989)

examines employees behavioral issues and shows that positive perceptions

of the technologys ease of use and usefulness increase employees liking of

the technology and the likelihood that employees would use that techno-

logy. However, there is a lack of evidence that overcoming these behavioral

issues would have a positive impact on performance (Chenhall, 2003). Thisstudy aims at filling that gap in the literature by examining the link between

employee acceptance of the BSC and firm performance.

The Link Between Employees Behavioral Factors Toward Balanced

Scorecard Usage and Firm Strategy

Some studies that explain the failure of the BSC in improving performance

claim that the widespread adoption of nonfinancial measures is generallybased on the idea that financial measures are characterized by being narrow

in focus, historical in nature, may be aggregated, and too one-dimensional to

be useful (e.g., Budde, 2007; DeBusk, Killough, & Brown, 2005; Ittner,

Larcker, & Randall, 2003;Lau & Sholihin, 2005). On the other hand,Kaplan

and Norton (2001) emphasize the linkage between the different measure-

ments of the BSC and the firms strategy to promote the nonfinancial

measures from a strategic operational point of view. In other words, the fit

between the BSC and the firms strategy is fundamental for a successful

implementation. Firms with planned strategies strategies with well-definedobjectives are more likely to be able to integrate their strategic objectives

into the BSC system. That premeditated path, from developing the firms

strategy to accordingly designing the BSC system, may improve the effective-

ness of communicating the BSC objectives, which increases the likelihood of

having the employees buy into the BSC, develop positive attitudes toward

it, and accept to use it as a management control system. Therefore, we suggest

that the success of deploying the BSC relies on the firms ability to positively

affect employees attitudes toward the BSC. This is contingent upon the fit

between the firms strategy and the BSC, which is measured by how well thefirms strategy is incorporated into the BSC objectives and the suitability

of deploying the BSC while this type of strategy is in place.

Strategy, Balanced Scorecard, and Corporate Performance 151




6/36

The Impact of the Internal Environment on the Firms Strategy andEmployees Attitudes Toward BSC Implementation

Finally, the fit between the BSC and strategy may not ensure enhanced

performance, since other variables, such as competition or cost structure

(Langfield-Smith, 2007), may also affect the usage of the BSC. Therefore,

to ensure a successful implementation, the firm also needs to manage a fit

between BSC usage and other internal factors of the firms environment. To

the best of our knowledge, this has not been examined in the management

accounting literature. This study would like to contribute to the literature byexamining the link between behavioral factors of BSC adoption and

corporate strategy and its impact on performance.

In this study, we first examine the effect of fit between the firms strategy

and the BSC on employees acceptance of the BSC as a management control

system. We hypothesize that firms that employ a planned strategy are more

suitable to deploy the BSC, since a planned strategy ensures that BSC

objectives are well communicated to employees, which positively affects

their attitudes toward the BSC. We also examine whether employees

acceptance of the BSC would lead to improved performance; a model ispresented inFig. 1. We study a sample of firms who implement the BSC and

Internal

Factors

Strategy

External

Factors

Employee

attitudes

toward BSC

Implementation

Performance

Fig. 1. Balanced Scorecard Implementation Model.





7/36

assess the impact of having a deliberate or planned strategy on employeeattitudes and behaviors toward the implementation of the BSC. We

hypothesize that a deliberate strategy that ensures integration of BSC

objectives and proper communication of these objectives during BSC

implementation will positively influence employees attitudes toward

BSC implementation, which will consequently have a positive impact on firm

performance.

The findings of this study would help explain and predict the likelihood

that BSC implementation would lead to improved performance. We also

believe that this study provides a validation to the TAM, as it shows that thebehavioral aspect is an important factor in BSC implementation, since it has

an impact on performance. Furthermore, it also provides guidance to firms

on how they could make the most of BSC usage and maximize its expected

benefits.

Section Theory and hypotheses development provides a review of the

literature and hypothesis development. Section Method includes the

sample description and the methodology used for our analysis. Section

Results is a discussion of the research findings. Finally, the conclusion and

research limitation are presented in Section Conclusion.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Success of BSC Implementation, Firm Strategy, and

the Contingency Framework

The use of the BSC as a management control system is not a blueprint for

success, since different firms operate at different levels of uncertainty. Theability of the BSC to inform managers on how to respond to the firms level

of uncertainty determines the success of the BSC as a management control

system. In order to respond to uncertainty, the contingency theory

framework predicts that control systems would lead to improved perfor-

mance if they act in concurrence with other factors of the firms internal

environment (Govindarajan, 1984, 1988;Hayes, 1977;Hirst, 1983;James &

Elmezughi, 2010). For example, James and Elmezughi (2010) show that

improvement in performance resulting from the use of BSC and activity-

based costing (ABC) is contingent on the firms strategy. They find thatfirms adopting a cost leadership strategy improve their customer and inno-

vation performance in comparison with firms with a differentiation strategy.

Govindarajan (1988)finds that firms that employ a differentiation strategy





8/36

achieve more success when they put less emphasis on meeting budgetaryconditions in comparison with firms that employ a low-cost strategy. In

brief, fit between the firms strategy as well as other internal factors and

the control system used by the firm is essential for a successful deployment

of the control system.

Employees Attitudes Toward Balanced Scorecard Implementation and

the Firms Performance

Further, human resource factors are a major factor in the failure to deploy

management control systems (Chen & Jones, 2009;Johanson et al., 2006).

The disconnection between the firms strategic objectives and the BSC

objectives might lead to poor development and communication of BSC

objectives, resulting in lower levels of employee acceptance of the control

system, which, in turn, could harm rather than benefit performance. In this

article, we study this relationship between the firms strategy, employee

attitudes toward BSC implementation, and performance, using a sample of

firms who have implemented the BSC as a tool for management control.There are many cases where firms fail to put the BSC into operation, and

academic research attempts to explore the factors behind failures (Johanson

et al., 2006). In a survey of 96 MBA students, Chen and Jones (2009)

highlight the importance of employee buy into the BSC for the firm to

derive the expected benefits from implementation. They find that the

disengagement between employees goals and those of the BSC in other

words, goals set by their managers is the reason for employee

dissatisfaction. Further, they also find that BSC measures and benefits

are not well communicated to employees. Johanson et al. (2006) criticizecompanies for employing a top-down approach in BSC implementation that

does not allow employee participation in the process. Therefore, employee

involvement and attitude toward the BSC are major success factors in BSC

implementation.

Islam and Kellermanns (2006)examine an individual-level model similar

to the TAM developed by Davies (1989) that embraces behavioral issues

that could enhance or impede BSC usage inside the firm. They examine the

association between four different factors and find that employee awareness

of the BSC capabilities leads to a better perception of the BSCs ease of useand usefulness. Further, perception about the BSCs ease of use is also asso-

ciated with positive perception of the BSCs usefulness. Finally, perception of

the BSCs usefulness among employees leads to greater intention to use the





9/36

BSC as a management control tool. Whether the findings of Islam andKellermanns (2006)have an impact on firm performance remains unknown.

Based on contingency theory framework, Chenhall (2003) predicts that

positive perceptions about the ease of use and usefulness of a management

control system would lead to better usage of the system, which would

accordingly improve performance. Hence, we hypothesize that the four

behavioral issues examined by Islam and Kellermanns (2006) would

influence firm performance following the implementation of the BSC.

H1. Awareness of BSC capabilities is positively associated with firm

performance.

H1a. Perception of BSC ease of use is positively associated with firm

performance.

H1b. Perception of BSC usefulness is positively associated with firm

performance.

H1c. Intention to use the BSC is positively associated with firm

performance.

Strategy and Employees Attitudes Toward Balanced Scorecard

Implementation

The association of management control systems with the companys strategy

is documented in management accounting literature (Langfield-Smith,

2007). In this reciprocal relationship, the firms strategy helps to define

the type of control system required by the firm (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). Inreturn, the control system provides the companys management team with

the necessary support for strategy realization.

Strategy is quite an abstruse term that many scholars attempt to define.

According to Mintzberg (1978), strategy goes through two phases:

formulation and realization. He suggests that not every formulated strategy

ends up being implemented. On the other hand, a firm might realize a

strategy that results from regular daily operating decisions that end up

building the firms strategy, which he calls emergent strategy. Miles,

Snow, Meyer, and Coleman (1978) define three types of firm strategies:defender, prospector, or analyzer. A defender strategy is based on

maintaining stability through continuous improvement of current products

or services. Meanwhile, a prospector strategy is built around a dynamic





10/36

environment that favors innovation. The analyzer strategy falls halfway onthe defenderprospector spectrum. Similarly, Porter (1980) also defines

three types of strategies: cost leadership, differentiation, and focus.

Despite the differences, there is common ground between these defini-

tions. According to Langfield-Smith (2007), a defender strategy and a cost

leadership strategy require a high level of planning with structured and

detailed control systems in order to achieve results. This draws a parallel

withMintzbergs (1978) definition of deliberate strategy, a strategy that

goes from a careful phase of formulation into the implementation phase.

Alternatively, Langfield-Smith (2007) claims that prospector and differ-entiation adopter firms prefer more flexibility and less formal control

systems, as mandated by the dynamic environment in which they operate.

These types of firms may adopt an emergent strategy, as defined by

Mintzberg (1978), where the realized strategy is a result of the decisions

made in response to the changes in the environment rather than a pre-

planned process.

We suggest that firms adopting a deliberate strategy are more inclined to

adopt a structured management control system, including one such as the

BSC. These firms would carefully plan the implementation of the BSC andensure that the four elements customer, financial, internal business,

learning, and innovation were reflective of the firms strategy. Further, they

would ensure that objectives were carefully communicated to employees,

which would have a positive impact on their attitudes toward the BSC

implementation. Hence, we hypothesize that a deliberate strategy is positively

associated with the four behavioral factors of BSC implementation.

H2. A deliberate strategy is positively associated with awareness of BSC

capabilities.

H2a. A deliberate strategy is positively associated with perception of BSC

ease of use.

H2b. A deliberate strategy is positively associated with perception of BSC

usefulness.

H2c. A deliberate strategy is positively associated with the intention to

use the BSC.

Alternatively, firms following emergent strategies might have theirobjectives changing constantly. If these firms adopt the BSC, they would

have difficulty in embedding their continually changing strategic objectives

into the four perspectives of the BSC. Thus, firms would not be able to rely





11/36

on predefined measures of financial, customer, learning and innovation, andinternal processes, since their emergent strategies would require these

measures to evolve continually. Consequently, it would create confusion

among the users of the BSC and negatively affect their perception about the

tool. Therefore, we hypothesize that an emergent strategy is negatively

associated with the four factors of BSC implementation.

H3. An emergent strategy is negatively associated with awareness of BSC

capabilities.

H3a. An emergent strategy is negatively associated with perception ofBSC ease of use.

H3b. An emergent strategy is negatively associated with perception of

BSC usefulness.

H3c. An emergent strategy is negatively associated with the intention to

use the BSC.

Control Variables

Employees Attitudes Toward BSC Implementation and the Firms Internal

Characteristics

A firms internal characteristics affect the success of implementing a control

system such as the BSC. For example, Chen and Jones (2009) find that

differences exist between BSC adopters and nonadopters in terms of

information capital. They claim that BSC adopters have more developed

information systems that enable firms to process information in real time,thus facilitating the adoption process. Lingle and Schiemann (1994)discuss

the role of management information systems in the success of strategy

formulation and implementation. They suggest that inefficient information

systems lead to data scatter, which creates three problems that hinder the

effective formulation and implementation of the firms strategy. First, it

creates strategy silos, where executives define the firms strategy according

to their set of data. Second, it creates a data war, where each executive

uses the data at his/her possession to defend his/her strategic focus. Again,

inadequate data at the time of strategy formulation leads to continualchanges in strategic objectives as new information emerges. Therefore, it is

necessary to control for the firms internal characteristics, since they may

play a role in determining employees attitudes toward BSC implementation.





12/36

Based on prior research, we control for firm size, marketing strengths(change in market share, percentage of sales from new products), oper-

ational strengths (employee productivity and employee retention), and

information system strength.

Firm Strategy and External Variables

Govindarajan and Gupta (1985)suggest that a good fit between the elements

of the firms external environment, the firms strategy, and its choice of controlsystem would result in better corporate performance. There is evidence that

external variables are determinants of the firms strategy; furthermore, there is

also evidence that external variables would affect the choice of the

management control system. Khandwalla (1972) finds that operating in a

market characterized by strong competition increases the need for formal

control systems. Therefore, we suggest that variables of the firms external

environment would determine the firms type of strategy, which, conse-

quently, would determine the success of implementing that control system

with this type of strategy in place. We control for the level of competition formarket share, change in consumer behavior, change in product life cycle, and

change in social, legal, and political environments as determinants of the

firms strategy.

METHOD

Sample Selection

We collected data for this study by surveying individuals in management

teams in American and Canadian companies, using the Dunn and Bradstreet

database. We sent the survey questionnaires to 800 companies by mail in

November 2008. We followed up with phone calls two weeks after the mailing

date and received responses until February 2009. The survey consisted of

questions about the firms internal processes, external environment, strategy,

BSC perceptions, and corporate performance. In most of the questions,

the respondent showed his/her level of agreement with the subject by using

a seven-point Likert-scale (seeTable 1for details). The survey ensured thatall respondents were kept anonymous.

We received 91 responses, representing an 11.4% response rate. In this

study, we analyze the responses of 63 firms who indicated that they use the





13/36

Table 1. Measures of Strategy, Employees Attitudes Toward the BSC Implem

Internal and External Factors.


eCoastAt04:5831October201

5(PT)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000021012&iName=master.img-000.png&w=400&h=192


14/36



5(PT)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000021012&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=426&h=220


15/36



5(PT)


16/36



5(PT)


17/36



5(PT)


18/36



5(PT)


19/36



5(PT)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/S1474-7871(2012)0000021012&iName=master.img-006.png&w=411&h=130


20/36

BSC. The main reason for the low response rate was that the firmsmanagement was busy managing the economic depression at the end of

2008. Other reasons for not answering the survey included company policy

on not responding to surveys and the unavailability of the contact person.

Definition of Variables

Table 1shows the measures that we use to proxy for the different variables

employed in this study.Corporate performance: We use a large number of indicators to proxy for

firm performance. Since these indicators could be linked together, we

employ factor analysis to reduce the number of indicators for performance.

The study examines the four dimensions of performance as described by

Kaplan and Norton (1992): financial, customer, internal business, and

innovation and learning. Measures of firm performance are presented in

Table 1.

Employees behavioral factors toward BSC implementation: As was

previously mentioned, we adopt the four measures developed by Islam andKellermanns (2006) to proxy for the different behavioral factors affecting

the implementation of the BSC. These factors were awareness of BSC

capabilities, perceptions of BSC ease of use, perceptions of BSC usefulness,

and intentions to use the BSC.Table 1presents the measures of employees

attitudes toward BSC implementation.

Firm strategy: We examine one characteristic of firm strategy as defined

by Mintzberg (1978): whether the firms realized strategy is a result of a

preformulated strategy (i.e., deliberate strategy) or whether it is an outcome

of a management decision-making process in response to a changingenvironment (emergent strategy). The survey asks the respondents to

describe whether the firms strategy is planned in advance or whether it is

formulated over time. Measures of the firms strategy are presented in

Table 1.

