Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants and effects of the diagnostic and interactive use of control systems: an empirical analysis on the use of budgets

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Management Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on Simon’s distinction between diagnostic and interactive control approaches, this study examines the determinants and effects of the use of budgets. Using survey data from German manufacturing firms, the study analyzes a broad set of potential influencing factors. We test a structural equation model which explains a significant part of the variance of the interactive and of the diagnostic use of budgets. The way budgets are used highly matters with respect to controlling business strategy and influencing firm performance. Interactive and diagnostic uses of budgets significantly contribute to the formation of emergent strategies and to the implementation of intended strategies.

The study extends contingency research by analyzing different aspects of the external and internal business environment and their influence on the use of budgets. We contribute to the literature in two ways: First, the results on the effects of different influencing factors may be used for theory development, and second, it provides a basis for further empirical investigations which may focus on one particular factor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abernethy, M. A., & Brownell, P. (1999). The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic change: an exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abernethy, M. A., Bouwens, J., & Van Lent, L. (2004). Determinants of control system design in divisionalized firms. The Accounting Review, 79, 545–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abernethy, M. A., Bouwens, J., & Van Lent, L. (2010). Leadership and control system design. Management Accounting Research, 21, 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agbejule, A. (2005). The relationship between management accounting systems and perceived environmental uncertainty on managerial performance: a research note. Accounting and Business Research, 35, 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, R., & Govindarajan, V. (2003). Management control systems. Boston: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonakis, J., Bendham, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: a review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1990). The dilemma of implementing controls: the case of managerial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 503–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baines, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to management accounting change: a structural equation approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 675–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, R. J., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision making and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1107–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhimani, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). Structure, formality and the importance of financial and non-financial information in strategy development and implementation. Management Accounting Research, 18, 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2009). The choice of interactive control systems under different innovation management modes. European Accounting Review, 18, 371–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. T. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 709–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brignall, S. (1997). A contingent rationale for cost system design in services. Management Accounting Research, 8, 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, P. (1983). The motivational impact of management-by-exception in a budgetary context. Journal of Accounting Research, 21, 456–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, W. J., & McKinnon, S. M. (1993). Information and managers: a field study. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 84–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, W. J., & Waterhouse, J. H. (1975). Budgetary control and organization structure. Journal of Accounting Research, 13, 177–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, L. A., & Steensma, H. K. (1998). Toward a model for relating executive career experiences and firm performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 86–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadez, S., & Guilding, C. (2008). An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 836–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. S. (1998). Accountants in organisational networks. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 737–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 127–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. H., & Morris, D. (1986). The impact of structure, environment, and interdependence on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. The Accounting Review, 61, 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Performance measurement and reward systems, trust, and strategic change. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15, 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Hillsdale: Lawrence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, V. K., Eggleton, I. R., Leong, R. C., & Michele, K. C. (2005). The impact of market competition and budgetary participation on performance and job satisfaction: a research note. The British Accounting Review, 37, 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davila, T. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 383–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dent, J. F. (1990). Strategy, organization and control: some possibilities for accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elizur, D., & Guttman, L. (1976). The structure of attitudes toward work and technological change within an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 611–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emsley, D. (2001). Redesigning variance analysis for problem solving. Management Accounting Research, 12, 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, M. C. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flamholtz, E. G. (1983). Accounting, budgeting and control systems in their organizational context: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8, 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation. The Academy of Management Executive, 6, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, J. W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11, 280–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naranjo-Gil, D., & Hartmann, F. (2006). How top management teams use management accounting systems to implement strategy. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 18, 21–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, L. A., & Miller, D. (1976). A contingency framework for the design of accounting information systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, L. A., & Narayanan, V. K. (1984). Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: an empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9, 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V. (1986). Impact of participation in the budgetary process on managerial attitudes and performance: universalistic and contingency perspectives. Decision Sciences, 17, 496–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grisold, R. E. (1995). How to link strategic planning with budgeting. CMA Magazine, 69, 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul, F. A., & Chia, Y. M. (1994). The effects of management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and decentralization on managerial performance: a test of three-way interaction. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19, 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. H., Hass, J. E., & Johnson, N. J. (1967). Organizational size, complexity, and formalization. American Sociological Review, 32, 903–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S. C., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2004). Multiple facets of budgeting: an exploratory analysis. Management Accounting Research, 15, 415–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, F. G. H. (2005). The impact of departmental interdependencies and management accounting system use on subunit performance: a comment. European Accounting Review, 14, 329–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, F. G. H., & Vassen, E. H. J. (2003). The changing role of management accounting and control systems: accounting for knowledge across control domains. In A. Bhimani (Ed.), Management accounting in the digital economy (pp. 112–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, F. G. H., Narabjo, D., & Roldán, J. L. (2005). Leadership styles and the use of accounting performance measures: test of a causal model using PLS. Working paper, RSM Eramus University, Rotterdam.

