Comprehensive Performance Measures, Job Satisfaction and
Managerial Performance: The Effect of Trust in Superior and
Organizational Commitment
Utami Puji Lestari
1
and Yusep Friya Purwa Setya
1
1
Department of Accounting, Politeknik Negeri Jakarta, Jalan Prof. Dr. G. A. Siwabessy, Kampus Baru UI, Depok,
Indonesia
Keywords: Performance, measures, job, satisfaction, trust, commitment.
Abstract: This study’s objectives are, first, to investigate if the use of financial and non-financial measures is related to
some employee performances, such as job satisfaction, managerial performance, and commitment to the
organization. This study also investigates if financial and non-financial performance measures affect
employees’ job satisfaction and managerial performance through employees’ trust in superiors and their
commitment to the organization. The data were collected from management-level employees of two service
industries public accounting firms and state-owned administrative service located in Jakarta, Bogor,
Depok, Banten, and Serang. The 79 data were analyzed by using PLS-SEM with SmartPLS Software Version
3.2.8. The results show that (1) financial performance measures do not affect job satisfaction directly or
indirectly, (2) financial performance measures affect managerial performance through commitment to the
organization, and (3) the use of non-financial measures as the company’s employee performance evaluation
affect employee job satisfaction and managerial performance indirectly through higher trust in superior and
commitment to organization.
1 INTRODUCTION
Companies cannot depend only on traditional
accounting-based measures for their performance
evaluations in today’s more competitive situation
(Chenhall, 1997; Chenhall & Langfield-Smith, 2007;
Hoque, Mia, & Alam, 2001; Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
They have been forced to adopt a variety of
performance improvement programmes, for instance
benchmarking, which need an upgrade of their
performance measurement systems to the more
comprehensive one that includes non-financial
performance measures (Bai & Sarkis, 2012;
Kulatunga, Amaratunga, & Haigh, 2011; Micheli &
Manzoni, 2010; Muchiri, Pintelon, Gelders, &
Martin, 2011; Neely, 1999). Regardless of the
increasing tendency of the adoption of more complete
performance measurement evaluation system, there is
not enough empirical support on the behavioural
consequences of the use of this system (C. M. Lau,
2015; C. M. Lau & Roopnarain, 2014). In other
words, there is a need to comprehend how the use of
both financial and non-financial performance
measures affect employees’ attitudes and
performance. This study aims to fill this knowledge
gap by investigating the consequense of the use of
financial and non-financial performance measures on
employees’ attitudes and performances, including
their trust in superior, organizational commitment,
job satisfaction and managerial performance.
This study includes the effect of trust in superior
on the association concerning fianancial and non-
financial performance measures and employees’ job
satisfaction and managerial performance, because
better performance evaluation tend to happen when
there is a trust between subordinates and their
superiors in an organization. Prior studies have found
that there is a positive association between
performance evaluation and trust in superiors (e.g.
Chia, Lau, & Tan, 2014; C. M. Lau & Sholihin,
2005). This study contributes to this area by studying
trust in superior in the context of financial and non-
financial performance measures in a service industry.
The research of organizational commitment is
important as it has significant effect on employees’
performance. In the context of job satisfaction as
116
Lestari, U. and Purwa Setya, Y.
Comprehensive Performance Measures, Job Satisfaction and Managerial Performance: The Effect of Trust in Superior and Organizational Commitment.
DOI: 10.5220/0010545001160126
In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar (ASAIS 2020), pages 116-126
ISBN: 978-989-758-518-0
Copyright
c
2021 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
employees’ performance, the relationship between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction is
unclear. Some studies have used job satisfaction as
the dependent variable (e.g. Vandenberg & lance,
1992); while other previous studies have recognised
job satisfaction as the independent variable (Jernigan,
Beggs, & Kohut, 2002; Lok & Crawford, 2001; Tan
& Lau, 2012). Regarding organizational commitment
and managerial performance, some studies have
found a positive relationship (e. g. Chong & Law,
2016; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990); while other studies
have found no relationship (Steers, 1977; Wiener &
Vardi, 1980). This study extends Chong and Law’
(2016) study by adding job satisfaction as one of
dependent variable. However, this study differs from
Chong and Law’ (2016) study as this study
investigates the impact of financial and non-financial
performance measures on employees’ job satisfaction
and managerial performance through trust in superior
and organizational commitment. Figure 1 presents the
model of the study.
