CMJ

EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS AS LEVERS OF STRATEGIC RENEWAL: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY SYNOPSIS
SUBMITTED TO CMJ UNIVERSITY, SHILLONG FOR AWARD THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MANAGEMENT

SUPERVISED BY Dr. S.K. Tayal
Director, MITM, Ghaziabad, U P

SUBMITTED BY Neeraj Kumar

Reg.No. - 80187710104842

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT CMJ UNIVERSITY, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA 2010

Neeraj Kumar

Page 1

CMJ

EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS AS LEVERS OF STRATEGIC RENEWAL: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Introduction
Within the few last years, the growing level of global competition has intensified the challenges for companies to find more effective ways of achieving competitive advantages and improving performance. The path to initiating and supporting this is through smart vision, adequate strategies, effective organizational structures and efficient Management Control Systems (MCS). How important are management control systems to the achievement of strategic renewal? Some scholars have argued that formal control systems are vital to Effective implementation, particularly when the change is strategic in nature, arguing that the reactive nature of most management control systems reduces managers ability to anticipate future challenges and opportunities that often arise during the implementation process (Schreyogg and Steinmann, 1987; Preble, 1992). Research has produced little compelling evidence to rectify these competing perspectives. Empirical studies that assess the role of management control systems in change implementation should therefore offer potentially meaningful contribution. There are diverse views on the nature, purpose and scope of MCS and the number of academic areas that research on this topic is clear evidence of such diversity. Organizational behaviour, accounting, management, public sector administration, and information systems are just some of these areas: A MCS is a set of interrelated communication structures that facilitates the processing of information for the purpose of assisting managers in coordinating the parts and attaining the purpose of an organization on a continuous basis (Maciariello and Kirby, 1994, p. 1) Management control is the process by which managers influence other members of the organization to implement the organizations strategies. The system used by management to control the activities of an organization is called its management control system. (Anthony and Govindarajan, 1998)
Neeraj Kumar Page 2

CMJ Management control systems are formal, information-based routines that managers use to maintain or alter patterns in organizational activities (Simons, 1995, p. 5). Central to most management control systems is setting behavioural or output standards and employing mechanisms to ensure that these standards are achieved (Lawler and Rhode, 1976; Merchant, 1985). Most of these mechanisms are diagnostic in nature; meaning that they require assessment of how well performance is achieving objectives and analysis of where problems may exist (Otley and Berry, 1980). Corrective action flowing from diagnosis is aimed at revising behaviour, goals, or both in order to sufficiently reduce a perceived performance gap. Many information systems can be employed in a diagnostic control capacity, including profit plans, budgets, project management systems, human resource processes, and systems that measure strategic performance (Simons, 2000). There are five implications that can be highlighted from these definitions. Firstly, MCS considers only management-level structures and hence focuses on managers interaction with controls. The main reason for such emphasis is related to the established notion that control is one of the four basic functions of the management process, others being planning, organizing and leading (Anthony and Govindarajan, 1998). So, the manager, irrespective of his/her hierarchical level and the category of his/her responsibility centre (cost, profit or investment), is the focus of MCS studies. Secondly, the finality in an MCS is traditionally towards organizational goals (or objectives), which can presumably be achieved or not, as measured by some performance indicators. Anthony and Govindarajan (1998) focus on the links between MCS and strategies but eventually the implementation and success of those strategies is also assessed by a performance measure. These performance indicators need not be financial ones, but have gradually been understood as a combination of financial andnon-financial measures, such as the one pioneered by Kaplan and Nortons (1992)balanced scorecard. More recently, Merchant and Van der Stede (2007, p. 25) refer tosuch controls as results controls, which are prevalent in most organizations. Thirdly, whilst Maciariello and Kirby (1994) narrowly relate MCS to a set of communication structures, Anthony and Govindarajan (1998) view MCS as an influence process. These views are not contradictory but they indicate how individual control systems reflect several
Neeraj Kumar Page 3

CMJ dimensions, which then will have different consequences at the organizational (company, division, department) and/or individual (manager) level. This study aims at exploring further this influence process but from the point of view of the possibly unintended consequences i.e. dysfunctional behaviour. Fourthly, in spite of the positive aspects being highlighted in both definitions, controlsystems are constraining mechanisms. As later stated by Maciariello and Kirby (1994, p. 8), control systems involve steering the organization and bringing unity out of diverse efforts of subunits and or individuals. Managers, who traditionally exercise power and control, may resent the straightjacket characteristics of, and resist (Oravoid) compliance to, MCS. Similarly, both the academic and professional literature refer to the use of tight (or loose) controls, in terms of how far they are made congruent, specific and timely in relation to organizational objectives (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2007, p. 119). Fifthly, while this is not explicit in both definitions, all the authors give predominance to the study of formal control systems (existing and established by the organization) rather than informal ones (relationships developed by individuals or groups within an organization). Formal control systems are easier to identify across organizations and time, easier to research and resulting findings can be, to a certain extent, generalized. In addition, virtually all the formal control systems are considered to have cybernetic properties i.e.: ..Systems in which standards of performance are determined, measuring systems gauge performance, comparisons are made between standards and actual performance, and feedback provides information on the variances.(Fisher, 1995, p. 14) For example, personal contacts and networks and peer pressures.

Neeraj Kumar

Page 4

CMJ

Review of Literature
Evolution of Management control - Kaplan and Johnson (1987)
Concept of Management Control system is often considered as young in comparison with other disciplines of management sciences (Zimnovitch, 1999; Malo& Teller, 1999; Hoper,2001) even though historians have demonstrated that accounting reports have been prepared for thousands of years (Johnson & Kaplan, 1987:6). Johnson& Kaplan (1987), in their book "Relevance Lost" regarded as an influential book concerning management accounting and control systems published to date (Ezzamel et al., 1990; Noreen, 1987), presented historical monographs on the evolution of management accounting systems. In the early 19th century: industrial accounting systems, as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, had been born to support the profit-seeking activity of entrepreneurs by focalizing on conversion cost. Period of 1880-1900 may considered as Period of the scientific management movement created standard costs. Great advances in transportation and communication required an efficient coordination between logistical, conversion, and distribution activities of enterprises, so new measures like gross margin were created to motivate and evaluate the efficiency of internal processes. In 1920s, due to coordination problems between the diverse activities of vertically integrated and multidivisional organizations, DuPont Powder and General Motors "devised budgets to coordinate and balance the internal resource flux from raw material to final customer", and "developed a new measure, Return on Investment, to compare performance in the firm's diverse parts with performance of the whole" (Johnson &Kaplan, 1987:64). "By 1925 virtually all management accounting practices used today had been developed: cost accounts for labour, material, and overhead; budgets for cash, income, and capital; flexible budgets, sales forecasts, standard costs, variance analysis, transfer prices, and divisional performance measures(Johnson &Kaplan, 1987:12). The 1980s saw the obsolescence of management accounting systems.

Modern Management control system

The 1990s marked the continual attempts to modernize or renew management accounting theory and practices (Otley, 1995, 2003). A common thread of this research is a growing interest in the relationship between Management Control systems and strategy. This innovative research can be roughly grouped in two inter-related strands. The first focuses on new
Neeraj Kumar Page 5

CMJ techniques, while the second concentrates on the use of accounting techniques concerning the first approach, the researchers focus on finding new accounting techniques or practices. Activity-based cost (ABC) management, Economic Value Added, and Balanced Scorecard have been developed and advertised as the symbol of new management control systems.

Balanced Scorecard is "a set of measures that gives top managers a fast but comprehensive view of the business. The Balanced Scorecard includes financial measures that tell the results of actions already taken. And it complements the financial measures with operational measures on customer satisfaction, internal processes, and the organization's innovation and improvement activities - operational measure that are the drivers of future financial performance" (Kaplan & Norton, 1992).

The Balanced Scorecard, putting strategy and vision, not control, at the centre, illustrates a new tendency of management control research. It helps to pull people toward an overall goal and improve decision-making process (Kaplan& Norton, 1992; Kaplan, 1994). However, much management accounting research has lost its way by paying too much attention on accounting and strategy formulation, but not enough on management and strategy implementation (Otley, 2001: 243). Otley proposed to move from measurement of performance to management of performance (Otley, 1999, 2001, 2003). Performance management concerns the formal processes [more than the traditional management accounting practices] that organizations use in attempting to implement their strategic intent and to adapt to the circumstances in which they have to operate (Otley, 2001:250). This point of view reflects the second strand of research that is, the way managers use a control system. This is the cornerstone of Simonss (H. Simons was rewarded a Nobel Memorial prize in Economics (1978) for his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations levers of control (1995). In fact, the research on the use of management and accounting information systems was initiated by Simon H. et al. (1954), but was not much developed by other researchers until Simons (1987). Simon et al. (1954) interviewed more than 400 executives in seven companies: more than half of

Neeraj Kumar

Page 6

CMJ these were operating executives, and the remainders were accounting executives. Three kinds of use of accounting information were identified as: Score-card use: Am I doing well or badly? Attention-directing use: What problems should I look into?It is closely related to what is usually called the principle of exception. For an effective attention-directing service, the controllers department needs to develop direct and active channels of communication with the operating executives at those points in the organization where operations are being measured (Simon et al, 1954:3). Problem-solving use: Of the several ways of doing the job, which is the best? occurring primarily in administrative units for making analyses or special studies, for use by general management. The same item of information may be an attention director for one executive but primarily a score card for others, or it may have both score-card and attention-directing use for the same person (Simon et al., 1954:23). The first two types of use are apt to be more frequent than the problem-solving uses at all levels of management. Burchell et al (1980) addressed similar categories but in different terms: answer machine, learning machine, and ammunition machine. Or Vandenbosch (1999) classified the use of management information system as score keeping, problem solving, and attention focusing and three roles of performance measurement, according to Atkinson et al. (1997), are coordination, monitoring, and diagnosis. Simons (1995, 2000), focusing on managers attention, distinguished the diagnostic and interactive use of control systems. Henri (2006b) hence proposed four types of use: monitoring, attention focusing, strategic decision-making and legitimization. All these researches, despite their differences, focus on the use of management control systems. They all recognized the key role of management control systems in strategy implementation and in facilitation of learning.

Neeraj Kumar

Page 7

CMJ

Research Methodology
We are thinking to use Survey method to conduct our research programme because we believe this methodology is relevant to study the existing questions about the use of management control for which the knowledge has not yet structured. The survey method provides researchers with a powerful tool for conducting empirical research. In order to accommodate multiple goals of social research, various methods have evolved which each constitute a way of linking ideas and evidence (Ragin, 1984). This work intends to answer this two fold focus as indicated with the application of both qualitative research in accordance with Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1994) as well as an Anglo-Saxon quantitative approach In order to accommodate multiple goals of social research, various methods have evolved, which each constitute a way of linking ideas and evidence (Ragin, 1984). This work intends to answer this twofold focus as indicated with the application of both qualitative research in accordance with Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1994) as well as an Anglo-Saxon quantitative approach. Qualitative research is often appropriate when providing a new or broader perspective on an already explored research topic (Yin, 1994; Eisenhardt, 1989). Nearly all qualitative research seeks to construct representations of observable elements and their interrelations. Often, it deploys research on case studies and is founded on in-depth knowledge gathered in cooperation with companies. The results from case study research can be, on the one hand, a new or refined conceptual model accompanied by propositions or hypotheses about certain interrelations. On the other hand, qualitative research can serve well in order to improve and enlarge data on a specific topic by supporting a quantitative study or conferring a deeper understanding with the help of context-rich descriptions. A roadmap for building concepts from case study research is provided by Eisenhardt. In the following, the steps of Eisenhardts process are portrayed. However, it is important to recognize that deploying the process involves a constant iteration back and forth between the different stages (Eisenhardt, 1989).

I.

At first, a well-defined focus has to be defined, which is important in order to gather

specific data systematically. This focus helps in order not to become overwhelmed by the data volume.

Neeraj Kumar

Page 8

CMJ II. The selection of cases specifies a population which will define the set of entities

from which the research sample is drawn. Moreover, since cases are chosen for theoretical and not statistical reasons, the step comprises theoretical, and not random, sampling. III. Data collection. Multiple data collection methods can be combined for theory building.

Interviews, observations, and the use of archival sources are typically common. IV. Data analysis. Cases are analyzed individually, allowing the unique patterns of each case

to emerge. Afterwards, investigators generalize patterns across cases, developing tentative concepts or constructs, and proposing relationships between variables. V. The shaping of hypotheses involves a sharpening of constructs and an understanding

of the dynamics underlying the proposed relationships. An essential feature of qualitative research is a comparison of the emergent concepts, theory, or hypotheses with the extant literature. This involves examining literature that discusses similar findings as well as literature that conflicts with the emergent theory. Eisenhardts process for conducting qualitative research is directed towards the development of testable hypotheses and theory which are generalizable across settings and is thus in accordance with the research goals of this project. It was therefore chosen as an appropriate additional research path during this work and serves moreover as a foundation for the quantitative work. From the four basic types of case-study design, this research follows a multiple-case design with both MCS and corporate context-factors as two units of analysis (Yin, 1994). The foundation here consists of three in-depth cases; a further integration of small extracts from insights from other companies and industries are applied additionally to cope with specific challenges and detailed issues. This process can help to deepen the understanding of a subject under study (Gassmann, 1999). Additionally to our exploratory qualitative research, the application of a broad empirical survey is intended to back up or verify general knowledge or developed hypotheses. Quantitative research uses methods that are designed to ensure objectivity, generalizability and reliability. In order to answer our general hypotheses concerning, for example, our contingency-based trade off between quality and efficiency, this approach seems to be a reasonable approach for our second research path. Here, the researcher is considered external to the actual research, and results are expected to be replicable no matter who conducts the research. The strengths of the quantitative

Neeraj Kumar

Page 9

CMJ paradigm are that its methods produce quantifiable, reliable data that are usually generalizable to some larger population.

Objective of the study

Ragin (1994) identified seven goals as general, main objectives in social research. In line with his work, the thesis intends to elaborate three of these objectives which can be summarized as: (1) The identification of general patterns and relationships (2) The testing and evaluation of theories and model hypotheses (3) The advancement of social theory in managerial models and implications.

(1) As a first objective, this work intends to comprehend and identify general patterns behind the design of effective Management Control Systems. More specifically, we want to identify how organic and mechanistic forms of control, as well as selected financial and non-financial performance measures, help companies to support their business strategy in specific contextual settings. In addition, we will try to identify the dynamic development of success clusters for our case study subjects over time. In line with Eisenhardt (1989), the goal is to develop an explanatory model which discusses and explains the dynamic development and characteristics of certain business strategies for different companies.

(2) The results from the case studies are a starting point for the definition of more generic insights into the dynamic development of success clusters for industries. In order to test and refine an explanatory model, we use quantitative data which enables us to validate our previous findings by descriptive, quantitative findings on larger scale.

(3) For the dynamic success clusters identified by the help of the first two research objectives, we furthermore intend to develop an action model in order to formulate management recommendations and tools supporting the companies needs within the defined situations (Ragin, 1994). Specifically for companies, which are in the strong need to weigh their product and service quality efforts with their corporate productivity, we plan to illustrate types of customer satisfaction analyses which support the companies

Neeraj Kumar

Page 10

CMJ performance management process as well as their formulation and calibration of business unit strategies.

Significance of the study

Firstly, this study aims at increasing the body of knowledge in understanding the dysfunctional consequences of various sub-systems/mechanisms of an organisations MCS. Can (all) control systems reduce dysfunctional behaviour or are there specific control systems which in fact enhance the extent of managers dysfunctional behaviour? Research into such consequences will be of importance to companies, senior management and management consultants, who are involved in the setting up of MCS. More specifically, the negative consequences of MCS, if proven, would then need to be weighed against the traditional views that such systems lead to relatively more positive consequences. Secondly, in spite of two decades of extensive research into the relevance of contingency-based MCS, the findings remain equivocal and an overall MCS contingency framework has yet to be finalised. Researchers have consistently identified theoretical and empirical shortcomings in previous studies and encouraged further contingency-based research. This study therefore takes the view that the selected contingent variables are based on theoretical arguments, put forward by Simons (1994; 1995; 2000) and Hartmann (2000). The two selected contextual variables (Task uncertainty and Superiors Interactive vs. Diagnostic Use of Controls) are, in their own right, relevant variables in the management control literature. Task Uncertainty has been a long standing contingent variable in the literature but its actual impact has been difficult to establish and model empirically. Superiors Use of Interactive vs. Diagnostic Controls is relatively a new variable in the literature, but which is posited to be very relevant, based on case study evidence and the recent empirical evidence (e.g. Bisbe and Otley, 2004; Henri, 2006) Thirdly, and whilst exploring some existing contextual variables, this study takes the view that the institutional perspective (and in wider terms, the interpretive perspective) also needs to be also considered. The institutional-led accounting studies have already convincingly argued for the relevance of the concepts of legitimacy, myths and rituals in the budgetary process. However, previous published research has been based on qualitative case studies and this study will attempt

Neeraj Kumar

Page 11

CMJ to operate an institutional oriented variable and hypothesise it as a contextual variable of interest in MCS.

Bibliography
Ackoff, R.L. (1970) a Concept of Corporate Planning (New York: Wiley). Agarwal, N. and Singh, P. (1998) Organizational rewards for a changing workplace: An examination of theory and practice, International Journal of Technology Management, 16, pp. 225238. Alexander, L.D. (1985) successfully implementing strategic decisions, Long Range Planning, 18(3), pp. 9197. Amsler, G.M., Findley, H.M. and Ingram, E. (2001) Performance monitoring: Guidance for the modern workplace, Supervision, 62(10), pp. 39. Ansoff, H.I. (1965) Corporate Strategy: An Analytical Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company). Anthony, R.N. (1965) Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, and Harvard University). Management Control System Usage and Planned Change Barnard, C.I. (1938) the Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Bourdon, R. (1982) Measuring and tracking performance management for accountability, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 4(34), pp. 101113. Bungay, S. and Goold, M. (1991) Creating a strategic control system, Long Range Planning, 24(3), pp. 3239. Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H. (1992) A causal model of organizational performance and change, Journal of Management, 18, pp. 523545. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) the Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock Publications). Carr, D.K., Hard, K.J. and Trahant, W.J. (1996) Managing the Change Process (New York: McGraw-Hill). Charan, R. and Colvin, G. (1999) Why CEOs fail, Fortune, 139(2), pp. 6878. Churchman, C.W. (1968) The Systems Approach (New York: Delacorte Press).

Neeraj Kumar

Page 12

CMJ Cottrill, M. (1997) Give your work teams time and training, Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), pp. 8789. Cummings, L.L. and Schwab, D.P. (1973) Performance in Organizations: Determinants and Appraisal (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman). Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review, Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 5774. Fama, E.(1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm, Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), pp. 288307. Golden, B.R. (1992) the past is the pastor is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp. 848860. Goodstein, L.D. and Burke, W.W. (1994) Creating successful organization change, Organizational Dynamics, 19(4), pp. 517. Goold, M. and Quinn, J.J. (1990) the paradox of strategic controls, Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp. 4357. Goold, M. and Quinn, J.J. (1993) Strategic Control: Establishing Milestones for Long Term Performance (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley). Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A.K. (1985) Linking control systems to business unit strategy: Impact on performance, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10, pp. 5166. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edn (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.). Hattrup, K. and Ford, J.K. (1995) The roles of information characteristics and accountability in moderating stereotype-driven processes during social decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, pp. 7386. Hofer, C.W. and Schendel, D. (1978) Strategy Formulation: Analytic Concepts (St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company). Huseman, R.C., Alexander, E.R., III and Driver, R.W. (1980) Planning for organizational change: The role of communication, Managerial Planning, 28(6), pp. 3236. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 70(1), pp. 7179. Kerr, J.L. (1988) Strategic control through performance appraisal and rewards, Human Resource Planning, 11, pp. 215223.
Neeraj Kumar Page 13

