No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider how organizations with diverse, interdependent functions with differing evaluative principles and differing ideas as to which behaviors are the most desirable, use management controls in their efforts to achieve innovation. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a case study of TechCo, an Australian technology start-up company, over a 12 month period. Findings The authors demonstrate how the clash of differing evaluative principles among interdependent teams led to the organization seeking new ways of organizing, which in turn, enabled the organization to better manage the interdependencies between the diverse functional areas. Additionally, the findings show how, through the use of management control systems, the organization was able to promote idea generation and “buy-in” across all functional areas, order competing priorities for innovation and set the agenda as to what constituted “acceptable” innovation for the organization to pursue. Originality/value The authors find that management controls play an important role in managing the tensions between differing evaluative principles in diverse functional areas in a heterarchical organization, and in supporting innovation in such an environment. As such, the authors provide the first research evidence on how management controls are used within a heterarchy to generate and select innovative ideas.

PurposeThe paper's purpose is to consider the challenges, a public sector organization faces combining both transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability (cf. Roberts, 2009).Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a case study of StatePol, a police service in an Australian state.FindingsThe data analysis revealed three themes. First, prior to 2013, transparency forms of accountability dominated, emphasizing crime statistics with the effect of reinforcing internal partitions and inhibiting collective action. Second, post-2013, a greater emphasis was placed on “intelligent” accountability with conversations around process and collective accountability at the operational level. Crime statistics were used less for operational-level accountability and more for attention-directing. Third, changing the emphasis from transparency to its combined use with “intelligent” accountability required strong leadership, clearly communicated strategy and middle-level managers with appropriate skills.Originality/valueThe authors identify a number of important factors in combining transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability. The authors note the difficulties that fragmentation between forms of accountability and the somewhat amorphous nature of the accountability concept itself can cause. In doing so, the authors provide empirical evidence of the challenges changing from an emphasis on transparency, to combined use with an “intelligent” form of accountability.

No abstract