c Copyright 2008 Jai Kim and Caroline HatcherThis may be the author’s version of a work that was...

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Kim, Jai & Hatcher, Caroline(2008)Regulating roles of the use of the balanced scorecard in shaping corporateidentities.In Tilley, E (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australianand New Zealand Communication Association Conference.ANZCA, New Zealand, Wellington, pp. 1-20.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/26475/

c© Copyright 2008 Jai Kim and Caroline Hatcher

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

http:// www.anzca.net/ conferences/ past-conferences/ 46-conferences/past-conferences/ 35-anzca08.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Kim,_Jai.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Hatcher,_Caroline.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/26475/

http://www.anzca.net/conferences/past-conferences/46-conferences/past-conferences/35-anzca08.html

http://www.anzca.net/conferences/past-conferences/46-conferences/past-conferences/35-anzca08.html

QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Kim, Jai and Hatcher, Caroline A. (2008) Regulating roles of the use of the balanced scorecard in shaping corporate identities. In: Power and Place : Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Association Conference, 9-11 July 2008, Massey University, Wellington.

© Copyright 2008 Jai Kim and Caroline Hatcher

ANZCA08 Conference, Power and Place. Wellington, July 2008

ANZCA08: Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings: http://anzca08.massey.ac.nz 1

Regulatory roles of the use of the balanced scorecard in shaping corporate identities

Jai Kim and Caroline Hatcher

Queensland University of Technology

Jai Kim is working for the Queensland Government, Australia, as a Manager, Business Capability (Business Improvement Training and Development, benchmarking, Communication, stakeholder analysis), and Budget and Financial Reporting. She has completed Masters degrees in Professional Accounting and Communication and is currently enrolled in doctoral studies at the Queensland University of Technology. Contact: [email protected] Professor Caroline Hatcher teaches and publishes in the area of organisational communication. Her current research focuses on the role of emotional capital in business. She is co-author of a book entitled Speaking Persuasively (2002) and another for the Chinese market on business communication. She is a former MBA Director in the Brisbane Graduate School of Business and currently leads corporate development programs in the Faculty of Business at the Queensland University of Technology. Contact: [email protected] Abstract The literature on corporate identity management suggests that managing corporate identity is a strategically complex task embracing the shaping of a range of dimensions of organisational life. The performance measurement literature and its applications likewise now also emphasise organisational ability to incorporate various dimensions considering both financial and non-financial performance measures when assessing success. The inclusion of these soft non-financial measures challenges organisations to quantify intangible aspects of performance such as corporate identity, transforming unmeasurables into measurables. This paper explores the regulatory roles of the use of the balanced scorecard in shaping key dimensions of corporate identities in a public sector shared service provider in Australia. This case study employs qualitative interviews of senior managers and employees, secondary data and participant observation. The findings suggest that the use of the balanced scorecard has potential to support identity construction, as an organisational symbol, a communication tool of vision, and as strategy, through creating conversations that self-regulate behaviour. The development of an integrated performance measurement system, the balanced scorecard, becomes an expression of a desired corporate identity, and the performance measures and continuous process provide the resource for interpreting actual corporate identities. Through this process of understanding and mobilising the interaction, it may be possible to create a less obtrusive and more subtle way to control “what an organisation is”. This case study also suggests that the theoretical and practical fusion of the disciplinary knowledge around corporate identities and performance measurement systems could make a contribution to understanding and shaping corporate identities.



Introduction

Corporate identity has evolved from the simple visual representation of an

organisation to a more complex corporate strategy over the past 30 years. There is

now considerable research to suggest that effective corporate identity management

results in creating a positive corporate image and simultaneously helps organisational

members to align their work with the organisation’s vision (Balmer & Soenen, 1999).

On the other hand, the performance measurement systems in organisations have also

received academic and practitioner attention, as this concept has evolved from the

traditional monitoring and reporting roles of organisational financial achievement, to

new roles of formulating, implementing and changing strategy and explaining both

financial and non-financial aspects (Verweire & van den Berghe, 2004). With this

trend, one of the pre-dominant performance management systems in management

accounting literature is Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard (1992). The authors

(Kaplan and Norton, 1992) explain that the balanced scorecard translates an

organisation’s mission and strategies into a comprehensive set of performance

measures under the four perspectives: financial, customer, internal process and

learning and growth. Scholars also support the idea that the balanced scorecard plays

diagnostic, boundary and interactive roles within management control systems

(Mooraj, Oyon, & Hostettler, 1999), linking micro and macro views (Atkinson et al.,

1997), translating vision into strategy, and communicating strategy (Malina & Selto,

2001).