CMJ Kerr, J.L. and Slocum, J.W., Jr. (1987) Managing corporate culture through reward systems, Academy of Management Executive, 1(2), pp. 99107. Klein, S.M. (1993) A communication strategy for the implementation of participative work systems, International Journal of Management, 10, pp. 392401. Kloot, L. (1997) Organizational learning and management control systems: Responding to environmental change, Management Accounting Research, 8(1), pp. 4773. Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992) Corporate Culture and Performance (New York: Free Press). Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979) Choosing strategies for change, Harvard Business Review, 57(2), pp. 106114. Langfield-Smith, K. (1997) Management control systems and strategy: A critical review, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, pp. 207232. Lawler, E.E., III, Mohrman, A.M., Jr. and Resnick, S.M. (1984) Performance appraisal revisited, Organizational Dynamics, 13(1), pp. 2035. Lawler, E.E., III and Rhode, J.G. (1976) Information and Control in Organizations (Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear). Lewis, M.W. (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 760776. Likert, R. (1961) New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill). Lindblom, C. (1959) The science of muddling through, Public Administration Review, 19(2), pp. 7988. Lippit, R., Watson, J. and Westley, B. (1958) The Dynamics of Planned Change (New York: Harcourt Bruce). London, M. and Oldham, G.R. (1976) Effects of varying goal types and incentive systems on performance and satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, 19, pp. 537546. Lorange, P. and Murphy, D. (1984) Considerations in implementing strategic control, Journal of Business Strategy, 4(4), pp. 2735. Lorange, P. and Scott Morton, M.S. (1974) A framework for management control systems, Sloan Management Review, 16(1), pp. 4156. Lorange, P.M., Scott Morton, S. and Goshal, S. (1986) Strategic Control (St. Paul, MN: West). March, J.G. and Simona, H.A. (1958) Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons). Merchant, K.A. (1985) Control in Business Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Neeraj Kumar Page 14

CMJ Merchant, K.A. (1989) Rewarding Results: Motivating Profit Center Managers (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992) Economics, Organizations, and Management (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall). Miller, S. (1997) Implementing strategic decisions: Four key success factors, Organization Studies, 18, pp. 577602. Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. (1985) Of strategies, both deliberate and emergent, Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp. 257272. Nadler, D.A. and Tushman,M. (1980) A model for diagnosing organizational behavior: Applying the congruence perspective, Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), pp. 3551. Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M. (1989) Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation, Academy of Management Executive, 1, pp. 194204. Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M. (1995) Understanding organizations as learning systems, Sloan Management Review, 36(2), pp. 7385. Otley, D. (1999) Performance management: A framework for management control systems research, Management Accounting Research, 10, pp. 363382. Otley, D.T. and Berry, A.J. (1980) Control, organization, and accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5, pp. 231246. Ouchi, W.G. (1980) Markets, bureaucracies, and clans, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, pp. 125160. Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001) Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research, Academy of Management Review, 44, pp. 697713. Piderit, S.K. (2000) Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes towards an organizational change, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 783794. Piturro, M.C. (1989) Employee performance monitoring . . . or meddling?, Management Review, 78(5), pp. 3133. Preble, J.F. (1992) Towards a comprehensive system of strategic control, Journal of Management Studies, 29, pp. 391409. Quinn, J. (1980) Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (Homewood, IL: Irwin).
Neeraj Kumar Page 15

CMJ Schreyogg, G. and Steinmann, H. (1987) Strategic control: A new perspective, Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 91103. Simons, R. (1987) Accounting control systems and business strategy: An empirical analysis, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, pp. 357374. Simons, R. (1995) Levers of Control (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). Simons, R. (2000) Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall). Terpstra, D.E. and Rozell, E.J. (1993) The relationship between staffing practices and organizational level measures of performance, Personnel Psychology, 46(1), pp. 2748. Tichy, N.M. (1983) Managing Strategic Change (New York: Wiley). Troy, K. (1994) Change Management: An Overview of Current Initiatives (New York: The Conference Board). Tushman, M.L. and OReilly, C.A. (1997) Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations, Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 510540. Wexley, K. and Latham, G.P. (1980) Developing and Training Human Resources in an Organization (Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear). Williamson, O.E. (1991) Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 269296. Zmud, R.W. and Armenakis, A.A. (1978) Understanding the measurement of change, Academy of Management

Neeraj Kumar

Page 16