Performance measurement systems as generators of cognitive conflict in ambidextrous firms

Bedford, DS; Bisbe, J; Sweeney, B

Performance measurement systems as generators of cognitive conflict in ambidextrous firms

Bedford, DS

Bisbe, J Sweeney, B

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2019, 72 pp. 21 - 37
Issue Date:: 2019-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (1.01 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bedford, DS https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5895-7241	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bisbe, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sweeney, B	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-06-22T19:05:55Z
dc.date.issued	2019-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2019, 72 pp. 21 - 37	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0361-3682	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/125843
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 Elsevier Ltd This study explores the decision-facilitating role of performance measurement systems (PMSs) in firms attempting to translate competence ambidexterity (i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation) into innovation ambidexterity outcomes (i.e., the achievement of both radical and incremental innovations). Drawing on paradox and organisational conflict literature, this study emphasises the role of cognitive conflict, generated by PMSs, in shaping the relationships between competence ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity. Based on survey data from a sample of 90 Irish firms, our findings indicate that competence ambidexterity is associated with (a) the choice to have a balanced set of performance measures, and (b) the use of PMSs for frequent and intensive debate between top managers. Furthermore, the study reveals that these choices are interdependent, as they function as complements in generating cognitive conflict, which in turn drives the realisation of innovation ambidexterity outcomes. The results also show that cognitive conflict is not directly associated with the development of competence ambidexterity, but is instead generated through the conjoint action of a balanced PMS design and the use of PMSs for intensive debate. Overall, this study demonstrates the interdependent nature of choices concerning the design and use of PMSs, and the significant role of PMSs as generators of cognitive conflict in firms attempting to achieve ambidexterity.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Accounting, Organizations and Society	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.010	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Accounting	en_US
dc.title	Performance measurement systems as generators of cognitive conflict in ambidextrous firms	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	72	en_US
utslib.for	1501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Accounting Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	72	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd This study explores the decision-facilitating role of performance measurement systems (PMSs) in firms attempting to translate competence ambidexterity (i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation) into innovation ambidexterity outcomes (i.e., the achievement of both radical and incremental innovations). Drawing on paradox and organisational conflict literature, this study emphasises the role of cognitive conflict, generated by PMSs, in shaping the relationships between competence ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity. Based on survey data from a sample of 90 Irish firms, our findings indicate that competence ambidexterity is associated with (a) the choice to have a balanced set of performance measures, and (b) the use of PMSs for frequent and intensive debate between top managers. Furthermore, the study reveals that these choices are interdependent, as they function as complements in generating cognitive conflict, which in turn drives the realisation of innovation ambidexterity outcomes. The results also show that cognitive conflict is not directly associated with the development of competence ambidexterity, but is instead generated through the conjoint action of a balanced PMS design and the use of PMSs for intensive debate. Overall, this study demonstrates the interdependent nature of choices concerning the design and use of PMSs, and the significant role of PMSs as generators of cognitive conflict in firms attempting to achieve ambidexterity.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/125843