Master Thesis MSc Business Administration Track Organizational & Management Control Faculty of Economics and Business

Irene Mostert (S1872680)

University of Groningen, The Netherlands

January 2015

Master Thesis MSc Business Administration Track Organizational & Management Control Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Word Count: 11.190 excl. references and appendix 12.738 incl. references and appendix.

Supervised by: Prof. dr. ir. Paula M.G. van Veen-Dirks

Second evaluator: Mr. dr. Wesley Kaufmann

2

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates how individual employees’ perceptions of their management control

systems can influence their feelings of psychological empowerment. Using Simons’ (1995)

Levers of Control Framework, we presume that belief and interactive control systems will be

perceived positively, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems will be perceived

negatively. Additionally, using Spreitzer’s (1995) psychological empowerment dimensions, we

presume that belief and interactive control systems will have a positive effect on psychological

empowerment, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems will have a negative effect. To

investigate these presumptions, a case study is conducted. Our results generally support our

presumptions. However, employees who prefer rules and structures perceive their boundary

system positively. Furthermore, for employees facing low task uncertainty, a diagnostic control

system can positively influence psychological empowerment, whereas an interactive control

system can negatively influence empowerment. This thesis extends prior empowerment research

and underscores the importance of perceptions when designing control systems.

3

Table of Content

1.Introduction 5

2.Literature Review 8

2.1. Employee empowerment 8

2.2. Simons’ Levers of Control Framework 10

2.3. Individual employees’ perceptions of their MCS 12 2.4. Perceptions of MCS and psychological empowerment: study presumptions 13

3. Method 15

3.1. Research Design 15

3.2. Sample Selection 16

3.3. Data Collection 17

3.4. Data Analysis 19

4. Case Study Findings 20

4.1. Case A: The Advisors 20

4.1.1. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Diagnostic control system 20 4.1.2. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Interactive control system 20 4.1.3. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Boundary system 21 4.1.4. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Belief system 21 4.1.5. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Meaning 22 4.1.6. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Competence 22 4.1.7. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Self-Determination 22 4.1.8. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Impact 23

4.2. Case B: The Policy Makers 24

4.2.1. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Diagnostic control system 24 4.2.2. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Interactive control system 25 4.2.3. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Boundary system 25 4.2.4. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Belief system 25

4.2.5.Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Meaning 26

4.2.6. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Competence 26

4.2.7. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Self-Determination 27

4.2.8. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Impact 27

4

5. Discussion 29

5.1. Perceptions of MCS: Diagnostic control system 29 5.2. Perceptions of MCS: Interactive control system 30

5.3. Perceptions of MCS: Boundary system 30

5.4. Perceptions of MCS: Belief system 31

5.5. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Meaning 31 5.6. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Competence 32 5.7. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Self-Determination 33 5.8. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Impact 34

6. Conclusion 34

6.1. Theoretical and Managerial Implications 36

6.2. Limitations and Future Research 36

References 38

Appendix 42

5 1. INTRODUCTION

A well-known quote of Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) about empowerment is: “to make

empowerment successful, executives need to start with some probing questions about what this concept means – and about their own management style” (p. 37).

The importance of employee empowerment is an emerging topic in business literature, books and research (e.g. Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995; Simons, 1995; Hall, 2008; Carless, 2004; Mahama & Cheng, 2013). This is, because those firms that invest in empowerment programs are expected to have motivated employees who perform well (e.g. Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990; Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007; Hall, 2008). Moreover, since organizations nowadays face a fast-paced business climate, increased competition and more demanding customers, some researchers have argued that employees should no longer perform narrow defined tasks, but instead should be empowered to directly deal with these contingencies themselves (e.g. Simons, 1995; Ahrens & Chapman, 2004; Herbert, 2008).

However, the transformation from top-down command and control to bottom-up empowerment is generally expected to have implications for management control systems (Herbert, 2008). The importance of alignment between empowerment programs and the management control system (MCS) of an organization has been discussed by many management control researchers (e.g.

Simons, 1995; Ahrends & Chapman, 2004; Mundy, 2010). For example, in his article Control in an Age of Empowerment, Simons (1995) argued that managers have to carefully think about how to balance employee empowerment and control. According to Simons, employees should be able to seek out opportunities and respond to customers’ needs, but pursuing those opportunities that can expose firms to excessive risk should be prevented. Therefore, he stated that employee empowerment should not be interpreted as giving employees a blank check to do whatever they want (Simons, 1995). Hence, even when workers are empowered and are given autonomy to deal with contingencies in highly dynamic markets, there should always be a control system in place as well.

Although management control researchers have investigated the importance of alignment

between employee empowerment programs and MCS, a lack of knowledge in this area may still

be noted. First of all, few researchers in this field have explicitly acknowledged the difference

6 between managerial intentions for controls and employee perceptions of controls (Tessier &

Otley, 2012). Managerial intentions refers to what managers are trying to achieve by

implementing a control and is a design attribute of the MCS, whereas employees’ perceptions of control refers to the workers’ interpretation of what the control is for and, therefore, is not a design attribute of the MCS (Tessier & Otley, 2012).

While not explicitly acknowledged in the management control literature, the importance of perception is generally recognized in the psychology literature, that suggests that perception is an important factor influencing the attitudes and behaviors of employees (Mahama & Cheng, 2013).

Researchers in this field argue that employees actively perceive their work environment and that, subsequently, these perceptions shape their reactions to those environments (Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990). More precisely, Spreitzer (1996) argued that it is not the ‘objective’ work environment that determines worker behavior, but that it is the individuals’ perceptions of those environments that influence their attitudes and behavior. Since MCS are part of the work environment, this paper therefore argues that the perceptions individual employees’ hold about their MCS will influence their attitudes and behaviors. Hence, although much prior management control research has focused on factors at the technical level (i.e. on the accuracy/efficiency of the MCS) (Tessier & Otley, 2012), this thesis will focus on factors at the semantic level (i.e. on how the MCS is perceived by its users).

Secondly, prior research has suggested that perception can be linked to feelings of psychological empowerment (e.g. Spreitzer, 1996; Mahama & Cheng, 2013). For example, Spreitzer (1996) argued that employees will only feel empowered when they perceive their work environment to be liberating, rather than constraining. However, not much is known about the possible link between individual employees’ perceptions of their MCS and feelings of psychological

empowerment. Although Spreitzer (1995) argued that providing managers with higher levels of

individual performance feedback and performance-based rewards will increase their feelings of

psychological empowerment, the exact type and form of the feedback and reward systems was

largely left unexplored (Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007). Furthermore, Spreitzer (1995) primarily

included manager-level participants in her study. Although she expects that her findings will also

hold for lower-level employees, further research is needed (Spreitzer, 1995).

7 Hence, this thesis aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how individual

employees’ perceptions of their MCS can influence feelings of psychological empowerment.

That is, by focusing on a more elaborate MCS -rather than only on feedback and reward systems- and by focusing on lower-level employees -rather than on managers- this thesis will contribute to the management control literature. To accomplish this, research in management control will be combined with the psychology literature that has investigated the importance of employee perception. The focus is on lower-level employees -those employees without managerial

experience or duties-, because little research has investigated the perceptions of empowerment in this group (Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007). Moreover, Spreitzer (1995) argued that further research is needed at this level to investigate the relation between contextual variables and psychological empowerment. A second contribution is that, although prior research has argued that

psychological empowerment is of importance in the design of management accounting systems, its exact role is not yet known (Hall, 2008). Hence, this study adds to the literature by

investigating how the perceptions employees hold about their MCS can influence their feelings of psychological empowerment. Furthermore, this thesis can have beneficial managerial

implications, since it underscores the importance that in addition to the technical design of a MCS, managers also have to focus on individual employees’ perceptions of their MCS.

The research question of this paper is therefore: How do individual employees’ perceptions of their management control system influence their feelings of psychological empowerment?

The remainder of the thesis is organized as follows. In the next section, the literature on employee empowerment, MCS and perception will be reviewed. The third section is the

methodological section which describes how this research was conducted. This is followed by the

presentation of the findings. In the fifth section, these findings will be discussed. In the final

section, a conclusion will be given and the limitations of the study as well as possible directions

for future research will be provided.

8 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section, the literature on employee empowerment, MCS and perception is reviewed.

Furthermore, the possible link between individual employees’ perceptions of MCS and psychological empowerment is addressed.

2.1. Employee empowerment

As mentioned, organizations nowadays face a fast-paced business climate, increased competition and more demanding customers. To be successful in today’s environment, organizations need the knowledge, ideas and creativity of every employee, from top-level executives to front line

employees (Spreitzer, 2008). Organizations can accomplish this by empowering their employees (Simons, 1995).

In the past, two different approaches to empowerment have emerged (Spreitzer, 2008). The first approach that emerged, called the social-structural or relational approach, focused on

empowering management practices. That is, this approach focused on how organizations could change their policies, processes and structures to empower its personnel. Examples of such management practices include the delegation of decision-making authority from top management to lower-level employees and providing lower-level employees with access to information and resources (Carless, 2004).

However, Conger and Kanungo (1988) argued that these management practices will not necessarily empower employees. In their study, they found that although environmental or job characteristics may be identical for employees, the way employees perceive these characteristics can differ. Therefore, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that researchers have to distinguish between situational characteristics (i.e. management practices) and individual employees’

perceptions of these characteristics (i.e. psychological empowerment). Hence, the second approach to empowerment, called the psychological or motivational approach, emerged and focused on how individuals perceive the policies, processes and structures that are used to empower employees (Spreitzer, 2008).

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined psychological empowerment as increased intrinsic

motivation that results from four cognitions- meaningfulness, competence, choice and impact-

which reflect individuals’ perceptions of their work role. Building on this cognitive interpretation

9 of empowerment, Spreitzer (1995) developed and operationalised a four-component model to investigate the perceptions employees must hold for managerial practices to become effective. To ensure that these four cognitions truly captured the essence of empowerment the ‘choice’

cognition was renamed ‘self-determination’ and ‘meaningfulness’ was renamed ‘meaning’

(Carless, 2004). Following recent researchers (e.g. Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007; Hall, 2008;

Mahama & Cheng, 2013), this thesis will use Spreitzer’s (1995) terminology.

Meaning involves the value of a task goal or purpose, judged in relation to an employee’s own ideals (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). It reflects the alignment between the requirements of a work role and an employee’s beliefs, values and behaviors (Spreitzer, 1995). Competence derived from Bandura’s (1989) study on self-efficacy and involves individual employees’ beliefs in their capacity to perform tasks skillfully (Spreitzer, 1995). That is, employees feel competent when they believe to have the required skills and abilities to perform tasks competently (Carless, 2004).

Self-determination involves individual employees’ beliefs to have a choice in initiating and regulation their actions (Hall, 2008). More specifically, it reflects an employee’s perception to have autonomy in the decision-making process about work methods, pace and effort (Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007). Whereas competence reflects one’s belief about mastery of behavior, self- determination reflects a choice in behavior (Carless, 2004). Lastly, impact refers to the extent to which an employee can influence the strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work (Spreitzer, 1995). That is, it reflects an individual’s belief to have personal control over outcomes or to be able to make a difference (Liden & Arad, 1996).

In sum, psychological empowerment is a motivational construct comprised of four cognitions:

meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. Spreitzer (1995) argued that these cognitions have an additive effect on psychological empowerment. That is, the lack of any dimension will decrease, though not completely eliminate, the overall level of psychological empowerment. Additionally, higher levels of the four cognitions reflect a higher level of

empowerment. Psychological empowerment is distinguished from management practices such as delegation of decision-making authority. Although delegation is likely to enhance psychological empowerment, it is an individual’s cognitive interpretation of such practices that leads to stronger psychological empowerment (Hall, 2008). Since the focus of this thesis is on individual

employees’ perceptions, the psychological empowerment approach will be used. However, as

10 indicated in the introduction, empowerment programs are generally expected to have implications for MCS (Hebert, 2008). Hence, the next section will focus on these implications.

2.2. Simons’ Levers of Control Framework

The goal of MCS is to provide the organization with information needed for decision-making, planning and evaluation (Widener, 2007). Furthermore, MCS are build upon the notion of a system- a collection of interdependent systems that work together to help ensure the achievement of this goal (Bisbe & Otley, 2004). In the mid-twentieth century, management controls were developed for the machinelike bureaucracies. In those days, the performance of employees was constantly monitored to assure that these employees performed according to pre-established plans (Simons, 1995). However, due to the increased uncertainty in today’s environment, such a pre- planning approach no longer holds (Chapman, 1998). Instead, it was argued that employees have to learn to take initiative and to be creative (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). Therefore, Simons (1995) developed the Levers of Control (LOC) framework to explain how organizations can use their MCS to encourage innovation and employee initiative, while simultaneously exerting control over predictable goal achievement. The LOC framework consists of four control systems:

diagnostic, interactive, belief and boundary. Simons (1995) argued that all four levers are needed to provide an effective control environment.

Diagnostic control systems, such as budgets and performance measurement systems, represent the traditional form of control (Mundy, 2010). That is, its function is to measure the performance of employees against pre-set plans and correct deviations when needed to assure that goals are achieved (Henri, 2006). Furthermore, these systems provide managers with performance feedback that can be used to assure that future results more closely match the pre-set targets (Widener, 2007). Moreover, Simons (1995) described diagnostic systems as negative forces used to constrain and ensure compliance with orders, needed to assure predictable goal achievement.

While diagnostic systems are backward-looking, interactive control systems are forward-looking

and involve formal two-way communication between managers and employees (Bisbe & Otley,

2004). Interactive systems bring organizational members together who posses different sets of

information. That is, managers use these systems to focus attention on key strategic affairs,

whereas employees can share local information and creative ideas which can be used to develop

11 new strategies (Simons, 1995). Organizations can decide which control system to use

interactively, depending on the strategic uncertainties they face (Widener, 2007). Examples include participative budgeting or face-to-face meetings where problems can be discussed and solved and gaps in knowledge can be reduced (Mundy, 2010).

Belief systems, such as mission and vision statements, communicate the organizational values, purposes and direction (Henri, 2006). The goal of belief systems is to develop commitment towards these values and to inspire employees to search for opportunities and solutions

(Marginson, 2002). Therefore, the values and goals are stated in broad, value-laden terms, since their purpose is to inspire the search for solutions without prescribing the exact activities to follow (Mundy, 2010). Since managers rely increasingly on empowered employees (Spreitzer, 2008), every employee needs to understand the company’s mission and goals to be able to match their behavior to the desired outcomes and to behave according to the values of the organization (Simons, 1995).

Whereas belief systems stimulate opportunity-seeking, boundary systems, such as codes of

conduct, are used to restrict opportunity-seeking behavior (Widener, 2007). That is, these systems inform employees about the actions they should avoid (Henri, 2006). Therefore, boundary

systems provide employees with the freedom to innovate, but only within pre-defined areas (Simons, 1995). Since empowerment should not be interpreted as giving employees a blank check to do whatever they want, organizations have to communicate the rules of the game to protect against opportunistic behavior and to direct activities to a desired end-point (Mundy, 2010). Consequently, a metaphor that is often used is that boundary systems are the brakes of the organization (Mundy, 2010). Similar to diagnostic systems, boundary systems act as a constraint on employee behavior (Widener, 2007).

To summarize, Simons (1995) developed the LOC framework to explain how organizations can encourage experimentation and creativity (by using the positive belief and interactive systems that motive and promote learning), while simultaneously exerting control over predictable goal achievement (by using the negative boundary and diagnostic systems that prescribe and control).

Therefore, MCS have two complementary roles. On the one hand, MCS are used to exert control

over the attainment of organizational goals, which requires that employees take actions that are

congruent with these goals. On the other hand, MCS are used to enable employees to search for

12 opportunities and to solve problems, which requires that employees have sufficient autonomy to make decisions themselves (Mundy, 2010). Although researchers have investigated the

importance of this balance between control and empowerment, few researchers have focused on individuals’ perceptions of MCS (Tessier & Otley, 2012). However, Spreitzer (1996) argued that it is not the ‘objective’ work environment, but it is the individuals’ perceptions of those

environments that influence behavior. Hence, the next section will focus on perceptions.

2.3. Individual employees’ perceptions of their MCS

A perception is an internal representation of the world, that is constructed when individuals acquire information about events or objects in their work environment (Carless, 2004).

Furthermore, this internal representation is believed to be of sufficient detail to influence

behavior (Mahama & Cheng, 2013). That is, psychology researchers have argued that individuals actively perceive their work environment and that, subsequently, these perceptions shape their reactions to those environments (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Prior research has investigated different factors that can influence individual employees’

perceptions. For example, the social information processing (SIP) theory was developed to explain individuals’ perceptions about organizational phenomena. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) found that individual attributes and objective job characteristics had generally failed to explain differences in individual employees’ perceptions of workplace features. Therefore, they

developed the SIP theory that states that perceptions are socially constructed. That is, this theory states that the social environment provides cues that make some dimensions in the workplace more salient, it provides cues on how other employees evaluate those dimensions and it guides employees to directly evaluate the workplace along positive and negative dimensions (Ibarra &

Andrews, 1993). Furthermore, this theory argues that influences on perceptions can derive from the larger structural context and from the more immediate social context (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Additionally, other studies have investigated organizational justice perceptions. Most of these studies focused on two dimensions of organizational justice: distributive justice (i.e.

perceptions regarding the distribution of outcomes) and procedural justice (i.e. perceptions

regarding the processes used to determine the outcomes received) (Burney, Henle & Widener,

2009). It was found that distributive justice perceptions are high when employees believe that

their ratio of input to outcome is the same or exceeds the ratio of relevant others and procedural

13 justice perceptions are high when employees believe that procedures are made within a process that is consistent, accurate, bias-free, ethical, appealable and representative for the parties that are involved in the process (Burney, Henle & Widener, 2009).

Hence, although previous studies have investigated organizational factors that can influence employee perceptions, more research is needed (Carless, 2004). This thesis will focus on perceptions of MCS. As indicated, Spreitzer (1996) argued that it is not the ‘objective’ work environment, but that it is the individuals’ perceptions of those environments that influence their attitudes and behavior. Since MCS are part of the work environment, we argue that the

perceptions individuals hold about their MCS will influence their attitudes and behaviors.

2.4. Perceptions of MCS and psychological empowerment: initial study presumptions

Furthermore, research has suggested that perceptions of the work environment can be linked to feelings of psychological empowerment (Mahama & Cheng, 2013). For example, Spreitzer (1996) argued that employees will only feel empowered when they perceive their work

environment to be liberating, rather than constraining. Therefore, our presumption is that when an employee perceives a MCS as liberating and motivating, this employee will feel higher levels of psychological empowerment than when this employee perceives a MCS as a negative system that prescribes and controls. This is in line with Carless (2004) who argued that psychological

empowerment is influenced by the degree to which an employee perceives the environment as personally advantageous versus detrimental. We focus on perceptions of MCS, because Walsh (1995) argued that, since psychological empowerment is defined as a set of cognitions, it must be assessed through perceptions as well to assure that both variables are assessed at the same

individual, cognitive level.

However, to develop positive or negative perceptions of MCS, individuals’ need a conceptual

base (Mahama & Cheng, 2013). Therefore, following Simons (1995), we conceptualize MCS in

terms of the LOC framework that was described previously. We presume that control systems

that are thought to motivate and support individual employees will be perceived more positively

than those systems that are thought to control and constrain. More specifically, since Simons

(1995) argued that belief and interactive control systems are positive control levers that motivate

and promote learning, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems are negative control

14 levers that prescribe and control, we presume that belief and interactive control systems will be perceived positively, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems will be perceived negatively. Subsequently, following Spreitzer’s (1996) arguments, we presume that belief and interactive control systems will have a positive effect on psychological empowerment, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems will have a negative effect on psychological

empowerment.

These presumptions are in line with previous research. For example, Conger and Kanungo (1988) found that information about the mission and vision of an organization can help to create a sense of meaning and purpose. Furthermore, Carless (2004) argued that when employees perceive a costing system as facilitating, they will be more confident that their costing system will be of help in competently performing their jobs. Since Chenhall (2003) argued that MCS include

management accounting systems, we argue that Carless (2004) proposition possibly holds for MCS as well. Moreover, Nonaka (1988) argued that sharing information across hierarchical levels is critical for individuals to feel autonomy and Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) argued that when employees feel that they understand the vision and direction of their organization, they are more likely to feel that they can autonomously perform their work. Lastly, Spreitzer (1996) stated that high-involvement systems help employees to understand how they can affect organizational outcomes and Conger and Kanungo (1988) argued that mission statements can provide

employees with knowledge on how to contribute to the goals of their organization. Hence, for all

four psychological empowerment dimensions, we expect that belief and interactive systems will

have a positive influence, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems will have a negative

influence on psychological empowerment.

15 3. METHOD

This section describes how the study was conducted. First, the research design is discussed.

Second, the sample selection and data collection procedures are described. Finally, the data analysis procedure is presented.

3.1. Research Design

As mentioned, the aim of this thesis is to investigate how individual employees’ perceptions of their MCS influence their feelings of psychological empowerment. Since previous research has not addressed this phenomenon, there is a need for new information. Hence, this thesis has an exploratory nature. Furthermore, since this study focuses on contemporary events, since it does not require control of behavioral events and since the research question involves a ‘how-

question’, the case study research is the appropriate research method, see Table 1 (Yin, 2013).

A case study focuses on understanding the dynamics within single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). It allows for the analysis of many different variables and their connections (Yin, 2013) and is considered appropriate when existing literature is inadequate or incomplete (Scapens, 1990).

Hence, since the aim of this thesis is to understand the relationship between the perceptions of Simons’ (1995) four levers of control and Spreitzer’s (1995) four psychological empowerment variables, and since this topic is studied scarcely before, the case study is indeed the appropriate research method for this thesis

The advantage of case study research is its likelihood of developing creative insights, since it

tries to reconcile evidence across cases, by using different types of data and by iterating between

16 theory and practice (Eisenhardt, 1989). Furthermore, by adopting a positivist view of research, case study research enables the development of a theory that is likely to be testable with

hypotheses in future studies (Scapens, 1990). Another advantage is that since the theory building process is closely tied with evidence, the emerging theory is likely to be consistent with empirical observation (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.2. Sample Selection

This thesis was conducted at the HR department of the municipality of Zwolle. In 2008 the municipality was elected as the best employer in the non-profit sector and in 2009 as the best municipal employer. The municipality of Zwolle indicates that the reason of this success is its HRM policy (Lijkendijk, 2010). For example, the HR department introduced the ‘New Civil Servant’ program: a new municipality-wide employee policy program that increased the level of employee empowerment. Since the municipality of Zwolle continues to be interested in employee empowerment and is eager to learn more about the effectiveness of empowerment programs, the municipality was willing to participate in this study.

The study was conducted at the HR department, because (a) they are not part of the managerial staff and (b) the employees at this department can be divided into two different groups based on their job activities. That is, the HR department consists of five policy makers and five advisors.

Although these employees work for the same department, they perform different jobs. Policy makers are responsible for writing municipality-wide policies regarding, for example, their ‘New Civil Servant’ program, whereas advisors focus on individual cases, like the recruitment and hiring of employees. Therefore, policy makers and advisors occupy different places in Ouchi’s (1979) organizational control framework. In his framework, Ouchi distinguished activities based on measurability of outputs and knowledge of the transformation process. Compared to advisors, policy makers perform less structured and routine tasks and, consequently, there is less

knowledge of the transformation process. Furthermore, since policy makers develop

organization-wide policies, in which different parties work together and contribute to the end

result, their outputs are less measurable than the output of advisors, who do not work on

organizational-wide cases.

17 Eisenhardt (1989) stated that the selection of cases is an important aspect of case study research, because different cases enable to replicate or extent the emergent theory. She argued that a proper selection method is to choose cases that fill different theoretical categories. Hence, since policy makers and advisors occupy different positions in Ouchi’s framework, we are confident to have selected useful cases for this thesis.

3.3. Data Collection

All data were collected between September, 2014 and January, 2015. To increase the theoretical generalizability (Scapens, 1990) of the study, it was important to select the appropriate data collection methods. Case studies typically combine data collection methods, like archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations (Eisenhardt, 1989). Therefore, both primary data (semi-structured interviews and a short questionnaire) and secondary data (archival records and observations) were used in this study. By using multiple data sources, called triangulation (Yin, 2013), a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena was developed (Myers, 2008).

Furthermore, triangulation can remedy shortcomings of the different instruments by complementing and correcting each other (Aken, Berends, Van der Bij, 2012).

Semi-structured interviews were used, since these provided the interviewer with the ability to standardize all the interviews, as well as to explore new ideas that could have been brought up during the interview (Myers, 2008). Following Myers (2008), the interviews were prepared beforehand, to make sure that all important questions were included from the beginning.

Although the main questions were written down in an interview script, an important feature of

case study research is that questions can be slightly changed when it becomes clear after some

interviews that an important theme is not fully covered (Eisenhardt, 1989). All interviews were

recorded and transcriptions were made, to enhance correct interpretation (Flick, 2009). For the

descriptive details of the participants, see Table 2 and for an overview of the interview questions,

see Appendix A.

18 Next to the interviews, the psychological empowerment questionnaire was adopted from

Spreitzer (1995). Furthermore, several demographic items were collected. See Appendix B for an overview of the questions.

Unlike the social-structural approach, where many different instruments have been used to measure empowerment (Spreitzer, 2008), researchers following the psychological empowerment approach have often used Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item measure of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 2008). Hence, this questionnaire was used in this study as well. Convergent and discriminant validity of the measures have been established, whereas a second order confirmatory factor analysis showed that the four elements were different, but did contribute to an overall sense of empowerment (Spreitzer, 2008). Furthermore, it was found that the measures were not susceptible to social-desirability bias (Spreitzer, 1995).

Third, data from observations of meetings and of the participants working and talking with each other at the department were included in this study. The observations were used to gain insider’s knowledge of the field (Flick, 2009). By being present during the whole research period, it became possible to develop a clear idea on how the employees worked, what they felt and experienced (Flick, 2009). This is in line with Eisenhardt (1989) who argued that by being present in the case environment, it will be more likely to build a theory that closely mirrors the reality. All observations were written down in a notebook, since it was not clear which

observations would be useful in the future (Eisenhardt, 1989).

19 The last source of data were archival records used to investigate policies and to make details from the interviews understandable (Flick, 2009). Examples of these records are documents providing information regarding the MCS of the municipality, employee empowerment policies and documents regarding the functions of policy makers and advisors. These records were found on their Intranet, as well as by asking employees.

3.4 Data analysis

An important feature of case study research is that data collection and data analysis steps overlap, because this speeds up analyses and it reveals if adjustments need to be made to the data

collection process (Eisenhardt, 1989). For this thesis, the steps provided by Eisenhardt (1989) were followed to conduct the study properly. The first step in the data analysis process was the within-case analysis. To cope with all the data, the policy makers and advisors groups were analyzed in isolation. The overall idea was to become familiar with each case and to see specific patterns in each case before it was tried to generalize patterns across cases (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Secondly, when the data was collected and analyzed for the different cases separately, a cross-

case analysis was conducted to search for general patterns. That is, cases were investigated on

similarities and differences. Thirdly, the emerging insights were compared with the existing ideas

in the literature. Especially those insights that were new or different from existing ideas were

retained. These insights form the basis for future research.

20 4. CASE STUDY FINDINGS

This section presents the findings of the case study that was conducted to examine how individual employees’ perceptions of their MCS can influence their feelings of psychological

empowerment. First, the advisors’ perceptions of their MCS are described, followed by a

description of how these perceptions could influence their feelings of empowerment. Second, the findings for the policy makers are described. At the end of each part, results are summarized in tables. For information regarding the MCS the municipality uses, see Appendix D.

4.1. Case A: The Advisors

Five advisors participated in this study, two male and three females. Their age ranged from 40 years to 60 years old (M = 49.20 years, SD = 6.52) and their years of experience in their current function ranged from 1 year to 25 years (M = 12.80, SD = 8.86). All advisors had a higher professional education level. For an overview of their empowerment scores, see Appendix C.

4.1.1. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Diagnostic control system

Three advisors perceived their diagnostic system negatively, since they like to make goals with their clients instead of the department head and because they do not need such a system to know what tasks to perform. This is in line with the observation that during a weekly meeting, these advisors complained about the same issues mentioned in the interviews. However, two advisors held more positive perceptions about this system. They argued that it helps them to develop clear goals for the upcoming year and: “It helps to find out what your ambitions are. And, when talking about ambitions, you automatically have conversations about mobility. So, it is a broad system that has multiple functions.” (Advisor 3)

4.1.2. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Interactive control system

Three advisors held positive perceptions about their interactive system, because it keeps them

informed about organizational developments and, because it connects them to the key players

needed to accomplish their tasks. Although the other two advisors also held positive perceptions,

they saw some potential limitations as well. They indicated that, although such a system can

provide a clear picture about where a department is heading to, they must remain aware that the

amount of information received does not become too much. Otherwise, they would feel lost.

21 4.1.3. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Boundary system

Three advisors perceived a boundary system negatively, because it constrains them in performing their job and because it decreases their creativity and initiative. This is in line with the

observation that these advisors often complained about the many procedures they have to follow to accomplish their tasks. However, the other two advisors held positive perceptions about their boundary system, since it provides them with guidelines on how to perform their jobs. Stated differently: “I have a ‘blue personality’. I like structures, procedures and guidelines. So, a boundary system helps me.” (Advisor 2)

4.1.4. Advisors perceptions of their MCS: Belief system

Four advisors perceived their belief system positively. They stated that it makes their jobs more inspiring, since they can contribute to a ‘higher purpose’, and it makes their jobs easier, since they can connect everything they do to this higher purpose. This finding is in line with the observation that these advisors mentioned the four V’s a lot during their daily work activities.

However, one advisor indicated that “although it is good to know what the values are, it will not influence the way I operate.” (Advisor 4).

To summarize, we presumed that belief and interactive control systems would be perceived positively, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems would be perceived negatively.

Except for two findings, these presumptions were confirmed. The findings that were not in line

with our presumptions were that two advisors perceived a diagnostic control system positively

and that two advisors perceived a boundary system positively. See Table 3 for an overview of the

advisors’ perceptions of their MCS.

22 4.1.5. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Meaning

Subsequently, these advisors were asked how these MCS perceptions could influence their feelings of psychological empowerment. Three advisors stated that a belief system could positively influence meaning, since it allows them to contribute to a ‘higher purpose’.

Furthermore, two advisors indicated that a diagnostic system could positively influence meaning, because it helps them to define goals that make their jobs more inspiring.

On the question which MCS could negatively influence meaning, three advisors argued that a boundary system could do so, because it oppresses them to operate freely and to take initiative.

Furthermore, two advisors indicated that a diagnostic system could negatively influence meaning, since it prevents them to perform those tasks that are needed, but are not included in their ROAs.

4.1.6. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Competence

Four advisors argued that a belief system could positively influence competence, since it allows them to contribute to the success of the organization’s mission. Furthermore, two advisors

indicated that an interactive system could positively influence competence, because it can provide information that can be used to develop one’s competences. Lastly, one advisor argued that a diagnostic system could positively influence competence, since it provides one with opportunities to discuss development opportunities and to utilize one’s competences better.

On the question which MCS could negatively influence meaning, four advisors argued that a boundary system could have a negative influence, since it constrains them to operate freely.

Furthermore, one advisor argued that a diagnostic system could have a negative influence, because it could reduce the intrinsic motivation of this advisor and, therewith, the willingness to perform tasks skillfully. This last finding was in line with the observation that this advisor had trouble achieving the ROAs and, therefore, told different colleagues to feel less competent than before.

4.1.7. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Self-Determination

Four advisors stated that a belief system could positively influence self-determination, because it

creates space to perform their own activities and to make their own decisions. This is in line with

the fact that these advisors mentioned, during different lunches, that the municipality provides an

23 atmosphere in which employees trust on each other skills, so that everyone can operate

autonomously. Furthermore, one advisor stated that an interactive system could positively influence self-determination, because one can use this system strategically to accomplish one’s own goals and work as one’s see fit.

Secondly, four advisors indicated that a boundary system could negatively influence self- determination. They argued that since it restricts their playing field, they would feel restricted instead of autonomous. Furthermore, two advisors stated that a diagnostic system could

negatively influence self-determination, because it limits oneself to perform only those tasks that are included in the ROAs. Lastly, one advisor indicated that an interactive system could

negatively influence self-determination, when it provides one with too much information, which can be confusing.

4.1.8. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Impact

Three advisors indicated that a belief system could positively influence impact, since it facilitates them to contribute to the success of the organization’s mission. Furthermore, two advisors stated that an interactive system could positively influence impact, since it helps them to communicate their findings to other organizational members.

Additionally, three employees indicated that a boundary system could negatively influence impact, since it limit one’s playing field. Furthermore, three advisors stated that a diagnostic system could negatively influence impact, because it restricts them to only perform their ROAs, and because sometimes events out of one’s control prevent them to achieve their ROAs.

To conclude, we presumed that belief and interactive control systems would positively influence empowerment, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems would negatively influence psychological empowerment. Except for three findings, these presumptions were confirmed. The findings that were not in line with our presumptions were that a diagnostic system was mentioned as a positive influence on meaning and competence and that an interactive system could

negatively influence self-determination. See Table 4 for an overview of the findings. Next, the

results of the policy makers are described.

24 4.2. Case B: The Policy Makers

Five policy makers participated in this study, three males and two females. Their age ranged from 47 years to 64 years old (M = 53.40 years, SD = 4.92) and their years of experience in their current function ranged from 5 years to 20 years (M = 12.60, SD = 4.95). Two policy makers had a higher professional education level and three policy makers had a scientific education level. For an overview of their empowerment scores, see Appendix C. In this Appendix, it can be found that policy makers and advisors, except for competence, had the same scores on all four dimensions.

4.2.1. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Diagnostic control system

All policy makers perceived their diagnostic system negatively, because they find it too static

and, therefore, this system does not fit with the requirements of their jobs:“We operate in a very

dynamic environment. We face a fast-paced business climate, terms of employments change fast

and politics is a fickle business. So, ROAs are impossible to make.” (Policy Maker 3). This

finding is in line with the observation that during different meetings, they argued that since they

face a lot of uncertainties in their jobs, they cannot plan activities too much ahead.

25 4.2.2. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Interactive control system

Three policy makers held positive perceptions about their interactive system, because to assure that their policies are in line with the needs of the organization, they need to be able to

communicate with other organizational members. Although the other two policy makers also held positive perceptions, they saw some limitations as well. They argued that with such a system, mangers may try to have too much influence on specific implementation details and that

managers may communicate different messages to lower-level employees, which makes it hard to understand that they exactly want.

4.2.3. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Boundary system

Three policy makers held negative perceptions about their boundary system, because it makes their playing field too small and because they should be able to cross borders to perform properly.

Stated differently:“The acceptance of boundaries beforehand, is the exclusion of promising solutions beforehand”(Policy Maker 5). However, two policy makers held more positive

perceptions about their boundary systems, since it provides them with clarity about what tasks to perform and because it provides guidelines on how to perform those tasks. However, they also indicated that they need to have sufficient space within these boundaries. Otherwise, they would feel restricted.

4.2.4. Policy Makers perceptions of their MCS: Belief system

All policy makers perceived their belief system positively. They argued that it inspires them to contribute to a higher purpose and that it tells them if they feel a connection with the

organization. This is important, since they find it difficult to work for an organization which belief system is not in line with their own values. Furthermore, one policy maker indicated that a well-designed belief system could increase the effectiveness of an interactive system, because when it is clear what the mission and core values are, it becomes easier to communicate with other organizational members, since everybody will then speak the same language.

To summarize, we presumed that belief and interactive control systems would be perceived positively, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems would be perceived negatively.

Except for one finding, these presumptions were confirmed. The finding that was not in line with

our presumptions was that two policy makers indicated that they held more or less positive

26 perceptions about a boundary system, as long as they would have sufficient space to operate within these boundaries. Table 5 provides an overview of the policy makers’ perceptions of their MCS.

4.2.5. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Meaning

Subsequently, the policy makers were asked how these MCS perceptions could influence their feelings of psychological empowerment. Three policy makers stated that a belief system could have a positive influence on meaning, because it allows them to contribute to a ‘higher purpose’.

Two policy makers indicated that an interactive system could positively influence meaning, because it helps them to be connected to those employees who are needed to perform their jobs properly.

On the question which MCS could influence meaning negatively, all policy makers argued that a diagnostic system could do so, because it reduces their motivation, inspiration, and “When you notice after a while that you should do things differently, but you cannot, because that was not agreed upon... That is very frustrating.” (Policy Maker 1). Furthermore, three policy makers argued that a boundary system could negatively affect meaning, because it constrains them and because it does not fit with the requirements of their jobs.

4.2.6. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Competence

Three policy makers argued that an interactive system could have a positive influence on

competence, because when they are well-connected to other organization members, they can

receive feedback quickly, and, therewith, can learn and develop their skills. The other two policy

makers indicated that a belief system could positively influence competence, because they feel

27 competent when they contribute to the mission or their performances are in line with the core organizational’ values.

Subsequently, all policy makers argued that a diagnostic system could negatively influence competence, because it only allows them to perform a limited set of activities and, therefore, they can only show some of their competences. Furthermore, because it does not fit with the

requirements of their jobs, it would reduce the quality of their work. Furthermore, two policy makers indicated that a boundary system could negatively influence competence, because when their playing field is limited, they cannot perform to the best of their abilities.

4.2.7. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Self-Determination

Three policy makers argued that a belief system could positively influence self-determination, since “You can operate autonomously, because you know what you have to do to

contribute.”(Policy Maker 5). Moreover, two policy makers indicated that an interactive system could positively influence self-determination, because they can use the system strategically to accomplish their own goals and work as they see fit.

Additionally, four policy makers indicated that a diagnostic system could negatively influence self-determination, since it predetermines most of their operations and, therefore, they have less autonomy to initiate and regulate their own work. Furthermore, three policy makers argued that a boundary system could negatively affect self-determination, because it decreases their feeling of freedom in how to go about doing their work, and because “it reduces one’s feelings of

responsibility. Because, it is already written down on paper what to do and what not.” (Policy Maker 2)

4.2.8. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Impact

Lastly, four policy makers stated that a belief system could positively influence impact, because it provides them with the freedom to operate as they see fit, as long as it is in line with the mission and core values. Hence, this freedom increased the possibility to maximize their impact.

One policy maker indicated that an interactive system could have a positive effect on impact, since it can help to reach more people with one’s ideas.

Secondly, all policy makers indicated that a boundary system could have a negative effect on

impact, because it limits their playing field, and, therewith, their possibility to have impact.

28 Furthermore, four policy makers also indicated that a diagnostic system could have a negative effect, because: “To have a sense of real impact, I think it is very important to be able to adjust to changes, unforeseen circumstances or new insights. And, this is not always possible in a

diagnostic system!” (Policy Maker 1)

To conclude, again we presumed that belief and interactive control systems would positively influence psychological empowerment, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems would have a negative influence. The findings of the policy makers indeed conformed to these

presumptions: belief and interactive systems were mentioned to have a positive effect, whereas boundary and diagnostic control systems were indicated to have a negative effect on

psychological empowerment. See Table 6 for an overview of the policy makers’ findings. The

next section will continue to discuss the case study findings.

29 5. DISCUSSION

In this section, the case study findings are discussed. The findings of the advisors and policy makers are compared, based on their perceptions of their MCS and on how these perceptions influence feelings of psychological empowerment.

5.1. Perceptions of MCS: Diagnostic control system

All policy makers perceived their diagnostic control system negatively, because it does not fit with the requirements of their jobs. However, two advisors held more positive perceptions. They argued that it could help them to achieve goals.

A possible explanation for this finding could be that, as mentioned in the method section, policy makers perform less structured and routine tasks than advisors and, therefore, are more likely to face task uncertainty (Drake, Wong & Salter, 2007). Task uncertainty is defined as the difference between the amount of information required to perform a task and the amount of information that is already processed (Chenhall, 2003). Some participants indeed indicated, during the interviews and during their daily work activities, that policy makers faced more uncertainty. Furthermore, Chapman (1998) argued that when task uncertainty is low, tasks can be pre-planned, since all information necessary for task performance is available beforehand. However, when uncertainty increases, such a pre-planning approach no longer holds. He argued that in those situations, organizations should follow a learning approach and let employees acquire and process information while the task is being performed. Hence, a possible explanation could be that although policy makers face more uncertainty, the organization follows the pre-planning approach, whereas the learning approach is needed. In contrast, advisors held less negative perceptions, since a pre-planning approach better fits their situation.

To conclude, although we expected that diagnostic systems would be perceived negatively by all participants, it was found that two advisors perceived this system positively. A possible

explanation could be that since advisors face low task uncertainty, their tasks can be pre-planned.

This is in line with Chenhall (2003) who argued that when uncertainty is low, a more mechanistic

MCS can be used. However, future research is needed to examine this possibility.

30 5.2. Perceptions of MCS: Interactive control system

In line with our presumption, all participants perceived their interactive control system more or less positively, because it keeps them informed about organizational developments and because they need such a system to perform their tasks properly. However, in both groups, two employees indicated that they held less positive perceptions when it provides them with too much

information or is used by managers to interfere too much with their operations.

This limitation is in line with Bonner, Ruekert and Walker (2002) who argued that an interactive control system can provide managers with the opportunity to intervene themselves too much with the decision-making activities of their subordinates which can, subsequently, decrease the

creativity and innovativeness of these subordinates and increase the centralization of authority.

Hence, although this system is perceived positively, MCS designers should keep these possible limitations in mind.

5.3. Perceptions of MCS: Boundary system

In line with our presumptions, three employees in both groups perceived their boundary system negatively. Although they did not indicate that it prescribes or controls them, they argued that it limits their playing field and that it decreases their creativity and initiative. These arguments are in line with Widener (2007) who argued that managers have to remain aware not to use a MCS in a way that inhibits creativity and innovation. Moreover, Mundy (2010) argued that rigid

boundary processes could prevent employees from seeking alternative -but possibly higher reward- solutions. However, two employees in both cases held positive perceptions about their boundary system, because it provides them with guidance on what tasks to perform. Although not in line with our presumptions, these findings are in line with ‘bureaucratic personality’ theories that argue that personal characteristics make some bureaucrats prefer elaborate rules and

regulations (Bozeman and Rainey, 1998). This could explain why one advisor indicated to have

‘a blue personality’ and that these employees argued that rules can provide them with clarity on what tasks to perform. However, future research is needed to examine if employees with a

‘bureaucratic personality’ indeed hold more positive perceptions regarding their boundary

system.

31 5.4. Perceptions of MCS: Belief system

In line with our presumptions, all employees perceived their belief system positively, because it inspires them to contribute to a higher purpose. Furthermore, in line with Conger and Kanungo (1988) employees also indicated that it can provide them with knowledge on how to act in accordance to this purpose. Furthermore, Marginson (2002) argued that belief systems are especially important when companies try to maintain coherence in the face of organizational change. As mentioned in the method section, the municipality introduced a new program that increased employee empowerment. In the interviews, almost all employees referred to this program. Therefore, another explanation for their positive perceptions could be that this system indeed helps them to cope with this change.

5.5. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Meaning

Secondly, this study investigated how these MCS perceptions could influence feelings of psychological empowerment. In line with our presumptions, three employees in each case indicated that a belief system could positively influence meaning, since it allows them to

contribute to a ‘higher purpose’. This is in line with Conger and Kanungo (1988) who found that information about the organization’s mission can help to create a sense of meaning and purpose.

Furthermore, two policy makers argued than an interactive system could positively influence meaning. This is in line with Spreitzer (1996) who stated that in a participative climate

employees better understand their role in the organization and that only then, those roles can have personal meaning. Contrary to our presumptions, two advisors indicated that a diagnostic system could positively influence meaning. These advisors are the same advisors who, in the previous section, indicated to perceive their diagnostic system positively. Therefore, we argue again that a possible explanation could be that since advisors face low task uncertainty, their tasks can be pre- planned and that a mechanistic MCS can be used.

Additionally, respondents indicated which MCS could influence meaning negatively. In line with

our presumptions, two advisors and all policy makers indicated that a diagnostic system could

negatively influence meaning. Furthermore, in both cases, three employees argued that a

boundary system could influence meaning negatively. They argued that both systems constrain

32 them to operate freely and, therefore, would feel less empowered. This finding is in line with Mundy (2010) who argued that it can prevent employees from seeking alternative -but possibly higher reward- solutions.

5.6. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Competence

Except for the competence scale, advisors and policy makers had the same scores on the

psychological empowerment scale. Again, a possible explanation for their different scores on the competence dimension could be their differences in task uncertainty, because Spreitzer (1996) argued that clear task requirements and low levels of task uncertainty are related to higher feelings of competence, since these conditions increase the chance to successfully accomplish one’s goals.

Although they had different competence scores, both groups mentioned the same MCS that could positively influence competence. In line with our presumptions, four advisors and two policy makers indicated that a belief system could positively influence meaning, because they feel competent whey they contribute to a higher purpose. This is in line with Conger and Kanungo (1988) who found that belief systems can provide employees with knowledge on how to act skillfully in accordance to this higher purpose. Furthermore, one advisor and three policy makers argued that an interactive system could positively influence competence. In line with Carless (2004) they argued that this system could help them to competently perform their job. Contrary to our presumptions, one advisor argued that a diagnostic system could positively influence

competence. However, this finding is in line with self-efficacy research. Spreitzer’s (1995) competence dimension is related to self-efficacy (i.e. belief in one’s capability to perform a task successfully). Research found that task feedback can enhance one’s feeling of self-efficacy, because it helps employees to evaluate one’s skills (Bandura, 1989). Hence, with hindsight, our finding is in line with previous research.

Moreover, the employees indicated which MCS could negatively influence competence. In line

with our presumptions, one advisor and all policy makers indicated that a diagnostic control

system could negatively influence competence. Furthermore, four advisors and two policy

makers argued that a boundary system could negatively influence competence. In line with

33 Mundy (2010) they argued that it would prevent them to seek alternative -but possibly higher reward- solutions.

5.7. Relationship between MCS and empowerment: Self-Determination

In line with our presumptions, four advisors and three policy makers indicated that a belief system could positively influence self-determination. In line with Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) they argued that when they understand their organization’s vision and mission, they are more likely to feel that they can autonomously perform their work. Furthermore, one advisor and two policy makers argued that an interactive system could positively influence self-determination. In line with Nonaka (1988) they argued that sharing information across hierarchical levels is critical for individual autonomy.

Regarding the negative effects, two advisors and four policy makers indicated that a diagnostic

control system could negatively influence self-determination. Moreover, four advisors and three

policy makers argued that a boundary system could have a negative effect. They argued that with

these systems, they would feel restricted instead of autonomous. Again, these findings are in line

with our presumptions that boundary and diagnostic systems can negatively influence feelings of

psychological empowerment. However, contrary to our presumptions, one advisor indicated that

an interactive system could negatively influence self-determination, because it can provide one

with too much information. This was the same advisor who perceived a diagnostic control system

positively. We argued that a possible explanation could be that since advisors face low task

uncertainty, their tasks can be pre-planned. Following this line of reasoning, Chong (1996) found

that when task uncertainty is low, managers require only narrow scope management accounting

information. This is, because the presence of broad scope information under conditions of low

task uncertainty may lead to an information overload. Although Chong (1996) included only

manager-level participants in his study, whereas this study focuses on lower-level employees, his

finding is exactly in line with the arguments provided by the advisor. Furthermore, other studies

also found that there has to be an appropriate ‘fit’ between the level of task uncertainty and the

usefulness of broad scope information (Chenhall, 2003). Therefore, future research is needed to

examine if this ‘fit’ is also required for lower-level employees.