RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATIONAL CHOICE RATIONALE FOR ADOPTION OF BALANCED SCORECARD AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF STATE CORPORATIONS IN KENYA
Keywords:
Rational choice rationale, balanced scorecard adoption and organizational performance.Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between rational choice rationale for balanced scorecard (BSC) adoption and organizational performance of state corporations in Kenya.
Methodology: The research design employed in this study was explanatory cross-sectional survey research design. The target population for this study was the 32 State Corporations that have implemented balanced scorecard. A sample size of 96 top and senior middle level managers comprising of Managing Directors, Human Resource Directors, Finance Directors, Operations Directors, or their equivalent designations in senior management were surveyed using semi-structured questionnaires. The research adopted a quantitative approach.
Findings: The findings indicated that rational choice is a good predictor of organizational performance of State Corporations in Kenya. The findings also showed that rational choice and organizational performance had a positive and significant relationship.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: In line with the findings, it is recommended that organizational decision makers to take account of available information, potential costs and benefits in determining whether to adopt or not adopt balanced scorecard, and to be lucid in choosing the best choice of action.
Downloads
References
Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of management review, 35(1), 67-92.
Aosa, E., & Machuki, V. N. (2011). The influence of the external environment on the performance of publicly quoted companies in Kenya. Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
Battisti, G., & Iona, A. (2009). The intra-firm diffusion of complementary innovations: Evidence from the adoption of management practices by British establishments. Research Policy, 38(8), 1326-1339.
Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1351-1408.
Chalhoub, M. S. (2009). The effect of management practices on corporate performance: an empirical study of non-governmental organizations in the Middle East. International journal of management, 26(1), 51.
Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of business research, 62(1), 104-114.
De Geuser, F., Mooraj, S., & Oyon, D. (2009). Does the balanced scorecard add value? Empirical evidence on its effect on performance. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 93-122.
Farneti, F., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report. In Accounting forum (Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 89-98). Elsevier.
GoK (2010). Review of performance contracting in the public sector, Nairobi, Government Printer. (Excerpts) September2010.
Gumbus, A. (2005). Introducing the balanced scorecard: creating metrics to measure performance. Journal of management education, 29(4), 617-630.
Hemmings, A. D. (2012). Considerable values in Antarctica. The Polar Journal, 2(1), 139-156.
Hobbes, T. (1968). 1651. Leviathan. Classics of moral and political theory, ed. M. Morgan, 581-735.
Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British accounting review, 46(1), 33-59.
Kaplan. (2010). Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School, Harvard University.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1987). R and D rivalry with licensing or imitation. The American Economic Review, 402-420.
Kothari, C. R. (2011). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International.
Kraaijenbrink, J. (2012). Integrating knowledge and knowledge processes: a critical incident study of product development projects. Journal of product innovation management, 29(6), 1082-1096.
Lawson, R., Stratton, W., & Hatch, T. (2006). Strategic focus–does your scorecarding system have it. CMA Management, 80(6), 35-40.
Levin, J., & Milgrom, P. (2004). Introduction to choice theory. Available from internet: http://web. stanford. edu/~ jdlevin/Econ, 20202.
Lovett, F. (2006). Rational choice theory and explanation. Rationality and Society, 18(2), 237-272.
Madsen, D., & Stenheim, T. (2014). Perceived benefits of balanced scorecard implementation. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12(3), 81-90.
Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of business research, 62(12), 1269-1280.
Ndungu, C. L. N. (2014). Balanced scorecard and strategy implementation at Kenyatta university, Kenya. Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
Neely, A. (2008). Does the balance scorecard work: an empirical investigation.
Norreklit, H., Norreklit, L., Mitchell, F., & Bjornenak, T. (2012). The rise of the balanced scorecard! Relevance regained?. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 8(4), 490-510.
Ongeti, W. J. (2014). Organizational resources, corporate governance and performance of Kenyan State Corporations. Unpublished PhD thesis. Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
Parmenter, D. (2012). The Leading-edge Manager's Guide to Success: Strategies and Better Practices. John Wiley & Sons.
Porter, M. E., & Ketels, C. H. (2003). UK competitiveness: moving to the next stage.
Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2007). Bain's global 2007 management tools and trends survey. Strategy & Leadership, 35(5), 9-16.
Teece, D. J. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 1(3), 223-247.
Terlaak, A., & Gong, Y. (2008). Vicarious learning and inferential accuracy in adoption processes. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 846-868.
Varian, H. R. (1997). Versioning information goods.
Wu, H. K. (2010). Modelling a Complex System: Using novice expert analysis for developing an effective technology enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195-219.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