Internal factors: We examine the firms capabilities and characteristics

such as the extent of use of information systems, productivity, employee

retention, product development, and market performance.

External factors: In terms of external factors, we examine the level of

competition in the firms market, changes in consumer demands, changes inthe outside technology related to product, manufacturing, and information

processing, changes in social, political, and legal environments, and product

life cycle.





21/36

RESULTS

Determining Firm Performance Using Factor Analysis

To understand the association between the different variables, we draw a

path model where we use OLS regression to test the relation between the

variables, as indicated inFig. 1.Table 2summarizes the results of the factor

analysis that define the different constructs of BSC awareness, perception of

BSC ease of use, perception of BSC usefulness, intention to use BSC,

strategy, financial perspective, customer perspective, internal businessperspective, and innovation and learning perspective. According to Kwok

and Sharp (1998), we test the reliability of the different measures using

Cronbach Alpha and use the results of the factor analysis to assess the

validity of our constructs. The results in Table 2 show that the different

measures have an acceptable level of internal consistency (Cronbach Alpha

between 0.5 and 0.9) except for one measure of the firms performance

customer perspective which has a low Cronbach Alpha (0.126 for the

customer satisfaction component and 0.293 for the new products

component). The high factor loading (above 0.5) provides assurance thatthe different measures are representing the constructs we want to measure.

Table 1 shows the definition we employ for the internal and external

characteristics of the firm. For the internal characteristics we asked the

respondents to report on the emphasis placed by their firm on the intro-

duction of new products, gain of market share, productivity, and employee

retention. We also assess the firms information system capabilities and

control for firm size. As for the external environment in which the firm was

operating, we asked the respondents to assess changes in product, manu-

facturing, and information technologies and product life cycle. We alsoasked them to assess the threats made by changes in customer preferences

and the legal, political, and social environment.Table 3presents the Pearson

correlation between the different variables.

It should be mentioned that the customer perspective reported in Table 2

has two components. The first component is associated with the introduc-

tion of new products; hence, it is called New Products. The second factor,

called Customer Satisfaction, is related to customer satisfaction measures

and product quality. The strategy construct also has two components. The

first component reported in Table 2 loads positively on measures ofDeliberate Strategy and loads negatively on measures of Emergent

Strategy. The second component loads on one measure of Emergent

Strategy. We retain the first component, since it provides an explanation





22/36

Table 2. Results of Factor Analysis.Component

Loading

Variance

Explained

(%)

Factor analysis for the attributes of strategy

We typically dont know what the strategic priorities of

our business strategy should be until we engage in

some trial and error actions

0.480 42.9

My Organizations strategic priorities are carefully

planned and well understood before any significant

competitive actions are taken

0.606

Formal strategic plans serve as the basis for our

competitive actions

0.841

My Organizations strategic priorities are typically not

planned in advance but, rather, emerge over time as

the best means for achieving our objectives become

clearer

0.622

Competitive strategy for my organization typically

results from a formal business planning process (i.e.,

the formal plan precedes the action)

0.672

Cronbach Alpha for measures of emergent strategy 0.511

Cronbach Alpha for measures of deliberate strategy 0.709

Factor analysis for the attributes of BSC awareness

I know the feature of the balanced scorecard approach 0.931 74.1

I am aware of the cost of deploying balanced scorecard 0.893

I know the extent of benefits that can be derived by

deploying the balanced scorecard

0.931

I dont know the type of business activities in which

balanced scorecard information can be deployed

0.658

Cronbach Alpha for measures of BSC awareness 0.709

Factor analysis for the attributes of perception of BSC ease of use

The balanced scorecard approach is easy to learn 0.903 75.1

The balanced scorecard approach is clear and

understandable

0.919

The balanced scorecard approach is easy to use 0.863

The balanced scorecard approach is flexible 0.878

The balanced scorecard approach is hard to follow 0.760

Cronbach Alpha for measures of perception of BSC ease

of use

0.923

Factor analysis for the attributes of perception of BSC usefulness

Using balanced scorecard would improve company

performance

0.949 86.3





23/36

Table 2. (Continued)

Component

Loading

Variance

Explained

(%)

Using balanced scorecard in the company would

increase productivity

0.896

Using balanced scorecard would enhance effectiveness

in the company

0.926

I find balanced scorecard would be useful in my

company

0.944

Cronbach Alpha for measures of perception of BSC

usefulness

0.947

Factor analysis for the attributes of BSC intention to use

Assuming I had access to BSC, I intend to use it 0.95 90.2

Given that I had access to BSC, I predict that I would

use it

0.95

Cronbach Alpha for measures of BSC intention to use 0.892

Factor analysis for the attributes financial perspective

Rate of return on investment (ROI) 0.823 48.9Percentage of market share 0.648

Sales growth 0.561

Cash flow from operations 0.737

Cronbach Alpha for measures of financial perspective 0.643

Component Loading Variance Explained (%)

New Products Customer

Satisfaction

Factor analysis for the attributes customer perspectiveProduct (or service) quality 0.138 0.838 57.8

Customer satisfaction with

product/service delivery

process

0.232 0.553

Percentage of sales from new

products

0.632 0.329

Development of markets for new

or existing products

0.838 0.137

Cronbach Alpha for measures of

measures of customersatisfaction

0.126

Cronbach Alpha for measures of

new products

0.293





24/36

for 43% of the variation in strategy measures and since the interpretation of

that component is in agreement with our expectations. The second component

is not reported in this study. The higher the values of the strategy construct,

the more the firm is inclined toward the adoption of a Deliberate Strategy,

and the lower value of that construct meant that the firm tends to adopt an

emergent strategy.

Discussion of the Correlation Matrix

Regarding the correlation between the different variables, Table 3 shows

that there is a positive correlation between a firms strategy and the four

variables representing employees attitudes toward the BSC implementation.This suggests that a deliberate strategy is associated with higher levels

of BSC awareness, perception of BSC ease of use, perception of BSC

usefulness, and intention to use the BSC. The high levels of correlation


Component

Loading

Variance

Explained (%)

Factor analysis for the attributes of internal processes perspective

Comparative costs with similar unit of competitors (or

service provider)

0.574 41.4

Decrease in percentage of waste and rework (or error

correction)

0.770

Decrease in percentage of total cost to net sales (services

or products)

0.737

Decrease in percentage of sales returns 0.593

Time to market (make available to public) new products 0.560

Your companys budget for waste management 0.593

Cronbach Alpha for measures of internal processes 0.683

Factor analysis for the attributes of learning and innovation perspective

Employee satisfaction 0.568 54.2

Investment in information technology/E-commerce 0.786

Workplace relations 0.617

Employee health and safety 0.810

Employee training and development 0.857

Cronbach Alpha for measures of learning and

innovation

0.781





25/36

Table 3. Pearson Correlation.

Strategy BSC_ Awareness

BSC_Ease_of_Use

BSC_Usefulness BSC_Intention_to_Use

Financial N

Strategy 1

BSC_Awareness 0.562 1

BSC_Ease_of_Use 0.465 0.610 1

BSC_Usefulness 0.466 0.895 0.680 1

BSC_Intention_to_Use 0.477 0.777 0.698 0.827 1

Financial 0.309 0.334 0.275 0.252 0.223 1

Customer_New_Product 0.182 0.023 0.295 0.006 0.047 0.013

Customer_Satisfaction 0.155 0.116 0.148 0.157 0.209 0.182

Internal_Processes 0.078 0.041 0.404 0.012 0.037 0.235

Learning_Innovation 0.123

0.073 0.451

0.105 0.027 0.267 Size 0.129 0.266 0.399 0.183 0.340 0.414

Sales from new products 0.022 0.021 0.232 0.098 0.039 0.013

Market share 0.143 0.241 0.107 0.303 0.097 0.338

Productivity 0.02 0.181 0.106 0.06 0.276 0.043

Information systems 0.176 0.392 0.107 0.418 0.153 0.477

Employee retention 0.141 0.016 0.101 0.066 0.095 0.237

Competition 0.471 0.422 0.11 0.413 0.366 0.005

Product technology 0.21 0.471 0.106 0.448 0.27 0.257

Manufacturing

technology

0.313 0.480 0.205 0.488 0.477 0.310

Information technology 0.238 0.291 0.285 0.332 0.281 0.152

Legal environment 0.219 0.084 0.066 0.031 0.082 0.021 Customer preferences 0.274 0.509 0.138 0.536 0.283 0.108

Product life cycle 0.213 0.413 0.024 0.408 0.198 0.193

Social environment 0.119 0.396 0.181 0.393 0.300 0.178 DownloadedbyUniversityoftheSunshin


5(PT)


26/36


Size Sales from

New Products

Market

Share

Productivity Information

Systems

Employee

Retention

Competition Product

Technology

Manufacturing

Technology

In

Te

Size 1

Sales from new products 0.082 1

Market share 0.068 0.11 1

Productivity 0.233 0.318 0.637 1

Information systems 0.153 0.042 0.483 0.12 1

Employee retention 0.077 .292

0.411

0.459

0.231 1Competition 0.009 0.158 0.394 0.26 0.293 0.12 1

Product technology 0.135 0.044 0.311 0.034 0.351 0.279 0.314 1

Manufacturing technology 0.169 0.037 0.307 0.011 0.241 0.16 0.395 0.677 1

Information technology 0.199 0.257 0.122 0.044 0.309 0.248 0.415 0.466 0.471

Legal environment 0.036 0.084 0.344 0.021 0.357 0.165 0.158 0.004 0.23

Customer preferences 0.056 0.068 0.19 0.027 0.204 0.119 0.348 0.415 0.421

Product life cycle 0.043 0.019 0.433 0.103 0.414 0.288 0.395 0.700 0.614

Social environment 0.081 0.015 0.379 0.118 0.391 0.293 0.257 0.414 0.463

N63.

po.1 level (2-tailed); po.05 level (2-tailed).



5(PT)


27/36

between the four variables representing employees attitudes toward theBSC implementation may raise questions about the colinearity between the

measurements. It may be possible that the users overall experience with

the BSC biases their assessment of the level of awareness of BSC capabi-

lities, perceptions about the BSC, and intention to use it. In other words,

users who have a positive BSC experience might be willing to provide a high

evaluation regarding their level of BSC awareness, perception of BSC ease

of use, perception of BSC usefulness, and intention to use the BSC and vice

versa. A positive correlation between BSC ease of use and internal processes

and innovation and learning shows that BSC ease of use is essential toengage employees in using the BSC and improving some aspects of a firms

performance. However, it is the higher awareness of the BSC capabilities

that results in higher financial performance, as shown by the positive corre-

lation between the two variables.

Regression Analysis

Association between a Firms Strategy and Employees Attitudes TowardBSC Implementation

Table 4 shows that firms that face increased market competition, higher

changes in manufacturing technology, and higher legal and political threats

are more likely to adopt a deliberate strategy, meaning that these firms plan

Table 4. Regression Results of the Effect of Firms External

Factors on Strategy.

Strategy

b R2 F

Competition 0.356 0.386 3.064

Product technology 0.175

Manufacturing technology 0.306

Information technology 0.076

Legal environment 0.301

Customer preferences 0.220

Product life cycle 0.026

Social environment 0.119

N63. po.1 level (2-tailed); po.01 (2-tailed).





28/36

their strategic actions more carefully and ensure that their plans areimplemented accordingly.

As predicted in H2 and H3, there is a positive association between the

type of strategy used and the employees attitudes toward BSC implementa-

tion awareness, perception of ease of use, perception of usefulness, and

intention to use (refer to Table 5). This means that firms that adopt a

deliberate strategy are more likely to positively influence employees

attitudes toward BSC implementation, and firms that adopt an emergent

strategy are less likely to do so. A possible explanation for this finding is that

the implementation of the BSC requires a lot of preparation on the part ofthe firm; therefore, anticipation and early resolve on objectives facilitate the

communication of the BSC capabilities to the employees and ensure their

buy-in.

Association between a Firms Internal Factors and Employees Attitudes

Toward BSC Implementation

Table 6shows the association between the internal characteristics of the firm

and the employees attitudes toward the BSC implementation. Intuitively,

firms that focus on the development of their information systems areassociated with higher levels of BSC awareness. A probable explanation is

that the development of information systems helps communicate the BSC

capabilities effectively to employees. However, a developed information

system neither ensures that the employees would perceive the BSC as being

easy to use or its usefulness nor guarantees that employees will use the BSC.

Firms with a focus on revenue-side activities, such as increase in market

share, would find the BSC more useful and would be much more willing to

use it. A focus on market share is also associated with higher BSC awareness

but is not associated with BSC perception of ease of use. Interestingly, firmsassociated with cost-reduction activities, such as increasing productivity, are

not in favor of implementing the BSC. A possible explanation is that the

implementation of formal control systems requires a lot of time and could

be seen as being counterproductive. A focus on increasing productivity

means that employees are less aware of BSC capabilities. They are less likely

to perceive it as a useful tool and less likely to use it.

Similar to the results of the study by Islam and Kellermanns (2006)

(results are not reported), BSC perception of ease of use and BSC perception

of usefulness are associated with BSC awareness. BSC perception of ease ofuse positively affects BSC perception of usefulness. Finally, BSC perception

of ease of use and BSC perception of usefulness positively affect BSC

intention to use.





29/36

Table 5. Regression Results of the Effect of Strategy on Employee Attitud

BSC Awareness Perception of BSC Ease of Use Perception of BSC Usefulne

b R2 F b R2 F b R2 F

Strategy 0.526 0.316 22.6 0.338 0.216 12.12 0.39 0.218 12.79

N63. po.01 (2-tailed).



5(PT)


30/36

Table 6. Regression Results of the Effect of Firms Internal Factors on Employee

BSC Awareness Perception of BSC Ease of Use Perception of BSC U

b R2 F b R2 F b R2

Size 0.032 0.375 2.897 0.096 0.124 0.638 0.099 0.375

Sales from new

products

0.063 0.107 0.153

Market share 0.407 0.002 0.405

Productivity 0.466 0.036 0.398

Information

systems

0.282 0.031 0.226

Employee

retention

0.148 0.087 0.164

N63. po.1 level (2-tailed); po.05 level (2-tailed).



5(PT)


31/36

Association between Employees Attitudes Toward BSC Implementation andFirm Performance

As shown inTable 7, employees attitudes toward BSC implementation are

associated with improved levels of performance, as predicted by H1. It

seems that employees perception of BSC ease of use is the most important

factor that leads to improved performance. It is positively associated with

improved performance in the learning and innovation, customer, and

internal processes perspectives. Furthermore, awareness of the BSC

capabilities is associated with higher levels of financial performance.

Inexplicably, awareness of BSC capabilities is negatively associated withthe internal processes perspective. The only explanation for this finding is

that the reliability of measuring internal processes, though acceptable, is not

high enough to guarantee a reliable measurement of the firms internal

processes (Cronbach Alpha of 0.683).Fig. 2summarizes the findings of our

model that links the firms strategy, employees behavioral factors toward

the implementation of the BSC, and firms performance.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we examine whether the fit between the firms strategy and

management control in using the BSC had a positive impact on corporate

performance. We focus on behavioral issues affecting the implementation of

the BSC in companies. We hypothesize that a fit between strategy and the

BSC would have a positive impact on the behavior of BSC users, which

could lead to better performance. We also control for the firms internal

characteristics and external environment that could affect the choice of the

firms strategy and the implementation of the BSC as a management controltool.

