Advertisement

Beyond the “good” and “evil” of stability values in organizational culture for managerial innovation: the crucial role of management controls

  • Marc JankaEmail author
  • Xaver Heinicke
  • Thomas W. Guenther
Original Paper
  • 145 Downloads

Abstract

Previous literature has widely regarded stability values in organizational culture as a necessary evil at best and proposed their reduction to shape innovation. Our study expands the literature by empirically exploring the relationship among stability values in organizational culture, management control (MC), and managerial innovation. Managerial innovation is important for every organization because it contributes to technical innovation in the long term and is directly or indirectly associated with firm performance in a positive way, but its success or failure depends on a process of diffusion through the organization as a social system. Based on a survey of 260 large German firms, we find that managerial innovation has a negative association with the degree of stability in organizational culture but a positive association with an emphasis on three of the four tested MCs, namely, action controls, personnel controls, and cultural controls. We reveal that a large extent of the negative effect ascribed to stability in organizational culture is caused by a lack of emphasis on cultural controls rather than by the degree of stability itself. Furthermore, we go beyond the assessment of stability as purely “good” or “evil” by generating empirical evidence of the positive fit between stability and cultural controls for managerial innovation, following contingency theory. According to our findings, organizations with a relatively high degree of stability in their culture (e.g., bureaucracy or hierarchy) may be enabled to shape managerial innovation through cultural controls.

Keywords

Managerial innovation Management control Organizational culture Competing values framework Polynomial regression equations  Partial least squares 

JEL Classification

M12 M14 O35 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of a larger research program. We are grateful to Stefanie Einhorn, Jan Endrikat, Bernhard Fietz, Edeltraud Guenther, Takehisa Kajiwara, Hirotsugu Kitada, Katsuhiko Kokubu, Kimitaka Nishitani, Matthias Walz, and Qi Wu, who contributed to the survey design and collection of raw data for the entire research program, from which we use some variables for our study. Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the 9th EIASM Conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control in Nice (France 2017), at the 40th European Accounting Association Conference in Valencia (Spain 2017), the Management Control Association Conference in Groningen (The Netherlands 2017), and the 14th Annual Conference for Management Accounting Research in Vallendar (Germany 2017). We acknowledge the helpful comments from all the participants, especially Klaus Derfuss and Stephen Jollands. Finally, we thank the editor Ralf Ewert and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions and guidance.

References

  1. Aaltola P (2018) Investing in strategic development: management control of business model and managerial innovations. Qual Res Account Manag 15(2):206–230.  https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-05-2017-0044 Google Scholar
  2. Abernethy MA, Brownell P (1997) Management control systems in research and development organizations: the role of accounting, behavior and personnel controls. Account Organ Soc 22(3/4):233–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(96)00038-4 Google Scholar
  3. Adler PS (1993) The ‘learning bureaucracy’: New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. In: Staw MM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 15. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 111–194Google Scholar
  4. Adler PS (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organ Sci 12(2):215–234.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 Google Scholar
  5. Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10(1):43–68.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.43 Google Scholar
  6. Aguinis H, Beaty JC, Boik RJ, Pierce CA (2005) Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30-year review. J Appl Psychol 90(1):94–107.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.94 Google Scholar
  7. Anderson N, King N (1992) Innovation in organizations. In: Cooper CL, Robertson IT (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 8. Wiley, New York, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  8. Anthony RN, Govindarajan V (2007) Management control systems, 12th edn. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  10. Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783 Google Scholar
  11. Bart CK (1991) Controlling new products in large diversified firms: a presidential perspective. J Prod Innov Manag 8(1):4–17Google Scholar
  12. Bedford DS, Malmi T, Sandelin M (2016) Management control effectiveness and strategy: an empirical analysis of packages and systems. Account Organ Soc 51:12–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.04.002 Google Scholar
  13. Benner MJ, Tushman M (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Admin Sci Q 47(4):676–706Google Scholar
  14. Bhimani A (2003) A study of the emergence of management accounting system ethos and its influence on perceived system success. Account Organ Soc 28(6):523–548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00025-9 Google Scholar
  15. Birkinshaw J, Hamel G, Mol MJ (2008) Management innovation. Acad Manag Rev 33(4):825–845.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421969 Google Scholar
  16. Bisbe J, Malagueño R (2015) How control systems influence product innovation processes: examining the role of entrepreneurial orientation. Account Bus Res 45(3):356–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2015.1009870 Google Scholar
  17. Bollen KA, Stine R (1990) Direct and indirect effects: classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociol Methodol 20:115–140.  https://doi.org/10.2307/271084 Google Scholar
  18. Bonner JM, Ruekert RW, Walker OC (2002) Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. J Prod Innov Manag 19(3):233–245.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1930233 Google Scholar
  19. Brislin RW (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1(3):185–216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301 Google Scholar
  20. Bunderson JS (2003) Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Acad Manag J 46(4):458–474.  https://doi.org/10.5465/30040638 Google Scholar
  21. Burkert M, Davila A, Mehta K, Oyon D (2014) Relating alternative forms of contingency fit to the appropriate methods to test them. Manag Account Res 25(1):6–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.008 Google Scholar
  22. Burns T, Stalker GM (1996) The management of innovation, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Büschgens T, Bausch A, Balkin DB (2013) Organizational culture and innovation: a meta-analytic review. J Prod Innov Manag 30(4):763–781.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12021 Google Scholar
  24. Cameron KS, Freeman SJ (1991) Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to effectiveness. In: Woodman R, Pasmore W (eds) Research in organizational change and development, vol 5. JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, pp 23–58Google Scholar
  25. Cameron KS, Quinn RE (2011) Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the competing values framework, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. Camisón-Zornoza C, Lapiedra-Alcamí R, Segarra-Ciprés M, Boronat-Navarro M (2004) A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organ Stud 25(3):331–361.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604040039 Google Scholar
  27. Cardinal LB (2001) Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organ Sci 12(1):19–36Google Scholar
  28. Chang S-J, van Witteloostuijn A, Eden L (2010) From the editors: common method variance in international business research. J Int Bus Stud 41:178–184.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88 Google Scholar
  29. Chenhall RH (2003) Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Account Organ Soc 28(2/3):127–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7 Google Scholar
  30. Chenhall RH, Moers F (2015) The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control. Account Organ Soc 47:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.10.002 Google Scholar
  31. Chenhall RH, Morris D (1995) Organic decision and communication processes and management accounting systems in entrepreneurial and conservative business organizations. Omega 23(5):485–497.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(95)00033-K Google Scholar
