Objectives, missions and performance measures in multinationals

OBJECMVES, MISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN MULTINATIONALS

Objectives,Missionsand PerformanceMeasuresin Multinationals JEFFREY COATS, EDWARD DAVIS, STEPHEN LONGDEN, Aston Unrverszty, CLIVE Emmanuel, Unzverszty of Glasgow

RAYMOND

STACEY,

This article examines performance evaluatron systems of fifteen multinationals - five German, five UK and five US - and how they relate to corporate strategy or missron statements in each case. The technique of analysrs used IS the multilayered case study approach, and includes ‘face-toface’ interviews.

system but merely to unprove our understandmg of why the system exists and how it 1s perceived to operate

The results, by authors Jeffrey Coates, Edward Davis, Stephen Longden, Raymond Stacey (Aston University) and Clive Emmanuel (University of Glasgow), are very instructive The cases show a consrstent use of mrssronslstrategies, objectives and performance measures within the companies, but wide variation between them. Detailed tables are presented which show clearly the range of variation between the compames and countries concerned.

(I)

Introduction

In recent years there has been a growmg recogmtlon that the case study approach can yield fruitful results (Kaplan, 1983,1984,1986, Dlesmg 1972, Mohr 1985, Ym 1981, 1984, Tricker 1978, Tomkms and Groves 1983, Rlckwood ef al , 1987, and Scapens 1990)

Relatively little IS known about performance evaluation wlthm multmatlonal companies Given their mcreasmg economic slgmflcance (Prals, 1981, UNCTC, 1983), It seems essential that meaningful research should be undertaken to discover the form which these systems take and how they are used The overall object of our research 1s to examme the strategic dimension of corporate performance evaluation by reference to stated corporate oblectlves and mlsslons of 15 multmatlonals, and to compare these with the details of their control systems as perceived by their (30) Theories subsldlary umts at home and overseas appropriate to the research derive prlmarlly from the work of Goold and Campbell (1989), Hopwood (1974) and Slmons (1989, 1990) The performance evaluation systems of five German, five UK and five US multmatlonals are examined not only on the basis of mtervlews with their parents, but with at least two subsldlanes, one domestic and one overseas In the course of the research, relatlonshlps between the corporate mlsslon, managerial responslblllty and the formal performance evaluation system are explored The Intention 1s not to attach superior qualities to say one 444

Speclflcally, the research seeks to ldentlfy as Its overrldmg concern how performance measures relate to corporate strategy or mission In turn It 1s necessary to mvestlgate the followmg features

(11) (m)

the corporate mlsslon of the multmatlonal and the oblectlves of segments of the enterprise which measures, both fmanclal and non-fmanclal, are used to evaluate ‘performance’ the manner m which these measures contribute to control

Methodology: The Multi-layered Case Study Approach

Prior research m this area has largely rehed on surveys (Czechowlcz et al , 1982, Bursk et al , 1971, Maunel, 1969) Whilst these may provide a basis for statlstlcal analysis and generahzatlon, there are severe lmutatlons, not the least bemg the respondents’ ablhty to communicate authorltatlvely about perceptions held throughout the partlclpatmg company Previous field or case study research has either addressed a comparison of only two countries or highlighted one aspect of performance evaluation (for example, Morslcato, 1980) However, the hmlted evidence which 1s available suggests that there 1s a considerable diversity of practice In these circumstances, It seems appropriate to employ a multi-layered case study approach m order to record more clearly the varlatlons m practice m the setting of nusslons and objectmes, their transaction mto performance measures and the manner m which these are apphed at various levels of the orgamzatlon A further reason for the diverse practices between and wlthm multmatlonal compames may be the influence

