Tensions at the intersection of management control and innovation: a literature review

Abstract

This paper reviews 47 articles dealing with tensions at the intersection of management control and innovation. One purpose is to present the status of the research in the area in terms of types of articles, research methods, theoretical approaches, and tension-related terms used. A second purpose is to conceptually compare the use and interpretations of tension in the reviewed articles, as well as to systematically map and categorize highlighted competing demands. A third purpose is to suggest a tension-based framework. Among other characteristics and trends, the paper indicates an increased research interest in the issue of tensions during the review period . Although different theoretical approaches are adopted, the contingency approach is the most common. Furthermore, the review shows that several tension-related terms are used either alone or in parallel in the articles, often interchangeably and without clarifying their definitions. The tension-based framework presents four different types of tension: (1) inherent innovation-control tensions, (2) inherent management control tensions, (3) created management control tensions, and (4) decision-making tensions in innovation practices. The framework also suggests interpretations of and responses to tensions related to management control and innovation. Theoretically, the framework can enable a more precise debate that builds on previous research, since it clarifies potential ways to structure future research. From a practical point of view the presented framework can be helpful for managers dealing with tensions, by encouraging creative management control solutions that can enable innovation.

Coexistence of innovation and standardization: evidence from the lean environment of business process outsourcing

“…It has been widely used to study the problems of managing creativity and innovations (cf. Bisbe and Otley 2004;Henri 2006;Malagueño 2009, 2015;Mundy 2010;Bedford 2015;Curtis and Sweeney 2017), mainly through the interactive and diagnostic use of management control systems (Lövstål and Jontoft 2017). Simons (1987) defines management control systems as formalized procedures and systems that use information to maintain or change patterns in organizational activity.…”

Strategic thinking and accounting: potentials and pitfalls from a managerial perspective

“…This research responds to calls for accounting research on the practitioners' perspective (e.g. Chua 2007;Jönsson 1998;Gerdin et al 2014;Hall 2010;Lövstål and Jontoft 2017) and to study control and innovation on a more specific level than that of the organization (Davila et al 2009;Tervala et al 2017;Chenhall and Moers 2015;Davila et al 2009), with a focus instead on subjective mechanisms and informal systems of control (Reimer et al 2016;Tervala et al 2017;Martyn et al 2016). The results suggest that, from the perspective of an individual manager, strategic thinking is much more than straightforward analytical decision-making and the role of accounting is wide-ranging.…”

“…Furthermore, it has been found that the perception of coercive and enabling form of control can change over time (Jordan and Messner 2012) and coexist simultaneously (Adler 2012). This study approaches the dual nature of accounting recognized in the previous literature by adopting a practice-oriented approach (Lövstål and Jontoft 2017), examining the tensions that managers confront specifically in their strategic thinking. The research question of this study is as follows: What are the ways in which experienced managers find accounting useful in strategic thinking and what are the disadvantages they have experienced?…”

“…Recently, some scholars have addressed this problematic as a source of tension. Lövstål and Jontoft (2017) have suggested that the phenomena of management control and innovation can create tensions by presenting competing demands. Tensions related to accounting and control (arising from, e.g., seeing intuition and rationality as alternative decision-making strategies), have been suggested to be managed by paradoxical thinking, leveraging both approaches to the issue (Calabretta et al 2017).…”

“…Previous studies have recognized but not sufficiently addressed the duality of accounting in the context of strategy from the perspective of individual managers. This study responds to a call for further research by adopting a practice-oriented approach suggested by Lövstål and Jontoft (2017) and examines the tensions that individual managers confront in their strategic thinking.…”