The Effects of Performance Measures on Organizational Performance - Korean Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives

성과측정지표의 이용이 조직성과에 미치는 영향 - 새마을 금고를 중심으로

  • Received : 2014.04.19
  • Accepted : 2014.06.20
  • Published : 2014.06.28


Recently the corporate environment is rapidly changing with the development of information technology and globalization of market environment. In order to acquire competitive advantage and promote long- term growth in this corporate environment, korean federation of community credit cooperatives are adopting PMS. However, there have been few studies on the beneficial effects of PMS. A survey was conducted suing a questionnaire on korean federation of community credit cooperatives and collected data were analyzed. This study examines the relation between performance measures and organizational performance. first, financial measures had a significant positive(+) effect on organizational performance. second, non- financial measures had a significant positive(+) effect on organizational performance. Such findings suggest that use of performance measures have a positive impact on organizational performance. the effects of non-financial measures on organizational performance are found more clearly than the effects of financial measures on organizaitonal performance.


Performance Measures;financial measure;non-financial measure


Supported by : 동아대학교


  1. Soon-Kee Kim, and Sang-Wan Lee, Measurement Diversity, Alignment with Firm Strategy and Organizational Performance: A note on the Mediating role of Organizational Learning. Korean Accounting Association Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 75-107, 2011.
  2. Kyung-Tae, Lee.Oi-Soon, Lee, The Study on the Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Firm Value. The academic of Korea customer satisfaction management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 99-122, 2004.
  3. Chang-Dae Lee, An Empirical Investigation on the use of non-Financial measures in Performance Measurement and Reward Systems. Doctorate thesis, Sogang University. 2003.
  4. Chenhall, R. H., Management control system design within its Organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 127-168, 2003.
  5. Chenhall, R. H., Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: An exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(5), 395-422, 2005.
  6. Cragg, B. Paul, M. King., Organizational Characteristics and Small Firms'' Performance Revisited. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter, 49-64, 1988.
  7. Fisher, J., Use of non-financial Performance measures. Journal of Cost Management, 6(1), 31-38, 1992.
  8. Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C. K,. Strategy as Field of Study: Why Search for a New Paradigm?, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 1994.
  9. Henri, J. F., Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), 529-558, 2006.
  10. Heneman, R. L., The Relationship between Supervisory Ratings and Result-oriented Measures of Performance: A Meta Analysis, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 811-826, 1986.
  11. Hoque, Z., and W. James., Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on Organizational Performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12(1), pp. 1-17, 2000.
  12. Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker. and T. Randall., Performance implications of strategic performance measures in financial services firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7), pp. 715-741. 2003.
  13. Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker, and M. W. Meyer, Subjectivity and The Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard, The Accounting Review, Vol. 78(3), pp. 725-758, 2003.
  14. Prendergast, C., and R. Topel., Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation, European Economic Review, Vol. 37, pp. 355-365. 1993.
  15. Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton., The balanced scorecard : Measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 70(1), pp. 71-79, 1992.
  16. Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton., The Strategy-Focused Organization: How balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2001.
  17. Keats, B.W., and l. S. Bracker., Toward a Theory of Small Firm Performance: A Conceptual Model. American Journal of Small Business, 12(Summer), 41-58, 1988.
  18. Malina, M. and F. Selto,. Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13, pp. 48-90, 2001.
  19. McWhorter, L. B., The balanced scorecard: An empirical Analysis of its effect on managers' job satisfaction and performance evaluations. Diss. University of Kentucky, 2001.
  20. Moers, F., Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30(1), pp. 67-80, 2005.
  21. Said, A. A., H. R. HassabElnaby, and B. Wier., An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonfinancial measures. Journal of Management Accounting Review, 15(1), pp. 193-223, 2003.
  22. Scott, W., and P. Tiesen., Performance measurement and managerial teams. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(3), pp. 263-285, 1999.
  23. Van der Stede, W. A., C. W. Chow, and T. W. Lin, Strategy, Choice of Performance Measures, and Performance, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 18, pp. 185-205, 2006.
  24. Wallman, S. M., The future of accounting and financial reporting part II: The colorized approach. Accounting Horizons, 10, pp. 138-148, 1996.
  25. Widener, S. K., An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), pp. 757-788, 2007