Management_accounting
Journal of Accounting&Organizational Change1,2(2005)180-198
Management accounting change and the changing roles of management accountants:a comparative analysis between dependent and independent organizations
Hassan Yazdifar?
University of Shef?eld,Management School,Shef?eld,United Kingdom
Mathew Tsamenyi
University of Shef?eld,Management School,Shef?eld,United Kingdom
Abstract:Management accounting change and the changing roles of management
accountants have dominated both the professional and academic accounting
literature in recent years.This paper aims to contribute to these debates by providing
evidence from a sample of management accountants working in both dependent
(group)and independent(non-group)organizations in the U.K.One thousand
(quali?ed)members of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
(CIMA),U.K.,were randomly selected from the association’s database for a
postal survey questionnaire.In all,279professionally quali?ed management
accountants in both types of organizations responded to a postal survey
questionnaire(58percent from dependent and42percent from independent
organizations respectively).A Mann-Whitney analysis of the responses indicates
that while some signi?cant differences exist between the views of the two groups,
these management accountants agree on several of the management accounting
practices and the roles of the management accountant investigated.The study
provides further insight into MAS and the changing roles of management accoun-
tants.It was earlier hypothesized that signi?cant differences would exist in the
perceptions between the two groups.However the weak support for the hypotheses
could be explained by the in?uence of other institutional forces apart from the head
of?ce control which is focused on in the paper.Thus,it was recognized that other
institutional forces are likely to be at play in shaping the perceptions of the
management accountants.This is a limitation of the paper and future research to
study the impacts of other institutional factors is recommended.
Keywords:Management accounting;Professions;Change management.
DOI:10.1108/18325910510635353
?Corresponding address:Dr Hassan Yazdifar,Shef?eld University Management School,9Mappin Street,S14DT,UK. Phone:0044(0)1612223433;Fax:0044(0)1612223348,Email:H.Yazdifar@shef?https://www.360docs.net/doc/518872160.html,
1.Introduction
The last two decades have witnessed a re-evaluation of management accounting(MA),in terms of developing new techniques and systems(Scapens,1990;Abdul Khalid,2000)and changes in the roles of management accountants(Evans et al.,1996;Burns and Yazdifar,2001;Scapens et al.,2003).Since the relevance lost argument by Johnson and Kaplan(1987),the1990s have witnessed a?urry of books and articles aimed at developing these new(so-called ‘advanced’)MA techniques,including activity-based costing,target costing,Kaizen costing, the balanced-scorecard,throughput costing,and other new MA techniques.Despite the commer-cial promotion given to such new MA techniques and the enthusiasm of their key advocates, several studies have found low adoption rates among organizations.1
In fact,the arguments so far suggest that some organizations prefer to use traditional manage-ment accounting systems(MAS),and make different uses of the information thus generated, rather than adopt‘revolutionary’MA approaches(Bromwich and Bhimani,1989;Burns et al., 1999).It has been argued that one reason for this is that,in order to deal with environmental uncertainty and complexity,especially during the last two decades,organizations are retaining relatively simple MAS and supplementing this with other sources of information(in particular, non-?nancial information)(for example,Staubus,1990;Burns et al.,1999).In terms of the chan-ging roles of management accountants,it has generally been suggested that these are shifting from traditional control-type to business analysis and organizational consultancy(Evans et al., 1996;Burns and Yazdifar,2001;Scapens et al.,2003).
While recent evidence implies that the adoption of new management accounting practices in subsidiary organizations may be in?uenced by pressure from the group(Granlund,2003),limited research has focused on exploring this issue.Granlund(2003)observes that few studies have investigated MA change in subsidiary organizations,exploring the relationship between acquired (parent)and acquiring(subsidiary)organizations.He adds:‘Mergers and acquisitions have rarely been analyzed from management accounting’s point of view’(Granlund,2003,p.208).Such a study will provide evidence on why organizations,such as groups(dependent),elect to retain their simple MAS or adopt the new advanced techniques(Jones,1985,1992;Hopwood,1987; Vamosi,2000;Kostova and Ruth,2002).
This paper contributes to the debates on management accounting change and the changing roles of management accountants by examining whether any signi?cant differences exist between organizations that are part of a group(that is,subsidiary or dependent companies) and those that are not part of a group(that is,independent companies).The aim is to determine the extent to which a head of?ce in?uences changes in management accounting practices and the roles of the management accountants.We compared the perceptions of management accountants working in dependent and independent organizations on the following three main issues:
1.Management accounting practices(tasks and tools/techniques)both in the1990s and in the
new millennium;
2.Factors driving changes in management accounting practices;
3.The roles of management accountants(skills and perceptions of other managers)both in the
1990s and in the new millennium.
1For evidence of this,see,for example,studies on ABC by Innes and Mitchell(1995)and Innes et al.(2000),which show the results of a survey of the U.K.’s1000largest companies.
This comparison is necessary to determine whether management accountants working in subsidi-ary organizations are likely to experience changes in their management accounting practices and the roles they perform(due to pressures from the group)differently from those in organizations which are not part of a group.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.The next section presents the theoretical framework informing the study.Following this,the research method is described;the results of the survey are then presented,followed by a discussion and concluding comments.
2.Theoretical framework and hypotheses development
It has been argued that most prior studies on management accounting change have largely been grounded in neoclassical economics(Scapens,1990).This mainstream view would argue that organizations either retain their‘simple’MAS or adopt new advanced techniques in order to maintain and/or enhance ef?ciency.Such an argument,however,is too simplistic,because it fails to explore other plausible explanations for why organizations adopt new MAS.
This paper draws mainly on new institutional sociology(NIS),which has been adopted over the last two decades to conceptualize and explain management accounting in practice(see,for example,Berry et al.,1985;Covaleski and Dirsmith,1988;Mezias,1990;Carpenter and Feroz,1992).NIS challenges conventional wisdom and prevailing research beliefs that assert that organizations are bounded,relatively autonomous and made up of rational actors(Abernethy and Chua,1996).NIS views organizations as embedded within larger interorganizational net-works and cultural systems.This institutional environment not only in?uences the organization’s input and output markets but also its beliefs,norms and historical traditions.
From an NIS perspective,the success of an organization is de?ned by the extent to which it embodies societal‘ideals’(myths)regarding norms of rational behavior.Furthermore,more societal legitimacy is said to be achieved by/through conforming to society norms.Such legiti-macy,which affects an organization’s structure,de?nes the domain of its activity and is the main factor for survival and growth(Meyer et al.,1983).
NIS theorists also argue that some institutional sectors or?elds contain environmental agents that are suf?ciently powerful to impose structural forms and/or practices on subordinate organ-izational units(Scott,1987).2In addition to Nation-States,which‘do this when mandating by law changes in existing organizational forms or when creating a new class of administrative agencies’,Scott(1987,p.501)explicitly mentions‘corporations’as cases which routinely do 2NIS theorists argue that organizations conform to institutionalised structural forms and/or practice through the processes of‘isomorphism’.‘Isomorphism’here means,‘the concept that best captures the process of homogenization’(DiMaggio and Powell,1991,p.66).DiMaggio and Powell(1991)identify three mechanisms through which institutional isomorphic change occurs,each with its own antecedents.The?rst is coercive isomorphism,which stems from political in?uence and the problem of legitimacy.It is the response to‘both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations func-tion’(Ibid,p.66).The second mechanism is mimetic isomorphism,which occurs when organizations face uncertainty and model themselves on other https://www.360docs.net/doc/518872160.html,anizations will tend to copy those organizations in their organizational?eld that are perceived to be more legitimate(for example,parent company)or successful or those outside their organizational ?eld that are similar to themselves in complexity.The third mechanism is normative isomorphism which is‘associated with professionalization’(Ibid)and‘arises when professionals operating in organizations are subject to pressures to conform to a set of norms and rules developed by occupational/professional groups’(Abernethy and Chua,1996, p.574).The detailed discussion of these mechanisms and how they form the processes of homogenisation is beyond the scope of this paper and is pertinent,in particular,when case studies are undertaken.
this when,for example,structural changes are imposed on companies that have been acquired or when existing subsidiaries are reorganized.Therefore,through the lens of NIS,subsidiary com-panies are subject to environmental pressures exerted by their constituencies,amongst them parent companies in particular.The latter,as Scott(1987)notes,exerts its in?uence by means of authority.Therefore,the subsidiary,rather than pursuing economic ef?ciency,conforms to the demands and expectations of the parent company which is a basic assumption in NIS theory.
The demands and/or perceived expectations of a parent organization are regarded as one such instance for subsidiary(dependent)organizations,whereby management accounting is viewed as being,to a large extent,an issue of projecting the‘right’image and impressions of what is expected externally to obtain legitimacy in the eyes of parent companies),whereas,it is suggested,independent organizations would not be subject to the same particular external pres-sures(from parent companies)and,thus,differences in internal practices should be apparent.The differences in internal practices of independent companies might be due to many factors(such as market demand)or institutional pressures but not one exerted by a parent company.
