See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349279946

Exploring performance measurement practices in Brazilian startups

Article  in  Total Quality Management and Business Excellence · February 2021

DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2021.1884063

CITATIONS READS

4 599

5 authors, including:

Maria Angélica Silva Costa Guilherme Corredato Guerino

Universidade Estadual de Maringá Universidade Estadual de Maringá
4 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gislaine Camila Lapasini Leal Renato Balancieri

Universidade Estadual de Maringá Universidade Estadual de Maringá
96 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS IN INDUSTRIES: A BIBLIOMETRIC REVIEW View project

Fortalecimento da competitividade das micro e pequenas empresas através do uso das Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guilherme Corredato Guerino on 13 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Exploring performance measurement practices in

Brazilian startups

Maria Angélica Silva Costa , Guilherme Corredato Guerino , Gislaine Camila

Lapasini Leal , Renato Balancieri & Edwin Vladimir Cardoza Galdamez

To cite this article: Maria Angélica Silva Costa , Guilherme Corredato Guerino , Gislaine
Camila Lapasini Leal , Renato Balancieri & Edwin Vladimir Cardoza Galdamez (2021): Exploring
performance measurement practices in Brazilian startups, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2021.1884063

Published online: 12 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2021.1884063

Exploring performance measurement practices in Brazilian startups

Maria Angélica Silva Costaa, Guilherme Corredato Guerino a, Gislaine Camila
Lapasini Leal a, Renato Balancieri ab* and Edwin Vladimir Cardoza Galdamez a

a
State University of Maringá, Maringá, Brazil; bState University of Paraná, Apucarana, Brazil

This study investigates the influence of perceived environmental uncertainty by the

manager and the performance measurement through financial and non-financial
indicators on startups’ performance. Our study was carried out through a survey sent
to startups registered in the Brazilian Startup Association (ABStartups), and the
sample used in the data analysis is composed of 103 startups. Our results indicate
that financial indicators assist managers in the assessment of startups’ reality and
contribute to their perceived performance. On the other hand, non-financial
indicators and perceived environmental uncertainty did not have influence.
Moderating effects of perceived environmental uncertainty in the relationship
between performance measurement and performance were also investigated. In this
case, we observed that the perceived environmental uncertainty by entrepreneurs did
not influence on startups’ performance and significant use of financial indicators to
improve decision making. However, the relationship between non-financial
indicators and performance, moderated by environmental uncertainty, became more
reliable for the decision-making process of strategies adopted by startups.
Keywords: perceived environmental uncertainty; performance measurement;
performance; startup

1. Introduction
The technological advancement, the knowledge network and competitiveness cause sig-
nificant and fast transformations in the business environment, which lead to entrepreneur-
ial opportunities and also raise trends that influence companies context. When companies
are faced with this reality, they seek to adapt and become more flexible to face changes in
the business environment.
A company need to present a differentiated product/service that meets the customers’
demand. Besides, a company needs to generate value with their product/service. In this
sense, startups, seeking to create commercial value, develop a business model from
which explains the aimed market, supply sources and how the startup is inserted in the
value chain (Lubik & Garnsey, 2016). Blank and Dorf (2012) define a startup as a temporary
organisation in search of a replicable, scalable and profitable business model. Still, Zábojník
(2020) states startups are the type of company that seek to develop new ideas efficiently.
However, according to Sebrae (2016), startups have low survival rates in the market. Entre-
preneurs point out some factors that contribute to failures, such as high expenses, financial
problems, organisational incapacity and lack of demand (Sebrae, 2016).
In this perspective, management controls assist startups, which have implications for
the future success of these companies (Davila et al., 2009). The information generated
by instruments can be used to assess business performance and determine their profit

*Corresponding author. Email: renato.balancieri@unespar.edu.br

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 M.A.S. Costa et al.

(Davila et al., 2010). Performance measurement is considered a fundamental element of

management controls and is defined as the process of quantifying the action (Neely
et al., 1995; Slack et al., 2014). To develop this process, the organisation environment,
their needs, goals, and objectives must be considered (Franco-Santos et al., 2012).
Besides, indicators used to measure performance guide entrepreneurs on the startup
reality, since entrepreneurs generally have a biased look for their business and are
unable to direct an accurate assessment (Read et al., 2009).
There are differences in accounting and management control practices between com-
panies that operate in the traditional environment and companies present in the new
economy characterised by significant uncertainties and rapid growth (Granlund &
Taipaleenmäki, 2005). Startups have an uncertainty regarding the acceptability of their
product or service, revealing that organisational performance is influenced by economic
and environmental conditions where they operate (Cassar, 2014; Read et al., 2009).
Besides, instability of the external environment impacts organisation strategies and
affects performance measurement, because they are linked (Melnyk et al., 2014). Thus,
configurations of management control systems and management instruments in startups
are field to be explored (Davila et al., 2015). Furthermore, Llorach and Ottosson (2016)
point out the existence of a visible gap in the literature on startups and performance
measurement. Considering that startups are different from traditional companies, studies
in this area are incipient, which brings the contribution of our research to provide a
better understanding of performance measurement in startups. We intend to contribute
to this research gap through the empirical results of the relationships between performance
measurement and organisational performance, considering the environmental uncertainty
of startups’ context. Formally, we present the following research question:

. What is the influence of perceived environmental uncertainty and performance

measurement on the perceived performance of startups?

Therefore, the goal of our research is to investigate the influence of perceived environ-
mental uncertainty and performance measurement based on financial and non-financial
indicators on the perceived performance of startups. We developed a survey and sent it
to startups registered in the Brazilian Startup Association (ABStartup). A sample of 103
startups was obtained, which contributed to the data analysis.
Our results reveal that financial indicators have an impact on the startups’ performance,
while non-financial indicators and environmental uncertainty do not influence perform-
ance. Besides, there was a weakening in the relationship between financial indicators
and performance, when moderated by environmental uncertainty.
The remainder of our paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the research
theoretical-empirical background; Section 3 shows the methodological design used;
Section 4 describes the analysis and discussion of the data obtained; Section 5 addresses
final considerations.

2. Theoretical-Empirical background
2.1. Performance measurement practices in startups
Performance measurement is the process of measuring, collecting, tracking and analysing
data with the primary goal of improving the company’s performance (Sink & Tuttle, 1993).
In this sense, characteristics related to the capacity for entrepreneurship and the business
environment are linked to the result of the business performance (Quy & Hai, 2020). Thus,
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 3

performance measurement is a fundamental approach to assess the company’s success, the

goals achievement and the strategies definition, being composed of financial and non-
financial indicators used at different organisational levels (Ferreira & Otley, 2009).
Some studies were identified that verified the performance measurement in startups or
entrepreneurial contexts. Reis (2017) investigated factors related to more success in
healthcare startups. Besides, the author also verified which are the most suitable
indicators to measure the performance of healthcare startups. Several interviews were
carried out with entrepreneurs and results reveal that in healthcare startups, reasonable
control and planning, a capable team, product/service differentiation, staff knowledge
and capacity, adaptability and strategic partnerships are factors that influence success.
Moreover, entrepreneurs classified the number of customers, customer satisfaction, deliv-
ery of the agreed deadline, the amount of bureaucracy, the satisfaction of staff and the
achievement of desired goals as the most appropriate performance indicators for healthcare
context. Results demonstrate that most suitable indicators for healthcare startups are non-
financial.
Croll and Yoskovitz (2013) present a list of more appropriate indicators, grouping them
by startups types. The list was used by Rompho (2018) to investigate the use of perform-
ance indicators, the perceived importance and the startups’ performance. Before data col-
lection, Rompho (2018) verified the list’s comprehensiveness through interviews with
entrepreneurs. Thus, the author added indicators related to revenue, expenses and profit.
Indicators used by product or service type offered by startups are demonstrated in Table 1.
The analysis of research related to measurement and performance indicators in startups
revealed a gap since this type of business model is influenced by environmental uncertain-
ties that, consequently, affect the startup’s performance.

2.2. Perceived environmental uncertainty

A company is composed of physical factors that contribute to the organisation’s decision
making, and the environment is seen as a multidimensional construction (Duncan, 1972;
Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). The relationship between multi-dimensions and environmental
changes generates turbulence, which triggers environmental uncertainty (Emery & Trist,
1965). Dynamics of environment deals with elements of decision making that are
changed continuously and, due to the dynamism, organisations need to adapt (Duncan,
1972). Therefore, it is opportune to discuss environmental uncertainty precisely when
decision making depends on the environment to come since the future environment or
the effect of the decision is unknown (Ghosh et al., 2014).
There are several concepts and approaches to perceived environmental uncertainty,
and, according to Freel (2005), perceptions of uncertainty are different for manufacturing
and service companies that consider innovation. Therefore, Matthews and Human (2004)
described three types of uncertainties related to entrepreneurial business activities, which
are: (i) financial, which refers to the possibility of the entrepreneur to obtain or not financial
resources to leverage the business; (ii) competitive, which concerns the insecurity of oper-
ating in a competitive environment that hinders the success or survival of the business; and
(iii) operational, which is related to the identification of the best team or physical configur-
ations to produce.
The perception of environment uncertainty affects the structure, the process, and poss-
ibly the performance. However, according to Huber et al. (1975), environmental uncer-
tainty can be controlled administratively, i.e. modifying the perceived uncertainty can
become a mechanism to change organisational characteristics that impact the result.
4 M.A.S. Costa et al.

Table 1. Operational performance indicators for startups (Rompho, 2018).

Software as a
E-commerce Service (SaaS) Mobile app
Conversion rate Cost of customer Downloads
acquisition
Abandonment Revenue per customer Expenses
Average shopping cart size Profit Launch rate
Profit Conversion Profit
Top keywords driving traffic to the site Attention Customer lifetime value
Top search items Expenses Virality
Purchases per year Enrollment Percentage of active users
Mailing list effectiveness Stickiness Churn rate
Revenue Virality Cost of customer acquisition
Virality Revenue Revenue
Expenses Upselling Percentage of users who pay
Cost of customer acquisition Ratings click through
Revenue per customer Time to first purchase
Effectiveness of recommendation Monthly average revenue per
engines user

Media Sites User-generated content Two-sided marketplace

Audience and churn Content creation Buyers and sellers growth
Mailing list effectiveness Number of engaged Profit
visitors
Ad rates Profit Conversion funnels
Content/advertising balance Value of creation content Pricing metrics
Ad inventory Content sharing and Revenue
virality
Engagement funnel Search effectiveness
changes
Notification effectiveness Rating and signs of fraud
Revenue Expenses
Expenses Inventory growth

Startups are inserted in an environment characterised by the inherent uncertainty in this

type of company. The approach used in this paper takes the position that startups, when
they perceive environmental uncertainty, tend to use performance measurement more
intensively. Consequently, the environmental uncertainty variable can behave differently
in the perception of each startup manager, which can cause different ways to practice per-
formance measurement and generate effects on the startup’s performance. Therefore, this
paper proposes to determine if the perceived environmental uncertainty influences the per-
formance measurement and the perceived performance of startups.

2.3. Theoretical-Empirical hypotheses of research

Performance measurement systems are fundamental for management control and assist in
the efficiency and effectiveness of organisations (Hoque, 2014; Munir & Baird, 2016). Per-
formance measurement should present a balance of financial and non-financial indicators
(Neely et al., 2002), since this combination is essential to evidence the organisation’s per-
formance (Banker et al., 2000; Hoque, 2014; Hoque & James, 2000; Ittner & Larcker,
1997). Sofiyabadi et al. (2016) show that financial aspects are the most used in perform-
ance measurement practice. However, to be a relevant performance measurement
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 5

system, it must have a list of key indicators and identify the relationships between the indi-
cators and the impact on business (Taticchi & Balachandran, 2008). Besides, some studies
of contemporary performance measurement systems point out the existence of a positive
effect between financial performance measurement and performance (Banker et al.,
2000; Crabtree & DeBusk, 2008). Thus, the hypothesis was elaborated:

. H1: The use of financial performance indicators positively influences the perceived
performance of startups.

According to Malmi and Brown (2008), non-financial indicators can help identify
deficiencies that affect performance. Perramon et al. (2016) show that non-financial
aspects assist the organisation in creating value. Stede et al. (2006) reveal organisations,
when including non-financial indicators, achieved higher performance. Besides, high-
tech companies use several non-financial indicators, since these companies are focused
on developing new products, entering new markets, and obtaining financing (Kremer,
2013). In this sense, we elaborated the following hypothesis:

. H2: The use of non-financial performance indicators positively influences the per-
ceived performance of startups.

Environmental uncertainties can influence the organisation’s performance. It is man-

agement’s responsibility to identify and interpret the environment in the best possible
way. However, when managers do not perceive environmental uncertainty, it becomes
challenging to minimise the effects on the organisation, affecting the management pro-
cess’s effectiveness. This effect can influence positively or negatively the performance
of the organisation. Therefore, the organisation’s relationship with the external environ-
ment is characterised as a factor of growth and continuity. Regarding environmental uncer-
tainty, it is considered as a singular phenomenon in which there are no past events to base
and predict future events. Ghosh et al. (2014) point out the environment influences the
organisations’ performance, and the perceived environmental uncertainty by startups’
managers generates an impact on decision making, in search of competitive advantage
and better performance. Therefore, we elaborated the following hypothesis:

. H3: Perceived environmental uncertainty influences the startup’s perceived performance.

Financial information in an environment of low uncertainty is capable of adequately

reflecting organisational performance (Choo Huang et al., 2010). However, according to
Choo Huang et al. (2010), in an environment where there is higher uncertainty, a more
comprehensive and detailed scope of both financial and non-financial information is
necessary to present a direction for the future.
The type of indicator used to measure performance is environmentally determined, i.e.
when higher the uncertainty levels, more emphasis on non-financial indicators will be pro-
vided, and, more significant difficulties the company faces, higher the uncertainty the
company has (Hoque, 2004). For Chenhall (2003), the more uncertain the environment,
the more managers need sophisticated performance measurement information to face
uncertainty and assist in making appropriate decisions. Therefore, the following hypoth-
eses were developed:
6 M.A.S. Costa et al.

. H4: There is a moderating effect of perceived environmental uncertainty in perform-

ance measurement and perceived startup performance. It is a research hypothesis
aimed to verify if:
. H4a: There is a moderating effect of perceived environmental uncertainty in the
relationship between financial indicators and the perceived performance of startup;
. H4b: There is a moderating effect of perceived environmental uncertainty in the
relationship between non-financial indicators and the perceived performance of
startup.

3. Methodological design
3.1. Research constructs and variables
Kemell et al. (2020) show that more than a hundred metrics are being used for measure-
ment in the context of startups. Variables investigated in our paper are presented in
Table 2. Constructs related to the latent variables are: (i) contingency factor (theoretical
approach), related to the uncertainties present in the context of startups, defined as financial
uncertainty, competitive uncertainty, and operational uncertainty; (ii) performance
measurement (operational approach), which can be financial indicators related to the
business situation based on monetary metrics, and non-financial indicators related to cus-
tomers, users, and human resources; and (iii) perceived performance, related to the
business perspective generated by the CEO or founder of the company. Besides, observed
variables for each latent variable and their references are shown.

Table 2. Variables investigated in the research.

Latent Variables Observed Variables Reference
Financial Obtaining initial capital; Obtaining Adapted from: Matthews and
Uncertainty intellectual capital; Obtaining financing; Scott (1995); Matthews and
Obtaining venture capital. Human (2004).
Competitive Attracting customers; Compete with other
Uncertainty companies; Complying with local, state
and federal regulations; Emergence of new
competitors; Existing competition
fortification.
Operational Obtaining raw materials; Attracting
Uncertainty employers; Deal with distributors;
Opening new markets
Financial Revenues; Growth; Average Ticket; Adapted from: Cauvin and
Indicators Profitability; Marketing Investment; Burn Bescos (2002); Reis (2017);
Rate; Financial Default; Investment; Rompho (2018).
Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC); Life
Time Value (LTV); Return on Investment
(ROI).
Non-Financial Customer Satisfaction; Customers Adapted from: Cauvin and
Indicators Conversion; Qualified Leads; Monthly Bescos (2002); Reis (2017);
Active Users; Churn; Claims; On-time Rompho (2018).
Support; Effectiveness; Employee
Training; Virality; Turnover; Rework.
Perceived Expected Return on Investment; Current Adapted from: Cassar (2014);
Performance Performance Expectation; Future and Miranda et al. (2016)
Current Performance.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 7

3.2. Research planning strategies

The approach used by the research was quantitative since, by defining study constructs, we
verified relationships between the constructs through quantitative techniques. To achieve
the proposed goal, we used a questionnaire as a data collection technique. In this sense, the
study is characterised as a survey, considered adequate when seeking to answer questions
about the distribution of a variable or relationships between characteristics of people,
groups or organisations (Martins & Theóphilo, 2017). Questions in the survey may
contain personal aspects, data on behaviour, data on the environment, measurements
and expectations (Martins & Theóphilo, 2017). Responses are structured based on the
respondent’s perception without interference from the researcher in the data collection
phase. A Likert scale was used as a quantitative scale (Cooper & Schindler, 2016).

3.3. Elaboration of the research instrument and data collection technique

The questionnaire was adapted from surveys conducted by Cassar (2014), Cauvin and
Bescos (2002), Matthews and Human (2004), Miranda et al. (2016), Reis (2017) and
Rompho (2018), and is divided into five blocks: (1) financial and non-financial indicators;
(2) perceived environmental uncertainty; (3) perceived performance; (4) startup qualifica-
tion; and (5) respondent profile.
The financial indicators approach was composed of a question with eleven items (FI1,
FI2, FI3, FI4, FI5, FI6, FI7, FI8, FI9, FI10, and FI11). These items could be answered with
a single response using the five-point Likert scale, where (1) represented ‘not used’, and (5)
‘always used’. The approach to non-financial indicators was composed of a question with
twelve items (NFI1, NFI2, NFI3, NFI4, NFI5, NFI6, NFI7, NFI8, NFI9, NFI10, NFI11,
and NFI12). These items could also be answered using the same scale described above.
To assess the perceived environmental uncertainty, the questionnaire was based on the
financial, competitive and operational uncertainties proposed by Matthews and Human
(2004) for startups, comprising a question with eleven items (PEU1, PEU2, PEU3,
PEU4, PEU5, PEU6, PEU7, PEU8, PEU9, PEU10, and PEU11). These items could be
answered by a five-point Likert scale to identify respondents’ perception of environmental
uncertainty, being (1) the representation for less uncertainty, and (5) for higher uncertainty.
Blocks on startup qualification and respondent profile were composed of overall ten
questions, with options for answers to each question. These blocks helped to identify start-
ups and respondents’ characteristics, intending to analyse and classify them.

3.4. Pre-test
The pre-test was carried out to improve the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, in
addition to obtaining the certainty that goals would be measured (Martins & Theóphilo,
2017). There are several reasons for performing the pre-test: aiming to reduce possible fail-
ures; anticipate the respondents’ reactions when reading questions; when using questions
from other studies, check if they are adequate for the current study; verify if definitions of
some terms are known to the respondent; verify the questionnaire fluidity; and the
sequence of questions. The pre-test is considered the final step to improve the survey
before starting data collection (Cooper & Schindler, 2016).
The pre-test was carried out in two stages. First, the questionnaire was transcribed on
Google Docs and sent via e-mail to three executive directors (CEOs), to identify the clarity
and understanding of issues. The second stage consisted of applying the questionnaire with
a founder of a startup located at a Technological Incubator to identify if the terms used in
8 M.A.S. Costa et al.

the questionnaire were familiar; if questions had ambiguities; and if the questionnaire
response time was appropriate.
We accepted the suggestions performed by the CEO’s and the founder, mainly regard-
ing the items (name, objective, formula and units) related to performance indicators. The
enhanced version of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.

3.5. Population and sample

To define startups that participated in the study, it was necessary to use a database with data
referring to startups located in Brazil. The Brazilian Startups Association (ABStartups) has
a database with the profile of active registered startups, which is updated every month.
ABStartup’s database has more than 13 thousand registered startups distributed throughout
Brazil. From the total, 45% are in the Southeast region, 17% in South, 8% in Northeast, 5%
in Midwest, 3% in North, and 24% did not inform the region.
According to Hair et al. (2009), it is possible to collect information from all individuals
in the population. However, due to the time and cost used, this type of collection is not
viable. Thus, a smaller set of the population is considered, called sample. Cooper and
Schindler (2016) elucidate the idea of sample consists of generalising conclusions about
a population from data collected in their samples. Thus, we selected 287 startups who
had contact registered in the database to participate in our research. However, only 125
startups returned. Still, some of the startups did not answer completely, totalling 103 ques-
tionnaires answered thoroughly. Table 3 shows some characteristics of the startups that
participated in the study.
Regarding the level of education, we identified that 35.92% of respondents completed
higher education and 33.01% post-graduate. Therefore, 68.93% of the sample have

Table 3. Sample characterisation.

Startups 103
Number of co-founders 2 50
3 29
Only 1 17
4 6
5 or more 1
Number of collaborators Between 0 and 2 33
Above 8 or more 29
Between 2 and 4 20
Between 4 and 6 13
Other 5
Between 6 and 8 3
Stage Construction 45
Customer Creation 39
Validation 17
Discovery 2
Type Software as a Service (SaaS) 60
Others 21
Mobile Application 11
Two-Sided Marketplaces 5
e-Commerce 3
User-Generated Content 2
Media Sites 1
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 9

academic qualifications, following the study by Reis (2017), where most were post-gradu-
ated. Regarding the location of startups, we identified that most respondents were located
in São Paulo (25.71%), Curitiba (6.67%) and Porto Alegre (5.71%).
Concerning the number of co-founders, most of the sample has 2 co-founders, with
48.5%, followed by startups with 3 co-founders who represent 28.2% of the sample.
Besides to co-founders and founders of startups, most respondents have up to 2
employees on the work team, which corresponds to 32% of the sample. Then, startups
that have teams with 8 or more employees are second, with a percentage of 28.1% of
the sample.
Regarding the existence time of startups, results reveal 34% of startups are more than 3
years old, 23% are between 1 and 2 years old, 20% are between 2 and 3 years old, 18%
between 6 months and 1 year, and 5% are less than 6 months old. Therefore, 66% of
the sample has an existence of up to 3 years, in line with one of the recurring characteristics
presented by Sutton (2000), who approaches that startups are relatively new because they
have little accumulated experience or history.
Concerning the startups’ stage, more than 80% of the sample is after the client’s
validation. According to Blank and Dorf (2012), this is the moment when the
startup has achieved a validated, repeatable and scalable business model. Results
also revealed only 1.9% of startups were in the discovery phase. These results are
due to the fact that when some CEO’s of startups who did not participate in our
study received the questionnaire, they claimed could not answer because they had
not yet validated the idea.
Types of startups in the sample were verified. Results reveal 58.3% of startups are Soft-
ware as a Service (SaaS) type, followed by Others (legal services, real estate services, con-
sultancy) represented by 20.4%, and startups from mobile applications, with 10.7% of
findings. In Rompho (2018), the author obtained a larger sample for Two-Sided Market-
places, SaaS and e-Commerce types. Thus, we observed that SaaS is a common type of
startup.
Still, we extracted sectors in which the startups are inserted, as indicated by the survey
respondents. The most returned startups are from the Technology (17%), Retail (12%), and
Education and Culture (10%) sectors. Only one startup is in the construction and engineer-
ing sector.

3.6. Data collection procedure

The procedures for data collection were:

(a) Gathering of startups through the ABStartup base, with registration information
such as name, telephone number, CEO and founder;
(b) Choice of respondents, CEOs or founders, who could answer questions related to
research variables. If we had more than one answer per startup, we considered the
company’s highest position, the founder. Being only one answer per startup, we
took the care to collect data from people representing the startup’s business vision;
(c) Phone contact, inviting respondents to participate in the survey, requesting e-mail
and informing time to complete the questionnaire;
(d) Sending the cover letter and questionnaire link to e-mails collected by phone;
(e) When contact by phone was not possible, the connection was established through
social networks LinkedIn and Facebook. We sent messages with the questionnaire
link to respondents’ profiles, inviting them to participate in the survey.
10 M.A.S. Costa et al.

3.7. Data Treatment and analysis

To achieve the goal proposed by our research and verify the hypotheses identified through
the theoretical-empirical basis, we performed descriptive statistic and Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM). Descriptive statistic was used to organise, condense and describe the
data obtained. Through the construction of graphs, tables and figures from numerical
data, the descriptive statistic is better understood within a set of analyses (Martins &
Theóphilo, 2017). Thus, the descriptive statistic was used to designate the profile and
qualification of respondents and startups, in addition to describing characteristics of
constructs. We used Stata 13 software to support the analysis.
To evaluate our hypotheses, SEM was applied, adjusting it using the Partial Least
Squares method (PLS). PLS is suitable for assessing relationships between constructs or
latent variables, maximising the variation explained in variables, as well as assessing
the data quality based on characteristics of measurement model (Hair et al., 2013).
Thus, the PLS-SEM model consists of two stages of analysis: (i) the measurement
model (external), which through the combination of several items that compose a scale
(observable variables), it is possible to measure, indirectly, the abstract concept of interest
(latent variable) (Hair et al., 2013); and (ii) the structural model (internal), which assesses
interest relationships (paths) between latent variables.
In the measurement model, we assessed the convergent validity, checking whether
indicators have a typical high variance. For this purpose, we user factor loads, in addition
to measures of average variance (Average Variance Extracted - AVE), composite
reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s Alpha (CA). We also verified the discriminant validity
of the model, i.e. the ability of the construct to distinguish from others truly. Thus, we
observed whether variables were not strongly related to another construct, comparing
the correlation value of constructs with the square root of AVE (Hair et al., 2013).
In assessing the quality of the structural model, we considered the Pearson’s deter-
mination coefficient (R2), which assesses the portion of the endogenous variance
explained by the structural model. We also considered values of other model
quality indicators: the Stone-Geisser indicator or predictive validity (Q²); the Cohen
indicator or effect size ( f²); and the Standardised Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR). Besides, the hypotheses evaluation was carried out by the Student’s t-test
using the bootstrapping procedure, with a significance level of 5%, and the path
diagram construction, which presents hypotheses and relationships between variables.
We performed analyses with the SmartPLS 3.2.7 software for the structural equation
model.

4. Data analysis and discussion

4.1. Startup performance measurement
The descriptive analysis of the research instrument elucidated the distribution frequency of
the startup performance measurement construct regarding the use of Financial and Non-
Financial Indicators, using a five-point Likert scale. Thus, values close to 5 indicated
more meaningful use of the indicator presented for performance measurement.
The question in Block 1 presented 11 financial indicators as part of the performance
measurement of startups, which are: Revenues, Growth, Average Ticket, Profitability,
Marketing Investment, Burn Rate, Financial Default, Investment, Customer Acquisition
Cost (CAC), Life Time Value (LTV), and Return on Investment (ROI). We observed
the studied startups, on average, use financial indicators to measure performance.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 11

Revenues indicator is the most used, in 83.5% of startups and 91.3% of startups when
grouped in the range of the 4–5 scale. Next are Growth (63.1%) and Average Ticket
(59.2%). Both presented high frequencies on scale 5, which infers the high use of these
indicators. The least adopted is LTV, with 22.3% of responses at intensity 5. In LTV, start-
ups that do not use it correspond to 20.4% of responses.
Moreover, in Block 1, 12 non-financial indicators are presented, which are: Customer Sat-
isfaction, Customers Conversion, Qualified Leads, Monthly Active Users, Churn, Claims, On-
time Support, Effectiveness, Employee Training, Virality, Turnover, and Rework.
The indicator with the highest utilisation is Customer Satisfaction, with 47.57% on
scale 5 and sample mode 5. Other indicators that have a high rate of use are Monthly
Active Users (44.66%), Customers Conversion (40.78%), Churn (39.81%), and Qualified
Leads (37.86%). This result confirms those of Reis (2017), where indicators most valued
by entrepreneurs are those related to the customer’s perspective, such as satisfaction. In the
results of Cauvin and Bescos (2002), customer satisfaction was also one of the non-finan-
cial indicators most used by startups and traditional companies.
The least used indicators are Rework, Effectiveness, Employee Training, and Virality.
These results are consistent with those of Davila and Foster (2005), where the assessment
of human resources showed less frequency in adoption compared to other control systems.
Besides, Davila and Foster (2005) reveal that human resource systems are adopted more
slowly for startups that have financial planning systems.
We verified that obtaining risk capital presents 3.39 average points, a scale value that
indicates more considerable perceived uncertainty. Then, obtaining financing and obtain-
ing initial capital represent the second and third positions, with 3.33 and 3.11 midpoints,
respectively. These uncertainties characterise the financial uncertainty in the Matthews and
Human (2004) classification. Regarding the perceived performance by respondents, start-
ups perceive their performance positively, since all items that compose the performance
construct obtained between 3.48–4.35 average points and sampling mode 4 or 5.

4.2. Structural equation model

First, we verified the data normality through the evaluation of asymmetry and kurtosis
measures. Table 4 demonstrates that all values obtained for the asymmetry coefficient are
less than 3, in absolute value. When evaluating the kurtosis coefficient, we did not observe
values over limit 10, in absolute value. Most of the values present negative values, indicating
platicurtic distributions, i.e. responses present less concentration at their peak to the expected
for normal distribution, with heavy tails. Therefore, according to criteria of Marôco (2010), the
data are characterised as normal because they do not exceed limits 3 and 10, in absolute values,
for asymmetry and kurtosis coefficients, respectively.
The proposed structural equation model is organised according to the path diagram
illustrated in Figure 1. Then, the results of the structural equations model, adjusted by
the PLS method, are presented divided between (i) measurement model, which assesses
the adequacy of indicators for the measurement of latent variables, and (ii) structural
model, which assesses relationships between dependent and independent variables.

4.2.1. Measurement model

First, the convergent validity of the measurement model was evaluated, checking whether
indicators had a high variance in common. For this purpose, we used factorial loads in
addition to measures of average variance extracted (AVE), Composite Reliability (CR),
and Cronbach’s Alpha (AC).
 12

Table 4. Asymmetry and kurtosis of research participants responses to the proposed instrument.
M.A.S. Costa et al.

Perceived Environmental
Uncertainty Financial Indicators Non-financial Indicators Performance
Question Asy. Kurt. Question Asy. Kurt. Question Asy. Kurt. Question Asy. Kurt.
PEU1 −0.02 −0.72 FI1 −1.37 0.65 NF1 −0.15 −1.20 PER1 −0.46 −0.64
PEU2 0.18 −0.78 FI2 −1.48 1.01 NF2 −0.27 −1.31 PER2 −0.33 −0.97
PEU3 0.59 −0.39 FI3 −0.39 −1.40 NF3 −0.64 −0.93 PER3 −1.30 1.52
PEU4 −0.17 −1.27 FI4 −1.29 0.40 NF4 −0.79 −0.55 PER4 −0.48 −0.23
PEU5 −0.27 −1.16 FI5 −3.05 8.87 NF5 −0.83 −0.67
PEU6 −0.17 −1.27 FI6 −0.29 −1.08 NF6 −0.44 −1.33
PEU7 0.28 −0.83 FI7 −0.01 −1.27 NF7 0.89 −0.53
PEU8 0.44 −0.88 FI8 −0.12 −1.49 NF8 0.49 −1.10
PEU9 0.31 −1.36 FI9 −0.47 −1.12 NF9 0.96 −0.39
PEU10 0.07 −1.06 FI10 −0.33 −1.12 NF10 0.74 −0.91
PEU11 0.09 −0.86 FI11 −0.02 −1.66 NF11 −0.60 −1.24
NF12 0.81 −0.79
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 13

Figure 1. Proposed PLS structural equations model.

Some factorial loads obtained for observed variables, to their respective latent variables,
have values below the minimum of 0.50, suggested by Hair et al. (2009) and Marôco (2010),
i.e. for such indicators, less than 50% of the indicator’s variance is reflected by construct.
Thus, we excluded 14 indicators from the proposed theoretical model, as they did not
have relevant convergent validity. They are: PEU1 (0.481), PEU2 (0.393), PEU3 (0.134),
PEU7 (0.488), PEU8 (0.392), PEU9 (0.286), PEU10 (0.185), PEU11 (0.092), FI8 (0.356),
FI11 (0.428), NFI1 (0.430), NFI7 (0.201), NFI8 (0.141), and NFI12 (0.402). After exclusion,
factorial loads for the new measurement model were recalculated. After excluding the ques-
tions from the originally proposed model, two other questions did not meet the proposed con-
vergent validity criterion, with factor loads less than 0.50. They are FI10 (0.472) and NFI3
(0.499). We excluded both items and calculated factorial loads again.
All remaining items satisfy the conditions of convergent validity, as demonstrated in
Table 5, resulting in the model called the adjusted model. We used the adjusted model
for all following analyses.
Convergent validity indicators are shown in Table 6. Adopting the value of 0.5 as the
limit for the AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), we noted latent variables that represent the
use of financial and non-financial indicators showed lower values than desired (0.416 and
0.401, respectively). Thus, we can infer that, on average, less than half of the indicators
variance is explained by the latent variable in question. However, Fornell and Larcker
(1981) point out that if the AVE is less than 0.5, but the CR is greater than 0.6, the con-
vergent validity of the construct is still adequate.
According to CR and AC indices in Table 6, the estimated composite reliability for
latent variables of the adjusted model meets the convergent validity criteria since the
CR and CA of all latent variables are equal or greater than 0.70.
Besides to convergent validity, the model discriminant validity was assessed, i.e. the
ability of the construct to distinguish from others truly. Thus, we verified that the observed
variables are not correlated with another construct. For this, we compared the constructs
correlation value with the AVE square root (Hair et al., 2009), highlighted in the main
 14

Table 5. Items factorial loads of each latent variable of the proposed instrument remaining in the adjusted model.
Perceived Environmental Financial Non-Financial PEU Moderation in PEU Moderation in
Question Performance Uncertainty Indicators Indicators FIs NFIs
PER1 0.750
M.A.S. Costa et al.

PER2 0.785
PER3 0.763
PER4 0.653
PEU4 0.859
PEU5 0.931
PEU6 0.843
FI1 0.587
FI2 0.509
FI3 0.702
FI4 0.595
FI5 0.559
FI6 0.735
FI7 0.743
FI9 0.686
NFI2 0.528
NFI4 0.559
NFI5 0.747
NFI6 0.636
NFI9 0.558
NFI10 0.763
NFI11 0.609
FI * PEU 0.981
NFI * PEU 1.098
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 15

Table 6. Convergent validity indicators for the adjusted model.

Construct AVE CR AC
Performance 0.547 0.828 0.732
Perceived Environmental Uncertainty 0.772 0.910 0.857
Financial Indicators 0.416 0.848 0.797
Non-Financial Indicators 0.401 0.821 0.753
PEU Moderation in FIs 1.000 1.000 1.000
PEU Moderation in NFIs 1.000 1.000 1.000

diagonal of the correlation matrix of constructs presented in Table 7, and correlations

should not be higher than such limits. From Table 7, we observed none of the correlations
obtained between latent variables proved to be superior to the variables square root, which
indicates a relevant discriminant validity of the adjusted model.

4.2.2. Structural model

In assessing the structural model, we present Pearson’s coefficient of determination (R²),
which assesses the portion of the variance of endogenous variables, explained by the struc-
tural model, as well as values of three other fit quality indicators of the model: (i) the Stone-
Geisser indicator or predictive validity (Q²); (ii) the Cohen indicator or effect size ( f²); and
(iii) the Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Results are shown in Table 8.
Besides, we carried out an analysis of structural coefficients, standard deviation, t-test, and
P values of the structural model to test the proposed hypotheses.
The value of R², presented in Table 8, indicates the endogenous variable confidence has
a moderate explanation through the adjusted structural model. Still, Table 8 shows that
both the value of Q² and f², indicate the model is accurate. Constructs are essential for
the model’s adjustment because, as evaluation criteria, Hair et al. (2019) indicates that
values of Q² higher than 0, 0.25, and 0.50 describe the small, medium, and large predictive
relevance of the PLS model. For f², the values 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are considered small,
medium, and large, respectively (Hair et al., 2013).
Table 9 shows the SRMR indicator values for the saturated and adjusted model. Wil-
liams et al. (2009) mention that a value of SRMR < 0.10 reflects a good model. Although
our value is precisely the same as mentioned, we notice a decrease in the saturated model’s
value to the adjusted one, which may indicate an improvement in the model.
Table 10 presents the results of applied tests. According to the evaluation of the t-test
applied to structural coefficients of the adjusted model, only the use of financial indicators
showed a relationship in the perceived performance (p = 0.001), since the influence occurs
positively, according to the coefficient sign obtained. For other practices, there is insuffi-
cient sample evidence that they are related, with the significance level set at 5%. Figure 2
illustrates the results of the measurement part and the structural part of the model adjusted
using the PLS method.

4.2.3. Discussion of the hypothesis test

This section presents the research hypotheses we verified through the t-test evaluation,
adopting a significance level of 5% according to statistical procedures described pre-
viously. Table 11 shows the result of the tested hypotheses.
H1 verified whether financial performance indicators positively influence perceived
performance (Banker et al., 2000; Crabtree & DeBusk, 2008; Cruz et al., 2011). We
 16
M.A.S. Costa et al.

Table 7. Discriminant validity of the adjusted model.

Perceived Environmental Financial Non-Financial PEU Moderation in PEU Moderation in
Question Performance Uncertainty Indicators Indicators FIs NFIs
Performance 0.739
Perceived Environmental −0.233 0.878
Uncertainty
Financial Indicators 0.409 −0.181 0.645
Non-Financial Indicators 0.230 0.011 0.561 0.633
PEU Moderation in FIs −0.116 −0.001 0.060 −0.022 1.000
PEU Moderation in NFIs 0.050 0.023 −0.019 −0.137 0.573 1.000
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 17

Table 8. Predictive validity, coefficient of determination and effect size of the adjusted model.
Variable R² Q² f²
Performance 0.244 0.083 0.323

Table 9. Models SRMR indicator.

Model Adjustment Saturated Model Adjusted Model
SRMR 0.127 0.101

Table 10. Results of applied t-test.

Original Sample Standard t p
Variable Sample Average Deviation Statistic Value
Financial Indicators 0.372 0.372 0.111 3.337 0.001
Non-Financial Indicators 0.047 0.104 0.120 0.397 0.692
Perceived Environmental −0.172 −0.186 0.092 1.879 0.060
Uncertainty
PEU Moderation in FIs −0.267 −0.209 0.139 1.927 0.054
PEU Moderation in NFIs 0.198 0.186 0.121 1.639 0.101

found the influence of financial performance indicators on the perceived performance of

startups is significant (t = 3.337), accepting the hypothesis, i.e. the more used financial per-
formance indicators are, the better the startups’ performance. The concept of startups com-
prises being scalable, meaning to grow without costs increasing in the same proportion,
accumulating more profits over time (Machado & Santos, 2017). Thus, it is natural for
startups to be cautious with aspects related to revenue, expenses and profit. Another perti-
nent aspect is the fact that startups have a narrow source of revenue and, generally, depends
on a single product or customer, which puts startups in a position with a small margin for
errors (Picken, 2017). Therefore, results indicate that financial indicators assist managers
in verifying the startups’ reality and contribute positively to their performance.

Table 11. Results of hypotheses tests.

Hypothesis Result
H1: The use of financial performance indicators positively influences the perceived Accepted
performance of startups.
H2: The use of non-financial performance indicators positively influences the perceived Rejected
performance of startups.
H3: Perceived environmental uncertainty influences the startup’s perceived Rejected
performance.
H4a: There is a moderating effect of perceived environmental uncertainty in the Rejected
relationship between financial indicators and the perceived performance of startup.
H4b: There is a moderating effect of perceived environmental uncertainty in the Rejected
relationship between non-financial indicators and the perceived performance of
startup.
18 M.A.S. Costa et al.

Figure 2. Results of the adjusted model using the PLS method.

H2 tested whether the use of non-financial indicators positively influences the per-
ceived performance of startups. Results reveal the statistic was not significant, since the
value of t was less than 1.96 (t = 0.397), not supporting the hypothesis. Despite not
having significant evidence, the direction of the hypothesis is expected, i.e. the loads are
positive in the relationship between non-financial indicators and the performance of start-
ups. Ittner and Larcker (1997) points out that not always using non-financial indicators will
translate into better performance. In other words, a higher perception of non-financial per-
formance indicators does not imply more economic gains (Ittner & Larcker, 1997). Results
of the sample contradict those of the research by Stede et al. (2006) who, by adding non-
financial indicators for performance measurement, obtained better perceived performance.
Hoque (2004) also reported positive associations between the use of non-financial indi-
cators and perceived performance. Therefore, the literature points out that results are
still inconsistent in the relationship between non-financial indicators and performance
(Bourne et al., 2000).
The rejection of H2 is also justified because entrepreneurs commonly practice intui-
tion for strategic decision-making on startup, and the use of performance metrics
depends on the life stage of the startup (Kemell et al., 2020; Rompho, 2018).
Rompho (2018) points out that receiving investments forces companies to use financial
measures more intensively. Moreover, it is a business model that operates with a lack of
financial and human resources and operates in contexts with a considerable amount of
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19

uncertainty (Kemell et al., 2020; Rompho, 2018; Unterkalmsteiner et al., 2016; Ghosh
et al., 2014). These aspects reflect the difficulty of using non-financial performance
metrics.
H3, which established the influence of perceived environmental uncertainty on per-
formance, was rejected, i.e. perceived environmental uncertainty did not influence the
startups’ performance. The evidence supporting the hypothesis rejection is the value of
t less than 1.96 (t = 1.879). The result of our study differs from Bastian and Muchlish
(2012), where the perceived environmental uncertainty influenced performance. In our
study, uncertainty was observed through variables Obtaining Financing, Initial Capital
and Venture Capital, which presented a significant factor load in the adjusted model.
These variables constitute the classification as Financial Uncertainties, proposed by
Matthews and Human (2004), different from the study by Bastian and Muchlish
(2012), which used eight items proposed by Hoque (2004), which involve more
items related to Competition and Operational Uncertainties. Therefore, financial
uncertainties do not influence the perceived performance of managers. However, the
direction of influence tends to be negative, i.e. when managers perceive higher
environmental uncertainty, lower is the perceived performance. Nevertheless,
further investigations and adjustments to the construct are needed to confirm the
relationship.
For Kemell et al. (2020) and Unterkalmsteiner et al. (2016), startups are characterised
by operating in uncertain or chaotic environments with limited resources. And they are
commonly more focused on product/technology development and acquiring the first cus-
tomer-payer than actually analysing the environmental context challenges. The context
itself requires the development and use of appropriate entrepreneurial skills or capabilities
to address the startup life cycle (Rompho, 2018).
H4 verified whether the perceived environmental uncertainty has a moderating
effect on performance measurement, through financial and non-financial indicators
and perceived performance. The hypothesis presented statistically non-significant
values for H4a (t = 1,927) and H4b (t = 1,639), becoming rejected in our study. The
results corroborate the findings of Hoque (2004), which do not support the relationship
between environmental uncertainty and performance through non-financial perform-
ance indicators and contradict the results of studies such as Chenhall and Morris
(1986) and Gul and Chia (1994). Although H4 was not statistically significant consid-
ering a 95% confidence level, we analysed that values of the influence of financial indi-
cators on performance (path coefficients) are affected by the perceived environmental
uncertainty, making the influence weaker and that changed the direction of positive
to negative influence.
Regarding the moderation of environmental uncertainty in the influence of non-
financial indicators, the relationship, although not significant, has become more
robust. The observation indicates that when a more uncertain environment is per-
ceived, the use of non-financial indicators tends to influence the startups’ performance.
Our result agrees with Chenhall and Morris (1986) and Bastian and Muchlish (2012),
where is stated when the level of uncertainty is high, non-financial indicators are more
used. Thus, we concluded that financial indicators could reflect the performance in an
environment of low uncertainty. If uncertainty is high, more comprehensive indicators
are needed that incorporate financial and non-financial aspects (Kemell et al., 2020;
Rompho, 2018; Unterkalmsteiner et al., 2016; Ghosh et al., 2014; Choo Huang
et al., 2010).
20 M.A.S. Costa et al.

5. Final considerations
Our study sought to determine whether the perceived environmental uncertainty and per-
formance measurement influence the startups’ performance. The survey collection instru-
ment contained four blocks: (i) characterisation of the respondent and startup; (ii)
performance measurement (financial and non-financial indicators); (iii) perceived environ-
mental uncertainty; and (iv) perceived performance. We obtained 103 responses from start-
ups’ CEOs and founders. We collected the data, structured them in spreadsheets, and
submitted them to techniques of descriptive statistic and structural equations modelling
by PLS method.
Regarding the profile of startups, most have a life span up to 3 years. When analysing
the customer’s stage of development, most are in the construction phase, i.e. they found a
repeatable and scalable business model. Thus, studied startups are young and are in the last
stage before staggering.
The most used performance indicators are Revenues, Growth and Average Ticket.
While the least used are ROI and Life Time Value. Regarding non-financial performance
indicators, the most used are Customer Satisfaction and Customer Conversion, all related
to customers. On the other hand, the least used are Turnover, Rework, Employee Training,
Effectiveness, and Virality, all related to human resources.
The types of environmental uncertainty most perceived by respondents are about
obtaining venture capital, financing and initial capital, all of a financial nature. Through
structural equations, we verified there is no influence of uncertainty on performance.
However, of the twelve observed variables on uncertainty, nine were excluded because
they presented a low significance of factor loads. Therefore, financial uncertainty is the
latent variable for analysing influences. These results on environmental uncertainty are
the theoretical implications of our findings.
The influence of financial indicators on performance was confirmed by the structural
equation model. In contrast, non-financial indicators did not obtain statistical evidence
to confirm their influence. Besides, we found there is no influence of the moderating
effect of perceived environmental uncertainty on the measurement and performance,
due to statistical values. However, there was a change in strength and direction between
variables of measurement and performance. These results on financial and non-financial
indicators are the practical implications of our findings.
The choice of performance measurement constructs in financial or non-financial indi-
cators is a limitation of our study. Other classifications that would present different results
could be used. Besides, the startups’ life cycle that participated in the study may generate a
limitation since startups tend to use financial metrics first and, later, use non-financial
metrics. As for the full replication of the perceived environmental uncertainty construct,
adaptations of the observable variables proposed for startups are necessary, even though
it is a proposal directed to the context of them. Moreover, only environmental uncertainty
was addressed as a contingent variable, not addressing variables such as strategy and tech-
nology, which may affect performance and performance measurement. Finally, other the-
ories can be used to verify our findings, such as the expectancy theory (Barba-Sánchez &
Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2017) and stakeholders theory (Jones et al., 2017).
As future work, we can highlight: (i) the investigation of more contingency factors that
can influence the performance measurement of startups, such as technology, strategy and
entrepreneurial orientation; (ii) the investigation of variables in a longitudinal analysis, to
verify the adoption moment of the performance measurement, guaranteeing a more in-
depth analysis of study variables to the perceived performance; and (iii) the analysis of
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 21

other aspects of perceived environmental uncertainty, and the interaction between uncer-
tainty and contingency factors that affect the startups’ context.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior [Grant
Number Financial Support].

ORCID
Guilherme Corredato Guerino http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4979-5831
Gislaine Camila Lapasini Leal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8599-0776
Renato Balancieri http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-2011
Edwin Vladimir Cardoza Galdamez http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1763-9332

References
Banker, R. D., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (2000). An empirical investigation of an incentive plan
that includes nonfinancial performance measures. The Accounting Review, 75(1), 65–92.
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2000.75.1.65
Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2017). Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employ-
ment: Evidence from expectancy theory. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 13(4), 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0441-z
Bastian, E., & Muchlish, M. (2012). Perceived environment uncertainty, business strategy, perform-
ance measurement systems and organizational performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 65, 787–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.200
Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The startups Owner’s Manual (1st ed). K & S Ranch.
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., & Platts, K. (2000). Designing, implementing and
updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 20(7), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010330739
Cassar, G. (2014). Industry and startup experience on entrepreneur forecast performance in new
firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.
2012.10.002
Cauvin, E., & Bescos, L. (2002). L’evaluation des performances: Une comparaison entre les pra-
tiques des start-ups et des entreprises traditionnelles françaises et americaines. Technologie
et management de l’information: enjeux et impactsdans la comptabilité, le contrôle et
l’audit, France.
Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context:
Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 28(2), 127–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7
Chenhall, R. H., & Morris, D. (1986). The impact of structure, environment, and interdependence on
the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. Accounting Review, 61(1), 16–
35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/247520
Choo Huang, C., Tayles, M., & Luther, R. (2010). Contingency factors influencing the availability of
internal intellectual capital information. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 8(1),
4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/19852511011055916
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2016). Métodos de Pesquisa em Administração (12th ed). McGraw
Hill Brasil.
Crabtree, A. D., & DeBusk, G. K. (2008). The effects of adopting the balanced scorecard on share-
holder returns. Advances in Accounting, 24(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2008.05.
016
22 M.A.S. Costa et al.

Croll, A., & Yoskovitz, B. (2013). Lean analytics: Use data to build a better startup faster (1st ed).
O’Reilly Media.
Cruz, I., Scapens, R. W., & Major, M. (2011). The localisation of a global management control
system. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(7), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aos.2011.08.001
Davila, A., & Foster, G. (2005). Management accounting systems adoption decisions: Evidence and
performance implications from early-stage/startup companies. The Accounting Review, 80(4),
1039–1068. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.4.1039
Davila, A., Foster, G., & Jia, N. (2010). Building sustainable high-growth startup companies:
Management systems as an accelerator. California Management Review, 52(3), 79–105.
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2010.52.3.79
Davila, A., Foster, G., & Jia, N. (2015). The valuation of management control systems in start-up
companies: International field-based evidence. European Accounting Review, 24(2), 207–
239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2014.965720
Davila, A., Foster, G., & Li, M. (2009). Reasons for management control systems adoption: Insights
from product development systems choice by early-stage entrepreneurial companies.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3-4), 322–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.
2008.08.002
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental
uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2392145
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human
Relations, 18(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103
Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An
extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/
10.1177/002224378101800104
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement
systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management
Accounting Research, 23(2), 79–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.001
Freel, M. S. (2005). Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms. Technovation, 25(2), 123–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00082-8
Ghosh, S., Bhowmick, B., & Guin, K. K. (2014). Perceived environmental uncertainty for startups: A
note on entrepreneurship research from an Indian perspective. Technology Innovation
Management Review, 4(8), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/820
Granlund, M., & Taipaleenmäki, J. (2005). Management control and controllership in new economy
firms - a life cycle perspective. Management Accounting Research, 16(1), 21–57. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mar.2004.09.003
Gul, F. A., & Chia, Y. M. (1994). The effects of management accounting systems, perceived environ-
mental uncertainty and decentralization on managerial performance: A test of three-way inter-
action. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(4-5), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0361-3682(94)90005-1
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the
results of pls-sem. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-
11-2018-0203
Hair, Jr J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise
Multivariada de Dados (6th ed). Bookman.
Hair, Jr J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2013). A Primer on partial least Squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (1st ed). Sage Publications.
Hoque, Z. (2004). A contingency model of the association between strategy, environmental uncer-
tainty and performance measurement: Impact on organizational performance. International
Business Review, 13(4), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.04.003
Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and
opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33–59. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23

Hoque, Z., & James, W. (2000). Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:
Impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12
(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.1
Huber, G. P., O’Connell, M. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1975). Perceived environmental uncertainty:
Effects of information and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 725–740.
https://doi.org/10.5465/255375
Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997). Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational
performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(3-4), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0361-3682(96)00035-9
Jones, T. M., Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (2017). ). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art,
chapter 1, pages 17-37. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Kemell, K. K., Wang, X., Nguyen-Duc, A., Grendus, J., Tuunanen, T., & Abrahamsson, P. (2020).
Startup metrics that tech entrepreneurs need to know. In A. Nguyen-Duc, J. Münch, R.
Prikladnicki, X. Wang, & P. Abrahamsson (Eds.), Fundamentals of Software startups,
pages (pp. 111–127). Springer.
Kremer, I. (2013). The balanced scorecard (bsc) in Israeli hi-tech and low-tech firms. Human Systems
Management, 32(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-130789
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391211
Llorach, C., & Ottosson, E. (2016). The balanced scorecard during the early stages of a tech firm: A
multiple case study regarding performance management in Swedish tech startups. Master’s
thesis, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2016). Early business model evolution in science-based ventures: The case
of advanced materials. Long Range Planning, 49(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.
2015.03.001
Machado, T., & Santos, C. B. (2017). Advento das startups como modalidade de negócio: Um estudo
na região metropolitana de Curitiba-pr. Caderno PAIC, 18(1), 231–253. https://cadernopaic.
fae.edu/cadernopaic/article/view/267/213
Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package - opportunities, chal-
lenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287–300. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003
Martins, G. A., & Theóphilo, C. R. (2017). Metodologia da Investigação Científica para Ciências
Sociais Aplicadas (3rd ed). Atlas.
Marôco, J. (2010). Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, software & aplicações
(1st ed). ReportNumber, Lda.
Matthews, C., & Human, S. (2004). The economic and community context for entrepreneurship:
Perceived environmental uncertainty. In W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, & N. M. Carter
(Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation, pages
(pp. 421–429). SAGE Publications.
Matthews, C. H., & Scott, S. G. (1995). Uncertainty and planning in small and entrepreneurial firms:
An empirical assessment. Journal of Small Business Management, 33(4), 34–52. https://
search.proquest.com/openview/7e03e4d144cc77d10a2f7b44ff705b3c/1?pqorigsite=
gscholar&cbl=49244
Melnyk, B. M., Gallagher-Ford, L., Long, L. E., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2014). The establishment
of evidence-based practice competencies for practicing registered nurses and advanced prac-
tice nurses in real-world clinical settings: Proficiencies to improve healthcare quality,
reliability, patient outcomes, and costs. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(1), 5–
15. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12021
Miranda, J. Q., Júnior, C. D. S., & Dias, A. T. (2016). A influência das variáveis ambientais e orga-
nizacionais no desempenho de startups. REGEPE - Revista de Empreendedorismo e Gestão de
Pequenas Empresas, 5(1), 28–65. https://doi.org/10.14211/regepe.v5i1.256
Munir, R., & Baird, K. (2016). Influence of institutional pressures on performance measurement
systems. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 12(2), 106–128. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JAOC-09-2014-0051
Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance Prism: The Scorecard for measur-
ing and Managing business (1st ed). Financial Times Prentice Hall.
24 M.A.S. Costa et al.

Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature
review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
15(4), 80–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622
Perramon, J., Rocafort, A., Bagur-Femenias, L., & Llach, J. (2016). Learning to create value through
the `balanced scorecard’ model: An empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 27(9-10), 1121–1139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1060853
Picken, J. C. (2017). From startup to scalable enterprise: Laying the foundation. Business Horizons,
60(5), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.002
Quy, N. L. D., & Hai, P. T. (2020). An overview of the relationship between psychological capital
and entrepreneurial orientation of startup companies. VNU Journal of Science: Policy and
Management Studies, 36(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1116/vnupam.4206
Read, S., Song, M., & Smit, W. (2009). A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture perform-
ance. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.
02.005
Reis, C. C. S. (2017). Success factors and performance indicators for health-care start-ups. Master’s
thesis, Universidade do Porto, Portugal.
Rompho, N. (2018). Operational performance measures for startups. Measuring Business
Excellence, 22(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-06-2017-0028
Sebrae. (2016). Sobrevivência das empresas no brasil. Accessed April 20, 2020. Accessed April 20, 2020.
https://www.sebrae.com.br/Sebrae/Portal%20Sebrae/Anexos/sobrevivencia-asempresas-no-
brasil-relatorio-2016.pdf
Sink, S., & Tuttle, T. C. (1993). Planejamento e Medição para a Performance (1st ed). Qualitymark.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Johnston, R. (2014). Operations management (7th ed). Pearson.
Sofiyabadi, J., Kolahi, B., & Valmohammadi, C. (2016). Key performance indicators measurement
in service business: A fuzzy vikor approach. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 27(9-10), 1028–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1059272
Stede, W. A. V. D., Chow, C. W., & Lin, T. W. (2006). Strategy, choice of performance measures,
and performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18(1), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.
2308/bria.2006.18.1.185
Sutton, Jr S. M. (2000). The role of process in software start-up. IEEE Software, 17(4), 33–39.
https://doi.org/10.1109/52.854066
Taticchi, P., & Balachandran, K. R. (2008). Forward performance measurement and management
integrated frameworks. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management,
16(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/18347640810913807
Unterkalmsteiner, M., Abrahamsson, P., Wang, X. F., Nguyen-Duc, A., & Shah, S. (2016). Software
startups - a research agenda. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, 10(1), 89–123.
http://doi.org/10.5277/e-Inf160105
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling in man-
agement research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1),
543–604. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903065683
Zábojník, J. (2020). Firm reputation, innovation and employee startups. The Economic Journal, 130
(627), 822–851. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/uez065
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25

Appendix A. Data Collection Questionnaire

26 M.A.S. Costa et al.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 27

View publication stats