The literature relevant to this study is reviewed
and followed by hypotheses development. The
research method and the results of the study then
presented. The last section concludes the paper with
conclusions, limitation and suggestions.
Figure 1: Research Model
2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND
HYPOTHESES
DEVELOPMENT
2.1 The Use of Financial and
Non-financial Performance
Measures and Employees’ Job
Satisfaction and Managerial
Performance
Companies' use of financial and non-financial
performance measures is believed to have favorable
behavioral significances (C. M. Lau & Sholihin,
2005). It provides some indications and encourages
subordinates to make some progress in their activities
(Hoque et al., 2001). In other words, these
significances tend to improve subordinates’
performance, such as their job satisfaction and
managerial performance, which lead to the following
hypotheses.
H1: Financial performance measures are
associated with job satisfaction
H2: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly associated with job satisfaction
H3: Financial performance measures are
significantly associated with managerial
performance
H4: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly associated with managerial
performance
Comprehensive Performance Measures, Job Satisfaction and Managerial Performance: The Effect of Trust in Superior and Organizational
Commitment
117
2.2 The Use of Financial and
Non-financial Performance
Measures, Trust in Superior and
Employees’ Job Satisfaction and
Managerial Performance
The concept of trust used in this study is borrowed
from Read (1962), who conceptualized trust as
“Subordinates’ trust in superior motivation
regarding subordinates status and career in the
company.” Multiple financial and non-financial
performance measures usage as the employees
performance evaluation may increase subordinates’
trust in superior (C. M. Lau & Sholihin, 2005;
Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). By
using financial and non-financial measures that
represent a more comprehensive measures, these
show that the company has taken into account the
contributions made by the subordinates, superior then
would be perceived as more concern about their
organization and subordinates, which lead to higher
subordinates’ trust in superior (C. M. Lau & Sholihin,
2005). While subordinates and superiors in an
organization trust each other, there would be less
organizational conflicts (C. M. Lau & Sholihin,
2005), which lead to higher job satisfaction and
managerial performance. Accordingly, the following
hypotheses are tested.
H5: Financial performance measures are
significantly associated with job satisfaction
through trust in superior
H6: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly associated with job satisfaction
through trust in superior
H7: Financial performance measures are
significantly associated with managerial
performance through trust in superior
H8: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly related to managerial performance
through trust in superior
2.3 The Use of Financial and
Non-financial Performance
Measures, Commitment to
Organization and Job Satisfaction
and Managerial Performance
Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian (1974) define
commitment to the organization as the relative
strength of an individual’s identification with and
attachment to an organization. Previous studies in
organizational behavior show that organizational
commitment is a critical factor, positively affecting
employees' behavior, such as enhancing their effort,
performance, and loyalty to an organization (Mathieu
& Zajac, 1990; Sholihin & Pike, 2010).
By using multiple financial and non-financial
performance measures, an organization would be able
to evaluate individual performance from many
perspectives (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). As it is seen
as more comprehensive, individual that evaluated by
that kind of performance measurement tend to show
a more favorable behavior, including a higher
commitment to organization (C. M. Lau & Moser,
2008). Previous study by Lau and Moser (2008)
suggest that the use of non-financial performance
measure in manufacturing companies has a positive
effect on organizational commitment. Employees
with higher organizational commitment tend to have
a higher motivation to support their organization in
achieving their goals (Chong & Law, 2016). In other
words, employees with higher organizational
commitment have higher performance than those
with lower organizational commitment. The
discussions lead to the following hypotheses.
H9: Financial performance measures are
significantly associated job satisfaction through
commitment to the organization
H10: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly related to job satisfaction through a
commitment to the organization
H11: Financial performance measures are
significantly associated with managerial
performance through a commitment to
organization
H12: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly related to managerial performance
through a commitment to organization
2.4 Trust in Superior and Commitment
to Organization
It is mentioned before that organization which have
subordinates with higher trust in superior may have
less conflicts (C. M. Lau & Sholihin, 2005). As this
situation leads to a more comfort work environment,
it would then increase employees’ attachment to their
organization (Chong & Law, 2016). In other words,
trust in superior may lead to higher organizational
commitment. Accordingly, the following hypothesis
is developed.
