The relationship between strategic performance measurement system and managerial work performance of co-operatives in Malaysia

Janudin Sharul Effendy, Ismail Nadhirah,

Full Text

Performance measurement system has been recognized as critical factor for the effective and efficient management tool in competitive environment. The main research purpose is to investigate the current practices of strategic performance measurement system as well as to identify the level of managerial work performance among 100 best co-operative in Malaysia.This research also examines the relationship between strategic performance measurement system and managerial work performance. The selection of the sample is comprised the chairman, secretary, treasurer, manager and two members of the co-operative board among 100 best co-operative in Malaysia. The result indicates that the level of managerial work performance among 100 best co-operative in Malaysia is at the high level. Moreover, the correlation between strategic and managerial work performance among these co-operative shows that there are significant relationship between these two variables. The implication of the research findings in this study are co-operatives that have effective performance measurement system and use it as an internal control that is effective in their operations show that they are always be able to measure their performance. High performance in co-operative activities gives the impression that the management effectively and efficiently can manage their corporation. The goal of the co-operative cannot be achieved if there is low level performance of the management in the corporation.

References

1. Artz, M., Homburg, C., & Rajab, T. (2012). Performance-measurement system design and functional strategic decision influence: The role of performance-measure properties. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(7), 445–460. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.07.001 2. Bisbe, J., & Ricardo, M. (2012). Using strategic performance measurement systems for strategy formulation: Does it work in dynamic environments? Management Accounting Research,23(4), 296–311. 3. Burney, L., & Widener, S. K. (2007). Strategic performance measurement system, job-relevant information, and managerial behavioral responses - role stress and performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19, 43–69. 4. Chenhall, R. (2005). Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic allignment of manufacturing, learning and outcomes: an exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 395–422. 5. Gimbert, X., Bisbe, J., & Mendoza, X. (2010). The role of performance measurement systems in strategy formulation processes. Long Range Planning, 43, 477–497. 6. Gosselin, M. (2011). Contextual factors affecting the deployment of innovative performance measurement systems. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 12(3), 260–277. http://doi.org/10.1108/09675421111187692 7. 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, 23, 120–141. 8. Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting,Organizations and Society, 33, 141–163. 9. Hosie, P., & Nankervis, A. (2016). A multidimensional measure of managers’ contextual and task performance. Personnel Review, 45(2), 419–447. http://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2014-0038 10. Humphreys, K. A., & Trotman, K. T. (2011). The balanced scorecard: The effect of strategy information on performance evaluation judgments. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 23, 81–98. 11. Kinyuira, D. K. (2015). Influence of the Co-operative Business Model on the sustainable performance of-co-operative enterprises. The International Journal of Co-Operative Management, 7(2), 12–23. 12. Krejcie, R. V, & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychology Measurement, 30, 607–610. 13. Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J. (1965). The Job(s) of Management. Industrial Relations, 4(2), 97–110. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1965.tb00922.x 14. Othman, I. W. I., Mohamad, M., & Abdullah, A. (2013). Cooperative Movements in Malaysia: The Issue of Governance. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 7(6), 398–402. 15. Perego, P., & Hartmann, F. (2009). Aligning performance measurement systems with strategy: The case of environmental strategy. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, 45(4), 397–428. 16. Suruhanjaya Koperasi Malaysia. (2016). Profil 100 Koperasi Terbaik Malaysia 2015. Kuala Lumpur. 17. Tsamenyi, M., Sahadev, S., & Qiao, Z. S. (2011). The relationship between business strategy,management control systems and performance: Evidence from China. Advances in Accounting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting, 27, 193–203. 18. Tung, A., & Schoch, H. P. (2011). Factors influencing the effectiveness of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,31(12), 1287–1310. 19. Verboncu, I., & Condurache, A. (2015). About managers , competence and efficiency. Review of International Comparative Management, 16(3), 314–324. 20. Waweru, N., & Spraakman, G. (2012). The use of performance measures: Case studies from the microfinance sector in Kenya. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(1), 44–65. 21. Widener, S. K. (2006). Associations between strategic resource importance and performance measure use: The impact on firm performance. Management Accounting Research, 17(4),433–457. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2005.10.002 22. World Co-operative Monitor. (2015). Exploring the Co-Operative Economy: Report 2015, 116.