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vo19 No 4 December 1991

OBJECTIVES, MISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN MULTINATIONALS

of national cultural charactenstlcs (Hofstede, 1980, Gray, 1988) In this regard, mvestlgatmg the systems of multmatlonal companies with head offices other than m the UK seems worthwhlle The full survey includes five multmatlonals from each of the UK, USA and Germany ‘Face-to-face’ mtervlews with members of the head office top management team and with correspondmg respresentatlves from overseas and home country dlvlslonallsubsldlary management teams have been conducted for each partlclpatmg company In each case the interview was structured around a series of common, open-ended questions to ensure a degree of consistency m response within and between companies The crlterla for selection of the fifteen multmatlonal companies was that each should be large, with substantial overseas mvolvement m several countries The majority of companies vlslted appear m the Times Top 100 or equivalent for the respective countries concerned Dtierences m national cultures, markets and economies may well be expected to influence the corporate attitude to performance evaluation

Research Domain Just what constitutes the management control system 1s the sublect of contmumg debate (Anthony 1988, Lowe and Machm 1983) However, there 1s broad agreement that some form of performance evaluation system 1s likely to be central to the exercise of effective control, particularly when busmess enterprises operate m many different geographlcal locatlons and/or with many different actlvltles Some form of comparative indicator wfl be required for a wide range of control and decisionmaking purposes

Theoretically, the performance measurement system (PMS) should operatlonahze the corporate mlsslon of the mdlvldual company By interpreting the corporate oblectlves, the PMS can alert all levels of management as to what 1s expected of them In addltlon, the PMS may be used as a motivational device provldmg a lmk with managerial incentive schemes The feaslblllty and comparability of fmanclal PMS alone to effect the desired behavlour 1s becoming mcreasmgly questioned Hence, quahtatlve and non-fmanclal, quantltatlve measures are included m the term PMS These potential relationships are shown m Figure 1, a framework suggested by Hopwood (1974) Whilst the design and characterlstlcs of the formal PMS 1s important, greater significance for management control may attach to the way m which the PMS IS used as part of the corporate control philosophy A further dlstmctlon may be drawn between dlagnostlc and mteractlve use of the PMS This may help to explam the process whereby companies adapt to changing environments (Slmons, zhd) In Figure 1, this process could be represented by vertical, downward facing arrows This framework which 1s an obvious sunpllficatlon may nevertheless provide guidance for the collection of data about not only the techmcal aspects of PMS but also their interactive or process properties

Key Features During each Interview, data was collected about corporate mlsslon statements and subsidiary goals Three levels of management were normally interviewed at head office, subsidiary or dlvlslonal level and dlvlslonal or plant level Aspects of the PMS, whether

CORPORATE GOALS

INTERNAL REWARD SYSTEM

*

FORMAL EVALUATION MEASURES

MANAGER’S PERSONAL GOALS

A B C

Figure 1

Corporate Aspects of manager’s Measured

C

4

goal consistent behavlour behavlour consistent with personal goals behavlour

The Hopwood Model

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol9 No 4 December 1991

445

OBJECTIVES, MISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN MULTINATIONALS

expressed m fmanclal, quahtatlve or quantltlve nonfmanclal terms which were reported regularly or otherwise and details of their lmks with any formal mcentlve scheme were recorded for each level of management Wherever possible, agenda of meetings between management levels, proforma of performance reports and mcentlve payment schemes were collected

Subsidzanes tend to take more notice of corporate financial objectives than corporate mission compared with head office Evaluation of Cases: Objectives, Mission Statements and Performance Measures This paper concentrates upon certain aspects of the research the consistency of the oblectlves and performance measures in relation to corporate mission statements In this context, an approach which we found useful among a number of approaches to the strategic classlficatlon of firms m the analysis of our own cases 1s that suggested by Goold and Campbell (1989) This outlines three Strategic Management Styles, described there as Strategic Planning, Strategic Control and Fmanclal Control Our analysis prlmarlly follows this paradigm, relatmg multmatlonal corporate oblectlves with the strategic dimensions of their control systems, as implemented measurements but also through performance mcorporates reference to Slmons and Hopwood

