Search results

The 2008 Crash (the Crash) has been attributed to the dominance of financialized corporate governance, particularly an increased shareholder value rhetoric. Following the Crash, this extreme narrative is understood to have become less financialized through increasingly favouring stakeholders. The purpose of this research is to investigate this often-accepted view using field theory, wherein managers' biases in the value-creating process result from an interconnected, dynamic, multi-actor discourse.

Various domains across the UK’s corporate governance environment, from the perspective of field theory, generate the complex discourse: corporate and regulatory domains, stakeholder organizations such as the press and think tanks. Domain-specific corpora, representative of this multi-actor field, were constructed, with financialization analysed by assessing managers’ altering biases concerning the relative importance of shareholders and stakeholders (amongst other factors like time horizon) to value creation.

Highlights of the multiple findings include the following: corporate narrative about value creation became less financialized following the Crash, yet favouring shareholders, while the multi-actor discourse for the UK economy as a whole became slightly more financialized.

Analysing a multi-actor discourse is complex. And this, to the best of the author’s knowledge, is the first study of its kind, and only made possible with the original methodology of narrative staining. The approach, while having particular relevance to field theory, is applicable to many other narrative-based research scenarios.

The essential investments in new product development (NPD) made by industrial companies entail effective management of NPD activities. In this context, performance measurement is one of the means that can be employed in the pursuit of effectiveness.

The paper examines ways that Knowledge Management (KM) can demonstrate practical value for organizations. It begins by reviewing the claims made about KM, i.e. the benefits KM can provide to organizations. These claims are compared with traditional firm performance metrics to derive a criterion to measure the value of KM. Seven practical outcomes of KM are then presented as methods to persuade managers to invest in KM. These practical outcomes are then evaluated against the value criterion. The paper is based on empirical evidence from a five year longitudinal study.

This paper is based on a longitudinal change project for a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project grant in the period 2008-2013. The Project was a transformational change program which aimed to help make the partner organisation a learning organisation. The partner organisation was a large Australian Government Department, which faced the threat of knowledge loss caused by its ageing workforce. The sample was 118 respondents, mainly engineering and technical workers. A total of 150 respondents were invited to participate in the study which involved an annual survey and attendance at regular training workshops and related activities, with a participation rate of 79 per cent.

This paper provides a checklist from which to evaluate KM in terms of financial and non-financial measures and seven practical outcomes from which to identify the organisational problem which may be addressed by KM. Lead and lag indicators – what needs to be done and what will result – are also provided. Managers may use this framework to identify the value proposition in any KM investment.

The research is based on a single case study in a public sector organization. While the longitudinal nature of the study and the rich data collected offsets this issue, it also presents good opportunities for researchers and practitioners to test the ideas presented in this paper in other industry contexts. The seven practical outcomes also vary in the maturity of the empirical evidence supporting KM ' s impact. Strategic alignment, value management, and psychological contract, in particular, are still under-developed and could be areas for specific further research testing the ideas presented here.

This paper argues that investment decisions regarding KM may benefit from focusing on significant and on-going organisational problems, which will connect KM with firm performance and demonstrate financial and non-financial impact. The seven practical outcomes were evaluated against measurement criteria and against KM ' s claims. Overall, common themes were time and cost, as well as capability growth and performance improvements. Financial impact was mainly found in cost savings. Non-financial impact was found across the seven practical outcomes. It provides management with a checklist to make investment decisions regarding KM.

The decision whether to invest in KM begins with methods used to evaluate any organisational project. Managers must determine first whether necessary funds are available; and then whether the project is worthwhile. The standard method for evaluating a project ' s worth is return on investment (ROI). However, calculating ROI for KM investment is problematic. Unless KM can be proven to directly improve performance in financial terms, managers may struggle to see its ROI. The paper begins by reviewing the claims made about KM, i.e. the benefits KM can provide to organizations. These claims are compared with traditional firm performance metrics to derive a criterion to measure the value of KM.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms employed in financial management practices of school principals in the Eastern Cape Provincial Department of Education. The strengths and weaknesses of the systems and mechanisms of the processes to hold school principals accountable are explored in detail in this study. The argument that this article seeks to advance is that accountability of the school principal to the school governing body (SGB) does not yield the best results in terms of efficiency. It creates a loose arrangement in terms of which the school principal takes part in financial mismanagement in schools.

Data collection was made through semi-structured interviews whose purpose was to draw experiences from SGBs, particularly the finance committees who are in fact the sub-committees of the SGBs; as well as literature review. The finance committee is made up of the chairperson of the SGB, the secretary of the SGB, the treasurer of the SGB, and the financial officer who is a clerk responsible for the keeping and the management of financial records of the school. The process started with semi-structured interviews, then transcribing, coding, developing themes, making meaning of the themes and subsequently developing a principle.

Mechanisms employed by schools and the Department of Education to hold principals accountable for their financial management practices fail to make them fully accountable and effectively face the consequences of acts on their part that are illegal and unlawful. The mechanisms need a great deal of overhauling. The argument that this article seeks to advance is that this account of the school principal to the SGB does not yield the best results in terms of efficiency. It creates a loose arrangement in terms of which the school principal easily gets away with a crime when financial mismanagement occurs in the school.

Participants could possibly not be comfortable and willing, to tell the truth as it is. Participants might have the fear that telling the truth could land them in trouble with the law. Whilst participants were assured by the researchers of their anonymity and the confidentiality of the information given by them, there was no guarantee that the fear of being exposed would subdue completely. There was also a possibility that some participants would not be willing to say the truth as it is for fear of being victimised by other participants for exposing the status quo in their schools.

The findings and recommendations from this study may be used by the Department of Basic Education as a source of information for policymakers and stakeholders to understand the effectiveness of their mechanisms to ensure the accountability of school principals on issues of financial management. On the basis of this study, policymakers will then be able to revisit their policies for the purpose of strengthening them. The principal is therefore responsible for the day-to-day administration and management of school funds because of this mandatory delegation. However, when things go wrong, it is the SGB that is held liable.

School principals hold dual accountability in terms of which they are accountable to the employer only in so far as their professional responsibilities are concerned on financial management in the first instance. They are by no means accounting officers in schools. In the second instance, they are fully accountable to the SGB for issues relating to financial management. Section 16A of SASA lists the functions and responsibilities for which the principal as an employee of the Department of Basic Education, and in his official capacity as contemplated in Sections 23(1) and 24(1) (j) of the same Act, is accountable to the head of department (HOD).

The study provides a theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature on the effectiveness of the mechanisms employed to ensure the accountability of school principals in their financial management practices in schools. It offers practical recommendations putting in place mechanisms that effectively hold school principals wholly accountable for their financial management practices in schools. Most of the time, it is easy for the principal to get away with a crime even in instances where he or she is called upon to account for alleged financial mismanagement.

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.

1.1 What Are Accounts For? Overview The purpose of accounts is to reveal performance in the conduct of a business or other activity concerned with use of economic resources (e.g. a club). It is thus a matter of stewardship. Although, like economics, it is necessary in accounting to use money as a measure of performance, it is concerned with the individual organisation rather than with economic phenomena as a whole.