Two Faces Of Janus: A Critical Perspective On The Balanced Scorecard

Year 2009, Volume: 11 Issue: 4, 103 - 118, 01.12.2009

Dr.Mehmet Eymen Eryılmaz Ali Fehmi Ünal

Abstract

Bugünlerde, danışmanlık firmaları, yönetim guruları, işletme okulları ve popular basın gibi yönetim bilgisi üretim ve tüketim süreçlerinin arz tarafında saf tutan aktörler sayısız yönetsel aracı, baş döndürücü bir süratte icat etmekte ve yaymaktadırlar. Bu yönetim bilgisinin örgütlerce hiçbir suale lüzum görülmeden, takıntılı bir davranışla benimsenmesi iki ana sakınca doğurabilmektedir. Birincisi, bu araçları her türlü yönetsel sıkıntıya merhem olacak bir ilaç gibi algılayan ve onların ana felsefelerini idrak edemeyen bilginin kullanıcıları, bu yönetim bilgilerinden umdukları ölçüde fayda sağlayamayabilir ve kıt kaynaklarını sorumsuzca heba edebilirler. İkincisi, sıklıkla mutlak anlamda eleştiriyi hak etmeyen yönetsel araçlar, örgütlerin yanlış tercihlerinden ötürü “yönetim modası” hüviyeti ve nihayetinde kötü bir şöhret kazanabilirler. Bu durum, tekniklerin kimi müspet özelliklerinin de gözden kaçırılmasına neden olabilir. Bu çalışmada son 20 yılın en kayda değer yönetsel yeniliklerinden bir tanesi olarak yüceltilen Balanced Scorecard (BSC), kuramsal ve metodolojik açıdan mercek altına alınmaktadır. Çalışmanın maksadı kesinlikle BSC’nin itibarını zedelemek değildir. Ancak, sorgusuzca aracı kutsayan ortodoks BSC yazınına aksi istikamette, BSC’nin tartışmalı noktalarına yani Janus’un diğer yüzüne ışık tutarak, tekniğin cari ve potansiyel kullanıcılarının zihinlerinde ayakları daha yere basan, daha gerçekçi bir portreye kavuşmasına yardımcı olmaktır.

Keywords

Balanced Scorecard, Eleştiri, Performans Ölçümü, Kuram, Metodoloji, Türk Balanced Scorecard Yazını

Janus’un İki Farklı Yüzü: Balanced Scorecard’a Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım

Abstract

Nowadays, the actors such as consultants, management gurus, business schools and popular press who frequently hold a place on the supply side of management knowledge production processes, invent and diffuse countless managerial tools at a rattling rate. Adoption of these devices by those with obsessive demand without any questioning may engender two main problems. Firstly, the users who perceive these tools as panaceas for all managerial illnesses and do not commonly grasp their core philosophies, may not benefit from these practices to the extent anticipated and they may squander their scant resources irresponsibly. Secondly, managerial devices, while not deserving complete criticism, may gain notoriety as the latest fashions or fads due to inappropriate selection by organizations and positive sides of these tools can be overlooked. This study examines some theoretical and methodological points of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), which has been glorified as one of the most important managerial innovations of the last two decades. The main purpose of the current study is not to discredit the BSC but rather to create a more down to earth picture of the technique in the minds of actual and potential users by enlightening them about controversial facets of BSC, the other face of Janus, contrary to the orthodox BSC literature which unreservedly sanctifies the tool.

Keywords

Balanced Scorecard, Critique, Performance Measurement, Theory, Methodology, Turkish Balanced Scorecard Literature

