Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 1, 2021
Accepted
April 1, 2021
Published
April 1, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 44 Download : 91

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examined the behavioral response to the auditor in the Strategic Performance Measurement System (SPMS) to improve performance of public accounting firms. The population in this study were 170 auditors working in public accounting office Sulawesi. The data analysis technique in this study using AMOS 16.0. The results found that the performance measurement system strategy plays into the source of relevant information by the auditor's job in improving the performance of public accounting firms. While ambiquitas and conflict does not affect the behavior of auditors in improving performance.

Keywords

Strategic Performance Measurement System (SPMS) Job-relevant Information (JRI) Role Ambiguity (RA) Role Conflict (RC) and performance of public accounting firms

Article Details

How to Cite
Aziza, N., & Salim, A. A. (2021). RESPON PERILAKU AUDITOR DALAM SISTEM PENGUKURAN KINERJA STRATEGI TEHADAP KINERJA KANTOR AKUNTAN PUBLIK. JURNAL FAIRNESS, 4(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.33369/fairness.v4i1.15301
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Banker, R. D., Chang dan M. J. Pizzini. 2004. The balanced scored: Judgment Effects of Performance
  2. Measures Linked to Strategy. The Accounting Review 79: 1-23.
  3. Chong, V. K., dan K. M. Chong. 2002. Budget Goal Commitment and Information Effect of Budget
  4. Participation on Performance: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Behavioral Research in
  5. Accounting 14: 65-86.
  6. Daniels, K., dan A. Bailey. 1999. Strategy Development Process and Participation in Decision Making:
  7. Predictors, of Role Stressor and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Management Studies 8: 27-42.
  8. De Has. M., dan A. Kleingeld. 1999. Multilevel Design of Performance Measurement Systems:
  9. Enhancing Strategic Dialogue Theroughout the Organization. Management Accounting Research
  10. : 233-261.
  11. Dilla, W. N.,dan P.J. Steinbart. 2005. Relative Weighting of Common and Unique Balanced Scorecard
  12. Measure by Knowledgeable Decision Maker. Behavioral Research in Accounting 17: 43-53.
  13. Earley, P.C., G. B. Northcraft, C. Lee dan T. R. Lituchy. 1990. Impact of Proses and Outcome Feedback
  14. on the Relation of Goal Setting to Task Performance. Academy of Management Journal 33: 87-105.
  15. Fogarty,T. J. 1996. An Examination of Job Tension and Coping in the Relationship Between Stressors
  16. and Outcomes in Public Accounting. Journal of Managerial Issues 8: 269-285.
  17. Fogarty, J. Singh, G. K. Rhoads, dan R.K. Moore. 2000. Antecedents and Cosequences of Burnout in
  18. Accounting: Beyond the Role Stress Model. Behavioral Research in Accounting 12: 31-67.
  19. Gates, S. 1999. Aligning Strategic Performance Measures and Result. No. 1261-99-RR. New York, NY:
  20. The Conference Board.
  21. Hall, M. 2004. The Effect of Comprehensive Performnce Measurement Systems on Role Clarity
  22. Pshychological Empowerment and Managerial Performance. Working Paper, University of
  23. Melboune.
  24. Itter, C. D., dan D. F. Larcker. 1998. Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends and Research
  25. Implication. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10: 205-238.
  26. Kahn, R. L., D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. D. Snoek, dan R. A. Rosenthal. 1964. Organizational Stress.
  27. New York, NY: Wiley.
  28. Kaplan, R. S., dan D. P. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Schol
  29. Press.
  30. Kaplan, R. S., dan D. P. Norton. 2001. The Strategy-Focuesd Organization: How Balanced Scorecard
  31. Companies Therive in the New Business Environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
  32. Press.
  33. Kren, L. 1992. Budgetary Participation and Managerial Performanc: The impact of Information and
  34. Environmental Volatility. The Accounting Review 67: 511-526.
  35. Latham, G. P., danE. A. Locke. 1979. Goal Setting- A Motivational Technique that Works.
  36. Organization Dynamics: 68-80.
  37. Lipe, M. G., dan S. E. Salterio. 2000. The Balance Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and
  38. Unique Performance Measures. The Accounting Review 75: 283-298.
  39. Morrison, E. W. 2002. Information Seeking within Organization. Human Communication Research 28:
  40. -242.
  41. O’Reilly, C. A III. 1982. Variations in Decision makers’ use of Information Sources: The Impact of
  42. Quality and Accsessibility of Information. Academy of Management Journal 25: 756-771.
  43. Otley, D. 1999. Performance Management: A Framework for Management Control Systems Research.
  44. Management Accounting Research 10: 363-382.
  45. Rizzo, J. R., R. J. House dan S. I. Lirtzman. 1970. Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex
  46. Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 15: 150-163.
  47. Roberts, M. L., T. L. Albright, dan A. R. Hibbets. 2004. Debiasing Balanced Scorecard Evaluations.
  48. Behavioral Research in Accounting 16: 75-88.
  49. Seeman, M. 1953. Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadship. American Sociological Review 18: 373-
  51. Simon, R. 2000. Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy. Upper
  52. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  53. Sprinkle, G. B. 2000. The Effect of Incentive Contracts on Learning and Performance. The Accounting
  54. Review 75: 299-326.
  55. Tubre, T, C., dan J. M. Collins. 2000. Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-analysis of the
  56. Relationships between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance. Journal of
  57. Management 26: 155-169.
  58. Ullrich, M. J., dan B. M. Tuttle. 2004. The Effect of Comprehensive Information Reporting Systems and
  59. Economic Incentives on Managers’ Time-Planning Deciisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting
  60. : 89-105.
  61. Webb, R. A. 2004. Managers’ Commitment to the Goals Contained in a Strategic Performance
  62. Measurement Systems. Contemporary Accounting Research 21: 925-958.