Enabling and Coercive types of management control systems

Enabling and Coercive types of management control systems

“The Influence of internal and external factors on the type of MCS used by

organizations”

By

Stefan Jan Koppers

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

June 2015

This research examines which internal and external factors are of influence on enabling and coercive management control systems (MCS) used by organizations, and how these influences are exerted.

The framework of Adler and Borys (1996) is used which describes enabling and coercive types of formalization and is linked to MCS by Ahrens and Chapman (2004). An extensive case study analysis

with semi-structured interviews is executed on two organizations. This research identifies strong arguments about how the internal factors organizational culture, organizational structure and strategy of the organization influence the MCS in an enabling way. These results are useful for managers as it provides them insights into which factors needs to be reconsidered when they want to change their type of MCS. For scientific relevance a more comprehensive picture is obtained about

which and how internal and external factors influence the type of MCS.

Keywords:

Management control systems, enabling, coercive, internal factors, external factors

Supervisor: Dr. W. Kaufmann Co-assessor: Dr. A. R. Abbasi

2

1. Introduction

Management control systems (MCS) are considered to be important for organizations as it is used by the management to align the goals and risk preferences of their employees with the organization. MCS thus serve the purpose of ensuring organizational performance, driven from an internal perspective (Merchant, 2006). It is already recognized in the literature that there are factors which affects the MCS used in organizations. For example, Langfield and Smith (1997) addressed the

relationship between MCS and strategy. Chenhall (2003) identified several contextual variables which are potentially implicated in the design of an effective MCS. Reheul and Jorissen (2007) researched the role of performance on the choice of MCS.

Because an MCS is designed to align the activities of the employees with the organizational objectives, which vary by company, different types of MCS need to exist. Adler and Borys (1996) made a distinction between enabling types of formalization and coercive types, whereas Ahrens and Chapman (2004) directly linked this distinction to the study of MCS. According to Ahrens and

Chapman (2004) this framework of Adler and Borys (1996) aids in identifying how and why MCS might be used to support rather than constrain operational management by highlighting four system design characteristics. These system characteristics are repair, internal transparency, global

transparency and flexibility. Repair may be a differentiated function or it may be integrated with routine operational processes. If it is a differentiated function, routine operational roles can be distinguished from non-routine ones. Internal transparency is concerned with the visibility of internal processes for organizational members. Global transparency is concerned with the visibility of the overall context in which organizational members perform their specific duties. Flexibility refers to the organizational member’s discretion over the use of control systems.

Other research investigated the role which these two different types of MCS, enabling and coercive have in organizations. Free (2007) investigated whether the concepts of coercive and enabling uses of accounting are also useful in understanding inter-organizational relationships such as buyer-supplier dyads. Wouters and Wilderom (2008) investigated which characteristics of a performance measurement system development process enhance the enabling nature of the PMS. Jordan and Messner (2012) highlighted potential tensions that may arise between operational managers’ concern with an enabling use of performance measures, and top management requirements for control at a distance.

Currently there is no comprehensive picture that identifies which factors are influencing the type of MCS (enabling or coercive) used and how these factors are influencing the type of MCS used in organizations. To investigate this, internal and external factors are identified which affects the MCS.

3 organizational culture, organizational structure, organizational life cycle and size of the organization. According to Reheul and Jorissen (2007) there are two different views about how strategy affects the MCS, namely that organizations striving for growth and innovation have great information need and therefore adopt or a more formal MCS or need a flexible and informal MCS to encourage innovation. Herath (2007) considers the organizational culture as a factor which affects the MCS by stating that the organizational culture has a profound influence on employee’s behavior. Chenhall (2003) argues that the design of the MCS should be consistent with the intent of the organizational structure. It is therefore important to consider the degree to which MCS are mechanistic or organic. Brignall (1997) argues that the MCS need to change throughout the life cycle stages to fit in with changes in the competitive environment, business mission and generic strategy. Organizational size is also affecting the MCS (Chenhall, 2003). Large firms tend to have more administrative forms of control where smaller firms tend to use more personal controls (Bruns, 1975). Thus, these internal factors are recognized as factors affecting the MCS, where this research aims to examine if and how these factors influence the type of MCS used.

External factors affecting the MCS according to the literature are environmental uncertainty, technology, national culture and dependency on external financial resource providers. Environmental uncertainty decreases the reliance on accounting performance measures (RAPM) and increases the preference of organizations to use the MCS interactively instead of diagnostically (Reheul, 2007). Herath (2007) recognizes the influence of technology on the MCS when stating that many accounting information systems have become computerized. Harrison and McKinnon (1999) argue that national culture affects the MCS in the sense that national culture interacts with the MCS independently from other factors. The extent to which organizations depend on external providers of financial resources is affecting the MCS. This, because the more organizations rely on external financial resource

providers, the more information these financial resource providers will demand (Reheul, 2007). Thus, these external factors are recognized as factors affecting the MCS, where this research aims to examine if and how these factors influence the type of MCS used.

4 “How do internal and external factors influence the type of MCS (coercive or enabling) used by organizations?”

Thus, this research aims at contributing to the literature by providing a comprehensive picture of which and how internal and external factors influence the type of MCS (coercive or enabling) used by organizations. The practical contribution of this research is to provide managers insight in the factors influencing their type of MCS. This will help them to consider if their MCS is suitable for their

organization. Also when they want to change their type of MCS, they have a better insight into which factors need to be reconsidered.

A case study is used to answer this research question. Two case organizations are included in this research, where one case organization is one of the biggest trading companies in the world while the other case organization is a technical knowledge-intensive organization. Size in terms of

employees was an important criterion on which these case organizations are selected, because the need for a more highly sophisticated MCS increases when the size of the organization increases (Fauzi, 2011). Both case organizations are medium-sized organizations as they employed 208 and 91 employees in 2014 (Russo, 2009). Qualitative data is obtained by conducting semi-structured interviews as this provides the opportunity to prepare questions beforehand and also allows the interviewees the freedom to express their views in own terms (Cohen, 2006). Besides this, managers and lower-level employees might not appraise the MCS in the same way (Tessier, 2012). To be able to grasp the perceptions of both the managers and the lower-level employees, six interviews are held with managers and six with lower-level employees. To look for similarities and differences between the arguing from the interviewees about which and how the factors influence the type of MCS, the data is analyzed.