  32. Chenhall RH, Hall M, Smith D (2010) Social capital and management control systems: a study of a non-government organization. Account Organ Soc 35(8):737–756.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2010.09.006 Google Scholar
  33. Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47(6):1154–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x Google Scholar
  34. Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manag J 34(3):555–590.  https://doi.org/10.5465/256406 Google Scholar
  35. Damanpour F (1992) Organizational size and innovation. Organ Stud 13(3):375–402.  https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069201300304 Google Scholar
  36. Damanpour F (1996) Bureaucracy and innovation revisited: effects of contingency factors, industrial sectors, and innovation characteristics. J High Tech Manag Res 7(2):149–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(96)90002-4 Google Scholar
  37. Damanpour F (2014) Footnotes to research on management innovation. Organ Stud 35(9):1265–1285.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614539312 Google Scholar
  38. Damanpour F, Aravind D (2012) Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Manag Organ Rev 8(2):423–454.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00233.x Google Scholar
  39. Davila T (2000) An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new product development. Account Organ Soc 25(4/5):383–409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00034-3 Google Scholar
  40. Davila A, Foster G, Li M (2009a) Reasons for management control systems adoption: insights from product development systems choice by early-stage entrepreneurial companies. Account Organ Soc 34(3/4):322–347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.002 Google Scholar
  41. Davila A, Foster G, Oyon D (2009b) Accounting and control, entrepreneurship and innovation: venturing into new research opportunities. Eur Account Rev 18(2):281–311.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180902731455 Google Scholar
  42. Davila T, Epstein MJ, Shelton RD (2013) Making innovation work: how to manage it, measure it, and profit from it, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  43. Denison DR, Spreitzer GM (1991) Organizational culture and organizational development. In: Woodman R, Pasmore W (eds) Research in organizational change and development, vol 5. JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  44. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 4th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  45. Domínguez Escrig E, Mallén Broch FF, Lapiedra Alcamí R, Chiva Gómez R (2019) How to enhance radical innovation? The importance of organizational design and generative learning. Rev Manag Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00326-7 (Forthcoming) Google Scholar
  46. Donaldson L (2006) The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. In: Burton RM, Håkonsson DD, Eriksen B, Snow CC (eds) Organization design: the evolving state-of-the-art, vol 6. Springer, Boston, pp 19–40Google Scholar
  47. Edwards JR, Parry ME (1993) On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Acad Manag J 36(6):1577–1613.  https://doi.org/10.5465/256822 Google Scholar
  48. Efron B (1987) Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc 82(397):171–185.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2289144 Google Scholar
  49. Engelen A (2010) Entrepreneurial orientation as a function of national cultural variations in two countries. J Int Manag 16(4):354–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2010.09.006 Google Scholar
  50. Flamholtz EG, Das TK, Tsui AS (1985) Toward an integrative framework of organizational control. Account Organ Soc 10(1):35–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(85)90030-3 Google Scholar
  51. Gerdin J, Greve J (2004) Forms of contingency fit in management accounting research: a critical review. Account Organ Soc 29(3):303–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00096-X Google Scholar
  52. Gerdin J, Greve J (2008) The appropriateness of statistical methods for testing contingency hypotheses in management accounting research. Account Organ Soc 33(7):995–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.07.003 Google Scholar
  53. Goebel S, Weißenberger BE (2017a) Effects of management control mechanisms: towards a more comprehensive analysis. J Bus Econ 87(2):185–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-016-0816-6 Google Scholar
  54. Goebel S, Weißenberger BE (2017b) The relationship between informal controls, ethical work climates, and organizational performance. J Bus Ethics 141(3):505–528.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2700-7 Google Scholar
  55. Grabner I, Moers F (2013) Management control as a system or a package? Conceptual and empirical issues. Account Organ Soc 38(6/7):407–419.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.09.002 Google Scholar
  56. Hamel G (2007) The future of management. Havard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  57. Hartmann FGH, Moers F (2003) Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research using moderated regression analysis: a second look. Account Organ Soc 28(7):803–809.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00019-9 Google Scholar
  58. Heinicke A, Guenther TW, Widener SK (2016) An examination of the relationship between the extent of a flexible culture and the levers of control system: the key role of beliefs control. Manag Account Res 33:25–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.03.005 Google Scholar
  59. Helm R, Mark A (2012) Analysis and evaluation of moderator effects in regression models: state of art, alternatives and empirical example. Rev Manag Sci 6(4):307–332.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-010-0057-y Google Scholar
  60. Henri J-F (2006a) Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective. Account Organ Soc 31(6):529–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.07.001 Google Scholar
  61. Henri J-F (2006b) Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Account Organ Soc 31(1):77–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2004.10.003 Google Scholar
  62. Henseler J, Chin WW (2010) A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Struct Equ Modeling 17(1):82–109.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903439003 Google Scholar
  63. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Google Scholar
  64. Hiebl MRW, Richter JF (2018) Response rates in management accounting survey research. J Manag Account Res 30(2):59–79.  https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52073 Google Scholar
  65. Iivari J, Huisman M (2007) The relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of systems development methodologies. Manag Inf Syst Q 31(1):35–58.  https://doi.org/10.2307/25148780 Google Scholar
  66. Janka M, Guenther TW (2018) Management control of new product development and perceived environmental uncertainty: exploring heterogeneity using a finite mixture approach. J Manag Account Res 30(2):131–161.  https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52019 Google Scholar
  67. Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK (1993) Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. J Mark 57(3):53–70.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1251854 Google Scholar
  68. Jaworski BJ, MacInnis DJ (1989) Marketing jobs and management controls: toward a framework. J Mark Res 26(4):406–419.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3172761 Google Scholar
  69. Jørgensen B, Messner M (2009) Management control in new product development: the dynamics of managing flexibility and efficiency. J Manag Account Res 21:99–124.  https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2009.21.1.99 Google Scholar
  70. Keupp MM, Palmié M, Gassmann O (2012) The strategic management of innovation: a systematic review and paths for future research. Int J Manag Rev 14(4):367–390.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x Google Scholar
  71. Khazanchi S, Lewis MW, Boyer KK (2007) Innovation-supportive culture: the impact of organizational values on process innovation. J Oper Manag 25(4):871–884.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.003 Google Scholar
  72. Kimberly JR (1981) Managerial innovation. In: Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (eds) Handbook of organizational design. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 84–104Google Scholar
  73. Kraśnicka T, Głód W, Wronka-Pośpiech M (2018) Management innovation, pro-innovation organisational culture and enterprise performance: testing the mediation effect. Rev Manag Sci 12(3):737–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0229-0 Google Scholar
  74. Kraus S, Pohjola M, Koponen A (2012) Innovation in family firms: an empirical analysis linking organizational and managerial innovation to corporate success. Rev Manag Sci 6(3):265–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0065-6 Google Scholar
  75. Kruis A-M, Speklé RF, Widener SK (2016) The levers of control framework: an exploratory analysis of balance. Manag Account Res 32:27–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.12.002 Google Scholar
  76. Leana CR, Barry B (2000) Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Acad Manag Rev 25(4):753–759.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707707 Google Scholar
  77. Liebeskind JP, Oliver AL, Zucker L, Brewer M (1996) Social networks, learning, and flexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organ Sci 7(4):428–443.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.4.428 Google Scholar
  78. Little TD, Bovaird JA, Widaman KF (2006) On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Struct Equ Modeling 13(4):497–519.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1304_1 Google Scholar
  79. Lopez-Valeiras E, Gonzalez-Sanchez MB, Gomez-Conde J (2016) The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on process and organizational innovation. Rev Manag Sci 10(3):487–510.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0165-9 Google Scholar
  80. Lukas BA, Whitwell GJ, Heide JB (2013) Why do customers get more than they need? How organizational culture shapes product capability decisions. J Mark 77(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0182 Google Scholar
  81. Merchant KA, Van der Stede WA (2017) Management control systems: performance measurement, evaluation, and incentives, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  82. Meroño-Cerdán AL, López-Nicolás C (2014) Why organizational innovations are adopted. In: Hervás-Oliver J-L, Peris-Ortiz M (eds) Management innovation: antecedents, complementarities and performance consequences. Springer, New York, pp 105–117Google Scholar
  83. Mol MJ, Birkinshaw J (2009) The sources of management innovation: when firms introduce new management practices. J Bus Res 62(12):1269–1280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.001 Google Scholar
  84. Otley D (1980) The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. Account Organ Soc 5(4):413–428.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(80)90040-9 Google Scholar
  85. Otley D (2016) The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014. Manag Account Res 31:45–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.02.001 Google Scholar
  86. Ouchi WG (1977) The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Admin Sci Q 22(1):95–113.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2391748 Google Scholar
  87. Ouchi WG (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Manag Sci 25(9):833–848.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2630236 Google Scholar
  88. Ouchi WG, Maguire MA (1975) Organizational control: two functions. Admin Sci Q 20(4):559–569.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2392023 Google Scholar
  89. Pil FK, Fujimoto T (2007) Lean and reflective production: the dynamic nature of production models. Int J Prod Res 45(16):3741–3761.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701223659 Google Scholar
  90. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903Google Scholar
  91. Poskela J, Martinsuo M (2009) Management control and strategic renewal in the front end of innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 26(6):671–684.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00692.x Google Scholar
  92. Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J (1981) A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Prod Rev 5(2):122–140.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3380029 Google Scholar
  93. Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manag Sci 29(3):363–377.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363 Google Scholar
  94. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Straub DW (2012) A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. Manag Inf Syst Q 36(1):iii–xivGoogle Scholar
  95. Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M (2015) SmartPLS 3, version 3.2.7. SmartPLS GmbH, Bönningstedt, Germany. http://www.smartpls.com
  96. Sande JB, Ghosh M (2018) Endogeneity in survey research. Int J Res Mark 35(2):185–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.01.005 Google Scholar
  97. Schein EH (1984) Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Manag Rev 25(2):3–16Google Scholar
  98. Siemsen E, Roth A, Oliveira P (2010) Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organ Res Meth 13(3):456–476.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241 Google Scholar
  99. Snell SA (1992) Control theory in strategic human resource management: the mediating effect of administrative information. Acad Manag J 35(2):292–327.  https://doi.org/10.5465/256375 Google Scholar
  100. Song M, Thieme RJ (2006) A cross-national investigation of the R&D-marketing interface in the product innovation process. Ind Mark Manag 35(3):308–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.09.024 Google Scholar
  101. Speklé RF, Widener SK (2018) Challenging issues in survey research: discussion and suggestions. J Manag Account Res 30(2):3–21.  https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51860 Google Scholar
  102. Speklé RF, van Elten HJ, Widener SK (2017) Creativity and control: a paradox—evidence from the levers of control framework. Behav Res Account 29(2):73–96.  https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-51759 Google Scholar
  103. Teece DJ (1980) The diffusion of an administrative innovation. Manag Sci 26(5):464–470.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.5.464 Google Scholar
  104. Tessier S, Otley D (2012) A conceptual development of Simons’ levers of control framework. Manag Account Res 23(3):171–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.003 Google Scholar
  105. Thompson VA (1965) Bureaucracy and innovation. Admin Sci Q 10(1):1–20.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2391646 Google Scholar
  106. Tillema S, van der Steen M (2015) Co-existing concepts of management control: the containment of tensions due to the implementation of lean production. Manag Account Res 27:67–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.01.002 Google Scholar
  107. Tsai W (2002) Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ Sci 13(2):179–190.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.179.536 Google Scholar
  108. Vaccaro IG, Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2012) Management innovation and leadership: the moderating role of organizational size. J Manag Stud 49(1):28–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00976.x Google Scholar
  109. Van der Stede WA, Young SM, Chen CX (2005) Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: the case of survey studies. Account Organ Soc 30(7/8):655–684.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.01.003 Google Scholar
  110. Walker RM, Damanpour F, Devece CA (2011) Management innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of performance management. J Public Admin Res Theory 21(2):367–386.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq043 Google Scholar
  111. Weber M (1947) The theory of social and economic organization. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  112. Widener SK (2004) An empirical investigation of the relation between the use of strategic human capital and the design of the management control system. Account Organ Soc 29(3/4):377–399.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00046-1 Google Scholar
  113. Widener SK (2007) An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Account Organ Soc 32(7/8):757–788.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.01.001 Google Scholar
  114. Wold H (1980) Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. In: Kmenta J, Ramsey JB (eds) Evaluation of econometric models. Academic Press, New York, pp 47–74Google Scholar
  115. Wright C, Sturdy A, Wylie N (2012) Management innovation through standardization: consultants as standardizers of organizational practice. Res Pol 41(3):652–662.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.004 Google Scholar
  116. Ylinen M, Gullkvist B (2014) The effects of organic and mechanistic control in exploratory and exploitative innovations. Manag Account Res 25(1):93–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.05.001 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations