A Systematic Literature Review of Subjective Performance Evaluation Research Over Three Decades

Afrida Putritama; Sony Warsono

doi:10.21831/economia.v20i3.64496

A Systematic Literature Review of Subjective Performance Evaluation Research Over Three Decades

Afrida Putritama, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Indonesia
Sony Warsono, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Indonesia

10.21831/economia.v20i3.64496

Abstract

Abstract

Subjective performance evaluation plays a crucial role in accounting research, leveraging human judgments or perceptions to assess employees' or managers' performance. This study performs a systematic literature review of 44 articles on subjective performance evaluation published in leading journals over the past three decades. It examines trends, research methods, and the geographical contexts of studies within this field. Additionally, the study outlines significant findings and implications, proposing directions for future research. By offering a comprehensive update on subjective performance evaluation research, it identifies existing research gaps and potential areas for further investigation. The study advocates for interdisciplinary collaboration and methodological diversity, aiming to spark increased interest and understanding of this complex, relevant topic.

Keywords:Subjective Performance Evaluation, Literature Review, Accounting Research

Keywords

Subjective Performance Evaluation, Literature Review, Accounting Research

Full Text:

PDF

References

Ahn, T. S., Hwang, I., & Kim, M. I. (2010). The impact of performance measure discriminability on ratee incentives. Accounting Review, 85(2), 389–417. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.2.389

Angelovski, A., Brandts, J., & Sola, C. (2016). Hiring and escalation bias in subjective performance evaluations: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 121, 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.10.012

Anggraini, P. G., & Sholihin, M. (2021). What do we know about managerial ability? A systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00229-6

Arnold, M. C., Hannan, R. L., & Tafkov, I. D. (2018). Team member subjective communication in homogeneous and heterogeneous teams. Accounting Review, 93(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52002

Bailey, W. J., Hecht, G., & Towry, K. L. (2011). Dividing the pie: The influence of managerial discretion extent on bonus pool allocation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(5), 1562–1584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01073.x

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad Is Stronger Than Good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Bol, J. C. (2008). Subjectivity in Compensation Contracting. In Journal of Accounting Literature (Vol. 27).

Bol, J. C., & Smith, S. D. (2011). Spillover effects in subjective performance evaluation: Bias and the asymmetric influence of controllability. Accounting Review, 86(4), 1213–1230. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10038

Chan, J., & Zheng, B. (2011). Rewarding improvements: optimal dynamic contracts with subjective evaluation. In Journal of Economics (Vol. 42, Issue 4).

Chen, C. X., Gao, Y., Wang, Y., & Xue, S. (2020). Tailoring the weights on objective versus subjective performance measures between top management and middle managers: Evidence from performance-based equity incentive plans. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 32(3), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-18-042

Cheng, C. (2021). Moral hazard in teams with subjective evaluations. In Journal of Economics (Vol. 52, Issue 1). http://www.quora.com/How-are-performance-re

Dai, N. T., Kuang, X. (Jason), & Tang, G. (2018). Differential Weighting of Objective Versus Subjective Measures in Performance Evaluation: Experimental Evidence. European Accounting Review, 27(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2016.1234402

Demeré, B. W., Sedatole, K. L., & Woods, A. (2019). The role of calibration committees in subjective performance evaluation systems. Management Science, 65(4), 1562–1585. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.3025

Dilla, W. N., & Steinbart, P. J. (2005). Relative Weighting of Common and Unique Balanced Scorecard Measures by Knowledgeable Decision Makers. In Behavioral Research In Accounting (Vol. 17). http://www.bscol.com

Du, F., Erkens, D. H., Young, S. M., & Tang, G. (2018). How adopting new performance measures affects subjective performance evaluations: Evidence from EVA adoption by Chinese State-Owned Enterprises. Accounting Review, 93(1), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51763

Du, F., Tang, G., & Mark Young, S. (2012). Influence activities and favoritism in subjective Performance Evaluation: Evidence from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Accounting Review, 87(5), 1555–1588. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50196

Fehrenbacher, D. D., Schulz, A. K. D., & Rotaru, K. (2018). The moderating role of decision mode in subjective performance evaluation. Management Accounting Research, 41, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2018.03.001

Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006

Ghosh, D. (2005). Alternative Measures of Managers’ Performance, Controllability, and the Outcome Effect. Behavioral Research In Accounting (Vol. 17).

Ghosh, D., & Lusch, R. F. (2000). Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers: some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses. Organizations and Society (Vol. 25). www.elsevier.com/locate/aos

Gibbs, M., Merchant, K. A., van der Stede, W. A., Vargus, M. E., (2004). Determinants and Effects of Subjectivity in Incentives. The Accounting Review (Vol. 79, Issue 2).

Gong, N., Boh, W. F., Wu, A., & Kuo, T. (2021). Leniency Bias in Subjective Performance Evaluation: Contextual Uncertainty and Prior Employee Performance. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 57(8), 2176–2190. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2019.1660161

Grabner, I., Künneke, J., & Moers, F. (2020). How calibration committees can mitigate performance evaluation bias: An analysis of implicit incentives. Accounting Review (Vol. 95, Issue 6, pp. 213–233). American Accounting Association. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2016-0662

Hao, J. Y. P. (2021). Subjective performance evaluation and forward-looking implications: The role of supervisor incentives. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 33(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.2308/JMAR-19-023

Jayaraman, S., Milbourn, T., Peters, F., & Seo, H. (2021). Product market peers and relative performance evaluation. Accounting Review, 96(4), 341–366. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0284

Johnson, E. N., Reckers, P. M. J., & Bartlett, G. D. (2014). Influences of timeline and perceived strategy effectiveness on balanced scorecard performance evaluation judgments. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50639

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Strategic learning & the balanced scorecard. In Strategy & Leadership (Vol. 24, Issue 5, pp. 18–24). https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054566

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. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 24(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-50114

Kaplan, S. E., Petersen, M. J., & Samuels, J. A. (2018). Further evidence on the negativity bias in performance evaluation: When does the evaluator’s perspective matter? Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51698

Kramer, S., & Maas, V. S. (2020). Selective attention as a determinant of escalation bias in subjective performance evaluation judgments. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 32(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-18-021

Liedtka, S. L., Church, B. K., & Ray, M. R. (2008). Performance Variability, Ambiguity Intolerance, and Balanced Scorecard-Based Performance Assessments. Behavioral Research In Accounting (Vol. 20, Issue 2).

Lillis, A. M., Malina, M. A., & Mundy, J. (2022). The Role of Subjectivity in Mitigating Incentive Contracting Risks. Accounting Review, 97(1), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2017-0652

Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2000). The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures. In The Accounting Review (Vol. 75, Issue 3).

Long, J. H., Mertins, L., & Vansant, B. (2015). The effects of firm-provided measure weightings on evaluators’ incorporation of non-contractible information. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 27(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50837

Maas, V. S., & Verdoorn, N. (2017). The effects of performance report layout on managers’ subjective evaluation judgments. Accounting and Business Research, 47(7), 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2017.1324756

Murphy, K. R. (2020). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12259

Prendergast, C. (1999). The Provision of Incentives in Firms. In Journal of Economic Literature: Vol. XXXVII.

Taylor, C. R., & Yildirim, H. (2011). Subjective performance and the value of blind evaluation. In Review of Economic Studies (Vol. 78, Issue 2, pp. 762–794). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdq005

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/economia.v20i3.64496