H13: Trust in superior is significantly related to
commitment to organization
ASAIS 2020 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar
118
2.5 The Use of Financial and
Non-financial Performance
Measures, Trust in Superior,
Commitment to Organization and
Employees’ Job Satisfaction and
Managerial Performance
The use of multiple financial and non-financial
performance measures as employees’ performance
evaluation tools in an organization may increase
subordinates’ trust in superior (C. M. Lau & Sholihin,
2005; Whitener et al., 1998). This will lead to higher
employees’ organizational commitment (Chong &
Law, 2016) and their’ effort to help companies in
achieving their objectives, which in turn, may
improve employees performance. The following
hypotheses are tested.
H14: Financial performance measures are
significantly associated with job satisfaction via
trust in superior and a commitment to
organization
H15: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly associated with job satisfaction via
trust in superior and a commitment to
organization
H16: Financial performance measures are
significantly associated with managerial
performance via trust in superior and
commitment to organization
H17: Non-financial performance measures are
significantly ssociated with and commitment to
organization
3 METHOD
3.1 Sample and Data Collection
Procedure
Data were collected from employees at the middle
and senior level of accounting firms and one state-
owned administrative service located in Jakarta,
Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi, Banten and
Serang. Data of accounting firms is obtained from the
list in the Ministry of Finance electronic database.
The accounting firms – one type of business service –
were selected as based on Indonesian Central Bank’
Activity Survey, in the future would become one of
service sectors with the highest business growth in
Indonesia (Raswa, 2015). The state-owned
administrative service was selected as based on
Indonesian Ministry of Finance (2009), is one of
government institution that has successfully reform
its bureaucracy.
An email was sent to the accounting firms in the
list, asking the partner of the firms to obtain two
names of their senior auditors and supervisors or send
the link of the questionnaire directly to two of their
senior and/or supervisor auditors. For the state-owned
administrative service, after obtaining the research
permission from the head office, the link of the survey
questionnaire was emailed to the public relations
department of each office, asking them to send the
link to the middle and senior managers. Of the 303
emails sent to the respondents, only 79 fill the
questionnaire, constituting a 26.07% response rate.
This rate is higher than the 10%-20% of average
response rate for surveys of higher management level
of participant-level (Menon, Bharadwaj, & Howell,
1996; Voola, Casimir, Carlson, & Agnihotri, 2012).
The demographic data show that the participants
consist of 19 females (24.05%) and 60 males
(75.95%). Only eight participants were part time
employees (10.13%), while the rest were full time
employees (89.87%). Most of the participants have
worked at their current workplace for less than five
years (49.37%), 17.72% have been employed for 5 to
10 years at the same place, and 32.91% have worked
for more than 10 years on the same workplace. All
participants held tertiary education, with about
58.23% holding bachelor’s degrees and 41.77%
owned master’s degrees.
3.2 Measurement of Variables
3.2.1 Non-financial Performance Measures
The financial and non-financial performance
measures were assessed by using the instrument
developed by Lau and Moser (2008). The participants
were asked to rate the importance of the items when
their superior is evaluating their performance. The
instruments have shown satisfactory reliability level
with Cronbach Alpha of 0.821 (financial measures)
and 0.912 (non-financial measures).
3.2.2 Trust in Superior
This variable is measured using a four-item
instrument developed by Read (1962). The
participants were asked to rate the extent to which
they agree with the statements. The instruments have
demonstrated high internal reliability with Cronbach
Alpha value of 0.821. One item was deleted as it has
factor loading lower than 0.5.
Comprehensive Performance Measures, Job Satisfaction and Managerial Performance: The Effect of Trust in Superior and Organizational
Commitment
119
3.2.3 Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment was measured using an
eleven-item instrument developed by Mowday,
Steers and Porter (1979). After deleting two items that
have factor loadings below 0.5, the variable
demonstrated satisfactory internal reliability with
Cronbach Alpha value of 0.944.
