## 3 Materials and Methods
### Results and Discussion of The Obtained Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Without BSC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**With BSC**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & **Research Hypotheses** & **Mean** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Error of** \\ **the Mean** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Mean** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Error of** \\ **the Mean** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline H1a & \begin{tabular}{c} The importance attributed to \\ the financial perspective \\ differs in organisations \\ without BSC and with BSC \\ \end{tabular} & 2.95 & 0.958 & 0.121 & 2.88 & 0.956 & 0.146 \\ \hline H2a & \begin{tabular}{c} The importance attributed to \\ the customer perspective \\ differs in organizations \\ without BSC and with BSC \\ \end{tabular} & 2.94 & 0.84 & 0.106 & 2.64 & 0.656 & 0.101 \\ \hline H3a & \
\begin{tabular}{c} The importance attributed to \\ the internal perspective \\ differs in organizations \\ without BSC and with BSC \\ \end{tabular} & 1.87 & 0.566 & 0.073 & 1.85 & 0.573 & 0.089 \\ \hline H4a &
\begin{tabular}{c} The importance attributed to \\ the learning and growth \\ perspective differs in organizations without BSC \\ and with BSC \\ \end{tabular} & 1.58 & 0.53 & 0.068 & 1.9 & 0.617 & 0.095 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Authors’ elaboration.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: BSC Perspectives—Descriptive Statistics. Once again, supported by the literature, it is observed that for more than a decade that organizations have started to emphasize the BSC, both in terms of strategy and in terms of organizational performance. This emphasis is acknowledged to the BSC due to the fact that it covers the traditional perspective, namely the financial perspective; however, it is not limited to the same since it aggregates other non-financial indicators from the various areas that make up the organisation. Managers recognise that the support only in financial ratios that reflect the past does not guarantee future sustainability [30; 63]. However, despite the interconnection between the perspectives, it is observed that the least sustained connection is the learning and growth perspective, because at its beginning it was considered as the BSC \"black hole\", visible in the non-rejection of H4. However, this situation is linked to the difficulty that managers feel in assessing their employees, because organisations mostly measure generic satisfaction, absenteeism and punctuality, and consequently do not interconnect this perspective with the organisational strategy [20]. Several studies point out that the fact that some intangible indicators cannot be measured through tangible indicators is often a brake on measurement [30]. Regarding internal development, it is recognised that organisational culture influences [91] denoting, furthermore, that organisational culture also has an influence on strategic success [11]. Within each perspective the critical success factors are also analysed, in accordance with the indicators defined by [PERSON] et al. (2015). In this scenario, the characterization of the critical factors of the four BSC perspectives (Table 7) and the research hypotheses defined (H1b, H2b, H3b, H4b) provide their objective analysis, both by descriptive statistics (Table 8), in which the average values do not differ much between organizations without BSC and with BSC, and by the use of the Cronbach Alpha calculation (Table 8).