Following the theoretical innovations of complementarity theory, management control studies have investigated interdependencies between different management control practices. In this paper, we compare the two dominant statistical specifications to test for the presence of an interdependency. We show theoretically how the power of the demand and the performance specification varies with the level of optimality in the sample and how those specifications are vulnerable to correlated omitted variable bias. Our simulation results reveal that the demand specification is more robust to variations in optimality and correlated omitted variables than the performance specification. We use these results to formulate recommendations for future research into management control interdependencies.

We investigate the determinants and consequences of budget reallocations—that is, corrective changes to the budget made during the year. Using proprietary data from a large consumer goods manufacturer, we analyze the extent to which initial budgeting decisions drive reallocations. Examining this relationship is important because initial budget negotiations are often troubled by power struggles and politicking, which may give rise to the need for reallocations. We hypothesize that one important driver of reallocation decisions is the firm's aim to correct systematic deviations from the optimal initial budget that were driven by lobbying during the initial budgeting process. We find evidence that is consistent with this prediction. In a more exploratory analysis, we show that reallocations do not have the desired effects on market performance. In particular, budget cuts are negatively associated with a product's change in market share. More surprisingly, while budget increases do help product lines achieve their sales targets in the last quarter, they do not boost market share. Our results demonstrate that efficient investment planning is essential to achieve an improvement in market performance.

We examine the relation between incentive plans based on relative performance and competitive aggressiveness. Using data on executive incentive‐compensation contracts in large U.S. firms, we find a positive association between competitive aggressiveness and peer group overlap—that is, the extent to which two firms select each other as peers in these incentive plans. Our findings indicate that managers of such firms take more frequent as well as more complex competitive actions, relative to managers evaluated on relative performance without peer group overlap. Moreover, we show that these competitive tactics are more pronounced when managers compete against: (1) peers with similar grant sizes, (2) peers on similar performance metrics, and (3) peers in the same industry. Collectively, our findings provide evidence on how widely used incentive‐compensation practices relate to strategic firm decisions.