The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Effect of online
Effect of online hotel reviews on hotel reviews
the relationship between defender
and prospector strategies and
management controls
Daiane Antonini Bortoluzzi Received 14 April 2020
Department of Business, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
Revised 28 June 2020
2 August 2020
12 August 2020
Rogério João Lunkes Accepted 13 August 2020
Department of Accounting, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
Edicreia Andrade dos Santos
Department of Accounting, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil, and
Alcindo Cipriano Argolo Mendes
Department of Accounting, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to analyze the effect of online hotel reviews on the relationship between
defender and prospector strategies and management control system (MCS) design.
Design/methodology/approach – To conduct the study, this paper administered a questionnaire to
large Brazilian hotels and analyzed data from 204 hotels using structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic.
Findings – The main results show that online hotel reviews have a positive and significant effect on the
relationship between prospector strategy and personnel and action control. In contrast, online reviews have a
negative effect on the relationship between defender strategy and personnel, action and results controls. Thus,
it is confirmed that online reviews change the relationship between strategy and MCS design.
Practical implications – The results show that online reviews play an important role in the decisions of
hotel managers regarding MCS design. Customer demand evaluations, which are regularly available online on
analysis websites, help managers adapt the MCS design, ensuring that their actions are aligned with the
adopted strategy. This study adds to previous studies by showing that hotel managers use the information
from customer evaluations to improve their performance.
Originality/value – The management literature based on the contingency theory indicates that strategy is a
variable that affects MCS design. This study extends this discussion by indicating that online reviews, specifically
in the hotel industry, can also be a determining factor in defining management controls. In addition, this paper
points out that OHR impacts differently, depending on the strategy used and the type of management control.
Keywords Online hotel reviews, Hotel strategy, Management control system, Design,
Hotel industry
Paper type Research paper

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnológico—CNPq, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior— International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
CAPES, and the Department of Accounting, Federal University of Santa Catarina. The authors also Management
gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of Januario José Monteiro (UFSC, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
Brazil) and Anete Alberton (UNIVALI, BRAZIL) on earlier versions of this paper. DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0297
IJCHM 1. Introduction
With the rapid development of information technology, customers can shop online and post
reviews on social media (Moro and Rita, 2018; Morosan and Bowen, 2018). The platforms of
different media and online booking sites are recognized as some of the most accessible tools
for understanding customer experiences (Gretzel and Yoo, 2008; Pantelidis, 2010). For
example, these tools provide information about hotel stays or tourist destinations as part of
the travel planning process (Vermeulen and Seegers, 2009). The hotel sector is particularly
affected by online reviews (Cantallops and Salvi, 2014; Mellinas et al., 2016) because they are
rapidly becoming the primary source of information for consumers (Ghazi, 2017; Antonio
et al., 2018; Litvin et al., 2018). Reviews provide input on various factors of the hotel,
assisting customers in obtaining detailed information about the quality and performance of
services and products (Li et al., 2013, 2019).
In the past decade, studies have sought to understand the effects of online reviews in
different contexts (Ögüt and Tas , 2012; Schuckert et al., 2015; Pelsmacker et al., 2018). Most
of this research stream emphasizes the impact of online reviews on consumers’ purchase
decisions. These studies found that online reviews affect hotel room reservations (Ög üt and
Tas, 2012; Pelsmacker et al., 2018) and consumer willingness to pay higher prices for
services with a high score (Mellinas et al., 2016). Moreover, online reviews affect hotel
financial performance (Anagnostopoulou et al., 2020). Few studies show that online reviews
are strategic tools in the management of hotels (Berné-Manero et al., 2020; Schuckert et al.,
2015). This research stream shows that online hotel reviews (OHRs) can also provide
relevant information to adapt to the relationship between the strategy (for example,
prospectors and defenders, Miles and Snow, 1978) and the management mechanisms of an
organization. However, knowledge about the impact of OHRs on the design of a
management control system (MCS) is still incomplete and fragmented.
The selection of an organizational strategy and the specific tactics necessary to carry it
out is one of the principal strategic responsibilities of a hotel manager (Turner et al., 2017).
Thus, previous empirical research suggests that hotels that adopt the prospector strategy
are more likely to use information focused on the external environment (for example, online
reviews) compared to hotels with a defender strategy (McManus, 2013). Furthermore, other
research using contingency theory reveals that the design of an MCS, especially
mechanisms such as action, results, cultural and personnel controls, can play a central role
in the management of organizations (Merchant and Van Der Stede, 2007) and can be
influenced by the type of strategy adopted by management. Thus, MCS alignment can help
hotel managers achieve organizational goals (Damonte et al., 1996), prevent common
problems and unwanted outcomes (Merchant and Van Der Stede, 2007) and improve
organizational performance (Davila, 2000).
When adopting a kind of strategy, managers seek to design management controls to
ensure that the hotel’s objectives are achieved. Therefore, the strategy is considered a
contingent factor that affects MCS design (Chenhall, 2003). This research proposes to go
further in this discussion, showing that OHR can also be a contingent variable that
pressures managers to adjust their strategic objectives and controls. In the relationship
between the definition of the strategy (defender and prospector) and MCS design, it is
essential to understand the role of the OHR in the definition of different types of controls (e.g.
personnel, action, results and culture). Moreover, we propose that OHRs will affect the
relationship between prospector and defender strategies and MCS design differently. This
understanding will promote adjustments between the strategy of an organization and its
MCS (Dent, 1990; Langfield-Smith, 1997; Chenhall, 2003). It is also clear that online reviews
provide relevant information that can be used to adapt to this relationship, and,
consequently improve the performance of hotels. Our study seeks to fill an important gap in Effect of online
knowledge about the influence of external variables (e.g. OHRs) in the definition of hotel reviews
management controls. Thus, this article aims to investigate the effect of online hotel reviews
on the relationship between defender and prospector strategies and the design of an MCS
from a sample of 204 large Brazilian hotels. The data were analyzed using structural
equation modeling and fuzzy logic.
This study contributes to the practice and literature of the hotel industry in several ways.
Regarding the literature, we contribute contingency theory by including a new variable
(contingency factor): OHR. Our results indicate that, unlike previous studies of this theory
(Chenhall, 2003), in the hotel sector, we have to consider the impacts of this new external
variable, which will affect the relationship between the type of strategy (defender or
prospector) and MCS design. We can also observe that hotel managers feel pressured
differently considering the feedback left by customers, which partly stems from the strategy
adopted. We also provide new evidence of the impact of choosing a hotel strategy on the
design of information for decision-making. The choice of a particular strategy, for example,
as a defender, also affects the way the mechanisms of the MCS are designed. In practice,
hotels with a defender strategy seek more action controls, while hotels with a prospector
strategy seek more personnel, cultural and results in control systems. These choices of
systems are necessary and fundamental for the successful implementation of the strategy
adopted by the hotel. In general, the study’s conclusions highlight the importance of
adopting a type of strategy to define the MCS design (personnel control, action, results and
culture). Additionally, it highlights the role of OHR as a contingent factor.