We examine four behavioral factors that affect BSC implementation,

which are BSC awareness, perception of ease of use, perception of useful-

ness, and intention to use. Islam and Kellermanns (2006) show that these

factors are interrelated and that awareness about BSC capabilities is the

driver of employees perception of ease of use and usefulness, which in turn

increases the likelihood that employees will buy into the BSC and become

more willing to use it. Our study confirms these findings. We argue that a fit

between the firms strategy and BSC objectives would enhance employeesunderstanding of BSC capabilities and strengthen their view that the BSC

could help the firm to improve; thus, it could lead to advancing a firms

performance. BSC implementation is a complex task that requires careful





32/36

Table 7. Regression Results of Employee Attitudes Toward the BSC on Co

Financial Perspective Customer Perspective Internal Processes

Perspective

New Products Customer Satisfaction b R2

b R2 F b R2 F b R2 F

BSC awareness 0.731 0.180 2.147 0.231 0.096 0.983 0.296 0.044 0.430 0.808 0.275 3.2

Perception of

BSC ease of use

0.081 0.406 0.153 0.697

Perception of

BSC usefulness

0.327 0.173 0.140 0.375

BSC intention

to use

0.030 0.032 0.269 0.282

N63. po.1 level (2-tailed); po.05 level (2-tailed); po.01 (2-tailed).



5(PT)


33/36

planning, preparation, and thorough understanding. Hence, we expect those

firms with clear and planned strategies deliberate strategies, as defined by

Mintzberg (1978) to be more successful in communicating BSC

capabilities and selling the BSC to their employees. Alternatively, firms

with emergent strategies do not have a clear strategic vision, and BSC

implementation might cause confusion among the users if they experiencecontinuously changing objectives.

In agreement with our expectations, we find that a planned strategy

facilitates BSC implementation, as it fosters employee buy-in of the control

system. Employees of firms with deliberate strategies are more likely to be

aware of BSC capabilities, have better perceptions about its ease of use and

usefulness, and are more willing to use the tool. We also find that the

perception of BSC ease of use is the most important factor affecting perceived

performance. Our explanation is that employees awareness of BSC capabi-

lities and usefulness is essential but not enough to drive performance. It isemployees perception that the BSC is easy to use that drives system

effectiveness, which leads to improvement in performance. Finally, we find

that the development of strong communication and information systems was

Internal Characteristics

Size

Sales from New Products

Market Share (*)

Productivity (*)

Information Systems (*)

Employee Retention

Strategy

External Characteristics

Competition*

Product Technology

Manufacturing Technology (*)

Information Technology

Legal Environment (*)

Customer Preferences

Product Life Cycle

Social Environment (*)

Awareness

Perception

Ease of Use

Perception

Usefulness

Intention to

Use

Employee behaviours toward BSC

Implementation

Performance

Financial

Customer

Internal

Processes

Learning and

Innovation

0.731*

0.406*

0.697***

0.719**

0.526*

0.338***

0.390***

0.394***

***p < .01 (2-tailed), **p < .05 level (2-tailed), *p < .1 level (2-tailed)

(*) Significant external and internal variables (refer to Tables 4 and 6 for detail s)

Fig. 2. Summary of Results.





34/36

vital for BSC implementation, as it helps to increase awareness of BSCcapabilities.

These findings could be interesting to firms implementing, or planning

to implement, the BSC, as it provides them with a perspective on how to

maximize their benefits from using the BSC as a management control

system. We propose that firms provide employees with planned objectives

that embrace the different BSC measures and clear guidelines on handling

the BSC in order to eliminate possible frustrations that could occur during

implementation and ensure employee buy-in.

Limitation of the Study

This is one of the studies exploring the survey data of the manufacturing

companies who are using the BSC. This study tests some hypotheses, and

the results are encouraging. However, the results cannot be generalized,

because there are some limitations of the study, and further investigation is

needed. We recognize that, during the period when the survey was

conducted, in 2008, the world economy, including that of the USA andCanada, was undergoing an economic depression. Understandably, it may

be argued that the survey period was not a normal one, which could have

caused the sample size to be small. The current study mailed out the survey

questionnaires to all types of companies at random, based on sales and

industry description criteria. The findings show aggregate inferences for

industries in general rather than for a particular type of industry. The result

of the use and implementation of the BSC could be different depending on a

type of industry, which requires further investigation. Future study for BSC

implementation and its implications on performance is required based onthe industry-specific data of the companies.

In this research study, we use a methodology that relies on surveying a top

management representative from each firm for his/her views of the firms

strategy, employees attitude toward the implementation of the BSC, and

the firms performance. One shortcoming of this research methodology is

that it generalizes the respondents attitude toward the implementation of

the BSC to represent other employees behavior. Another limitation is the

use of the respondents perception of the firms strategy and performance to

represent two constructs that take place at the firm level. These short-comings could not be avoided, since we need to preserve the anonymity of

the firms and the respondents; therefore, we were not able to survey other

employees from the same firm or determine the firms performance through





35/36

the collection of secondary data. However, this research methodology isaccepted in management accounting research and has been employed in

many studies of management control systems (see Hoque & James, 2000;

Ittner, Lanen, & Larcker, 2002;Ittner et al., 2003;Pizzini, 2006).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge gratefully the funding from the SAP-CAAA Research

Grant program. We appreciate very much the comments by Emilio Boulianneof Concordia University and Zahirul Hoque of La Trobe University on an

earlier draft of the article.

