The Role of Corporate Culture in Performance Measurement and Management Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis
2.1. The Impact of Corporate Culture on Performance Measurement and Management Systems
2.2. Performance-Driven Culture Characteristics
3. Research Design and Methodology
- What components does your performance measurement system consist of?
- In what proportion does your system contain financial and non-financial measures?
- How do you examine the logical links among performance measures or strategic goals?
- How often do you review the performance measures or strategic goals?
- Can you describe the systematic process of strategy or performance measures review?The second part of the questionnaire found out whether the surveyed companies use defined attributes to build a performance-driven culture with the help of a semi-closed question:
- How do you create a corporate culture focused on performance, improvement, and learning?The attributes we examined were predefined for the answers, but the companies could add additional ones. Besides, the use of the fourth attribute strategy and process revision was conditional on the completion of question number five.
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Amaratunga, Dilanthi, and David Baldry. 2002. Moving from performance measurement to performance management. Facilities 20: 217–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assiri, Ali, Mohammed Zairi, and Riyad Eid. 2006. How to profit from the balanced scorecard. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106: 937–52. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, Maurice. 2012. Developing and using a performance management framework: A case study. Measuring Business Excellence 16: 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bititci, Umit S., Kepa Mendibil, Sai Nudurupati, Patrizia Garengo, and Trevor Turner. 2006. Dynamics of performance measurement and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 26: 1325–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bititci, Umit S., Patrizia Garengo, Viktor Dörfler, and Sai Nudurupati. 2012. Performance measurement: Challenges for tomorrow. International Journal of Management Reviews 14: 305–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bititci, Umit S., Mike Bourne, Jennifer A. Cross, Sai S. Nudurupati, and Kate Sang. 2018. Towards a theoretical foundation for performance measurement and management. International Journal of Management Reviews 20: 653–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blasini, Josef, and Susanne Leist. 2013. Success factors in process performance management. Business Process Management Journal 19: 477–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourne, Mike. 2005. Researching performance measurement system implementation: The dynamics of success and failure. Production Planning & Control 16: 101–13. [Google Scholar]
- Bourne, Mike, Andy Neely, Ken Platts, and John Mills. 2002. The success and failure of performance measurement initiatives. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22: 1288–310. [Google Scholar]
- Bourne, Mike, Steven Melnyk, and Umit S. Bititci. 2018. Performance measurement and management: Theory and practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38: 2010–21. [Google Scholar]
- Cameron, Kim, and Rober E. Quinn. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reading: Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, Yee-Ching Lilian. 2004. Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards: A survey of municipal governments in the USA and Canada. International Journal of Public Sector Management 17: 204–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chenhall, Robert H. 2005. Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: An exploratory study. Accounting Organizations and Society 30: 395–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davenport, Thomas H. 2006. Competing on Analytics. Harvard Business Review 84: 98–107. [Google Scholar]
- Davenport, Thomas H., Jeanne G. Harris, and Robert Morison. 2010. Analytics at Work: Smarter Decisions, Better Results. Boston: Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar]
- De Vaus, David. 2002. Surveys in Social Research, 5th ed. Abingdon: Psychology Press, p. 379. First published 1985. [Google Scholar]
- De Waal, A. Andre. 2004. Stimulating performance-driven behaviour to obtain better results. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53: 301–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Waal, A. Andre, and Harold Counet. 2009. Lessons learned from performance management systems implementations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 58: 367–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dresner, Howard. 2009. Profiles in Performance: Business Intelligence Journeys and the Roadmap for Change. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Elzinga, Taco, Bé Albronda, and Frits Kluijtmans. 2009. Behavioral factors influencing performance management systems’ use. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 58: 508–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco-Santos, Monika, and Mike Bourne. 2005. An examination of the literature relating to issues affecting how companies manage through measures. Production Planning and Control 16: 114–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Franco-Santos, Monica, Mike Kennerley, Pietro Micheli, Veronica Martinez, Steve Mason, Bernard Marr, Diana Gray, and Andrew Neely. 2007. Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27: 784–801. [Google Scholar]
- Garengo, Patrizia, and Umit Bittitci. 2007. Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: An empirical study in Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 27: 802–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gochhayat, Jyotiranjan, Vijai N. Giri, and Damodar Suar. 2017. Influence of organizational culture on organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of organizational communication. Global Business Review 18: 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez, Joaquín, Micaela Martínez Costa, and Ángel R. Martínez Lorente. 2011. A critical evaluation of the EFQM model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 28: 484–502. [Google Scholar]
- Groysberg, Borsi, Jeremiah Lee, Jesse Price, and Yo-Jud J. Cheng. 2018. The leader’s guide to corporate culture. Harvard Business Review 96: 44–52. [Google Scholar]
- Halaskova, Martina, Renata Halaskova, and Viktor Prokop. 2018. Evaluation of efficiency in selected areas of public services in European Union countries. Sustainability 10: 4592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hamel, Gary. 2009. Moon shots for management. Harvard Business Review 87: 91–98. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hassan, Abdulwadod, Saeed Abdulwasea, Norshahrizan Nordin, and Adi Anuar Azamin. 2020. The Influence of the External and Internal Factors on the Adoption of the Performance measurement System in the Construction Industry in Yemen. Paper presented at IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 864, 2nd Joint Conference on Green Engineering Technology & Applied Computing 2020, Bangkok, Thailand, February 4–5. [Google Scholar]
- Henri, Jean-Francois. 2006. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting Organizations and Society 31: 77–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jardioui, Meriam, Patrizia Garengo, and Semma El Alami. 2017. The impact of organizational culture on performance measurement system design, implementation and use: Evidence from moroccan SMEs. Paper presented at IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, Hamburg, Germany, September 3–7; Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, Gareth R. 2000. Organizational Theory. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Jwijati, Ihssan M., and Umit S. Bititci. 2014. Exploring the impact of national culture on performance measurement. Paper presented at IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, Ajaccio, France, September 20–24; Berlin: Springer, pp. 425–32. [Google Scholar]
- Kennerley, Mike, and Andy Neely. 2003. Measuring performance in a changing business environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 23: 213–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klímová, Viktorie. 2018. How do regions use indirect R&D support for their innovation activities? Scientific papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics and Administration 42: 104–15. [Google Scholar]
- Koohang, Alex, Joanna Paliszkiewicz, and Jerzy Goluchowski. 2017. The impact of leadership on trust, knowledge management, and organizational performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 117: 521–37. [Google Scholar]
- Kotkova Striteska, Michaela, and Viktor Prokop. 2020. Dynamic Innovation Strategy Model in Practice of Innovation Leaders and Followers in CEE Countries—A Prerequisite for Building Innovative Ecosystems. Sustainability 12: 3918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroll, Alexander, and Dominik Vogel. 2014. The PSM–leadership fit: A model of performance information use. Public Administration 92: 974–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, Raef C. M. A., Toby Hatch, and Denis Desroches. 2013. How corporate culture affects performance management. Strategic Finance 94: 42, 44–50. [Google Scholar]
- Marr, Bernard. 2009. Managing and Delivering Performance. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Marr, Bernard, and Gianni Schiuma. 2003. Business performance measurement-past, present and future. Management Decision 41: 680–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Micheli, Pietro, and Matteo Mura. 2017. Executing strategy through comprehensive performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37: 423–43. [Google Scholar]
- Nita, Bartłomiej. 2011. Performance Measurement and Management. Wrocław: Publishing House of Wrocław University of Economics. [Google Scholar]
- Nordiawan, Deddi, Eko Prasodjo, and Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto. 2017. Reconstruction of performance-driven culture: Application of soft systems methodology at East Java Province, Indonesia. Paper presented at 16th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Dublin, Ireland, June 22–23; Dublin: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, pp. 277–86. [Google Scholar]
- Nudurupati, Sai S., Umit S. Bititci, Vikas Kumar, and Felix T. S. Chan. 2011. State of the art literature review on performance measurement. Computers & Industrial Engineering 60: 279–90. [Google Scholar]