2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development

2.1 Hotel strategy and design of the management control system
All companies formally or informally adopt a specific strategy to compete in the market.
Several authors, such as Miles and Snow (1978), Porter (1980) and Mintzberg et al. (2003),
among others, sought to define classifications from specific perspectives. Organizational
strategies concerning prices, services and even environmental strategies are discussed in the
hotel sector (Becerra, 2013; Mak and Chang, 2019; Blengini and Heo, 2020; Beerli-Palacio
et al., 2020). Miles and Snow (1978), for example, suggested a classification by observing
how companies positioned themselves in the market about their services and products. In a
continuum, they suggested that at one extreme, there would be companies that would
defend their products, maintaining a more limited position in terms of customers and
innovation (“defenders”) and at the other looking for new products and customers,
innovating all the time (“prospectors”). In the hotel sector, it means that some hotels may
seek a specific type of customer or very personalized service, while others may continuously
look for new opportunities in the market (Avci et al., 2011; McManus, 2013). Shortell and
Zajac (1990), Abernethy and Guthrie (1994) and McManus (2013) indicate that many
companies would be classified along these lines, which Miles and Snow (1978) called
“analyzers.” These companies are not innovative but seek to adjust to the market. In the
same taxonomy, some companies that do not adopt any type of strategy and only react as a
way of survival; these are called “reactors.” Therefore, analyzers are contained along the
continuum of defenders and prospectors and reactors are outside this continuum. Previous
studies have sought to understand several aspects, using extremes, in which it is possible to
define their differences (Díaz-Fernandez et al., 2014; Higgins et al., 2015).
Despite the strategy, companies always adopt a set of controls to ensure that their results
are in line with their plans, and these controls are studied in depth by the MCS literature,
mainly supported by contingency theory. Previous MCS design studies sought support in
IJCHM the organizational structure literature (Galbraith, 1973) to see how contingency variables,
such as technology, company size and strategies could determine patterns of choices
regarding management controls (Chenhall, 2003). The relationship between MCS and
strategy has been one of the main points of research in contingency theory (Langfield-Smith,
2008). In these studies, the strategy is accepted as a contingent factor that modifies the MCS
design, making it necessary for each company to define its design according to its
characteristics (Langfield-Smith, 1997). It is argued that MCS needs to be adapted to support
the strategy of the company, be it a defender or prospector, to improve competitiveness and
performance (Widener, 2004; Turner et al., 2017). Following the arguments pointed out in the
contingency literature, defender and prospector hotels tend to adopt different controls to
seek the best fit for their strategy (Brown and Dev, 2000). Concerning MCS design, the
literature also suggests several classifications (Abernethy and Lillis, 1995). A classification
widely used in MCS studies was proposed by Merchant and Van der Stede (2007), which
divides a set of management controls into personnel, action, culture and results. In the
following, the different classifications of the controls are presented and the research
hypotheses are proposed.
2.1.1 Hotel strategy and design of personnel control. Personnel control concerns mainly
involve human resource activities, such as personnel selection and recruitment, training and
development and retention practices (Abernethy and Brownell, 1999). Personnel control
includes processes to engage, influence, motivate and inspire individuals (Pesämaa, 2017)
and positively affect organizational commitment (Kleine and Weißenberger, 2014) and
innovation (Pesämaa, 2017). Thus, in general, hotel companies are concerned with personnel
controls so that hiring and training assist in the better realization of their objectives. Hotels
with a defender strategy present a greater standardization of their services (Köseoglu et al.,
2013), which requires more trained employees to follow predetermined routines, such as
housekeeping services. Hotels with prospector strategies seek to develop new services and
products and explore new markets (Köseoglu et al., 2013). These companies rely more on
personnel control due to the environment in which employees perform varied tasks, which
do not have well-planned routines and structures (Abernethy and Brownell, 1997). In
addition, in hotel companies that adopt a prospector strategy, personnel control is enhanced
due to the provision of new services and exclusive products (Turner et al., 2017) and the
flexibility to meet the needs of guests (Mia and Patiar, 2001). Thus, hotels with a prospector
strategy are likely to require a greater amount of information about personnel control to
assist in decision-making, as opposed to hotels with a defender strategy. For example,
prospector hotels may offer new activities such as tree climbing or diving, which require
specificities in the selection, recruitment and training of employees. This emphasizes the
need for personnel controls, as this activity requires highly qualified personnel, in addition
to specific knowledge. Thus, this research suggests that although the strategy is related to
the MCS design (Chenhall, 2003), in prospector hotels, this relationship will be stronger than
in hotels with a defender strategy. For this reason, it is considered that prospector hotels are
more dependent on personnel control, as they present characteristics of greater variety for
uncertainties when compared with hotels with defender strategies. To explore these
relationships, we propose the following hypotheses.

H1a. The prospector strategy is more positively related to personnel control than the
defender strategy.
H1b. The defender strategy is positively related to personnel control.
2.1.2 Hotel strategy and design of action control. Action controls aim to ensure that Effect of online
employees perform (or do not perform) specific actions that are beneficial (or harmful) to the hotel reviews
organization (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2007). In general, this type of control is more
commonly used in its restrictive form to establish limits, behavioral restrictions and
accountability of services. Thus, action control can be more accentuated in hotels with a
defender strategy, with standardized processes and few changes and uncertainties
(Haustein et al., 2014). Merchant and Van der Stede (2007) point out that most action controls
reduce creativity and innovation, as employees respond to action controls according to the
rules established by the company. In such situations, employees adapt to the rules they
receive and stop thinking about how processes can be improved, resulting in resistance to
change (Merchant and Van Der Stede, 2007). Pesämaa (2017) stated that action control tends
to generate more follow-up control, with little flexibility to changes, which can hinder the
creative processes of innovation and growth, emphasized in the prospective strategy.
Studies show that action control is negatively associated with innovation (Haustein et al.,
2014; Pesämaa, 2017) because prospector companies are characterized by innovation,
dynamism in the search for market opportunities, the ability to develop and produce new
services and products to meet customer needs and investment in large amounts of financial
resources related to the development and improvement of the work team (Garrigos-Simon
et al., 2005; Gosselin, 2011; Köseoglu et al., 2013). Haustein et al. (2014) conclude that
innovative companies are determined by more creative and cultural leadership processes
than the rigid administrative manuals sometimes found in action control (Abernethy and
Brownell, 1999). For example, hotels with excessive manuals and rules can inhibit employee
creativity. Excessive application of action controls can even result in restrictions and
resistance to change. Hotels with a defender strategy seek to operate within a narrow market
domain, aimed at serving a specific customer, with a low diversity of services and products
(Garrigos-Simon et al., 2005; Gosselin, 2011; Köseoglu et al., 2013), hence they tend to use
action control more. These hotels can establish a set of standards, rules and strict manuals
(care, cleaning, security, etc.) that must be followed daily by employees who are, in most
cases, supervised by a superior. Such controls include, for example, the daily cleaning
routine by the maids or the establishment of a standardized set of services available to
guests. To explore these relationships, we propose the following hypotheses.

H2a. The prospector strategy is positively related to action control.

H2b. The defender strategy is more positively related to action control than the
prospector strategy.
2.1.3 Hotel strategy and design of the results control. Results controls are usually prevalent
in the management of organizations and are defined based on the desired goals. They are
used to motivate and lead employees to align with company objectives. In the view of
Merchant and Van der Stede (2007), this type of control creates a meritocracy and serves as a
parameter to reward employees with characteristics, such as talent, dedication, and loyalty.
Hotel employees work in a dynamic and challenging environment, which is why these
characteristics are desired and encouraged through financial rewards, such as bonuses and
non-financial, such as promotions and recognition (Koo et al., 2019). Previous studies show
that companies with a prospector strategy are more strongly related to results control
(financial and non-financial) (Gani and Jermias, 2012; Guo et al., 2019). In contrast,
companies with a defender strategy tend to encourage more measures to control the
standardization of processes (Garrigos-Simon et al., 2005; Gosselin, 2011). Thus, it is
expected that hotels with more innovative management and broad diversification of
IJCHM services will use more results control in their management than those with more
standardized services focused on a specific audience. Results controls need to be measurable
and are most effective when employees have autonomy over the factors that define the
measures. Merchant and Van der Stede (2007) indicate that in such cases, they are widely
used to control the actions of employees at managerial levels. In hotels, managers usually
have autonomy for discretionary decisions. Guo et al. (2019) point out that companies that
operate in environments with high uncertainty tend to use results controls more frequently.
Hence, it is expected that results controls are more strongly associated with prospector
hotels, as managers have greater decision-making power than hotels that work with a high
standardization of services (defender).
Merchant and Van der Stede (2007) also show that the result controls have a preventive
role in management, making employees prioritize actions that truly matter for company
success. Therefore, results controls are used to induce employees to maximize their chances
of producing the results desired by the organization. Thus, hotels with defender strategies
tend to have planning that is more assimilated by employees, who are already accustomed
to the hotel culture. Hotels with a prospector strategy are always looking for diversification
and expansion of the market. Therefore, they are more susceptible to deviations between the
planning and the actions of their employees. In this strategy, some standardized controls can
be restrictive, so the results control can be enhanced to monitor hotel performance. To
explore these relationships, we propose the following hypotheses.