The subsidiary companies in this survey were all subject to different forms of institutional processes from their parent companies.NIS would argue that these subsidiaries need to conform to the pressures imposed by their parent companies if they want to survive and prosper(Meyer and Rowan,1977,1991;DiMaggio and Powell,1983,1991).Parent companies expect their subsidiaries to become more ef?cient and expect managers to use the most ef?cient means to achieve important ends.However,as Abrahamson(1996)argues,what constitutes the right ends and which means are the most ef?cient are often ambiguous.Therefore,managers in such situations of uncertainty legitimize their actions by creating the appearance that they are conforming to norms of rationality.In this situation,they tend to adopt management techniques generally believed by organizational constituencies to be a rational and ef?cient means of enhan-cing organizational goals(Meyer and Rowan,1977,1991;Abrahamson,1996;Major and Hopper,2003).
Based on the argument presented above,we expect the subsidiaries in our study to be under pressures from their parent companies to follow certain practices,especially at the time of mergers and acquisitions,such as‘organizational restructuring’(Bethel and Liebeskind,1993),‘new accounting software’(Couturier and Kumbat,2000)and‘new management styles’(Jones,1992),re?ecting cultural expectations of gaining legitimacy(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).On the other hand,the independent organizations in our study will not be subject to such pressures and are thus not likely to adopt similar management accounting practices to those dependent organizations.We also expect management accountants in the dependent organ-izations to perform different roles from those in the independent organizations because of the differences in the institutional environment we have argued above.3
Based on the above arguments,the paper tests the following three hypotheses: H1:There are signi?cant differences in the perceptions of management accoun-
tants in dependent and independent organizations about management accounting
practices.
3Management accountants in dependent organizations would be expected to perform roles that emphasise the integration of the group.This would,for example,require knowledge in IT(such as database management)and using much more integrated performance evaluation techniques.However,those in independent organizations while would require this knowledge are not going to be subjected to the same group pressure.As a result we expect differences in the roles the two types of management accountants perform.
H2:There are signi?cant differences in the perceptions of management accoun-
tants in dependent and independent organizations about the factors driving
changes in management accounting practices.
H3:There are signi?cant differences in the perceptions of management accoun-
tants in dependent and independent organizations about the roles of management
accountants.
3.Data collection and analysis
One thousand(quali?ed)members of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA),U.K.,were randomly selected from the association’s database.Two main criteria were adopted in selecting the participants.First,participants should have been fully CIMA quali?ed for at least seven years,as they are then more likely to be in the appropriate(senior) positions to in?uence decisions on changing practices and roles.Second,they should have been with their present organization for more than?ve years to have more chance of having experienced the changing roles of the management accountant.
The questionnaire consists of several parts,asking respondents to rate as either‘vitally important’,‘average importance’or‘negligible’their perception of diverse management accounting practices and the roles of the management accountant,both in the1990s and in the future.4Using the same scale,the questionnaire further asked respondents to rank their percep-tion of factors driving changes in management accounting practices.The?nal part of the ques-tionnaire was about the background information of the respondents and their organizations.
In all,279questionnaires were returned,giving a response rate of approximately28per cent, which is consistent with most other management accounting survey studies(Henri,2004;Davila et al.,2004).Table1below provides some background information about the respondents and the organizations.
Over76per cent of the respondents from both dependent and independent organizations are over the age of41.Similarly,over82per cent have been quali?ed as management accountants for over ten years.The majority of the respondents(62.5per cent and66.4per cent respectively) have worked for less than ten years in their present organization.Furthermore,the majority (84.1per cent and63.1per cent respectively)work in large organizations.52.1per cent of respon-dents in dependent organizations work in the manufacturing sector while70.5per cent of those in independent organizations work in the service sector.
An alpha test is used to examine whether the sample drawn from the population is represen-tative of that population in terms of a speci?c characteristic.As noted by Cramer(1998),the test needs to be conducted in order for an investigator to be certain whether a sample differs from its population,whether two groups differ from each other or whether a relationship exists between two variables.The high Alpha test results show that the collected data are reliable and accord-ingly the samples are representative of their population(Table2).
A Mann-Whitney U test(see Mendenhall et al.,1996;Cramer,1998;Bryman and Cramer, 1999;Sweet,1999)was used to test for differences between the two groups(dependent and inde-pendent organizations).The data satis?ed the three assumptions underlying the Mann-Whitney U 4We de?ne the‘future’as the?rst ten years of the new millennium.
test,that (i)the two samples are random,(ii)the two samples are independent,and (iii)the scale of measurement is at least ordinal.
