Cover of book: Auswirkungen von Ermessensspielräumen in Vergütungssystemen auf das Verhalten von Mitarbeitern
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Auswirkungen von Ermessensspielräumen in Vergütungssystemen auf das Verhalten von Mitarbeitern

Experimentelle Untersuchungen unter Berücksichtigung der Wahrnehmung von Gerechtigkeit am Beispiel von Korrekturfaktoren und Clawback-Regelungen
Authors:
Series:
Controlling und Management, Volume 23
Publisher:
 2022

Summary

The design of compensation systems and performance evaluation are subject to subjective influences by the compensation authority. The ex-post adjustment of performance measures is one way of adjusting compensation if an uncontrollable event has affected the achievement targeted. Clawback clauses are intended to reduce manipulation in reporting by allowing compensation that has already been paid out or promised to be reclaimed. Whether ex-post adjustments or clawback clauses are exercised is at the discretion of the compensation authority. This dissertation therefore uses experiments to investigate the effect of the relationships between the design and exercise of discretion on employee behaviour.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2022
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8661-9
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-3032-7
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Controlling und Management
Volume
23
Language
German
Pages
438
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 28
    1. Problemstellung No access
    2. Zielsetzung und Durchführung No access
    3. Ergebnisse und weiterer Forschungsbedarf No access
    1. Research Issue No access
    2. Research objective and operationalization No access
    3. Results and further research No access
    1. 1.1 Problemstellung und Motivation No access
    2. 1.2 Relevanz in Forschung und Praxis No access
    3. 1.3 Zielsetzung, Forschungsfragen und Forschungsmethode No access
    4. 1.4 Aufbau der Untersuchung No access
      1. 2.1.1 Anreizsysteme und Vergütungssysteme No access
      2. 2.1.2 Leistung und Leistungsbewertung No access
      3. 2.1.3 Ermessensspielräume in Vergütungssystemen No access
      4. 2.1.4 Korrekturfaktoren und Clawback-Regelungen No access
      1. 2.2.1 Darstellung des Vorgehens No access
      2. 2.2.2 Darstellung der identifizierten Literatur No access
      3. 2.2.3 Aufbau der Auswertung No access
        1. 2.2.4.1 Strukturierung der Ergebnisdarstellung No access
        2. 2.2.4.2 Einführung und Gestaltung der Ermessensspielräume No access
        3. 2.2.4.3 Ausübung der Ermessensspielräume No access
        4. 2.2.4.4 Auswirkungen der Ermessensspielräume auf das Verhalten No access
        1. 2.2.5.1 Strukturierung der Ergebnisdarstellung No access
        2. 2.2.5.2 Einführung und Gestaltung der Ermessensspielräume No access
        3. 2.2.5.3 Ausübung der Ermessensspielräume No access
        4. 2.2.5.4 Auswirkungen der Ermessensspielräume auf das Verhalten No access
        1. 2.3.1.1 Wahrgenommene distributive Gerechtigkeit No access
        2. 2.3.1.2 Wahrgenommene prozedurale Gerechtigkeit No access
        3. 2.3.1.3 Wahrgenommene interaktionale Gerechtigkeit No access
        1. 2.3.2.1 Fairness Theory No access
        2. 2.3.2.2 Fairness Heuristic Theory und Uncertainty Management Model No access
    4. 2.4 Entwicklung des konzeptionellen Rahmens der Experimente No access
    1. 3.1 Auswahl einer geeigneten Untersuchungsmethode No access
    2. 3.2 Formen von Untersuchungshypothesen No access
        1. MSA-Werte der Anti-Image-Korrelationsmatrix und MSA-Werte der Items No access
        2. Kommunalitäten der Items No access
        3. Kaiser-Kriterium No access
        4. Screetest No access
        5. Komponentenladung No access
        6. Cronbachs Alpha No access
        7. Korrigierte Item-Skala-Korrelation No access
      2. 3.3.2 Chi-Quadrat- und Fisher-Test No access
        1. 3.3.3.1 Konzeptionelle Grundlagen No access
        2. 3.3.3.2 Voraussetzungen für die Auswertung No access
        1. 3.3.4.1 Konzeptionelle Grundlagen No access
        2. 3.3.4.2 Voraussetzungen für die Auswertung No access
      1. 4.1.1 Einfluss des Korrekturfaktors auf die wahrgenommene Gerechtigkeit No access
      2. 4.1.2 Einfluss des Korrekturfaktors auf das Leistungsverhalten No access
      3. 4.1.3 Einfluss des Korrekturfaktors auf die intrinsische Motivation No access
      1. 4.2.1 Operationalisierung der Variablen No access
      2. 4.2.2 Aufbau und Gestaltunganforderungen No access
      3. 4.2.3 Ablauf der Durchführung No access
      1. 4.3.1 Bereinigung des Datensatzes und Beschreibung der Stichprobe No access
        1. 4.3.2.1 Gerechtigkeitsneigung No access
        2. 4.3.2.2 Ungewissheitstoleranz No access
        3. 4.3.2.3 Wahrgenommene distributive Gerechtigkeit No access
        4. 4.3.2.4 Wahrgenommene prozedurale Gerechtigkeit No access
        5. 4.3.2.5 Intrinsische Motivation No access
      3. 4.3.3 Randomisierungsüberprüfung No access
      4. 4.3.4 Manipulationsüberprüfung No access
      5. 4.3.5 Deskriptive Ergebnisse No access
        1. 4.3.6.1 Einfluss des Korrekturfaktors auf die wahrgenommene Gerechtigkeit No access
        2. 4.3.6.2 Einfluss des Korrekturfaktors auf das Leistungsverhalten No access
        3. 4.3.6.3 Einfluss des Korrekturfaktors auf die intrinsische Motivation No access
    4. 4.4 Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse No access
      1. 5.1.1 Einfluss der Clawback-Regelung auf die wahrgenommene Gerechtigkeit No access
      2. 5.1.2 Einfluss der Clawback-Regelung auf das Berichtsverhalten No access
      3. 5.1.3 Einfluss der Clawback-Regelung auf die intrinsische Motivation No access
      1. 5.2.1 Operationalisierung der Variablen No access
      2. 5.2.2 Aufbau und Gestaltungsanforderungen No access
      3. 5.2.3 Ablauf der Durchführung No access
      1. 5.3.1 Bereinigung des Datensatzes und Beschreibung der Stichprobe No access
        1. 5.3.2.1 Risikoverhalten No access
        2. 5.3.2.2 Gerechtigkeitsneigung No access
        3. 5.3.2.3 Wahrgenommene distributive Gerechtigkeit No access
        4. 5.3.2.4 Wahrgenommene prozedurale Gerechtigkeit No access
        5. 5.3.2.5 Intrinsische Motivation No access
      3. 5.3.3 Randomisierungsüberprüfung No access
      4. 5.3.4 Manipulationsüberprüfung No access
      5. 5.3.5 Deskriptive Ergebnisse No access
        1. 5.3.6.1 Einfluss der Clawback-Regelung auf die wahrgenommene Gerechtigkeit No access
        2. 5.3.6.2 Einfluss der Clawback-Regelung auf das Berichtsverhalten No access
        3. 5.3.6.3 Einfluss der Clawback-Regelung auf die intrinsische Motivation No access
    4. 5.4 Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse No access
    1. 6.1 Interpretation der Forschungsfragen No access
    2. 6.2 Implikationen für die Unternehmenspraxis No access
    3. 6.3 Limitationen der Untersuchung und weiterer Forschungsbedarf No access
    1. A.1 Korrekturfaktoren in DAX30-Unternehmen No access
    2. A.2 Clawback-Regelungen in DAX30-Unternehmen No access
    3. A.3 Fragebogen Experiment 1 No access
    4. A.4 Screeplots Experiment 1 No access
    5. A.5 Randomisierung Experiment 1 No access
    6. A.6 Überprüfung der Voraussetzungen für die Auswertung Experiment 1 No access
    7. A.7 Fragebogen Experiment 2 No access
    8. A.8 Screeplots Experiment 2 No access
    9. A.9 Randomisierung Experiment 2 No access
    10. A.10 Überprüfung der Voraussetzungen für die Auswertung Experiment 2 No access
  11. Literaturverzeichnis No access 413 - 438

Bibliography (384)

  1. Adams, J. S. (1963), Towards an understanding of inequity, in: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67. Jg., 1963 (5), S. 422-436. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  2. Adams, J. S. (1965), Inequity in social exchange, in: Berkowitz, L. (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 1965, 2. Aufl., New York, S. 267-299. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  3. Addy, N./Chu, X./Yoder, T. (2014), Voluntary adoption of clawback provisions, corporate governance, and interlock effects, in: Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 33. Jg., 2014 (2), S. 167-189. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  4. Adidas AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-250, https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/ab/3e/ab3ea238-4025-4a81-8f61-df68bbf527c3/annual_report_gb-2019_de.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  5. Ahrens, T./Chapman, C. S. (2006), Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory, in: Chapman, C. S./Hopwood, A. G./Shields, M. D. (Hrsg.), Handbook of management accounting research, 2006, Burlington, S. 299-318. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  6. Alexander, E. R./Wilkins, R. D. (1982), Performance rating validity: The relationship of objective and subjective measures of performance, in: Group and Organization Studies, 7. Jg., 1982 (4), S. 485-496. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  7. Allianz SE (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-190, https://www.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/azcom/Allianz_com/investor-relations/en/results-reports/annual-report/ar-2019/de-GB-Gruppe-Geschaeftsbericht-Allianz-2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  8. Anderson, S. W./Dekker, H. C./Sedatole, K. L./Wiersma, E. (2020), When one size does not fit all: Using ex post subjective ratings to provide parity in risk-adjusted compensation, in: Management Accounting Research, 49. Jg., 2020, S. 1-12. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  9. Anderson, S. W./Widener, S. K. (2006), Doing quantitative field research in management accounting, in: Chapman, C. S./Hopwood, A. G./Shields, M. D. (Hrsg.), Handbook of management accounting research, 2006, Burlington, S. 319-341. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  10. Angelovski, A./Brandts, J./Sola, C. (2016), Hiring and escalation bias in subjective performance evaluations: A laboratory experiment, in: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 121. Jg., 2016, S. 114-129. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  11. Aranda, C./Arellano, J./Davila, A. (2019), Subjective bonuses and target setting in budget-based incentive contracts, in: Management Accounting Research, 43. Jg., 2019, S. 45-60. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  12. Arbeitskreis Leitlinien für eine nachhaltige Vorstandsvergütung (2018), Leitlinien für eine nachhaltige Vorstandsvergütung, S. 1-12, http://www.leitlinien-vorstandsverguetung.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Leitlinien_WEB.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  13. Babcock, L./Loewenstein, G. (1997), Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases, in: Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11. Jg., 1997 (1), S. 109-126. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  14. Babenko, I./Bennett, B./Bizjak, J. M./Coles, J. L./Sandvik, J. (2019), Clawback provisions (Working paper), S. 1-60, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3382498, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  15. Backhaus, K./Erichson, B./Plinke, W./Weiber, R. (2018), Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 15. Aufl., Berlin u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  16. BAG, Urteil vom 03.08.2016, 10 AZR 710/14, https://openjur.de/u/960928.html, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  17. Bailey, W. J./Hecht, G./Towry, K. L. (2011), Dividing the pie: The influence of managerial discretion extent on bonus pool allocation, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 28. Jg., 2011 (5), S. 1562-1584. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  18. Baiman, S. (1990), Agency research in managerial accounting: A second look, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15. Jg., 1990 (4), S. 341-371. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  19. Baiman, S./Rajan, M. V. (1995), The informational advantages of discretionary bonus schemes, in: Accounting Review, 70. Jg., 1995 (4), S. 557-579. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  20. Baker, G./Gibbons, R./Murphy, K. J. (1994), Subjective performance measure in optimal incentive contracts, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109. Jg., 1994 (4), S. 1125-1156. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  21. Baker, G. P./Jensen, M. C./Murphy, K. J. (1988), Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory, in: Journal of Finance, 43. Jg., 1988 (3), S. 593-616. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  22. Bakke, T.-E./Mahmudi, H./Virani, A. (2018), The value implications of mandatory clawback provisions (Working paper), S. 1-65, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890578, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  23. Bandiera, O./Barankay, I./Rasul, I. (2005), Social preferences and the response to incentives: Evidence from personnel data, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120. Jg., 2005 (3), S. 917-962. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  24. Bandiera, O./Barankay, I./Rasul, I. (2007), Incentives for managers and inequality among workers: Evidence from a firm-level experiment, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122. Jg., 2007 (2), S. 729-773. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  25. Bao, D./Fung, S. Y. K./Su, L. (2018), Can shareholders be at rest after adopting clawback provisions? Evidence from stock price crash risk, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 35. Jg., 2018 (3), S. 1578-1615. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  26. Baron, R. M./Kenny, D. A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51. Jg., 1986 (6), S. 1173-1182. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  27. BASF SE (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-301, https://www.basf.com/global/documents/de/news-and-media/publications/reports/2020/BASF_Bericht_2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  28. Bayer AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-239, https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/geschaeftsbericht-2019-der-bayer-ag.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  29. Becker, A. (2013), Accountability and the fairness bias: the effects of effort vs. luck, in: Social Choice and Welfare, 41. Jg., 2013 (3), S. 685-699. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  30. Becker, F. G. (2002), Lexikon des Personalmanagements, 2. Aufl., München. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  31. Becker, F. G. (2009), Grundlagen betrieblicher Leistungsbeurteilungen, 5. Aufl., Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  32. Beiersdorf AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-126, https://www.beiersdorf.de/~/media/Beiersdorf/local/de/investors/financial-reports/2020/annual-report/Beiersdorf-2019-Geschaeftsbericht-de.PDF, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  33. Bellavance, F./Landry, S./Schiehll, E. (2013), Procedural justice in managerial performance evaluation: Effects of subjectivity, relationship quality, and voice opportunity, in: British Accounting Review, 45. Jg., 2013 (3), S. 149-166. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  34. Bernard, U. (2006), Leistungsvergütung, Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  35. Berthel, J./Becker, F. G. (2017), Personal-Management: Grundzüge für Konzeptionen betrieblicher Personalarbeit, 11. Aufl., Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  36. Beugre, C. D./Baron, R. A. (2001), Perceptions of systemic justice: The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, in: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31. Jg., 2001 (2), S. 324-339. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  37. Biemann, T. (2009), Logik und Kritik des Hypothesentestens, in: Albers, S./Klapper, D./Konradt, U./Walter, A./Wolf, J. (Hrsg.), Methodik der empirischen Forschung, 2009, Wiesbaden, S. 205-220. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  38. Biemann, T./Sliwka, D./Weckmüller, H. (2011), Finanzielle Anreize und Produktivität, in: Personal Quarterly, 63. Jg., 2011, S. 46-49. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  39. Bies, R. J. (2015), Interactional justice: Looking backward, looking forward, in: Cropanzano, R. S./Ambrose, M. L. (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace, 2015, Oxford, S. 89-108. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  40. Bies, R. J./Moag, J. R. (1986), Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness, in: Lewicki, R. J./Sheppard, B. H./Bazerman, M. H. (Hrsg.), Research on negotiation in organizations, 1986, Greenwich, S. 43-55. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  41. Bies, R. J./Shapiro, D. L. (1987), Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts, in: Social Justice Research, 1. Jg., 1987 (2), S. 199-218. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  42. Bies, R. J./Shapiro, D. L. (1988), Voice and justification: Their influence in procedural fairness judgements, in: Academy of Management Journal, 31. Jg., 1988 (3), S. 676-685. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  43. Blader, S. L./Tyler, T. R. (2005), How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness?, in: Greenberg, J./Colquitt, J. A. (Hrsg.), Handbook of organizational justice, 2005, Mahwah, S. 329-354. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  44. BMW AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-262, https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/grpw/websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/de/2020/gb/BMW-GB19_de_Finanzbericht.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  45. Boas, T. C./Christenson, D. P./Glick, D. M. (2020), Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics, in: Political Science Research and Methods, 8. Jg., 2020 (2), S. 232-250. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  46. Bobocel, R. D./Gosse, L. (2015), Procedural justice: A historical review and critical analysis, in: Cropanzano, R. S./Ambrose, M. L. (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace, 2015, Oxford, S. 51-87. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  47. Bol, J. C. (2008), Subjectivity in compensation contracting, in: Journal of Accounting Literature, 27. Jg., 2008, S. 1-24. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  48. Bol, J. C./Hecht, G./Smith, S. D. (2015), Managers’ discretionary adjustments: The influence of uncontrollable events and compensation interdependence, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 32. Jg., 2015 (1), S. 139-159. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  49. Bol, J. C./Keune, T. M./Matsumura, E. M./Shin, J. Y. (2010), Supervisor discretion in target setting: An empirical investigation, in: Accounting Review, 85. Jg., 2010 (6), S. 1861-1886. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  50. Bol, J. C./Leiby, J. (2018), Subjectivity in professionals’ incentive systems: Differences between promotion- and performance-based assessments, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 35. Jg., 2018 (1), S. 31-57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  51. Bol, J. C./Smith, S. D. (2011), Spillover effects in subjective performance evaluation: Bias and the asymmetric influence of controllability, in: Accounting Review, 86. Jg., 2011 (4), S. 1213-1230. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  52. Bommer, W. H./Johnson, J. L./Rich, G. A./Podsakoff, P. M./MacKenzie, S. B. (1995), On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis, in: Personnel Psychology, 48. Jg., 1995 (3), S. 587-605. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  53. Bonner, S. E./Hastie, R./Sprinkle, G. B./Young, S. M. (2000), A review of the effects of financial incentives on performance in laboratory tasks: Implications for management accounting, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12. Jg., 2000, S. 19-64. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  54. Bonner, S. E./Sprinkle, G. B. (2002), The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27. Jg., 2002 (4-5), S. 303-345. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  55. Bortz, J./Schuster, C. (2010), Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 7. Aufl., Berlin u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  56. Brink, A. G./Rankin, F. W. (2013), The effects of risk preference and loss aversion on individual behavior under bonus, penalty, and combined contract frames, in: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 25. Jg., 2013 (2), S. 145-170. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  57. Brink, W. D./Grenier, J. H./Pyzoha, J. S./Reffett, A. (2019), The effects of clawbacks on auditors’ propensity to propose restatements and risk assessments, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 158. Jg., 2019 (2), S. 313-332. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  58. Brown, A. B./Davis‐Friday, P. Y./Guler, L./Marquardt, C. (2015), M&A decisions and US firms’ voluntary adoption of clawback provisions in executive compensation contracts, in: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 42. Jg., 2015 (1-2), S. 237-271. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  59. Buchheit, S./Dalton, D. W./Pollard, T. J./Stinson, S. R. (2019), Crowdsourcing intelligent research participants: A student versus MTurk comparison, in: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 31. Jg., 2019 (2), S. 93-106. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  60. Buchheit, S./Doxey, M. M./Pollard, T./Stinson, S. R. (2018), A technical guide to using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in behavioral accounting research, in: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30. Jg., 2018 (1), S. 111-122. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  61. Bundesministerium der Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (2019), Gesetz zur Umsetzung der zweiten Aktionärsrechterichtlinie, S. 2637-2651, https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokumente/BGBL_ARUG_II.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  62. Burns, N./Kedia, S. (2006), The impact of performance-based compensation on misreporting, in: Journal of Financial Economics, 79. Jg., 2006 (1), S. 35-67. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  63. Burt, I./Libby, T./Presslee, A. (2020), The impact of superior-subordinate identity and ex post discretionary goal adjustment on subordinate expectancy of reward and performance, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 32. Jg., 2020 (1), S. 31-49. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  64. Byrne, Z. S./Cropanzano, R. S. (2001), The history of organizational justice: The founders speak, in: Cropanzano, R. S. (Hrsg.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice, 2001, 2. Aufl., Mahwah, S. 3-26. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  65. Campbell, J. P. (1991), Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology, in: Dunnette, M. D./Hough, L. M. (Hrsg.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1991, 2. Aufl., Palo Alto, S. 687-732. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  66. Campbell, J. P./McCloy, R. A./Oppler, D. H./Sager, C. E. (1993), A theory of performance, in: Schmitt, N./Borman, W. C. (Hrsg.), Personnel selection in organizations, 1993, 2. Aufl., San Francisco, S. 35-70. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  67. Center for Self-Determination Theory (2020), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, S. 1-12, https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  68. Chan, L. H./Chen, K. C. W./Chen, T.-Y. (2013), The effects of firm-initiated clawback provisions on bank loan contracting, in: Journal of Financial Economics, 110. Jg., 2013 (3), S. 659-679. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  69. Chan, L. H./Chen, K. C. W./Chen, T.-Y./Yu, Y. (2012), The effects of firm-initiated clawback provisions on earnings quality and auditor behavior, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54. Jg., 2012 (2-3), S. 180-196. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  70. Chan, L. H./Chen, K. C. W./Chen, T.-Y./Yu, Y. (2015), Substitution between real and accruals-based earnings management after voluntary adoption of compensation clawback provisions, in: Accounting Review, 90. Jg., 2015 (1), S. 147-174. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  71. Chandler, J./Shapiro, D. (2016), Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples, in: Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12. Jg., 2016, S. 53-81. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  72. Charness, G./Gneezy, U./Henderson, A. (2018), Experimental methods: Measuring effort in economics experiments, in: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 149. Jg., 2018, S. 74-87. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  73. Chen, B. R. (2015), Subjective performance feedback, ability attribution, and renegotiation-proof contracts, in: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 117. Jg., 2015, S. 155-174. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  74. Chen, C. X./Gao, Y./Wang, Y./Xue, S. (2020), Tailoring the weights on objective versus subjective performance measures between top management and middle managers: Evidence from performance-based equity incentive plans, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 32. Jg., 2020 (3), S. 49-70. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  75. Chen, M. A./Owers, J. E./Greene, D. T. (2015), The costs and benefits of clawback provisions in CEO compensation, in: Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 4. Jg., 2015 (1), S. 108-154. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  76. Chen, Y./Vann, C. E. (2017), Clawback provision adoption, corporate governance, and investment decisions, in: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 44. Jg., 2017 (9-10), S. 1370-1397. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  77. Chen, Y.-J./Deng, M. (2012), Self-enforcing clawback provisions in executive compensation (Working paper), S. 1-42, https://cdar.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Chen2012-13.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  78. Chen, Y.-L. (2014), Determinants of biased subjective performance evaluations: evidence from a Taiwanese public sector organization, in: Accounting and Business Research, 44. Jg., 2014 (6), S. 656-675. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  79. Cheng, M. M./Coyte, R. (2014), The effects of incentive subjectivity and strategy communication on knowledge-sharing and extra-role behaviours, in: Management Accounting Research, 25. Jg., 2014 (2), S. 119-130. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  80. Choi, W./Clark, J./Presslee, A. (2018), Testing the effect of incentives on effort intensity using real-effort tasks (Working paper), S. 1-51, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3233162, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  81. Chow, C. W. (1983), The effects of job standard tightness and compensation scheme on performance: An exploration of linkages, in: Accounting Review, 58. Jg., 1983 (4), S. 667-685. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  82. Church, B. K./Hannan, R. L./Kuang, X. J. (2014), Information acquisition and opportunistic behavior in managerial reporting, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 31. Jg., 2014 (2), S. 398-419. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  83. Church, B. K./Libby, T./Zhang, P. (2008), Contracting frame and individual behavior: Experimental evidence, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 20. Jg., 2008, S. 153-168. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  84. Colquitt, J. A. (2001), On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 86. Jg., 2001 (3), S. 386-400. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  85. Colquitt, J. A./Greenberg, J./Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005), What is organizational justice? A historical overview, in: Greenberg, J./Colquitt, J. A. (Hrsg.), Handbook of organizational justice, 2005, Mahwah, S. 3-56. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  86. Colquitt, J. A./Rodell, J. B. (2015), Measuring justice and fairness, in: Cropanzano, R. S./Ambrose, M. L. (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace, 2015, Oxford, S. 187-202. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  87. Colquitt, J. A./Scott, B. A./Judge, T. A./Shaw, J. C. (2006), Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100. Jg., 2006 (1), S. 110-127. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  88. Colquitt, J. A./Zipay, K. P./Lynch, J. W./Outlaw, R. (2018), Bringing ‘The Beholder’ center stage: On the propensity to perceive overall fairness, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148. Jg., 2018, S. 159-177. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  89. Continental AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-217, https://www.continental.com/resource/blob/216190/b30dc7152f0fbe49c4b2c8ef8d7a9fec/geschaeftsbericht-2019-data.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  90. Covestro AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-246, https://www.covestro.com/-/media/covestro/country-sites/global/documents/investrors/events/events-2020/events-2019_fy/documents/de/covestro_geschaeftsbericht_2019.pdf?la=de, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  91. Crino, M. D. (1994), Employee sabotage: A random or preventable phenomenon?, in: Journal of Managerial Issues, 6. Jg., 1994 (3), S. 311-330. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  92. Cronbach, L. J. (1951), Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, in: Psychometrika, 16. Jg., 1951 (3), S. 297-334. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  93. Cropanzano, R. S./Bowen, D. E./Gilliland, S. W. (2007), The management of organizational justice, in: Academy of Management Perspectives, 21. Jg., 2007 (4), S. 34-48. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  94. Cugueró-Escofet, N./Fortin, M./Canela, M.-A. (2014), Righting the wrong for third parties: How monetary compensation, procedure changes and apologies can restore justice for observers of injustice, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 122. Jg., 2014 (2), S. 253-268. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  95. Dai, N. T./Kuang, X. J./Tang, G. (2018), Differential weighting of objective versus subjective measures in performance evaluation: Experimental evidence, in: European Accounting Review, 27. Jg., 2018 (1), S. 129-148. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  96. Daimler AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-350, https://www.daimler.com/dokumente/investoren/berichte/geschaeftsberichte/daimler/daimler-ir-geschaeftsbericht-2019-inkl-zusammengefasster-lagebericht-daimler-ag.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  97. Dalbert, C. (1999), Die Ungewißheitstoleranzskala: Skaleneigenschaften und Validierungsbefunde, Halle. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  98. Deci, E. L. (1971), Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18. Jg., 1971 (1), S. 105-115. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  99. Deci, E. L./Ryan, R. M. (1985), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior, Boston. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  100. deHaan, E./Hodge, F./Shevlin, T. (2013), Does voluntary adoption of a clawback provision improve financial reporting quality?, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 30. Jg., 2013 (3), S. 1027-1062. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  101. Demeré, B. W./Sedatole, K. L./Woods, A. (2019), The role of calibration committees in subjective performance evaluation systems, in: Management Science, 65. Jg., 2019 (4), S. 1562-1585. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  102. Denis, D. K. (2012), Mandatory clawback provisions, information disclosure, and the regulation of securities markets, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54. Jg., 2012 (2-3), S. 197-200. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  103. Deutsch, M. (1975), Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?, in: Journal of Social Issues, 31. Jg., 1975 (3), S. 137-149. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  104. Deutsche Bank AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-517, https://www.db.com/ir/de/download/Deutsche_Bank_Geschaeftsbericht_2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  105. Deutsche Börse AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-275, https://www.deutsche-boerse.com/resource/blob/1749860/8ee22f267b84c67dc6776364e4d5d7f4/data/GDB-Geschaeftsbericht-2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  106. Deutsche Post AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-170, https://www.dpdhl.com/content/dam/dpdhl/de/media-center/investors/documents/geschaeftsberichte/DPDHL-Geschaeftsbericht-2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  107. Deutsche Telekom AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-290, https://bericht.telekom.com/geschaeftsbericht-2019/serviceseiten/downloads/files/entire_dtag_gb19.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  108. Deutsche Wohnen SE (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-274, https://ir.deutsche-wohnen.com/download/companies/dewohnen/Annual%20Reports/DE000A0HN5C6-JA-2019-EQ-D-02.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  109. Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex (2019), Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex 2019, S. 1-19, https://www.dcgk.de//files/dcgk/usercontent/de/download/kodex/191216_Deutscher_Corporate_Governance_Kodex.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  110. Diekmann, A. (2017), Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen, 11. Aufl., Reinbek bei Hamburg. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  111. Difallah, D./Filatova, E./Ipeirotis, P. (2018), Demographics and dynamics of Mechanical Turk workers, in: Chang, Y./Zhai, C./Liu, Y./Maarek, Y. (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the eleventh ACM International Conference on web search and data mining, 2018, New York, S. 135-143. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  112. Döring, N./Bortz, J. (2016a), Bestimmung von Teststärke, Effektgröße und optimalen Stichprobenumfängen, in: Döring, N./Bortz, J. (Hrsg.), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften, 2016, 5. Aufl., Berlin u. a., S. 807-866. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  113. Döring, N./Bortz, J. (2016b), Datenanaylse, in: Döring, N./Bortz, J. (Hrsg.), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften, 2016, 5. Aufl., Berlin u. a., S. 597-784. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  114. Döring, N./Bortz, J. (2016c), Forschungs- und Wissenschaftsethik, in: Döring, N./Bortz, J. (Hrsg.), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften, 2016, 5. Aufl., Berlin u. a., S. 121-142. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  115. Döring, N./Bortz, J. (2016d), Forschungsstand und theoretischer Hintergrund, in: Döring, N./Bortz, J. (Hrsg.), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften, 2016, 5. Aufl., Berlin u. a., S. 157-179. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  116. Döring, N./Bortz, J. (2016e), Forschungsthema, in: Döring, N./Bortz, J. (Hrsg.), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften, 2016, 5. Aufl., Berlin u. a., S. 143-156. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  117. Döring, N./Bortz, J. (2016f), Untersuchungsdesign, in: Döring, N./Bortz, J. (Hrsg.), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften, 2016, 5. Aufl., Berlin u. a., S. 181-220. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  118. Dornstein, M. (1989), The fairness judgements of received pay and their determinants, in: Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62. Jg., 1989 (4), S. 287-299. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  119. Du, F./Erkens, D. H./Young, S. M./Tang, G. (2018), How adopting new performance measures affects subjective performance evaluations: Evidence from EVA adoption by Chinese state-owned enterprises, in: Accounting Review, 93. Jg., 2018 (1), S. 161-185. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  120. Du, F./Tang, G./Young, S. M. (2012), Influence activities and favoritism in subjective performance evaluation: Evidence from Chinese state-owned enterprises, in: Accounting Review, 87. Jg., 2012 (5), S. 1555-1588. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  121. E.ON SE (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-248, https://www.eon.com/content/dam/eon/eon-com/investors/annual-report/GB19_D_final.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  122. Earle, J. E./Wilkerson, A. (2012), Dodd‐Frank clawbacks: Hot issue for 2012, in: Journal of Investment Compliance, 13. Jg., 2012 (1), S. 41-44. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  123. Earley, P. C./Kanfer, R. (1985), The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36. Jg., 1985 (3), S. 378-390. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  124. EBSCO (2020a), Business Source Premier, S. 1-2, https://www.ebsco.com/e/de-de/produkte-services/datenbanken/business-source-premier, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  125. EBSCO (2020b), Zeitschriften auf Business Source Premier, S. 1-210, https://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/buh-journals.pdf?_ga=2.127624078.2001664667.1592735445-1351064508.1592735445, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  126. Ederhof, M. (2010), Discretion in bonus plans, in: Accounting Review, 85. Jg., 2010 (6), S. 1921-1949. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  127. Efendi, J./Srivastava, A./Swanson, E. P. (2007), Why do corporate managers misstate financial statements? The role of option compensation and other factors, in: Journal of Financial Economics, 85. Jg., 2007 (3), S. 667-708. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  128. Eid, M./Gollwitzer, M./Schmitt, M. (2017), Statistik und Forschungsmethoden, 5. Aufl., Weinheim u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  129. Eifler, S./Leitgöb, H. (2019), Experiment, in: Baur, N./Blasius, J. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 2019, 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden, S. 203-218. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  130. Ekinci, E. (2019), Discretionary bonuses and turnover, in: Labour Economics, 60. Jg., 2019, S. 30-49. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  131. Engellandt, A./Riphahn, R. T. (2011), Evidence on incentive effects of subjective performance evaluations, in: ILR Review, 64. Jg., 2011 (2), S. 241-257. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  132. Equilar Inc. (2015), Compensation & governance outlook 2016: Shareholder engagement drives changes to proxy disclosures, S. 1-38, https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/GOVERNANCEPROFESSIONALS/d7a9f2a8-68f8-485a-bf18-e4939f9b4684/UploadedImages/Landing%20Page%20Documents/Equilar%20Governance%20Outlook%202016.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  133. Erceg-Hurn, D. M./Mirosevich, V. M. (2008), Modern robust statistical methods: An easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research, in: American Psychologist, 63. Jg., 2008 (7), S. 591-601. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  134. Erkens, M. H. R./Gan, Y./Yurtoglu, B. B. (2018), Not all clawbacks are the same: Consequences of strong versus weak clawback provisions, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 66. Jg., 2018 (1), S. 291-317. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  135. Eschweiler, M./Evanschitzky, H./Woisetschläger, D. (2007), Ein Leitfaden zur Anwendung varianzanalytisch ausgerichteter Laborexperimente, in: Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 36. Jg., 2007 (12), S. 546-554. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  136. Evans, J. H./Hannan, R. L./Krishnan, R./Moser, D. V. (2001), Honesty in managerial reporting, in: Accounting Review, 76. Jg., 2001 (4), S. 537-559. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  137. Eyde, L. D. (2000), Other responsibilities to participants, in: Sales, B. D./Folkman, S. (Hrsg.), Ethics in research with human participants, 2000, Washington (D.C.), S. 61-73. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  138. Eyer, E./Haussmann, T. (2018), Zielvereinbarung und variable Vergütung, 7. Aufl., Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  139. Farrell, A. M./Grenier, J. H./Leiby, J. (2017), Scoundrels or stars? Theory and evidence on the quality of workers in online labor markets, in: Accounting Review, 92. Jg., 2017 (1), S. 93-114. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  140. Fehr, E./Goette, L. (2007), Do workers work more if wages are high? Evidence from a randomized field experiment, in: American Economic Review, 97. Jg., 2007 (1), S. 298-317. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  141. Fehrenbacher, D. D./Castro, V. (2017), Contract frame and participation: Mitigating disadvantages of penalty contracts, in: Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems, 2017, S. 293-309. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  142. Fehrenbacher, D. D./Kaplan, S. E./Pedell, B. (2017), The relation between individual characteristics and compensation contract selection, in: Management Accounting Research, 34. Jg., 2017, S. 1-18. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  143. Fehrenbacher, D. D./Schulz, A. K.-D./Rotaru, K. (2018), The moderating role of decision mode in subjective performance evaluation, in: Management Accounting Research, 41. Jg., 2018, S. 1-10. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  144. Fernandez, D. R./Perrewé, P. L. (1995), Implicit stress theory: An experimental examination of subjective performance information on employee evaluations, in: Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16. Jg., 1995 (4), S. 353-362. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  145. Festinger, L. (1954), A theory of social comparison processes, in: Human Relations, 7. Jg., 1954 (2), S. 117-140. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  146. Festinger, L. (1957), A theory of cognitive dissonance, Evanston u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  147. Field, A. (2018), Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 5. Aufl., Los Angeles u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  148. Fischman, M. W. (2000), Informed consent, in: Sales, B. D./Folkman, S. (Hrsg.), Ethics in research with human participants, 2000, Washington (D.C.), S. 35-48. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  149. Fisher, J. G./Maines, L. A./Peffer, S. A./Sprinkle, G. B. (2005), An experimental investigation of employer discretion in employee performance evaluation and compensation, in: Accounting Review, 80. Jg., 2005 (2), S. 563-583. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  150. Folger, R./Cropanzano, R. S. (1998), Organizational justice and human resource management, Thousand Oaks. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  151. Folger, R./Cropanzano, R. S. (2001), Fairness theory: Justice as accountability, in: Greenberg, J./Cropanzano, R. S. (Hrsg.), Advances in organizational justice, 2001, Stanford, S. 1-55. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  152. Folger, R./Cropanzano, R. S./Goldman, B. M. (2005), What is the relationship between justice and morality?, in: Greenberg, J./Colquitt, J. A. (Hrsg.), Handbook of organizational justice, 2005, Mahwah, S. 215-246. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  153. Folger, R./Greenberg, J. (1983), Procedural justive: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems, in: Rowland, K. M./Ferris, G. R. (Hrsg.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 1983, 3. Aufl., Greenwich, S. 141-183. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  154. Folkman, S. (2000), Privacy and confidentiality, in: Sales, B. D./Folkman, S. (Hrsg.), Ethics in research with human participants, 2000, Washington (D.C.), S. 49-58. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  155. Ford, J. K./Kraiger, K./Schechtman, S. L. (1986), Study of race effects in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: A meta-analysis of performance criteria, in: Psychological Bulletin, 99. Jg., 1986 (3), S. 330-337. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  156. Frederickson, J. R./Waller, W. S. (2005), Carrot or stick? Contract frame and use of decision-influencing information in a principal-agent setting, in: Journal of Accounting Research, 43. Jg., 2005 (5), S. 709-733. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  157. Frederiksen, A./Lange, F./Kriechel, B. (2017), Subjective performance evaluations and employee careers, in: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 134. Jg., 2017, S. 408-429. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  158. Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-290, https://www.freseniusmedicalcare.com/fileadmin/data/com/pdf/Media_Center/Publications/Annual_Reports/FME_Geschaeftsbericht_2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  159. Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-277, https://www.fresenius.de/financial_reporting/Fresenius_Geschaeftsbericht_2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  160. Frey, B. S. (1997), Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation, Cheltenham. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  161. Frey, B. S./Jegen, R. (2001), Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence, in: Journal of Economic Surveys, 15. Jg., 2001 (5), S. 589-611. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  162. Fried, J. M. (2016), Rationalizing the Dodd-Frank clawback (Working paper), S. 1-65, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2764409, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  163. Fried, J. M./Shilon, N. (2011), Excess-pay clawbacks, in: Journal of Corporation Law, 36. Jg., 2011 (4), S. 721-751. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  164. Friedl, G./Pfeiffer, I. (2014), Ausgestaltung und Anreizwirkungen der Vorstandsvergütung in Deutschland, in: Controlling, 26. Jg., 2014 (3), S. 148-154. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  165. Fuchs, W. (2015), Subjective evaluations: Discretionary bonuses and feedback credibility, in: American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 7. Jg., 2015 (1), S. 99-108. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  166. Fung, S. Y. K./Raman, K. K./Sun, L./Xu, L. (2015), Insider sales and the effectiveness of clawback adoptions in mitigating fraud risk, in: Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34. Jg., 2015 (4), S. 417-436. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  167. Gächter, S./Johnson, E. J./Herrmann, A. (2007), Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices (Working paper), S. 1-23, https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cedex/documents/papers/2007-02.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  168. Gagné, M./Deci, E. L. (2005), Self-determination theory and work motivation, in: Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26. Jg., 2005 (4), S. 331-362. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  169. Gibbs, M. J./Merchant, K. A./van der Stede, W. A./Vargus, M. E. (2004), Determinants and effects of subjectivity in incentives, in: Accounting Review, 79. Jg., 2004 (2), S. 409-436. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  170. Goodman, J. K./Cryder, C. E./Cheema, A. (2013), Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples, in: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26. Jg., 2013 (3), S. 213-224. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  171. Greenberg, J. (1986a), Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 71. Jg., 1986 (2), S. 340-342. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  172. Greenberg, J. (1986b), Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair?, in: Lewicki, R. J./Sheppard, B. H./Bazerman, M. H. (Hrsg.), Research on negotiation in organizations, 1986, Greenwich, S. 25-41. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  173. Greenberg, J. (1988), Equity and workplace status: A field experiment, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 73. Jg., 1988 (4), S. 606-613. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  174. Greenberg, J. (1990), Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, in: Journal of Management, 16. Jg., 1990 (2), S. 399-432. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  175. Greenberg, J. (1991), Using explanations to manage impressions of performance appraisal fairness, in: Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4. Jg., 1991 (1), S. 51-60. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  176. Greenberg, J. (1993), The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informationel classes of organizational justice, in: Cropanzano, R. S. (Hrsg.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management, 1993, Hilsdale, S. 79-103. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  177. Greenberg, J./Tyler, T. R. (1987), Why procedural justice in organizations?, in: Social Justice Research, 1. Jg., 1987 (2), S. 127-142. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  178. Grund, C./Przemeck, J. (2012), Subjective performance appraisal and inequality aversion, in: Applied Economics, 44. Jg., 2012 (17), S. 2149-2155. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  179. Guthof, P. (1995), Strategische Anreizsysteme: Gestaltungsoptionen im Rahmen der Unternehmungsentwicklung, Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  180. Hair, J. F. (2010), Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, 7. Aufl., Upper Saddle River. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  181. Halse, N./Smeets, V./Warzynski, F. (2011), International differences in subjective performance evaluation, compensation and career dynamics in a global company (Working paper), S. 1-26, https://www.cbs.dk/files/cbs.dk/international_di.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  182. Hannan, R. L./Hoffman, V. B./Moser, D. V. (2005), Bonus versus penalty: Does contract frame affect employee effort?, in: Rapoport, A./Zwick, R. (Hrsg.), Experimental Business Research, 2005, Berlin u. a., S. 151-169. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  183. Hannan, R. L./Krishnan, R./Newman, A. H. (2008), The effects of disseminating relative performance feedback in tournament and individual performance compensation plans, in: Accounting Review, 83. Jg., 2008 (4), S. 893-913. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  184. Hannan, R. L./Rankin, F./Towry, K./Salterio, S. E./Webb, R. A. (2006), The effect of information systems on honesty in managerial reporting: A behavioral perspective, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 23. Jg., 2006 (4), S. 885-932. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  185. Harms, P. D./DeSimone, J. A. (2015), Caution! MTurk workers ahead – Fines doubled, in: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8. Jg., 2015 (2), S. 183-190. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  186. Hartmann, F./Slapničar, S. (2012), Pay fairness and intrinsic motivation: The role of pay transparency, in: International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23. Jg., 2012 (20), S. 4283-4300. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  187. Haupenthal, M. (2017), Die Zusammensetzung von Produktpreisen und der Einfluss von Produktbewertungen, Kapazitäts- und Produktportfolioveränderungen und Akquisitionen auf die Preisentwicklung, Baden-Baden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  188. Hax, H. (1989), Investitionsrechnung und Periodenerfolgsmessung, in: Delfmann, W./Adam, D. (Hrsg.), Der Integrationsgedanke in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, 1989, Wiesbaden, S. 153-170. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  189. Hayes, A. F. (2018), Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, 2. Aufl., New York u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  190. Hayes, A. F./Cai, L. (2007), Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation, in: Behavior Research Methods, 39. Jg., 2007 (4), S. 709-722. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  191. Hecht, G./Newman, A. H./Tafkov, I. D. (2019), Managers’ strategic use of discretion over relative performance information provision and implications for team-members’ effort, in: Management Accounting Research, 45. Jg., 2019, S. 1-19. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  192. HeidelbergCement AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-204, https://www.heidelbergcement.com/de/system/files_force/assets/document/7f/dd/geschaeftsbericht_2019.pdf?download=1, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  193. Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-269, https://www.henkel.de/resource/blob/1040424/bea79d9934c6434107ad38c4f4345427/data/2019-gesch%C3%A3-ftsbericht.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  194. Hirsch, B. (2007), Controlling und Entscheidungen: Zur verhaltenswissenschaftlichen Fundierung des Controllings, Tübingen. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  195. Hirsch, B./Reichert, B. E./Sohn, M. (2017), The impact of clawback provisions on information processing and investment behaviour, in: Management Accounting Research, 37. Jg., 2017, S. 1-11. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  196. hkp Deutschland GmbH/Ipreo Ltd. (2017), Say-on-Pay: Which way does the coin flip? The influence of different investor groups & proxy advisors on executive compensation decisions in public companies in Switzerland and Germany, S. 1-44, https://www.hkp.com/download?url=article_pdfs%2FbY3nzhriF3k5qEf73ubPTY813FvATyRu0EOb0IrD.pdf&name=say-on-pay-which-way-does-the-coin-flip.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  197. Hoffman, C. C./Nathan, B. R. (1991), A comparison of validation criteria: Objective versus subjective performance measures and self- versus supervisor ratings, in: Personnel Psychology, 44. Jg., 1991 (3), S. 601-619. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  198. Holt, C. A./Laury, S. K. (2002), Risk aversion and incentive effects, in: American Economic Review, 92. Jg., 2002 (5), S. 1644-1655. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  199. Homburg, C. (2020), Grundlagen des Marketingmanagements, 6. Aufl., Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  200. Homburg, C./Giering, A. (1996), Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte: Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung, in: Marketing: Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis, 18. Jg., 1996 (1), S. 5-24. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  201. Höppe, F./Moers, F. (2011), The choice of different types of subjectivity in CEO annual bonus contracts, in: Accounting Review, 86. Jg., 2011 (6), S. 2023-2046. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  202. Hribar, P./Jenkins, N. T. (2004), The effect of accounting restatements on earnings revisions and the estimated cost of capital, in: Review of Accounting Studies, 9. Jg., 2004 (2-3), S. 337-356. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  203. Huang, J. L./Bowling, N. A./Liu, M./Li, Y. (2015), Detecting insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: Evaluating validity and participant reactions, in: Journal of Business and Psychology, 30. Jg., 2015 (2), S. 299-311. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  204. Huang, S./Lim, C. Y./Ng, J. (2019), Not clawing the hand that feeds you: The case of co-opted boards and clawbacks, in: European Accounting Review, 28. Jg., 2019 (1), S. 101-127. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  205. Imas, A. (2016), The realization effect: Risk-taking after realized versus paper losses, in: American Economic Review, 106. Jg., 2016 (8), S. 2086-2109. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  206. Infineon AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-212, https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+Geschäftsbericht+2019.pdf?fileId=5546d4616e8d476e016e9955210f0023, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  207. Iskandar-Datta, M./Jia, Y. (2013), Valuation consequences of clawback provisions, in: Accounting Review, 88. Jg., 2013 (1), S. 171-198. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  208. Ittner, C. D./Larcker, D. F./Meyer, M. W. (2003), Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard, in: Accounting Review, 78. Jg., 2003 (3), S. 725-758. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  209. Kahneman, D./Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, in: Econometrica, 47. Jg., 1979 (2), S. 263. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  210. Kaiser, H. F./Rice, J. (1974), Little Jiffy, Mark IV: Educational and psychological Measurement, in: Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34. Jg., 1974 (1), S. 111-117. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  211. Kampkötter, P./Sliwka, D. (2018), More dispersion, higher bonuses? On differentiation in subjective performance evaluations, in: Journal of Labor Economics, 36. Jg., 2018 (2), S. 511-549. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  212. Kanfer, R. (1991), Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology, in: Dunnette, M. D./Hough, L. M. (Hrsg.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1991, 2. Aufl., Palo Alto, S. 75-170. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  213. Kanfer, R./Sawyer, J./Earley, P. C./Lind, E. A. (1987), Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance, in: Social Justice Research, 1. Jg., 1987 (2), S. 235-249. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  214. Kelly, K. O./Webb, R. A./Vance, T. (2015), The interactive effects of ex post goal adjustment and goal difficulty on performance, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 27. Jg., 2015 (1), S. 1-25. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  215. Kleiman, L. S./Biderman, M. D./Faley, R. H. (1987), An examination of employee perceptions of a subjective performance appraisal system, in: Journal of Business and Psychology, 2. Jg., 1987 (2), S. 112-121. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  216. Kluckow, N. (2014), Managerentlohnung: Distributives, prozedurales und interaktionales (Un-)Gerechtigkeitsempfinden, Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  217. Kossbiel, H. (1994), Überlegungen zur Effizienz betrieblicher Anreizsysteme, in: Die Betriebswirtschaft, 54. Jg., 1994 (1), S. 75-93. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  218. Kramer, S./Maas, V. S. (2020), Selective attention as a determinant of escalation bias in subjective performance evaluation judgments, in: Behavioral Research in Accounting, 32. Jg., 2020 (1), S. 87-100. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  219. Krishnan, R./Luft, J. L./Shields, M. D. (2005), Effects of accounting-method choices on subjective performance-measure weighting decisions: experimental evidence on precision and error covariance, in: Accounting Review, 80. Jg., 2005 (4), S. 1163-1192. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  220. Kroos, P./Schabus, M./Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2018), Voluntary clawback adoption and the use of financial measures in CFO bonus plans, in: Accounting Review, 93. Jg., 2018 (3), S. 213-235. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  221. Kubick, T. R./Omer, T. C./Wiebe, Z. (2020), The effect of voluntary clawback adoptions on corporate tax policy, in: Accounting Review, 95. Jg., 2020 (1), S. 259-285. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  222. Kunz, J. (2015), Objectivity and subjectivity in performance evaluation and autonomous motivation: An exploratory study, in: Management Accounting Research, 27. Jg., 2015, S. 27-46. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  223. Kunz, J./Quitmann, A. (2011), Der Einfluss von Anreizsystemen auf die intrinsische Motivation, in: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 25. Jg., 2011 (1), S. 55-76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  224. Küpper, H.-U./Friedl, G./Hofmann, C./Hofmann, Y./Pedell, B. (2013), Controlling: Konzeption, Aufgaben, Instrumente, 6. Aufl., Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  225. Küpper, H.-U./Sandner, K. (2011), Anreizsysteme und Unternehmensethik, in: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 81. Jg., 2011 (1), S. 119-148. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  226. Kyung, H./Lee, H./Marquardt, C. (2019), The effect of voluntary clawback adoption on non-GAAP reporting, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 67. Jg., 2019 (1), S. 175-201. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  227. Langinier, C./Marcoul, P. (2019), Subjective performance of patent examiners, implicit contracts, and self-funded patent offices, in: Managerial and Decision Economics, 40. Jg., 2019 (3), S. 251-266. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  228. Laux, H. (2003), Wertorientierte Unternehmensführung und Kapitalmarkt, Berlin u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  229. Laux, H. (2006), Unternehmensrechnung, Anreiz und Kontrolle, Berlin u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  230. Lazear, E. P. (2000), Performance pay and productivity, in: American Economic Review, 90. Jg., 2000 (5), S. 1346-1361. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  231. Lazear, E. P./Gibbs, M. J. (2009), Personnel economics in practice, 2. Aufl., Hoboken. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  232. Leigh, J. H./Kinnear, T. C. (1980), On interaction classification, in: Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40. Jg., 1980 (4), S. 841-843. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  233. Leventhal, G. S. (1976a), Fairness in social relationships, in: Thibaut, J. W./Spence, J. T./Carson, R. C. (Hrsg.), Contemporary topics in social psychology, 1976, Morristown, S. 211-239. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  234. Leventhal, G. S. (1976b), The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations, in: Hatfield, E./Berkowitz, L. (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 1976, 9. Aufl., New York u. a., S. 91-131. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  235. Leventhal, G. S. (1980), What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships, in: Gergen, K. J./Greenberg, M. S./Willis, R. H. (Hrsg.), Social exchange, 1980, Boston, S. 27-55. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  236. Levine, C. B./Smith, M. J. (2019), Clawbacks and earnings management, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 31. Jg., 2019 (3), S. 129-151. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  237. Levy, Y./Ellis, T. (2006), A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research, in: Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9. Jg., 2006, S. 181-212. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  238. Libby, T. (1999), The influence of voice and explanation on performance in a participative budgeting setting, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24. Jg., 1999 (2), S. 125-137. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  239. Libby, T. (2001), Referent cognitions and budgetary fairness: A research note, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13. Jg., 2001, S. 91-105. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  240. Libby, T./Salterio, S. E. (2019), Deception in management accounting experimental research: “A tricky issue” revisited, in: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 31. Jg., 2019 (2), S. 143-158. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  241. Liden, R. C./Stilwell, D./Ferris, G. R. (1996), The effects of supervisor and subordinate age on objective performance and subjective performance ratings, in: Human Relations, 49. Jg., 1996 (3), S. 327-347. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  242. Linck, R. (2014), Die Billigkeit im Spiegel der neuen Rechtssprechung des Bundesarbeitsgerichts, in: Boemke, B. (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Gerrick Freiheer von Hoyningen-Huene zum 70. Geburtstag, 2014, München, S. 255-270. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  243. Lind, E. A. (2001), Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations, in: Greenberg, J./Cropanzano, R. S. (Hrsg.), Advances in organizational justice, 2001, Stanford, S. 56-88. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  244. Lind, E. A./Greenberg, J./Scott, K. S./Welchans, T. D. (2000), The winding road from employee to complainant: situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination claims, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 45. Jg., 2000 (3), S. 557-590. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  245. Lind, E. A./Kanfer, R./Earley, P. C. (1990), Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59. Jg., 1990 (5), S. 952-959. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  246. Lind, E. A./Kray, L./Thompson, L. (2001), Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85. Jg., 2001 (2), S. 189-210. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  247. Lind, E. A./Tyler, T. R. (1988), The social psychology of procedural justice, New York. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  248. Lind, E. A./van den Bos, K. (2002), When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management, in: Staw, B. M./Kramer, R. M. (Hrsg.), Research in organizational behavior, 2002, 24. Aufl., Boston, S. 181-223. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  249. Linde plc (2020), Proxy Statement 2019, S. 1-90, https://investors.linde.com/-/media/linde/investors/documents/full-year-financial-reports/2020-proxy-statement.pdf?la=en&rev=ea7a9c817f7c4263a92af2aa0b6396b9, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  250. Liu, X. K./Wright, A. M./Wu, Y.-J. (2015), Managers’ unethical fraudulent financial reporting: The effect of control strength and control framing, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 129. Jg., 2015 (2), S. 295-310. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  251. Liu, Y./Gan, H./Karim, K. (2020), Corporate risk-taking after adoption of compensation clawback provisions, in: Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 54. Jg., 2020 (2), S. 617-649. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  252. Lohaus, D. (2009), Leistungsbeurteilung, Göttingen u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  253. Luft, J. (1994), Bonus and penalty incentives contract choice by employees, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18. Jg., 1994 (2), S. 181-206. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  254. Luft, J./Shields, M. D./Thomas, T. F. (2016), Additional information in accounting reports: Effects on management decisions and subjective performance evaluations under causal ambiguity, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 33. Jg., 2016 (2), S. 526-550. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  255. Maas, V. S./Torres-González, R. (2011), Subjective performance evaluation and gender discrimination, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 101. Jg., 2011 (4), S. 667-681. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  256. Maas, V. S./Verdoorn, N. (2017), The effects of performance report layout on managers’ subjective evaluation judgments, in: Accounting and Business Research, 47. Jg., 2017 (7), S. 731-751. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  257. MacKinlay, A. C. (1997), Event studies in economics and finance, in: Journal of Economic Literature, 35. Jg., 1997 (1), S. 13-39. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  258. MacKinnon, D. P./Cheong, J./Pirlott, A. G. (2012), An introduction to statistical mediation analysis, in: Cooper, H./Camic, P. M./Long, D. L./Panter, A. T./Rindskopf, D./Sher, K. J. (Hrsg.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, 2012, 2. Aufl., Washington D.C., S. 313-331. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  259. McAuley, E./Duncan, T./Tammen, V. V. (1989), Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis, in: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60. Jg., 1989 (1), S. 48-58. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  260. Merchant, K. A./Stringer, C./Shantapriyan, P. (2009), Relationships between objective and subjective performance ratings, S. 1-37, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Merchant/publication/228431125_Relationships_between_Objective_and_Subjective_Performance_Ratings/links/0912f50646b844a2a7000000/Relationships-between-Objective-and-Subjective-Performance-Ratings.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  261. Merck KGaA (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-332, https://www.merckgroup.com/investors/reports-and-financials/earnings-materials/2019-q4/de/2019-Q4-Report-DE.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  262. Mikula, G./Uray, H./Schwinger, T. (1976), Die Entwicklung einer deutschen Fassung der Mehrabian Achievement Risk Preference Scale, Graz. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  263. Moers, F. (2005), Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: The impact of diversity and subjectivity, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30. Jg., 2005 (1), S. 67-80. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  264. Moers, F. (2006), Doing archival research in management accounting, in: Chapman, C. S./Hopwood, A. G./Shields, M. D. (Hrsg.), Handbook of management accounting research, 2006, Burlington, S. 399-413. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  265. Morgenson, G. (2016), Executive pay clawbacks are gratifying, but not particularly effective, S. 1-2, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/business/exclawbacks-are-gratifying-but-not-particularly-effective.html, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  266. MTU Aero Engines AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-226, https://www.mtu.de/fileadmin/DE/5_Investor_Relations/Financial_Report/2019_Geschaeftsbericht.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  267. Muckler, F. A./Seven, S. A. (1992), Selecting performance measures: “Objective” versus “subjective” measurement, in: Human Factors, 34. Jg., 1992 (4), S. 441-455. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  268. Müller, F. (2018), Verzerrungen bei der Leistungsbewertung von Mitarbeitern, in: Controlling, 30. Jg., 2018 (5), S. 34-37. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  269. Müller, F./Rieber, D./Tank, A. (2020), Legal bases and implementation of clawback clauses: A comparison between Germany and the US, in: KoR – Zeitschrift für internationale und kapitalmarktorientierte Rechnungslegung, 20. Jg., 2020 (3), S. 132-137. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  270. Münchener Rück AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-197, https://www.munichre.com/content/dam/munichre/mrwebsiteslaunches/2019-annual-report/MunichRe-Konzerngeschaeftsbericht-2019-de.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original./MunichRe-Konzerngeschaeftsbericht-2019-de.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  271. Murphy, K. J. (2000), Performance standards in incentive contracts, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30. Jg., 2000 (3), S. 245-278. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  272. Murphy, K. J./Oyer, P. (2003), Discretion in executive incentive contracts (Working paper), S. 1-43, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.478.9228&rep=rep1&type=pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  273. Murphy, P. R./Wynes, M./Hahn, T.-A./Devine, P. G. (2020), Why are people honest? Internal and external motivations to report honestly, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, 37. Jg., 2020 (2), S. 945-981. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  274. Myers, D. G. (2014), Psychologie, 3. Aufl., Berlin u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  275. Natarajan, R./Zheng, K. (2019), Clawback provision of SOX, financial misstatements, and CEO compensation contracts, in: Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 34. Jg., 2019 (1), S. 74-98. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  276. Neumann-Duesberg, H. (1952), Gerichtliche Ermessensentscheidungen nach §§ 315 ff. BGB, in: Juristenzeitung, 7. Jg., 1952 (23), S. 705-711. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  277. Niehoff, B. P./Moorman, R. H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, in: Academy of Management Journal, 36. Jg., 1993 (3), S. 527-556. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  278. Nisar, T. M. (2007), Evaluation of subjectivity in incentive pay, in: Journal of Financial Services Research, 31. Jg., 2007 (1), S. 53-73. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  279. O’Connor, N. G./Deng, F. J./Fei, P. (2015), Observability and subjective performance measurement, in: Abacus, 51. Jg., 2015 (2), S. 208-237. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  280. Paarsch, H. J./Shearer, B. S. (1999), The response of worker effort to piece rates: Evidence from the British Columbia tree-planting industry, in: Journal of Human Resources, 34. Jg., 1999 (4), S. 643-667. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  281. Paarsch, H. J./Shearer, B. S. (2000), Piece rates, fixed wages, and incentive effects: Statistical evidence from payroll records, in: International Economic Review, 41. Jg., 2000 (1), S. 59-92. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  282. Palmrose, Z.-V./Richardson, V. J./Scholz, S. (2004), Determinants of market reactions to restatement announcements, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37. Jg., 2004 (1), S. 59-89. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  283. Parker, R. J./Kohlmeyer, J. M. (2005), Organizational justice and turnover in public accounting firms: A research note, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30. Jg., 2005 (4), S. 357-369. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  284. Patient, D. L./Skarlicki, D. P. (2010), Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s empathic concern and moral development, in: Journal of Management, 36. Jg., 2010 (2), S. 555-578. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  285. Peirce, J./Gray, J. R./Simpson, S./MacAskill, M./Höchenberger, R./Sogo, H./Kastman, E./Lindeløv, J. K. (2019), PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy, in: Behavior Research Methods, 51. Jg., 2019 (1), S. 195-203. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  286. Peirce, J./MacAskill, M. (2018), Building experiments in PsychoPy, Los Angeles u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  287. Perreault Jr., W. D./Darden, W. R. (1975), Unequal cell sizes in marketing experiments: Use of the general linear hypothesis, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 12. Jg., 1975 (3), S. 333-342. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  288. Poon, J. M. L. (2004), Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention, in: Personnel Review, 33. Jg., 2004 (3), S. 322-334. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  289. Prendergast, C./Topel, R. (1993), Discretion and bias in performance evaluation, in: European Economic Review, 37. Jg., 1993 (2-3), S. 355-365. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  290. Proudfoot, D./Lind, E. A. (2015), Fairness heuristic theory, the uncertainty management model, and fairness at work, in: Cropanzano, R. S./Ambrose, M. L. (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace, 2015, Oxford, S. 371-385. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  291. Pruitt, D. G. (1972), Methods for resolving differences of interest: A theoretical analysis, in: Journal of Social Issues, 28. Jg., 1972 (1), S. 133-154. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  292. Pyzoha, J. S. (2015), Why do restatements decrease in a clawback environment? An investigation into financial reporting executives’ decision-making during the restatement process, in: Accounting Review, 90. Jg., 2015 (6), S. 2515-2536. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  293. Questback GmbH, Enterprise Feedback Suite, S. 1-5, https://www.unipark.com/umfragesoftware/, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  294. Rajan, M. V./Reichelstein, S. (2006), Subjective performance indicators and discretionary bonus pools, in: Journal of Accounting Research, 44. Jg., 2006 (3), S. 585-618. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  295. Rajan, M. V./Reichelstein, S. (2009), Objective versus subjective indicators of managerial performance, in: Accounting Review, 84. Jg., 2009 (1), S. 209-237. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  296. Reinicke, J. (2019), Grundlagen der standardisierten Befragung, in: Baur, N./Blasius, J. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 2019, 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden, S. 717-733. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  297. Rheinberg, F. (2006), Motivation, 6. Aufl., Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  298. Rich, G. A./Bommer, W. H./MacKenzie, S. B./Podsakoff, P. M./Johnson, J. L. (1999), Apples and apples or apples and oranges? A meta-analysis of objective and subjective measures of salesperson performance, in: Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 19. Jg., 1999 (4), S. 41-52. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  299. Riegler, C. (2000a), Anreizsysteme und wertorientiertes Management, in: Wagenhofer, A./Hrebicek, G. (Hrsg.), Wertorientiertes Management: Konzepte und Umsetzungen zur Unternehmenswertsteigerung, 2000, Stuttgart, S. 145-165. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  300. Riegler, C. (2000b), Hierarchische Anreizsysteme im wertorientierten Management: Eine agency-theoretische Untersuchung, Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  301. Riesenhuber, F. (2009), Großzahlige empirische Forschung, in: Albers, S./Klapper, D./Konradt, U./Walter, A./Wolf, J. (Hrsg.), Methodik der empirischen Forschung, 2009, Wiesbaden, S. 1-17. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  302. Robinson, J./Rosenzweig, C./Moss, A. J./Litman, L. (2019), Tapped out or barely tapped? Recommendations for how to harness the vast and largely unused potential of the Mechanical Turk participant pool, in: PloS one, 14. Jg., 2019 (12), S. 1-29. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  303. Roe, R. A. (1999), Work performance: A multiple regulation perspective, in: Cooper, C. L./Robertson, I. T. (Hrsg.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 1999, New York, S. 231-335. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  304. Roese, N. J. (1997), Counterfactual thinking, in: Psychological Bulletin, 121. Jg., 1997 (1), S. 133-148. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  305. Roese, N. J./Olson, J. M. (1997), Counterfactual thinking: The intersection of affect and function, in: Zanna, M. P. (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 1997, 29. Aufl., London, S. 1-59. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  306. Rossiter, J. R. (2002), The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing, in: International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19. Jg., 2002 (4), S. 305-335. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  307. Rothermund, K./Eder, A. (2011), Allgemeine Psychologie: Motivation und Emotion, Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  308. RWE AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-226, https://www.group.rwe/-/media/RWE/documents/05-investor-relations/2019-Q4/20-03-12-RWE-Geschaeftsbericht-2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  309. Ryan, R. M. (1982), Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43. Jg., 1982 (3), S. 450-461. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  310. Salthouse, T. A. (1984), The skill of typing, in: Scientific American, 250. Jg., 1984 (2), S. 128-135. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  311. SAP AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-293, https://www.sap.com/docs/download/investors/2019/sap-2019-integrierter-bericht.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  312. Sautter, J. (2019), Arbeitstitel: Vertrauen in die Informationsquelle und Framing von Informationen in ökonomischen Entscheidungssituationen. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  313. Schachter, H. L. (2010), Objective and subjective performance measures: A note on terminology, in: Administration and Society, 42. Jg., 2010 (5), S. 550-567. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  314. Schneider, P. (2010), The clawback provision: What you need to know, in: Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 64. Jg., 2010 (5), S. 24-28. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  315. Schuler, H. (2007), Funktionen und Formen der Leistungsbeurteilung, in: Schuler, H./Sonntag, K. (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 2007, Göttingen u. a., S. 542-554. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  316. Schuler, H./Muck, P. M./Hell, B./Höft, S./Becker, K./Diemand, A. (2004), Entwicklung eines multimodalen Systems zur Beurteilung von Individualleistungen, in: Schuler, H. (Hrsg.), Beurteilung und Förderung beruflicher Leistung, 2004, 2. Aufl., Göttingen, S. 133-158. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  317. Schwering, A. (2016), Ehrlichkeit in der Budgetierung, Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  318. Scott-Jones, D. (2000), Recruitment of research participants, in: Sales, B. D./Folkman, S. (Hrsg.), Ethics in research with human participants, 2000, Washington (D.C.), S. 27-34. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  319. Sebald, A./Walzl, M. (2015), Optimal contracts based on subjective performance evaluations and reciprocity, in: Journal of Economic Psychology, 47. Jg., 2015, S. 62-76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  320. Seibt, T./Hormel, R./Kröger, S. (2017), Personalbeurteilung und Personalentwicklung, in: Stierle, J./Glasmachers, K./Siller, H. (Hrsg.), Praxiswissen Personalcontrolling: Erfolgreiche Strategien und interdisziplinäre Ansätze für die Ressource Mensch, 2017, Wiesbaden, S. 251-304. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  321. Sheppard, B. H./Lewicki, R. J. (1987), Toward general principles of managerial fairness, in: Social Justice Research, 1. Jg., 1987 (2), S. 161-176. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  322. Sheppard, B. H./Lewicki, R. J./Minton, J. W. (1992), Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace, New York u. a. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  323. Shields, M. D./Chow, C. W./Whittington, O. R. (1989), The effects of state risk and controllability filters on compensation contract and effort choice, in: Abacus, 25. Jg., 1989 (1), S. 39-55. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  324. Shingler, J./van Loon, M. E./Alter, T. R./Bridger, J. C. (2008), The importance of subjective data for public agency performance evaluation, in: Public Administration Review, 68. Jg., 2008 (6), S. 1101-1111. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  325. Siemens AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-192, https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:bb722ca2-ba5e-4886-a59c-a31f5cb10508/siemens-gb2019.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  326. Sliwka, D./Kampkötter, P. (2016), The complementary use of experiments and field data to evaluate management practices: The case of subjective performance evaluations, in: Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 172. Jg., 2016 (2), S. 364-389. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  327. Sonnentag, S./Frese, M. (2005), Performance concepts and performance theory, in: Sonnentag, S. (Hrsg.), Psychological management of individual performance, 2005, Hoboken, S. 1-25. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  328. Sprinkle, G. B./Williamson, M. G. (2006), Experimental research in managerial accounting, in: Chapman, C. S./Hopwood, A. G./Shields, M. D. (Hrsg.), Handbook of management accounting research, 2006, Burlington, S. 415-444. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  329. Stein, P. (2019), Forschungsdesigns für die quantitative Sozialforschung, in: Baur, N./Blasius, J. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 2019, 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden, S. 125-142. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  330. Stewart, N./Ungemach, C./Harris, A. J. L./Bartels, D. M./Newell, B. R./Paolacci, G./Chandler, J. (2015), The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, in: Judgment and Decision Making, 10. Jg., 2015 (5), S. 479-491. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  331. Stock-Homburg, R. (2013), Personalmanagement: Theorien - Konzepte - Instrumente, 3. Aufl., Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  332. Stock-Homburg, R./Groß, M. (2019), Personalmanagement: Theorien - Konzepte - Instrumente, 4. Aufl., Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  333. Tabachnick, B. G./Fidell, L. S. (2013), Using multivariate statistics, 6. Aufl., Boston. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  334. Takahashi, S./Owan, H./Tsuru, T./Uehara, K. (2014), Multitasking incentives and biases in subjective performance evaluation (Discussion Paper), S. 1–54, http://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/bitstream/10086/26820/1/DP614.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  335. Tank, A. (2017), Einflussfaktoren und Wirkungen neuronaler Prozesse der Informationsgewichtung, Informationsaufnahme und Informationsverarbeitung in ökonomischen Entscheidungssituationen, Baden-Baden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  336. Tank, A./Müller, F. (2020), Clawbacks und ihre Bedeutung für das Controlling, in: Controlling, 32. Jg., 2020 (4), S. 50-54. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  337. Tappe, K. (2014), Subjektivität in der Leistungsbeurteilung, in: Controlling, 26. Jg., 2014 (8-9), S. 509-512. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  338. Thibaut, J. W./Walker, L. (1975), Procedural justice: A psychological analysis, Hillsdale. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  339. Thiele, V. (2013), Subjective performance evaluations, collusion, and organizational design, in: Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29. Jg., 2013 (1), S. 35-59. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  340. Todd, P./Gigerenzer, G. (2000), Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart, in: Behavioral and Brain Science, 23. Jg., 2000, S. 727-780. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  341. Törnbaum, K./Kazemi, A. (2015), Distributive justice: Revisiting past statements and reflecting on future prospects, in: Cropanzano, R. S./Ambrose, M. L. (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace, 2015, Oxford, S. 15-50. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  342. Tranfield, D./Denyer, D./Smart, P. (2003), Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, in: British Journal of Management, 14. Jg., 2003 (3), S. 207-222. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  343. Tyler, T. R./Bies, R. J. (1990), Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice, in: Carroll, J. S. (Hrsg.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings, 1990, Hillsdale, S. 77-98. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  344. Tyler, T. R./Blader, S. L. (2003), The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior, in: Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7. Jg., 2003 (4), S. 349-361. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  345. Tyler, T. R./Lind, E. A. (1992), A relational model of authority in groups, in: Zanna, M. P. (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 1992, 25. Aufl., San Diego u. a., S. 115-191. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  346. Umphress, E. E./Ren, L. R./Bingham, J. B./Gogus, C. I. (2009), The influence of distributive justice on lying for and stealing from a supervisor, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 86. Jg., 2009 (4), S. 507-518. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  347. van den Bos, K. (2001a), Reactions to perceived fairness: The impact of mortality salience and self-esteem on ratings of negative affect, in: Social Justice Research, 14. Jg., 2001 (1), S. 1-23. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  348. van den Bos, K. (2001b), Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80. Jg., 2001 (6), S. 931-941. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  349. van den Bos, K./Lind, E. A./Vermunt, R./Wilke, H. A. M. (1997), How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72. Jg., 1997 (5), S. 1034-1046. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  350. van den Bos, K./Lind, E. A./Wilke, H. A. M. (2001), The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory, in: Cropanzano, R. S. (Hrsg.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice, 2001, 2. Aufl., Mahwah, S. 49-66. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  351. van den Bos, K./Vermunt, R./Wilke, H. A. M. (1997), Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72. Jg., 1997 (1), S. 95-104. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  352. van den Steen, E. (2002), Skill or luck? Biases of rational agents (Working paper), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=319972, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  353. van Rinsum, M./Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2012), The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation practices on public sector managers’ motivation, in: Accounting and Business Research, 42. Jg., 2012 (4), S. 377-396. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  354. Vecchio, R. P. (1982), The contingent-noncontingent compensation controversy: An attempt at a resolution, in: Human Relations, 35. Jg., 1982 (6), S. 449-462. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  355. Velthuis, L. (2017), Richtige Anreize in der Vorstandsvergütung, in: Controlling and Management Review, 61. Jg., 2017 (9), S. 66-71. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  356. VHB (2020a), JOURQUAL3, S. 1-2, https://vhbonline.org/vhb4you/vhb-jourqual/vhb-jourqual-3, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  357. VHB (2020b), Teilrating Organisation/Personalwesen (JOURQUAL3), S. 1-3, https://vhbonline.org/fileadmin/user_upload/JQ3_ORG_PERS.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  358. VHB (2020c), Teilrating Rechungswesen (JOURQUAL3), S. 1-3, https://vhbonline.org/fileadmin/user_upload/JQ3_RECH.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  359. Villado, A. J./Arthur, W. (2013), The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team performance on a complex task, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 98. Jg., 2013 (3), S. 514-528. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  360. Viswesvaran, C. (2001), Assessment of individual job performance: A review of the past century and a look ahead, in: Anderson, N./Ones, D. S./Sinangil, H. K./Viswesvaran, C. (Hrsg.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, 2001, Thousand Oaks, S. 110-126. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  361. Viswesvaran, C./Ones, D. S. (2002), Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 38. Jg., 2002 (3), S. 193-203. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  362. Viswesvaran, C./Ones, D. S./Schmidt, F. L. (1996), Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 81. Jg., 1996 (5), S. 557-574. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  363. Viswesvaran, C./Schmidt, F. L./Ones, D. S. (2005), Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 90. Jg., 2005 (1), S. 108-131. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  364. Volkswagen AG (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-354, https://www.volkswagenag.com/presence/investorrelation/publications/annual-reports/2020/volkswagen/Y_2019_d.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  365. von Eckardstein, D. (2001), Variable Vergütung für Führungskräfte als Instrument der Unternehmensführung, in: von Eckardstein, D. (Hrsg.), Handbuch variable Vergütung für Führungskräfte, 2001, München, S. 1-26. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  366. von Hoyningen-Huene, G. (1978), Die Billigkeit im Arbeitsrecht, München. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  367. Vonovia SE (2020), Geschäftsbericht 2019, S. 1-290, https://reports.vonovia.de/2019/geschaeftsbericht/_assets/downloads/entire_vonovia_ar19.pdf, [07.01.2021]. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  368. Voußem, L./Kramer, S./Schäffer, U. (2016), Fairness perceptions of annual bonus payments: The effects of subjective performance measures and the achievement of bonus targets, in: Management Accounting Research, 30. Jg., 2016, S. 32-46. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  369. Wall, T. D./Michie, J./Patterson, M./Wood, S. J./Sheehan, M./Clegg, C. W./West, M. (2004), On the validity of subjective measures of company performance, in: Personnel Psychology, 57. Jg., 2004 (1), S. 95-118. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  370. Waller, W. S./Chow, C. W. (1985), The self-selection and effort effects of standard-based employment contracts, in: Accounting Review, 60. Jg., 1985 (3), S. 458. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  371. Weber, E. U./Blais, A.-R./Betz, N. E. (2002), A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors, in: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15. Jg., 2002 (4), S. 263-290. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  372. Weber, J./Bramsemann, U./Heineke, C./Hirsch, B. (2017), Wertorientierte Unternehmenssteuerung, Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  373. Webster, J./Watson, R. T. (2002), Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review, in: Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26. Jg., 2002 (2), S. 13-23. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  374. Wehling, M. (1999), Anreizsysteme im Multi-Level-Marketing: Erscheinungsformen und Gestaltungsoptionen, Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  375. Weiber, R./Mühlhaus, D. (2014), Strukturgleichungsmodellierung: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in die Kausalanalyse mit Hilfe von AMOS, SmartPLS und SPSS, 2. Aufl., Berlin. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  376. Wild, J. (1973), Organisation und Hierarchie, in: Zeitschrift für Organisation, 42. Jg., 1973 (1), S. 45-54. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  377. Willenbacher, P. (2017), Die Gestaltung unternehmerischer Anreizsysteme aus verhaltenswissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  378. Williams, M. L./McDaniel, M. A./Nguyen, N. T. (2006), A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 91. Jg., 2006 (2), S. 392-413. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  379. Wood, S./Braeken, J./Niven, K. (2013), Discrimination and well-being in organizations: Testing the differential power and organizational justice theories of workplace aggression, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 115. Jg., 2013 (3), S. 617-634. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  380. Woods, A. (2012), Subjective adjustments to objective performance measures: The influence of prior performance, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37. Jg., 2012 (6), S. 403-425. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  381. Würdinger, M. (2020), §§315-319, in: Säcker, F. J./Rixecker, R./Oetker, H. (Hrsg.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 2020, 8. Aufl., München, S. 437-494. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  382. Zapata-Phelan, C. P./Colquitt, J. A./Scott, B. A./Livingston, B. (2009), Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108. Jg., 2009 (1), S. 93-105. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  383. Zhao, X./Lynch Jr., J. G./Chen, Q. (2010), Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis, in: Journal of Consumer Research, 37. Jg., 2010 (2), S. 197-206. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327
  384. Zimerman, L./Shalvi, S./Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2014), Self-reported ethical risk taking tendencies predict actual dishonesty, in: Judgment and Decision Making, 9. Jg., 2014 (1), S. 58-64. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748930327

Similar publications

from the series "Controlling und Management"
Cover of book: The Role of Storytelling for Communication in Risk Management
Book Titles No access
Andrea Kampmann
The Role of Storytelling for Communication in Risk Management
Cover of book: Kennzeichnung, Erfassung und Steuerung von Risikokultur
Book Titles No access
Franziska Grieser
Kennzeichnung, Erfassung und Steuerung von Risikokultur
Cover of book: Vertrauen in das Controlling als Informationsquelle und Framing von Informationen in Situationen eskalierender Commitments
Book Titles No access
Joachim Sautter
Vertrauen in das Controlling als Informationsquelle und Framing von Informationen in Situationen eskalierender Commitments
Cover of book: Restwertermittlung in der Unternehmensbewertung
Book Titles Partial access
Evelyn Raths
Restwertermittlung in der Unternehmensbewertung
Cover of book: Executive Compensation
Book Titles No access
Friedrich Kley
Executive Compensation

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex