«Paul M. Collier Aston Business School, Aston University Accounting for Managers Accounting for Managers: Interpreting accounting information for ...»
It is also important to note what may be gained by management accounting scholars beyond a more general appreciation of the technical, social and interestbased forces which may ﬂow through and inﬂuence management accounting, and how management accounting, by embodying and reproducing these forces, may come to inﬂuence its own historical, socio-political context. Christenson (1983) argues that what may be derived is not the ﬁrst-order concern of somehow modifying management accounting as a set of somewhat disembodied practices to somehow more faithfully represent an objective, albeit complex reality and thereby solve the technical problems of running an organization. But rather, what can be gained is a second-order focus of serving the problem solver, i.e., helping them recognize the multiple realities they confront and live, and the multiple meanings attached to and served by management accounting.
One of the principle tendencies exhibited by alternative research theories and related methods which distinguish them from the more familiar approaches is that of embedding management accounting in a wider social context than usual. Accounting research inspired by contemporary social and organizational psychology and neo-classical economics largely examines the roles and nature of management accounting from the perspective of the individual decision-maker or information processor within the organization. The alternative streams of research discussed here, in contrast, typically approach the study of managerial accounting from an inter-organizational and sociological perspective.
To illustrate the broader orientation, Selto et al.’s (1995) ﬁeld study of a Fortune 500 ﬁrm examines the adaptation of JIT manufacturing and a total quality control system (JIT/TQC system) in relationship to classical contingency theory constructs – organizational structure, context and control – to ascertain the ﬁt of these organizational variables and the JIT system. An interpretive perspective, such as institutional theory, might relate the adaption of the JIT/TQC system to even larger societal values of rationality while perhaps sacriﬁcing on the robustness of insight provided by contingency theory regarding the impact of organizationallevel variables. Here the theoretical and empirical focus would be more on probing the ﬁrm’s broader ﬁeld of relations, such as mimicking the structure of dominant ﬁrms in the industry, or responding to the coercion of the government, or adapting the norms of professional associations, expressed in terms of a more widespread JIT/TQC movement. Finally, critical perspectives would advance their theoretical frame of reference by characterizing the JIT/TQC efforts in this ﬁrm as related to the structural antagonism between classes inherent in capitalist societies (laborprocess perspective), or as part of a larger historical trend through which people at large were subjected to a variety of disciplinary techniques rendering the minute details of their behavior more visible (the Foucaultian approach). With the critical perspective’s theoretical and empirical point of departure being at the
ACCOUNTING FOR MANAGERSbroadest social and historical level (i.e., parts of larger historical trends of structural antagonism or disciplinary techniques) the more immediate organizational inﬂuences (contingency theory) or organizational ﬁelds (interpretive perspectives) become more tangential to the research focus. In summary, despite the differences between the theoretical points of departure and related demands for empirical inquiry pertaining to the contingency, interpretive, and critical perspectives, these approaches to management accounting provide multiple understandings of management accounting that are not offered by more narrowly focused analysis which centers around individual preference and cognitive functions.
A second aspect that distinguishes the management accounting research which draws on organizational and sociological traditions is its tendency to offer a relatively non-technical understanding of management accounting. For example, it is usual to suppose that management accounting is an information systems that can be designed to inﬂuence decisions and to so gain control over behavior. Here, accounting is a tool that not only signals certain states of the world, but also works as an instrument by which certain outcomes are made more probable. This instrumental and consequently asocial, ahistorical and apolitical view of accounting contrasts with that gained from the various alternative research streams. Again, referring to the contributions of Selto et al.’s (1995) contingency perspective-driven ﬁeld work, such management accounting practices as JIT/TQC systems are seen to be invested with the social aspects of worker empowerment, workgroup performance, and relations within and between workgroups, operators and supervisors.
By modifying the system, aided by management accounting, the ﬁt may be enhanced and performance consequently improved. An interpretive perspective of management accounting would particularly probe the issue as to whether JIT/TQC systems are as much a symbol demonstrating efﬁciency and rationality to be displayed for external consumption as they are an instrument for achieving efﬁciencies, thus focusing their theoretical and empirical efforts to inform our understanding of the symbolic nature of JIT/TQC. Critical perspectives, in turn, might mobilize their empirical efforts around their respective theoretical motivations to examine JIT/TQC systems within the context of a class-divided society to aid economic expropriation of workers’ surplus, or, in the Foucaultian tradition, to examine JIT/TQC systems as artifacts of a general historical mechanism by which people are made calculable and manageable.
