Search results

The paper adopts an organizational perspective to explore the conditions of possibility of the recent re-emergence of overt class-based discourse on one hand, epitomized by the ‘We are the 99%’ movement, and the rise on the other hand of a populist, nativist and sometimes overtly fascist right. It is argued that these phenomena, reflecting the increasingly crisis-prone character of global capitalism, the growing gap between rich and poor and a generalized sense of insecurity, are rooted in the dismantling of socially embedded organizations through processes often described as ‘financialization’, driven by the taken-for-granted dominance of neoliberal ideology. The paper explores the rise to dominance of the neoliberal ‘thought style’ and its inherent logic in underpinning the dismantling and restructuring of capitalist organization. Its focus is upon transnational value chain capitalism which has rebalanced power relations in favour of a small elite that is able to operate and realize wealth in ways that defy and often succeed in escaping the regulation of nation states.

The purpose of this paper is to understand why a professor of accounting uses the media to expose the failure/shortcomings of the accounting profession. Using Prem Sikka's writings, the paper argues that accounting communications have become distorted thereby failing to live up to their potential to contribute to the enhancement of social well‐being. The intention is to go beyond the media exposes and appreciate the underlying pursuit of fairness and justice in society.

The approach taken was journalistic in that it sought lots of direct quotations. Such quotations, both from the professor and the responses of his audience, are available through web sites. A telephone interview was conducted with the professor. The paper attempts to place his work in a social context by providing some personal background information.

Prem Sikka's media “blogs” bring forth strong reactions. He tends to polarise people. The purpose of his media releases is to generate opposing reactions in the pursuit of an open and democratic process. By focusing on the darker side of accounting practices, Prem Sikka highlights the political aspects of accounting as accounting language that may be considered as a language of fiction. He writes from the perspective of those who least benefit from current practices and against the powerful elites who benefit from current societal arrangements. His media articles have significant potential in facilitating change for best practices in accounting services to society in a manner that truly reflects the “public interest” that accountants as a professional group ascribe to. Whether this is realised depends on how counter accounts and critiques disseminated connect with common sense of people.

The originality is a derivative of Prem Sikka's work. The paper simply tries to understand and explain how Prem Sikka uses the media to hold accountants to account. It illustrates his unique ability to identify and confront the important issues surrounding accounting practice. It adds support to his challenge to accountants to engage with issues of fairness and justice in society. Analysis bringing out accounting's ambiguous and conflict‐enhancing functioning for the socio‐political order has been especially scarce. Such writings of Sikka challenges the status quo of accountants where their charters indicate that they are a professional group that have “public interest” as their key priority but which have been illustrated otherwise by Sikka's media accounts as “dark and secretive practices” that benefit only the privileged few.

A reply to Tony Tinker's paper, “The withering of criticism”.

The paper employs argument and discourse to critique Tinker's paper and defend the author's position.

The paper shows how oddly our work has been represented, and that Tinker's claims are unsupported. It rejects Tinker's reading of classical texts as the only valid one, and argues that his reductionist critique could hinder the advancement of interdisciplinary accounting research. We conclude our reply by urging scholars to intervene in worldly affairs by ensuring that intellectual activity is diverse, not stereotypical or predictable.

Argues the importance of scholars' engagement in worldly affairs, including matters of policy and practice, from diverse perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to indicate that managers responsible for decision making often have a limited appreciation of strategic shifts between codification and personalization of knowledge in different operational environments. This study is motivated by a concern to illuminate the influence of diverse business environments in the shift between strategies of knowledge in organizations.

A qualitative multiple case-study method was adopted to research four case organizations drawn from multiple industries – manufacturing, research, education and consulting – that are positioned within contrasting operating environments (i.e. local, national, international and multinational, respectively).

Results from the case studies suggest that four factors condition shifts between codification and personalization strategies in different operational environments that are of critical significance for the effective use of knowledge in organizations. The authors have also found that strategic shifts between codification and personalization are continuous and emergent.

The study suggests that the combination of multi-operational types and four elements (i.e. competition, organizational size, organizational structure and information technology) are highly relevant for determining the shifts between codification and personalization strategies in organizations.

In the UK, the accountancy profession plays an important and influential role in the audit and regulation of economic and social affairs. Although an increasing amount of interest is currently being taken in the role of accounting and auditing in society, comparatively little attention has been given to the profession′s obligation, as mentioned in the Royal Charters, to act as guardian of the “public interest” in relation to public policy making. Through an examination of correspondence with the professional bodies, stimulated by a refusal to provide information about matters relating to an auditing guideline, the accountability of these bodies to their members and to the public more generally is discussed. It is suggested by the evidence that the profession′s interpretation of the requirement to serve the “public interest” is not easily reconciled with its declared obligations.

During the last decade, several financial initiatives aimed at “reforming” the public sector in the UK have been produced by the Government. These initiatives seek to supplant historically established bureaucratic modes of governance, underpinned by a public service ethic, by market‐based principles. Reflects on these developments and provides a critical evaluation of the markets and hierarchies literature by focusing specifically on recent developments in the governance of health and community care. Argues that the discourse and practices of economic rationalism are not “given” or “natural” but arise within, and serve to secure and legitimize, particular (historical) power/ knowledge relations. It is only by developing more substantially democratic forms of governance that there is any prospect of removing the irrational consequences attributed to markets and hierarchies.

Amplifies and addresses a number of issues raised by Gray (1992) in his review of the Fabian paper Accounting for Change: Proposals for Reform of Audit and Accounting. It explores the terrain of self‐reflection where the accounting academic struggles with the question of what it may mean in practice as well as in theory, to aspire to intellectual honesty and integrity. Argues that attention to the politics of scholarship is helpful in understanding the comparative novelty of Accounting for Change as well as the vocabulary that it adopts. Contends that Gray′s identification of inconsistency and loss of reason in Accounting for Change reflects a taken‐for‐granted commitment to a particular, monological concept of reason. Contrasts this with an alternative, dialogical conception of reason, arguing that the latter takes fuller account of the socially negotiated and consequential nature of communication.

From a perspective of ‘critical performativity’, John Lewis is of special interest since it is celebrated as a successful organization and heralded as an alternative to more typical forms of capitalist enterprise.

Our analysis uses secondary empirical material (e.g. JLP documents in the public domain, histories of John Lewis and recent empirical research). Our assumption is that engagement and interrogation of existing empirical work can be at least as illuminating and challenging as undertaking new studies. In addition to generating fresh insights, stimulating reflection and fostering debate, our analysis is intended to contribute to an appreciation of how structures of ownership and governance are significant in enabling and constraining practices of organizing and managing.

The structures of ownership and governance at John Lewis, a major UK employee-owned retailer, have been commended by those who wish to recuperate capitalism and by those who seek to transform it.

JLP can be read as a ‘subversive intervention’ insofar as it denies absentee investors access to, and control of, its assets. Currently, however, even the critical performative potential of the Partnership model is impeded by its paternalist structures. Exclusion of Partners’ participation in the market for corporate control is reflected in, and compounded by, a weak form of ‘democratic’ governance, where managers are accountable to Partners but not controlled by them.

Our contention is that JLP’s ownership and governance structures offer a practical demonstration, albeit flawed, of how an alternative form of organization is sufficiently ‘efficient’ and durable to be able to ‘compete’ against joint-stock companies.

By examining the cooperative elements of the John Lewis structures of ownership and governance, we illuminate a number of issues faced in realizing the principles ascribed to employee-owned cooperatives – notably, with regard to ‘democratic member control’, ‘member economic participation’ and ‘autonomy and independence’.

Quality initiatives have become widespread in recent years. However, the diverse meanings attached to quality initiatives make it a seductive and slippery philosophy of management and an elusive topic of study. Many books champion the cause of quality management but few address its meaning or reflect on its practical implementation or social significance. Attempts to introduce a fresh perspective to open up a different research agenda for those investigating quality initiatives and to stimulate discussion and debate between the “gurus” of quality and those who have studied its theory and practice.