Relación entre los sistemas de contabilidad y control de gestión y los sesgos en la evaluación y toma de decisiones

  1. Lopez-Valeiras, Ernesto 1
  2. Gomez-Conde, Jacobo 2
  3. Naranjo-Gil, David 3
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

  2. 2 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

  3. 3 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

Show affiliations +
Journal:
Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas: Investigación y Reflexión

ISSN: 0121-6805

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 24

Issue: 1

Type: Article

DOI: 10.18359/RFCE.1618 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas: Investigación y Reflexión

Abstract

Managers conduct evaluations and make decisions that can be biased and, therefore, cause adverse effects to the desired organizational performance. Identifying the biases and their causes have been widely studied in the accounting literature and management control in recent decades. The aim of this paper is to summarize the previous results, which allows a clear and comprehensive view of the role of Accounting Systems and Management Control (SCCG) in relation to biases in the decisions and assessments. As a result a conceptual framework is obtained in which SCCG are postulated as both generators and inhibitors of bias, according to its own characteristics and the characteristics of users. This result allows professionals (especially controllers) and academicians to know better processes using the information generated by SCCG and so act accordingly.

Bibliographic References

  • Alkaraan, F. & Northcott, D. (2006) “Strategic capital investment decision-making: A role for emergent analysis tools?: A study of practice in large UK manufacturing companies”. En: The British Accounting Review, 38(2): 149-173.
  • Banker, R.D., Chang, H.S. & Pizzini, M.J. (2004) “The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy”. En: The Accounting Review, 79(1): 1–23.
  • Blocher, E., Moffie, R.P. & Zmud, R.W. (1986) “Report format and task complexity: Interaction in risk judgments”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(6): 457-470.
  • Bol, J.C. (2011) “The determinants and performance effects of managers’ performance evaluation biases”. En: The Accounting Review, 86(5): 1549–1575.
  • Boland Jr., R.J. (1979) “Control, causality and information system requirements”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 4(4): 259-272.
  • Burney, L.L., Henle, C.A. & Widener, S.K. (2009) “A path model examining the relations among strategic performance measurement system characteristics, organizational justice, and extra- and in-role performance”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4): 305-321.
  • Butler, S.A. & Ghosh, D. (2015) “Individual differences in managerial accounting judgments and decision making”. En: The British Accounting Review, 47,(1): 33-45.
  • Cardinaels, E. & Labro, E. (2008) “On the Determinants of Measurement Error in Time‐Driven Costing”. En: The Accounting Review, 83(3): 735-756.
  • Cardinaels, E. & Van Veen-Dirks, P. (2010) “Financial versus non-financial information: the impact of information organization and presentation in a balanced scorecard”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35: 565–578.
  • Chang, L., Cheng, M. & Trotman, K.T. (2008) “The effect of framing and negotiation partner’s objective on judgments about negotiated transfer prices”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7–8): 704-717.
  • Dilla, W.N. & Steinbart, P.J. (2005) “Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers”. En: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17: 43–53.
  • Drury, C. (2012). Management and Cost Accounting. 8th Edition. London: International Thomson Business Press.
  • FASB (1980). SFAC 2 concepts statement No. 2 qualitative characteristics of accounting information. Issue Date 5/1980.
  • Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L. & Bourne, M. (2012) “Contemporary performance measurement systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research”. En: Management Accounting Research, 23(1): 79-119.
  • Golman, R. & Bhatia, S. (2012) “Performance evaluation inflation and compression”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8): 534-543.
  • Griffin, R.W. & Lopez, Y.P. (2005) “Bad Behavior in Organizations: A Review and Typology for Future Research”. En: Journal of Management, 31(6): 988-1005.
  • Harrell, A. & Harrison, P. (1994) “An incentive to shirk, privately held information, and managers' project evaluation decisions”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(7): 569-577.
  • Harwood, G.B., Pate, J.L. & Schneider, A. (1991) “Budgeting decisions as a function of framing: an application of prospect theory's reflection effect”. En: Management Accounting Research, 2(3): 161-170.
  • Hopwood, A.G. (1972) “An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation”. En: Journal of Accounting Research, 10: 156–182.
  • Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F. & Meyer, M.W. (2003) “Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard”. En: The Accounting Review, 78: 725–758.
  • Kaplan, S.E. & Wisner, P.S. (2009) “The judgmental effects of management communications and a fifth balanced scorecard category on performance evaluation”. En: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 21(2): 37–56.
  • Kaplan, S.E., Petersen, M.J. & Samuels, J.A. (2012) “An Examination of the Effect of Positive and Negative Performance on the Relative Weighting of Strategically and Non-Strategically Linked Balanced Scorecard Measures”. En: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 24(2): 133-151.
  • Libby, T., Salterio, S.E. & Webb, A. (2004) “The balanced scorecard: the effects of assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment”. En: The Accounting Review 79(4): 1075–1094.
  • Liedtka, S., Church, B.K. & Ray, M. (2008) “Performance variability, ambiguity, intolerance, and balanced scorecard-based performance assessments”. En: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20(2): 73–88.
  • Lipe, M.G. & Salterio, S.E. (2000) “The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures”. En: The Accounting Review, 75(3): 283–298.
  • Lipe, M.G. & Salterio, S.E. (2002) “A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard’s information organization”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6): 531–540.
  • Maas, V.S. & Van Rinsum, M. (2013) “How Control System Design Influences Performance Misreporting”. En: Journal of Accounting Research, 51(5): 1159-1186.
  • Moers, F. (2005) “Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity”. En: Accounting Organizations and Society, 30(1): 67–80.
  • Naranjo-Gil, D. & Hartmann, F. (2007) “Management accounting systems, top management team heterogeneity and strategic change”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8): 735-756.
  • Prendergast, C. & Topel, R. (1993) “Discretion and bias in performance evaluation”. En: European Economic Review, 37: 355–365.
  • Probst, T.M., Carneavale, P.J. & Triandis, H.C. (1999) “Cultural Values in Intergroup and Single-Group Social Dilemmas”. En: Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3): 171-191.
  • Roberts, M.L., Albright, T.L. & Hibbets, A.R. (2004) “Debiasing balanced scorecard evaluations”. En: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 16: 75–88.
  • Roman, F.J. (2009) “An analysis of changes to a team-based incentive plan and its effects on productivity, product quality, and absenteeism”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34: 589-618.
  • Rowe, C. (2004) “The effect of accounting report structure and team structure on performance in cross-functional teams”. En: The Accounting Review, 79(4): 1153-1180.
  • Schiff, A.D. & Hoffman, L.R. (1996) “An exploration of the use of financial and nonfinancial measures of performance by executives in a service organization”. En: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8: 134-153.
  • Solomons, D. (1991) “Accounting and social change: A neutralist view”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(3): 287-295.
  • Tayler, W.B. (2010) “The balanced scorecard as a strategy-evaluation tool: the effects of implementation involvement and a causal-chain focus”. En: The Accounting Review, 85(3): 1095–1117.
  • Tinker, T. (1985). Paper prophets: A social critique of accounting. New York: Praeger Publishers Co.
  • Waller, W.S., Shapiro, B. & Sevcik, G. (1999) “Do cost-based pricing biases persist in laboratory markets?”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(8): 717-739.
  • Waller, W.S. (1988) “Slack in participative budgeting: The joint effect of a truth-inducing pay scheme and risk preferences”. En: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(1): 87-98.
  • Wong-on-Wing, B., Guo, L., Li, W. & Yang, D. (2007) “Reducing conflict in balanced scorecard evaluations”. En: Accounting Organizations and Society, 32(4–5): 363–377.
  • Wyatt, A.R., (1986) Standard Setting: Process and Politics, FASB Status Report No. 179 (Stamford, Conn.: FASB, 1986).
Data source: Dialnet