Search results

While management-accounting research continues to focus on cost drivers, research has recently begun to examine revenue drivers. We review the research on revenue drivers with reference to five revenue-driver models in the accounting literature. The revenue drivers identified by quantitative empirical research are located in a revenue-driver model based on their levels of analysis (customer, product, organization, industry) and other characteristics of a revenue driver–revenue relation. Implications of this model for research are discussed.

What is measured gets managed – especially if rewards depend on it. For this reason many companies (over 70% in this survey) have upgraded their performance measurement systems so as to include a mix of financial and non-financial metrics. This study compares how companies currently measure performance for compensation purposes with how their managers think performance should be measured. We find significant measurement gaps between actual and preferred measures, and we find that larger measurement gaps are related to lower overall performance. The choice of performance measures for compensation purposes is also related to the attitudes of managers towards manipulation of reported results.

This paper analyzes citations from the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using Google Scholar in April and May, 2013.

This study assesses the success of the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using citation analysis. Four citation metrics are used. The four citation metrics are: (1) total citations since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (2) citations per author since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (3) citations per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013, and (4) citations per author per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013.

The top 20 authors for each citation metric, the top 20 faculties for each citation metric, and the top 20 doctoral programs for each citation metric are determined. Furthermore, the top 20 articles are determined using two citation metrics and the H-index for Advances in Management Accounting is computed.

Potential doctoral students, current doctoral students, “new” Ph.D.s with an interest in management accounting, current management accounting faculty, department chairs, deans, other administrators, journal editors, and journal publishers will find these results informative.

There is no argument among serious researchers that a mongoloid stock first colonized the New World from Asia. Nor is there controversy about the fact that these continental pioneers used the Bering Land Bridge that then connected the Asian Far East with Alaska.– Gerald F. Shields, et al.American Journal of Genetics (1992)

This study extends Quirin et al. (2000) by incorporating equity theory (Adams, 1965) into a theoretical model of budgetary participation and performance. The study develops and tests a nomological framework of budgetary participation that includes two organizational constructs, budgetary participation and budget-based compensation, and three individual characteristics, perception of equity, organizational commitment, and employee performance. Measures of these constructs were gathered from a sample of 98 employees in 15 organizations.

In accordance with the proposed theory and hypotheses, results reveal that budgetary participation is associated with increased use of budget-based compensation as well as higher levels of perception of equity and organizational commitment. Budget-based compensation and perception of equity, in turn, are also associated with increased levels of organizational commitment, while elevated commitment was related to higher performance. The results provide further insight into the beneficial aspects of budgetary participation. Specifically, the results indicate that budgetary participation is positively associated with perception of equity, which in turn increases organizational commitment and, ultimately, employee performance.

Environmental uncertainty, turbulence, and heterogeneity create a host of strategic and operational challenges for today’s organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). To cope with the challenge of simultaneously developing and nurturing both today’s and tomorrow’s core competencies, firms increasingly rely on effective use of corporate entrepreneurship (Covin & Miles, 1999). These facts make it imperative that managers at all levels actively participate in designing and implementing a strategy for corporate entrepreneurship actions. The recent literature reveals that there is a general although certainly not a complete consensus around the position that successful corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is linked to improvement in firm performance (Ireland et al., 2001). Covin, Ireland and Kuratko (2003) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a legitimate path to high levels of organizational performance and that the understanding of corporate entrepreneurship as a valid and effective practice with real, tangible benefits is occurring across firm type and managerial levels. Other researchers cite corporate entrepreneurship’s importance as a growth strategy (Kuratko, 1993; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Pinchott, 1985; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings, 1999). As an example, Dess, Lumpkin and McGee (1999) note that, “Virtually all organizations – new start-ups, major corporations, and alliances among global partners – are striving to exploit product-market opportunities through innovative and proactive behavior” – the type of behavior that is called for by corporate entrepreneurship. Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) suggested that in light of the dynamism and complexity of today’s environments, “…entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors are necessary for firms of all sizes to prosper and flourish.” Developing an internal environment that cultivates employees’ interest in and commitment to creativity and the innovation that can result from it contributes to successful competition in today’s competitive arenas. A valuable and appropriate internal organizational environment is a product of effective work (often within the context of corporate entrepreneurship) by managers at all levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000).