Knowledge that Transforms

Organizational learning (OL) is a critical organizational capability. Yet designing management control (MC) that effectively supports OL is challenging, as learning outcomes are often intangible and unfold over extended time horizons. Employing situational strength theory, we examine combinations of MC practices that affect OL contingent on environmental uncertainty. Drawing on a survey of 210 senior business unit controllers, we use fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to identify multiple combinations of MC practices that achieve high OL in different uncertainty contexts. In a subsequent step, we examine whether the situational strength of certain combinations of MC practices is associated with OL. Results show that in a low-uncertainty environment, the combined use of diverse performance measures and social controls, as well as performance pay and a mechanistic administrative structure, have a synergetic effect on OL. In a high-uncertainty context, the combined use of measure diversity and deliberate formal strategic planning is beneficial for achieving OL. Our results suggest that the effectiveness of MC practices for OL depends on aligning MC practices with the internal as well as the external context.

Auditor-client negotiations over contentious accounting issues can shape reported financial outcomes, yet little is known about how communication dynamics between audit committee (AC) members and auditors influence client negotiation behavior. We conduct an experiment in which experienced financial executives, assuming the role of chief financial officer, negotiate a disputed inventory obsolescence allowance with a simulated audit partner in the presence of an AC member; the AC member's distributive communication style (offensive vs. defensive) and the audit partner's reflective empathy (high vs. low) are manipulated between participants. Drawing on relational framing theory in interpersonal communication, we predict and find that a distributive-offensive AC communication style leads clients to establish their reporting positions and concede less to the auditor's proposed adjustment, unless it is accompanied by high reflective empathy from the audit partner, which neutralizes this resistance. This pattern emerges in the client's initial negotiation position and persists through the final negotiated allowance. Our findings suggest that auditors can use empathetic communication as a strategic tool to defuse the competitive posture that an assertive governance signal may provoke. Overall, our results provide insights into how AC members' and auditors' communication styles jointly shape client negotiation behavior, highlighting the importance of communication strategies in achieving effective audit negotiation outcomes.

We examine how bonus deferral and bonus recovery affect performance in an effort-sensitive task, where improving overall performance requires effort towards output quantity and output quality. Deferred bonuses and bonus recovery are important elements in contemporary incentive schemes designed to motivate employees to act in the best interest of the firm. We propose that bonus deferral improves performance by encouraging employees to adopt an abstract mindset that focuses on behavior for the good of the firm (“to do the right thing”) and thus to exert more effort. In contrast, bonus recovery serves an effort-directing role by indicating undesirable behavior that should be avoided. Bonus recovery activates a mindset that focuses on the monetary implications of their behavior and thus supersedes the abstract mindset of bonus deferral and its positive effects. Our experimental results show that bonus deferral leads to higher performance quantity; in contrast, bonus recovery increases performance quality, the performance domain related to bonus recovery, but at the expense of performance quantity. Furthermore, we find that bonus recovery counteracts the positive effects of bonus deferral and leads to a reduction in overall performance. Two supplemental experiments provide direct process evidence supporting the proposed theoretical mechanism. Our study contributes to the debate on effective compensation by showing that combining bonus deferral and bonus recovery may have undesirable consequences on effort provision and allocation.

We study principals’ use of performance information to allocate human capital development resources to underperforming agents. We use proprietary data from a retail firm that sets uniform, noncalibrated performance targets to ensure consistent quality and customer experience across all stores. Unlike calibrated targets, uniform, noncalibrated targets do not account for heterogeneity in local conditions. Given that human capital development is costly, we predict and find that principals do not support all agents who underperform on noncalibrated targets. Instead, they use relative performance information and concentrate support on underperforming agents who outperform their geographical peers. In contrast, for calibrated targets, we find no evidence that principals rely on relative performance; agents who underperform calibrated targets are generally eligible for human capital support. Consistent with our assumption that relative performance is informative about returns to human capital investment, we find that support for underperforming agents who outperform their peers improves performance.

This paper contributes to a long-standing debate in the audit literature about the place of professional judgement within the constraints of the formal audit process. Responding to recent calls for deeper exploration, we examine how auditors exercise judgement when facing a practical challenge they perceive as novel, for which they are unable to easily deploy prior understandings and judgement scripts. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with practicing auditors and the Routine Dynamics (RD) perspective, emphasising patterns of routine action as having internal dynamics, we provide a nuanced account of how auditors progress from the position of relative epistemic obscurity to being comfortable enough to form a conclusion. Our findings show how auditors performed routines to establish social , temporal, and spatial relationalities within and beyond the present audit context, enabling them to nuance their interpretations and grow confident in their judgements. We reveal how auditor judgement is continuously present but fluctuates in intensity, depending on the auditors’ reflexive intent during individual routine performances, resulting in the augmentation or curtailment of opportunities for inference. We also show how auditors accrue comfort in their judgements in a progressive manner along a continuum, spanning from largely ritualistic performances to the more effortful, inferentially intensive ones that together shape how auditors grapple with novelty.

Companies increasingly disclose human capital initiatives, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and non-DEI initiatives. Yet, DEI initiatives have become a focal point of debate, raising questions about whether investors view them as appropriate uses of company resources. Across two experiments, we examine how nonprofessional investors perceive DEI versus non-DEI initiatives. Drawing on equity theory, we propose that investors' fairness-based perceptions of an initiative's appropriateness depend on their underlying preferences for what companies should prioritize, and that these perceptions influence their investment willingness. Experiment 1 finds that investors perceive DEI (versus non-DEI) initiatives as less appropriate, and this difference is exacerbated when investors are more shareholder-oriented than stakeholder-oriented. Furthermore, the mediating effect of perceived appropriateness on investment willingness is stronger when company financial performance is unfavorable than when it is favorable. Building on these findings, Experiment 2 tests a boundary condition of our theory by examining whether explicitly stating merit-based selection criteria attenuates shareholder-oriented investors' stronger negative perceptions of DEI initiatives. We find that when DEI initiatives are explicitly presented as merit-based, investors' negative perceptions of appropriateness of DEI (versus non-DEI) initiatives are attenuated, and the exacerbating moderating effect of shareholder (versus stakeholder) investor orientation also diminishes. Our findings demonstrate how investors' fairness-based perceptions of appropriateness can explain divergent responses to DEI disclosures, offering timely implications for companies and regulators concerned with human capital reporting.

We examine whether financial performance metrics in CEO compensation contracts provide incentives for environmental performance improvement, and the conditions under which such incentives arise. Using toxic pollution as our primary outcome, we find that relative financial performance evaluation (RPE) is negatively associated with future pollution in firms whose environmental impacts are subject to greater scrutiny, whereas other financial incentives, such as equity portfolio delta and new equity grants, show no such association. This pattern is consistent with theories of corporate social responsibility and, as supported by complementary tests, with the idea that stronger environmental performance can improve a firm’s relative financial position by attracting customers, employees, and shareholders from less responsible peers. We further show that the RPE-pollution relation varies predictably with various RPE plan characteristics and stakeholder switching costs, persists when we instrument for the use of RPE, and operates in part through increased environmental innovation.

In the past decade, climate-related risk disclosures have become a core component of global sustainability reporting. These disclosures mainly adopt the reporting framework developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Drawing on in-depth interviews with members of the Task Force, this paper unveils the manner in which the Task Force members convened to craft their disclosure recommendations. The paper employs and extends Stark's (2009) concept of organizing dissonance to illustrate how the Task Force became a site of contestation in which fragile member collaborations fuelled unanticipated yet productive frictions related to the Task Force's remit, the concept of materiality, the calculability of climate-related risks, and the nature and appropriateness of scenario analysis. The distinctive mode of organizing dissonance unveiled in the paper illustrates how problematizing globalized risk metrics, embracing admissible levels of ambiguity, and acknowledging the (temporary) unknowability of climate change impacts organized an oscillation between harmony and discord among the Task Force members. This resulted in a provisional disclosure settlement facilitating the flexible standardization of global climate-related risk reporting aimed at enabling the transition to a sustainable, low carbon economy. By unpacking a unique instance of user and preparer efforts to co-construct a globally influential climate-related risk reporting framework, the paper advances our knowledge of how transnational private governance initiatives unearth market-based solutions to intractable global challenges.