- Prokop, Viktor, and Jan Stejskal. 2019. Determinants of innovation activities and SME absorption—Case study of Germany. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics and Administration 46: 134–46. [Google Scholar]
- Prokop, Viktor, Samuel Amponsah Odei, and Jan Stejskal. 2018. Propellants of University-Industry-Government synergy: Comparative study of Czech and Slovak manufacturing industries. Ekonomický časopis SAV 66: 987–1001. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, Herbert S., Chimay J. Anumba, Patricia M. Carrillo, and Ahmed M. Al-Ghassani. 2005. Business performance measurement practices in construction engineering organisations. Measuring Business Excellence 9: 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salloum, Mohammed, and Magnus Wiktorsson. 2009. From metrics to process: Towards a dynamic and flexible performance measurement system for manufacturing systems. Paper presented at SPS09, Goteborg, Sweden, December 2–3. [Google Scholar]
- Seddon, John. 2008. Systems Thinking in the Public Sector. Axminster: Triarchy Press. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, Marisa, and Umit S. Bititci. 2017. Interplay between performance measurement and management, employee engagement and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37: 1207–28. [Google Scholar]
- Striteska, Michaela, David Zapletal, and Lucie Jelínková. 2016. Performance management systems in czech companies: Findings from a questionnaire survey. E+M. Economics and Management 4: 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tangen, Stefan. 2005. Analysing the requirements of performance measurement systems. Measuring Business Excellence 9: 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, Andrew, and Margaret Taylor. 2014. Factors influencing effective implementation of performance measurement systems in small and medium-sized enterprises and large firms: A perspective from Contingency Theory. International Journal of Production Research 52: 847–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tung, Amy, Kevin Baird, and Herbert P. Schoch. 2011. Factors influencing the effectiveness of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31: 1287–310. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Voordt, Theo, Per Anken Jensen, Hoendervanger Jan Gerard, and Feike Bergsma. 2016. Value Adding Management of buildings and facility services in four steps. Corporate Real Estate Journal 6: 42–56. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, Neetu, and Mahim Sagar. 2013. Performance measurement and management frameworks. Business Process Management Journal 19: 947–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Development Level | Leadership and Commitment | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | |||||
Low | 8 | 7.27% | 16 | 14.55% | 24 | 21.82% |
Intermediate | 22 | 20.00% | 37 | 33.64% | 59 | 53.64% |
High | 17 | 15.45% | 10 | 9.09% | 27 | 24.55% |
Total | 47 | 42.73% | 63 | 57.27% | 110 | 100.00% |
Development Level | Communication and Benefits | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | |||||
Low | 3 | 2.73% | 21 | 19.09% | 24 | 21.82% |
Intermediate | 13 | 11.82% | 46 | 41.82% | 59 | 53.64% |
High | 19 | 17.27% | 8 | 7.27% | 27 | 24.55% |
Total | 35 | 31.82% | 75 | 68.18% | 110 | 100.00% |
Development Level | Learning and Change | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | |||||
Low | 16 | 14.55% | 8 | 7.27% | 24 | 21.82% |
Intermediate | 50 | 45.45% | 9 | 8.18% | 59 | 53.64% |
High | 21 | 19.09% | 6 | 5.45% | 27 | 24.55% |
Total | 87 | 79.09% | 23 | 20.91% | 110 | 100.00% |
Development Level | Strategy Revision | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | |||||
Low | 10 | 9.09% | 14 | 12.73% | 24 | 21.82% |
Intermediate | 16 | 14.55% | 43 | 39.09% | 59 | 53.64% |
High | 22 | 20.00% | 5 | 4.55% | 27 | 24.55% |
Total | 48 | 43.64% | 62 | 56.36% | 110 | 100.00% |
Development Level—X | Performance-Driven Culture Attributes—Y | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1–2 | 3 | 4 | ||||||
Low | 14 | 12.73% | 9 | 8.18% | 1 | 0.91% | 24 | 21.82% |
Intermediate | 29 | 26.36% | 28 | 25.45% | 2 | 1.82% | 59 | 53.64% |
High | 3 | 2.73% | 13 | 11.82% | 11 | 10.00% | 27 | 24.55% |
Total | 46 | 41.82% | 50 | 45.45% | 14 | 12.73% | 110 | 100.00% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kotkova Striteska, M.; Zapletal, D. The Role of Corporate Culture in Performance Measurement and Management Systems. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2020, 8, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8040075
Kotkova Striteska M, Zapletal D. The Role of Corporate Culture in Performance Measurement and Management Systems. International Journal of Financial Studies. 2020; 8(4):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8040075
Chicago/Turabian StyleKotkova Striteska, Michaela, and David Zapletal. 2020. "The Role of Corporate Culture in Performance Measurement and Management Systems" International Journal of Financial Studies 8, no. 4: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8040075
APA StyleKotkova Striteska, M., & Zapletal, D. (2020). The Role of Corporate Culture in Performance Measurement and Management Systems. International Journal of Financial Studies, 8(4), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8040075