Terminological distinctions of ‘control’: a review of the implications for management control research in the context of innovation

Fried, Andrea

doi:10.1007/s00187-016-0240-7

Cited by 28 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To take an example, the contingency theory of management accounting has been regarded by some management accounting scholars as offering a theoretical frame for explaining the basis for similarities and difference in modes of organisational control implementations (Chapman 1997;Chenhall 2007;Gerdin and Greve 2004;Otley 2016). Some scholars posit an emic rather than an etic approach to contingency based management accounting research (Granlund and Lukka 2017) and others critique the determinism grounded in the contingency perspective (Fried 2017). Still, the generalist argument advanced within the contingency perspective has been built on the premise that control systems deployment in enterprises is linked to the existence of supra-national forces of change whereby firms become more alike as economies converge over time (Donaldson 1995;Hickson et al 1974).…”

Section: Asking 'What' and 'Why' In Management Accounting Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital data and management accounting: why we need to rethink research methods

Bhimani

2020

J Manag Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digitalisation is having profound effects on how enterprises function. Its impact on accounting research is growing as the rise of the internet, mobile technologies and digital economy tools generate depth, breadth and variety of data that far exceed what researchers have had access to in the past. But whilst social scientists interested in organisational issues are starting to question conventional methodological approaches to the study of contexts where digital data forms are drawn upon, little such concern has been voiced in the management accounting literature. This paper seeks to explore the continued applicability of conventional methodological thinking when carrying out investigations within digital data environments to inform management accounting studies. It considers why digitalisation impacts methodological precepts, identifies how descriptive and explanatory modes of questioning which management accountants have conventionally opted for need rethinking, discusses ways in which digital data characteristics alter what can be drawn from empirical studies, and points to the potential offered within digitalised settings for methodological advance. It concludes by highlighting the necessity, where digitalisation exists, to question modes of posing questions and to reconsider the applicability of methodological precepts deployed by management accounting researchers to date.

show abstract

Section: Asking 'What' and 'Why' In Management Accounting Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital data and management accounting: why we need to rethink research methods

Bhimani

2020

J Manag Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In view of deviant behavior, scholars in related fields have carried out corresponding research work. Fassauer (2018) defined innovation behavior as “expected deviant,” and analyzed and discussed the impact of enterprise management control on employee innovation behavior ( Fassauer, 2018 ); Fried (2017) explored the impact of management control on deviant behavior in the context of innovation ( Fried, 2017 ); Kyegombe et al (2017) used a special analysis, continuous comparison, and relevant cases of deviant behavior to explore the mitigation of teacher-student relationships ( Kyegombe et al, 2017 ); Michel and Hargis (2016) , based on the theory of psychological needs and self-determination, discussed the relationship between deviant behavior in the workplace and organizational injustice, and found that it was very important to cultivate employees’ intrinsic behavior motivation in the workplace ( Michel and Hargis, 2016 ); Shoaib and Baruch (2019) introduced the concept of deviant behavior into the moderate intermediary framework of incentive and organizational justice perception. Based on the causal model and structural equation model analysis, the results showed that incentive for employees has direct, indirect, or conditionally indirect effects in their deviant behavior ( Shoaib and Baruch, 2019 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Capital on Their Deviant Innovation Behavior

Wen-hai

Zhao

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the influence of psychological capital on the deviant innovation behavior, with the purpose of realizing the application and development of positive psychology in the field of innovation and creation. First, the data was obtained based on the questionnaire, and the Likert scale was adopted to measure the variables effectively, in which 1 point means “never,” 2 points mean “rarely,” and 5 points mean “always.” Second, the SPSS 26.0 statistical analysis software was adopted, and a statistical analysis was made on the correlation among deviant innovation, psychological capital, work values, and work remodeling. Third, the relationship between psychological capital and deviant innovation behavior was explored using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The results showed that the reliability of each scale is good, Cronbach’s α coefficients are all higher than 0.8, and the fitting effect of the four-factor model is the best, proving that the highest differentiation validity can be achieved using the proposed method. Furthermore, there are significant correlations among entrepreneur’s psychological capital, entrepreneur’s work values, and entrepreneurship work remodeling and deviant innovation behavior, among which the psychological capital and work values are the most correlated with deviant innovation. With the psychological capital of entrepreneurs as the adjustment variable and the interaction added, the explanation rate of the level equation is increased from 17 to 24.2%. Therefore, the psychological capital of entrepreneurs plays a very big role in regulating work values and deviant innovation behavior. In the current environment of innovation and entrepreneurship development, it is necessary for entrepreneurs to give full reign to the regulatory role of their own psychological capital, so as to promote the development of self-active deviant innovation activities and encourage employees to actively innovate and create.

show abstract

“…This research study is conducted using a case-study approach (Yin 2014) and applies a multi-disciplinary perspective to innovation and the phenomenon studied (Brattström et al 2018;Fried 2017). Because existing literature regarding KPIs in innovation and organizational errors is still scarce, an exploratory study using case studies is chosen as the preferred methodology to build knowledge about the phenomenon (Yin 2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Wrong Is Right: Leaving Room for Error in Innovation Measurement

Jong

2021

JRFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, measuring innovation has not been an exact science. As in many areas of organizational life, errors in measuring innovation are a recurring fact. Innovation researchers and practitioners alike have become increasingly interested in understanding the occurrence of organizational errors and how these errors affect innovation and its measurement. This empirical study aims to address this under-explored area by utilizing a qualitative in-depth case study at the innovation department of an organization with production sites and sales organizations worldwide. A total of 28 semi-structured interviews at several organizational levels were conducted, with innovation managers, project managers, senior managers, and staff. Based on the findings in this case study, three explanations are presented on how organizational errors occur when using innovation KPIs (key performance indicators). The first explanation can be connected to the increasing complexity of innovation and its intangible nature. Another explanation can be traced to the difference between innovation strategy and innovation KPIs. Lastly, room for organizational errors can be related to the multitude of individuals and organizational levels involved in innovation and its measurement. The implications for practitioners are that innovation KPIs are not precise metrics but should be seen as estimates with organizational errors. Whether or not these innovation KPIs can be used as tools to turn innovation into competitive advantages largely depends on whether wrong is right. Future research should focus on the metrics that are implemented and actually in use, as this future path would highlight the function and dysfunction that organizational errors in innovation KPIs can have.

show abstract

Terminological distinctions of ‘control’: a review of the implications for management control research in the context of innovation

Cited by 28 publications

References 89 publications

Digital data and management accounting: why we need to rethink research methods

Digital data and management accounting: why we need to rethink research methods

The Influence of Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Capital on Their Deviant Innovation Behavior

When Wrong Is Right: Leaving Room for Error in Innovation Measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About