Rosinta Ery Prastuti, Yuswanto Yuswanto


The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of Performance Measurement System to Managerial Performance with mediation variables Role Ambiguity and Psychological Empowerment. This type of research is causality. This research was conducted on non-profit organization that is 7 Private University in Malang. The sample in this study the educational staffequivalent to the manager, the number of samples in this study was 79. The data analysis method used in this study is SEM PLS using WarpPLS 5.0 software. The results of this study indicate that the Performance Measurement System has a positive effect on Managerial Performance through mediation variables Role Ambiguity and Psychological Empowerment. Performance Measurement System has a positive and significant effect on managerial performance. The Performance Measurement System has an indirect relationship with Managerial Performance through Psychological Empowerment. The conclusion is that this study supports the hypothesis developed by Marginson, et al. (2015), but there are some unsupported hypotheses because of the different research objects that each type of organization has different characteristics.


Performance Measurement System; Managerial Performance; Role Ambiguity; Psychological Empowerment

Full Text:



Anthony, R.and Govindarajan. 2012. Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

Banker, R.D., H. Chang., andM. Pizzini. 2002. The Balance Scorecard Judgmental Effect of Performance Measurement Linked to Strategy. British Account- ing Review 79, 1-23

Chenhall, R. H. 2005. Integrative Strategic Performance Measurement System, Strategic Alignment of Manufacturing, Learning and Strategic Outcomes: An Exploratory Study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 395-422.

Cushway, B., and Lodge, D. 1995. Organizational Behaviour And Design. Jakarta: PT Elex Media Komputindo.

Hall, M. 2008. The Effect of Comprehensive Performance Measurement Systems on Role Clarity, Psychological Empowerment and Managerial Performance. Accounting Organizations and Society. ELSEVIER, 141-163.

Kaplan, R. S., andNorton, D. P. 1996. Translating Strategy Into Action The Balance Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Khairiyah, D. 2015. Pengaruh Penggunaan Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja Secara Diagnostik dan Interaktif Terhadap Kinerja Manajerial Dengan Variabel Mediasi Ambiguitas Peran dan Pemberdayaan Psikologis.Tesis, Universitas Gajah Mada. Yogyakarta.

Kreitner, R., and Kinicki, A. 2014. Perilaku Organisasi. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

Latan, H., and Ghozali, I. 2017. Partial Least Squares. Konsep, Metode dan Aplikasi Menggunakan Program WarpPLS 5.0. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Undip.

Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., and Carroll, S. J. 1963. Development of Managerial Performance: A Research Approach.Cincinnati: South Western Publ. Co.

Marginson, D., McAulay, L., Roush, M., and Zijl, T. v. 2014. Examining a Positive Psychological Role for Performance.Management Accounting Research. ELSEVIER, 63-75.

Meyerson, S.L. and Kline, T.J.B. 2008. Psychological and Environmental Empowerment: Antecedents and Consequences.Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29(5), 444-460.

Rahman, S., Nasir, H. M., and Handayani, H. R. 2007. Pengaruh Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja Terhadap Kejelasan Peran, Pemberdayaan Psikologis dan Kinerja Manajerial. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi X. Makasar.

Sartika, D. 2017. Analisis Pengaruh Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja Terhadap Kinerja Manajerial Melalui Kejelasan Peran dan Pemberdayaan Psikologis sebagai Variebel Moderating.Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan 8, 1-15.

Sawyer, J. E. 1992. Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs of Role Ambiguity and a Structural Equation Model of Their Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 130-142.

Seputra, Y. E. 2014. Manajemen dan Perilaku Organisasi. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological Empowerment In The Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal 38, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 39 (2), 483-504. S

preitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A.,and Nason, S. W. 1997. A Dimensional Analysis of The Relationship Between Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness, Satisfaction, and Strain.Journal of Management 23, 679-704.

Thomas, K. W., andVelthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy of Management Review 15, 666-681.



  • There are currently no refbacks.