Accuracy of Relative Weights on Multiple Leading Performance Measures: Effects on Managerial Performance and Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many firms that use multiple lead measures in their performance measurement systems do not validate the causal model linking these measures to future financial outcomes, and the cause‐and‐effect relationships in the model are often left to subjective estimates that may be prone to errors. Using an experiment, this study examines how the accuracy of assumptions about the relative importance of lead measures in a causal model affects managerial performance and knowledge, when managers are given the opportunity to learn over multiple periods. The results show that having inaccurate relative weights on lead measures improves performance, reduces performance variability, and enhances knowledge, relative to not having any weights. Furthermore, performance is similar under accurate versus inaccurate relative weights, whereas knowledge is better under inaccurate than accurate relative weights, providing no support for the biasing effects of inaccurate relative weights. The findings suggest that, at least under certain circumstances, managers benefit even if they are given inaccurate relative weights on lead measures, and they are able to correct those inaccuracies to reach a comparable level of performance and knowledge as if they had been given accurate relative weights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.317 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".