Performance Measurement System, Organizational Learning, and Creativity.
| Autor | Frare, Anderson Betti |
| Cargo | Research Article |
INTRODUCTION
The competitive intensity of specific markets affects the internal strategies of organizations (Wu et al., 2020), which, besides causing unpredictability, may generate opportunities for improvements in processes, products, and services (Tsai & Hsu, 2014; Tsai & Yang, 2013). This scenario has encapsulated education technology startups (EdTechs) through a dynamic and extremely competitive market (Burch & Miglani, 2018; Ramiel, 2021). Organizational learning and employee creativity are necessary for such organizations to ensure their continuity. Learning implies that the organization matures with past actions and stimulates current and future efficacy (Fyol & Lyles, 1985). In turn, employee creativity consists of the generation of new ideas that are useful and applicable within the organizational context (Amabile, 1988). However, finding new means for startups to foster organizational learning (Gonzaga et al., 2020) and individual creativity is not a simple path (Frare & Beuren, 2021b).
One way for organizations to manage their activities and foster positive behaviors is by using management control systems (MCSs), which are mechanisms employed to promote congruence among organizational and individual goals (Simons, 1990). From this perspective, one of the main MCSs is the performance measurement system (PMS), which consists of performance metrics (Henri, 2006). This MCS may be used diagnostically (feedback and monitoring) or interactively (to promote dialogue and communication) by organization managers (Simons, 1995).
Gaps are observed in the literature regarding the exposed. Firstly, the relationship between MCSs and learning is inconclusive, and new evidence is necessary (Santos et al., 2021). Various studies postulate the positive effect of the interactive use of PMS or another MCS on organizational learning (Henri, 2006; Srimai, Damsaman, & Bangchokdee, 2011; Zhang & Yu, 2020), whereas there is evidence of a negative influence (Henri, 2006) or a positive influence (Oyadomari et al., 2013) on organizational learning of the diagnostic use of the PMS. Moreover, the evidence of the diagnostic and interactive use of MCSs in startups is limited (Eldridge et al., 2014). This scenario instigates more research on the MCS use modalities that may favor or perhaps harm the organizational learning process, given that this is one of the main paths for organizations to adapt in the face of quick and dynamic environmental changes (Kloot, 1997). This is particularly relevant for EdTechs since they are inserted in an emerging market with constant transformations of educational technology products and services (Mattsson & Andersson, 2019).
Secondly, although organizational learning is typically tied to creativity (Huber, 1998), the studies do not distinguish between the levels of novelty of the creativity. Creativity may be improvisational or compositional (Valaei et al., 2017), with improvisational creativity stemming from intuition and spontaneity, resulting in improvisation in the face of unpredictable or challenging contexts (Vera et al., 2016). In turn, compositional creativity permeates lower levels of novelty, resulting in incremental improvements to existing actions or contexts (Fisher & Amabile, 2009). It is important to explore the role of organizational learning at different levels of novelty in creativity, given that organizations, including startups, may need their employees to have propositions of incremental improvements in some contexts while requiring more radical and transformative ideas in others (Valaei et al., 2017).
Thirdly, the literature is limited regarding the effects of the competitive intensity on the organization, i.e., the level of competition that the organizations face in the market (Tsai & Hsu, 2014). Several studies have indicated a moderating effect of the competitive intensity on, for example, the relationships between organizational learning (exploration and exploitation) and performance (Auh & Menguc, 2005), innovativeness and performance (Tsai & Yang, 2013), effectuation approach and development speed and quality of new products (Wu et al., 2020), competitive advantage and performance (Keskin et al., 2021), marketing and innovation (Bachmann et al., 2021), and disruptive business models and performance (Olabode et al., 2022). Despite the indications that competitive intensity intensifies the effect of the search and integration of knowledge on innovative results (Aliasghar et al., 2022; Tsai & Hsu, 2014), the literature is silent on the relationship between organizational learning and creativity. In general terms, the expectation is that EdTechs require more considerable organizational learning for employee creativity to be fostered at higher levels of perceived competitive intensity. This is consistent with the argument that the competitive environment causes organizations to be in constant learning to improve their innovative capacity (Jones & Linderman, 2014).
The gaps exposed instigated the proposition of the purpose of this study, which is to analyze the effects of the diagnostic and interactive use of the PMS on organizational learning and improvisational and compositional creativity, considering the moderating effects of competitive intensity. For such, a survey was conducted in EdTechs of the Brazilian ecosystem, and the data were analyzed through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
The study contributions permeate the literature and organizational practice. The study aggregates new evidence for the relationship between the diagnostic and interactive use of the PMS and organizational learning, extends the discussion of learning and creativity upon considering the level of novelty of creativity (improvisational and compositional), and explores the moderation of the competitive intensity in such relationships. All this in the field of startups, particularly EdTechs. In turn, the implications for organizational practice point to ways for managers to stimulate organizational learning and employee creativity from low to highly competitive intensity scenarios in the sector.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND HYPOTHESES
The PMS and organizational learning
The study of MCSs in organizations has been increasingly emphasized in academia, with a considerable number of publications in recent decades (Frare, Barbosa, et al., 2021). MCSs are relevant mechanisms for an organization to create and execute its strategy, besides being used in the search for congruence between organizational targets and expectations (Simons, 1990). One of such MCSs is the PMS, which is based on financial and non-financial, internal or external, and ex-post or ex-ante metrics and short or long temporal dimensions (Henri, 2006). The metrics contained in the PMS are commonly used to quantify actions within organizations (Neely et al., 1995).
The PMS provides support to managers from a broad and holistic view of the main metrics the organization uses, which allows them to make decisions in the face of the levels of reach of the goals and targets outlined (Franco-Santos et al., 2012). The literature indicates that the PMS may be used diagnostically or interactively (Henri, 2006). The diagnostic use consists of monitoring targets and results, comparing results with the expectations, analyzing the main metrics, and providing subsidies for the traditional feedback (Henri, 2006). In turn, the interactive use allows the stimulation, communication, and discussion among peers and hierarchical levels with the purpose of providing a common view of the organization (Simons, 1990; 1995), besides being indicated to promote innovation behaviors (Cruz et al., 2015).
The PMS is typically considered an antecedent of positive behaviors in organizations, given its role in leading to the achievement of organizational goals such as organizational learning. In general, organizational learning pervades the development of knowledge and perspectives of past actions to promote more significant efficacy in future actions (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Henri (2006) observed that the diagnostic (interactive) use of the PMS negatively (positively) influenced organizational learning. The positive effect of the interactive use of the PMS or similar MCSs was proven in later studies (Srimai et al., 2011; Zhang & Yu, 2020), reinforcing its occurrence. However, the evidence of the effect of the diagnostic use of the PMS on organizational learning is still inconclusive. Moreover, the evidence is limited in the context of startups. For example, Oyadomari et al. (2013) found a positive relationship between organizational learning and both the interactive and diagnostic use of the MCS. Hence, it is presumed that the diagnostic and interactive use of the PMS leads to organizational learning:
H1a: The diagnostic use of the PMS positively influences organizational learning.
H1b: The interactive use of the PMS positively influences organizational learning.
Organizational learning and creativity
Organizational learning is deemed essential for organizations to promote improvements to their methods, processes, and activities (Fiol & Lyles, 1985), besides favoring the creation of competitive advantages (Baker & Sinkula, 1999). Organizational learning fosters positive behaviors within an organization, such as creativity and innovation, for example (Huber, 1998). Fundamentally, creativity is defined as the production of new ideas that are useful and applicable in a given situation or organizational activity and that potentially result in innovation (Amabile, 1988).
The literature suggests that organizational learning promotes creativity (Huber, 1998) but is silent on the distinction between improvisational and compositional creativity. Improvisational creativity originates from intuition and spontaneity, which results in improvisation in the face of challenging or unpredictable situations and contexts (Cunha et al., 2003; Vera et...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
