راهبرد و سیستم های کنترل مدیریت: دیدگاه مبتنی بر منابع

The aim of this study is to examine, from a resource-based perspective, the relationships between the use of management control systems (MCS) and organizational capabilities. More specifically, the study focuses on the diagnostic and interactive uses of one important aspect of MCS, namely performance measurement systems (PMS), and four capabilities leading to strategic choices (i.e., market orientation, entrepreneurship, innovativeness, and organizational learning). Three research questions are investigated in this study: (i) to what extent do the diagnostic and interactive uses of MCS contribute specifically to the creation and maintenance of capabilities leading to strategic choices? (ii) To what extent do the diagnostic and interactive uses of MCS act in combination to produce dynamic tension which contributes to the creation and maintenance of these capabilities? (iii) To what extent does the use of MCS contribute to organizational performance? The results suggest that an interactive use of PMS fosters the four capabilities by focusing organizational attention on strategic priorities and stimulating dialogue. Also, by creating constraints to ensure compliance with orders, the diagnostic use of PMS exerts negative pressure on these capabilities. Furthermore, some evidence suggests the influence of dynamic tension resulting from the balanced use of PMS in a diagnostic and interactive fashion on capabilities and performance.

In the current business environment characterized by fast changes in customers, technologies and competition, organizations need to continuously renew themselves to survive and prosper (Danneels, 2002). Innovativeness, organizational learning, market orientation and entrepreneurship are recognized as primary capabilities to reach competitive advantage (Hult and Ketchen, 2001, Hurley and Hult, 1998 and Ireland et al., 2001). Over the past 15 years, the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm on the origins of competitive advantage has become a very influential framework and one of the standard theories in the field of strategy (Barney et al., 2001 and Hoopes et al., 2003). The RBV is based on the principle that competitiveness is a function of distinctive and valuable resources and capabilities controlled by a firm. Despite considerable interest in the relationship between management control systems (MCS) and strategy, the MCS literature has devoted scant attention to the RBV. This study seeks to extend the research at the interface between MCS and strategy with the application of an RBV framework. So far, a significant body of literature has explored the effects of strategy on MCS and, to a lesser extent, the effects of MCS on strategy (Dent, 1990, Langfield-Smith, 1997 and Shields, 1997). A first line of research has emphasized the effects of strategy on MCS. The concept of strategy has been generally examined at a strategic-choice level: (i) market positioning: cost leadership versus differentiation (e.g. Bruggeman and Stede, 1993, Govindarajan, 1988 and Govindarajan and Fisher, 1990), (ii) strategic pattern: prospector versus defender (e.g. Abernethy and Guthrie, 1994, Hoque, 2004 and Simons, 1987), (iii) strategic mission: build, hold, harvest (e.g. Govindarajan and Gupta, 1985 and Merchant, 1985), or (iv) strategic priorities: customization, quality, flexibility, etc. (e.g. Abernethy and Lillis, 1995, Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 1998, Baines and Langfield-Smith, 2003 and Ittner et al., 2003). These conceptualizations generally take strategy as a given, consider it from a content perspective (Fahey & Christensen, 1986), and restrict its scope to the notion of intended strategy (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985).1 In these studies, MCS are considered for the most part to be strategy-implementation systems and the last step in the strategic-management process. This conceptualization of MCS follows a structural approach whereby the perspective is static and the focus is placed on such issues as the presence or absence of specific systems, their technical properties and their design (Chapman, 1997, Chapman, 1998 and Dent, 1987). A second line of research has emphasized the effects of MCS on strategy. The concept of strategy has also been examined at a strategic-choice level and, to a lesser extent, at a capabilities level. First, a number of studies have examined strategy at a strategic-choice level: (i) strategic priorities (e.g. Chenhall, 2005 and Marginson, 2002), and (ii) strategic change (e.g. Abernethy and Brownell, 1999 and Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 2003). Other studies refer indirectly to strategy at a capabilities level in terms of innovation or organizational learning (e.g. Bisbe and Otley, 2004, Davila, 2000 and Kloot, 1997). These conceptualizations consider strategy as being influenced by MCS, consider it from a process perspective (Huff & Reger, 1987), and expand its scope to the notion of emergent strategy (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). In these studies, the role of MCS in the formulation of strategy is recognized as well as their continuous implication during the strategic-management process. This conceptualization of MCS follows a processual approach whereby the perspective is dynamic and the focus is on such issues as the dialogue and interaction surrounding the use of MCS (Chapman, 1997, Chapman, 1998 and Dent, 1987). Numerous authors have pointed out that the findings provided by the MCS-strategy stream of research remain ambiguous and sometimes contradictory (e.g. Abernethy and Brownell, 1999, Chapman, 1997, Chenhall, 2003, Ittner et al., 2003 and Langfield-Smith, 1997). These ambiguous results can be attributed in part to the various definitions, conceptualizations and operationalizations of strategy and MCS (Kald et al., 2000, Langfield-Smith, 1997 and Simons, 1990). They can also be explained by two elements: (i) the absence of a theoretical framework founded on the resource-based view, and (ii) the limited attention devoted to the dynamic tension resulting from different uses or roles of MCS. First, the relationship between MCS and strategy may not have been studied at the right level of analysis. As suggested by Ittner and Larcker (2001), one key element in studying strategy and MCS is to identify the specific factors that do in fact lead to strategic success. Following the RBV, the link between strategy and MCS may occur at the capabilities level rather than the strategic-choice level. The RBV rests on the principle that competitiveness is a function of the strength, expert exploitation, and leveraging of specific internal resources and capabilities controlled by a firm (Lengnick-Hall & Wolff, 1999). These resources and capabilities are distinctive, valuable, and must be protected from imitation, adoption, or substitution by competitors to create a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991 and Wernerfelt, 1984). They support strategic choices by providing the competitive advantage necessary to materialize these choices. MCS must be aligned with capabilities to be effective and consistent with strategic choices. Hence, the notion of strategic choice itself may not be directly traceable to MCS. Instead, the relationship should be examined between capabilities and MCS, rather than between strategic choice and MCS. Second, the traditional role of MCS in the implementation of strategy is commonly recognized (e.g. Andrews, 1971, Ansoff, 1965 and Anthony, 1965). Following the work of Simons (Simons, 1990, Simons, 1991, Simons, 1994 and Simons, 1995), several studies have examined a more active role of MCS in the formulation of strategy and the implementation of strategic change (e.g. Abernethy and Brownell, 1999, Bisbe and Otley, 2004 and Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 2003). Another line of research describes how the organizations balance the traditional and more active roles of MCS (e.g. Ahrens and Chapman, 2004, Chapman, 1998, Dent, 1987 and Haas and Kleingeld, 1999). However, less attention has been devoted to the effects of dynamic tension resulting from the balance use of MCS in various ways. Notable exceptions are the work of Chenhall and Morris (1995) and Marginson (2002). While the former has examined the joint effect of organic processes and formal MCS on performance, the latter has used the model of Simons to report some trade-offs resulting from the various uses of MCS. A more complete understanding of the relationships between MCS and strategy requires the integration in the theoretical and empirical analyses of both traditional and more active roles of MCS, as well as the tension resulting from those uses. Building on the work of Simons, this study aims to examine, from a resource-based perspective, how the use of MCS by top management team can act as an antecedent to organizational capabilities leading to strategic choices. Specifically, this study focuses on the traditional feedback role of MCS to support the implementation of strategy (‘diagnostic use’) and the more active role of MCS associated with the signals sent throughout the firm to focus organizational attention, stimulate dialogue and support the emergence of new strategies (‘interactive use’). These two types of use work simultaneously but for different purposes. Collectively, their power lies in the tension generated by their balanced use which simultaneously reflects a notion of competition and complementarity. Hence, three specific research questions are investigated in this study: (i) To what extent do the diagnostic and interactive uses of MCS contribute specifically to the creation and maintenance of capabilities leading to strategic choices? (ii) To what extent do the diagnostic and interactive uses of MCS act in combination to produce dynamic tension which contributes to the creation and maintenance of these capabilities? (iii) To what extent does the use of MCS contribute to organizational performance? A theoretical model is developed and tested with empirical data gathered from a survey. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly examines the resource-based view and the use of MCS following the model of Simons. Thereafter, a theoretical model is developed and a set of hypotheses is presented. The next two sections include a description of the survey design, the analysis of the data using structural equation modelling and a discussion of the results. The final section presents the theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations and insights for future research.