H3a. The prospector strategy is more positively related to results control than the
defender strategy.
H3b. The defender strategy is positively related to results control.
2.1.4 Hotel strategy and design of cultural control. Cultures are defined based on shared
traditions such as beliefs, norms, ideologies, values, attitudes and other forms of behavior. In
organizations, cultures determine models of conduct and tend to remain unchanged, despite
strategic changes over time. An extensive literature addresses the importance of culture in
organizations to define several aspects, such as marketing, performance and even ethical
issues (Deal and Kennedy, 2008; Negus, 2013). Goebel and Weißenberger (2017) indicate that
cultural controls provide guidance, emphasizing the importance of organizational norms
and values and indirectly communicating expected behaviors. Cultural controls can be
established in a variety of ways, such as codes of conduct, social arrangements and group
rewards. Similarly, architecture, dress codes and vocabularies are social arrangements that
shape the culture and behavior of employees. Merchant and Van der Stede (2007) cite that in
Disneyland hotel employees are called cast members and, therefore, they must act like stars;
this makes everyone self-control in the way they work. Group rewards are also used as
cultural controls. For example, hotels can determine group rewards for assessing cleaning
services inducing supervisory behavior among all employees in the cleaning sector to meet
the guidelines set by the hotel.
A consistent MCS literature, based on contingency theory, indicates the relationship
between organizational strategy and cultural controls (Auzair and Langfield-Smith, 2005;
Haustein et al., 2014; Bedford et al., 2016). Companies that adopt the defender strategy tend
to look to cultural controls for a way to make predetermined standards efficient. For
example, hotel chains can use cultural controls to guarantee standardization in all their
units. However, Haustein et al. (2014) indicate that in more competitive environments where
there is a greater tendency toward strategic uncertainties, cultural controls may be the most
efficient way to establish commitment and coherence toward organizational goals. Thus, it
is expected that hotels that adopt a prospector strategy seeking the diversification of Effect of online
customers and services will find a more competitive environment. Therefore, cultural hotel reviews
controls may be more strongly related to prospector hotels than to defender hotels, in which
competition is established in a more stable environment. Hence, our research hypotheses for
the relationship between the strategy adopted by hotels and cultural controls are as follows:

H4a. The prospector strategy is more positively related to cultural control than the
defender strategy.
H4b. The defender strategy is positively related to cultural control.

2.2 Online hotel reviews

Online hotel reviews, namely, OHRs, have reformulated the way information related to
tourism is distributed and how people plan their trips. These reviews help consumers post
and share their comments related to hotels, travel, opinions and personal experiences, which
subsequently serve as information for other users (Xiang and Gretzel, 2010; Leon, 2019; Lo
and Yao, 2019). OHRs provide information based on real customer experiences and are
considered to be more reliable sources than the information offered by companies (Gretzel
and Yoo, 2008; Pelsmacker et al., 2018). Reviews consist of positive or negative comments
made by consumers about a product or service (Ghazi, 2017). Thus, OHRs can be defined as
product and service evaluations posted on the company or third-party websites by
consumers (Li et al., 2013). Some studies have investigated the influence of OHRs on
manager decisions. Lunkes et al. (2020) investigated the influence of OHRs on the fit between
strategy and the use of an MCS. The results reveal the influence of external variables on the
adjustment of the deliberate strategy and the diagnostic use of the MCS. Stringam and
Gerdes (2010) show that hotel managers found that reading the information in online
reviews allowed them to make management decisions that resulted in service operation
improvements, increased hotel profitability and increased customer loyalty. Hotel managers
are increasingly considering online reviews as a new source of information (Cantallops and
Salvi, 2014; Anagnostopoulou et al., 2020) to enhance the relationship between strategy and
the MCS. The previously defined hypotheses between the strategy and MCS design are
predicted in studies based on contingency theory. However, the hotel sector has
characteristics that make it unique, such as online reviews, not foreseen in previous studies
that analyzed the relationship between strategy and MCS design. In this study, we
conjecture that this variable can modify how the strategy affects the MCS design. In this
study, we propose that the OHR can be a new contingent variable. It is believed that
prospectors’ hotels are more flexible and dynamic in their strategy, and managers tend to
strengthen the set of controls to respond to OHR. Alternately, it is likely that, in defenders’
hotels that already have the most rigid set of controls, OHR will weaken the controls,
allowing small actions in response to its customers. Moreover, we propose that OHRs will
affect the relationship between the prospector and defender strategy and MCS design
(personnel, action, results and cultural control) in a different way. Thus, we propose the
following moderation hypotheses:

H5(a-b-c-d). OHRs positively moderate the relationship between the prospector strategy
and MCS design. We further argue that this moderation will vary between
(a) personnel control, (b) action control, (c) results control and (d) cultural
control.
IJCHM H5(e-f-g-h). OHRs negatively moderates the relationship between the defender strategy
and MCS design. We further argue that this moderate will vary between (e)
personnel control, (f) action control, (g) results control and (h) cultural
control.
We argue that moderation will be different for each type of control according to strategy.
Thus, the theoretical model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and data
Data were collected using a questionnaire distributed to managers of hotels in Brazil. To
select the population, we used the official government records of lodging services in Brazil,
called the Cadastur (Ministério do Turismo, 2019). From this database, 1,194 hotel industry
registrations were selected. To be part of the research population, a hotel needs to meet two
requirements:
(1) Have more than 100 rooms or housing units and
(2) Submit TripAdvisor reviews (Ma et al., 2018; Baker and Kim, 2019).

We chose the Cadastur database because it is run by the Ministry of Tourism in partnership
with official tourism bodies (Ministério do Turismo, 2019). The selection of hotel enterprises
in at least 100 rooms guarantees the implementation of formal management control
processes (Widener, 2004; Gomez-Conde et al., 2019). After the survey was created, the
collaboration of four specialists was requested to improve the language and the theoretical
interpretation of the questionnaire. We also conducted a pretest in two hotels. The
comments received were related to verifying the managers’ understanding of the items, the
applicability and the response time. The constructs and questions used in the questionnaire
are shown in Appendix .

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
The first contact with the hotels took place by telephone from the number registered on each Effect of online
hotel website and occurred at random. In this communication, interest in participating in the hotel reviews
research was ascertained; if interest was expressed, the manager’s name and e-mail address
were requested and the questionnaire was subsequently sent. Respondents were initially
contacted by telephone to ensure that their position and knowledge were suitable for this
study (Bedford et al., 2016). A total of 262 telephone calls were made, which resulted in the
participation of 204 managers from different hotels. The criteria indicated by Faul et al.
(2009) were tested with a minimum sample value of 0.80 (error 1
b error) and an effect
size (f2) greater than 0.15, as recommended by Cohen (1988) and Hair et al. (2016). Thus, the
204 respondents who make up the sample represent 17.1% of the population and represent
an adequate probabilistic sample. The derived rate is similar to previous studies; in the same
context (Kim et al., 2015; Berné-Manero et al., 2020). In addition, the sample size is adequate
compared with the average indicated in marketing studies and strategies (Ali et al., 2018).
We tested for the presence of potential nonresponse bias by comparing the 20% of early
responses and 20% of late responses (Gomez-Conde et al., 2019). We also tested for the
presence of a common-rater bias by applying Harman’s (1967) single-factor test. The
cumulative variance was 22.13%. We concluded that our results were not subject to a
common-rater bias. The demographic information of respondents and companies is detailed
in Table 1.

3.2 Variable measurement

The variables studied in this study were hotel strategy, MCS design and OHRs. The hotel
strategy is measured by an adapted version of the instrument used by Segev (1987). The
managers were asked to respond to 10 items using a five-point scale to rate the current
strategic position of their hotel. The MCS design was measured by 20 items adapted from
measures by Kleine and Weißenberger (2014) and Goebel and Weißenberger (2017).
Managers were asked to respond to 20 items concerning results, action, personnel and
cultural controls using a seven-point scale ranging from “1” (totally disagree) to “7” (totally
agree).
The online hotel reviews were measured using six items adapted from Zhao et al. (2015),
Pelsmacker et al. (2018) and Xu et al. (2019). Managers were asked to assess their customers’
online reviews using a seven-point scale ranging from “1” (totally disagree) to “7” (totally
agree). Table 2 shows that all items are loaded on a single factor with satisfactory reliability
and unidimensionality. The control variables were related to the hotel (hotel maturity,
number of employees and whether they belonged to a hotel chain). Hotel maturity was
categorized as 1–10 and 10þ years. The number of hotel employees was divided into two
categories: up to 100 and 100þ employees. The item hotel chain was divided into hotel chain
membership and no chain hotel membership.

