Premium
What's measured is not necessarily managed: Cognitive contingencies of organizational measurement
Author(s) -
ARNULF JAN KETIL
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.743
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1467-9450
pISSN - 0036-5564
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00435.x
Subject(s) - explication , psychology , performance measurement , criticism , measure (data warehouse) , customer satisfaction , reflection (computer programming) , social psychology , cognitive psychology , marketing , computer science , business , data mining , art , philosophy , literature , epistemology , programming language
Organizational measurement is necessary for managing incremental improvements or change efforts. Some have argued that indicators of financial performance measure the past and should be joined by “lead” measures such as management development and customer relations, assumed to be drivers of performance. Approaches of “lead” measures have met criticism for not contributing to operational management. The present is an empirical case study where measures from a customer satisfaction survey and a management assessment instrument were analyzed and compared to actual measures of financial performance. The effects of measures obtained seem to depend on the interpretations and reflection taking place in the organization. The pursuit of “lead” indicators did not seem to drive results. Counter‐intuitively, higher scores on these measures were related to poorer financial performance. The explication of and reflection on the underlying dynamic seemed to turn the development in a profitable direction.