Many proponents in both the corporate identity and performance measurement

literature claim that it is possible to effectively implement corporate strategies through

the use of monitoring and regulatory frameworks for organisational performance and

thereby provide guidance for organisational behaviours in subtle and unobtrusive

ways. There is limited empirical evidence to support these claims. Therefore, two key

questions have emerged: Is it possible to effectively monitor and regulate corporate

identities as a management control process? and What is the relationship between

corporate identity and performance measurement in shaping corporate identities?

These questions are explored through the use of an embedded case study of a public

sector organisation in Australia. As part of a larger doctoral study, the main focus of

this paper is the regulatory roles of the use of the balanced scorecard in shaping



corporate identities. First, the paper offers background to the case and an overview of

the research methods. Second, it provides a brief explanation of corporate identity and

the performance measurement literature in the context of corporate identity

dimensions. Then, the following sections provide case study findings and analysis,

and conclusions.

Background to the case

The shared service initiative in Queensland, Australia, transitioned approximately

5,000 corporate service professionals from multiple agencies to five new shared

service providers (SSPs) supporting five clusters of 28 agencies in 2003 (Queensland

Treasury, 2002). To achieve the vision of cost effective corporate services and to

facilitate the movement of political power in the state, these organisations are facing

continuous changes in direction, structure and system: redirecting their emphasis on

vision from “cost effective” to “connecting government”; the merger of three

providers into one and transfers of employees among shared service providers (SSPs);

and continuous standardisation of corporate systems (Queensland Government, 2005;

SDPC, 2007).

As part of the large structural change in state government, the case study organisation

(SSP1) was established as a distinct business entity within the existing department

under a purchaser and provider model. The interviews on corporate identities revealed

the complexities of defining and organising multiple identities and members (Kim &

Hatcher, 2006). The management and employees embrace not only existing

‘Queensland government’, ‘client department’ and ‘professional’ identities, but also

new ‘public sector shared service provider’ and ‘SSP1’ identities (Kim & Hatcher,

2006). It created challenges for management and staff to adopt the various

professional and organisational identities that compete for their loyalty.

At the same time, SSP1 adopted a balanced scorecard approach to monitor the

achievement of the initiative vision in the areas of financial benefits, customer,

improvement and learning and growth. This framework required the shared service

providers to collectively develop a variety of measurement techniques: client and

customer survey, staff satisfaction survey, focus groups, business improvement

strategies, service costing, and financial benefit analysis (Queensland Government,



2005). For instance, the staff satisfaction survey tool adopted the existing

organisational climate instruments used in the Queensland government, measuring

“job satisfaction”, “leadership”, “communication”, “perception on behaviour and

performance” and “client and customer satisfaction” (OPSC, 2000). The focus groups,

utilising the Australian Business Excellent measurement, allowed organisational

members to discuss and quantify their assessment on “organisational capability”,

“innovation, quality and improvement”, “customer and market focus” and “success

and sustainability”. With the financial and non-financial measurement tools, SSP1

now evaluates and monitors broad aspects of organisational life at the different

structural levels under the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard.

Researching corporate identity and its relationship with performance measurement

systems

Qualitative research has been adopted for this case study. Adopting this view implies

that the interpretive and constructivist methodology is appropriate for understanding

corporate identity management and the role of performance measurement systems in a

public sector shared services provider. Communication scholars experienced in

research on corporate identity (Balmer, 2001; Ind, 1997) place significant value on

the research paradigm of naturalism, ethnographic techniques and case study research

especially for theory building. Furthermore, Kaplan (in Scandura & Williams, 2000,

p.1261) suggests that descriptive case studies are useful for investigating

organisational practices and identifying further research areas of management

accounting. It allows research to entail complex interactions of people, situations and

options. Therefore, the case-study method with ethnographic techniques has been the

preferred method of inquiry for much of this work.

In-depth interviews have been employed to draw rich descriptions from top managers

and employees to explore the relationship between corporate identity and the balanced

scorecard. Secondary data analysis from the Queensland government websites and

documentation available from SSP1 has been used to examine the development of

corporate identity, the performance measurement framework and the balanced

scorecard. Field notes were also developed during participant observation by one of

the authors and have recorded processes observed during the implementation of the

initiative and the performance measurement framework.



The total sample size for the interviews is 15, with interviews with three senior

management and 12 employees. Written approval has been obtained from the case

study organisation and a summary of the research plan, confidentiality agreement and

a consent form has been forwarded to the interviewees. The semi-structured

interviews of an average of one hour per interviewee were tape-recorded and

transcribed prior to analysis. Using the NVivo software, this research followed the

steps of data analysis suggested by Marshall and Rossman (1995): developing the

interview questions and organising data by the pre-determined interview questions

and sub headings; emerging themes and comparative analysis of both management

and employees, including tabulation of responses; and conclusions.

Literature review

Corporate identity: the regulation of multiplicity and dimensions

Beyond the early corporate identity literature from the graphic design paradigm, the

corporate communication and marketing literature explains corporate identity as the

planned and operational representation of an organisation, based on an agreed

organisation’s philosophy by means of behaviour, communication and symbolism to

internal and external audiences (van Riel, 1995; van Riel & Balmer, 1997). The

dimension of corporate identity generally comprises corporate communication,

design, strategy, structure, culture, or behaviour (Balmer & Soenen, 1999; Melewar &

Karaosmanoglu, 2006; van Riel, 1995).

Identity scholars have also investigated the existence of and tension between multiple

corporate identities in organisations, and the multi-facets of identity such as actual,

desired and communicated identity. Various studies support the idea that competing

multiple identities exist in an organisation, including personal, inter groups, sub

cultures, stakeholders, generic and national identity. Corporate identity studies are

constantly challenged by the trends of the multi-disciplinary approach that

incorporates the concepts of corporate, organisational and social identity (Cornelissen,

Haslam & Balmer, 2007), as well as the critical perspective (Alvesson & Whillmott,

2002; Linstead & Linstead, 2005; Pullen, 2005) where identity is interpreted as

capital, formation and performance infused by subjective power relations. Overall,

the identity literature suggests constructive dialogues among different disciplines, to

link the macro level analyses of structure with the micro level analyses of processes.



Although this paper acknowledges the importance of subjective identity formation

(Linstead & Linstead, 2005) by questioning how individuals accommodate

organisational visions in a climate of restructuring, the key focus of this paper is the

regulation of the key dimensions of corporate identities at the macro level, linking this

to performance measurement literature. Regulation is defined in this paper as to set

strategic and operational boundaries pushing organisational and individual behaviours

towards desired results. This approach resides in the functionalist paradigm, from

regulative sociology, which values effective control of social affairs and emphasises

on the understanding and maintenance of order with practical solutions to practical

problems (Burrell & Morgan, 1992).

There are five key dimensions around which regulation occurs: vision, structure,

symbol, communication and behaviour. The centre of regulating an organisation in the

corporate identity management model is the vision (Balmer & Soenen, 1999, p.76).

This is supported by organisational structure which helps to shape identity regulation.

While several scholars focus on various structural remedies to shape corporate

identity (Brickson, 2000; Gioia, 1998; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Pratt & Foreman, 2000),

the alignment of a desired corporate identity with employee identities has been more

recently emphasised in the literature. This approach can be reviewed against the

alignment principle of the balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 2006), which

acknowledges the existence and the value of multiplicity within organisations.

The third dimension is the use of symbols as a management control tool to increase

organisational legitimacy (Christensen & Cheney, 2000, p.258; Glynn & Abzug,

2002). Consistent use of symbols enhances the coherence of a particular corporate

identity and the relationships between an organisation and its internal and external

environments (van den Bosch, Elving, & de Jong, 2006). Communication, as the

fourth dimension, is a flexible instrument for corporate identity regulation, even

though “actual” identity is formed based on how employees and external stakeholders

perceive communicated messages in controlled and uncontrolled environments

(Melewar & Karaosmanoglu, 2006; Stuart, 1999). Finally, behaviour is

conceptualised as the outcome or medium through which corporate identity is created

(van Riel, 1995). Corporate, management and employee behaviour generate unique



characteristics reflecting how the organisation thinks, feels and behaves (Melewar &

Jenkins, 2002).

In the transition of corporate identity studies from a single focus to multi-dimensional

aspects, more emphasis is needed on the research of actual identities and cultural

aspects which mediate conflicts among competing identities. However, an underlying

principle of corporate identity studies is that multiple identities are inevitable, but can

be controlled to a certain degree. Thus, the next sections review how one performance

measurement system, the balanced scorecard, can contribute to regulating corporate

identities as management control.