3.2.4 Job Satisfaction
The variable was evaluated using an instrument
developed by Rusbult and Farrel (1983). The items of
this variable have satisfactory factor loadings, with
Cronbach Alpha value of 0.943.
3.2.5 Managerial Performance
Managerial performance was measured using the
nine-item self-rating instrument developed by
Mahoney, Jerdee and Carroll (1965). The items have
a satisfactory loadings value with Cronbach Alpha of
0.961. Table 1 shows the factor loadings for all items
of each variables while Table 2 demonstrate the
results of construct reliability and validity test. As
shown in Table 3, all of the variables have acceptable
discriminant validity as the square root AVE for each
variable is more significant than any value of the non-
diagonal element.
Table 1: Factor Loadings Of Variables.
Commitment Fin
Job
Satisfaction
Managerial
p
erformance
Non Fin Trust
F1 0,904
F2 0,843
F3 0,828
JobS1
0,906
JobS2
0,771
JobS3
0,924
JobS4
0,934
JobS5
0,914
JobS6
0,842
MPerf2
0,888
MPerf3
0,947
MPerf4
0,839
MPerf5
0,944
MPerf6
0,827
MPerf7
0,714
MPerf8
0,900
MPerf9
0,879
Mperf1
0,905
NF1
0,789
NF2
0,783
NF3
0,744
NF4
0,766
NF5
0,801
NF6
0,754
NF7
0,717
NF8
0,809
NF9
0,711
OrgCom1 0,701
ASAIS 2020 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar
120
OrgCom10 0,626
OrgCom11 0,900
OrgCom2 0,834
OrgCom3 0,814
OrgCom4 0,663
OrgCom5 0,898
OrgCom6 0,888
OrgCom7 0,709
OrgCom8 0,879
OrgCom9 0,893
Trust2
0,777
Trust3
0,935
Trust4
0,856
Table 2: Construct Reliability and Validity.
Cronbach's
Alpha
rho_A
Composite
Reliabilit
y
Average Variance
Extracted (AVE)
Organizational commitment 0,944 0,953
0,953 0,651
Financial measures 0,821 0,822
0,894 0,738
Job Satisfaction 0,943 0,954
0,955 0,781
Managerial performance 0,961 0,966
0,967 0,764
Non-Financial measures 0,912 0,921
0,927 0,585
Trust in superior 0,821 0,853
0,893 0,737
Table 3: Fornell Larker Discriminant Validity.
Commitment Fin
Job
Satisfaction
Managerial
p
erformance
Non-Fin Trust
Organizational commitment 0,807
Financial measures 0,609 0,859
Job Satisfaction 0,699 0,537 0,884
Managerial performance 0,696 0,391 0,643 0,874
Non-Financial measures 0,638 0,680 0,487 0,511 0,765
Trust in superior 0,608 0,440 0,487 0,546 0,559 0,858
4 RESULTS
Partial least square equation modelling with
SmartPLS
®
software Version 3.2.8 (Ringle, Wende,
& Becker, 2015) was used to test the models. By
using bootstrapping with 5.000 samples with
replacement, the results in Table 4 have shown that
all of the R
2
values of each independent variables are
higher than 0.1, which means that variables explained
by the dependent variables have statistical and
practical significance.
Comprehensive Performance Measures, Job Satisfaction and Managerial Performance: The Effect of Trust in Superior and Organizational
Commitment
121
Table 4: The R-Square Values.
