The Effect of Performance Measure Comparability and Discriminability on Measure Discontinuance

References

• Ahn, T. S., Choi, Y. S., Hwang, I., & Hyeon, J. (2018). The effect of information asymmetry and participative target setting on target ratcheting and incentives. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(3), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1456940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn, T. S., Hwang, I., & Kim, M. I. (2010). The impact of performance measure discriminability on ratee incentive. The Accounting Review, 85(2), 289–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albuquerque, A. (2009). Peer firms in relative performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albuquerque, A., Franco, G. D., & Verdi, R. S. (2013). Peer choice in CEO compensation. Journal of Financial Economics, 108(1), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antle, R., & Demski, J. S. (1988). The controllability principle in responsibility accounting. The Accounting Review, 63(4), 700–718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arya, A., Glover, J., Mittendorf, B., & Ye, L. (2005). On the use of customized versus standardized performance measures. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 17(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2005.17.1.7
   Google Scholar
• Banker, R. D., & Datar, S. M. (1989). Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research, 27(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (1995). Self-esteem and the extended self-evaluation maintenance model: The self in social context. In Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 145–170). Boston, MA: Springer US.
   Google Scholar
• Bizjak, J. M., Lemmon, M. L., & Naveen, L. (2008). Does the use of peer groups contribute to higher pay and less efficient compensation? Journal of Financial Economics, 90(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bol, J. C. (2011). The determinants and performance effects of manager’s performance evaluation biases. The Accounting Review, 86(5), 1549–1575. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bushman, R. M., Indjejikian, R. J., & Smith, A. J. (1996). Ceo compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21(2), 161–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(95)00416-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadman, B., & Carter, M. E. (2014). Compensation peer groups and their relation with CEO Pay. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50598
   Google Scholar
• Casas-Arce, P., & Martinez-Jerez, F. A. (2009). Relative performance compensation, contests, and dynamic incentives. Management Science, 55(8), 1306–1320. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datar, S., Kulp, S. C., & Lambert, R. (2001). Balancing performance measures. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Franco, G., Hope, O. K., & Larocque, S. (2015). Analysts’ choice of peer companies. Review of Accounting Studies, 20(1), 82–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-014-9294-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Franco, G., Kothari, S. P., & Verdi, R. S. (2011). The benefits of financial statement comparability. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(4), 895–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00415.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding, K., Peng, X., & Wang, Y. (2019). A machine learning-based peer selection method with financial ratios. Accounting Horizons, 33(3), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du, F., Tang, G., & Young, S. M. (2012). Influence activities and favoritism in subjective performance evaluation: Evidence from Chinese state-owned enterprises. The Accounting Review, 87(5), 1555–1588. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faulkender, M., & Yang, J. (2010). Inside the black box: The role and composition of compensation peer groups☆. Journal of Financial Economics, 96(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. A. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, B., Hasan, I., Mani, S., & Ye, P. (2016). Relative peer quality and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 122(1), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golman, R., & Bhatia, S. (2012). Performance evaluation inflation and compression. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gong, G., Li, L., & Shin, J. (2011). Relative performance evaluation and related peer groups in executive compensation contracts. The Accounting Review, 86(3), 1007–1043. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.00000042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabner, I., Künneke, J., & Moers, F. (2020). How calibration committees can mitigate performance evaluation bias: An analysis of implicit incentives. The Accounting Review, 95(6), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2016-0662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, I., Kim, H., & Kwack, C. (2017). The background of public institution CEOs and their management performance: Focused on the moderating effect of regime. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 55(4), 55–79. printed in Korean. https://doi.org/10.24145/KJPA.55.4.3
   Google Scholar
• HassabElnaby, H. R., Said, A. A., & Wier, B. (2005). The retention of nonfinancial performance measures in compensation contracts. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 17(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2005.17.1.23
   Google Scholar
• Holmström, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003320
   Google Scholar
• Holmström, B. (1982). Moral hazard in teams. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003457
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, B. H., & Kim, S. (2009). It pays to have friends. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyun, J., Lee, J., Merchant, K. A., & Oh, P. (2021). Incentive system design when earnings congruence is low. Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2824253.
