Page 77 - CITN 2017 Journal

challenge. Accounting performance measures are no more than surrogates for a complex
and dynamic reality. Their selection and fit raises these fundamental measurement issues:
the fragility of the money measurement unit; the limitation of asset values in the context of
imperfect markets; the standardization of accounting syntax; the derivation of accounting
ratios; and the verification and selection of measurements.
Another historical important role that the accountant must change is that of being a brake
on other activities (Cheng, et al 2014)). Thus, most accountants are trained in
implementing controls to ensure that assets are not lost, the accounting staff tends to shoot
down changes proposed by other departments, because the changes will interfere with the
controls. The accounting personnel must understand that changes put forward by other
functions are not intended to disrupt controls, but rather to improve the company's position
in the market place or to increase its efficiency. This means that some controls must be
modified, replaced, or eliminated. It is very helpful for the accounting personnel to have an
open mind about altering systems, even when the new systems interfere with the
accounting staff's system of controls. In today's increasingly competitive environment, it is
very important for companies to develop strong relationships with their key suppliers and
customers. These business partners will demand extra services, some of which must be
fulfilled by the accountant.

3. METHODOLOGY
This study adopts both descriptive and inferential analysis in its investigation of the
association between corporate effectiveness and performance measurement. The study is
designed as a cross sectional survey and utilized the structured questionnaire instrument as
its quantitative tool for the generation of primary data for the study.
The accessible population for this study comprised of 72 top and middle level management
staff of 6 selected quoted multinational companies in Rivers state. 12 from each company
comprising of accountants, finance managers, and departmental heads.
Each variable in the questionnaire is scaled on a 5 – point Likert scale (strongly agree = 5;
agree = 4; undecided = 3; disagree = 2 and strongly disagree = 5) and further measured on a
set of 3 indicators each. All indicators are posted in the positive, allowing for descriptive
assessments based on a criterion benchmark of x = 2.5 where x < 2.5 indicates negative
opinions with respect to the indicators and x > 2.5 indicates substantial levels of
affirmation to the indicators. The Cronbach alpha reliability is adopted in the assessment of
data consistency. Presented in table 1 is the result

Table 1: Reliability results
Variable No. of Items Cronbach alpha
Corporate effectiveness 3 .921
Efficiency 3 .932
Asset Management 3 .892
Productivity 3 .902
Control and Improvement 3 .903

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Analysis
In this section the results for the descriptive analysis on the variables of the study is
presented. The data distribution for all variables (corporate effectiveness, efficiency, asset
management, productivity, control and improvement) is revealed in figure 1.

70