Search results

This chapter studies the transfer of performance measurement system (PMS) innovations across the three sectors of the economy: private, public, and nonprofit.

The spread of organizational innovations and learning from best practices is slow and complicated (Lillrank, 1995). Based on differences in languages used by writers and readers and differences in employee characteristics among the three sectors as well as cognitive biases, we expect the transfer of PMS innovations to be easier within sectors than across sectors. We use the frequency and timing of journal articles written about activity-based costing and the balanced scorecard as a proxy for the actual transfer of the innovations within and across economic sectors.

Our empirical results indicate that the transfer of the ideas across economic sectors does not happen as quickly as the transfer of the ideas within sectors. We provide evidence that it is the practitioners, not the academics, who lead the transfer of ideas in the open literature from one sector to another. Viewing a sector as unique limits the applicability of available solutions and applications, thereby inhibits useful change.

By focusing on differences, the exchange of ideas and techniques among the three economic sectors can be hindered.

Traditional definitions of decision support systems emphasise their support role in individual decision making and utilise notions of rational choice. By considering decisions as an organisational activity, the interpretation of decision support systems use in organisations can move beyond this technical rational understanding, to include potential political and legitimating roles for these systems. These three possible interpretations are discussed in relation to the implementation of a large decision support system in a local government context described by Dutton (1981). In its technical role, the system was used as part of a rational planning agenda. However, the system was clearly also used politically, to promote particular interests and as a lever in negotiations between various groups. Part of the appeal of the decision support system was the appearance of rationality and technical neutrality that it gave to the planning and decision making process, and the legitimation it provided with external constituents. The paper concludes that an unquestioning acceptance of the technical received view of decision support system use is limiting, and that a more reflective approach to their development, implementation and use is required.

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) increasingly view social entrepreneurship as means to expand their mission scope while simultaneously diversifying revenue streams and strengthening financial foundations. However, the pursuit of social entrepreneurial ventures often incites a tug-of-war phenomenon between the deep-rooted social welfare logic of the parent NPO and a newly evolving commercial logic at the subsidiary social enterprise (SSE). The present study seeks to understand how NPOs navigate such logic conflicts as they strive to become more entrepreneurial. Based upon case studies of two NPOs, we found divergence in organizational identity, legitimacy, and mission/vision between parent nonprofits and their SSEs as they struggled with a defining question: Are we a program or are we a business? Our research indicates that organizations reconcile such cognitive dissonance through four distinct processes: connecting, variegating, separating, and augmenting social welfare and commercial logic spheres. We, thus, contribute to the social entrepreneurship and nonprofit management literatures by illustrating ways in which noncommercial organizations may address issues of logic divergence when engaging in revenue-generating commercial activities.

This chapter examines organisational change processes that occur when accountability demands from powerful external stakeholders change. It investigates, firstly, whether these external accountability demands impact on the performance management systems of two different types of organisations. Secondly, it considers whether the goals for improved performance contained within the external accountability demands are realised. The chapter derives its primary insights from analysing in-depth interviews with managers working in a private sector company and in public sector organisations. The analyses reveal complex organisational responses. In the public sector case study, the organisations tended to reorient their performance management systems towards the external accountability demands; whilst in the private sector organisation, pressures from falling share prices forced managers to focus their decision making on the preferred performance measures contained in shareholders’ accountability demands. However, whilst there is some evidence of performance management system changes, the desires for improved performance subsumed by the external accountability demands are not necessarily realised through the performance management system changes.

The paper extends the organizational learning framework: Structural-Functional (SF)-single-loop or Conflictual-Radical (CR)-double-loop learning to the management accounting literature. The sociological approach of organizational learning is utilized to understand those contingent factors that can explain why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

We view learning as enhancing an organization’s strategic competitive advantage by making it better able to adopt and diffuse innovation in respond to changes in its environment in order to manage improved performance. The success of management accounting innovations is contingent upon whether its learning process involves SF-single-loop or CR-double-loop learning to adopt and diffuse process innovation.

The paper suggests that the learning strategy that the organization chooses is the reason why some management accounting innovations are more successfully adopted than others and why some innovations are easily diffused in some organizations but not in others. We propose that the sociological approaches to learning provide an alternative framework with which to better understand the adoption and diffusion of process innovations in management accounting systems.

It has become evident that management accounting researchers need to pay particular attention to an organization’s approach to adoption and diffusion of innovation strategies, particularly when they are designing and implementing process innovation programs for an organization. According to Schulz (2001), there are two interrelated stages of the learning that can shape the outcome of the innovation process in an organization. The first stage is related to the acquisition/production (adoption) of knowledge that results in gathering information, codification, and exploration. This is followed by the second stage which is the distribution or dissemination (diffusion) processes. When these two stages – adoption and diffusion – are applied within an accounting context, they address issues that are commonly associated with the successes and/or failures of management accounting innovations.

Although innovation involves learning, the nature of the learning process does not completely describe the manner in which an innovation affects the organization. Accordingly, we suggest that the two interrelated organizational sociological dimensions of innovations processes, namely, (1) the adoption and diffusion theories of Rogers (1971 and 1995), to approach organizational learning, and (2) the SF (single loop) and CR (double loop) approaches to learning be used simultaneously to describe management accounting innovations.

