managerial discourse and the link between theory and practice from roi to value based management...

Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 95109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Management Accounting Research

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /mar

Manag n thFrom R

Will SealLoughborough 3TU, UK

a r t i c l

Keywords:Managerial knCritical discouReturn on inveValue-based mStrategic man

cept ofstigatees thaends ond theing onlue-bally conROI and

agerial discourse, SMA has remained a loose collection of academic texts and has had anegligible impact on managerial discourse and practice.

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introdu

Given thare routinehow and wwhile othetioners wouof academical validityleast claim)that they wprotabilityperspectiveronments aof a particubusiness pe2005; Jessothat althougmore know

E-mail add

1044-5005/$ doi:10.1016/j.ction

e huge volume of theories and concepts thatly generated in the academy and elsewhere,hy are some concepts chosen by practitionersrs are not? Academics may wish that practi-ld select management concepts on the basis

c criteria such as logical rigour and empiri-. On their part, practitioners may hope (or atthat they have selected concepts on the basisill increase their organizations efciency and. Yet the best concepts from a practitionermay not be obvious. Businesses and their envi-re so complex that links between the adoptionlar managerial concept and an improvement inrformance are oftendifcult to establish (Thrift,p, 2002).Oneconsequenceof suchcomplexity ishmany practisingmanagersmay have becomeing in terms of their business education and

ress: [email protected].

reading, they may also draw inspiration from managementgurus who offer them as much psychological re-assuranceand self-belief as hard practical knowledge (Thrift, 2005).

The paper mobilises discourse analysis, not to belittlethe importance of academic contributions or academic val-ues, but rather to better understand how some theories (orparts of theory) have apparently bridged the gap betweentheory and practice (Scapens, 1994). It argues that thedominant management accounting concepts used by prac-titioners are part of wider organizational and managerialdiscourses (Barley and Kunda, 1992; Thrift, 2005; Phillipset al., 2004). The basic premise of an organizational dis-course perspective is that language and texts (includingsome theoretical concepts) can be constitutive of organiza-tional practice. Discourse is not just about talk1; it affectsthe way managers frame their reality, ruling in some waysof thinking and doing and ruling out others. The action ori-entation of discourse is emphasised in Thrifts denition ofdiscourse as: practically oriented orders bent to the task of

1 Not that talking is not a vital and time-consuming part of managerialpractice! See Bruns (1997).

see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.mar.2010.02.007erial discourse and the link betweeOI to value-based management

University Business School, Loughborough, Ashby Road, Loughborough LE11

e i n f o

owledgerse analysisstmentanagement

agement accounting

a b s t r a c t

Building on Thrifts (2005) concourse analysis, the paper inveon practice. The paper proposaccounting affect practice depthe texts become discourses aapproach is illustrated by focusreturn on investment (ROI), vaaccounting (SMA) and empiricaThe paper explains that, whilsteory and practice:

the cultural circuit of capitalism using critical dis-s the inuence of management accounting conceptst the way that academic theories in managementn the origin of the early texts, the extent to whichrelative institutional support for the discourse. Thethree particular management accounting concepts:sed management (VBM) and strategic managementtextualised through the case history of GEC/Marconi.VBM have, to varying degrees, become part of man-

96 W. Seal / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 95109

constructing more or less durable social networks whichare constantly redened in order to cope with the vagariesof that task (2005, p. 48).

The production, dissemination and consumption ofmanagerial knowledge may be conceptualised as the cul-tural circuit of capitalism (Thrift, 2005). In the culturalcircuit of capitalism, management ideas ow betweeninstitutionalized producers of managerial knowledge suchas business schools, management consultants and man-agement guof capitalisdiscourse an2004). As wal. (2004) pnizational dcontrol systextent to wative institube shown laterised by dover others

On theacademic pHardy, 2002offer a fresagement acand inuenlaments thament accouguiding pratique of agemanagemetranslated isound theoof fashion-d(2009) havture seemsacademicalfrom otherstream, wh(Ryan, Scapreported inbe read byHowever, pit producesthat a certathe businesstudy withiLarcker, 20