5

2. Literature Review

First a brief overview of the MCS literature is provided in this section. Then, the distinction between the enabling and coercive formalization (Adler, 1996) is examined. After that, the internal and external factors which are recognized in the literature as affecting the MCS are outlined.

2.1. A brief overview of the management control systems literature

Management control systems (MCS) are defined in various ways. For example, MCS are the formal and informal systems which are meant to help individuals to control the things they do with themselves and other resources (Machin, 1983). MCS has a paramount importance as integration, coordination and monitoring mechanism (Jones, 1985). MCS is used by the management to align the goals and risk preferences of their employees with the organization and thus serve the purpose of ensuring organizational performance, driven from an internal perspective (Merchant, 2006). MCS include all the devices and systems managers use to ensure that the behaviors and decisions of their employees are consistent with the organization’s objectives and strategies (Malmi, 2008).

MCS are more than devices of constraint and monitoring, as MCS are the formalized procedures and systems that use information to maintain or modify patterns in the organizational activities (Simons, 1990). When task uncertainty is high the reliance on personnel forms of controls has a positive effect on performance (Abernethty, 1997). MCS are the set of procedures and processes that are used by managers in order to help employees ensure the achievement of their personnel and organizational goals and encompassed formal, informal and social control systems (Bisbe, 2004). Thus, in the literature it is widely recognized that MCS are primarily designed to align the activities of the employees with the organizational objectives.

Transparency about organizational activities to stakeholders is also a feature of MCS (Jensen, 1993). The definition of MCS which is used in this paper is “control mechanisms to enhance

employee’s goal and risk alignment with the organization to ensure organizational performance and to provide stakeholders transparency about the organizational activities”. A particular relevant

framework for this research is the distinction between enabling and coercive types of formalization by Adler and Borys (1996). This framework is outlined in the next section.

2.2. Coercive and enabling formalization

Adler and Borys (1996) made a distinction between enabling types of formalization and coercive types of formalization. Four generic features are revealed to distinguish deskilling from usability approaches. These generic features are repair, internal transparency, global transparency and flexibility.

Repair may be a differentiated function or it may be integrated with routine operational

non-6 routine ones. The coercive logic is appropriate when managers fear the opportunism of employee more than they value their potential contribution to deal with unexpected breakdowns and identifying opportunities for improvement. In case of a breakdown employees are expected to call for a specialist to solve the problem (Adler, 1996). The premise of an enabling logic here is that operations are not totally programmable (Ahrens, 2004). Users are allowed to repair a formal system in case of a breakdown or problem by themselves (Jordan, 2012).

Internal transparency is concerned with the visibility of internal processes for organizational

members. Management control processes can be made accessible to organizational members to enhance their internal transparency (Ahrens, 2004). A coercive logic is appropriate when there is little reason to provide users with any visibility into its internal workings. Procedures are formulated as lists of flat assertions of duties and the employees are expected to just implement these work instructions (Adler, 1996). The enabling logic is appropriate when users need to have a good understanding of the logic of a system’s internal function and they need information on its status. Users are provided with a clear understanding of the underlying rationale for why certain control mechanisms are in place (Wouters, 2008).

Global transparency refers to the visibility of the overall context in which organizational members perform their specific duties (Free, 2007). In the coercive logic, tasks are partitioned and employees are not expected to move beyond their specific realms. Employees have access to information only on specific areas which they are responsible for supporting. Broader knowledge is given to these employees only on a restrictive need-to-know basis (Adler, 1996). In an enabling logic, controls are designed to afford employees an understanding of where their own task fits into the whole. Information from beyond ones specific domain is available (Wouters, 2008).

Flexibility refers to the organizational member’s discretion over the use of control systems. Flexibility means that users can make controlling decisions after enabling systems have provided information (Ahrens, 2004). In a coercive logic, a manual defines in detail the specific sequence of steps to be followed and employees are forced to ask a supervisor for approval when they want to skip unnecessary process steps (Adler, 1996). In an enabling logic flexible systems encourage users to modify the interface and add functionality to suit their specific work demands. (Wouters, 2008).

7 depends on how the control system is designed and on how the design and implementation process is organized (Jordan, 2012). A coercive use of MCS is a one-sided relationship between management and subordinates, where an enabling use of MCS stimulates control in the interactions between the management and subordinates (Meer-Kooistra, 2008). The coercive use of MCS is involved with extensive centralization, preplanning and top-down control. The enabling use of MCS is involved with empowerment for employees, because operations are not totally programmable (Cools, 2008) Thus, the main difference is that with a coercive approach employees are solely expected to follow explicit instructions and with an enabling approach employees are expected to think along the process (Adler, 1996). Employees controlled based on a coercive approach can thus be seen more as

executors, while employees controlled based on an enabling approach can be seen more as thinking employees. Based on the four generic features mentioned by Adler and Borys (1996) the main differences between a coercive approach and an enabling approach are summarized in table 1 below.

Table 1: Differences between the coercive and enabling approach based on the four generic features

Now MCS is defined and the main differences between the coercive and the enabling approach are outlined. From here on internal and external factors which could influence the type of MCS (enabling or coercive) used by organizations are outlined in the next sections.

2.3. Internal factors affecting the management control systems

Internal factors affecting the MCS are strategy, organizational culture, organizational structure, organizational life cycle and size of the organization (Brignall, 1997; Chenhall, 2003, Reheul 2007; Herath, 2007). How and why these factors affect the MCS is outlined below.

2.3.1. Strategy

Strategy is not an element of context but it is more the means whereby managers can influence the MCS (Chenhall, 2003). The type of strategy of an organization should influence the design of the MCS (Gosselin, 2005). There is a need for consistency between the MCS and the strategy of an

8 strategy of the organization, which could lead to superior performance (Auzair, 2005). Two different views about how strategy influences the MCS exist (Reheul, 2007). Organizations striving for growth and innovation have great information need and therefore adopt or a more formal MCS or adopt a flexible and informal MCS to encourage innovation.

Different strategies are recognized in the literature. For example, Miles and Snow (1978) identified defender, analyzer, prospector and reactor strategies. Organizations with a defender strategy operate in stable environments, have a narrow product focus and are focusing on cost control. Organizations focusing on product-market innovation with flexible structures use a prospector strategy. Hybrid organizations which focus on traditional core products and enters new markets after the viability is established use an analyzer strategy. The reactor strategy is used by organizations which lacks a coherent strategy (Miles, 1978). The expectation is that a defender strategy will influence the MCS in a more coercive way and due to the opposing view of Reheul and Jorissen (2007) a prospector and analyzer strategy could influence the MCS both in an enabling and coercive way.

2.3.2. Organizational culture

The organizational culture has had an important effect on MCS, but has had not enough attention in the MCS literature (Henri, 2006). The culture of an organization is having a profound influence on employee’s behavior and therefore the MCS (Herath, 2007). Organizational culture represents relationships and interactions among the human actors of the organization which comes from beliefs, values, morals, customs and knowledge and can be applied in understanding the behavior of employees in the organizations.

The terms organic and mechanistic describe culture as well as organizational structure and five elements are used to measure how organic or mechanistic the culture is (Reigle, 2001). An organic culture can be described as informal with an open-door policy and where employees have self-initiation. In a mechanistic culture jargon and negative metaphors are used, symbols enforce segregation and employees need to be coerced to work. Therefore it could be assumed that an organic culture will influence the MCS in a more enabling way where a mechanistic culture will influence the MCS in a more coercive way.

2.3.3. Organizational structure

9 structure is considered as a way of coordination and control through which organizational actors’ behavior can be directed towards organizational effectiveness (Herath, 2007). The distinction between mechanistic and organic structures is made by Burns and Stalker (1961) and is based on the way the structure is involved with rules, procedures, openness of communication and decision processes (Chenhall, 2003).

Mechanistic structures are involved with top-down rules and procedures setting, while in organic structures are involved with openness of communication and empowerment of employees for decision making. Overall, the expectation is that an organic structure influences the MCS in an enabling way, where a mechanistic structure influences the MCS in a coercive way.

2.3.4. Organizational life cycle

There is a potential influence from the life cycle stage on the MCS (Auzair, 2005) and the life cycle stage of organizations need to be matched with the MCS of organizations (Miller, 1984). The MCS need to change throughout the life cycle to fit in with changes in the competitive environment, business mission and generic strategy (Brignall, 1997). A failure in taking the life cycle of an organization into account with budgetary policies results in inefficiencies in resource allocations (Czyzewski, 1991).

The organizational life cycle can be classified in five stages, namely birth, growth, maturity, revival and decline (Moores, 2001). In the birth stage the organization is just started where the product-market scope is narrow, in the growth stage organizations have an aggressive build strategy with product innovation and a broad product-market scope and in the maturity stage organizations have a hold/harvest strategy with low product innovation and a consolidated product-market scope. In the revival stage organizations have an aggressive build strategy, considerable levels of product innovations and a diversified product-market scope to recover, where in the decline stage low product innovations and a consolidated product-market scope exist. Expected is that the MCS becomes more enabling at the stages involved with higher levels of product innovations and the goal to growth. Expected is also that in the maturity and decline stage the MCS becomes more coercive, due to the lack of growth intentions and low levels of innovation.

2.3.5. Size of the organization

10 Size can be measured in several ways, namely in terms of revenues, number of employees or in percentage of the market share. The size of the organization is measured in number of employees, because this is directly linked with the definition of MCS in this research. A distinction is made between micro organizations (max. 9 employees), small organizations (max. 49 employees), medium-sized organization (max. 249 employees) and large organizations (Russo, 2009). It is interesting to examine if the assumption that an increasing organization in terms of size influences the MCS in a more enabling way is correct.

2.3.6. Summary of internal factors

Summarized in table 2 below are which and how the internal factors are affecting the MCS.

Table 2: internal factors affecting the MCS

2.4. External factors affecting the management control systems

11

2.4.1. Environmental uncertainty

Uncertainty is one of the most widely researched aspects of the environment (Chenhall, 2003). Combinations of traditional budgetary and interpersonal controls are preferred to be used in organizations with an increasing environmental uncertainty. High environmental uncertainty is associated with an emphasis on budgets for evaluation and required explanation of variances, but also with high participation and interpersonal interactions between superiors and subordinates (Ezzamel, 1990). The MCS of an organization tend to use more non-financial measures in

organizations which are facing higher levels of environmental uncertainty (Gosselin, 2005). Managers from organizations operating in uncertain environments place more importance on relevant

information for decision making instead of pure coordinating and controlling purposes. Perceived environmental uncertainty (PEU) affects the MCS as it is positively associated with a bureaucratic form of MCS (Auzair, 2011). Environmental uncertainty decreases the reliance on accounting performance measures (RAPM) and increases the preference of organizations to use the MCS interactively instead of diagnostically (Reheul, 2007). Thus, different opinions about how environmental uncertainty affects the MCS exist, where this research tries to identify if the MCS becomes more coercive or more enabling due to an increasingly uncertain environment.

2.4.2. Technology

There is a need to consider technological changes within the organizational context (Young, 1991). Understanding the appropriate fit between MCS and advanced technologies is considered by

reflecting on the basic, generic notions of technology (Chenhall, 2003). Many accounting information systems have become computerized. Managers should make sure that these systems are designed and operated to meet the requirements of the organizations (Herath, 2007). Therefore expected could be that technology makes the MCS more enabling, because employees have more insights for being empowered. Or technology makes the MCS more coercive, because technology is used to coerce employees to execute their activities according to top management demands.

2.4.3. National culture

National culture affects or interacts with the MCS independently from other factors (Harisson, 1999). National culture has become important in the design of MCS, since an increasing amount of

12 1999). Expected is that the more a national culture is involved with hierarchy the more coercive the MCS becomes.

2.4.4. Dependency on external financial resource providers

The extent to which organizations depends on external providers of financial resources affects the MCS (Reheul, 2007). Low performing organizations are more dependent from external financial resources than well performing organizations, because these organizations generate less financial resources internally. Therefore these organizations will feel more pressure towards the expectations of their financial resource providers. They will require detailed information about the financial situation and the progress which is made by the organization. In this line of reasoning it can be expected that the greater the dependency of organizations from external financial resource providers is, the more coercive the MCS becomes.

2.4.5. Summary of external factors

Summarized in table 3 below are which and how the external factors are affecting the MCS.

13

3. Methodology

In the first part of this section, the research design is described together with the selection of the case organizations. Then, the data collection is explained and finally, the process of data analysis is described.

3.1. Research design and selection of case organizations

Based on the distinction between enabling and coercive types of MCS by Ahrens and Chapman (2004), this paper tried to provide a contribution to the literature by providing a more

comprehensive picture that identifies which factors are influencing the type of MCS used and how these factors are influencing the type of MCS used in organizations. According to Eisenhardt (1989) theory development from case study research is particularly appropriate when little is known about a phenomenon. For the reason that this research tried to provide a more comprehensive picture, the best way to explore this new knowledge is by “theory development”.

The first case organization in this research is one of the biggest trading companies in the world and is divided into three business units, namely Perfumes & Cosmetics, Liquors and Health & Beauty. Their annual report of 2014 presents revenues of 660 million euros for 2014 with 208 employees. This organization is called Trade from here on. The second case organization is a technical knowledge-intensive organization which is divided into five business units. These business units are engineering, inspection, maintenance, contracting and production. The revenues over 2014 were 18.5 million euros with 91 employees. This organization is called Technique from here on.

Findings in theory development often rest on a very limited number of cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). Selecting two instead of one case organization provided the possibility to look for similarities and differences between these case organizations. Arguments become stronger when a particular reasoning is given by interviewees from both case organizations. Besides this, the findings can be weakened when interviewees from both case organizations give contradicting arguments. This increased the reliability of this research (Yin, 2003).

14 willing to participate, because of friendly relationships from the author within this organization. Due to a former internship from the author at Technique participation from this organization was easily obtained. Both selected case organizations met the abovementioned criteria and were therefore suitable for this research.

3.2. Data collection

During this research notes have been taken about the research process and the way that this research was conducted to make this research controllable and replicable (Aken, 2012). Data is collected by doing semi-structured interviews with six managers and with six lower-level employees. The distinction between managers and lower-level employees in this research is that managers are defined as employees who are directing a group of lower-level employees within the organization, where lower-level employees are defined as employees who just execute their own tasks without directing other employees. Examples of lower-level employees in this research are Area Managers of Trade and an engineer of Technique.

It was interesting to examine the perceptions of both the managers and the lower-level employees, because they might not appraise the MCS in the same way (Tessier, 2012). Managerial intentions of the MCS refers to what managers are trying to achieve by implementing a control and is a design attribute of the MCS, where employees perceptions refers to the interpretation they have from the intentions from the MCS.

Semi-structured interviews were used, because this provided the opportunity of preparing questions beforehand and allowed the interviewees freedom to express their views in their own terms (Cohen, 2006). To increase the quality of the interview questions, the interview guide was composed and critically assessed by two master students and the mentor who are doing research in the same field. The interview guide is presented in Appendix A and consists of three parts. Questions in the first part determined the type of MCS used by the case organizations. Questions in the second part are intended to examine if and how the identified factors influence the type of MCS. In the last part interviewees were provided the opportunity to raise factors of influence on the type of MCS by themselves. Where possible, formal documentation such as an annual report, business information guide and business objectives goals were used to support findings from the interviews. These documents are analyzed and served as complementary data to the interviews.

3.3. Data analysis

15 form the conducted data, cross case analysis is done to search for within group similarities and intergroup differences. For this, all relevant quotes were provided with a code to structure quotes per factor and type of employees. As presented in Appendix B, two different coding schemes were used, where one coding scheme was used to structure quotes related to the type of MCS used. The first number determined the case organization, where the second number distinguished between managers and lower-level employees. The generic feature is specified with the third number and the fourth number concluded if the arguing is related with a coercive or enabling type of MCS. The second coding scheme was to determine the factors of influence on the type of MCS. The first two numbers were similar with the first coding scheme, where the third number indicated which factor the quote is about. The fourth number appointed the specific elements of the factors, where the fifth number specified if the interviewee agreed that there is an influence on the type of MCS used or not. A quote from an Area Manager of Trade is used as an example:

“If you are expected to constantly grow and the trade is fast you need to have a lot of freedom to act. If you are not released it will cost you more time and greater effort to grow. Therefore you do not need to be restricted on too much rules from the management.”

This quote was coded with the number 1.2.1.5.2. and is established as follows. This quote came from an interviewee of Trade (1), which is a lower-level employee (2), which went about the factor strategy (1) and if and how it influenced the type of MCS (5) and that the interviewee argued that this factor influenced the type of MCS (2).

16

4. Results

In this section the results of this case study will be presented. First, the type of MCS used by both organizations will be described and explained. After that, it is explained which and how the factors influence the type of MCS used by the organizations.

4.1 Type of MCS used by case organizations

The four generic features repair, internal transparency, global transparency and flexibility (Adler, 1996) are used to measure whether the type of MCS is coercive or enabling. In terms of repair all managers and employees of Trade recognize enabling characteristics. The Managing Director of Trade argues:

If someone faces an operational problem, for example with a customer or supplier, than they are expected to solve these problems by themselves.

One manager and all employees of Trade recognize also coercive characteristics in terms of repair. An Area Manager notices:

It is possible that you face problems which you never dealt with before. It is an easy step to ask a colleague or manager for help in that case.

According to all managers and two employees of Technique the MCS contains enabling characteristics. A Business Unit Manager formulates:

When someone in our department faces a problem than this person feels responsible for solving this problem his self.

Two employees of Technique recognize coercive characteristics as one employee formulates:

You are not supported to solve problems by yourself. You are encouraged to use the knowledge of your colleagues to solve the operational problems you face.

Thus, there is a difference in perception between managers and employees at both case organizations, where managers almost only recognize enabling characteristics and employees

recognize enabling and coercive characteristics in terms of repair. Looking at internal transparency all managers and all employees of Trade recognize enabling characteristics. The Managing Director of Trade formulates:

If you really understand the logistics and all the processes behind, you will be able to generate a faster throughput time and bring in more orders. Than you are really going to perform and you will really run a business.

17

Of course I know the reasons for executing my tasks and an underlying reason exists for all tasks I execute. It is important to understand why I execute my tasks.

Thus, the intentions and the perceptions of the managers and employees of both case organizations are in line (Tessier, 2012) and in terms of internal transparency the characteristics are predominantly enabling. In terms of global transparency all managers and all employees of Trade recognize solely enabling characteristics. An Area Manager of Trade argues:

Yes, sure. From all departments within this organization we get information about how it works for example with the customs, transport, but also how things go financially. This is to make sure that you have this knowledge in case that you need this information when talking to your customers.

All managers and all employee of Technique consider global transparency as solely enabling. A Business Unit Manager of Technique mentions:

We are giving the kick-off of projects nowadays more importance. This to make sure that everybody who is involved in the project gets the right information and also to make sure that everybody knows from each other what he or she is doing during the project.

Thus, the intentions and the perceptions of the managers and employees within both case organizations are in line and in terms of global transparency both case organization use a

predominantly enabling type of MCS. In terms of flexibility all interviewees of Trade recognize only enabling characteristics. The Sales Director notices:

We start working now with a new ICT system. We first compile some key users to create support for this new system. Additionally we add groups of employees to gradually making more and more employees involved with this new system.

All interviewees of Technique recognize solely enabling characteristics in terms of flexibility. An employee argues:

Actually, most process changes are initiated by employees themselves. They just sometimes have a need for another structure or process.

Concluded, both case organizations are using a predominantly enabling MCS when looking at the four generic features.

4.2. Internal factors of influence on the type of MCS

Internal factors identified as affecting the MCS are strategy, organizational culture,

18

4.2.1. Strategy

All interviewees of Trade mention the growth goal of Trade with 10-15% each year.

Therefore the organization continuously develops existing markets and looks for new markets. The annual report of Trade from 2014 states: “growth is the lifeblood of Trade and the premier pillar of our strategy. We firmly believe that growth is based on innovation and quality, fuelled by entering into new markets and by continuously making use of new business opportunities”. Thus, Trade is having a prospector strategy (Miles, 1978).

All managers and employees of Trade argue that strategy is influencing the type of MCS, where their line of reasoning is similar. The Managing Director reasons:

I truly belief that you need to let people do the things they are best in. […] I could push people to perform in a certain way, but this just will not work. Then my employees will never excel. I give my employees therefore a lot of autonomy. […] In my opinion this will benefit our trading.

An Area Manager of Trade argues that employees need freedom to act in order to grow. He mentions that growing will cost more time and effort when employees are not empowered.

The managers of Technique and their business goals guide name the pillars maintenance, standardized traffic guidance systems and water management on which their strategy is based, where the employees are less clear about this. Technique seeks for new markets and enters these new markets after the viability of the market is established and therefore Technique has an analyzer strategy (Miles, 1978).

The reasoning about how strategy influences the MCS corresponds between the managers and employees of Technique. A Business Unit Manager of Technique argues that a more coercive MCS actually better suits their standardized traffic guidance system products and for their project based products employees need empowerment to be creative and innovative and therefore a more enabling type of MCS is used. An employee of Technique formulates:

I think that it is a prerequisite that our employees are able to see the right opportunities and are empowered to utilize these opportunities. Therefore we need a more enabling MCS. […]. Our organization wants to be flexible in order to be able to react on markets and to see opportunities and utilize these.

19

4.2.2. Organizational culture

All managers and employees of Trade recognize organic elements on all aspects of the organizational culture (Reigle, 2001). One manager recognizes mechanistic elements for artifacts and symbols and one employee recognizes mechanistic elements for espoused values. The annual report of Trade states: “The company is a responsive organization with client-driven flexibility. The company and its team are used to deal with unusual problems, challenges or unanticipated opportunities and always put the clients first”. Thus, the culture of Trade is predominantly organic.

All managers and employees of Trade mention that the organizational culture influences the type of MCS. They argue that an organic culture makes the MCS more enabling. An employee of Trade states:

You determine the type of organization and then you develop a matching MCS. Our culture here is that everybody has his own business within this organization. Communication is informal and you need to achieve by yourself, independently. Therefore we need an enabling MCS.

All managers of Technique recognize organic elements in terms of language, patterns of behavior and opinions and underlying assumptions, where two managers recognize organic elements for artifacts and symbols and one manager recognizes organic elements for espoused values. One manager of Technique recognizes mechanistic elements for patterns of behavior and opinions and underlying assumptions, where all managers recognize mechanistic elements for espoused values. All employees of Technique recognize organic elements on all aspects, except for espoused values where one employee recognizes organic elements. For patterns of behavior and espoused values mechanistic elements are recognized by two employees of Technique. The business goals guide of Technique states: “communication within Technique is stimulated by walking around by the

management and every quarter a personnel meeting focused on policy, realization, goals and other important company matters”. Thus, the culture of Technique is predominantly organic.

All managers and employees of Technique use similar argumentation and reason that an organic culture makes the MCS more enabling. An employee of Technique formulates:

The culture here is always to unburden the customer and to go far to help and solve problems for them. […] If something goes wrong it needs to be solved directly. Sometimes we go far to prevent problems, even if this costs us money.

Thus, both Trade and Technique have a predominantly organic culture. The interviewees of both case organizations argue that an organic culture makes the MCS more enabling.

4.2.3. Organizational structure

20 organic elements for centralization, where for formalization one manager recognizes organic

elements and one manager recognizes mechanistic elements. All employees recognize organic elements for centralization and two employees recognize organic elements for formalization, where one employee recognizes mechanistic elements for formalization. All managers and employees of Trade argue that there are four hierarchical levels. Thus, Trade is having a predominantly organic structure.

One manager and all employees of Trade argue that their structure influences the type of MCS, where two managers are not clear about this. Their reasoning is similar, namely that an organic structure influences the MCS in an enabling way. An Area Manager of Trade mentions:

It is very hard to have an enabling MCS in a mechanistic structure. When you look at the warehouse, they have a more mechanistic structure and they therefore use another MCS. They just need to execute their tasks and they are empowered and supported to have input in the processes. This is contradicting with our structure.

All managers and employees of Technique recognize organic elements for centralization and formalization. Two managers and two employees also recognize mechanistic elements for

formalization. Four hierarchical levels are recognized for the Business Unit Maintenance and Engineering. The business goals guide from Technique mentions that the organization is divided in 2012 to keep the organization controllable and flat. Thus, Technique is having a predominantly organic structure. All managers and employees of Technique mention that the more organic the structure the more enabling the MCS becomes. An employee of Technique notices:

The basis of our structure is that the organization wants to be flexible and that the organization is able to adapt to the environment. If the employees are not allowed to accomplish their work by themselves they will not be able to adapt to the environment quick enough.

Thus, a predominantly organic structure is used at both case organizations. All interviewed managers and employees, except two managers of Trade, recognize the influence of organization structure on the type of MCS. The reasoning is similar about how the structure influences the MCS, namely that an organic structure influences the MCS in an enabling way. These findings are in line with the literature (Chenhall, 2003).

4.2.4. Organizational life cycle stage

All managers and employees of Trade notify that Trade is in the growth stage, where their annual report mentions that Trade won five times the Gazelle award from the Daily Financial

21

When you constantly grow external parties are placing more demands at a certain point. You can do a lot within your head, but at one point you become too big. Therefore we developed a lot of systems, especially for logistics and expedition. This facilitates us to grow. Without these systems we should not have reached this amount of grow.

One employee thinks that the influence of the life cycle stage on the type of MCS could be the other way around, in the sense that because Trade has an enabling MCS they stay in the growth stage.

All managers and employees of Technique argue that Technique is now stable after a considerable growth and a recent repercussion. Thus, Technique is in the maturity stage (Moores, 2001). All managers and employees argue that the organizational life cycle stage influences the type of MCS with the same reasoning. An employee of Technique notices:

If an organization is in the birth stage then there will be a very informal MCS. Now we are in the maturity stage we need more regulation. We now should need to steer more then we should do in the birth stage.

Trade and Technique are both in a different stage of the life cycle, where Trade is in the growth stage and Technique is in the maturity stage. Except for one employee of Trade, all interviewees argue that the further the organization comes in the life cycle stage, the more coercive the MCS becomes.

4.2.5. Size of the organization

Trade employed 208 people in 2014 and is therefore a medium-sized organization (Russo, 2009). All managers and employees of Trade argue that the bigger an organization becomes the more coercive the MCS becomes. A Business Unit Manager of Trade mentions:

The bigger you become, the more hierarchy you need. Because the bigger the organization, the more managers and layers you need to control your people. This means directly more steering towards your employees.

Technique employed 91 people in 2014 and is therefore a medium-sized organization (Russo, 2009). All managers and employees of Technique reason that the bigger an organization becomes the more coercive the MCS becomes. An employee of Technique formulates:

Due to the fact that we have only a few layers it is possible to see what happens here. If the

organization would grow you should need incentive-contracts. Because then you need to make sure that your employees have other incentives to take the correct decisions.

22

4.2.6. Level of education

All managers and one employee of Trade consider the level of education from the employees as of influence on the type of MCS. These respondents all argue that the higher the level of education from employees the more enabling the MCS becomes. The Managing Director of Trade argues:

The responsibility that our employees receive is quite high […]. Employees with a higher education

level are more capable of handling responsibilities […]. Employees with a lower education level tend to take decisions which are less thought through and less in line from what we expect from them.

One manager of Technique also considers the level of education from the employees as influencing the type of MCS and states:

You should not underestimate the education level from employees. Employees with a higher education level are more capable of acting on their own and they are more capable of handling the empowerment they receive in an enabling type of MCS.

The level of education from employees is considered as a factor influencing the type of MCS at both case organizations. The argumentation among the respondents is similar, namely that the higher the level of education from employees the more enabling the MCS becomes.

4.2.7. Type of product

One manager of Trade considers the type of product as influencing the type of MCS.

According to this manager, the way of empowering employees at Trade would never be suitable in a fabric where they work with for example 100 employees at a production line. One manager of Technique and two employees argue that the type of product is influencing the type of MCS. Their argumentation is similar, where one employee of Technique commented:

I think the type of MCS is also dependent on the type of products you produce. For example when you produce ping-pong balls it becomes important to standardize the process to make it as cheap as possible. In our organization nothing is standard and therefore we need creativity and innovativeness from our employees. This will result in a more enabling MCS.

Thus, respondents from both organizations argue that customized products influence the type of MCS in an enabling way and standardized products influence the type of MCS in a coercive way.

4.2.8. Vision of the CEO

23 of employees where a transactional CEO is having a more compelling way of directing. Thus, the more the CEO believes in empowerment of employees the more enabling the MCS becomes.

4.3. External factors of influence on the type of MCS

The external factors affecting the MCS are identified as environmental uncertainty, technology, national culture and dependency on external financial resource providers. In the

interviews the interviewees are asked specific questions about these topics and if and how they think that these factors influence the type of MCS. Besides this, the interviewees came up by themselves with cultural differences within the Netherlands as influencing the type of MCS.

4.3.1. Environmental uncertainty

All managers and employees of Trade consider the individual markets in which they operate as uncertain. Two managers and one employee remark that their total market is stable due to product diversification and globalization. Two managers and all employees of Trade consider

environmental uncertainty as influencing the type of MCS, where their arguing differs. One manager and two employees reason that more environmental uncertainty causes a more enabling MCS, where one manager and one employee argue that more environmental uncertainty causes a more coercive MCS. An Area Manager of Trade formulates:

You need to be able to react quickly in a changing environment. If you need permission to act from to many people you are too late. Therefore you need a great extent of freedom and responsibility and you should not be restricted on to much rules and procedures.

A Business Unit Manager of Trade mentions:

If the future is uncertain you cannot empower employees that much anymore. Therefore employees need more steering and they need to be told that where their focus needs to be.

All managers and employees of Technique consider their market as uncertain. They argue that contracts are changing in a way that more risks are put at contractor organizations like Technique. All managers and two employees argue different about how they consider environmental uncertainty influencing the type of MCS. One manager and one employee reason that an increasing

environmental uncertainty causes a more enabling MCS, where two managers and one employee argue that this makes the MCS more coercive. An employee of Technique states:

Because we need to deal with changing circumstances, we want our organization to be flexible and able to adapt quickly. Therefore employees need to be empowered.

A Business Unit Manager of Technique notices:

24 Ten out of twelve interviewees recognize environmental uncertainty as of influence on the type of MCS. The interviewees have opposing views about the way environmental uncertainty influences the type of MCS within both case organizations. One view is that an increasing environmental

uncertainty influences the MCS in a more enabling way, where the opposing view is that in this case the MCS is influenced in a more coercive way. Both views are in line with the literature (Reheul, 2007).

4.3.2. Technology

All managers and employees of Trade recognize technological changes within the

organization. Interestingly, all managers argue that technology influences the type of MCS and all employees do not recognize this. All managers of Trade state that technological developments influence the MCS in an enabling way. The Managing Director formulates:

Because of these technological changes we are able to almost fully empower our employees. They have a complete overview of what they are doing because of our systems. This causes less risk on mistakes and this enables employees to perform.

All managers and employees of Technique recognize technological changes within the organization. Their business goals guide considers technology as an important factor for keeping the organization controllable. All managers and one employee argue that these technological changes influence the type of MCS, but their line of reasoning differs. Two managers reason that the technological developments influence the MCS in a coercive way, where one manager and one employee argue that the MCS actually becomes more enabling. A Business Unit Manager of Technique notices:

These technological developments provide us with more means of control. Where you had gut feeling in the past you are now able to steer on facts due to these technological developments. […]. This causes that the MCS becomes more coercive. You use the information to make your employees aware.

The contradicting reasoning according to an employee:

The new ERP system makes us able to create self-control. People should be made clear what is expected from them and then they can check in the system, do I meet these requirements?

Thus, all managers and only one employee at both case organizations consider technology as influencing the type of MCS. The managers of Trade and one manager and one employee of Technique argue that technological developments makes the MCS more enabling, where two managers of Technique reason that it makes the MCS actually more coercive.

4.3.3. National culture

25 want these organizations to operate. Thus, national culture does not influence the type of MCS according to this research. This is contradicting with the literature (Chow, 1999). Perhaps at organizations which are more involved with different cultures, national culture has more influence on the type of MCS.

4.3.4. Dependency on external financial resource providers

All managers and employees of Trade argue that the bank finances their operations, despite their wealthy financial position and therefore Trade is dependent from the bank. All interviewees of Trade, except one employee, argue with similar reasoning that this influences the type of MCS. They reason that the greater this dependency is the more coercive the MCS becomes. A Business Unit Manager argues:

When a bank invests in your organization they will get a voice about how to deal with stocks for example. Finance receives reports and they see that certain products are not selling good and fast enough. They provide us with this information and our task is to attend our employees on this. The bank demands that products are no longer in stock then 180 days. Then we are forced to sell this stock, even if it goes with a loss.

Two managers and two employees of Technique mention that Technique is dependent from the bank, where one employee even states that Technique operates under the supervision of the banks special management. One manager and one employee do not want to react on this topic. The interviewees use similar argumentation, namely that the greater this dependency is the more coercive the MCS becomes. The CEO argues:

In the short run the bank does have influence on the type of MCS, because they could be compelling. The demand insights and reports about our activities. But in the end as a company you would like to have these insights by yourself as well.

Thus, both case organizations are dependent from the bank, where Technique is more dependent from the bank than Trade. The arguing is similar between the interviewees of Trade and Technique as they all state that the greater the dependency on external financial resource providers is the more coercive the MCS becomes. This is also in line with the literature (Reheul, 2007).

4.3.5. Cultural differences within the Netherlands

Two managers of Trade consider cultural differences within the Netherlands as an influencing factor on the type of MCS, where they use similar argumentation. The Managing Director notices:

26 One manager and one employee of Technique consider cultural differences within the Netherlands as influencing the type of MCS. They both use similar argumentation. A Business Unit Manager mentions:

In general the mentality of people from the East is that they are not really outspoken. This causes that they are less initiating the freedom to take actions by themselves. We try to improve this, but this is difficult. Therefore an enabling type of MCS is sometimes difficult for people from this area.

Thus, the interviewees of Trade argue that people from the North are more capable of being empowered than people in the West, because of a higher loyalty, motivation and drive. The

27

5. Discussion

In order to examine what the influence of internal and external factors is on the type of MCS used by organizations, it is first important to determine which type of MCS is used by the studied case organizations. The interviews reveal that, according to the four generic features of Adler and Borys (1996) both case organizations have predominantly enabling characteristics. As a consequence, argumentation about how factors influence the MCS in an enabling way is based on experience of the interviewees, whereas argumentation about how factors influence the MCS in a coercive way is solely based on assumptions of the interviewees. Organizations with predominantly coercive characteristics should be investigated to increase the validity of the argumentation about how internal and external factors influence the MCS in a coercive way. After determining the type of MCS used at the case organizations, the discussion about if and how the internal and external factors influence the type of MCS is described below.

The results show that organizational culture and organizational structure influence the MCS in an enabling way. According to the data, both case organizations have predominantly organic cultures. In terms of organizational structure, respondents of both case organizations emphasized on organic structures, especially in terms of centralization which is considered as the most important structural element (Gosselin, 2005). According to Chenhall (2003), organic structures are involved with openness of communication and empowerment of employees for decision making. Therefore it can be expected that organic structures influence the MCS in an enabling way, which is supported by the findings at both case organizations. Organizations with predominantly mechanistic cultures and structures should be investigated to test properly if the hypothesis that mechanistic cultures and structures influence the MCS in a coercive way can be confirmed.

The results show how the internal factor strategy influences the MCS in an enabling way. According to the data, Trade develops existing markets and looks for new markets. Trade is

28 of Reheul and Jorissen (2007) that these organizations have great information need and therefore adopt a more formal MCS indicates that these organizations tend to use more coercive MCS.

Organizations with a predominantly coercive MCS should be investigated to examine if this opposing view can be confirmed.

According to the interviewees, the internal factors organizational life cycle stage and organizational size influences the MCS in a more coercive way. This research situates Trade in the growth stage, which is characterized by having an aggressive build strategy with a broad product-market scope (Moores, 2001). Technique however, is stable after a considerable growth and a recent repercussion and is therefore is situated in the maturity stage (Moores, 2001). In this research it seems that the MCS becomes more coercive when organizations develop throughout the

organizational life cycle. However, both case organizations are unexperienced with the revival and decline stages and it is therefore hard to draw conclusions about how these stages influence the type of MCS.

According to Russo (2009), both case organizations are medium-sized organizations as Trade employed 208 people and Technique employed 91 people in 2014. The interviewees argue that the MCS becomes more coercive when organizations become bigger. This is in line with the literature as it is stated that large organizations tend to have more administrative forms of control, where smaller organizations tend to use more personal controls (Bruns, 1975). Small and large sized organizations should be investigated to increase the validity of these results. Thus, concluding this research reveals how the internal factors organizational culture, organizational structure and strategy of organizations influence the MCS in an enabling way and findings in this research also show how the internal factors organizational life cycle stage and size of the organizations influence the MCS in a coercive way.

In this paragraph it is discussed how the external factors dependency on external financial resource providers, environmental uncertainty, technology and national culture have mixed

influences on the type of MCS. Both case organizations are dependent on the bank. The interviewees argue that when organizations become more dependent on external financial resource providers, the MCS becomes more coercive. This supports the literature, where it is stated that external financial resource providers will require detailed information from organizations which they finance (Reheul, 2007). To get a more comprehensive picture about how this factor influences the type of MCS, more research is needed at organizations dependent from other external financial resource providers and at financial independent organizations.

According to the data, both case organizations are operating in quite uncertain

29 uncertainty influences the MCS in an enabling way, while others argue that this actually results in a more coercive MCS. The literature indicates that environmental uncertainty results in a more enabling MCS, as it is stated that organizations tend to use more non-financial measures in case of environmental uncertainty (Gosselin, 2005). In contrast, the literature also indicates that

environmental uncertainty causes a more coercive MCS, as it is stated that high environmental uncertainty is associated with an emphasis on budgets for evaluation (Ezzamel, 1990). Because both contradicting views are supported within both case organizations, apparently the personnel

preference about how to deal with environmental uncertainty is more important than the

organizational context. Organizations operating in stable environments need to be investigated to get a more comprehensive picture about how environmental uncertainty influences the type of MCS.

Technological developments take place within both case organizations. At both case organizations all managers consider technology as a factor of influence on the type of MCS, while 5 out of 6 employees do not recognize this. This is in line with research of Tessier and Otley (2012), who stated that the managerial intentions and the employees’ perceptions of the MCS can differ. Perhaps employees can be more short-term focused compared with managers and are therefore less aware of the influence technology has on the type of MCS. At Trade all managers argue that

technology influences the MCS in an enabling way. Looking at Technique, the results are

contradicting as one manager and one employee consider technological developments as resulting in a more enabling MCS, whereas two managers argue that this actually results in a more coercive MCS. Perhaps not all managers of Technique are actively involved in the composition of technological developments, which causes contradicting findings as opposed to the managers of Trade. Both case organizations confirm that technology has influence on MCS in general, but it remains unclear whether this leads to more enabling or more coercive MCS. More research is needed to determine this.

30 In the last part of the interviews the interviewees have the opportunity to come up with additional factors of influence on the type of MCS. They came up with level of education from employees, type of product, vision of the CEO and cultural differences within the Netherlands. Level of education from employees can be seen as an additional factor, because it cannot easily be linked to existing factors affecting the MCS. The argumentation seems assumable that the higher the level of education, the better employees are capable of handling an enabling MCS, because they faced also a lot of empowerment during their education. It is possible that due to the relatively young research field of enabling and coercive MCS, this factor is currently not considered in the literature. The factors type of product and vision of the CEO can be part of an organizations strategy and are therefore not separately considered in the literature as affecting the MCS. It is possible that cultural differences within the Netherlands is currently not considered in the literature as affecting the MCS, because of the questionability about if this factor can be made generalizable. More research is needed to examine if and how these additional factors influence the type of MCS.

In this paragraph a short discussion about the reflection on the methods is provided

consisting of operational issues, validity and reliability limitations. The relatively small time frame of this research limited the amount of case organizations which could be investigated. However, access to the case organizations was obtained, due to friendly relationships from the author within both case organizations. Semi-structured interviews offered the potential to address exploratory and explanatory research. The additional factors that were found proved the added value of using semi-structured interviews. The conclusions from this study can be generalized to other people and other contexts. However, this generalization is limited by the selected industries and the organizational size. More empirical data is necessary to make the findings generalizable to other industries and larger organizations. The reliability of this research is affected by participant and observer bias during the interviews. Reliability was increased by informing the interviewees upfront about the duration of the interview in order to let them reserve enough time in their schedule. This enabled the

31

6. Conclusion

MCS are considered to be important for organizations as it is used by the management to align the goals and risk preferences of their employees with the organization and thus serve the purpose of ensuring organizational performance, driven from an internal perspective (Merchant, 2006). Ahrens and Chapman (2004) directly linked the distinction from enabling and coercive formalization (Adler, 1996) to MCS. A comprehensive picture about which and how internal and external factors influence the type of MCS is provided by this research.

Several internal factors influence the MCS in an enabling way. A strategy which strives for growth or is based on customized projects influences the MCS in an enabling way. This supports the literature which states that organizations striving for growth and innovation need a flexible and informal MCS to encourage innovation (Reheul, 2007). Also an organic organizational culture and structure causes a more enabling MCS. This supports the literature where organic structures are considered to be more involved with empowerment of employees (Chenhall, 2003). This research identifies several additional internal factors affecting the MCS and influencing the type of MCS, which are level of education, type of product and vision of the CEO. According to this research a higher level of education from employees makes the MCS more enabling, when an organization produces

customized products the MCS becomes more enabling and when the CEO beliefs in empowerment of employees the MCS becomes more enabling as well.

Several external factors influence the MCS in an enabling way. An increasing environmental uncertainty causes a more enabling MCS. This supports the literature which states that increasing environmental uncertainty decreases the reliance on accounting performance measures (Reheul, 2007). Technological developments make the MCS also more enabling, where the literature currently only recognizes that technology influences the MCS, but does not provide insights in how. This research identifies one additional external factor affecting the MCS and influencing the type of MCS, namely cultural differences within the Netherlands. This is causing a more enabling MCS in the sense that people from the North have a high level of loyalty, motivation and drive and are therefore capable of being empowered. This factor is currently not recognized in the literature.

32 recognized in the literature yet. Looking at external factors influencing the MCS in a coercive way this research identifies that increasing environmental uncertainty causes a more coercive MCS. This supports the literature as it states that environmental uncertainty is positively associated with a bureaucratic form of MCS (Auzair, 2011). Technological developments make the MCS more coercive, where currently the literature does not provide insights in this. An increasing dependency on

external financial resource providers causes a more coercive MCS as well. This supports the literature where is mentioned that financial resource providers will require detailed information about the financial situation and the progress which is made by the organization (Reheul, 2007). This research identifies one additional external factor affecting the MCS and influencing the MCS in a coercive way, namely cultural differences within the Netherlands are causing a more coercive MCS. This, because people from the East are less capable of being empowered, because they are more closed and less mouthed compared with people from the West. This factor is currently not recognized in the literature.

6.1. Managerial and theoretical implications

When considering the managerial implications, this research provides managers insight in the factors influencing their type of MCS. This will help them to consider if their current MCS is suitable for their organization. Also when they want to change their type of MCS, they have a better insight into which factors need to be reconsidered. Managers are in the position to influence the strategy, organizational culture and structure, technology and type of product of the organization and therefore they should focus on these factors when they want to change their type of MCS.

Theoretically this research provides evidence about the already recognized internal and external factors influencing the MCS and adds to this by providing insights in how these factors influence the type of MCS. Also a more comprehensive picture is gained as the interviewees came up with some interesting additional factors which influence the type of MCS.

6.2. Limitations and future research