The effects of the performance measurement system debate and cognitive conflict on ambidextrous innovation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2020.170418Keywords:
Performance measurement system, Cognitive conflict, Ambidextrous innovationAbstract
This study follows the flow of research that investigated the relationship between the performance measurement system and innovation but differs in considering innovation as a multidimensional construct. This study analyzes the effects of the performance measurement system debate and cognitive conflict on ambidextrous innovation. A survey was conducted with managers of companies listed in Brazil Bolsa Balcão (B3), according to the ranking of research and development values and intangible assets, and 124 valid answers were obtained. To test the hypotheses we used the structural equation modeling technique. The results revealed that the performance measurement system debate positively influences ambidextrous innovation and that cognitive conflict moderates this relationship. It is concluded that discussions between managers about performance measures allow the problem-solving, pursuit of learning, creativity, and innovation, especially when intensified by cognitive conflict.
Downloads
References
Af Wåhlberg, A.E., & Poom, L. (2015). An empirical test of nonresponse bias in internet surveys. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 336-347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1111212
Amason, A.C., & Mooney, A.C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management team conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(4), 340-359.
Anthony, R.N. (1965). Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Massachusetts: Harvard University.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.61
Bedford, D.S. (2015). Management control systems across different modes of innovation: implications for firm performance. Management Accounting Research, 28(3), 12-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.04.003
Bedford, D.S., Bisbe, J., & Sweeney, B. (2019). Performance measurement systems as generators of cognitive conflict in ambidextrous firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 72(1), 21-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.010
Bedford, D.S., & Speklé, R.F. (2018). Construct validity in survey-based management accounting and control research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(2), 23-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51995
Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2009). The choice of interactive control systems under different innovation management modes. European Accounting Review, 18(2), 371-405.
Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2015). How control systems influence product innovation processes: Examining the role of entrepreneurial orientation. Accounting and Business Research, 45(3), 356-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180902863803
Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(8), 709-737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2003.10.010
Calton, J.M., & Payne, S.L. (2003). Coping with paradox: Multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business & Society, 42(1), 7-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650302250505
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(2-3), 127-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7
Chenhall, R.H., Kallunki, J.P., & Silvola, H. (2011). Exploring the relationships between strategy, innovation, and management control systems: the roles of social networking, organic innovative culture, and formal controls. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 23(1), 99-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-10069
Davila, A., Foster, G., & Oyon, D. (2009). Accounting and control, entrepreneurship and innovation: Venturing into new research opportunities. European Accounting Review, 18(2), 281-311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180902731455
Davila, T. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems' design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(4-5), 383-409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00034-3
Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2012). Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Upper Saddle River: FT press.
Dekker, H.C., Groot, T., & Schoute, M. (2012). A balancing act? The implications of mixed strategies for performance measurement system design. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 25(1), 71-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50356
Desivilya, H.S., Somech, A., & Lidgoster, H. (2010). Innovation and conflict management in work teams: The effects of team identification and task and relationship conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3(1), 28-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00048.x
Dreu, C.K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277795
Dreu, C.K., & West, M.A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-1201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003
Flamholtz, E.G., Das, T.K., & Tsui, A.S. (1985). Toward an integrative framework of organizational control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), 35-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(85)90030-3
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 19(2), 110-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1920110
Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). California: Sage publications.
Henri, J.F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), 529-558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.07.001
Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A., & Volberda, H.W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2) 256-282.
Jehn, K.A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (3)530-557.
Kim, D.Y., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2012). Relationship between quality management practices and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 30(4), 295-315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.02.003
Koberg, C.S., Detienne, D.R., & Heppard, K.A. (2003). An empirical test of environmental, organizational, and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 21-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00003-8
Lamberti, L., & Noci, G. (2010). Marketing strategy and marketing performance measurement system: Exploring the relationship. European Management Journal, 28(2), 139-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.04.007
Lin, H.E., McDonough III, E.F., Lin, S.J., & Lin, C.Y.Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 262-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00998.x
Lopez-Valeiras, E., Gonzalez-Sanchez, M.B., & Gomez-Conde, J. (2016). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on process and organizational innovation. Review of Managerial Science, 10(3), 487-510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0165-9
Malmi, T., & Brown, D.A. (2008). Management control systems as a package—Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003
Naranjo-Gil, D., & Hartmann, F. (2007). Management accounting systems, top management team heterogeneity and strategic change. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 735-756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.08.003
Sarkees, M., & Hulland, J. (2009). Innovation and efficiency: It is possible to have it all. Business horizons, 52(1), 45-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.08.002
Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Simons, T.L., & Peterson, R.S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Yu, Z.Y. (2005). Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative conflict for relationship building. Human Relations, 58(3), 341-367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705053426
West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00951
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.