   Google Scholar
• Hyun, J., Matějka, M., Oh, P., & Ahn, T. S. (2022). Performance targets and ex post incentive plan adjustments. Contemporary Accounting Research, 39(2), 863–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2009). Handbooks of management accounting research. Handbook of Management Accounting Research, 3, 1235–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(07)03002-7
   Google Scholar
• Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Meyer, M. W. (2003). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 725–758. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Rajan, M. V. (1997). The choice of performance measures in annual bonus contracts. The Accounting Review, 72(2), 231–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, M., & Murphy, K. (1990). Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 225–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/261677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ke, B., Rui, O., & Yu, W. (2012). Hong Kong stock listing and the sensitivity of managerial compensation to firm performance in state-controlled Chinese firms. Review of Accounting Studies, 17(1), 166–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-011-9169-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, L., & Ashton, R. H. (1981). Feedback and prediction achievement in financial analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, R. A. (2001). Contracting theory and accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1/3), 3–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00037-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, R. A., & Larcker, D. F. (1987). An analysis of the use of accounting and market measures of performance in executive compensation contracts. Journal of Accounting Research, 25, 85–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, R., Larcker, D. F., & Weigelt, K. (1993). The structure of organizational incentives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 438–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841–864. https://doi.org/10.1086/261010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leone, A. J., Wu, J. S., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2006). Asymmetric sensitivity of CEO cash compensation to stock returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1-2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2006.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2000). The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review, 75(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2000.75.3.283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobo, G. J., Neel, M., & Rhodes, A. (2018). Accounting comparability and relative performance evaluation in CEO compensation. Review of Accounting Studies, 23(3), 1137–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-018-9447-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malina, M. A., & Selto, F. H. (2004). Choice and change of measures in performance measurement models. Management Accounting Research, 15(4), 441–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2004.08.002
   Google Scholar
• Matsumura, E. M., & Shin, J. (2013). Relative performance evaluation: A review of managerial accounting research. The Journal of Management Accounting, Japan, (Suppl. 2), 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Matsumura, L. M., & Shin, J. (2006). An empirical analysis of an incentive plan with relative performance measures: Evidence from a postal service. The Accounting Review, 81(3), 533–566. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, M. W., & Gupta, V. (1994). The performance paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, 309–369.
   Google Scholar
• Moers, F. (2005). Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: The impact of diversity and subjectivity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2003.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam, J. (2020). Financial reporting comparability and accounting-based relative performance evaluation in the design of CEO cash compensation contracts. The Accounting Review, 95(3), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Said, A. A., HassabElnaby, H. R., & Wier, B. (2003). An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonfinancial measures. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15(1), 193–223. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2003.15.1.193
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, K. W., & Zhang, M. H. (2010). Is CEO cash compensation punished for poor firm performance? The Accounting Review, 85(3), 1065–1093. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.3.1065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloan, R. G. (1993). Accounting earnings and top executive compensation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16(1-3), 55–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(93)90005-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, P., & Macphillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and Cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(74)90013-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 173–200). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R., & Insko, C. (1987). Social comparison choices during ability evaluation: The effects of comparison publicity, performance feedback, and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167287131011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., Tucker, A. L., Murrell, K. L., & Vinson, D. R. (2018). Closing the productivity gap: Improving worker productivity through public relative performance feedback and validation of best practices. Management Science, 64(6), 2628–2649. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tafkov, I. D. (2013). Private and public relative performance information under different compensation contracts. The Accounting Review, 88(1), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 181–228). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1980). Self-definition: The impact of the relative performance and similarity of others. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(3), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, S. R. and L. A. Benner. 1971. The effects of self-esteem and situation upon comparison choices during ability evaluation. Sociometry 34(3): 381–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786205
   Google Scholar