3.3 Data analysis

For data analysis, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used.
PLS-SEM allows the separation of the relationships of each set of dependent variables; that
is, it provides an appropriate and most efficient estimation technique for a series of multiple
regression equations (Hair et al., 2016). The researchers used SmartPLS version 3 to analyze
the data. To complement the PLS-SEM analysis, we performed a qualitative comparative
analysis of the fuzzy set (fsQCA) using fs/QCA 3.0 software (Ragin, 2009). The fsQCA is a
variant of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA is an analytical technique that
combines quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Roig-Tierno et al., 2017). The
analytical technique fsQCA, in turn, combines set theory with qualitative comparative
IJCHM Variables n (%)

Gender
Female 106 52.0
Male 98 48.0
Total 204 100
Age
20–29 32 15.7
30–39 107 52.5
40–49 54 26.5
Over 50 11 5.4
Total 204 100
Current position
Manager 191 93.6
Director 11 5.4
Owner/partner 2 1.0
Total 204 100
No. of employees
06–49 39 19.1
50–99 75 36.8
100–149 51 25.0
150–199 24 11.8
Over 200 15 7.4
Total 204 100
Hotel maturity
1 year 3 1.5
02–10 90 44.1
11–20 68 33.3
21–30 29 14.2
Over 30 14 6.9
Total 204 100
Hotel chain
Table 1. Yes 125 63.5
Demographic profile No 79 40.1
(n = 204) Total 204 100

analysis, which allows a detailed analysis of how causal conditions contribute to the
outcome of the problem. The basic objective of fsQCA is to determine which sets, if any,
result in a consequence of interest (Bedford et al., 2016); that is, the method seeks
associations between specific conditions and results.

4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
The measurement model is obtained from the PLS algorithm technique, which allows for
testing the reliability and validity of the research instrument. Instrument reliability is
indicated by composite reliability, convergent validity (average variance extracted – AVE)
and discriminant validity. In Table 2, the factor loadings of each of the final indicators of the
construct reliability and validity of the variables are presented. Items with an outer loading
of approximately below 0.7, which did not reduce the internal reliability, were removed from
the model. Regarding the commonality of each indicator, outer loadings between 0.40 and
Variables Item Loading CR AVE
Effect of online
hotel reviews
OHR OHR1 0.878 0.90 0.74
OHR3 0.858
OHR6 0.844
AC AC1 0.734 0.77 0.53
AC2 0.736
AC3 0.704
CC CC1 0.839 0.79 0.65
CC4 0.774
PC PC1 0.786 0.76 0.51
PC3 0.693
PC5 0.667
RC RC1 0.792 0.82 0.54
RC2 0.792
RC4 0.675
RC5 0.659
DS DS1 0.785 0.74 0.59
DS5 0.753
PS PS1 0.819 0.82 0.61 Table 2.
PS4 0.801
Results the factor
PS5 0.722
loading, reliability
Notes: OHR, online hotel reviews; AC, action control; CC, cultural control; PC, personnel control; RC, results and validity of
control; DS, defender strategy; PS, prospector strategy variables

0.70 should be considered for removal when deleting the indicator leads to an increase in the
composite reliability or the average variance extracted (Hair et al., 2016).
Table 2 shows that the constructs present loads for AVE with values equal to or greater
than 0.50. Another criterion used to confirm the discriminant validity of the model latent
variables means that the squared root of AVE for each construct must be higher than its
highest correlation with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results are
presented in Table 3.
In Table 3, regarding discriminant validity, the data confirm that the variables meet this
condition, indicating that there is discriminant and convergent validity in the model. Thus,
the measurement model has satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.

Variables OHR AC CC PC RC DS PS

Online hotel reviews 0.860

Action control 0.406 0.725
Cultural control 0.316 0.471 0.807
Personnel control 0.371 0.511 0.496 0.717
Results control 0.389 0.553 0.500 0.480 0.732
Defender strategy 0.168 0.341 0.282 0.250 0.281 0.769
Prospector strategy 0.077 0.291 0.266 0.294 0.367 0.558 0.782

Notes: Diagonal elements are the square root of variance shared between constructs and their measures Table 3.
(AVE). Off-diagonal elements are correlations among constructs Discriminant validity
IJCHM 4.2 Structural model
A bootstrapping test, which assesses the significance of relationships between constructs,
was carried out with 5,000 substitutions of the 204 results obtained (Hair et al., 2016).
According to the results generated by bootstrapping, there were no problems with
multicollinearity in the proposed model, as can be observed in Table 4.
The results reported in Table 4 indicate a positive relationship between prospector
strategy and personnel control ( b = 0.228, p < 0.01). Therefore, H1a is supported. H2a is
concerned with the relationship between prospector strategy and action control ( b = 0.159,
p < 0.10). The relationship between these two variables is significant at the 90% level, and
this hypothesis is supported. H3a is concerned with the relationship between prospector
strategy and results control ( b = 0.330, p < 0.01). Thus, this hypothesis is supported. The
results indicate a positive relationship between prospector strategy and cultural control
( b = 0.182, r < 0.05). Therefore, H4a is supported. The results reported indicate a positive
relationship between defender strategy and action control ( b = 0.169, r < 0.10). Thus, H2b
is supported. There was no significant evidence of the influence of the defender strategy on
personnel control ( b = 0.036, p > 0.10), results control ( b = 0.029, p > 0.10) and cultural
control ( b = 0.080, p > 0.10). Therefore, H1b, H3b and H4b are rejected.
H5(a-b-c-d) is related to the moderator effect of online hotel reviews on the relationship
between prospector strategy and MCS design. The results indicate a positive moderator
effect in the relationship between prospector strategy and personnel control ( b = 0.219, p <
0.10) and between prospector strategy and action control ( b = 0.174, p = 0.10). There was no
significant moderator effect in the relationship between the prospector strategy and the
control of the results ( b = 0.075, p> 0.10) or in the relationship between the prospector
strategy and cultural control ( b = 0.043, p> 0.10). H5(e) indicates a negative moderator
effect in the relationship between defender strategy and personnel control ( b =
0.275, p <
0.05), H5(f) indicates a negative moderator effect between defender strategy and action
control ( b =
0.261, p < 0.05) and H5(g) indicates a negative moderator effect between
defender strategy and results control ( b =
0.191, p < 0.05). H5(h) indicates that there was
no significant moderator effect in the relationship between defender strategy and cultural
control ( b =
0.152, p > 0.10). In Table 4, we also identify that the bootstrap confidence
intervals related to H1a, H2b, H3a, H4a, H2b, H5(a-b) and H5(e-f-g) show stable coefficients
and are not wider. However, the confidence intervals of H1b, H3b, H4b, H5(c-d) and H5(h)
show lower stable coefficients that are wider.

4.3 Qualitative comparative analysis of the fuzzy set

4.3.1 Calibration. FsQCA was used to analyze the conditions that lead to specific results.
The steps taken, proposed by Ragin (2009), were as follows:
 The coding of the variables in an interval from 0 (full non-membership) to 1 (full
membership) for calibration;
 Insertion of variables into fsQCA version 3.0;
 The identification of the necessary conditions: a condition becomes necessary if the
consistency is above 0.90, and is almost always necessary if the consistency is
between 0.80 and 0.90; and
 The construction of Table Truth, which allowed the analysis of the causal
conditions that make it possible to identify which antecedents of team effectiveness
are indispensable.
 Confidence intervals
Structural b estim p-value [2.5%; 97.5%] Hypothesis Support
***
Prospector strategy -> personnel control 0.228 0.006 [0.053; 0.390] H1a Yes
Prospector strategy -> action control 0.159 0.079* [
0.032; 0.338] H2a Yes
Prospector strategy -> results control 0.330 0.001*** [0.120; 0.501] H3a Yes
Prospector strategy -> cultural control 0.182 0.028** [0.018; 0.360] H4a Yes
Defender strategy -> personnel control 0.036 0.669 [
0.120; 0.209] H1b No
Defender strategy -> action control 0.169 0.028** [0.041; 0.339] H2b Yes
Defender strategy -> results control 0.029 0.754 [
0.107; 0.243] H3b No
Defender strategy -> cultural control 0.130 0.107 [
0.034; 0.284] H4b No
Moderating OHR1: prospector strat. -> personnel control 0.219 0.099* [
0.039; 0.480] H5a Yes
Moderating OHR2: prospector strat. -> action control 0.174 0.102* [
0.067; 0.341] H5b Yes
Moderating OHR3: prospector strat. -> results control 0.075 0.480 [
0.143; 0.280] H5c No
Moderating OHR4: prospector strat. -> cultural control 0.043 0.752 [0.259; 0.273] H5d No
Moderating OHR5: defender strat. -> personnel control
0.275 0.042** [
0.495; 0.004] H5e Yes
Moderating OHR6: defender strat. -> action control
0.261 0.013** [
0.425;
0.022] H5f Yes
Moderating OHR7: defender strat. -> results control
0.191 0.044** [
0.353; 0.022] H5g Yes
Moderating OHR8: defender strat. -> cultural control
0.152 0.193 [
0.341; 0.096] H5h No

