89
143) Divisional managers of Crusing Incorporated have been expressing growing dissatisfaction
with the current methods used to measure divisional performance. Divisional operations are
evaluated every quarter by comparison with the static budget prepared during the prior year.
Divisional managers claim that many factors are completely out of their control but are included
in this comparison. This results in an unfair and misleading performance evaluation. The
managers have been particularly critical of the process used to establish standards and budgets.
The annual budget, stated by quarters, is prepared six months prior to the beginning of the
operating year. Pressure by top management to reflect increased earnings has often caused
divisional managers to overstate revenues and/or understate expenses. In addition, once the
budget had been established, divisions were required to “live with the budget.” Frequently,
external factors such as the state of the economy, changes in consumer preferences, and actions
of competitors have not been adequately recognized in the budget parameters that top
management supplied to the divisions. The credibility of the performance review is curtailed
when the budget cannot be adjusted to incorporate these changes. Top management, recognizing
the current problems, has agreed to establish a committee to review the situation and to make
recommendations for a new performance evaluation system. The committee consists of each
division manager, the Corporate Controller, and the Executive Vice President who serves as the
chairman. At the first meeting, one division manager outlined an Achievement of Objectives
System (AOS). In this performance evaluation system, divisional managers would be evaluated
according to three criteria:
(1) Doing better than last year – Various measures would be compared to the same measures of
the prior year.
(2) Planning realistically – Actual performance for the current year would be compared to
realistic plans and/or goals.
(3) Managing current assets – Various measures would be used to evaluate the divisional
management’s achievements and reactions to changing business and economic conditions.
A division manager believed this system would overcome many of the inconsistencies of the
current system because divisions could be evaluated from three different viewpoints. In addition,
managers would have the opportunity to show how they would react and account for changes in
uncontrollable external factors. A second division manager was also in favor of the proposed
AOS. However, he cautioned that the success of a new performance evaluation system would be
limited unless it had the complete support of top management. Further, this support should be
visible within all divisions. He believed that the committee should recommend some procedures
which would enhance the motivational and competitive spirit of the divisions.
Required:
a. Explain whether or not the proposed AOS would be an improvement over the measure of
divisional performance now used by Crusing Incorporated.
b. Develop specific performance measures for each of the three criteria in the proposed AOS
which could be used to evaluate divisional managers.
c. Discuss the motivational and behavioral aspects of the proposed performance system. Also,
recommend specific programs which could be instituted to promote morale and give incentives
to divisional management.