Český finanční a účetní časopis 2021(4):55-79 | DOI: 10.18267/j.cfuc.568

The impact of performance measurement and reward systems on work behaviour, motivation and performance: Qualitative study

Kateřina Knorová
Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, Fakulta financí a účetnictví, katedra manažerského účetnictví, Praha

The aim of the research is to identify and characterize in more detail the factors that influence the effect of performance measurement and evaluation and reward systems on work effort and performance. In doing so, the influence not only on the level of work effort but also on its direction in line with overall company objectives is assessed. For the empirical research, a qualitative research method in the form of a case study in a selected company was chosen. For data collection, methods of document analysis and structured in-depth interviews were used. A total of 26 structured interviews were conducted. The aim of the structured interviews was to understand in detail the impact, perceptions and implications of the performance evaluation and reward systems used. It has been shown that when assessing the effectiveness of the systems mentioned, it is necessary to consider not only the characteristics of the performance measurement system, but also the way in which the information is used in management - the characteristics of the way in which performance is managed. The degree of link between the performance measurement system and the reward system was found to be a significant factor influencing the interactive vs. diagnostic use of the performance measurement system. At the same time, the research further characterized performance measurability as an important contextual factor influencing the effectiveness of performance rewards.

Keywords: Performance measurement; Performance management; Reward system; Motivation; Pay for performance.
JEL classification: M41

Received: December 3, 2021; Revised: January 3, 2022; Accepted: January 4, 2022; Prepublished online: February 7, 2022; Published: February 8, 2022  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Knorová, K. (2021). The impact of performance measurement and reward systems on work behaviour, motivation and performance: Qualitative study. Czech Financial and Accounting Journal, 2021(4), 55-79. doi: 10.18267/j.cfuc.568
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. AUSTIN, R. LARKEY, P., 2007. Measuring knowledge work. In NEELY, A. Business performance measurement: Unifying theory and integrating practice. Cambridge University Press. S. 279-303. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511753695.021. Go to original source...
    2. BAKER, G. P., 1992. Incentive contracts and performance measurement. Journal of political Economy. Sv. 100, č. 3, s. 598-614. doi: 10.1086/261831. Go to original source...
    3. BITITCI, U. S., TURNER, T., BEGEMANN, C., 2000. Dynamics of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Sv. 20, č. 6, s. 692-704. doi: 10.1108/01443570010321676. Go to original source...
    4. BOL, J. C., 2008. Subjectivity in compensation contracting. Journal of Accounting Literature. Sv. 27, s. 1-24.
    5. BOL, J. C., 2011. The determinants and performance effects of managers' performance evaluation biases. The Accounting Review. Sv. 86, č. 5, s. 1549-1575. doi: 10.2308/accr-10099. Go to original source...
    6. BOL, J. C., SMITH, S. D., 2011. Spillover effects in subjective performance evaluation: Bias and the asymmetric influence of controllability. The Accounting Review. Sv. 86, č. 4, s. 1213-1230. doi: 10.2308/accr-10038. Go to original source...
    7. BONNER, S. E., SPRINKLE, G. B., 2002. The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Sv. 27, č. 4-5, s. 303-345. doi: 10.1016/s0361-3682(01)00052-6. Go to original source...
    8. BOURNE, M., KENNERLEY, M., FRANCO-SANTOS, M., 2005. Managing through measures: A study of impact on performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. Sv. 16, č. 4, s. 373-395. doi: 10.1108/174103805105 94480. Go to original source...
    9. BOURNE, M., MILLS, J., WILCOX, M., NEELY, A., PLATTS, K., 2000. Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Sv. 20, č. 7, s. 754-771. doi: 10.1108/01443570010330739. Go to original source...
    10. CADSBY, C. B., FEI, S., TAPON, F., 2007. Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Academy of Management Journal. Sv. 50, č. 2, s. 387-405. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24634448. Go to original source...
    11. CERASOLI, C. P., NICKLIN, J. M., FORD, M. T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Sv. 140, č. 4, s. 980-1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661. Go to original source...
    12. COOPER, D. J., MORGAN, W., 2008. Case study research in accounting. Accounting horizons. Sv. 22, č. 2, s. 159-178. doi: 10.2308/acch.2008.22.2.159. Go to original source...
    13. CRAVENS, K. S., OLIVER, E. G., OISHI, S., STEWART, J. S., 2015. Workplace culture mediates performance appraisal effectiveness and employee outcomes: A study in a retail setting. Journal of Management Accounting Research. Sv. 27, č. 2, s. 1-34. doi: 10.2308/jmar-51169. Go to original source...
    14. DAI, N. T., FREE, C., GENDRON, Y., 2019. Interview-based research in accounting 2000-2014: Informal norms, translation and vibrancy. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 42, s. 26-38. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2018.06.002. Go to original source...
    15. DECI, E. L., OLAFSEN, A. H., RYAN, R. M., 2017. Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. Sv. 4, č. 1, s. 19-43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108. Go to original source...
    16. FALL, A., ROUSSEL, P., 2014. Compensation and work motivation: Self-determination theory and the paradigm of motivation through incentives. In GAGNÉ, M. The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Oxford University Press. S. 199-217. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.001. Go to original source...
    17. FERREIRA, A., OTLEY, D., 2009. The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 20, č. 4, s. 263-282. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003. Go to original source...
    18. FRANCO-SANTOS, M., LUCIANETTI, L., BOURNE, M., 2012. Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 23, č. 2, s. 79-119. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.001. Go to original source...
    19. FREY, B. S., JEGEN, R., 2001. Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys. Sv. 15, č. 5, s. 589-611. doi: 10.1111/1467-6419.00150. Go to original source...
    20. GERHART, B., FANG, M., 2014. Pay for (individual) performance: Issues, claims, evidence and the role of sorting effects. Human Resource Management Review. Sv. 24, č. 1, s. 41-52. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.010. Go to original source...
    21. GERHART, B., RYNES, S. L., FULMER, I. S., 2009. Pay and performance: individuals, groups, and executives. The Academy of Management Annals. Sv. 3, č. 1, s. 251-315. doi: 10.1080/19416520903047269. Go to original source...
    22. GIBBS, M., MERCHANT, K. A., VAN DER STEDE, W. A., VARGUS, M. E., 2009. Performance measure properties and incentive system design. Industrial Relations. Sv. 48, č. 2, s. 237-264. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232x.2009.00556.x. Go to original source...
    23. GROEN, B. A. C., WOUTERS, M. J. F., WILDEROM, C. P. M., 2012. Why do employees take more initiatives to improve their performance after co-developing performance measures? A field study. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 23, č. 2, s. 120-141. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2012.01.001. Go to original source...
    24. GROEN, B. A. C., WOUTERS, M. J. F., WILDEROM, C. P. M., 2017. Employee participation, performance metrics, and job performance: A survey study based on self-determination theory. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 36, s. 51-66. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2016.10.001. Go to original source...
    25. GUENTHER, T. W., HEINICKE, A., 2019. Relationships among types of use, levels of sophistication, and organizational outcomes of performance measurement systems: The crucial role of design choices. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 42, s. 1-25. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2018.07.002. Go to original source...
    26. HALL, M., 2008. The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Sv. 33, č. 2-3, s. 141-163. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.004. Go to original source...
    27. HANSEN, D. G., 1997. Worker performance and group incentives: A case study. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Sv. 51, č. 1, s. 37-49. doi: 10.2307/2525033. Go to original source...
    28. ITTNER, C. D., LARCKER, D. F., 2003. Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measurement. Harvard Business Review. Sv. 81, č. 11, s. 88-95.
    29. ITTNER, C. D., LARCKER, D. F., MEYER, M. W., 2003. Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard. Accounting Review. Sv. 78, č. 3, s. 725-758. doi: 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725. Go to original source...
    30. JENKINS JR., G. D., MITRA, A., GUPTA, N., SHAW, J. D., 1998. Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology. Sv. 83, č. 5, s. 777-787. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.777. Go to original source...
    31. KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P., 1992. The balanced scorecard - Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. Sv. 70, č. 1, s. 71-79.
    32. KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P., 2000. Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review. Sv. 78, č. 5, s. 167-76.
    33. KNOROVÁ, K, 2021. Vliv systému měření výkonnosti a odměňování na pracovní chování, motivaci a výkonnost. Disertační práce. Praha: Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze.
    34. KUNZ, J., 2015. Objectivity and subjectivity in performance evaluation and autonomous motivation: An exploratory study. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 27, s. 27-46. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2015.01.003. Go to original source...
    35. KUVAAS, B., BUCH, R., GAGNÉ, M., DYSVIK, A., FOREST, J., 2016. Do you get what you pay for? Sales incentives and implications for motivation and changes in turnover intention and work effort. Motivation and Emotion. Sv. 40, s. 667-680. doi: 10.1007/s11031-016-9574-6. Go to original source...
    36. KUVAAS, B., BUCH, R., WEIBEL, A., DYSVIK, A., NERSTAD, C. G. L., 2017. Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes? Journal of Economic Psychology. Sv. 61, s. 244-258. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004. Go to original source...
    37. LANDRY, A. T., GAGNÉ, M., FOREST, J., GUERRERO, S., SÉGUIN, M., PAPACHRISTOPOULOS, K., 2017. The relation between financial incentives, motivation, and performance: An integrative SDT-based investigation. Journal of Personnel Psychology. Sv. 16, č. 2, s. 61-76. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000182. Go to original source...
    38. LARKIN, I., PIERCE, L., GINO, F., 2012. The psychological costs of pay-for-performance: Implications for the strategic compensation of employees. Strategic Management Journal. Sv. 33, č. 10, s. 1194-1214. doi: 10.1002/smj.1974. Go to original source...
    39. LATHAM, G. P., LOCKE, E. A., 2006. Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics. Sv. 35, č. 4, s. 332-340. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.08.008. Go to original source...
    40. LAU, C. M., SHOLIHIN, M., 2005. Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: How do they affect job satisfaction? British Accounting Review. Sv. 37, č. 4, s. 389-413. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2005.06.002. Go to original source...
    41. LAZEAR, E. P., 2000. Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review. Sv. 90, č. 5, s. 1346-1361. doi: 10.1257/aer.90.5.1346. Go to original source...
    42. LOCKE, E. A., LATHAM, G. P., 1990. Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science. Sv. 1, č. 4, s. 240-246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00207.x. Go to original source...
    43. MALINA, M. A., SELTO, F. H., 2001. Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research. Sv. 13, č. 1, s. 47-90. doi: 10.2308/jmar.2001.13.1.47. Go to original source...
    44. MALTARICH, M. A., NYBERG, A. J., REILLY, G., ABDULSALAM, D. D., MARTIN, M., 2017. Pay-for-performance, sometimes: An interdisciplinary approach to integrating economic rationality with psychological emotion to predict individual performance. Academy of Management Journal. Sv. 60, č. 6, s. 2155-2174. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0737. Go to original source...
    45. MANGANELLI, L., THIBAULT-LANDRY, A., FOREST, J., CARPENTIER, J., 2018. Self-determination theory can help you generate performance and well-being in the workplace: A review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources. Sv. 20, č. 2, s. 227-240. doi: 10.1177/1523422318757210. Go to original source...
    46. MCGRAW, K. O., 1978. The detrimental effects of reward on performance: a literature review and a prediction model. In LEPPER, M. R., GREENE, D. The hidden costs of reward. Psychology Press. S. 33-60.
    47. MERCHANT, K. A., VAN DER STEDE, W. A., 2006. Field-based research in accounting: accomplishments and prospects. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Sv. 18, č. 1, s. 117-134. doi: 10.2308/bria.2006.18.1.117. Go to original source...
    48. NEELY, A., 2005. The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Sv. 25, č. 12, s. 1264-1277. doi: 10.1108/01443570510633648. Go to original source...
    49. NEELY, A., RICHARDS, H., MILLS, J., PLATTS, K., BOURNE, M., 1997. Designing performance measures: A structured approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Sv. 17, č. 11, s. 1131-1152. doi: 10.1108/01443579710177888. Go to original source...
    50. NUDURUPATI, S. S., BITITCI, U. S., KUMAR, V., CHAN, F. T. S., 2011. State of the art literature review on performance measurement. Computers and Industrial Engineering. Sv. 60, č. 2, s. 279-290. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2010.11.010. Go to original source...
    51. NYBERG, A. J., PIEPER, J. R., TREVOR, C. O., 2016. Pay-for-performance's effect on future employee performance: Integrating psychological and economic principles toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Management. Sv. 42, č. 7, s. 1753-1783. doi: 10.1177/0149206313515520. Go to original source...
    52. OLAFSEN, A. H., HALVARI, H., FOREST, J., DECI, E. L., 2015. Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Sv. 56, č. 4, s. 447-457. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12211. Go to original source...
    53. PRENDERGAST, C., 1999. The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature. Sv. 37, č. 1, s. 7-63. doi: 10.1257/jel.37.1.7. Go to original source...
    54. REICHERT, B. E., WOODS, A., 2017. Does motivational orientation impact the effectiveness of incentive contracts? Journal of Management Accounting Research. Sv. 29, č. 2, s. 87-103. doi: 10.2308/jmar-51539. Go to original source...
    55. RIGBY, C. S., RYAN, R. M., 2018. Self-determination theory in human resource development: New directions and practical considerations. Advances in Developing Human Resources. Sv. 20, č. 2, s. 133-147. doi: 10.1177/1523422318756954. Go to original source...
    56. RYAN, R. M., DECI, E. L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist. Sv. 55, č. 1, s. 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68. Go to original source...
    57. SHAW, J. D., GUPTA, N., 2015. Let the evidence speak again! Financial incentives are more effective than we thought. Human Resource Management Journal. Sv. 25, č. 3, s. 281-293. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12080. Go to original source...
    58. SMITH, M., BITITCI, U. S., 2017. Interplay between performance measurement and management, employee engagement and performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Sv. 37, č. 9, s. 1207-1228. doi: 10.1108/ijopm-06-2015-0313. Go to original source...
    59. TATICCHI, P., BALACHANDRAN, K., TONELLI, F., 2012. Performance measurement and management systems: State of the art, guidelines for design and challenges. Measuring Business Excellence. Sv. 16, č. 2, s. 41-54. doi: 10.1108/13683041211230311. Go to original source...
    60. UNGER, O., SZCZESNY, A., HOLDERRIED, M., 2020. Does performance pay increase productivity? Evidence from a medical typing unit. Management Accounting Research. Sv. 47, s. 100649. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2019.100649. Go to original source...
    61. VAN HERPEN, M., VAN PRAAG, M., COOLS, K., 2005. The effects of performance measurement and compensation on motivation: An empirical study. Economist. Sv. 153, č. 3, s. 303-329. doi: 10.1007/s10645-005-1990-z. Go to original source...
    62. WEIBEL, A., ROST, K., OSTERLOH, M., 2009. Pay for performance in the public sector-Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Sv. 20, č. 2, s. 387-412. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mup009. Go to original source...
    63. WOODS, A., 2012. Subjective adjustments to objective performance measures: The influence of prior performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Sv. 37, č. 6, s. 403-425. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2012.06.001. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content