R Square R Square Adjusted
Organizational Commitment 0,547 0,529
Job Satisfaction 0,513 0,487
Managerial performance 0,519 0,493
Trust in superior 0,305 0,287
The results presented in Table 5, Table 6, and
Figure 2 advice that only H10, H11, H13, H15 and
H17 are significant. H10 states that non-financial
performance measures are significantly related to job
satisfaction through organizational commitment;
while H11 states that financial performance measures
are connected significantly to managerial
performance. The results in Table 6 specify that non-
financial performance measures are connected
significantly to job satisfaction via organizational
commitment (0.149, p<0.005, one-tailed), and
financial performance measures are significantly
related managerial performance through
organizational commitment (0.162, p<0.05, one-
tailed). Therefore, H10 and H11 are supported. H13
states that trust in superior is significantly related to
organizational commitment. Table 5, Figure 2
indicate that trust in superior is associated
significantly with organizational commitment (0.341,
p<0.001, one-tailed), supporting H13. Finally, H15
and H17 state that non-financial performance
measures are significantly related to job satisfaction
through trust in superior and commitment to the
organization, and non-financial performance
measures are significantly associated with managerial
performance through trust in superior and
commitment to the organization respectively. Table 6
indicates that non-financial performance measures
are associated significantly with job satisfaction
through trust in superior and commitment to
organization (0.087, p<0.05, one-tailed) and non-
financial performance measures are associated
significantly with managerial performance through
trust in superior and commitment to organization
(0.091, p<0.05, one-tailed), which supported H15 and
H17 respectively.
Table 5: Beta Coefficients, Standard Deviation, t-Values and p-Values - Direct Effects.
Beta
Coefficient
Standard
Deviation
T Values P Values
Commitment -> Job Satisfaction 0,561 0,162 3,451 0,000
Commitment -> Managerial performance 0,586 0,131 4,481 0,000
Fin -> Commitment 0,277 0,135 2,051 0,020
Fin -> Job Satisfaction 0,188 0,172 1,090 0,138
Fin -> Managerial performance -0,134 0,138 0,969 0,166
Fin -> Trust 0,129 0,149 0,863 0,194
Non-Fin -> Commitment 0,266 0,149 1,790 0,037
Non-Fin -> Job Satisfaction -0,046 0,137 0,335 0,369
Non-Fin -> Managerial performance 0,131 0,157 0,837 0,201
Non-Fin -> Trust 0,457 0,133 3,431 0,000
Trust -> Commitment 0,341 0,108 3,157 0,001
Trust -> Job Satisfaction 0,088 0,136 0,645 0,260
Trust -> Managerial performance 0,177 0,115 1,531 0,063
ASAIS 2020 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar
122
Table 6: Beta Coefficients, Standard Deviation, t-Values, p-Values - Indirect Effects.
Beta
Coefficient
Standard
Deviation
T Values P Values
Fin -> Trust -> Commitment 0,044 0,055 0,805 0,211
Non-Fin -> Trust -> Commitment 0,156 0,070 2,225 0,013
Fin -> Commitment -> Job Satisfaction 0,155 0,102 1,525 0,064
Non-Fin -> Commitment -> Job Satisfaction 0,149 0,088 1,688 0,046
Fin -> Trust -> Commitment -> Job Satisfaction 0,025 0,034 0,724 0,235
Trust -> Commitment -> Job Satisfaction 0,191 0,088 2,180 0,015
Non-Fin -> Trust -> Commitment -> Job Satisfaction 0,087 0,051 1,717 0,043
Fin -> Trust -> Job Satisfaction 0,011 0,028 0,403 0,344
Non-Fin -> Trust -> Job Satisfaction 0,040 0,069 0,582 0,280
Fin -> Commitment -> Managerial performance 0,162 0,083 1,958 0,025
Non-Fin -> Commitment -> Managerial performance 0,156 0,108 1,443 0,075
Fin -> Trust -> Commitment -> Managerial performance 0,026 0,034 0,762 0,223
Trust -> Commitment -> Managerial performance 0,200 0,078 2,559 0,005
Non-Fin -> Trust -> Commitment -> Managerial
p
erformance
0,091 0,047 1,953 0,026
Fin -> Trust -> Managerial performance 0,023 0,036 0,637 0,262
Non-Fin -> Trust -> Managerial performance 0,081 0,062 1,306 0,096
Figure 2: Structural Model Results – Direct Effect
Comprehensive Performance Measures, Job Satisfaction and Managerial Performance: The Effect of Trust in Superior and Organizational
Commitment
123
5 CONCLUSIONS
This study’s objectives are to examine if financial and
non-financial measures are connected to some
employees’ performances, for instance, job
satisfaction, managerial performance and
organizational commitment. This study also
investigates whether financial and non-financial
performance measures affect employees’ job
satisfaction and managerial performance through
employees’ trust in superiors and their organizational
commitment. The findings show that (1) financial
performance measures affect organizational
commitment and (2) non-financial performance
measures affect (a) employees’ trust in superiors and
(b) their organizational commitment. As the results
also indicates that there are (1) no connection
between financial and non-financial performance
measures and (a) job satisfaction and (b) managerial
performance; (2) no relationship between employees’
trust in superior and (a) job satisfaction and (b)
managerial performance; and (3) employees’ trust in
superiors affect their organizational commitment; the
indirect effect tests have pointed out that (1) financial
performance measures affect managerial
performance fully through organizational
commitment and (2) non-financial performance
measures affect job satisfaction and managerial
performance fully through employees’ trust in
superiors and their organizational commitment.
The contributions of this study to the theory are as
follows. This study is advising the importance of
financial and non-financial performance measures on
the employees’ attitudes, namely employees’ trust in
superior and organizational commitment. Therefore,
this study’s results support Solihin and Pike (2010)
and Lau and Moser (2008). This study also indicates
that employees' trust in superiors and organizational
commitment increase our understanding on how
financial and non-financial performance measures
affect job satisfaction and managerial performance.
The use of financial performance measures would
affect managerial performance only through
organizational commitment. This result support
Solihin and Pike (2010), who suggest that the
association between financial performance measures
and organizational commitment is direct. The use of
non-financial performance measures would affect job
satisfaction and managerial performance through
employees’ organizational commitment only or
through both employees’ trust in superior and
organizational commitment. These results support
Chong and Law (2016) who argue that trust in
superior and organisational commitment have a
significant role in increasing managerial
performance. The lack of direct and indirect link
between financial performance measures and job
satisfaction through trust in superior and or
organizational commitment indicates that this
relationship may happen through other factors.
This studys practical contributions are to enhance
employees’ job satisfaction and managerial
performance; organizations need to design and
manage a clear performance measurement system and
raise their employees’ trust in superiors to gain better
employees’ organizational commitment.
There are some limitations to this study. The use of
only two types of service industries makes the results
may not apply to other sectors. Future research should
include other service industries. Second, more than
30% of the respondents have worked for the same
organization for more than ten years. This may raise
the issue of “survivor bias” as these employees tend
to have stronger ties with their organization
(Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). As a result, their
commitment to the organization is relatively high,
which leads to better managerial performance and job
satisfaction. Research in the future may study this
issue in different settings.
REFERENCES
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. 2012. Supply-chain performance-
measurement system management using
neighbourhood rough sets. International Journal of
Production Research, 50(9), 2484-2500.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.581010
Chenhall, R. H. 1997. Reliance on manufacturing
performance measures, total quality management and
organisational performance. Management Accounting
Research, 8 (2), 187-206.
Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. 2007. Multiple
perspectives of performance measures. European
Management Journal, 25(4), 266-282.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.06.001
Chia, D. P. S., Lau, C. M., & Tan, S. L. C. 2014. The
relationships between performance measures and
employee Outcomes: The mediating roles of procedural
fairness and trust. In A. Davila, M. J. Epstein, & J.-F.
Manzoni (Eds.), Performance Measurement and
Management Control: Behavioral Implications and
Human Actions (Studies in Managerial and Financial
Accounting) (Vol. 28, pp. 203-232): Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Chong, V., & Law, M. B. C. 2016. The effect of a budget-
based incentive compensation scheme on job
performance: The mediating role of trust-in-supervisor
and organisational commitment. Journal of Accounting
& Organizational Change,, 12(4).
ASAIS 2020 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar
124
Departemen Keuangan Republik Indonesia. 2009. Laporan
Kinerja Departemen Keuangan pada Kabinet Indonesia
Bersatu 2004-2009. Retrieved from
http://www.kemenkeu.go.id/sites/default/files/LKDK
%202004-2009%20low%20res.pdf
Hoque, Z., Mia, L., & Alam, M. 2001. Market competition,
computer-aided manufacturing and use of multiple
performance measures: an empirical study. British
Accounting Review, 33, 23-45.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. 1972. Personal and role-
related factors in the development of organizational
commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 555-
573.
Jernigan, I. E., Beggs, J. M., & Kohut, G. F. 2002.