A major limitation of the paper is that by using questionnaires,we have failed to study man-agement accounting systems in their organizational contexts.A more organizational approach,such as case studies,could offer further insights into management accounting practices.
4.Results
4.1.Management accounting practices
Management accounting practices are measured by (a)tasks and (b)tools/techniques.
(a)Tasks:Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of several management
accounting tasks in their organization in the (i)1990s,and the (ii)future.The ten
Background of respondents and the organizations
Independent organizations
Dependent organizations Total responses 117(42%)
162(58%)
%
%
Age:
Less than 30years 0.9 2.731–40years 20.82241–50years 43.454Over 50years
34.9
21.3
Period quali?ed as CIMA:7–10years 1517.811–20years 46.757Over 20years
38.3
25.2
Experience at current organization:Less than 10years 66.462.511–20years 26.225Over 21years
7.4
12.5
Average size of organizations (turnover)Small and medium (under ￡11.2m)36.915.9Large (over ￡11.2)63.1
84.1
Industry:Manufacturing 29.552.1Service
70.5
47.9
most important tasks (from a possible choice of 32)and the corresponding Mann-Whitney U test results are presented in Tables 3and 4.
(i)Management accounting tasks in the 1990s:The analysis provided in Table 3above shows that ‘business performance evaluation’and ‘cost/?nancial control’were viewed as the top two vitally important tasks for management accountants in both independent and dependent companies in the 1990s.However,respondents in dependent companies gave more support than those in independent companies to the importance of ‘interpreting/presenting the management accounts’,‘interpreting operational information’,‘implementing/designing new information systems’,‘planning/managing budget’,and ‘pro?t improvement’.
The results of the statistical test of difference (Mann-Whitney U )show a statistically signi?cant difference between the two groups for ‘interpreting/presenting the management accounts’.Respondents in dependent companies have stronger support for the importance of ‘interpreting/presenting management accounts’than those in independent companies.The survey responses did not reveal signi?cant differences between the two groups for the other tasks investigated.
(ii)Management accounting tasks in the future:Respondents were asked to indicate ?ve tasks and roles which they expect to become the most important for management accountants in their organization in the future.The most commonly identi?ed tasks (13tasks which,between them,the respondents selected –from a possible choice of 32)are presented in Table 4.Respondents in both dependent and independent organizations perceived ‘business perform-ance evaluation’as the most vital task for management accountants in the future.The Mann-Whitney U Test result also shows a statistical signi?cant difference between the two groups for this task.Management accountants in dependent companies rated this task signi?cantly higher than those in independent companies.Respondents in independent companies rated ‘cost/?nancial control’,‘working capital and short-term ?nance management’,‘productivity improvement’and ‘managing IT systems’higher,while those in dependent companies rated ‘interpreting/presenting management accounts’and ‘strategic planning/decision making’higher.However,the results suggest that the differences between the two groups for these tasks are not statistically signi?cant.
(b)Management accounting tools/techniques
Respondents were asked to indicate the perceived importance of several management accounting tools/techniques in ful?lling their tasks in (i)the 1990s (see Table 5),and (ii)the future (see Table 6).
Reliability test
Reliability tests for each section of the questionnaire Alpha test results
%
Tasks
99.18Tools/Techniques 97.79Skills
98.80Perception by other managers 95.15Change drivers
97.43
T a b l e 3
R a n k i n g s o f m a n a g e m e n t a c c o u n t i n g t a s k s i n t h e 1990s
Yazdifar and Tsamenyi/Journal of Accounting &Organizational Change 1,2(2005),180-198
187
(i)Tools and techniques in the 1990s:The top ten tools/techniques,from a choice of 16,in the 1990s,presented in Table 5above,suggest that there is a general agreement between respondents in both types of organization about the tools/techniques used by management accountants in the 1990s.Thus,with the exception of ‘Economic Value Added’,there are consistencies in the ranking of these tools/techniques between the two groups.However,respondents in dependent organizations ranked most of the tools/techniques higher than those in independent organizations.The difference in the ranking of the rolling forecast is statistically signi?cant between the two groups.The differences in the ranking of the other tools/techniques were not statistically signi?cant.
(ii)Tools and techniques in the future:The analysis of the top ten tools/techniques,from a choice of 16,that respondents expect to be the most important for management accountants in their organization in the future is presented in Table 6.When comparing the two groups it is apparent that they register high levels of agreement regarding ‘Budgets’,‘Strategic manage-ment accounting’,‘Variance analysis’,‘Rolling forecasts’and ‘Value added accounting’.Respondents in independent companies are generally more supportive of ‘Total quality management’,‘Activity-based costing’,‘Balanced scorecard’,and ‘Economic value added’.Respondents in dependent companies,on the other hand,ranked ‘Standard costing’more than those in independent companies.With the exception of ‘Total quality management’,no statistically signi?cant differences exist between the groups for the other tools/techniques.
Table 4
Rankings of management accounting tasks in the future Tasks
Independent
%
Dependent
%
Mann-Whitney
U Test
Business performance evaluation 48580.025?Cost/?nancial control 44340.149Pro?t improvement 33310.888Planning/managing budget 30320.655Interpreting/presenting the management accounts 29360.249Implementing business strategy 29250.506Strategic planning/decision making 26310.478Generation/creation of value 21250.417Interpreting operational information 21220.700Working capital and short-term ?nance management
19140.239Operational planning/projects/decision making
18210.615Productivity improvement 17120.344Managing IT systems
17
12
0.268
188Yazdifar and Tsamenyi/Journal of Accounting &Organizational Change 1,2(2005),180-198
T a b l e 5
R a n k i n g o f m a n a g e m e n t a c c o u n t i n g t o o l s a n d t e c h n i q u e s f o r t h e 1990s
Yazdifar and Tsamenyi/Journal of Accounting &Organizational Change 1,2(2005),180-198
189
4.2.Factors driving change in management accounting practices
Respondents were asked to indicate the perceived importance of several factors in driving changes in management accounting practices in their organization.These results are presented in Table 7.
The two groups viewed ‘information technology’and ‘organizational restructuring’as the top two vitally important change drivers.The views of those working in dependent companies are more supportive than those in independent companies of ‘new accounting software’and a ‘new management style’as vitally important change drivers.They consider these as the third and fourth most vitally important change drivers,while professional accountants in independent companies consider them as the ?fth and seventh most vitally important change drivers.
The results of the statistical test of difference (Mann-Whitney U )between the two groups indicate that,statistically,there are signi?cant differences between the two groups regarding ‘organizational restructuring’,‘new management style’and ‘globalization’.The views of man-agement accountants working in group companies indicate stronger support for these three change drivers.The differences could be due to ‘take-over’and ‘merger’events,as higher rates have been registered by respondents in dependent companies than those in independent companies.However,the survey responses did not reveal signi?cant differences between the two groups on the other factors presented in the table above.
4.3.Roles of management accountants
The roles of management accountants were measured by (a)their skills requirements,and (b)the way other managers perceive them in their organizations.
Table 6
Ranking of management accounting tools and techniques for the future Tools/techniques Independent
%
Dependent
%
Mann-Whitney
U Test
Budgets
73680.511Strategic management accounting 61590.959Variance analysis 60560.667Rolling forecasts 53560.545Value added accounting 38340.609Total quality management 37250.050?Activity-based costing 29400.058Balanced scorecard 25310.298Standard costing
21270.246Economic Value Added (TM)17250.085Just-in-time 990.989Target costing 9110.617Driver analysis tables
7
10
0.334
190Yazdifar and Tsamenyi/Journal of Accounting &Organizational Change 1,2(2005),180-198
T a b l e 7
R a n k i n g o f c h a n g e d r i v e r s
Yazdifar and Tsamenyi/Journal of Accounting &Organizational Change 1,2(2005),180-198
191
(a)Skills requirements of management accountants
Respondents were asked to indicate the perceived importance of several skills for the manage-ment accountant in(i)the1990s(see Table8),and(ii)the future(see Table9).
(i)Skills in the1990s:The top ten skills for the management accountant in the1990s,from a choice of20,are presented in Table8.It can be observed that respondents from both groups ranked‘Analytical/interpretive’skills as the most important skill in the1990s.However,there was11per cent(84.2/75.7)more support for this from respondents in independent companies than from those in dependent companies.While respondents in independent companies were supportive of‘Integrating?nancial and non-?nancial information’and ranked it second,those in dependent companies ranked this eighth(28per cent?66.4/52more support from the former group).The difference between the two groups for how they perceive this skill is statisti-cally signi?cant.
Respondents in independent companies were more supportive of‘IT/systems knowledge’,‘Presentational’,and‘Commercial’skills than those in dependent companies.The slightly less supportive view of respondents in independent companies in relation to‘IT/systems knowledge’could be attributed to their parent company’s roles in providing them with this facility.On the other hand,respondents in dependent companies indicated more support for‘Broad business knowledge’,‘Teamwork’,‘Oral communication’,‘Professional/ethical’and‘Interpersonal’skills than those in independent companies.No statistically signi?cant differences exist between the two groups for the other skills.
