Abstract :

This study examines the role of digitalized performance measurement systems in influencing employee performance, with trust in supervisors as a mediating mechanism. The increasing adoption of digital technologies in management control systems has transformed traditional performance evaluation processes, enabling organizations to generate more transparent, timely, and data-driven performance information. However, prior research has reported mixed findings regarding the behavioral consequences of performance measurement systems, highlighting the need to explore underlying psychological mechanisms such as trust.

Using a quantitative survey approach, data were collected from 146 managers working in the banking sector in Indonesia. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results indicate that performance measurement technology has a significant positive effect on trust in supervisors, and trust significantly improves employee performance. However, performance measurement technology does not have a significant direct effect on employee performance.

Further analysis reveals that trust fully mediates the relationship between performance measurement technology and employee performance. These findings suggest that digitalized performance measurement systems influence performance primarily through psychological and relational mechanisms rather than through direct effects.

This study contributes to the management accounting literature by integrating digitalization and behavioral perspectives, demonstrating that the effectiveness of performance measurement systems depends not only on technological capabilities but also on their ability to foster trust within organizations.

---

Keywords :

Banking sector, Digitalization, Employee Performance, Management Control Systems, Performance Measurement Technology, Trust in Supervisors.

---

References :

1. Abelsen, S. N., Vatne, S.-H., Mikalef, P., & Choudrie, J. (2023). Digital working during the COVID-19 pandemic: How task–technology fit improves work performance and lessens feelings of loneliness. Information Technology & People, 36(5), 2063–2087. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2021-0798
2. Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M., & Yan, Z. (2017). Impact of business analytics and enterprise systems on managerial accounting. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 25, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2017.03.003.
3. Bedford, D. S. (2020). Conceptual and empirical issues in understanding management control combinations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 86, 101187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101187.
4. Bhimani, A. (2020). Digital data and management accounting: Why we need to rethink research methods. Journal of Management Control, 31(1–2), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-020-00295-z.
5. Bhimani, A., & Willcocks, L. (2014). Digitisation, ‘big data’ and the transformation of accounting information. Accounting and Business Research, 44(4), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2014.910051.
6. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.
7. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
8. Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 127–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7.
9. Coletti, A. L., Sedatole, K. L., & Towry, K. L. (2005). The effect of control systems on trust and cooperation. The Accounting Review, 80(2), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.2.477.
10. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.
11. Cuganesan, S. (2008). Calculating customer intimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.03.001.
12. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926623.
13. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611.
14. Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences. Management Accounting Research, 23(2), 79–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.001.
15. Granlund, M. (2011). Extending AIS research to management accounting: A research note. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 12(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2010.11.001.
16. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
17. Hartmann, F., & Slapničar, S. (2009). How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.11.004.
18. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
19. Hopwood, A. G. (1972). An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research, 10, 156–182.
20. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Innovations in performance measurement: Trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 205–238.
21. Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Meyer, M. W. (2003). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 725–758. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725.
22. Jensen, M. C. (2003). Paying people to lie: The truth about the budgeting process. European Financial Management, 9(3), 379–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00230.
23. Johnson, H. T., & Kaplan, R. S. (1987). Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting. Harvard Business School Press.
24. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
25. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Harvard Business School Press.
26. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Improving the individual work performance questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000113.
27. Lau, C. M., & Buckland, C. (2001). Budgeting, trust and performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(7–8), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00005-8.
28. Lau, C. M., & Tan, S. L. (2006). The effects of procedural fairness and trust on managerial performance. Advances in Accounting, 22, 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6110(06)22006-1.
29. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335.
30. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874–888. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803928.
31. Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2017). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives (4th ed.). Pearson.
32. Moll, J., & Yigitbasioglu, O. (2019). The role of internet-related technologies in shaping accounting information systems. The British Accounting Review, 51(6), 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100833.
33. Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 80–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622.
34. Norzaidi, M. D., Salwani, M. I., Chong, S. C., & Rafidah, K. (2008). A study of intranet usage and resistance in Malaysia’s port industry. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(1), 37–47.
35. Otley, D. (2016). The contingency theory of management accounting and control. Management Accounting Research, 31, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.02.001.
36. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and trust. Journal of Management, 16(1), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600107.
37. Quattrone, P. (2016). Management accounting goes digital. European Accounting Review, 25(1), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2015.1122203.
38. Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15(1), 3–15.
39. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617.
40. Taipaleenmäki, J., & Ikäheimo, S. (2013). On the convergence of management accounting and financial accounting. European Accounting Review, 22(2), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.678461.
41. Vasarhelyi, M. A., Kogan, A., & Tuttle, B. (2015). Big data in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51071.
42. Weibel, A., Den Hartog, D. N., Gillespie, N., Searle, R., Six, F., & Skinner, D. (2016). How do controls impact trust. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 437–486. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1164226.
43. Wouters, M., & Wilderom, C. (2008). Developing performance measurement systems as enabling formalization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 488–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.002.