The Role of Organizational Structure in Designing Performance Measurement Systems

Document Type : Research Article


1 Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran


Organizational structure determines the scope of decisions, tasks, responsibilities, goals, perspectives and rewards for achieving results. In recent decades, due to environmental changes and dramatic technological advances, organizational structure has changed from Mechanistic to organic. The purpose of the restructuring is to facilitate the achievement of the organization's goals. Changing structure is effective on the company's performance measurement system. The main purpose of this research is analyzing the role different types of organizational structures in designing of the performance measurement system of companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange. The survey was carried out through a survey and distribution of 170 questionnaires, 127 of which were obtained. In Iran's economic environment, organic companies with low organizational stages, high stage of decentralization, low formal rules, wide control and horizontal communications, Emphasize the use of balanced performance measurements. The performance measurement system has also been defined as cause-and-effect or fully-developed in organic structures.


Abuharb, S. (2017). Strategic Performance Measurement (SPM): University of Hertfordshire.
Clement, J. and Puranam, P. (2017). Searching for Structure: Formal Organization Design as a Guide to Network Evolution. Forthcoming, Management Science.
Chenhall, R.H. (2008). Accounting for the horizontal organization: a review essay. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33 (4–5), 517–550.
Dehghan, N., Salehi, J., Dehghan, K. and Salehi, P. (2011). The effect of organization structure on the external performance (study: Iranian Exporting Firms). Management Research, 11(1), 53-70.
Fujino, M., Li, Y., Sawabe, N., & Horii, S. (2015). Performance Measurement Systems for Managing Exploration/Exploitation Tensions within and between Organizational Stages. Management Accounting Section (MAS) Meeting, 1-36.
Hudnurkar, M. and Rathod, U. (2017). Collaborative practices with suppliers in Indian manufacturing multinationals. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 10(2), 1-28.
Ittner, C.D. Larcker, D.F. Randall, T. (2003). Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28 (7/8), 715–741.
Lee, C.L. and Yang, H.J. (2011). Organization structure, competition and performance measurement systems and their joint effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 22(1), 84–104.
Li, p. (2009). Performance measurement design within its organizational context-Evidence from China, Management Accounting Research, 20(2), 193–207.
Lunenburg, F.C. (2012). Mechanistic-Organic Organizations-An Axiomatic Theory: Authority Based on Bureaucracy or Professional Norms. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, 14(1), 1-7.
Marjani, A.B., Peidaee, M. and Vahhabi, E. (2016). Investigating the Relationship between Organizational Structure and the Possibility of Establishing a 360 Degree Performance Measurement system at Petro Pars Firm. Fourth International Conference on Applied Research in Management and Accounting.
Moers, F. (2006). Performance measure properties and delegation. The Accounting Review, 81 (4), 897–924.
Nagar, V. (2002). Delegation and incentive compensation. The Accounting Review, 77 (2), 379–395.
Nilsen, S., Nilsen, E. (2006). System Dynamic Modeling for Balanced Scorecard. Annual Congress of the EAA, 22-25.
Rahmanseresht, H, Radmard, S.G. and Galvani, M. (2011). The relationship between knowledge management and organizational structure (a study in the Department of manufacturing referendum IKCO). Management of Organizational Culture, 23(2), 31-50.
Safari, A., Golshahi, B. and Kohan, N. (2014). Review mediation strategies in resource-based approach combines competitive and structural effects on organizational performance. Development management process, 27(4), 66-88.
Shahin, A., Rezaei Dolatabadi, H. and Kouchakian, M. (2012). Proposing an Integrated Model of BSC and EFQM and Analyzing its Influence on Organizational Strategies and Performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 1(3), 41-57.
Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J. Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A descriptive analysis on the implementation of BSC in German-speaking countries, Management Accounting Research, 14 (4), 361–387.
Varmazyar, M., Dehghanbaghi, M. and Afkhami, M. (2016). A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance measurement of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach. Measurement and ProgramPlanning, 58(2), 114-125.
Veronese Bentes, A., Carneirob, J. and Ferreirada, J. (2012). Multidimensional measurement of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP. Journal of Business Research. 65(12), 1790–1799.
Wang, G., Wan, J. and Zhao, L. (2014). Strategy map for Chinese science parks with KPIs of BSC. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 5(2), 82-105.
Wongrassam, Gardiner P.D. and Simmons J.E.L. (2003). Performance Measurement Tools: The Balanced Scorecard and the EFQM Excellence Model. Measuring Excellence, 7 (1), 14-28.
Ylinena, M., and Gullkvist, B. (2014). The effects of organic and mechanistic control in exploratory and exploitative innovations. Management Accounting Research, 25(1), 93–112.