REFERENCES

Bento, A., & White, L. F. (2010). An exploratory study of strategic performance measurement

systems. Advances in Management Accounting, 18, 126.

Budde, J. (2007). Performance measures congruity and the balanced scorecard. Journal ofAccounting Research, 45(3), 515539.

Chen, C., & Jones, K. (2009). Are employees buying the balanced scorecard? Management

Accounting Quarterly, 11(1), 3644.

Chenhall, R. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context:

Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 28(2/3), 127168.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information

technology.MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319340.

Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A

comparison of two. Management Science, 35(8), 9821003.

De Geuser, F., Mooraj, S., & Oyon, D. (2009). Does the balanced scorecard add value?Empirical evidence on its effect on performance. European Accounting Review,

18(1), 93122.

DeBusk, G. K., Killough, L. N., & Brown, R. M. (2005). Financial Measures bias in the use of

performance measures systems. Advances in Management Accounting, 14, 6189.

Govindarajan, V. (1984). Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An

empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(2), 125135.

Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-

unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 31(4), 828853.

Govindarajan, V., & Gupta, A. (1985). Linking control systems to business unit strategy:

Impact on performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), 5166.

Hayes, D. C. (1977). The contingency theory of managerial accounting. The Accounting Review,

52(1), 2239.



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FS1474-7871%282010%290000018004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2801%2900027-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2801%2900027-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F249008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.35.8.982http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09638180802481698http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2884%2990002-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256341http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256341http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2885%2990031-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F249008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FS1474-7871%282010%290000018004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256341http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256341http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.35.8.982http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2801%2900027-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2801%2900027-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2884%2990002-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2885%2990031-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09638180802481698


36/36

Hirst, M. K. (1983). Reliance on accounting performance measures, task uncertainty, anddysfunctional behavior: Some extensions. Journal of Accounting Research, 21(2),

596605.

Hoque, Z., & James, W. (2000). Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market

factors: Impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting

Research, 12, 117.

Islam, M., & Kellermanns, F. (2006). Firm- and individual-level determination of balanced

scorecard usage. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 5(2), 181207.

Ittner, C. D., Lanen, W. N., & Larcker, D. F. (2002). The association between activity-based

costing and manufacturing performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(3),

711726.

Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Randall, T. (2003). Performance implications of strategicperformance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, Organizations and

Society, 28, 715741.

James, W., & Elmezughi, A. (2010). The combined effect of costing and performance

management systems on performance, moderated by strategy: Australian context.

Accounting, Accountability & Performance, 16(1), 5184.

Johanson, U., Skoog, M., Backlund, A., & Almqvist, R. (2006). Balancing dilemmas of the

balanced scorecard. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 842857.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecardmeasures that drive performance.

Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 7179.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balances scorecard as a strategic management

system.Harvard Business Review, 74(JanuaryFebruary), 7179.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance

measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87104.

Khandwalla, P. (1972). The effect of different types of competition on the use of management

controls. Journal of Accounting Research, 10(2), 275285.

Kwok, W. C. C., & Sharp, D. J. (1998). A review of construct measurement issues in behavioral

accounting research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 17, 137174.

Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). A review of quantitative research in management control systems

and strategy. Handbook of Management Accounting Research, 2, 753783.

Lau, C. M., & Sholihin, M. (2005). Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: How do

they affect job satisfaction? The British Accounting Review, 37, 389413.

Lingle, J. H., & Schiemann, W. A. (1994). Is data scatter subverting your strategy? Management

Review, 83(5), 5358.

Maiga, A., & Jacobs, F. (2003). Balanced scorecard, activity-based costing and company

performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(3), 283301.

Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A., & Coleman, H., Jr. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure,

and process.Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546562.

Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934948.

Pizzini, M. J. (2006). The relation between cost-system design, managers evaluations of the

relevance and usefulness of cost data, and financial performance: An empirical study of

US hospitals. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(2), 179210.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Van der Stede, W., Chow, C. W., & Lin, T. W. (2006). Strategy, choice of performance

measures, and performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18, 185205.



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2490793http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1475-679X.00068http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2803%2900033-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2803%2900033-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513570610709890http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Facch.2001.15.1.87http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2490009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.bar.2005.06.002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.24.9.934http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2004.11.001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2Feb025476http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fbria.2006.18.1.185http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2004.11.001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1475-679X.00068http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.bar.2005.06.002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513570610709890http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Facch.2001.15.1.87http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2Feb025476http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2803%2900033-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2803%2900033-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.24.9.934http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2490793http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2490009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fbria.2006.18.1.185

Corporate Corporate strategy employees attitudes toward the balanced scorecardStrategy Employees Attitudes Toward the Balanced Scorecard

Documents