Management control, performance measurement and the balanced scorecard

One of the significant challenges for organisations is how to effectively manage

corporate identity to achieve the alignment of individuals with the organisation, and

corporate identity is one of the central forms of management control. Beyond the

1950s and ‘60s thinking on management control through standard costing and

variance analysis, the current performance measurement literature emphasises an

integrated approach of balancing financial and non-financial measures linked to

corporate strategy (Kennerley & Neely, 2002). Further, Simons (1995) emphasises the

managerial skill of integrating the four levels of control – belief, interactive, boundary

and diagnostic systems – to motivate organisational members and to constrain their

behaviours to achieve efficiency.

Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard is a good example of a performance

measurement system playing interactive, boundary and diagnostic roles (Mooraj et al.,

1999; Simons, 1995). By incorporating both financial measures and non-financial

measures, the balanced scorecard broadens the boundaries of organisational

performance to include both tangible and intangible aspects. Kaplan and Norton

(1996) explain that the balanced scorecard is not only a performance measurement

tool but a strategic management system to translate an organisation’s mission and

strategy into a comprehensive set of performance measures posited under the four

perspectives: financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth.



One of the distinctive features of the balanced scorecard is the inclusion of the

strategy map which visualises the cause and effect relationships among four

interrelated perspectives and multiple strategies (Kaplan & Norton, 2004b, p.11). The

second monitoring feature is the expansion of the unit of analysis, with layers from

individual to group to organisation, called “cascading” (Kaplan & Norton, 2006,

p.14). This theory provides a mechanism to link team and individual levels to the

organisational level strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). The third feature that the

authors (Kaplan & Norton, 2004a) have developed is the capital readiness report

which systematically measures three intangible assets in its learning and growth

perspective: human, information and organisational capital. The organisational

capital aspect which assesses culture, leadership, teamwork and knowledge sharing

has an especially close relationship with the measures developed in the corporate

identity literature. Corporate identity is interfaced with corporate image and

reputation as one of the customer value propositions in the balanced scorecard.

Both the performance measurement and the corporate identity literature show trends

shifting the locus of control from management to employees operating through

concertive control (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). Tompkins and Cheney (1985)

introduced the concept of concertive control, and its importance and effectiveness in

contemporary organisations. This concertive form represents a key shift in the locus

of control from management to employees who are encouraged to act in participative

ways within a broader mission or vision set by top management.

This emphasis has led to the adoption of the view, built on interactive self-producing

and self-referencing systems, that soft measures are of particular strategic importance

(Seal, 2001). To further illustrate the managing of corporate identities through a

performance measurement system, the next section explores how the balanced

scorecard can regulate corporate identities.

Regulation of corporate identities using the balanced scorecard

The analysis of the corporate identity literature has shown that regulating corporate

identities becomes a strategic management control system by linking organisational

members to the organisation in a concertive or unobtrusive way. The regulatory role



of the use of the balanced scorecard on corporate identities occurs through the

dimension of vision, structure, symbol, communication and behaviour.

In terms of vision and structure, the corporate identity literature provides regulatory

strategies to manage multiple corporate identities to avoid possible conflicts and

misalignments generated from multiple visions and structures. On the other hand,

Kaplan and Norton (2006, p.7) emphasise the term “alignment” as a source of

economic value in an organisation, and recognise that it is possible to align an

organisation’s measurement and management system to strategy through operations

and individual jobs as a continual process. This is a regulation strategy for achieving

organisational coherence. However, the effectiveness of the alignment strategy based

on organisational structure needs careful attention in coordinating multiple identities

and minimising potential conflicts between different individuals and organisational

beliefs.

The balanced scorecard has the symbolic effect of presenting an organisation and its

performance. Bovaird and Gregory (in Pollanen, 2005) mention that performance

measurement initiatives in the UK have had an enormous symbolic effect, resulting in

an image of efficient and effective government. The design of a performance

management system plays a crucial role in fitting organisational behaviour to

organisational goals (Simons, 1995). Indeed, it is widely recognised that such

measures motivate appropriate behaviour (de Constantin, 1998). Cokins (2004) claims

that the balanced scorecard and strategy map are effective tools in aligning employee

behaviour with the strategic objectives. A number of case studies on the

implementation of the balanced scorecard support the idea that the balanced scorecard

has a distinctive means for communicating strategies to individuals and business units

(Lingle & Schiemann, 1996; Malina & Selto, 2001; Ritter, 2003). The idea of a

consistent communication necessitates explicit attention to coherence of multiple-

layered performance measurement systems.

