[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Linking deviation with innovation: behavioral effects of management control through the lens of a theory of deviance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Management Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper starts its analytical endeavour by basically asking how management control can contribute to person’s innovative behavior at the workplace. However, in doing so, the paper takes a hitherto rather unusual perspective. By defining innovative behavior as a kind of ‘desired deviance’, it relates to a ‘dark side perspective’ on management control. In particular, by introducing Merton’s anomie theory, the paper explores under which conditions the multiple forms of control proposed by the objects-of-control framework are likely to produce desirable and undesirable deviant behaviors. The findings inter alia show how actual ‘dysfunctionalities’ of management control can create precisely the conditions for producing innovative behavior. However, at the same time, they demonstrate that same conditions can also lead to frustration and withdrawal and thus produce rather undesirable behavioral consequences. In this way, the paper calls for deeper elaboration of the dark side effects of management control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term ‘innovative behavior’ is usually referred to the implementation of novel ideas (innovation). Here it also addresses the generation of such ideas (creativity). This follows a more integrated perspective on creativity and innovation and the respective argument that creativity occurs not only in the early stages of an innovation process but, rather, as recursive process of idea generation and implementation (Anderson et al. 2014, p. 1299).

  2. See, e.g., the framework of Tessier and Otley (2012) for differentiated overview on these and other characteristics of MCS.

  3. While each from different theoretical lens or interest, reviews are offered from Haustein et al. (2014), Chenhall and Moers (2015), Moll (2015), Fried (2017) and Lövstål and Jontoft (2017).

  4. See as an exception Burney et al. (2017). They focus on ethical characteristics of work units and ethical work climates and their effects on the potential benefits of performance measurement systems in organizations.

  5. When such deviance at the workplace is desired and even expected, it can be also referred to as “conventional deviance” (Dollinger and Raithel 2006; Faßauer 2012).

  6. While the analysis builds on the objects-of-control framework, a complementary view from Simons’ levers-of-control framework (Simons 1995) seems recommendable for future research. Thus, in order to prevent undesired deviant behaviors the definition and management of ‘boundary systems’ in sense of Simons could play a considerable role. Further, the interactive use of control systems as suggested by Simons’ framework may considerably reduce the anomic pressure which is built up by the conditions discussed here along the objects-of-control framework.

  7. Due to the anomie theory lens with its focus on resource scarcity the impact of the opposing situation, hence the excessive resource distribution, was not considered here.

References

  • Abbott, A. (1988). The system of profession. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, F., & Laufer, W. S. (1999). The legacy of anomie theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CA: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations. A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—Rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badham, R., Garrety, K., Morrigan, V., & Zanko, M. (2003). Designer deviance: Enterprise and deviance in culture change programmes. Organization, 10, 707–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, D. S. (2015). Management control systems across different modes of innovation. Implications for firm performance. Management Accounting Research, 28, 12–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besnard, P. (1988). The true nature of anomie. Sociological Theory, 6, 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (2002). Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(3), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. E. & Sprinkle, G.B. (2012). The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 171–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, M., & Higgins, V. (2010). Self-confessed troublemakers: An interactionist view of deviance during organizational change. Human Relations, 63, 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burney, L. L., Radtke, R. R., & Widener, S. K. (2017). The intersection of “bad apples”, “bad barrels”, and the enabling use of performance measurement systems. Journal of Information Systems, 31(2), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascio, W. (2002). Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. H., & Moers, F. (2015). The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. (1965). The sociology of the deviant act: Anomie theory and beyond. American Sociological Review, 30(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, B., & Raithel, J. (2006). Theorien abweichenden Verhaltens. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The third logic. Cambridge: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faßauer, G. (2012) Abweichung als problematische Konvention. Eine anomietheoretische Analyse des Managements von Innovativität in Organisationen. In P. Conrad & J. Koch (Eds.), Steuerung durch Regeln. Managementforschung (pp. 127–156). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., Homberg, F., & Osterloh, M. (2013). Organizational control systems and pay-for-performance in the public service. Organization Studies, 34(7), 949–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, A. (2017). Terminological distinctions of ‘control’. A review of the implications for management control research in the context of innovation. Journal of Management Control, 28(1), 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabner, I. (2014). Incentive system design in creativity-dependent firms. The Accounting Review, 89(5), 1729–1750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabner, I., & Moers, F. (2013). Management control as a system or a package? Conceptual and empirical issues. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(6–7), 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabner, I., & Speckbacher, G. (2016). The cost of creativity: A control perspective. Accounting, Organization, and Society, 48, 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, E., Luther, R., & Schuster, P. (2014). Management control systems in innovation companies. A literature based framework. Journal of Management Control, 24(4), 343–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzschenreuter, T. (2009). Management control in small and medium-sized enterprises. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, J., & Guillot, D. (2006). A Durkheimian view of organizational culture. In M. Korczynski, R. Hodson, & P. K. Edwards (Eds.), Social theory at work (pp. 88–120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lövstål, E., & Jontoft, A.-M. (2017). Tensions at the intersection of management control and innovation. A literature review. Journal of Management Control, 28(1), 41–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, S., et al. (2018). Pitching novel ideas to the boss: The interactive effects of employees’ idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and implementation. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0942.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, T. L. (2001). Thick as thieves: A social embeddedness model of rule breaking in organizations. Business and Society, 40, 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. The Journal of applied psychology, 96(4), 730–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35, 558–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package—Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, K. A. (1985). Control in business organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, K. A., & Otley, D. T. (2007). A review of the literature on control and accountability. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (pp. 785–802). Oxford, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, K., & Van der Stede, W. (2012). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives. Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. (1975). Sozialstruktur und Anomie. In H.G. Schrey (Ed.) Entfremdung (pp. 339–359). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. (1997). Foreword. In N. Passas & R. Agnew (Eds.),The future of anomie theory (pp.x–xii). York, PA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1999). Opportunity structure: The emergence, diffusion, and differentiation of a sociological concept, 1930s–1950s. In F. Adler & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), The legacy of anomie theory (pp. 3–73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, J. (2015). Editorial. Special issue on innovation and product development. Management Accounting Research, 28, 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passas, N., & Agnew, R. (1997). The future of anomie theory. York, PA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrou, P., van der Linden, D., & Salcescu, O. C. (2018). When breaking the rules relates to creativity. The role of creative problem-solving demands and organizational constraints. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, J., & Ahlstrand, B. (1994). Human resource management in a multi-divisional company. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors. A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1987). Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 137–158). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1995). Levers of Control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speklé, R. F., van Elten, H. J., & Widener, S. K. (2017). Creativity and control. A paradox—Evidence from the Levers of Control framework. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 29(2), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauß, E., & Zecher, C. (2013). Management control systems. A review. Journal of Management Control, 23(4), 233–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K.-E. (2012). Innovation and the global financial crisis: Systemic consequences of incompetence. In K.-E. Sveiby, P. Gripenberg, & B. Segercrantz (Eds.), Challenging the innovation paradigm (pp. 113–142). New York, Oxfordshire: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K.-E., Gripenberg, P., & Segercrantz, B. (2012). Challenging the innovation paradigm. New York, Oxfordshire: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessier, S., & Otley, D. (2012). A conceptual development of Simons’ Levers of Control framework. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadera, A. K., & Pratt, M. G. (2013). Love, hate, ambivalence, or indifference? A conceptual examination of workplace crimes and organizational identification. Organization Science, 24, 172–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations: Integrating and moving forward. Journal of Management, 39, 1221–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. (1997). Anomie theory and organizations: Culture and the normalization of deviance at NASA. In N. Passas & R. Agnew (Eds.), The future of anomie theory (pp. 95–123). York, PA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidaver Cohen, D. (1993). Creating and maintaining ethical work climates: Anomie in the workplace and implications for managing change. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(4), 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 622–632.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtzstraße 10, 01069, Dresden, Germany

    Gabriele Faßauer

Authors
  1. Gabriele Faßauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Faßauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faßauer, G. Linking deviation with innovation: behavioral effects of management control through the lens of a theory of deviance. J Manag Control 29, 275–293 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-018-00271-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-018-00271-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation