Moral Conflict in Performance Measurement

• Autorzy: Marta Nowak

Warianty tytułu

Konflikt moralny w zarządzaniu dokonaniami

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Performance measurement is a relatively new concept. As such, it needs clarification in many issues which are connected with it. The paper deals with the ethical aspects related to performance measurement. The author focuses on the moral conflict which is common - if not inevitable - in such a process. The paper is based on the study of literature on performance measurement, stakeholder theory and business ethics. The considerations presented in the paper are of theoretical nature, nevertheless they lead to practical conclusions(original abstract)

Pomiar dokonań jest koncepcją stosunkowo nową. Jako taka wymaga ona wyjaśnienia wielu kwestii z nią związanych. W artykule zajęto się etycznymi aspektami związanymi z pomiarem dokonań. Autorka koncentruje się na konflikcie moralnym, który jest częsty - jeśli nie nieunikniony - w procesie takiego pomiaru. Artykuł bazuje na literaturze z zakresu pomiaru dokonań, teorii interesariuszy oraz etyki biznesu. Przedstawione rozważania mają charakter teoretyczny, niemniej jednak prowadzą do konkluzji o charakterze praktycznym(abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Measurement; Business ethics; Stakeholders; Performance measurement

PL

Pomiary; Etyka biznesu; Interesariusze; Pomiar dokonań

• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Rocznik: 2015
• Numer: nr 398 Zarządzanie kosztami i dokonaniami
• Strony: 372--379

Twórcy

autor

Marta Nowak

• Wrocław University of Economics, Poland

Bibliografia

• Abdel-Maksoud A., 2007, Performance measurement systems at operational level, [in:] Non-financial performance measurement and management practices in manufacturing firms: A comparative international analysis, ed. A.B. Abdel-Maskud, M.G. Abdel-Kader, Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting, vol. 17, Elsevier.
• Barney J.B., 2011, Gaining and Sustaining the Competitive Advantage, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River.
• Boatright J., 1994, What's so special about stakeholders?, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol.4, no. 4, October.
• Donaldson T., Preston L.E., 1995, The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1.
• Donaldson T., 1999, Making stakeholder theory whole, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2.
• Encyclopedia of Management Theory, 2013, ed. E.H. Kessler, volume two, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
• Epstein M. J., 2006, Improving organizations and society: The role of performance measurement and management control, [in:] Performance measurement and management control: Improving organizations and society, eds. M. Epstein, J. Manzoni, Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting, vol. 16, Elsevier.
• Epstein M.J., 2010, The challenge of simultaneously improving social and financial performances: new research results, [in:] Performance measurement and management control: Innovative concepts and practices, eds. M.J. Epstein, J.F. Manzoni, A, Davila, Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting, vol. 20, Emerald.
• Freeman R.E., 1994, The politics of stakeholder theory: Some further directions, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 4, is.4.
• Freeman R.E., 1999, Divergent stakeholder theory, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2.
• Goodpaster K., 1991, Business ethics and stakeholder analysis, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1.
• Harrison J.S., Freeman R.E., 1999, Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 5.
• Harrison J.S., Wicks A.C., 2013, Stakeholder theory, value and firm performance, Business Ethics Quarterly, January.
• Jones, T. M., 1995, Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 2.
• Kennerley M., Neely A., 2002, A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems, International Journal of Operation and Production Management, vol. 22 (11).
• Kerssens-van Drongelen I.C., Fisscher O.A.M., 2003, Ethical dilemmas in performance measurement, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 45, iss. 1-2.
• Kuhn J., Shriver D., 1992, Beyond Success, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Maksel B., 1992, Performance measurement for world class manufacturing, Corporate Controller, January/ February.
• Meznar M.B., Chrisman J.J, Carroll A.B, 1991, Social Responsibility and Strategic Management, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, spring.
• Nanni V., Dixon J., Vollman T., 1992, Integrated performance measurement: Management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities, Journal of Management Accounting, vol. 4, fall.
• Neely A., Adams C., 2000, Perspectives on performance: The performance prism. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on ISO 9000&TQM, School of Business, HKBU, Hong Kong.
• Otley D., 2004, Measuring Performance: The Accounting Perspective, [in:] Business Performance Measurement. Theory and Practice, ed. A. Neely, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Werhane P.H., Freeman R.E., 1999, Business ethics: The state of the art, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 1, iss. 1.
• Wicks A.C., 2013, Stakeholder theory, value and firm performance, Business Ethics Quarterly, January.
• Wicks A.C., Gilbert D.R., Freeman R.E., 1994, A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 4, iss. 4.
• Wood D.J., Jones R.E., 1995, Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, no. 3.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15611/pn.2015.398.35