Overall, the physical scorecard and strategy map themselves can be a comprehensive

symbolic representation of an organisation, and a controllable communication tool

delivering vision, key strategies, symbolic causal relationships, target and actual

performance measures. The effective use of the performance measurement system



potentially regulates the dimensions of corporate identities as a form of concertive

control.

How does the use of the balanced scorecard regulate corporate identities in the case

study organisation?

The Initiative Performance Plan has been developed by the representatives from

shared service providers in the case study organisation and is the starting point for this

paper. This plan includes a scorecard map, strategies, measures and targets at the

three specific levels: whole-of-initiative, SSP, and client and customer (Queensland

Government, 2005). An initiative scorecard report is produced annually, targeting

employees and external stakeholders. SSP1 reports their performance to the governing

board, and the consolidated performance of all providers is reported to the respective

committees quarterly. Each branch in SSP1 explains their performance under the four

quadrants and prepares a list of performance indicators in monthly reports (Interview

13).

One of the interviewees from the management group commented that the balanced

scorecard helped management to think about what SSP1 is for and how to measure its

capability (Interview 15). Even though the balanced scorecard itself was less

significant at the development stage (Interview 13), various non-financial measures

and activities supported employees in understanding and reformulating who they are,

what they do and what they are aiming for (Interview 14):

Yes, absolutely. I will show you why. I started asking “what do we do?” and “what services do we provide? It is not obvious as it first appears. We measure things that Shared Service Initiative wants such as “number of invoice lines processed”. We also do things like number of customer inquiries received, number of staff trained, number of website hits, so when you actually have a look at the amount of training and advisory work that we do is actually very considerable…, six is a lot out of 48 so that actually they are starting to see themselves in a different light. So yes, it has made it difference. (Interview 14)

Employees, on the other hand, showed mixed opinions on the effects of the use of the

balanced scorecard on corporate identities. Expressing the view that it had a positive

impact by making them focused on “what we do” (Interviews 1 and 9), employees



pointed out the importance of understanding measurement purposes (Interview 9) and

the promotion of the scorecard (Interview 1). On the other hand, a number of

interviewees (3, 5, 6 and 13) mentioned that performance measures were just numbers

or chores to them reflecting on their previous experiences:

Probably help me understand what we do, I don’t think just recording that information would help you understand what we are aiming for. I think it might help us in understanding what we do, but possibly not what we’re aiming for, if we knew why we’re recording that information. Maybe that will help. (Interview 9) Yes I do, because I think it has focused business. SSP1 is focusing on the business rather than reacting to agency. (Interview 3) No, because it hasn’t been promoted, but if it was promoted. I think it would. (Interview 1) No, I personally can’t see. I can see what benefit it is to the SSI, but personally, no. It’s a chore, I must admit, it is a chore. (Interview 6)

In terms of types of measures, financial measures positively and negatively impacted

on corporate identity and image (Interview 9), with a preference for a strong identity

for financial success expressed by one interviewee (Interview 4). On the other hand,

all employees showed positive responses to the newly implemented non-financial

measures. Regardless of the change in corporate identities, employees became more

focused on outcomes through the non-financial measurement activities (Interview 2):

Very positively I think. If you can generate a good performance return and keep everybody very, very happy… So you really have a strong identity of where you belong to so you feel proud. I think people would feel proud. (Interview 4) Of course, you definitely need a balanced approach and this is quite a good concept. It’s used a lot in industry. Of course it’s not the only measure but it certainly does give a balanced approach and to my way that’s the way we should be going to. (Interview 1) I think because we’re slowly maturing as an organisation, of our own – so to speak – very closely aligned to the department – I think we’re starting to get own SSP1 identity and staff regardless



of whether they’re SSP1 or agency, are very keen to do the best they can and if the staff feel like they’re being valued which, with these measures, through staff surveys and various other processes we have in place, I think people will be a better equipped team, more flexible, and responsive. (Interview 2)

It appears that the performance measurement activities took their part in shaping

corporate identities throughout the process of developing the scorecard, preparing and

discussing indicators. In addition, one of the subtle strategies in regulating corporate

identities was the ‘unit of analysis’ structured in the focus group questions for

assessing SSP1 identity that the organisation conducted in the process of developing

the balanced scorecard. These questions caused management and employees to

constantly shift their positions among SSP1, department, branch, or person. Through

the group conversation, some participants expressed, as self-discovery, the strategic

importance of the SSP1 in business demarcation, compared with branch or

professional identities. Then, they repositioned themselves in SSP1 to answer the

quantitative surveys on performance of the SSP1 (Participant observation – field

note).

