用元分析方法评估控制杠杆的研究:风格化的事实和边界条件

IF 3.6 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Lucia Bellora-Bienengräber , Klaus Derfuss , Jan Endrikat
{"title":"用元分析方法评估控制杠杆的研究:风格化的事实和边界条件","authors":"Lucia Bellora-Bienengräber ,&nbsp;Klaus Derfuss ,&nbsp;Jan Endrikat","doi":"10.1016/j.aos.2022.101414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In levers of control (LoC) research, empirical and conceptual ambiguities have hampered the establishment of a coherent body of knowledge. Mixed findings, variability in the approaches to account for the levers’ combined use, and variability in conceptual choices (e.g., the conceptualization of interactive and diagnostic control) have caused this unsatisfactory state. In response, we validate and extend theory on the LoC framework by meta-analytically synthesizing quantitative evidence from 58 independent samples and 10,374 observations. We develop two models of the combined use of the levers, which portray their simultaneous use and mutual relationships, and relate them to capabilities and performance. For theory validation, we uncover stylized facts that demonstrate that organizations use the four levers in combination, not in isolation. Moreover, following the logic of the resource-based view, the levers are related to performance via capabilities. These relationships are robust to moderating influences of the dimensions and conceptualization of interactive control and managers’ hierarchical level. For theory extension, we systematically uncover the need to complement the resource-based view with other theories and offer related suggestions. Our moderator analyses identify boundary conditions that limit the generalizability of the LoC framework. For example, surprisingly, the conceptualization of diagnostic control emerges as a boundary condition. On a general level, our findings might serve as an inspiration for better appreciating future survey-based knowledge creation in management control research and also provide researchers from other disciplines with a more comprehensive understanding of the enhancement of capabilities and performance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48379,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Organizations and Society","volume":"106 ","pages":"Article 101414"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking stock of research on the levers of control with meta-analytic methods: Stylized facts and boundary conditions\",\"authors\":\"Lucia Bellora-Bienengräber ,&nbsp;Klaus Derfuss ,&nbsp;Jan Endrikat\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aos.2022.101414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In levers of control (LoC) research, empirical and conceptual ambiguities have hampered the establishment of a coherent body of knowledge. Mixed findings, variability in the approaches to account for the levers’ combined use, and variability in conceptual choices (e.g., the conceptualization of interactive and diagnostic control) have caused this unsatisfactory state. In response, we validate and extend theory on the LoC framework by meta-analytically synthesizing quantitative evidence from 58 independent samples and 10,374 observations. We develop two models of the combined use of the levers, which portray their simultaneous use and mutual relationships, and relate them to capabilities and performance. For theory validation, we uncover stylized facts that demonstrate that organizations use the four levers in combination, not in isolation. Moreover, following the logic of the resource-based view, the levers are related to performance via capabilities. These relationships are robust to moderating influences of the dimensions and conceptualization of interactive control and managers’ hierarchical level. For theory extension, we systematically uncover the need to complement the resource-based view with other theories and offer related suggestions. Our moderator analyses identify boundary conditions that limit the generalizability of the LoC framework. For example, surprisingly, the conceptualization of diagnostic control emerges as a boundary condition. On a general level, our findings might serve as an inspiration for better appreciating future survey-based knowledge creation in management control research and also provide researchers from other disciplines with a more comprehensive understanding of the enhancement of capabilities and performance.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting Organizations and Society\",\"volume\":\"106 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting Organizations and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368222000812\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Organizations and Society","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368222000812","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在控制杠杆(LoC)研究中,经验和概念上的模糊性阻碍了知识体系的建立。混合的发现、解释杠杆组合使用的方法的可变性以及概念选择的可变性(例如,互动和诊断控制的概念化)导致了这种不令人满意的状态。作为回应,我们通过荟萃分析综合58个独立样本和10374个观测结果的定量证据,验证和扩展了LoC框架的理论。我们开发了两个杠杆组合使用的模型,描述了它们的同时使用和相互关系,并将它们与能力和绩效联系起来。为了进行理论验证,我们揭示了一些程式化的事实,这些事实表明组织将这四个杠杆结合起来使用,而不是孤立使用。此外,遵循基于资源的观点的逻辑,杠杆通过能力与绩效相关。这些关系对于互动控制的维度和概念化以及管理者的层级水平的调节影响是稳健的。在理论延伸方面,我们系统地揭示了资源观与其他理论互补的必要性,并提出了相关建议。我们的慢化剂分析确定了限制LoC框架可推广性的边界条件。例如,令人惊讶的是,诊断控制的概念化成为了一个边界条件。从总体上讲,我们的发现可能会激励我们更好地理解未来管理控制研究中基于调查的知识创造,也会让其他学科的研究人员更全面地了解能力和绩效的提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taking stock of research on the levers of control with meta-analytic methods: Stylized facts and boundary conditions

In levers of control (LoC) research, empirical and conceptual ambiguities have hampered the establishment of a coherent body of knowledge. Mixed findings, variability in the approaches to account for the levers’ combined use, and variability in conceptual choices (e.g., the conceptualization of interactive and diagnostic control) have caused this unsatisfactory state. In response, we validate and extend theory on the LoC framework by meta-analytically synthesizing quantitative evidence from 58 independent samples and 10,374 observations. We develop two models of the combined use of the levers, which portray their simultaneous use and mutual relationships, and relate them to capabilities and performance. For theory validation, we uncover stylized facts that demonstrate that organizations use the four levers in combination, not in isolation. Moreover, following the logic of the resource-based view, the levers are related to performance via capabilities. These relationships are robust to moderating influences of the dimensions and conceptualization of interactive control and managers’ hierarchical level. For theory extension, we systematically uncover the need to complement the resource-based view with other theories and offer related suggestions. Our moderator analyses identify boundary conditions that limit the generalizability of the LoC framework. For example, surprisingly, the conceptualization of diagnostic control emerges as a boundary condition. On a general level, our findings might serve as an inspiration for better appreciating future survey-based knowledge creation in management control research and also provide researchers from other disciplines with a more comprehensive understanding of the enhancement of capabilities and performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.40%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Accounting, Organizations & Society is a major international journal concerned with all aspects of the relationship between accounting and human behaviour, organizational structures and processes, and the changing social and political environment of the enterprise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信