دانلود رایگان مقاله تاثیر جامعه در سیستم های کنترل مدیریت

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to investigate whether certain configurations of management controls dominate in certain societies (socio-cultural contexts) and whether the effectiveness of a given archetype of management control systems (MCSs) varies depending on the socio-cultural setting—the society—in which it operates. The study focuses on three socio-cultural groups and the corresponding institutional contexts (an Anglo-Saxon group, a Central European group, and a Northern European group) and three MCS archetypes (delegated bureaucratic control, delegated output control, and programmable output control). We use unique data from a cross-national, interview-based survey encompassing 610 strategic business units from nine countries (seven European countries plus Canada and Australia). The idea that firms tend to adapt MCSs to the socio-cultural context does not gain empirical support in this study. No significant differences in the distribution of MCSs between the three socio-cultural groups are noted. However, we do find that programmable output control has a more positive impact on effectiveness in Anglo-Saxon cultures, while delegated output control has a more positive impact on effectiveness in Northern Europe. Taken together these findings indicate that distinct differences between societies make a particular MCS design more appropriate in a given society, but where such differences are not dramatic (as in the present case), multiple MCS designs can be found in the same society.

1. Introduction

What explains the design and use of management control systems (MCSs)? This question is fundamental to management control scholars and has generated an impressive body of knowledge (Chenhall, 2003). Empirical researchers have focused largely on how various contingency factors interact with MCSs, while less attention has been paid to the institutional contexts in which these interactions take place. Generally, the question pertaining to how the design and use of MCSs, and their effectiveness, may be influenced by the institutional contexts in which they operate is rarely addressed by contingency scholars. This is surprising considering that the central point of the contingency framework is the importance of context in understanding the design, use, and effectiveness of MCSs. This implies that observed relationships between contingencies and MCSs are presented as universally valid across institutional contexts, a circumstance that ought to spur contingency researchers within the MCS literature to think differently. Moreover, the lack of attention to institutional context may help explain the somewhat inconclusive results that have been reported in this stream of studies.

This outlook is supported by insights from a critical examination of perspectives used to explore the basis of differences in cross-country MCSs. Bhimani (1999) compares the conventional contingency theory perspective with four alternative perspectives: “the culturist perspective”, from which nationally rooted cultural forces are seen as developing nationally specific solutions to control problems; “the business system perspective”, 1 from which MCSs are seen as embedded in societal institutions; “the new institutionalism perspective”, from which MCSs are seen as reproduced and reflecting taken-for-granted practices; and “the ‘new’ history perspective”, from which contemporary MCSs are seen as reflecting historical political, socio-cultural, and economic changes. The study notes that the contingency perspective’s reliance on “universalism and functionalism” (p. 434) is problematic because there are convincing arguments that the impact of conventional contingency factors on MCSs as revealed in cross-country research is restricted or even eliminated by socio-cultural or institutional factors (see Bhimani (2007) for an overview of the literature).