No abstract

Environmental shifts regularly urge organizations to adapt, which may entail management control (MC) changes. Changes to an MC element such as a performance measurement system, however, may in turn create incoherence with other, non-changed elements, generating a need for more changes, and thus trigger a cascade effect. To date, however, we know little about how this sequential process unfolds and what managers can do to deal with incoherence. This paper contributes by enhancing the understanding of sequential changes, drawing on the organizational ecology literature, and we empirically inform our research with a five-year longitudinal case study. Our data illustrates in detail how initial MC changes, to cope with an environmental shift, trigger a cascade effect. This sequential process results in an extensive change period, during which various incoherent MC elements coexist. Our study acknowledges that incoherence among MC elements can decrease control effectiveness by creating intra-organizational frictions, yet we highlight the role of managers in mitigating such negative effects. Specifically, we show how managers can alleviate the unfavorable effects of incoherence by changing their use of performance measures in order to better facilitate organizational dialogue, learning and problem solving.

No abstract

The use of management control systems in large companies remains relatively unexplored. Indeed, only a few studies of senior managers’ use of management control systems consider multiple controls in companies. This paper explores data from a comprehensive survey of the use of management control systems in 120 strategic business units at some of the largest companies in Denmark. The paper identifies how senior management guides and controls their subordinates to meet their companies’ objectives. The presentation and discussion of the results, including citations from executive managers, use Ferreira and Otley’s (2009) conceptual and holistic framework for performance management systems, supplemented by elements of contextual factors and organisational culture. Further, selected researchers’ perceptions of the purpose of using management control systems are related to practitioners’ ideas of the purpose of using such systems. Finally, the paper discusses the usability of the 12 questions in Ferreira and Otley’s framework for exploring empirical survey data.

Purpose Inspired by leadership research, this paper aims to further the literature on management controls (MCs) by highlighting two managerial capabilities that cultivate dynamic tension. More specifically, we explore how countervailing MCs can be designed and used to create a coordinated and adaptable organisation. These capabilities reveal key insights into dynamic tension because they help us to understand the role of managers and why, how and when some companies succeed in creating dynamic tension while others struggle. Design/methodology/approach These research objectives are met through a case study on a global manufacturing company called GLOCOMP to preserve anonymity. The authors chose GLOCOMP because it comprises many internal units that must work in a coordinated fashion. However, it is equally important that the units are flexible enough to adapt to their unique local conditions. These two aspirations must be balanced, which necessitates dynamic tension between MCs. Hence, the case provides fertile ground for us to investigate the capabilities that help managers design and use countervailing MCs. Findings The empirical setting shows that cognitive and behavioural complexity are the keys to successfully designing and using countervailing loose and tight MCs concurrently. Using MCs that work in opposite directions produces a dynamic tension that helps individual units to coordinate their internal supply chains while adapting to fulfil unique roles within the company. Originality/value This paper extends previous research by exploring two specific managerial capabilities that enable dynamic tension – cognitive and behavioural complexity. The authors provide specific insights into how managers can create dynamic tension and, further, by highlighting the specific capabilities that give rise to dynamic tension, the authors outline a procedural perspective where a manager’s capabilities and dynamic tension inform one another. The resulting virtuous circle extends the understanding of the relationship between dynamic tension and managerial expertise beyond what the authors currently know as a linear cause-effect correlation.