SMEs Managers’ Perceptions of MCS: A Mixed Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of this study are to explore the use of the Management Control Systems (MCS) by SMEs’ managers at the country level in order to identify the importance given to financial and nonfinancial measures, as well as key performance indicators. In this study, we use the behavioral accounting lens and adopt mixed methods approach to study the use of the MCS in Portuguese small to medium enterprises (SMEs): a correlational and a configurational analysis. Data was collected from a cross-sectional survey of 414 top managers of Portuguese SMEs across several industries. The results show that managers’ perceptions of the importance given to financial measures is positively and significantly related to the importance given to several nonfinancial measures. We take an original approach by addressing the managers’ perceptions to contribute to the understanding of Portuguese SMEs’ use of tools for strategy implementation: the use of different MCS. Additionally, the study discovers alternative configurations of individual and organizational conditions that lead to the managers’ perception of the importance given to financial and nonfinancial measures. This paper offers support for SMEs based on controlling strategy implementation by using MCS. The study’s limitations regard a relatively low response rate to the questionnaire (4.56%), which may be justified because data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. We offer alternative configurations that generate the perception of managers about the importance of using financial and nonfinancial measures. Our results enlighten the use of such tools in support of strategic accomplishment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".