An Empirical Analysis of the Levers of Control Framework

Abstract

The impact of the Levers of Control (LOC) framework on the accounting literature is undeniably large. The framework, however, has also been criticized for being vague and ambiguous. One of the central, but unclear, concepts in the LOC framework is the notion of balance. That is, the framework holds that control systems must be in balance in order to manage competing tensions such as that found between predictable goal achievement on the one hand and innovation on the other. The goal of our study is to make the concept of balance more explicit by providing empirically informed insights on different balancing arrangements that exist in a cross-section of business units. To empirically examine the concept of balance, we develop a survey and administer it in person to a convenience sample of business unit managers. Using responses from 217 managers, cluster analysis reveals four stable configurations of balance, which we label strategic stability, strategic vigilance, strategic exploitation, and strategic responsiveness. We examine organizational and contextual factors that further validate and help explain the observed patterns of balance. By shedding light on one of the key concepts in the LOC framework, our study helps to explicate a hitherto underspecified theoretical claim in that framework. This explication is a significant step in the further development of the framework, adding to its explanatory expressiveness as well as to its empirical contestability.