Dimensions of work satisfaction of predictors of
commitment typpe. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
17(7), 564-579.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 1992. The balanced
scorecard--measures that drive performance. Harvard
Business Review, 70(1), 71-79. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d
b=buh&AN=9205181862&site=ehost-live
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 1996. The Balanced
Scorecard-Translating Strategy into Action. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. 2011.
Structured approach to measure performance in
construction research and development. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
60(3), 289-310.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401111112005
Lau, C. M. 2015. The effects of nonfinancial performance
measures on role clarity, procedural fairness and
managerial performance. Pacific Accounting Review,
27(2), 142-165.
Lau, C. M., & Moser, A. 2008. Behavioural effects of
nonfinancial performance measures: the role of
procedural fairness. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 20(2), 55-71.
Lau, C. M., & Roopnarain, R. 2014. The effect of non-
financial and financial measures on employee
motivation to participate in target setting. British
Accounting Review, 46, 228-247.
Lau, C. M., & Sholihin, M. 2005. Financial and
nonfinancial performance measures: How do they
affect job satisfaction? The British Accounting Review,
37(4), 389-413. doi:10.1016/j.bar.2005.06.002
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. 2001. Antecedents of organisational
commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594-613.
Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J. 1965. The
job of management. Industrial Relations, 97-110.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1990. A review and meta-
analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Howell, R. 1996. The
Quality and Effectiveness of Marketing Strategy:
Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict in
Intraorganizational Relationships. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 299. Retrieved
from
http://libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/login?url=http://sear
ch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&A
N=9610060967&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Micheli, P., & Manzoni, J.-F. 2010. Strategic performance
measurement: Benefits, limitations and paradoxes.
Long Range Planning, 43(4), 465-476.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.004
Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. 1979. The
measurement of organizational commitment’. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Muchiri, P., Pintelon, L., Gelders, L., & Martin, H. 2011.
Development of maintenance function performance
measurement framework and indicators. International
Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 295-302.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
Neely, A. 1999. The performance measurement revolution:
why now and what next. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 19(2), 205-
228.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P.
V. 1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Raswa, E. 2015. Keuangan, Real Estat, dan Jasa Perusahaan
Rajai Kegiatan Usaha Kuartal I 2015. Indonesian
Finance Today. Retrieved from
http://ift.co.id/posts/keuangan-real-estat-dan-jasa-
perusahaan-rajai-kegiatan-usaha-kuartal-i-2015
Read, W. H. 1962. Upward communication industrial
hierarchies. Human relations, 15, 3-15.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. 2015. SmartPLS
3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. Retrieved from
http://www.smartpls.com
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrel, D. 1983. A longitudinal test of the
investment model: impact on job satisfaction, job
commitment, and turnover variation in rewards, costs,
alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied
Psychology 68, 429 – 438.
Sholihin, M., & Pike, R. 2010. Organisational commitment
in the police service: Exploring the effects of
performance measures, procedural justice and
interpersonal trust Financial Accountability &
Management, 26(4), 392-421.
Steers, R. M. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of
organisational commitent. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 46-55.
Tan, S. L. C., & Lau, C. M. 2012. The impact of
performance measures on employee fairness
perceptions, job satisfaction and organisational
commitment. Journal of Applied Management
Accounting Research, 10(2), 57.
Vandenberg, R. J., & lance, C. E. 1992. Examining the
causal order of job satisfaction and organisational
commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153-167.
Voola, R., Casimir, G., Carlson, J., & Agnihotri, M. A.
2012. The effects of market orientation, technological
opportunism, and e-business adoption on performance:
A moderated mediation analysis. Australasian
Comprehensive Performance Measures, Job Satisfaction and Managerial Performance: The Effect of Trust in Superior and Organizational
Commitment
125
Marketing Journal (AMJ), 20(2), 136-146. Retrieved
from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S144
1358211000802
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner,
J. M. 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange
relationship framework for understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior. The Academy of Management
Review, 23(3), 513-530.
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. 1980. Relationship between job,
organisation and career commitment and work
outcomes - an integrative approach. Organisational
Behaviour and Human Performance, 26, 81-96.
ASAIS 2020 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar
126