(ii)Skills in the future:The top ten skills for the management accountant in the future,from a choice of16,are presented in Table9.A comparison of the views from two groups suggests that there is a general agreement that‘Analytical/interpretive’skill is expected to be the most import-ant skill in the future.Respondents in independent companies were more supportive of‘IT/ systems knowledge’than those in dependent companies,who indicated stronger support for ‘Broad business knowledge’.‘Strategic thinking’and‘Change management’,which were not seen as very important skills in the last?ve years,were selected by about one third of respondents in both groups.However,respondents in independent companies indicated more support for ‘Strategic thinking’than those in dependent companies,who indicated stronger support for ‘Change management’.
(b)How management accountants are perceived by other managers
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which certain characteristics suitably describe how,in their opinion,business managers currently perceive them in their organization. The results are summarized in Table10below.
The results suggest that there is no statistically signi?cant difference between the perception of managers in both independent and dependent companies.Management accountants in inde-pendent companies indicate stronger support for‘Business advocates’,‘Business analyst’,‘Business partners’and‘Financial analyst’.However,those in dependent companies indicate stronger support for‘Beancounters’,‘Corporate police’,‘Number crunchers’and‘Scorekeepers’. The responses imply that managers in independent companies require management accountants to become more proactive in strategic decision making,and encourage them to become more integrated into process-oriented managerial teams.Burns and Baldvinsdottir(2001)labelled these management accountants as‘hybrid’accountants who play a role in facilitating process team integration and enabling common understanding amongst different managers.Such roles and expectations,it is argued,are a long way from the stereotypical beancounter image that accountants still command across much of society,and this is to some extent supported by
T a b l e 8
R a n k i n g o f m a n a g e m e n t a c c o u n t a n t ’s s k i l l s f o r t h e 1990s
managers in dependent companies.This seemingly retrograde step in dependent companies is interesting because it lends credence to the idea that management accountants in subsidiary com-panies are there to produce accounts for parent companies rather than being business advocates offering consultancy to managers.
5.Discussion and conclusion
This paper has presented the results of a questionnaire survey that examined whether signi?cant differences exist between the perceptions of management accountants working in dependent
Table 9
Ranking of management accountant’s skills for the future
Vitally important skills Mann-Whitney
U Test
Independent
%
Dependent
%
Analytical/Interpretive 59600.888IT/systems knowledge 50430.315Integrating ?nancial and non-?nancial information 47340.064Broad business knowledge 39430.532Strategic thinking 34280.324Commercial 29270.759Team-work 27340.208Change management 25330.170Presentational 25180.157Leadership
22
20
0.627
Table 10
Ranking of how management accountants are perceived
Independent
%
Dependent
%Mann-Whitney
Test
Beancounters 9.420.50.065Business advocates 15.18.20.558Business analyst 52.842.40.093Business partners 22.617.20.251Corporate police 16.2250.177Financial analyst 60.7530.350Number-crunchers 26.430.70.537Scorekeepers
22.6
28.1
0.099
(subsidiaries)and independent organizations on three main issues:(1)management accounting practices,(2)factors driving change in management accounting practices,and(3)the roles of management accountants.The analysis was based on responses from professionally quali?ed management accountants(CIMA quali?ed)working in dependent and independent companies. This section discusses the signi?cant?ndings and also provides concluding comments.
The results of the analysis suggest that very few signi?cant differences exist between the two groups in terms of the variables tested(see Table11).For the perceptions of management accounting practices,there are signi?cant differences in only four of the questions asked. These are interpreting and presenting management accounts,business performance evaluation, the use of rolling forecasts,and total quality management.For the perceptions of drivers of management accounting change,only three questions are signi?cant.These are organizational restructuring,new management styles,and globalization.Finally,for the roles of the manage-ment accountant only one question is signi?cant.These signi?cant differences are?rst explained.
The signi?cant differences between the two groups could be explained by the institutional theory argument we advanced earlier in the paper.We argued that dependent organizations are likely to adopt certain practices due to in?uence from the head of?ce.In our survey,respon-dents in dependent organizations ranked management accounting tasks of interpreting/presenting management accounts and business performance evaluation,and the management accounting tools/technique of rolling forecasts,signi?cantly higher than their counterparts in independent organizations.The signi?cantly higher emphasis on these practices,especially‘interpreting/ presenting the management accounts’and‘implementing/designing new information systems’, might be attributed to the relation between subsidiary companies and parent companies,as sub-sidiaries are expected to present their management accounts in formats dictated by the parent company and also implement their management information system in a way consistent with the parent company.
Management accountants in independent companies,on the other hand,are likely to have different attitudes toward some of their tasks due to the absence of pressure to conform to
Table11
Summary of statistical signi?cant differences
Parts Topics/sections1990s future More supportive
group
?Dependent
Tasks and roles Interpreting/presenting
the management accounts
Business performance evaluation?Dependent
Tools/techniques Rolling forecasts?Dependent
Total quality management?Independent
?Independent Skills Integrating?nancial and
non-?nancial information
Change drivers Organizational restructuring?Dependent
New management styles?Dependent
Globalization?Dependent
practices in a parent organization.The signi?cant statistical differences between the two groups for the management accounting tools and techniques of rolling forecasts and total quality management,and the skills of management accountants in terms of integrating?nancial and non-?nancial information,could also be attributed to the differences in the nature of institutional pressures the organizations face.
The signi?cant emphasis placed by respondents in dependent organizations on change drivers of organizational restructuring,new management styles,and globalization may also be explained by the role of the parent company.It is likely that the head of?ce would impose new organi-zational forms and management styles on its subsidiaries;hence these are seen as vitally important change drivers,which is signi?cantly different from respondents in independent organizations.Dependent organizations,by being members of a group,are also more likely to experience the impacts of globalization compared to independent organizations,hence the signi?cant high emphasis on globalization as a change driver.
Apart from the few signi?cant differences discussed above,the results largely suggest that there are no signi?cant differences in the majority of the variables tested.For example,out of the ten items that examined the rankings of management accounting tasks in the1990s,only1 was signi?cantly different between the two groups(Table3).Similarly,only one out of the13 items on management accounting tasks in the future was signi?cantly different between the groups(Table4).A similar observation can be made in terms of the rankings of the management accounting tools and techniques for the1990s and for the future(Tables5and6).For the rankings of the change drivers,only three out of the14items were ranked as signi?cantly different between the groups(Table7).In terms of the rankings of the management accountant’s skills, only one out of the ten items was signi?cant for the1990s(Table8),and no signi?cant results were found for the future(Table9).Similarly,no signi?cant differences exist between the groups on the rankings of how management accountants are perceived(Table10).
Based on the analysis presented above,we found weak support for the three hypotheses we developed earlier in the paper.Thus,we had earlier hypothesized that signi?cant differences would exist in the perceptions between the two groups on management accounting practices (H1),the drivers of management accounting change(H2),and the roles of the management accountant(H3),and the weak support for our hypotheses could be explained by the in?uence of other institutional forces apart from the head of?ce control which we focused on in our paper.Thus,we recognized that other institutional forces are likely to be at play in shaping the perceptions of the management accountants.Head of?ce control is,thus,only one of the multiple institutional factors.This is a limitation of the paper and we recommend future research to study the impacts of other institutional factors.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of the anonymous referenes and Pro-fessor John Burns.
References
Abdul Khalid,S.N.,2000.An institutionalist study of resistance to management accounting change.PhD Thesis(Unpublished),Manchester School of Accounting and Finance. Abernethy,M.A.and Chua,W.F.,1996.A?eld study of control systems‘redesign’:the impact of institutional processes on strategic choice.Contemporary Accounting Research,13,569–606.
Abrahamson,E.,1996.Management fashion.Academy of Management Review,21(1),254–285. Berry,A.J.,Capps,T.,Cooper,D.,Ferguson,P.,Hopper,T.and Lowe,E.A.,1985.Management control in an area of the NCB:rationales of accounting practices in a public enterprise.
Accounting,Organizations and Society,10(1),3–28.
Bethel,J.E.and Liebeskind,J.,1993.The effects of ownership structure on corporate restruc-turing.Strategic Management Journal,14,special issue,7–19.
Bromwich,M.and Bhimani,A.,1989.Management Accounting:Evolution not Revolution.
CIMA London.
Bryman,A.and Cramer,D.,1999.Qualitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release8for Window: Guide for Social Scientists.Routledge,London.
Burns,J.and Baldvinsdottir,G.,2001.Changing roles:‘Hybrid’accountants in a UK pharma-ceuticals company,working paper,University of Manchester.
Burns,J.,Ezzamel,M.and Scapens,R.,1999.Management accounting change in the UK.
Management Accounting(UK),March,28–30.
Burns,J.and Yazdifar,H.,2001.Trick or treat.Financial Management,March,33–35.Also appeared in Insider,2001,March,30–32.
Carpenter,V.L.and Feroz,E.H.,1992.GAAP as a symbol of legitimacy:New York State’s decision to adopt generally accepted accounting principles for external?nancial reporting.
Accounting,Organizations and Society,17(7),613–643.
Couturier,G.W.and Kumbat,T.A.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/518872160.html,rmation technology costing methodology devel-opment after a corporate merger.Industrial Management&Data Systems,100(1),10–16. Covaleski,M.A.and Dirsmith,M.W.,1988.An institutional perspective on the rise,social transformation,and fall of a university budget category.Administrative Science Quarterly, 33,562–587.
Cramer,D.,1998.Fundamental Statistics for Social Science.Routledge,London and New York. Davila,T.,Epstein,M.J.and Matusik,S.F.,2004.Innovation strategy and the use of performance measures.Advances in Management Accounting,13,27–58.
DiMaggio,P.J.and Powell,W.W.,1983.The iron cage revisited:institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational?elds.American Sociological Review,48,147–160. DiMaggio,P.J.and-Powell,W.W.,1991.The iron cage revisited:institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational?elds.In Powell,W.W.and DiMaggio,P.J.(Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,63–82.
Evans,H.,Ashworth,G.,Gooch,J.and Davies,R.,1996.Who needs performance management?
(the role of the?nancial manager).Management Accounting(U.K.),74(11),December,20–25. Granlund,M.,2003.Management accounting integration in corporate mergers:a case study, Accounting,Auditing&Accountability Journal,16(2),208–243.
Henri,J.,https://www.360docs.net/doc/518872160.html,anizational culture and performance measurement systems.Accounting.
Organizations and Society,forthcoming.
Hopwood,A.G.,1987.Archaeology of accounting systems.Accounting,Organizations and Society,12(4),207–234.
Hoque,Z.,2004.A contingency model of the association between strategy,environmental uncertainty and performance measurement:impact on organizational performance.Inter-national Business Review,13(4),485–502.
Innes,J.and Mitchell,F.,1995.A survey of activity-based costing in the UK’s largest companies.
Management Accounting Research,6,137–153.
Innes,J.,Mitchell,F.and Sinclair,D.,2000.Activity-based costing in the UK’s largest companies:a comparison of1994and1999survey results.Management Accounting
Research,11,349–362.
Johnson,H.T.and Kaplan,R.,1987.Relevance Lost:The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting.Harvard University Press,Boston Mass.
Jones,C.S.,1985.An empirical study of the role of management accounting systems following takeover and merger.Accounting,Organizations and Society,10(2),177–200.
Jones,C.S.,1992.The attitudes of owner-managers towards accounting control systems following management buyout.Accounting,Organizations and Society,17(2),151–168. Kostova,T.and Roth,K.,2002.Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations:institutional and relational effects.Academy of Management Journal,45(1),February,215–233.
Major,M.and Hopper,T.,2003.Extending new institutional theory:a case study of activity-based costing in the Portuguese telecommunications industry.Working paper,University of Manchester.
Mendenhall,W.,Beaver,R.and Beaver,B.,1996.A Course in Business Statistics.fourth edition, ITP.
Meyer,J.W.and Rowan,B.,1977.Institutionalized organizations:formal structures as myth and ceremony.American Journal of Sociology,83,340–363.
Meyer,J.W.and Rowan,B.,1991.Institutionalized organizations:formal structures as myth and ceremony.In Powell,A.and DiMaggio,P.J.(Ed.),The New Institutionalism in Organi-zational Analysis,The University of Chicago Press,Chicago,41–62.
Meyer,J.W.,Scott,W.R.and Deal,T.E.,1983.Institutional and technical sources of organization structure:explaining the structure of educational organization.In Meyer,J.W.and-Scott, W.R.(Ed.),Organizational Environments.Russell Sage,New York,45–67.
Mezias,S.J.,1990.An institutional model of organizational practice:?nancial reporting at the Fortune200.Administrative Science Quarterly,35,431–57.
Scapens,R.W.,1990.Researching management accounting practice:the role of case study methods.British Accounting Review,22,259–281.
Scapens,R.W.,Ezzamel,M.,Burns,J.and Baldvinsdottir,G.,2003.The Future Direction of UK Management Accounting Practice.Elsevier/CIMA publications,London.
Scott,W.R.,1987.The adolescence of institutional theory.Administrative Science Quarterly,32, 493–511.
Staubus,G.J.,1990.Activity costing:twenty years on.Management Accounting Research, December,249–264.
Sweet,S.,1999.Data Analysis with SPSS,Allyn&Bacon,USA.
Vamosi,T.S.,2000.Continuity and change;management accounting during processes of transition.Management Accounting Research,11,27–63.