To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
2 results

Influence Activities and Favoritism in Subjective Performance Evaluation: Evidence from Chinese State-Owned Enterprises

The Accounting Review 2012 87(5), 1555-1588
ABSTRACT This study addresses the two-way process in which a subordinate and a superior engage in influence activities (bottom-up) and favoritism (top-down) in subjective Performance Evaluation. The research context is the Chinese government's evaluation of Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) by the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of China (SASAC). We analyze archival records of the government's evaluation scores, score adjustments, and evaluation ratings given to 63 SOEs between 2005 and 2007. These analyses are also interpreted based on insights gained from in-depth field interviews with SASAC officials and chief financial officers (CFOs) of SOEs. Results indicate that the political connection of SOE CFOs, the geographic proximity of SOE headquarters to the SASAC central office, and political rank of the firm affect the SASAC's evaluations. Data Availability: Data used in this study cannot be made public due to a confidentiality agreement.

How Adopting New Performance Measures Affects Subjective Performance Evaluations: Evidence from EVA Adoption by Chinese State-Owned Enterprises

The Accounting Review 2018 93(1), 161-185
ABSTRACT This study investigates how adopting new performance measures affects the decision process through which supervisors make subjective adjustments. In our setting, the Chinese government substituted economic value added (EVA) for return on equity (ROE) in the performance score formula it uses to evaluate State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). In accordance with the Chinese government's objective to increase the capital efficiency of SOEs, supervisors shifted the weight in subjective adjustment decisions from ROE to EVA after EVA adoption. Consistent with EVA adoption creating fairness concerns, however, supervisors did not penalize SOEs for performing poorly on EVA when they performed well on ROE, and accomplished this by shifting the weight from EVA back to ROE. Additional analyses suggest that personal preferences motivated supervisors to make these lenient subjective adjustments. Overall, our findings indicate that adopting new performance measures creates fairness concerns that motivate supervisors to consider their personal preferences in subjective adjustment decisions.