#5065. The effect of enabling versus coercive performance measurement systems on procedural fairness and red tape

July 2026publication date
Proposal available till 15-05-2025
4 total number of authors per manuscript0 $

The title of the journal is available only for the authors who have already paid for
Journal’s subject area:
Accounting;
Management Information Systems;
Management of Technology and Innovation;
Strategy and Management;
Management Science and Operations Research;
Places in the authors’ list:
place 1place 2place 3place 4
FreeFreeFreeFree
2350 $1200 $1050 $900 $
Contract №5065.1 Contract №5065.2 Contract №5065.3 Contract №5065.4
1 place - free (for sale)
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)

Abstract:
In this study, we investigate the effects of an enabling versus a coercive performance measurement system on how employees perceive the procedural quality of such systems. We hypothesize that an enabling design and an enabling development process, as compared to a coercive design and a coercive development process, lead to perceptions of greater procedural fairness and less red tape. To test our hypotheses, we conduct an experiment with two different samples (a student laboratory sample and an online sample). In general, our results indicate that an enabling performance measurement system design and an enabling system development process both independently increase procedural fairness and decrease red tape. These findings imply that organizations interested in improving the procedural quality of their performance measurement system should focus on designing and developing a system that is enabling rather than coercive.
Keywords:
Coercive; Enabling; Performance measurement system; Procedural fairness; Red tape

Contacts :
0