Mission Statements The mlsslon was usually expressed as a wrltten statement of general corporate aims, for example, ‘maxlmlze shareholder wealth’, and often amounted to a slmphfled outline of corporate strategy Oblectlves were speclflc and usually quantified Performance measures frequently mcorporated the oblectlves but tended to be broader m scope, and occupied a supporting role It appears that those compames which include a shareholder commitment m therr mlsslon statement usually lmk It with some other strategy, the most popular being marketmg orlented Some compames, however, have moved away from shareholder wealth maximization, or at least an exphclt statement of It, to one emphaslzmg market and production targets Evidence from the case studies suggests that the subsldlarles have greater awareness of the corporate fmanclal oblectlves which been set rather than the corporate nusslon As a result, perceptions often differed between the head office management and the subsldlary management For example, the corporate nussion of one US company was stated by the parent to be ‘growth in market value of stock’, whereas a malor subsidiary 446

considered it to be survival, with emphasis also on market share and return to quality products, shareholders Other corporations’ subsldlarles made reference to the annual report but could not quote the mission, suggesting a lack of internal use of the nusslon, with Its role m the annual report being primarily orientated towards shareholders, customers and other external stakeholders Where a subsidiary has a nusslon statement of Its own It tended to be focused on markets and products rather than profltablhty

The Translation of Missions into Corporate Objectives for Parent and Subsidiaries Where a shareholder wealth maxmuzation oblectlve was set, the mam fmanclal objective generally supported this by some proxy such as earnings per share or other measure of profltablhty Again, as with the mlsslon statements, profltablllty oblectlves were usually linked with a measure of growth, m which growth was normally stated either m fmanclal terms, for example, proflts growth, or m market terms, for example, increased market share Additional support to the profltablhty oblectlves was also provided m some cases by a further group of measures concerned with cash flow, hquldlty and financial risk, and used either Independently of, or m combmation with growth When linked to profltablllty and growth they could be seen to form a triangle of ob]ectlves/constramts, each workmg to overcome the hmltatlons of the others In the early 1980s one of the UK companies, for example, mtroduced a system of fmancial performance appraisal, largely concentratmg on underutlhzed assets The prmclpal crlterlon used for this was ROCE Due to the corporation’s llquldlty position between 1984 and 1986 the reqmrement to have a posltlve cash flow was also mtroduced Both of these measures have the effect of dlscouragmg growth, so that from 1987 growth targets have also been set

The Provision of Objectives for Subsidiaries Exammatlon of the delegation of corporate oblectlves to subsldlarles mdlcated that many compames used broadly the same three measures of prohtablhty, growth, cash flow to set subsldlary obJectIves In cases where a company defined profltablhty u-t terms of earnings per share or return on equity then it was obviously necessary for them to disaggregate funding down to subsidiaries, by applying a notional gearing to the capital employed by each subsldlary The same problems also effectively apphed to the comparable oblectlve of net profit after interest, which required mterest to be based upon a notional gearing Others adopted an alternative to dlsaggregatlon of capital (structures) down to subsldlarles which avoided the complex artlflclahty of such schemes, by, for example, targeting a return on assets or return on capital employed oblectlve Differences m the two approaches

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vo19 No 4 December 1991

OBJECTIVES,

MISSIONS

AND PERFORMANCE

reflect gearing and tax effects with ROCE usually bemg before interest and tax This ‘remedy’, however, also serves to render the oblectlve of the subsldlary one step removed from the mlsslon of shareholder wealth maxlmlzatlon The subsldlarles are isolated from the effects of Interest rate changes and taxation, which could lead them to make sub-optimal declslons for the company as a whole By contrast group oblectlves for growth m sales or market share are readily transferable to subsldlanes, often bemg made more specific m terms of markets and products The same also apphes to measures of cash flow or hquldlty