Accordingly, alternative streams of research, to varying degrees, move towards considering accounting as a social practice rather than a technique. To treat accounting as a ‘‘practice’’ instead of a ‘‘technique’’ is to embed accounting within the web of human actions which are, in turn, constitutive of social relations. The intricacies and richness of social relations that are suffused by such aspects of sociality as symbols, myths, language, status, class, trust and intimacy, comprises the backdrop for the organizationally and sociologically informed studies of accounting. More speciﬁcally, management accounting research rooted in the contemporary social and organizational psychology and neo-classical economics usually examines management accounting procedures and techniques with the intent to improve its efﬁcacy. In general, these traditional approaches are problem driven and directed towards improving and reﬁning the instrument
MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 323that is management accounting to better serve exogenously given organizational goals and thus somewhat narrow in focus. Designing better costing procedures, incentive contracts, information systems to account for processing biases, and so on, are examples of the problem-driven nature of mainstream management accounting research.
In contrast, the research drawing on organizational and sociological theories, to different degrees, situate management accounting practice within the context of social life in general. The problem-driven focus is less apparent since, in part, the very ways in which problems come to be deﬁned as problems needing solutions, or indeed how particular calculative techniques come to be called ‘‘accounting,’’ comprise the subject for analysis. From this perspective, managerial accounting practices are not techniques that can be abstracted from the general milieu of social life but rather one strand in the complex weave that makes up the social fabric. Political events and ideologies, cultural norms and forces, social patterns of interaction and societal presuppositions, technological changes and subjective meanings that impel people to act in certain ways, all potentially impinge on the roles and nature of management accounting. It is in this manner that a different light is shed on the role and nature of management accounting practices by the research which draws from organizational and sociological theories.
Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aiken, M., and J. Hage. 1966. Organizational alienation. American Sociological Review 31:
Alford, R., and R. Friedland. 1985. Powers of Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ansari, S. L. 1977. An integrated approach to control systems design. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2: 101–112.
, and K. J. Euske. 1987. Rational, rationalizing and reifying uses of accounting data in organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society 12: 549–570.
Anthony, R. 1965. Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Argyris, C. 1952. The Impact of Budgets on People. New York: Controllership Foundation.
Armstrong, P. 1985. Changing management control strategies: the role of competition between accountancy and other organizational professions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10: 129–148.
Banker, R. D., S. M. Datar, and L. Kemerer. 1991. A model to evaluate variables impacting the productivity of software maintenance. Management Science: 1–18.
Barnard, C. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Becker, S., and D. Green. 1962. Budgeting and employee behavior. Journal of Business (October): 392–402.
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann, 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.
Bernstein, R. 1978. The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Blau, P. M. 1970. A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review 35: 201–218.
ACCOUNTING FOR MANAGERS. 1973. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley.
Boland, R. J., and L. R. Pondy. 1983. Accounting in organizations: A union of natural and rational perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8: 223–234.
, and. 1986. The micro-dynamics of a budget cutting process: Modes, models and structure. Accounting, Organizations and Society 11: 403–422.
Bougen, P. D. 1989. The emergence, roles and consequences of an accounting-industrial relations interaction. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14: 203–234.
, S. G. Ogden, and Q. Outram. 1990. The appearance and disappearance of accounting: wage determination in the U.K. Coal industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society 15: 149–170.
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brownell, P. 1981. Participation in budgeting, locus of control and organizational effectiveness. The Accounting Review 56: 844–860.
. 1982. The role of accounting data in performance evaluation, budgetary participation, and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Accounting Research: 12–27.
Burawoy, M. 1979. Manufacturing Consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burns, T. R. 1986. Actors, transactions and social structures. In Sociology: From Crisis to Science? edited by V. Hemmelstrand, 8–37. London: Sage.
, and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock.
Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
Caplan, E. H. 1971. Management Accounting and Behavioral Science. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Carruthers, B. G. 1995. Accounting, ambiguity, and the new institutionalism. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20: 313–328.
Child, J. 1972. Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Ashton Study. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 163–177.
Christensen, J. 1983. The determination of performance standards and participation. Journal of Accounting Research 20: 589–603.
Christenson, C. 1983. The methodology of positive accounting. The Accounting Review 58 (January): 1–22.
Chua, W. F. 1986. Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review 61(4):
Churchman, C. W. 1971. The Design of Inquiry Systems. New York: Basic Books.
Clawson, D. 1980. Bureaucracy and the Labor Process: The Transformation of U.S. Industry, 1860–1920. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Clegg, S. 1987. The language of power and the power of language. Organization Studies 8:
Collins, F. 1978. The interaction of budget characteristics and personality variables with budgetary response attitudes. The Accounting Review 53: 324–335.
Cooper, D., and T. Hopper. 1990. Critical studies in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 12: 407–414.
, and M. Sherer. 1984. The value of corporate accounting reports: Arguments for a political economy of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 9: 407–414.
Covaleski, M. A., and M. W. Dirsmith. 1983. Budgeting as a means for control and loose coupling. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8: 323–340.
, and. 1986. The budgetary process of power and politics. Accounting, Organizations and Society 11: 193–214.
, and. 1988a. The use of budgetary symbols in the political arena: An historically informed ﬁeld study. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13: 1–24.
MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 325, and. 1988b. An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly 33:
Cyert, R. N., and J. G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: