MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effects of Strategy–Management Control System Misfits on Firm Performance

2012· article· en· W3121608294 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManagement control systemControl (management)Strategic managementProcess managementMeasure (data warehouse)BusinessKnowledge managementComputer scienceMarketingData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of misfits between business strategy and management control systems on performance. We address the following research question: Do firms that align their management control systems with the specific requirements of their business strategy perform significantly better than those that do not achieve the required match? We define a misfit as the degree to which management control systems deviate from empirically derived optimal configurations for a given type of business strategy. We use the two‐stage approach proposed by Ittner and Larcker (2001) to measure misfit and to investigate the impacts of misfit on performance. Based on a questionnaire survey of executives from 109 banks, we hypothesize and find that the strategy–control systems misfit has a significantly negative correlation with both self‐rated and publicly available performance measures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it