References

• Abrahamson, E. (1991), Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations. The Academy of Mana- gement Review, 16:3, 586-612.
• Abrahamson, E. (1996), Management Fas- hion. The Academy of Management Re- view, 21:1, 254-285.
• Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M. (2001), Process Improvement Through Performance Measurement: The Balan- ced Scorecard Methodology. Work Study. 50:5, 179-88.
• Anderson, H.V., Lawrie, G. and Savic, N. (2004), Effective Quality Management Through Third-Generation Balanced Scorecard. International Journal of Pro- ductivity and Performance Manage- ment, 53:7, 634-645.
• Ax, C. and Bjornenak, T. (2005), Bundling and Diffusion of Management Accoun- ting Innovations-The Case of the Balan- ced Scorecard In Sweden. Management Accounting Research, 16, 1-20.
• Aydın, Z.B., Tüzüntürk, S. and Eryılmaz, M.E. (2008), The Effect of Multiple Per- formance Criteria Usage on the Just In Time Production and Total Quality Ma- nagement Implementation Levels: Fin- dings from Turkey. Metu Studies in Development.
• Barrett, M. (2004). Marx’tan Foucault’ya İdeoloji. İstanbul: Doruk Yayımcılık.
• Bessire, D. and Baker, C.R. (2005), The French Tableau De Bord and the Ame- rican Balanced Scorecard: A Critical Analysis. Critical Perspectives on Acco- unting, 16, 645-664.
• Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K. (2007), Per- formance Measurement of Supply Chain Management: A Balanced Score- card Approach. Computers & Indus- trial Engineering, 53, 43-62.
• Bose, S., and Thomas, K., (2007), Applying the Balanced Scorecard for Better Per- formance of Intellectual Capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8:4, 653-665.
• Braam, G.J.M., Benders, J. and Heusinkveld, S. (2007), The Balanced Scorecard in the Netherlands: An Analysis of its Evolu- tion Using Print-Media Indicators. Jo- urnal of Organizational Change Management, 20:6, 866-879.
• Carroll, G.R. and Huo, Y.P. (1986), Organi- zational Task and Institutional Envi- ronments in Ecological Perspective: Findings from the Local Newspaper In- dustry. The American Journal of Socio- logy, 91:4, 838-873.
• Chapman, R. and Al-Khawaleh, K. (2002), TQM and Labor Productivity in Jorda- nian Industrial Companies. The TQM Magazine, 14:4, 248-262.
• Cooper, R. and Burrell G. (1988), Moder- nism, Postmodernism and Organizatio- nal Analysis: An Introduction. Organization Studies, 9:1, 91-112.
• Coşkun, A. (2006), Stratejik Performans Yö- netiminde Performans Karnesi Kulla- nımı: Türkiye’deki Sanayi İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. MÖDAV Muha- sebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 8:1, 127- 153.
• Davis, N. (2006), Criticisms of the Predomi- nant Approaches to Research in Mana- gement Accounting and the Case for Further Practice Based Research. Acco- unting and Finance Association of Aus- tralia and New Zealand Annual Conference 2006, Wellington, New Zea- land, 2-4 July.
• Davis, T.R.V. (1996), Developing an Emplo- yee Balanced Scorecard: Linking Fron- tline Performance to Corporate Objectives. Management Decision, 34:4, 14-8.
• Davis, S. and Albright, T.L. (2004), An In- vestigation of the Effect of Balanced Scorecard Implementation on Financial Performance. Management Accounting Research, 15, 135–153.
• D’Aunno, T., Succi, M. and Alexander, J.A. (2000), The Role of Institutional and Market Forces in Divergent Organiza- tional Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:4, 679-703.
• Dill, W.R. (1958), Environment as an Influ- ence on Managerial Autonomy. Admi- nistrative Science Quarterly, 2:4, 409-443.
• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Iso- morphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Socio- logical Review, 48:2, 147-160.
• Dess, G.G. and Miller, A. (1993), Strategic Management. McGraw-Hill Internatio- nal Editions.
• Dinesh, D. and Palmer, E. (1998), Manage- ment by Objectives and the Balanced Scorecards: Will Rome Fall Again? Ma- nagement Decision, 36:6, 363-369.
• Epstein, M. and Manzoni, J.-F. (1998), Im- plementing Corporate Strategy: From Tableaux De Bord to Balanced Score- cards. European Management Journal, 16:2, 190-203.
• Eryılmaz, M.E. (2008), “Balanced Scorecard”: An another Management Fashion for the Turkish Management Literature? International Conference on Social Sci- ences Proceedings, 3, 169-183, İzmir, Turkey.
• Eryılmaz, M.E. and Ünal, A.F. (2008), Türki- ye’de Faaliyet Gösteren Örgütlerin Per- formans Ölçüm Sistemlerine Yönelik Eylem-Söylem Tutarlılığı Üzerine Bir Araştırma. 16. Ulusal Yönetim ve Org- nizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, An- talya, 776-770.
• Eryılmaz, M.E. and Ünal, A.F. (2009), A Test of the “Contingent Ideologicalization of Managerial Tools Thesis” in the Turkish Balanced Scorecard Literature Context. The 6th International Critical Manage- ment Studies Conference, 13-15 July, Warwick Business School, The Univer- sity of Warwick, UK.
• Evans, N. (2005), Assessing the Balanced Scorecard as a Management Tool for Hotels. International Journal of Con- temporary Hospitality Management, 17:5, 376-390.
• Forker, L.B., Vickery, S.K. and Droge, C.L.M. (1996), The Contribution of Quality to Business Performance. International Jo- urnal of Operations & Production Ma- nagement, 16:8, 44-62.
• Gordon, G. (2006), Uniform Maker Sews Up Success With Scorecard. Quality Prog- ress, October, 37-42.
• Hannula, M., Kulmala, H.I. and Suomala, P. (1999), Total Quality Management and Balanced Scorecard: A Comparative A http://www.im.tut.fi/cmc/pdf/ Total Quality Management and Balanced Scorecard.pdf., (Accessed Date: 01.27.2008). s i s .
• Hardly, F.L. and Mavondo, F.T. (2003), Ins- titutional and Task Environment Influ- ences on Capability Development. Proceedings of the 2003 ANZMAC Conference, Australia. http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081 /WWW / A N Z M A C 2 0 0 3 /papers/ST05_hardlyf.pdf (Access Date: 02.13.2008).
• Hepworth, P. (1998), Weighing it up- A Li- terature Review for the Balanced Score- card. Journal of Management Development, 17:8, 559-563.
• Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., McMillan, C.J. and Schwitter, J.P. (1974), The Culture- Free Context of Organization Structure: A Tri-National Comparison. Sociology, 8:1, 59-80.
• Hinings, C., Dickson, D., Pennings, J. and Schneck, R. (1974), Structural Conditi- ons of Intraorganizational Power. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 19, 22-45.
• Hoang, D.T. and Igel, B. (2006), The Impact of Total Quality Management on Inno- vation. International Journal of Produc- tion & Operation Management, 23:9, 1092-1117.
• Hoque, Z. (2003), Total Quality Management and the Balanced Scorecard Approach: A Critical Analysis of their Potential Re- lationships and Directions for Research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14, 553-566.
• Hoque, Z. and James, W. (2000), Linking Ba- lanced Scorecard Measures to Size and Market Factors: Impact on Organizatio- nal Factors. Journal of Management Ac- counting Research, 1-18.
• Hoque, Z., Mia, L. and Manzurul, A. (2001), Market Competition, Computer-Aided Manufacturing and Use of Multiple Performance Measures: An Empirical Study. British Accounting Review, 33, 23–45.
• Ishiyama, Y., (2007), Essence of the Balanced Scorecard: Its Applicability in Japanese Companies. Quarterly Journal of Public Policy & Management. 7. http://www.murc.jp/english/publ/q uarterly/english /07_e.pdf. (Accessed date: 11.10.2007).
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The Balanced Scorecard Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 71-79.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Har- vard Business Review, September-Oc- tober, 134-147.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 75-85.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000), Ha- ving Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map it. Harvard Business Review, Sep- tember-October, 167-176.
• Kippenberger, T. (1996), The Balanced Sco- recard. The Antidote, 1:1, 8-9.
• Kraatz, M.S. and Zajac, E.J. (1996), Exploring the Limits of The New Institutionalism: The Causes and the Consequences of Il- legitimate Organizational Change. American Sociological Review, 61:5, 812-836.
• Lawrie, G. and Cobbold, I. (2004), Third-Ge- neration Balanced Scorecard: Evolution of an Effective Strategic Control Tool. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(7), 611-623.
• Leibold, M., Probst, G. and Gibbert, M. (2002), Strategic Management in the Knowledge Economy. New York: Wiley.
• Malmi, T. (2001), Balanced Scorecards in Fin- nish Companies: A Research Note. Ma- nagement Accounting Research, 12, 207-220.
• Maltz, A.C., Shenhar, A.J. and Reilly, R.R. (2003), Beyond the Balanced Scorecard: Refining the Search for Organisational Success Measures. Long Range Plan- ning. 36, 187-204.