Performance Objectives

Measures and

The performance measures used by head offices to Judge subsidiary performance and those used by subsldlarles to assess their own and urut performance, are commonly based upon the triangle of profltabllltylgrowthlcash flow However, these are frequently supported by productivity and non-fmanclal measures, set m a variety of ways The Important pomt, however, 1s not the variety of measures, or indeed of the balance between short-term and longer-term performance, but the extent of congruence between an mdlvldual company’s mission, oblectlves and performance measures Differences between comparues’ emphases on obJectives and measures arguably reflected varying cultures and corporate management styles However, as stated

rable 1

IN MULTINATIONALS

above, the oblectlves and performance measures used by corporate management were consistent with their misslonlstrategy, and the mlsslonlstrategy, oblectlves and performance measures used by the subsldlarles were internally consistent with those used by the corporate management Tables l-3 support this, mdlcatmg, for example, with reference to profltablhty how the emphasis was sustamed downwards from head office oblectlves through those of subsldlarles together with their performance measures adopted

Contrasts in Performance Measurement Systems Analysis of the cases shows a consistent use of mlsslonsi strategies, oblectlves, and performance measures wlthm the companies but a wide vanatlon between them Here several aspects mvlte our attention from Tables 4-6 classlflcatlon of detailed performance measures Performance measures adopted by German compames favour return on sales and market share UK compames Indicate a more detalled hst of profit-orientated performance measures, also supported by either growth of profits, market share or, m one case earnmgs per share US companies and British use a variety of profltorientated performance measures but set a relatively reduced emphasis upon market share Perhaps the most

Summary of Mission, Objectives and Performance Measures

Company

UK 1 Head OffIce

Mssfon/Strategy Seneral Shareholder Fmanclal Marketmg Productlvlty/Cost Employee Welfare/Safety Environmental Oblecbves General Profltablllty Growth/Market Share Cash FlowlLiquldlty Financial Stability Productivity Employee Welfare/Safety Environmental Performance Measures Profitability Growth/Market Share Cash FlowlLlquldlty Financial Stability Productivity Others

EUROPEAN

MEASURES

MANAGEMENT

UK2

Subad/ary

Y Y

Head Office

UK3

Subs/d/ary

Head Office

UK4

Subs/d/ary

Head Office

UK5

Subs/d/at-y

Y

Head Office

Subad/ary

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y

JOURNAL

Vo19 No 4 December

1991

Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y

447

OBJECTIVES,

Table

2

MISSIONS

Summary

AND PERFORMANCE

of Mission,

Company

us Head Office

Miss/on/Strategy General Shareholder Fmanclal Marketmg ProductlvitylCost Employee Welfare/Safety Environmental Oblecbves General Profitability Growth/Market Share Cash Flow/Liquidity Financial Stability Productivity Employee Welfare/Safety Environmental Performance Measures ProfItabIlIty Growth/Market Share Cash FlowlLlquldlty Financial Stability Productivity Others

Table 3

Summary

Performance Measures Profitability Growth/Market Share Cash Flow/Liquidity Fmanclal Stability Productivity Others

us2

Subad/ary

Head OffIce

us 3

Subsldtary

Head Offhze

us 4

Subsrdrary

Head OffIce

us 5

Subsfdiary

Head Office

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Subadfary

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Objectives

Y Y

Y

and Performance

GR 1 Head Office

Ob]ectwes General Profitability Growth/Market Share Cash Flow/Liquidity Financial Stability Productlvlty Employee Welfare/Safety Environmental

1

Measures

Y

of Mission,

Missron/Strategy General Shareholder Financial Marketing Productivity/Cost Employee Welfare/Safety Environmental

and Performance

IN MULTINATIONALS

Y

Company

448

Objectives

MEASURES

Y

Head Offjce

Y

Measures

GR2

Subs/diary

Y Y

GR3

Subsidiary

Head Office

GR4

Subsrdrary

Head OffIce

GR5

Subad/ary

Y Y Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Subs/d/ary

Y Y

Y

Y

Head Office

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

EUROPEAN

MANAGEMENT

JOURNAL

Vo19 No 4 December

1991

OBJECTIVES,

rable 4

MISSIONS

AND PERFORMANCE

MEASURES

IN MULTINATIONALS

Detailed Performance Measures Performance

Head Offrce Profltabllrty earnmgs per share return on equity return on capital emp return on assets return on sales sales/fixed assets gross contnbutlon profit before mt & tax proflt after Interest before tax profit after interest and capital maintenance profit after int & tax economic value added operating expenses NPV of future cash flows Growth/Market Share growth m e p s real return on equity profit growth market share sales growth new products new business/orders Cash Flow/Lqwdlty operating cash flow posltlve cash flow cover financing costs workmg capital ratios Fmanoal Stab!kty gearing dividend cover

-

Subsrdrary

Head Offfce

Detall UK3

UK2

UK 1

Company

Measures

Subsrdrary

Head Office

Y

Y

UK5

UK4

Subsidiary

Head OffIce

Subsrdrary

Head Office

Subsidiary

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

strllang contrast, notwlthstandlng the constraints of our methodology m terms of the limited number of firms visited, IS the dlffermg emphasis placed upon financial stability, both as a corporate oblectlve and m its use as a performance measure

German companies interviewed did not stress financial stability as an oblectlve, or, consistently, as a performance measure By comparison both UK and US compames interviewed did so u-tthe main, although rather more consistently for the British firms, m which Its citation among oblectlves was fully reinforced by associated performance measures These, m turn, as may be gathered from Tables 4-6, are essentially concerned with gearmg Why should companies adopt such contrastmg performance measurement systems? Cultural and structural differences, such as the mfluence of capital markets, may partially explain different practices, the UK and US companies being sublect to more short-term performance requirement than their

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

German counterparts A pre-occupation with financial stability, and attention to gearing among corporate oblectlves and performance measures 1s hardly surprlsmg, given the level of UK interest rates Additionally, the industry, markets and technology may be other factors, together with the scale of operations Companies which operate m capital intensive mdustrles will require a much longer time period to achieve the required return on investment than those m more volatile markets An emphasis on short-term financial performance would lmut strategic mvestment and hence the long-term profltablhty of such companies Companies which operate m the global market may well perceive the need to integrate activities across natlonal boundaries as crucially important Hence the need to synchromze operations and achieve a certain size may merit the use of sophisticated, umformly applied measures On the other hand, it may result m a strong lead from the centre on strategic issues but with a correspondmg reduction on formal performance

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vo19 No 4 December 1991

449

OBJECTIVES, MISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN MULTINATIONALS

Table 5

Detailed

Performance

Measures

Performance Company

us Head Offrce

ProfitabAty earnmgs per share return on equity return on capital emp return on assets return on sales sales/fixed assets gross contnbutlon profit before mt & tax profit after interest before tax profit after Interest and capital maintenance profit after int & tax economic value added operating expenses NPV of future cash flows Growth/Market Share growth in e p s real return on equity profit growth market share sales growth new products new business/orders Cash Flow/Lqu/d/ty operatmg cash flow positive cash flow cover financing costs working capital ratios

1

Measures

us2

Subsidiary

Head Office

Detail us 3

Subsrdlary

Head Office

Subs/d/ary

us4 Head Office

us5

Subadrary

Head OffIce

Subs/d/sty

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Fmanaal Stablhty gearing dlvldend cover

Y

measures Where the need for coordmatlon IS seen as hmlted and 1s replaced by a desire to serve localized product markets, the scale of operating units may be slgmflcantly reduced In this case, the financial performance may well be emphasized at the expense of the strategic, the smaller units being given greater autonomy as to the means provided the ends (financial objectives) are met

