33685

Eduardo Schiehll
Suzanne Landry

Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios

Este estudo investiga os efeitos da incerteza ambiental, da descentralização da tomada de decisões e da utilização de medidas subjetivas de desempenho na percepção de controlabilidade do resultado (controllability) e de equidade no processo de avaliação de desempenho dos gestores. Com base em dados coletados por meio da aplicação de um questionário em uma amostra de 339 gestores de nível médio e superior, os resultados sugerem que a incerteza ambiental afeta negativamente a percepção de controlabilidade e que este efeito não é moderado pelo nível de descentralização da tomada de decisões. Os resultados sugerem também uma associação positiva entre a percepção de controlabilidade e de equidade no processo de avaliação de desempenho gerencial. Embora o uso de medidas subjetivas de desempenho não exerça efeito direto sobre a percepção de equidade, os resultados sugerem que seu uso exerce efeito moderador na relação entre controlabilidade e percepção de equidade. Demonstra-se ainda que o efeito positivo do uso de medidas subjetivas depende de fatores contextuais. Este estudo demonstra a necessidade de se considerar o contexto organizacional (incerteza ambiental e descentralização dos direitos decisórios) para investigar como medidas de desempenho não financeiras e subjetivas afetam a percepção de controlabilidade e de equidade processual. Na medida em que a percepção de controlabilidade e de equidade afeta as atitudes e os comportamentos dos indivíduos dentro de uma organização, os resultados têm implicações importantes para a concepção e utilização de sistemas de avaliação de desempenho.

Avaliação de desempenho, Controlabilidade, Descentralização, Equidade processual, Incerteza ambiental, Medidas subjetivas

SCHIEHLL, E.; LANDRY, S. Percepção de controlabilidade e equidade da avaliação de desempenho. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, v. 16, n. 52, p. 484-503, 2014.

Schiehll, E., & Landry, S. (2014). Percepção de controlabilidade e equidade da avaliação de desempenho. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 16(52), 484-503.

10.7819/rbgn.v16i52.1782

https://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/33685/percepcao-de-controlabilidade-e-equidade-da-avaliacao-de-desempenho/i/pt-br

Artigo

Português

ABERNETHY, M. A; BOUWENS, J; LENT, L. V. Determinants of control system design in divisionalized firms. The Accounting Review, Sarasota, v. 79, n. 3, p. 545-570, julho 2004.

AGBEJULE, A. The relationship between management accounting systems and perceived environmental uncertainty on managerial performance: a research note. Accounting and Business Research, [S. l.], v. 35, n. 4, p. 295305, 2005.

BAGOZZI, R. P; YI, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Thousand Oaks, v. 16, n. 1, p. 74-94, Primavera 1988.

BAKER, G; GIBBONS, R; MURPHY, K. J. Subjective performance measures in optimal incentive contracts. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, [S. l.], v. 109, n. 4, p. 1125-1156, nov. 1994.

BARON, R. M; KENNY, D. A. The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Washington, D. C., v. 51, n. 6, p. 1173-1182, dez. 1986.

BERGER, L; LIBBY, T; WEBB, A. Tournament incentives, fairness and subsequent performance: what happens to the losers? 2009. Working Paper, University of Waterloo.

BOL, J. C. Subjectivity in compensation contracting. Journal of Accounting Literature, Gainesville, v. 27, p. 1-24, dez. 2008.

CHENHALL, R. H. Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and firections for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [S. l.], v. 28, n. 2/3, p. 127-168, fev./ abr. 2003.

DILLMAN, D. A; SMYTH, J. D; CHRISTIAN, L. M. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. New Jersey: John Wiley & Son, Inc., 2009.

FOLGER, R; LEWIS, D. M. Self-appraisal and fairness in evaluations. In: CROPANZANO, L. Justice in the workplace: approaching justice in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995. p. 107-131.

GALBRAITH, J. Designing complex organisations. USA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1973.

GERDIN, J. The Impact of departmental interdependencies and management accounting systems use on subunit performance. European Accounting Review, Londres, v. 14, n. 2, p. 297-327, 2005.

GHOSH, D; LUSCH, R. F. Outcome effect, controllability and performance evaluation of managers: some field evidence from multi-outlet businesses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [S. l.], v. 25, n. 4, p. 411-425, 2000.

GIBBS, M. et al. Determinants and effects of subjectivity in incentives. The Accounting Review, Sarasota, v. 79, n. 2, p. 409-436, abr. 2004.

GIRAUD, F; LANGEVIN, P; MENDOZA, C. Justice as a rationale for the controllability principle: a study of managers’ opinions. Management Accounting Reserach, [S. l.], v. 19, n. 1, p. 32-44, mar. 2008.

GORDON, L.A; NARAYANAN, V. K. Management Accounting Systems : An Empirical Evaluation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [S.l.], v. 9, p. 33-47, 1984.