This process of contrasting and opposing identities has occurred through the

performance measurement activities, as the process of subjective identity formation

(Pullen, 2005). The participants were exposed to convert or re-establish identities by

judging the new identity of shared service provider, where the performance is

evaluated and quantified through the balanced scorecard. The performance

measurement processes – participating self-assessment, reporting their assessments

under the four quadrants of the balanced scorecard and reflecting back on their

performance – also supported regulating corporate identities and allowed

organisational members to participate in shaping corporate identities: who they are,

what they do and what they are aiming for.

Vision and structure

Interviewees showed some disparity in selecting a vision for the SSP1 scorecard map.

Five employees (Interviews 1, 3, 5, 7 and 12) selected “SSP1” vision, while two

employees (Interviews 3 and 6) mentioned “client” vision and one employee

(Interview 9) mentioned “service” vision. However, the general consensus was that

the branch level balanced scorecard should include “service” vision.



Both management and employees mentioned that the issue was generated by the

multi-layered organisational structure and the importance of alignment. At the top

level, the Queensland government needed more social responsibility reporting

cascading down to the department and agency level (Interview 14). At the lower level,

employees (Interviews 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11) mentioned a need to link performance

measures to their performance development plan. On the other hand, management

(Interviews 13 and 14) mentioned their intention to promote the balanced scorecard to

the managers and team leaders only, not cascading down to individuals. The main

reason was the lack of reward systems and valid methods to identify individual

contributions (Interview 13). Another concern was that the financial achievement in

the public sector could imply insecurity in employment which might create a negative

culture (Interview 14).

Employees’ choice of a vision for the SSP1 scorecard map mostly coincided with the

most important identity to them, as identified in the previous study (Kim & Hatcher,

2006). One of the management strategies causing this disparity was the diffusion of

SSP1 identity during the period of change (Kim & Hatcher, 2006). According to the

managers interviewed who are now experiencing the maturity of the implementation,

it is time to redirect SSP1 vision towards “client” vision (Interview 14), or aligning

SSP1 with both “client” and “initiative” visions (Interviews 13 and 15).

Symbol, behaviour and communication

A majority of employees (Interviews 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 and 12) showed positive

responses to the symbolic presentation of the balanced scorecard in promoting vision

and strategies. However, both employees and management mentioned the

attractiveness and accessibility of the standard format in presenting performance

measures for the SSP1 and its branches:

I quite like it. I didn’t understand when I first saw. Actually it show very clear way of presentation, and it also one of the things it does very impressively shows the linkages. (Interview 3) Wow! My first impression is that it’s very colourful. Well, I like the look of it for starters. It’s a creative way of doing it and I



also like the high quality and cost effective statement. (Interview 4) Yeah I think it’s very effective. You’ve got all your colours co-ordinated and your objective and strategies and performance. I think it looks good! (Interview 11)

Most interviewees (1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15) mentioned that the performance

measures used in the balanced scorecard changed their behaviour. However, there

was no impact on their behaviour for some (Interviews 6, 10 and 12), with the lack of

promotion to change their behaviours identified by one interviewee (Interview 1), or

eventual change resulting from pressure and fatigue (Interview 13). However, some

interviewees commented that the scorecard approach at least made them focused

(Interviews 6 and 10), or could drive a collective behaviour towards a common target

(Interview 3):

Oh yes. I think it’s changed management behaviour because people do have to be conscious of working the four quadrants and not just doing everything. You know, they’ve got to actually say ‘When I do something I’ve got to measure it in terms of customer impact, it is an improvement etc’ … I don’t think it’s affected employees at all! I don’t think it has because I just don’t think it’s a communication tool that anyone would use with employees. Balanced scorecards are very much in the realms of management… It tends to have a positive effect but you can actually end up with a lot of fatigue because eventually it becomes a pressure. If you were now to measure that, I think that they could become very disenchanted and unhappy. (Interview 13) Yes, you hear something said yesterday that 2 millions could be obtained if everyone in a whole department use office supplies contract. “If you use the service it will contribute to the three quarter’s of the performance return”. So you get that team in feeling across the organisation that not only we are paying people effectively but also actually contribute to something. (Interview 3)

However, many interviewees commented that the symbolic presentation and

behavioural changes can be effective when the communication of the balanced

scorecard is effective throughout the SSP1 (Interviews 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and

15):



Well I like the style, to me it is effective. It’s effective because it’s diagrammatic, and it’s easy to read. But it still needs to have face-to-face discussion about it… We do have a mechanism, but again that has not been promoted well enough. It has not been marketed. (Interview 1) The balanced scorecard is a comprehensive one so it’s a very good tool, but I mean you need people who don’t particularly want to see a piece of paper or an email or what have you, you probably need to be talking about things in other environments, email newsletters, meetings, maybe some other forum. (Interview 2) I do think it is a good communication tool because it is simple and it is clear. It fits one page. Everyone likes that… It is not the preparing of them, how to communicate them and how to use them. Yes definitely you can improve employee performance. (Interview 14)

In summary, the case study shows that management and employees are now

embracing and shaping the new SSP1 identity, while different preferences for a

desired vision and competing identities still exist. The use of the balanced scorecard

influenced SSP1 managers and employees to assess multiple aspects through both

financial and non-financial measurement activities. It resulted in quantifying what

they do and how they do it. Through this process, members reformulated who they are

and what they are aiming for. This occurred in a subtle and unobtrusive way and is a

form of concertive control. While some interviewees felt that the process was just a

“chore” and potential pressure, the use of the balanced scorecard subtly contributed to

regulating and self-regulating the corporate identities through immersion in the

balanced scorecard dimensions or through the processes involved in interpreting

vision, structure, symbol, communication and behaviour.

Conclusions

This paper has outlined the aspects of regulating the dimensions of corporate

identities from both corporate identities and the performance measurement

perspective. The case study organisation is embracing the competing values of

multiple corporate identities and a diversity of experience as they come to understand

their new identities. The balanced scorecard, incorporating both financial and non-

financial measures, allows SSP1 and its members to reformulate “what an

organisation is” for them.



However, the balanced scorecard is generally a top-down structural approach, and

there is a need to focus on generating internal commitment and using the more subtle

forms of concertive control if alignment is to be achieved. Negative perception of

performance measures can be negated by incorporating a recognition system valuing

employees and through ongoing and strategic organisational conversations. The

effectiveness of the cascading can also be reviewed in conjunction with not only

organisational structure, but also by developing clarity about desired identity structure

at management levels.

The effective use of the balanced scorecard in SSP1 may have potential to regulate

key dimensions of the corporate identities and act as a self-regulatory tool to align

members with the desired direction of the organisation. The development of the

balanced scorecard, strategy map, measures and target can be interpreted as the

representation of a desired and communicated corporate identity, whereas continuous

monitoring outcomes and actual performance indicators provide the resource for

interpreting actual corporate identities.

Therefore, the balanced scorecard, a performance measurement system, may play

multiple roles in defining, monitoring and regulating actual, desired, and

communicated identities. These movements create a view that interprets these

management control systems as self-producing and self-referencing. Potentially,

performance measurement systems become both organic and powerful as

organisational symbols and communication tools in identity construction. The case

study also suggests that the theoretical and practical fusion of the disciplines around

corporate identities and performance measurement systems could make a significant

contribution to understanding and shaping identities as a belief, boundary, diagnostic

and interactive system. Through this process, it is possible to create a less obtrusive

and more subtle way to control the nature of organisational life.

References

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control:

Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5),

619-644.



Atkinson, A. A., Balakrishnan, R., Booth, P., Cote, J. M., Groot, T., Malmi, T.,

Roberts, H., Uliana, E. & Wu, A. (1997). New directions in management

accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 79-108.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate

marketing: Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4),

248-291.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Soenen, G. B. (1999). The Acid test of corporate identity

management. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 69-92.

Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and

organisational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of

Management Review, 25(1), 82-101.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1992). Sociological paradigms and organisational

analysis : elements of the sociology of corporate life. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2000). Self-absorption and self-seduction in the

corporate identity game. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch & M. Larsen (Eds.), The

expressive organization : linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand

(pp. 246-270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cokins, G. (2004). Performance management : finding the missing pieces (to close

the intelligence gap). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley.

Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social identity,

organizational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated

understanding of processes, patternings and products. British Journal of

Management, 18, S1-S16.

de Constantin, J. (1998). Persuasive leadership: looking beyond the numbers.

Australian CPA, 68(5), 51-52.