An insight offered by one of the German managers dlstmgulshes the need for financial performance measures to plan effectively but questioned their use to control effectively A number of the companies, for example, used fmanclal performance criteria to evaluate the strategic plan but not to evaluate subsidiary performance Also, if there 1s an efficient informal network of commumcatlon and feedback, the need for the use of more formal financial performance measures may be reduced The emphasis changes from seeking to obtain goal congruence through performance 4511

-

Y

measures to obtaining it through consensus bulldmg One further important question 1s whether, given the relatively greater weight placed upon financial stability by British, and to an extent, US firms, this necessarily leads to greater short-term emphasis m other aspects of then oblectlves and performance management systems All companies m all countries, list profltabdlty as an objective and as a measure of performance What matters, therefore, 1s the way m which the system 1s used Here Goold and Campbell’s classlficatlon of firms mto strategic planner, strategic controller and financial control orientated may be used as a proxy for the shortterm mclmatlons of our firms In then analysis of strategic control styles only strategic planning allows a flexible approach to momtormg and control - while the other two modes of strategic control and financial control exhibit varymg degrees of tight control The issue of autonomy and control IS an important one The Hopwood model attempts to define the relationships between the corporate goals, formal evaluation

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT IOURNAL Vo19 No 4 December

1991

OBJECTIVES, MISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN MULTINATIONALS

Table

6

Detailed

Performance

Measures

Performance

Head Office Profrtabrkty earnmgs per share return on equity return on capltal emp return on assets return on sales saleslflxed assets gross contnbution profit before mt & tax profit after interest before tax profit after interest and capital maintenance profit after mt & tax economic value added operatmg expenses NPV of future cash flows Growth/Market Share growth in e p s real return on equity profit growth market share sales growth new products new business/orders Cash Flow/L/qu,drty operating cash flow positive cash flow cover fmancmg costs working capital ratios

-

Subsjdrary

Head Office

Detarl GR4

GR3

GR2

GR 1

Company

Measures

Subs/d/ary

Head Offfce

Subsrdrary

Head Office

GR5

Subsrd/ary

Head Office

Subsrdjary

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

7

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Rnancral Stab&y gearing dividend cover

measures, managers’ personal goals and the resultant behavlour Behavlour consistent with the corporate goals 1s shown, as Circle A m Figure 1 and those aspects of behavlour evaluated by the formal measures as circle C The oblectlve of management control 1s to bring A mto comcldence with B, often by reward systems linked to C Most of the multmatlonals investigated gave their dlvlslonslsubsldlarles some autonomy The seemmgly important contrasts arise when such firms are cast wlthm the Goold and Campbell classlflcatlon The overriding lmpresslon derived was that German companies were predommantly (415) orientated towards the strategc plannmg mode or longer-term view While British and American companies included representatives or strategic planning, the malorlty favoured a greater emphasis on fmanclallstrateglc control by contrast with the Germans, and reinforced this to a varying extent by managerial mcentlve schemes

Y

Y Y

The German compames surveyed adopted flexible attltudes not only to the design of incentive schemes, but also whether they are established This may derive from the long-term perspective which these compames take or, in turn, managerial attitudes to hfe - long employment with a particular company For the Brltlsh comparues, where mcentlve schemes are more universally applied, the mfluence of and reliance upon financial performance measures to evaluate subsldlary performance suggests an attitude to management of the group as If it were a portfoho of investment This same influence may explam several of the US multmatlonal companies choice of incentive scheme design A fmal conslderatlon 1s that the question of performance 1s mevltably involved with that of the underlymg host economies of these multmatlonals One result of the UK’s stop-go economic cycles could well be that Its firms feel constrained m terms of performance oblectlves towards risk mmlmlzmg strategies, with obJectlves set

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vo19 No 4 December 1991

451

OBJECTIVES, MISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN MULTINATIONALS

to reduce vulnerablhty to the economx cycle Central to this 1s the long-standing Issue of ‘short-termlsm’ whether real or perceived (C F Marsh, 1990) arising from the reaction of UK financial markets and mtermedlarles to short-term fmanclal performance

Notes Fundmg for this project from the Research Board of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants 1s gratefully acknowledged

References Anthony, R N , The Management Control Functzon, Harvard Business School Press, 1988 Bursk, E C , Dearden, J , Hawkms, D F and Longstreet, V M ,

Fmancud Control of MuZtznatzonalOperatmns, Financial Executives Research Foundation, 1971 Czechowlcz, I J , Chow, F D S , and Bavlshl, V , Assesszng Foreign Subsldrury Performance Systems and Practrces of ,kudtng of Multrnut~onulCompunres, Busmess International Corporation, 1982 Dlesmg, P , Patterns of Discovery m the SoczulSczences (Routledge, Kegan and Paul, 1972) Goold, M and Campbell, A Strufegzes and Styles The roles of the Centre m Munugmg Dzverszfied Corporutrons Basil Blackwell, 1989 Gray, S J ‘Towards a Theory of Cultural Influence m the Development of Accounting Systems Internationally’, Abacus, March 1988 Hofstede, G H Culture’s Consequences, Sage, 1980 Hopwood, A , Accountmg and Human Behuvzour, Prentice-Hall, 1974 Kaplan, R S , ‘Measurmg Manufacturmg Performance A New Challenge for Management Accounting Research’, Accountzng Review, October 1983

Kaplan, R S , ‘The Case for Case Studies m Management Accounting Research’, paper _ _ presented at American Accountmg Assoclatlon Annual Conference, 1984 Kaulan. R S , ‘The Role for Emmncal Research m Management Accouitmg’, Accountmi, Orgumzatzons and Socze&, Vol 11, No 415 Lowe, E A and Machm, J L F , New Perspectwes In Management Control, Macmillan, 1983 Marsh, C F , 1990 Mohr, L G , ‘The Rehablhty of the Case Study as a Source of Information’, m Coulam, R and r Smith (eds), Advances zn Inform&on Processzng m Orgumzutzons, Volume 2 (JAI press, 1985) Morslcato, H G , Currency Transluflon and Performance Evaluutlon zn Multznatlonul Compunzes, UMI Research Press, 1980 Prals, S G , The Evolutron of Gxznt Fzrms tn Bnfum, Cambridge Umverslty Press, 1981 RIckwood, C P , Coates, J B and Stacey, R J ‘Managed Costs and the Capture of Information’, Accountrng and Busmess Research, No 68, Autumn 1987 Scapens, R ‘Researching Management Accounting Practice The Role of Case Study Methods’, Brztzsh Accountmg Review, Vol 22, No 3, September 1990 Slmons, R ‘Strategic Onentatlon and Top Management Attention to Control Systems’, presented at the Management Control Assoclatlon Inaugural Conference at the London Graduate Busmess School, March 1989 Slmons, R , ‘The Role of Management Control Systems m Creating Competlhve Advantage New Perspective’, Accountmg, Orgumzuttons and Soczefy, Vol 15, No 112, 1990 Tomkms, C and Groves, R E V , ‘The Everyday Accountant and Researchmg his Reahty’, Accountmg, Organzzatzons and Soczety, Vol 8, No 4, 1983 Tricker, R I , Research m Accountmg Purpose, Process and Potentud (Unmerslty of Glasgow, 1978) UNCTC - United Nations Centre for Transnatlonal Corporations, 1983 Ym, R K , ‘The Case Study Crises Some Answers’, Admmtstratlve Science Quarterly, Vol 26, March 1981 Ym, R K , Case Study Research Deszgn and Methods (Sage, 1984)

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vo19 No 4 December 1991

OBJECTIVES,

MISSIONS

AND PERFORMANCE

MEASURES

IN MULTINATIONALS

zf:

EUI; 3PEAN

MANAGEMENT

JOURNAL

Vo19 No 4 December

1991

453