Notes: OHR, online hotel reviews; AC, action control; CC, cultural control; PC, personnel control; RC, results control; DS, defender strategy; PS, prospector
strategy; *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Structural model
Table 4.
Effect of online
hotel reviews
IJCHM The calibration of each construct was performed by the average of the items of each
construct and in the sequence, with the maximum points (5), the average points (3) and the
minimum (1) that allowed the automatic calibration by the fsQCA 3.0, as suggested by
Crespo et al. (2019). Table 5 presents a summary of the necessary conditions.
As Table 5 shows, the causal condition was almost necessary for the results, action,
culture and personnel control because its consistency was >0.90 for all design MCS
adoptions.
4.3.2 Analysis of sufficient conditions. Based on the configurations of the 204
respondents and establishing the cutoff limit of consistency of 0.90, as proposed by
Ragin (2009), 8 solution combinations were identified that lead to a highly effective
MCS design. Table 6 shows the configurations that provide a highly effective MCS
design.
In the first solution of results control, it appears that the use of the defender and
prospector strategy for success is indifferent and that the presence of online reviews
leads to success. In the second solution, the presence of the defender and prospector
strategy leads to a successful configuration of results control. Regarding action control,
in the first solution, it is observed that the presence of online reviews leads to success in
its configuration. In the second solution, the presence of the defender and prospector
strategy leads to the success of action control. Regarding cultural control, it is noted that
the presence of online reviews leads to success in its configuration. In the second solution,
the presence of the defender and prospector strategy leads to the success of cultural
control. Finally, about personnel control, the solution indicates that the presence of online
reviews leads to a successful configuration. In the second solution, it was found that the
presence of the prospector strategy and the defender strategy leads to success in the
configuration of the personnel control.

Configurational Results control Action control Cultural control Personnel control

elements Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage

Table 5. PS 0.935412 0.987365 0.926945 0.988915 0.932246 0.990983 0.933435 0.985010

Summary of DS 0.893569 0.993286 0.883015 0.992076 0.889021 0.889021 0.892560 0.991895
necessary conditions OHR 0.989608 0.960092 0.986326 0.967166 0.889021 0.889021 0.988897 0.959141

Configurational elements RC1 RC2 AC1 AC2 CC1 CC2 PC1 PC2

DS l l l l
PS l l l l
OHR l l l l
Raw coverage 0.98 0.87 0.98 0.86 0.98 0.87 0.98 0.87
Unique coverage 0.12 0.005 0.13 0.005 0.13 0.005 0.12 0.004
Consistency 0.96 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.99
Overall solution coverage 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Table 6. Overall solution consistency 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.96
Configurations for a Notes: OHR, online hotel reviews; AC, action control; CC, cultural control; PC, personnel control; RC, results
high degree of MCS control; DS, defender strategy; PS, prospector strategy. Black circles indicate the presence of a condition.
adoption Blank spaces indicate “not important”
5. Discussion and conclusion Effect of online
5.1 Discussion hotel reviews
The paper theorizes that prospector hotels would more strongly adopt personnel controls
than defender hotels, which has been statistically indicated. This can be explained because
hotels that adopt a prospector strategy regularly seek to develop new services and products
and explore new markets (Köseoglu et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2017). Thus, they present a
dynamic and flexible work environment that emphasizes the need to adopt different controls
to personnel selection, recruitment, training and development and retention practices
(Abernethy and Brownell, 1999). In addition, as routines are varied and demand flexibility in
the execution of activities (Mia and Patiar, 2001), the controls are mainly designed to
involve, influence, motivate and inspire employees (Pesämaa, 2017), as they seek to ensure
organizational commitment (Kleine and Weißenberger, 2014) and product and service
innovation (Pesämaa, 2017).
This study also theorized that OHR would moderate the relationship between prospector
strategy and personnel control. Moreover, we conjectured that this moderation could be
positive in prospector hotels because they adopt this type of strategy regularly seeking to
develop new services and products and explore new markets (Köseoglu et al., 2013; Turner
et al., 2017). The results of the research confirm our initial ideas and show that in more
flexible environments, the external evaluation increases personnel controls, such as training
and relocation of employees. Furthermore, this research argues that for defender hotels, in
which services and products are more standardized, external evaluations will reduce the
relationship between strategy and personnel control. To clarify, hotels with these
characteristics seek the permanence of their employees more strongly for more years, and
training and relocation are not prioritized. Our results point to a negative moderation
indicating that OHRs will negatively influence the relationship between defender strategy
and the use of personnel controls. Hence, management will seek to place greater emphasis on
other types of control. Thus, it is expected behavior as defender hotels have a narrow focus
and rarely make major adjustments in technology, structure or methods of operation.
Therefore, there are no changes based on their online reviews due to the maintenance of a
standard of services and products (Dent, 1990; Kleine and Weißenberger, 2014).
The paper also argues that defender hotels would be more strongly related to action
controls than those with a prospector strategy. Our argument was based on the fact that
defender hotels have more standardized services, suggesting that managers seek greater
rigidity in controls. The results confirm our argument and indicate that the two strategies
are positively related to action controls. However, we cannot say that there is a significant
difference between the two strategies. We expected that this type of control would be less
related to a prospective strategy because the excessive application of these controls can
represent obstacles to the innovation of services and products (Haustein et al., 2014) and the
creativity of employees (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2007). However, we realize that in
both strategies, action controls are important because they assist in complying with
defender standardization and determine limits of parameters in hotels with more diversified
objectives. This confirms what Simons (2000) suggests that management controls need to
restrict and encourage at the same time to generate dynamic tension and assist in the
realization of the strategy.
This study argues that OHR is a contingent variable that would moderate the
relationship between strategy and action control in prospector hotels. Thereby, more
innovative strategies tend to bring more uncertainty, and these controls are used to align
employee behaviors with hotel interests (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2007). Our results
confirm our theory and provide evidence on the impact of OHRs on hotel management, in
IJCHM which external evaluations will increase action control in prospector hotels. Additionally,
this research argues that OHR negatively moderates the relationship between defender
strategy and action controls. Therefore, OHRs may suggest changes to the rules, and the
loosening of employee actions may produce more agile reactions in defender hotels. Our
results show a negative moderation. Kleine and Weißenberger (2014) suggest that
companies with defender strategies tend to use action controls to gain cost efficiency.
However, we believe that this efficiency in a given pattern will generate reactions from
customers about the cost versus benefit of the services. Thus, when considering customer
reviews, indirectly, it forces the reduction of action controls by the management of the
hotels. Many of these action controls create internal restrictions that can, for example, make
it impossible to attend to customer needs.
The paper argues that defender and prospector hotels were related to results controls,
although we believed that the relationship would be stronger in prospector than in defender
hotels. Nonetheless, our results were not significant to the defenders, which does not allow
us to make inferences. However, for prospector hotels, the relationship was positive and
significant, showing that results controls are explained by actions that characterize this type
of strategy in the hotel industry. This result is consistent with previous studies suggesting
that the more a company focuses on the prospector strategy, the more it tends to use results
controls to motivate and lead employees to actions aligned with hotel objectives (Gani and
Jermias, 2012; Guo et al., 2019). Thus, this type of control creates a meritocracy and serves as
a parameter to reward employees (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2007; Koo et al., 2019).
This research seeks to verify how OHRs could impact the contingent relationship
between strategy and results control. For defender companies, we argue that OHRs would
negatively moderate the relationship because results controls tend to be more rigid, and
managers’ reactions would be to seek their reduction based on customer criticism. Our
results are very important for reflecting on the topic, as they indicate that the OHR is an
important contingent variable, which will reduce the strength of the relationship between
the defender strategy and this type of control. As defender hotel managers have less
discretionary power, it is understandable that they would like to reduce results controls so
that they can react better to outside criticism. This study theorized that OHR moderates the
relationship between prospector strategies and results controls. Our results were
inconclusive, with insignificant moderation, which does not allow us to make any further
inferences. However, regarding objectives, prospector hotels are more strongly related to
market expansion and managers may be less sensitive to external evaluations to transitory
results. We believe that future research should also seek greater stratification of the results
controls to check for more specific relationships with certain types of OHRs.
The results confirm our arguments that hotels with prospector strategies are more
strongly related to cultural controls than hotels with defender strategies. To clarify,
prospector hotels tend to compete in an environment with more uncertainty, and cultural
controls are important for encouraging an innovative mindset in employees (Haustein et al.,
2014). Nevertheless, our results were not conclusive as to the relationship between defender
strategy and cultural controls. Furthermore, our results were not significant to moderation
for both hotels with prospector and defender strategies. Cultural controls are usually
perceived more as mechanisms for setting long-term goals and are often cited as important
for defining hotel culture. Therefore, the impact of OHRs is more difficult to capture in cross-
sectional research. We believe that future research can seek a better understanding of this
relationship with temporal observations, where the impact of OHRs will possibly first
influence company culture and later impact cultural controls.
 The complementary analysis, through the fsQCA, corroborates the findings of the Effect of online
structural equation modeling and indicates that MCS design varies according to the hotel reviews
strategic context (defender and prospector). It was also found that the presence or
absence of online reviews is a condition for configuring the results, action, cultural and
personnel controls. Thus, it is understood that the managers of the surveyed hotels
consider online reviews when making decisions related to MCS design. For the control
variables, the results indicate that hotels with up to 100 employees and hotels in
business for more than 10 years prevalently use the prospector strategy. The findings
also indicated that in hotels that do not belong to a chain, the defender strategy prevails
and less information from online evaluations is used. In contrast, hotels that belong to a
hotel chain adopt the prospector strategy more often and make greater use of clients’
online evaluations in their decisions regarding MCS design.
The results indicate that OHR strengthens the relationship between prospector strategy,
mainly in personnel and action controls. Hotels with this type of strategy are more agile in
adapting their staff and responding with restrictive controls to their customers’ reviews. It
was also noted that OHR weakened the relationship between strategy and action controls in
defender hotels. To clarify, this type of strategy, hotels tend to use a set of restrictive
controls that end up being reduced according to external reviews. Our study points out a
significant path, that the hotel industry is different from other industries, in which
management controls are sensitive to internal and external factors. This indicates a hybrid
system not considered in the MCS literature. Although the research does not confirm some
relationships that are difficult to capture in cross-sectional surveys, it was identified that in
addition to OHR, it modified the relationship between strategy and MCS, this occurs
differently depending on the type of control.

5.2 Theoretical implications

This study shows that OHRs modify the relationship between strategy and MCS
design. Our knowledge about the relationship between strategy and MCS has, thus,
expanded, inserting a new variable in the hotel sector. Advances have been made in
analyzing the effect of OHRs on management decisions, unlike in the studies by Gretzel
and Yoo (2008), Stringam and Gerdes (2010), Ög üt and Tas (2012), which focus on
consumer decisions. There are also advances in knowledge concerning the study by
Lunkes et al. (2020), who analyzed the diagnostic and interactive use of MCS. Our study
considers formal (control of results and action) and informal (personal and cultural
controls). This research responded to research calls to address the impact of OHRs on
management decisions (Schuckert et al., 2015; Berné-Manero et al., 2020). Our findings
contribute to the contingency theory literature (Chenhall, 2003) by adding a new
contingency factor: online hotel reviews.

5.3 Practical implications

In addition to its contribution to the literature, our study has several implications for the
hotel and tourism sector. Studies such as these can draw the attention of hotel managers
about the impact of OHR in the MCS design and possible effects on the success of the type of
strategy (defender or prospector). The review of information on customer demand that is
regularly displayed on OHR websites helps managers adapt MCS projects to ensure that
actions are aligned with the adopted strategy. OHRs can be used to improve the
management of the hotel, thus obtaining competitive advantages for your business in terms
of the quality of the service provided. The study also shows evidence of the need for hotels
to implement open MCS, which allows them to incorporate new information and suggestions
IJCHM from customers at any time. Thus, the new demands of customers are aligned and
incorporated into the MCS and monitored in the future to verify their effectiveness in
improving the performance of the hotel.
The incorporation of customer suggestions (OHR) into the MCS of hotels benefits the
tourism sector because of the improvement in services offered to consumers. Tourism is a
relevant activity for the economy of many countries in the generation of wealth gross
domestic product (GDP), in the creation of jobs, in the quality of life, in the protection of the
environment and the valorization of cultural and social heritage. This improvement in hotel
services benefits tourist activity as a whole, as hotels are a vital link in the tourism sector.
Apart from contingencies at the firm level, we show that OHRs is a factor that determines
the appropriateness of MCS design. Our results also indicate that online reviews play an
important role in the decisions of hotel managers under study regarding MCS design. In
general, this research shows significant results and simultaneously raises new topics for
discussion. Research on MCS based on contingency theory describes the direct relationship
between strategy and MCS design. However, they do not take into account the specificity of
the hotel sector, which involves external control (OHRs), in which a set of customer reviews
can contribute to the improvement of the management system.

5.4 Conclusion
This study gained a better understanding of the contextual factors that impact MCS
design and has added to the growing MCS literature by providing an analysis of the
hotel industry in Brazil. It provides further evidence that online reviews play a
significant role in the decisions of hotel managers under study. Specifically, our study
offers evidence that there is a significant and positive relationship between the
prospector strategy and personnel, action, results and cultural control. The findings
also show a significant and positive relationship between defender strategy and action
control. These results show that MCS design depends on the strategic context. The
results show a positive moderating effect on the relationship between prospector
strategy and personnel control and between prospector strategy and action control. The
results also indicate a negative moderating effect on the relationship between the
defender strategy and personnel control, action control and results control. Examining
the moderating effect shows that hotel managers consider online reviews in their
decisions to adapt to MCS to the requirements of their context.

5.5 Limitations and future research

This study faces all the usual survey-related issues and limitations. While numerous
strategies were undertaken to minimize any impacts of these limitations, any conclusions
from the study should be interpreted considering these in mind. First, the scope of the
methodological choices (structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic) should be considered,
as interviews could be conducted with the managers to deepen the proposed relationship.
Another limiting factor may be that consumers’ online reviews of the sample hotels were not
considered in the study, only the managers’ perceptions of such reviews. Future research
could implement qualitative methodology through interviews to deepen and seek
explanations for the proposed relationships. Another suggestion is to use online reviews of
hotel consumers posted on sites such as TripAdvisor. Future research could be conducted in
other industries, such as restaurants.
References Effect of online
Abernethy, M.A. and Brownell, P. (1997), “Management control systems in research and development hotel reviews
organizations: the role of accounting, behavior and personnel controls”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, pp. 233-248, doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(96)00038-4.
Abernethy, M.A. and Brownell, P. (1999), “The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic change:
an exploratory study”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 189-204, doi:
10.1016/S0361-3682(98)00059-2.
Abernethy, M.A. and Guthrie, C.H. (1994), “An empirical assessment of the “fit” between strategy and
management information system design”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 49-66, doi:
10.1111/j.1467-629X.1994.tb00269.x.
Abernethy, M.A. and Lillis, A.M. (1995), “The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management
control system design”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 241-258, doi:
10.1016/0361-3682(94)E0014-L.
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Ryu, K. (2018), “An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 514-538, doi:
10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568.
Anagnostopoulou, S.C., Buhalis, D., Kountouri, I.L., Manousakis, E.G. and Tsekrekos, A.E. (2020), “The
impact of online reputation on hotel profitability”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 20-39, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2019-0247.
Antonio, N., de Almeida, A.M., Nunes, L., Batista, F. and Ribeiro, R. (2018), “Hotel online reviews:
creating a multi-source aggregated index”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 3574-3591, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2017-0302.
Auzair, S.M. and Langfield-Smith, K. (2005), “The effect of service process type, business strategy and
life cycle stage on bureaucratic MCS in service organizations”, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 399-421, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2005.04.003.
Avci, U., Madanoglu, M. and Okumus, F. (2011), “Strategic orientation and performance of tourism
firms: evidence from a developing country”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 147-157,
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.01.017.
Baker, M.A. and Kim, K. (2019), “Value destruction in exaggerated online reviews: the effects of
emotion, language, and trustworthiness”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1956-1976, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2018-0247.
Becerra, M., Santalo, J. and Silva, R. (2013), “Being better vs. being different: differentiation,
competition, and pricing strategies in the Spanish hotel industry”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 34, pp. 71-79, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.014.
Bedford, D.S., Malmi, T. and Sandelin, M. (2016), “Management control effectiveness and strategy: an
empirical analysis of packages and systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 51,
pp. 12-28, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2016.04.002.
Beerli-Palacio, A., Martín-Santana, J.D. and Roman-Montoya, C. (2020), “Complementary services at hotels
in accordance with their pricing strategy and the price sensitivity of tourists”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 87, p. 102458, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102458.
Berné-Manero, C., Ciobanu, A.V. and Pedraja-Iglesias, M. (2020), “The electronic word of mouth as a
context variable in the hotel management decision-making process”, Cuadernos de Gestion,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 111-136, doi: 10.5295/cdg.170860cb.
Blengini, I. and Heo, C.Y. (2020), “How do hotels adapt their pricing strategies to macroeconomic factors?”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 88, p. 102522, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102522.
Brown, J.R. and Dev, C.S. (2000), “Improving productivity in a service business: evidence from the
hotel industry”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 339-354, doi: 10.1177/
109467050024003.
IJCHM Cantallops, A.S. and Salvi, F. (2014), “New consumer behavior: a review of research on eWOM and
hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 36, pp. 41-51, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijhm.2013.08.007.
Chenhall, R.H. (2003), “Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings
from contingency-based research and directions for the future”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 28 Nos 2/3, pp. 127-168, doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Psychology Press,
New York, NY.
Crespo, N.F., Rodrigues, R., Samagaio, A. and Silva, G.M. (2019), “The adoption of management control
systems by start-ups: internal factors and context as determinants”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 101, pp. 875-884, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.020.
Damonte, L.T., Rompf, P.D., Bahl, R. and Domke, D.J. (1996), “Brand affiliation and property size effects
on measures of performance in lodging properties”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1177/109634809602000301.
Davila, T. (2000), “An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new
product development”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 25 Nos 4/5, pp. 383-409, doi:
10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00034-3.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (2008), The New Corporate Cultures: Revitalizing the Workplace after
Downsizing, Mergers, and Reengineering, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Dent, J.F. (1990), “Strategy, organization and control: some possibilities for accounting research”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 No. 1-2, pp. 3-25, doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(90)90010-R.
Díaz-Fernandez, M., Lopez-Cabrales, A. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2014), “A contingent approach to the role
of human capital and competencies on firm strategy”, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 205-222, doi: 10.1016/j.brq.2014.01.002.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. and Lang, A.G. (2009), “Statistical power analyses using G*power
3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 1149-1160, doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi:
10.1177/002224378101800104.
Galbraith, J. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison Wesley Publishing Company,
New York, NY.
Gani, L. and Jermias, J. (2012), “The effects of strategy–management control system misfits on firm
performance”, Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 165-196, doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3838.2012.00038.x.
Garrigos-Simon, F.J., Marqués, D.P. and Narangajavana, Y. (2005), “Competitive strategies and
performance in Spanish hospitality firms”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 22-38, doi: 10.1108/09596110510577653.
Ghazi, K.M. (2017), “Guests’ motives to write positive and negative hotel reviews on trip advisor”,
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.4172/2167-0269.1000283.
Goebel, S. and Weißenberger, B.E. (2017), “Effects of management control mechanisms: towards a more
comprehensive analysis”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 185-219, doi: 10.1007/
s11573-016-0816-6.
Gomez-Conde, J., Lunkes, R. and Rosa, F. (2019), “Environmental innovation practices and operational
performance: the joint effects of management accounting and control systems and
environmental training”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 1325-1357, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-01-2018-3327.
Gosselin, M. (2011), “Contextual factors affecting the deployment of innovative performance
measurement systems”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 260-277, doi:
10.1108/09675421111187692.
Gretzel, U. and Yoo, K.H. (2008), “Use and impact of online travel reviews”, Information Effect of online
and Communication Technologies in Tourism, Vol. 1, pp. 35-46, doi: 10.1007/978-3-211-77280-5_4.
hotel reviews
Guo, B., Paraskevopoulou, E. and Sanchez, L.S. (2019), “Disentangling the role of management control
systems for product and process innovation in different contexts”, European Accounting Review,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 681-712, doi: 10.1080/09638180.2018.1528168.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage publications, New York, NY.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Haustein, E., Luther, R. and Schuster, P. (2014), “Management control systems in innovation companies:
a literature based framework”, Journal of Management Control, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-382, doi:
10.1007/s00187-014-0187-5.
Higgins, D., Omer, T.C. and Phillips, J.D. (2015), “The influence of a firm’s business strategy on its tax
aggressiveness”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 674-702, doi: 10.1111/
1911-3846.12087.
Kim, W.G., Lim, H. and Brymer, R.A. (2015), “The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel
performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 44, pp. 165-171, doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.014.
Kleine, C. and Weißenberger, B.E. (2014), “Leadership impact on organizational commitment: the
mediating role of management control systems choice”, Journal of Management Control, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 241-266, doi: 10.1007/s00187-013-0181-3.
Koo, B., Yu, J., Chua, B.L., Lee, S. and Han, H. (2019), “Relationships among emotional and material
rewards, job satisfaction, burnout, affective commitment, job performance, and turnover
intention in the hotel industry”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 1-31, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2019.1663572.
Köseoglu, M.A., Topaloglu, C., Parnell, J.A. and Lester, D.L. (2013), “Linkages among business
strategy, uncertainty and performance in the hospitality industry: Evidence from an
emerging economy”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 81-91, doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.03.001.
Langfield-Smith, K. (1997), “Management control systems and strategy: a critical review”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 207-232, doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682
(95)00040-2.
Langfield-Smith, K. (2008), “Strategic management accounting: how far have we come in 25 years?”,
Account. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 204-228, doi:
10.1108/09513570810854400.
Leon, R.D. (2019), “Hotel’s online reviews and ratings: a cross-cultural approach”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 2054-2073, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-
2018-0413.
Li, H., Ye, Q. and Law, R. (2013), “Determinants of customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: an
application of online review analysis”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 7,
pp. 784-802, doi: 10.1080/10941665.2012.708351.
Li, H., Zhang, Z., Meng, F. and Zhang, Z. (2019), “When you write review matters: the interactive effect
of prior online reviews and review temporal distance on consumers’ restaurant evaluation”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1273-1291, doi:
10.1108/IJCHM-01-2018-0058.
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2018), “A retrospective view of electronic word-of-mouth in
hospitality and tourism management”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 313-325, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0461.
Lo, A.S. and Yao, S.S. (2019), “What makes hotel online reviews credible? An investigation of the
roles of reviewer expertise, review rating consistency and review valence”, International
IJCHM Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 41-60, doi: 10.1108/
IJCHM-10-2017-0671.
Lunkes, R.J., Bortoluzzi, D.A., Anzilago, M. and Rosa, F.S. (2020), “Influence of online hotel reviews on
the fit between strategy and use of management control systems”, Journal of Applied Accounting
Research, Vol. 1, doi: 10.1108/JAAR-06-2018-0090.
McManus, L. (2013), “Customer accounting and marketing performance measures in the hotel industry:
evidence from Australia”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 33, pp. 140-152,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.07.007.
Ma, E., Cheng, M. and Hsiao, A. (2018), “Sentiment analysis–a review and agenda for future research in
hospitality contexts”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30
No. 11, pp. 3287-3308, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0704.
Mak, A.H. and Chang, R.C. (2019), “The driving and restraining forces for environmental strategy
adoption in the hotel industry: a force field analysis approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 73,
pp. 48-60, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.01.012.
Mellinas, J.P., María-Dolores, S.M.M. and García, J.J.B. (2016), “Effects of the booking.com scoring
system”, Tourism Management, Vol. 57, pp. 80-83, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.05.015.
Merchant, K.A. and Van der Stede, W.A. (2007), Management Control Systems: Performance
Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, Pearson Education, London.
Mia, L. and Patiar, A. (2001), “The use of management accounting systems in hotels: an exploratory
study”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 111-128, doi: 10.1016/
S0278-4319(00)00033-5.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw Hill,
New York, NY.
Ministério Do Turismo (2019), “Sistema brasileiro de classificação de meios de hospedagem”, available
at: http://classificacao.turismo.gov.br/MTUR-classificacao/mtur-site/ (accessed 10 Mach 2019).
Mintzberg, H., Ghoshal, S., Lampel, J. and Quinn, J.B. (2003), The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts,
Cases, Pearson education, London.
Moro, S. and Rita, P. (2018), “Brand strategies in social media in hospitality and tourism”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 343-364, doi: 10.1108/
IJCHM-07-2016-0340.
Morosan, C. and Bowen, J.T. (2018), “Analytic perspectives on online purchasing in hotels: a review of
literature and research directions”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 557-580, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0566.
Negus, K. (2013), Music Genres and Corporate Cultures, Routledge, New York, NY.
Ö
güt, H. and Tas , B.K. (2012), “The influence of internet customer reviews on the online sales and prices
in hotel industry”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 197-214, doi: 10.1080/
02642069.2010.529436.
Pantelidis, I.S. (2010), “Electronic meal experience: a content analysis of online restaurant comments”,
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 483-491, doi: 10.1177/1938965510378574.
Pelsmacker, P., Van Tilburg, S. and Holthof, C. (2018), “Digital marketing strategies, online reviews and
hotel performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 72, pp. 47-55, doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.003.
Pesämaa, O. (2017), “Personnel-and action control in gazelle companies in Sweden”, Journal of
Management Control, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-132, doi: 10.1007/s00187-016-0242-5.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Ragin, C.C. (2009), “Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA)”, Configurational
Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Vol. 51,
pp. 87-121, doi: 10.4135/9781452226569.
Roig-Tierno, N., Gonzalez-Cruz, T.F. and Llopis-Martinez, J. (2017), “An overview of qualitative Effect of online
comparative analysis: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 15-23, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.002. hotel reviews
Schuckert, M., Liu, X. and Law, R. (2015), “Hospitality and tourism online reviews: recent trends and
future directions”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 608-621, doi:
10.1080/10548408.2014.933154.
Segev, E. (1987), “Strategy, strategy-making, and performance in a business game”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 565-577, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250080606.
Shortell, S.M. and Zajac, E.J. (1990), “Perceptual and archival measures of miles and snow’s strategic
types: a comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 817-832, doi: 10.5465/256292.
Simons, R. (2000), Performance Measurement Systems for Implementing Strategies, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Stringam, B.B. and Gerdes, J. Jr (2010), “An analysis of word-of-mouse ratings and guest comments of
online hotel distribution sites”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 773-796, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2010.508009.
Turner, M.J., Way, S.A., Hodari, D. and Witteman, W. (2017), “Hotel property performance: the role of
strategic management accounting”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 63,
pp. 33-43, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.02.001.
Vermeulen, I.E. and Seegers, D. (2009), “Tried and tested: the impact of online hotel reviews on
consumer consideration”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 123-127, doi: 10.1016/j.
tourman.2008.04.008.
Widener, S.K. (2004), “An empirical investigation of the relation between the use of strategic human
capital and the design of the management control system”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 29 No. 3-4, pp. 377-399, doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00046-1.
Xiang, Z. and Gretzel, U. (2010), “Role of social media in online travel information search”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 179-188, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.016.
Xu, X., Zhang, L., Baker, T., Harrington, R.J. and Marlowe, B. (2019), “Drivers of degree of
sophistication in hotel revenue management decision support systems”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 79, pp. 123-139, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.12.005.
Zhao, X.R., Wang, L., Guo, X. and Law, R. (2015), “The influence of online reviews to online hotel
booking intentions”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27
No. 6, pp. 1343-1364, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-12-2013-0542.
IJCHM Appendix

Variable Mean SD Min.–Max.

Hotel prospector strategy

PS1: The hotel leads in innovations in its sector 4.33 0.83 1–5
PS2: The hotel operates in a broad product and service domain* 4.50 0.72 1–5
PS3: The hotel responds rapidly to early signals of opportunities in the 4.28 0.75 1–5
environment*
PS4: The hotels believe in being “first-in” in the industry in the 4.10 0.88 1–5
development of new products and services
PS5: The hotel product and service domain are periodically redefined 4.18 0.72 1–5
Hotel defender strategy
DS1: The hotel tries to locate a safe niche in relatively stable products 4.42 0.76 1–5
and service domain
DS2: The hotel tries to protect the environment domain in which it 4.24 0.82 1–5
operates by stressing higher quality than its competitors*
DS3: The hotel tends to offer a narrower set of products and services 3.78 1.32 1–5
than its competitors*
DS4: The hotel tries to maintain a limited line of products and 3.56 1.15 1–5
services*
DS5: The hotel places less stress on the examination of changes in the 4.38 0.82 1–5
industry that are not directly relevant to the hotel
Results controls
RC1: Specific performance goals are established for employees 4.50 0.57 1–5
RC2: Employees’ achievement of performance goals is controlled by 4.47 0.62 1–5
their respective superiors
RC3: Potential deviations from performance goals have to be explained 4.47 0.7 1–5
by the responsible employees*
RC4: Employees receive feedback from their superiors concerning the 4.52 0.57 1–5
extent to which they achieved their performance goals
RC5: Variable remuneration components are linked to assigned 4.63 0.51 1–5
performance goals
Action controls
AC1: Superiors monitor necessary steps regarding their employees’ 4.60 0.57 1–5
achievement of performance goals
AC2: Superiors evaluate the way in which employees accomplish an 4.52 0.6 1–5
assigned task
AC3: Superiors define the most important work steps for routine tasks 4.61 0.58 1–5
AC4: Superiors provide employees with information on the most 4.57 0.55 1–5
important steps regarding the achievement of performance goals*
AC5: Policies and procedures manuals define the fundamental course 4.63 0.56 1–5
of processes*
Personnel controls
PC1: Our employees are carefully selected whether they fit our 4.58 0.56 1–5
organization’s values and norms
PC2: Much effort has been put into establishing the best-suited 4.40 0.7 1–5
recruiting process for our organization*
PC3: Emphasis is placed on hiring the best-suited applicants for a 4.53 0.57 1–5
particular job position
PC4: Training and development activities for employees are regarded 4.46 0.61 1–5
as being very important*
Table A1.
(continued)
Supplementary data
 Effect of online
Variable Mean SD Min.–Max.
hotel reviews
PC5: Our employees receive numerous opportunities to broaden their 4.59 0.54 1–5
range of skills
Cultural controls
CC1: In our organization, high emphasis is placed on sharing informal 4.62 0.56 1–5
codes of conduct with employees
CC2: Our mission statement conveys the organization’s core values to 4.34 0.73 1–5
our employees*
CC3: Top managers communicate the organization’s core values to 4.67 0.51 1–5
employees*
CC4: Our employees are aware of the organization’s core values. 4.61 0.5 1–5
CC5: Our employees perceive the values codified in our mission 4.51 0.52 1–5
statement to be motivating*
Hotel online review
OHR1: The hotel management uses TripAdvisor information in 4.74 0.47 1–5
decisions
OHR2: Online reviews are useful for hotel management* 4.80 0.42 1–5
OHR3: Review contents are relevant to improve products and services 4.82 0.46 1–5
OHR4: The hotel replies to customers’ online reviews or feedback 4.80 0.47 1–5
periodically*
OHR5: Customers’ online reviews provide an important way for our 4.82 0.39 1–5
hotel to improve the products and services*
OHR6: The hotel gives personalized answers to guest remarks 4.78 0.51 1–5

Note: *Items were removed from the model Table A1.

Corresponding author
Daiane Antonini Bortoluzzi can be contacted at: daianeantonini@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com