GOVINDARAJAN, V. Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: an empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as and intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [S. l.], v. 9, n. 2, pp. 125-135, 1984.

GREENBERG, J. Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Washington, v. 71, n. 2, p. 340-342, 1986.

GUL, F. A. et al. Decentralisation as a moderating factor in the budgetary participation-performance relationship: some Hong Kong evidence. Accounting and Business Research, [S. l.], v. 25, n. 98, p. 107-113, 1995.

HAIR, J. F. et al. Mutivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2006.

HARTMANN, F; SLAPNICAR, S. How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [S. l.], v. 34, n. 6-7, p. 722-737, ago./out. 2009.

HUFFMAN, C; CAIN, L. B. Effects of considering uncontrollable factors in sales force performance evaluation. Psychology & Marketing, [S. l.], v. 17, n. 9, p. 799-833, 2000.

ITTNER, C. D.; LARCKER, D. F.; MEYER, M. W. Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review, Sarasota, v. 78, n. 3, p. 725-758, julho 2003.

KELLY, K.; VANCE, T; WEBB, A. The interactive effects of subjectivity and goal difficulty on performance: an experimental study. 2010. Working Paper, University of Waterloo.

LAMBERT, R. A. Contracting theory and accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Amsterdam, v. 32, n. 1/3, p. 3-87, dez. 2001.

LATHAM, G. P. et al. New developments in performance management. Organizational Dynamics, New York, v. 34, n. 1, p. 77/87, fev. 2005.

LAU, C. M; LIM, E. W. The intervening effects of participation on the relationship between procedural justice and managerial performance. British Accounting Review, London, v. 34, n. 1, p. 55-78, mar. 2002.

LAU, C. M; MOSER, A. S. Behavioral effects of nonfinancial performance measures: the role of procedural justice. Behavioral Research in Accounting, Sarasota, v. 20, n. 2, p. 55-71, 2008.

LAU, C. M; WONG, K. M; EGGLETON, R. C. Fairness of performance evaluation procedures and job satisfaction: the role of outcome-based and non-outcome-based effects. Accounting and Business Research, [S. l.], v. 38, n. 2, p. 121-135, 2008.

LEVENTHAL, G. S. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: GRERGEN, K. J. et al. (Eds.). Social exchanges: advances in theory and research. New York: Plenun Press, 1980. p. 257-255.

LIBBY, T. The Influence of voice and explanation on performance in a participative budgeting setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [S. l.], v. 24, n. 2, p. 125-137, fev. 1999.

MARTOCCHIO, J. J; DULEBOHN, J. Performance feedback effects in training: the role of perceived controllability. Personnel Psychology, Bowling Green, v. 47, n. 2, p. 357373, 1994.

MATEJKA, M; MERCHANT, K. A; VAN DER STEDE, W. A. Employment horizon and the choice of performance measures: empirical evidence from annual bonus plans of loss-making entities. Management Science, Linthicum, v. 55, n. 6, p. 890-905, 2009.

MERCHANT, K. A; VAN DER STEDE, W. A. Management control systems: performance measurement, evaluation and incentives. 2nd ed. Inglaterra: Prentice Hall, 2007.

MOERS, F. Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [S. l.], v. 30, n. 1, p. 67-80, jan. 2005.

MOUNT, M. K. Comparisons of managerial and employee satisfaction with a performance appraisal system. Personnel Psychology, Bowling Green, v. 36, n. 1, p. 99-110, mar. 1983.

MURPHY, K. R; OYER, P. Discretion in executive incentive contracts: theory and evidence. 2003. Working Paper, University of Southern California and Stanford University.

NISAR, T. M. Evaluation of subjectivity in incentive pay. Journal of Financial Services Research, [S. l.], v. 31, n 1, p. 53-73. fev. 2007.

SHARMA, S; DURAND, R. M; GUR-ARIE, O. Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, [S. l.], v. 18, n. 3, p. 291-300, ago. 1981.

SHOLIHIN, M; PIKE, R. Fairness in performance evaluation and its behavioural consequences. Accounting and Business Research, [S. l.], v. 39, n. 4, p. 397-413, 2009.

SHOOK, C. L. et al. Research notes and commentaries: an assessment of the use of structural equation modelling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Research, [S. l.], v. 25, n. 4, p. 397-404, fev. 2004.

THIBAUT, J; WALKER, L. Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.

THOMPSON, J. D. Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

VAN DER STEDE, W. A; CHOW, C. W; LIN, T. W. Strategy, choice of performance measures, and performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, Sarasota, v. 18, p. 185-205, 2006.

VAN DER STEDE, W. A; YOUNG, S. M; CHEN, C. X. Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: the case of survey studies. Accounting, Organization and Society, [S. l.], v. 30, n. 7/8, p. 655-684, out./nov. 2005.