• March, J.G. (1962), The Business Firm as Po- litical Coalition. The Journal of Politics, 24:4, 662-678.
• Mardin, Ş. (1993). İdeoloji. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları 191.
• Marr, B. and Adams, C. (2004), The Balanced Scorecard and Intangible Assets: Simi- lar Ideas, Unaligned Concepts. Measu- ring Business Excellence, 8:3, 18-27.
• McAdam, R. and O’Neill, E. (1999), Taking A Critical Perspective to the European Business Excellence Model Using a Ba- lanced Scorecard Approach: A Case Study in the Service Sector. Managing Service Quality, 9:3, 191-197.
• Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1983), The Struc- ture of Educational Organizations. Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W.R. (Edts.) Or- ganizational Environments. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Meyer, J.W., Scott, W.R. and Deal, T.E. (1983), Institutional and Technical So- urces of Organizational Structure of Educational Organizations. Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W.R. (Edts.) Organizational Environments. Beverly Hills: Sage Pub- lications.
• Modell, S. (2004), Performance Measurement Myths in The Public Sector: A Research Note. Financial Accountability, 20:1, 39- 55.
• Neumann, W.L. (2003), Social Research Met- hods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Norreklit, H., (2000), The Balance on The Ba- lanced Scorecard—A Critical Analysis of Some of its Assumptions. Manage- ment Accounting Research, 11, 65–88.
• Norreklit, H., (2003), The Balanced Score- card: What is the Score? A Rhetorical Analysis of the Balanced Scorecard. Ac- counting, Organizations and Society, 28, 591-619.
• Oliver, C. (1997). The Influence of Institutio- nal and Task Environment Relationship on Organizational Performance: The Canadian Construction Industry. Jour- nal of Management Studies, 34:1, 99- 124.
• Orru, M., Biggart, N.W. and Hamilton, G.G. (1991), Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia. 361-389. Powell, W.W. And Dimaggio, P.J. (1991), The New Institu- tionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Othman, R. (2006), Balanced Scorecard and Causal Model Development: Prelimi- nary Findings. Management Decision, 44:5, 690-702.
• Örnek, A.Ş. (2000), Balanced Scorecard: Bil- giden Stratejiye Ulaşmada Kullanılabi- lecek Yeni Bir Araç. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2:3.
• Parmenter, D. (2007), Performance Measure- ment. Financial Management, February, 32-33.
• Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B. (1997), Stra- tegic Management: Formulation, Im- plementation, And Control. Chicago: Irwin.
• Pfeffer, J. (1972), Merger as a Response to Or- ganizational Interdependence. Admi- nistrative Science Quarterly, 17:3, 382-394.
• Pfeffer, J. and Nowak, P. (1976), Joint Ventu- res and Organizational Interdepen- dence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21:3, 398-418.
• Reed, M. I. (1992), The Sociology of Organi- zations. Themes, Perspectives and Pros- pects. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Scott, W.R. and Meyer, J.W. (1983), Organi- zation of Societal Sectors. Meyer, J.W. and Scott, R.W. (edts.) Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Sim, K.L. and Koh, H.C., (2001), Balanced Scorecard: A Rising Trend in Strategic Performance Measurement. Measuring Business Excellence. 5:2, 18-26.
• Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J. and Pfeiffer, T. (2003), A Descriptive Analysis on the Implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-Speaking Countries. Mana- gement Accounting Research, 14, 361- 387.
• Strohhecker, J., (2007), Does a Balanced Sco- recard Management Cockpit Increase Strategy Implementation Performance?. http://www.systemdynamics.org/con ferences/2007 /proceed/papers /STROH532.pdf, (Accessed date:12.17.2007).
• Sureshchandar, G.S. and Leisten, R. (2005), Holistic Scorecard: Strategic Perfor- mance Measurement and Management in the Software Industry. Measuring Business Excellence, 9:2, 12-29.
• Üsdiken, B. and Wasti, A. (2002). Türkiye’de Akademik Bir İnceleme Alanı Olarak Personel veya “İnsan Kaynakları” Yö- netimi 1972-1999. Amme İdaresi Der- gisi, 35:3, 1-37.
• Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M. and Eckhoff, R. (2006), The Tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the Innovation Economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7:1, 43- 60.