  • Henri, J.-F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 529–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., & Workman, J. P. (1999). Strategic consensus and performance: the role of strategy type and market-related dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, J., & Fraser, R. (2003). Beyond budgeting: how managers can break free from the annual performance trap. Boston: McGraw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997). Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, 293–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2005). Moving from strategic measurement to strategic data analysis. In C. S. Chapman (Ed.), Controlling strategy: management, accounting, and performance measurement (pp. 86–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla, P. N. (1972). The effect of different types of competition on the use of management controls. Journal of Accounting Research, 10, 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A. (1999). Multilevel theory building. Benefits, barriers, and new developments. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kober, A., Ng, J., & Byron, J. P. (2007). The interrelationship between management control mechanisms and strategy. Management Accounting Research, 18, 425–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kren, L. (1992). Budgetary participation and managerial performance: the impact of information and environmental volatility. The Accounting Review, 67, 511–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyi, L., & Parker, R. J. (2008). Antecedents of budget participation: leadership style, information asymmetry, and evaluative use of budget. Abacus, 44, 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfield-Smith, K. (2005). What do we know about management control systems and strategy. In C. S. Chapman (Ed.), Controlling strategy: management, accounting, and performance measurement (pp. 62–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, T., & Waterhouse, J. H. (1996). Predicting change in management accounting systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 8, 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, N. B., & Williams, J. J. (1992). Managerial roles and budgeting behavior. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 4, 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, D. (2002). Management control systems and their effects on strategy formation at middle management levels: evidence from a U.K. organization. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1019–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, D., & Ogden, S. (2005). Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers’ budgeting behaviours. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 435–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., & Pfeffer, J. (1983). Power and the design and implementation of accounting and control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, C., & Bescos, P.-L. (2001). An explanatory model of managers’ information needs: implications for management accounting. European Accounting Review, 10, 257–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1992). A model of marketing knowledge use within firms. Journal of Marketing, 56, 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Howell, R. (1996). The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., Adidam, P. T., & Edison, S. W. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of marketing strategy making: a model and a test. Journal of Marketing, 63, 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mia, L. (1993). The role of mas information in organisations: an empirical study. The British Accounting Review, 25, 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 19, 179–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: organizational constitution and trust as controls. The Academy of Management Review, 28, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mundy, J. (2010). Creating dynamic tensions through a balanced use of management control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 499–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. (1990). The performance effects of participative budgeting: an integration of intervening and moderating variables. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 104–123.

  • Murray, D., & Regel, D. (1992). Accuracy and consensus in accounting studies of decision making. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 4, 127–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otley, D. (1978). Budget use and managerial performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 16, 122–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otley, D. T. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10, 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otley, D. T., & Pierce, B. J. (1995). The control problem in public accounting firms: an empirical study of the impact of leadership style. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 405–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otley, D. T., & Pollanen, R. M. (2000). Budgetary criteria in performance evaluation: a critical appraisal using new evidence. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research. A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. C. (1996). How much does industry matter? An alternative empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, M., & McCosh, A. M. (1976). The influence of organisational and personal factors on the sue of accounting information: an empirical study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1, 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D. (1986). Organizational culture as related to industry, position and performance: a preliminary report. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandt, J. (2003). Management mit Kennzahlen und Kennzahlensystemen – Bestandsaufnahme, Determinanten und Erfolgsauswirkungen. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 661–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, D. S. (2002). The differential effect of environmental dimensionality, size and structure on budget system characteristics in hotels. Management Accounting Research, 13, 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1987a). Accounting control systems and business strategy: an empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1987b). Planning, control, and uncertainty: a process view. In W. J. Bruns & R. S. Kaplan (Eds.), Accounting and management: field study perspectives (pp. 339–362). Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1988). Analysis of the organizational characteristics related to tight budget goals. Contemporary Accounting Research, 5, 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1990). The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: new perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1991). Strategic orientations and top management attention to control systems. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1994). How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control—how managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement & control systems for implementing strategy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (2005). Levers of organization design: how managers use accountability system for greater performance and commitment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiners, D. (2005). Lernen mit Controllinginformationen: Empirische Untersuchung in deutschen Industrieunternehmen. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkins, C. (2001). Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances and networks. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 161–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, B., Thorne, H., & Gurd, B. (2009). Management control and strategy—what’s been happening? Journal of Accounting Literature, 28, 123–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela, T.-S. (2005). The interplay of different levers of control: a case study of introducing a new performance measurement system. Management Accounting Research, 16, 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tymon, W. G., Stout, D. E., & Shaw, K. N. (1998). Critical analysis and recommendations regarding the role of perceived environmental uncertainty in behavioral accounting research. Behav Res in Account, 10, 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderbosch, B. (1999). An empirical analysis of the association between the use of executive support systems and perceived organizational competitiveness. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbosch, B., & Huff, S. L. (1997). Searching and scanning: how executives obtain information from executive information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 21, 81–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterhouse, J. H., & Tiessen, P. (1978). A contingency framework for management accounting systems research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 3, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: moral and strategic implications. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 757–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willauer, B. (2004). Consensus as key success factor in strategy-making. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaverbaum, G. J. (1988). Critical factors in the user environment: an experimental study of users, organizations and tasks. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12, 74–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, J. L. (2006). Accounting for decision making and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Voith Hydro/EBS Alumni, 89522, Heidenheim, Germany

    Stefan Hofmann

  2. European Business School (EBS), 37/39 Boulevard Murat, 75016, Paris, France

    Andreas Wald

  3. Strascheg Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SIIE), EBS Business School, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, 65375, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany

    Ronald Gleich

Authors
  1. Stefan Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Wald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald Gleich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Wald.

Appendix: Table 6

Appendix: Table 6

Table 6 Measurement assessment
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hofmann, S., Wald, A. & Gleich, R. Determinants and effects of the diagnostic and interactive use of control systems: an empirical analysis on the use of budgets. J Manag Control 23, 153–182 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-012-0156-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-012-0156-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation