Evaluating Performance When Comparing Various Divisions

Evaluating Performancewhen Comparing Various Divisions Within A Compan

When comparing divisions within a company, evaluating performance can be challenging if different accounting methods are employed across divisions. This is because discrepancies in accounting practices can lead to skewed analysis and inaccurate comparisons, ultimately compromising the fairness and usefulness of performance assessments. Different methods may distort profitability, asset valuation, and cost measurement, making it difficult to assess true operational performance across divisions. Additionally, setting uniform benchmarks becomes problematic if divisions use varying standards, leading to potentially unattainable or misleading targets. The choice of accounting method can also influence reported profits through factors like inventory valuation, depreciation, and revenue recognition, skewing internal assessments and decision-making processes.

Examples of Accounting Methods That Cause Divisions’ Profits to Differ

The first example involves inventory valuation methods, specifically FIFO (First-In, First-Out) and LIFO (Last-In, First-Out). FIFO assumes that the oldest inventory is sold first, often resulting in higher reported profits during periods of rising prices because the remaining inventory is valued at more recent, higher costs. Conversely, LIFO assigns the most recent costs to cost of goods sold, which tends to lower profits during inflationary periods because the latest, more expensive inventory is expensed first. This fundamental difference impacts both inventory valuation and profit calculation, causing discrepancies between divisions using these methods.

Secondly, the choice between cash basis accounting and accrued basis accounting can significantly influence profit reporting. Cash basis accounting records revenues and expenses only when cash is received or paid, simplifying cash flow tracking but potentially misrepresenting profitability during periods of credit sales and purchases. Accrual basis accounting, on the other hand, recognizes revenues when earned and expenses when incurred, providing a more accurate picture of financial health over time. When divisions employ different methods, comparisons of profitability become problematic because the timing and recognition of revenues and expenses differ, distorting performance metrics.

The third example pertains to depreciation methods, such as straight-line depreciation versus units-of-production depreciation. Straight-line depreciation allocates an equal expense over the asset’s useful life, providing consistency and simplicity. In contrast, units-of-production depreciation matches expenses to actual usage, which can fluctuate significantly from period to period. Divisions using these different depreciation strategies report varying net income figures, especially when assets are utilized differently or wear out at different rates. These differences influence profitability assessments, potentially leading to unfair comparisons if not properly adjusted or standardized.

Conclusion

In conclusion, when evaluating divisions within a company, the use of differing accounting methods can pose substantial challenges to accurate performance assessment. Variations in inventory valuation, revenue recognition, and depreciation methods notably impact reported profits and asset values, often leading to misleading comparisons. To ensure fairness and meaningful evaluations, organizations should consider aligning accounting practices across divisions or implementing standardized metrics that account for these differences. Ultimately, understanding and adjusting for the effects of diverse accounting methods is essential for making informed, equitable management decisions and accurately measuring division performance.

References

• Dearden, J. (2017). The Case Against ROI Control. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org
• Koenig, J., & Nick, S. (2004). ROI selling: Increasing revenue, profit, and customer loyalty through the 360 sales cycle. Journal of Business and Management.
• Schneider, R. (2012). Financial Statements and Earnings Quality. Journal of Financial Reporting.
• Gordon, L. A., & Haskins, M. E. (2018). Financial Accounting Theory. Pearson.
• Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. (2015). Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis. Pearson.
• Anthony, R., & Govindarajan, V. (2015). Management Control Systems. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Heising, A., & Van Horne, J. C. (2019). Principles of Financial Accounting. Wiley.
• Weygandt, J. J., Kimmel, P. D., & Kieso, D. E. (2019). Financial Accounting. Wiley.
• Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2017). Fundamentals of Financial Management. Cengage Learning.
• Choi, F. D. S., & Meek, G. K. (2011). International Financial Reporting. Pearson.