본 연구는 제조기업을 대상으로 혼합전략이라는 상황요인과 PCS의 상호작용적 이용, 그리고 조직성과 간의 관계를 검증했다. 최근 기업들은 다양해진 고객의 요구 만족과 경쟁우위의 달성을 통한 조직성과의 증진을 위해 전략적 다각화를 꾀하고 있는 추세이다. 하지만 관리회계연구의 관심은 여전히 순수전략에 머물러 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 혼합전략에 초점을 맞추어, 그에 적합한 PCS 이용방식의 지원이 조직성과에 미치는 영향에 대해 검증하였다. 전략적 우선순위를 기반으로 원가우위전략, 차별화전략, 그리고 혼합전략을 분류하여 PCS의 이용방식과 관계를 분석한 결과, 순수전략에 비해 혼합전략에서 PCS를 더욱 상호작용적으로 이용함을 밝혔다. 또한 혼합전략과 PCS의 상호작용적 이용방식 간 정합성이 장기적 성과로 간주되는 비재무성과를 증진시키는 것으로 나타났다. 추가적으로 전략적 상황요인에 기반한 PCS의 설계에 있어 기존 선행연구들이 제시하지 못한 차별화전략과 혼합전략 간 차이의 존재 및 그에 따른 조직성과에 대한 효과성의 실증적 증거를 제시하였다. 즉, 혼합전략에서 PCS의 상호작용적 이용정도는 차별화전략에서의 그 이용정도보다 높음을 제시하고, 이는 비재무성과의 증진으로 나타남을 실증적으로 검증한 것이다.
Management accounting research based on contingency theory asserts that there is no only MCS fits for whole contingency factors. Therefore, MCS should be designed to be appropriate for firms' situation. In this research, we posit that organizational performance can be improved when the designed MCS suits for the organizational circumstances. In recent years, firms tend to pursue diversification of strategies for improvement of organizational performance through satisfying customers' needs and achieving competitive priorities. Thus, firms try to take a mixed strategy, which makes use of diverse strategic priorities. However, management accounting research mostly focused on archetypal strategies conventionally in terms of their effect of designing or using MCS. In addition, these research examined the only association PMS with differentiation strategy which is proxied by limited strategy and MCS. In the stream of strategy research, necessity of research on the mixed strategy is emphasized as firms choose a variety of strategies rather only one archetypal strategy to deal with dynamic business environments nowadays. Nevertheless, these prior studies has not illuminated the importance of the fit between mixed strategy and use of MCS. Furthermore, they rarely present the empirical evidences on how the fit between mixed strategy and use of MCS affect organizational performance. In this respect, this research defines the form of strategy with strategic priorities focusing on mixed strategy, and examines the association of mixed strategy as contingency factor, interactive use of PCS, and organizational performance for manufacturing firms. The results of this study are summarized as follows. The firm which take mixed strategy are likely to use the PCS more interactively compared to those under archetypal strategy. Also, when the PCS is used interactively, the difference of non-financial performance between firms with only one archetypal strategy and those with mixed strategy seems to get bigger. This result implies that interactive use of PCS is appropriate for mixed strategy which makes firms' situation more complicated, and fitness of mixed strategy and interactive use of PCS improves the organizational performance, partially. Additionally, in the aspects of designing PCS, this study suggest that differences between differentiation and mixed strategy, and effect to organizational performance which could not be examined in prior researches. That is, we examine that the degree of interactive use of PCS in mixed strategy is higher than differentiation strategy, and it makes the improvement of organizational performance. The contribution of this study to management accounting research is threefold. First, our study measured the mixed strategy empirically by using strategic priorities. This point can suggest expanded sight to prior research which measured the strategy conventionally with low cost and differentiation or prospector and defender by proxy. Second, results of this study contribute to the design of PCS literature by verifying the level of distinction of interactive use between differentiation and mixed strategy. Existed research has limitation that it cannot illuminate the importance of interactive use of PCS in firms making use of mixed strategy, but only emphasizing it in firms making use of differentiation strategy. Third, our study suggested the empirical evidence which the fitness of mixed strategy and interactive use of PCS could be effective to organizational performance positively. Existed research only had emphasized the alignment of strategy and control system in the aspect of MCS design, but it overlooked the effect of fitness to organizational performance. The results of this study are subject to a number of limitations as follow. First, the total number of samples is too small. Thus, the sample number of each strategic clusters is small, too. It makes the limitation that the representativeness of each strategic cluster is hard to being defined. Second, a cross-sectional study can only provide presumptive evidence about causality. Alternative methods may provide more information about directional relationship. Third, methodologically speaking, as a mixed strategy can be defined diversely, it can be measured by alternatively. That is, mixed strategy is defined by using a form of archetypal strategy. It can be measured by using strategic priorities of prospector and defender by proxy. Thus, expanded research which is measured the mixed strategy being based on it. This point can be applied to defining or measuring the MCS by alternative proxies.