When an innovation is implemented, it initially can be introduced as an incremental change, one that can be limited in both in its scope and its breadth of administrative changes. This means that situations which are most likely to benefit from its initiation can serve as the prototype for its adoption by the organization. If successful, this can be followed by systemic accounting innovations to instituting broader administrative changes within the existing accounting reporting and control systems.

Purpose: The current study aims to cast light on the divide between academic research in management accounting and its applicability to practice by examining, from the standpoint of nursing, how this gap is perceived and what challenges may be involved in bridging it.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The current study compares the findings of Tucker and Parker (2014) with both quantitative as well as qualitative evidence from an international sample of nursing academics.

Findings: The findings of this study point to the differing tradition and historical development in framing and addressing the research–practice gap between management accounting and nursing contexts and the rationale for practice engagement as instrumental in explaining disciplinary differences in addressing the research–practice gap.

Research Implications Despite disciplinary differences, we suggest that a closer engagement of academic research in management accounting with practice “can work,” “will work,” and “is worth it.” Central to a closer relationship with practice, however, is the need for management accounting academics to follow their nursing counterparts and understand the incentives that exist in undertaking research of relevance.

Originality/value: The current study is one of the few that has sought to look to the experience of other disciplines in bridging the gap. Moreover, to our knowledge, it is the first study in management accounting to attempt this comparison. In so doing, our findings provide a platform for further considering how management accounting researchers, and management accounting as a discipline might, in the spirit of this study’s title, “Learn from the Experience of Others.”

This paper aims to explore how the time and temporal aspects are managed in a financial accounting outsourcing (FAO) transition process in an international interorganizational context. As a research outcome, the authors identify management interventions of both the service provider (SP) and the outsourcing company (OC) at both the corporate and operational levels.

The framework by Huy (2001a, 2001b) was used to analyze the qualitative data, which draw on observations, participation in 32 official meetings during the outsourcing process, informal discussions with key actors from the SP and the OC, and archival data of a single case company.

The authors illustrate how the time and temporal aspects of planned accelerated change are managed through management interventions during the FAO transition process. All four ideal intervention types (commanding, engineering, teaching and socializing) were used sequentially but also jointly to complement one another. The pacing was mostly rapid, owing to strong commanding interventions initiating almost every stage. When analyzing the FAO transition process, the authors identified four stages: contact, contract, convergence and control. Moreover, the authors focused on the role of the operational-level managers and accounting specialists of both organizations. The findings indicate that management interventions vary with the management level.

This study contributes to the interorganizational control literature by considering the time and temporal aspects in planned organizational change and the role of operational-level managers in managing large-scale changes.

This paper chronicles the evolution of the academic debate regarding diversity in management accounting research and discusses its impact on the current state of management accounting research.

We review the stream of literature over the last 40-plus years that discusses diversity in management accounting.

Anthony’s 1972 paper in Sloan Management Review makes a call to academics to adjust the trajectory of management accounting research. Our review of the literature reveals that early responses in the 1980s and 1990s to Anthony’s call primarily came from U.S. academics who suggest a broader theoretical approach and more work in the field. After 2000, non-U.S. authors and non-U.S. journals take up the call for diversity and shift the discussion to the more fundamental topic of validating and accepting various research paradigms. The U.S. academic environment fosters a narrow yet important view of management account research. To balance the U.S. view, non-U.S. academics have the liberty of using diverse theories, paradigms, and methods.

The results of the study indicate that the challenge to moving management accounting research forward is for diverse research approaches to be valued and published in top accounting journals that tend to be U.S. based.

This research examines how the cost performance of defense contracts varies among the Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Department of Defense (DoD) and among five major defense contractors: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Data for these analyses was extracted from the recently established Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR) web-based interface for management information on Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP). Note that, in addition to the three military services, MDAP data is also reported for DoD itself.

Data analysis indicates that the Navy ranks last among the military services and DoD in cost performance for MDAP contracts, while the Air Force ranks best. Of the defense contractors, Raytheon ranks last in cost performance and General Dynamics is next to last. Furthermore, the Navy contracts more frequently with Raytheon and General Dynamics than do the other services or DoD. Explanatory factors for poor cost performance may be due to factors such as the Navy's lack of oversight, the quality of the acquisition workforce, the defense contractors’ cost inefficiency, ethical lapses, or weak corporate governance, or combinations of these factors.

In addition, the schedule performance data was also identified. Tests of statistical significance on the schedule performance difference generally yield no results except for one relationship which indicates that the Navy is more likely to have Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) schedule breaches than its counterparts. Finally, cost performance data is examined for statistically significant differences between the two major categories of defense contracts: fixed-price contracts and cost-plus contracts. However, no significant findings were discovered.

This article investigates the potential mediating role of organizational commitment in the relationships of leadership behavior with the work outcomes of job satisfaction and job performance in a non‐western country where multiculturalism is a dominant feature of the workforce. It also explores the moderating effects of national culture on the relationships of leadership behavior with organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job performance in such a setting. Results suggest (in support of many western studies) that those who perceive their superiors as adopting consultative or participative leadership behavior are more committed to their organizations, more satisfied with their jobs, and their performance is high. The results also indicate that national culture moderates the relationship of leadership behavior with job satisfaction.