Managers are increasingly aware that strategic judgments need to be made in the context of risk assessments. It has been proposed that strategic performance management systems, such as the balanced scorecard (BSC), offer a useful framework for integrating strategic risk and performance information to provide managers with a more comprehensive overview of their strategy. In this study, we conduct an experiment to investigate whether integrating strategic risk information in a BSC affects managers' responses to different strategic risk profiles when making strategy evaluation and recommendation judgments. Specifically, we provide strategic risk information either as a stand-alone list (a stand-alone approach), or incorporated in a BSC (an integrated approach). We also vary the risk profile of the strategy provided, by manipulating whether the strategy has relatively higher risks associated with performance drivers (high performance driver risks) or relatively higher risks associated with performance outcomes (high performance outcome risks). Our results show that managers make less favorable strategy evaluation and recommendation judgments with high performance driver risks than with high performance outcome risks when strategic risk information is integrated in a BSC, but not when the strategic risks are presented as a stand-alone list. While we find a significant difference in strategic risk profile effects between the two presentation formats for strategy recommendation judgments, this difference is not significant for strategy evaluation judgments. Overall, our study shows that how organizations choose to combine the reporting of strategic risk and performance information is important for managers making strategic judgments.

This study examines the effect that two key balanced scorecard (BSC) framework elements—causal linkages between strategic objectives in the strategy map and performance measures categorized by scorecard perspective—have on managers' ability to interpret the strategic relevance of external information and use this information to evaluate the appropriateness of an organization's strategy. We conduct two experiments, finding that presenting a set of strategic objectives as a strategy map enhances both managers' information relevance and strategy appropriateness judgments. We attribute this improvement to the explication of causal linkages between objectives in a strategy map. In contrast, presenting performance measures categorized by scorecard perspective only improves managers' strategy appropriateness judgments when the managers are provided with a set of strategic objectives that are not presented in a strategy map structure. Our study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that these two elements of the BSC framework have differential decision-facilitating impacts on managers' strategic judgments. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

Despite the potential of algorithms to improve judgment quality, recent research suggests that individuals may be averse to algorithmic use. We experimentally examine whether and how managers’ use of an algorithm-advised performance rating is influenced by rating valence and the decision rights managers have to adjust the algorithm. We find that managers are less willing to use an algorithm to evaluate subordinate performance when it advises a low, rather than high, rating. We further show that when the algorithm-advised rating is low, allowing managers to adjust how the algorithm computes the rating, compared with adjusting the rating itself or not allowing any adjustment, increases algorithmic use. Further analyses show this effect to be consistent with managers’ increased understanding of an algorithm when involved in its computation. Our findings inform organizations’ implementation of performance evaluation algorithms by showing how rating valence and decision rights jointly influence managers’ use of the algorithms.

This study examines the effects that two balanced scorecard framework (BSF) elements, causal linkages between strategic objectives (“causal linkages”) and time delay information (“delays”) in a strategy map, have on long-term profit performance in a dynamic decision-making environment. Using a computer-based simulation task, we conduct a 3 × (4) experiment (control group; causal linkages without delays; causal linkages with delays; four simulation rounds) and find that managers presented with causal linkages without delays generate greater long-term profit compared to a control group. For managers presented with causal linkages with delays, long-term profit generation is higher than the control group, but is not significantly different from the causal linkages without delays treatment. Those managers presented with causal linkages with delays, however, demonstrate learning across the four simulation rounds. In contrast, learning is found to plateau for the causal linkages without delays treatment and is not present for the control group. We also examine the cognitive mechanism through which these two BSF elements impact performance, by measuring the accuracy of two components of managers' mental models. Data Availability: Experimental materials are available upon request from the authors.