Gioia, D. A. (1998). From individual to organizational identity. In D. A. Whetten &

P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations : building theory through

conversations (pp. 17-31). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Glynn, M. A., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalising identity: Symbolic isomorphism

and organisational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 267-280.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorisation processes

in organisational context. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.

Ind, N. (1997). The Corporate Brand. Washington: New York University Press.



Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard - Measures that drive

performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic

management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from

performance measurement to strategic management Part II. Accounting

Horizons, 15(2), 147-160.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004a). Measuring the strategic readiness of

intangible assets. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 52-63.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004b). The strategy map: guide to aligning

intangible assets. Strategy & Leadership, 32(5), 10-17.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment: Using the balanced scorecard to

create corporate synergies. (pp. 7, 14.) Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2002). Performance measurement frameworks: A

review. In A. Neely (Ed.), Business Performance Measurement: Theory and

Practice (pp. 145-154). London: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, J., & Hatcher, C. (2006). Managing corporate identities in changing

environment: a case study of a public sector shared services provider. Paper

presented at the Australia and New Zealand Communication Association,

Adelaide.

Lingle, J. H., & Schiemann, W. A. (1996). From balanced scorecard to strategic

gauges: Is measurement worth it? Management Review, 85(3), 56.

Linstead, A., & Linstead, S. (2005). Organization and Identity. London: Routledge.

Malina, M. A., & Selto, F. H. (2001). Communicating and controlling strategy: An

empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of

Management Accounting Research, 13, 47-90.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Melewar, T. C., & Jenkins, E. (2002). Defining the corporate identity construct.

Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 76-90.

Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Seven dimensions of corporate

identity. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 846-869.



Mooraj, S., Oyon, D., & Hostettler, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: a necessary

good or an unnecessary evil? European Management Journal, 17(5), 481-491.

OPSC. (2000). Employee Opinion Surveys - How to Guide. Office of the Public

Service Commissioner. Retrieved 26 June, 2006, from

http://www.psier.qld.gov.au/orgclim/index.shtml

Pollanen, R. M. (2005). Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical

evidence in Canadian context. The International Journal of Public Sector

Management, 18(1), 4-24.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple

organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18-42.

Pullen, A. (2005). Managing Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Queensland Government. (2005). Shared Service Initiative Performance Management

Framework. Retrieved 3 March, 2006, from

http://www.qld.gov.au/sharedservices/pdf/Framework6_Performance.pdf

Queensland Treasury. (2002). Overview of the Queensland Government’s Shared

Service Initiative. Part of Queensland Government’s Business Plan for Shared

Services Retrieved 3 March, 2006, from

http://www.qld.gov.au/sharedservices/pdf/bp1_overview.pdf

Ritter, M. (2003). The use of balanced scorecards in the strategic management of

corporate communication. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 8(1), 44-59.

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management:

current practices, trends, and implication for future research. Academy of

Management Journal, 43(6), 1248-1264.

SDPC. (2007). Report on review of purchasing and logistics in the Queensland

Government. Brisbane: Service Delivery and Performance Commission.

Seal, W. (2001). Management accounting and the challenge of strategic focus.

Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 487-506.

Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: how managers use innovative control systems to

drive strategic renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Stuart, H. (1999). Towards a definite model of the corporate identity management

process. Corporate Communications, 4(4), 200-207.

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in

contemporary organization. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.),



Organisational Communication: Traditional themes and new directors (pp.

179-234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

van den Bosch, A. L. M., Elving, W. J. L., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2006). The impact of

organisational characteristics on corporate visual identity. European Journal

of Marketing, 40(7/8), 870-885.

van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. London: Prentice

Hall.

van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its

measurement and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340-

355.

Verweire, K., & van den Berghe, L. (2004). Integrated performance management : a

guide to strategy implementation. London Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Copyright Statement: Articles submitted for ANZCA08 remain the copyright of the author, but authors by virtue of submission agree to grant the Department of Communication, Journalism & Marketing at Massey University a copyright license to permanently display the article online for public viewing as part of this conference proceedings, and to grant the National Library of Australia a copyright licence to include the ANZCA08 Proceedings in the PANDORA Archive for permanent public access and online viewing. Articles first published in this ANZCA08 proceedings may subsequently be published elsewhere by authors, provided the next version acknowledges this original publication in the ANZCA08 refereed proceedings.

c Copyright 2008 Jai Kim and Caroline HatcherThis may be the author’s version of a work that was...

Documents

Transcript of c Copyright 2008 Jai Kim and Caroline HatcherThis may be the author’s version of a work that was...