The schresearch mfresh attemre-cast manaccounting1998; Lukk2009). Alte

2 The authomary stateme

arguments in themanagement accounting academy3 couldbe resolved through a better understanding of the pro-cesses by which management accounting knowledge isproduced, disseminated and operationalised. A model oftheseprocesses is developedvia adiscursiveperspectiveonthree particular management accounting concepts: returnon investment (ROI), value-based management (VBM) andstrategic management accounting (SMA). These three con-

are bracketed together because, in different and, incontrasting ways, they offer calculative techniquesay be used to inuence long term business decisions

ll as suggesting metrics that can be used for evaluat-orporaandSMgh a loct come papral cirnderstgerialued aIn theed to abetwentroducial coand wscusseand SM

e Cultutionledge

is secit of CaroductCC foutionanowlemanagt (2005owlede CCC

ns. Ondinging knand iness scnagertureMnagem

e absenm of thope of the academse of derther conhich is

erica.rus. This study elaborates the cultural circuitm framework through the method of criticalalysis (Fairclough, 1995, 2005; Phillips et al.,ill be argued in more detail later, Phillips etropose that the inuence of particular orga-iscourses (such as a management accountingem) depends on the origin of the early texts, thehich the texts become discourses and the rel-tional support for the discourse.2 As will alsoter, the cultural circuit of capitalism is charac-isjunctions and favours certain types of theory.premise that discourse analysis includes theroject itself within its analysis. . . (Phillips and, p. 2), a further contribution of this paper is to

h perspective on the apparent schism in man-counting research between doing good theorycing practice. The schism is expressed in thet either much theoretically informed manage-nting work is irrelevant to understanding orctice (see e.g., Johnson & Kaplans (1987) cri-ncy theory) or, alternatively, that many of thent accounting concepts that are discussed andnto action by practitioners are unsupported byry (see, e.g., Ittner and Larckers (2001) critiqueriven research). Indeed, asMalmi andGranlunde argued, the management accounting litera-to be divided into two streams. One stream isly respectable and based on theories borroweddisciplines (especially economics). The other

at might be termed Practice-oriented researchens and Theobald, 2002) is applied and is . . .professional journals that are more likely to

practitioners. . . (Ryan et al., 2002, pp. 9091).ractice-oriented research faces accusation thatpapers that are motivated purely by the factin topic has received considerable attention ins press, with little effort to place the practice orn some broader theoretical context (Ittner and01, p. 356).ism between practice- and theory-drivenay be healed in several ways. For example,pts may be undertaken to re-evaluate andagement accounting theory and managementresearchmethods (Kasanenet al., 1993;Kaplan,a and Mouritsen, 2002; Malmi and Granlund,rnatively, this paper contends that some of the

r is grateful to an anonymous referee for this succinct sum-nt.

ceptsoftenthat mas weing cVBMthroudefun

Thcultufor umanacritiqysis.applishipve inanGEC,six diVBM

2. Thinstiknow

ThCircuthepThe Cinstitrial kandThrifof kn

Thtutioaccorexistedgebusinofmaofmais ma

3 Thproblethe scnancmis-u

4 Rapany wof Amte performance. The discursive analysis of ROI,A is empirically andhistorically contextualisedngitudinal case study of a well known but nowpany called GEC.4

er is organized as follows. In section two, thecuit of capitalism is presented as a frameworkanding the production and dissemination ofknowledge. In section three, the framework isnd elaborated through critical discourse anal-fourth section, the elaborated framework isn historical analysis of the symbiotic relation-

en ROI and the divisionalised company. Sectionces the case of GEC and the discourse of thentrol model. In the context of the rise and fall ofith reference to the theoretical model, sections the relative impact of the three concepts: ROI,A. The paper is concluded in section seven.

tural Circuit of Capitalism and thealized production of managerial

tion describes how the concept of the Culturalpitalism (CCC) (Thrift, 2005) offers insights intoionandconsumptionofmanagerial knowledge.cuses on the exchange of ideas between threelized producers (and consumers) of manage-dge:business schools,management consultantsement gurus. The section highlights that, as) observes, the CCC promotes a particular sort

ge and a particular sort of practical theory.is sustained by an interlocking set of insti-

e key institution is the business school which,to Thrift, has systematized and reproducedowledge and . . .synthesized academic knowl-gested it back into business (2005, p. 85). Thehool has also enablednewmodesof interchangeial knowledge basedon thepractical experienceBAstudents.A secondkey institution in theCCCent consultancy. Thrift (2005) argues that man-

ce of a model that links theory and practice is not a peculiare management accounting academy. Although it is beyondis paper, it could be argued that disjunctions between they and banking practitioners may have contributed to the

ivative theory in the build up to the Credit crunch crisis.fusingly the acronym stands for General Electrical Com-similar to the even better known and still functioning GE

W. Seal / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 95109 97

Fig. 1. InstituThrift, 2005).

agement coclients andhave also csynthesisedsell to clientbusiness scment guru rof capitalisttheir own rtechnical mlogical skillaudiences.

Withoutit would secontributoragers andpris particulartion of accoconcepts, snorms of nOther contrmanagers wthat are intbut also fortutional bo1987). The Cand practicrepresented

2.1. Theorie

If thesethen whatbetween thThrift (200tially practinetwork is

procedures, organization charts, graphs, forms, and com-puter software with a third network specialising in thedissemination of soft skills related to psychology andhuman resources. Thrift (2005) argues that apart from

nance theories5, managers use relatively little eco-cs which, arguably, is predominantly a theory ofalism.6 Signicantly, given the focus on ROI in thisr, Thrift (2005) specically mentions the widespreadf return on capital employed. He also cites the bal-scorecard as a typical product of the interaction

een the three networks.thougxtualial knocreate) exameen poblemf thepainsrtain tndeedm (Thl theored, deresenes thealism.

aborasis

manaracticobiliseman,urse an) offerpt ofy thattions in the cultural circuit of capitalism (adapted from

nsultants take knowledge gained from theirthen sell that knowledge to others. Consultantsreated their own campuses where they haveacademic knowledge which they package ands.A third institution, oftenoverlappingwith thehool and management consultant, the manage-esponds especially to the performative natureicmanagement. As accomplishedperformers inight, management gurus usually combine someanagerial knowledge with important psycho-s with which they reassure their managerial

changing the conceptual integrity of the CCC,em appropriate to add other institutionalizeds tomanagerial knowledge, such as seniorman-ofessionalbodies. The roleof accountingbodiesly important for the production and legitimisa-

somenomicapitpapeuse oancedbetw

Alconteagerimay(2005betwunprtion ois atunce75). Iitalissociamentwill pognizcapit

3. Elanaly

Ifand pbe mKarredisco2004concetheorunting practices since even internal accountinguch as ROI, may be subject to the codicationancial accounting (Llwellyn and Milne, 2007).ibutors to managerial discourse include seniorho, as will be shown later, may write articlesended not just for their immediate colleaguesaudiences which span organizational and insti-undaries (Sloan, 1965; Johnson and Kaplan,CC and the interchange ofmanagerial concepts

es between institutionalized producers may bediagrammatically in Fig. 1.

s in capitalism

institutions produce managerial knowledgesort of theories do they create? Distinguishingeories in capitalism and theories of capitalism,5) argues that the former theories are essen-cal and derive from three main networks. Onebased on book-keeping, another on written

3.1. Criticalmaterial act

Earlier idiscoursesity and thado thingsanalysis (CDdiscoursal anever comsocial realitwithin whi

5 The role ofis a good if som(see note 3).

6 This pointmade in the acNapier, 1996)should not beh the CCC is a useful broad framework forsing the production and consumption of man-wledge, it could be argued that the concepta general impression that, as with Thriftsple of the balanced scorecard, the owof ideas

ractitioners and the academy is smooth andatic. Yet this somewhat Panglossian interpreta-CCC is not one that Thrift would support, as heto stress just how tentative, tendentious andhe global capitalist order really is (2005, p., if social theory now has a direct line to cap-rift, 2005, p. 33) then it is particular type ofy that sees the world as in a state of ux, frag-centred, transitory, and so on. The next sectiont and discuss an analytical approach that rec-messy and complex aspects of contemporary

ting the CCC through critical discourse

gerial discourse is a key link between theorye, then what sort of discursive analysis shouldd for organizational research (Alvesson and

2000)? In this section it is argued that criticalalysis (Fairclough, 1995, 2005; Phillips et al.,

s a productive way of elaborating on the basicthe CCC in order to further analyse the sort ofinforms capitalist practice.

discourse analysis: a space for agency andion

n this paper, the signicance of managerialwas that they helped to frame managers real-t discourses do not just describe things; they(Hall, 2001, p. 72). Yet in critical discourseA, forthwith), there is space foragency andnon-

ction. According to Phillips, et al., discourses arepletely cohesive and never able to determiney totally. . .(I)nstead, a substantial space existsch agents can act self-interestedly . . . (2004,

option pricingmodels in the development of securitisationewhat controversial example of theory affecting practice

about the theoretical thrust of economics has also beencounting literature (see e.g. Klamer and McCloskey, 1992;

. The impact of economic theory on public policy discourseunderestimated as Keynes (1936) so famously noted.


p. 637). Self-interested action is discoursal when actorsseek to inuence discourses that advance their particularinterests (see e.g., Amernic and Craig, 2006). But, in CDA,not all action is discoursal and organizational reality is onlypartially socially constructed (Fairclough, 2005). The ontol-ogy of CDA is one of critical realism which is moderatelysocially constructivist but rejects the tendency for the studyof organization to be reduced to the study of discourse,. . .(Fairclough, 2005, p. 916).

3.2. What a

Discoursaccessed ththis paper(not just wsemiotic tesocial evenpaper alsonancial rareports andwith writtemathematiIn CDA, acctive of somtexts thatagerial discsocially conness gamewinning an

3.3. Action,

Since acof texts (Pnizational athe paper iswhich maythe texts inorganizatioorganizatiosignicantproduced ain journals,mixture ofsultants anThrift, 2005

The relasive: actiondiscoursesways of thisible or cos(2004) addcourse and

7 This theormay be seen aagement accouand commercAhrens and Ch

are even more signicant in guiding behaviour as theyare self-regulating, socially constructed mechanisms thatenforce their application (Phillips et al., 2004, p. 638). Inthis paper, it will be shown that management accountingconcepts hainstitutionaimpact on pstudy, it is pof the manabecoming inates mana

ibed a

Disjunc

anageme acin theCC, thct, maal prace langcademaplando notns crsis ofess scTheirnced

ead toJohnsoaplan

in theconomof ine

epts anhnsonanageries ism maes of tsearchd themomic rhip betobealy of thor mayational efies ans (Abrof thewhic

ocial ahal, 20l textot helis beyinnovare texts?

es cannot be observed directly, they arerough the study of texts. Following Fairclough,uses the term text in a generalized senseritten text but also spoken interaction, multi-levisual text, etc.) for the discoursal element ofts (2005, p. 925, original quotation marks). Theincludes as texts, sets of accounts, budgets,tios, and so on. Accounting texts (such as annual

academic papers) tend to be multi-semioticn language, numbers (in specied formats),

cal symbols, diagrams and even photographs.ounting numbers are seen not as representa-e spurious notion of economic reality but ascontribute to wider organizational and man-ourses. Thus, although accounting numbers arestituted, they are located within a set of busi-s and have resonance and meaning in terms ofd losing (Mouck, 2004).7

institutionalization and hegemony

tion affects discourse through the productionhillips et al., 2004, p. 640), and the key orga-ctors in this study are managers, the focus ofon a subgenre of the organizational discoursebe termed the managerial discourse. Some ofthe managerial discourse are produced withinns as practitioners seek to make sense of theirnal reality (Phillips et al., 2004). A rather morepart of the managerial discourse, however, iscross organizations as texts that are publishedread by practitioners and contributed to by a

academics, senior managers, management con-d management gurus (Barley and Kunda, 1992;).tionship between action and discourse is recur-

leads to the production of discourse andaffect managerial action by making certainnking and acting possible, and others impos-tly (Phillips et al., 2004, p. 638). Phillips et al.itionally stress the relationship between dis-institutionalization. In their model, institutions

etical and methodological approach to accounting numberss responding to some recent criticisms of interpretive man-nting research in that it has neglected the role of economic

ial logics in explanations of practice (Nrreklit et al., 2006;apman, 2007).

descr

3.4.

Mbecowiththe CrespeageriIn ththe aand KtheyKaplaanalybusintice.inuecan lROI (and Ktioncost etionsconc

Joof mcentustreasourcing reregarecontionsseemsuppmayinnovrationtheorationviewtic inthe sGhosreticaand n

Itiousve different degrees of institutionalization andl support which helps to explain their relativeractice. However, as will be seen from the caseossible for a collection of texts to become partgerial discourse and inuence practice withoutnstitutionalized. If a particular discourse domi-gerial thinking and action then it may fairly bes being hegemonic (Fairclough, 2005).

tions in the CCC and Relevance Lost

ment texts may be produced in the academy,ademic texts and become institutionalizedacademy. Yet unless these texts become part ofey may have little inuence on practice. In thisnagerial knowledge in the academy and man-tice may become detached from one another.uage of management accounting researchers,ic discourse may lose relevance (Johnson, 1987; Malmi and Granlund, 2009). Althoughuse discourse analysis explicitly, Johnson and

itique of management accounting is partly anhow managerial knowledge as reproduced inhools became detached from managerial prac-work describes how managerial practice is

bywhatmanagers learn in business schools andan incorrect application of a technique such asnandKaplan, 1987, ch. 8). Yet although Johnson(1987) identied a good example of a disjunc-CCC, their efciency-based theory (transactionics) is difcult to reconcile with their observa-

fcient applications of management accountingd irrelevant academic theories.andKaplans interpretationof thedevelopmentment accounting in the 19th and early 20than example of what might be termed main-

nagement accounting research. One of the mainheoretical inspiration in mainstream account-is economics, a discipline in which academicsselves as scientic researchers of an objective

eality (Ryan et al., 2002). The view on the rela-tween theory and practice in economics wouldn implicit assumption that academicsprovide aeoretical models and empirical research whichnot meet the demands of practitioners. In the

literature, this viewpoint can be linked to thecient choice model in which managers choosedpractices that increase efciency of their oper-ahamson, 1991; Malmi, 1999). In the realistory and practice, there is no double hermeneu-h social theories can change the behaviour ofctors that are the subjects of research (see e.g.,05). In mainstream economic ontology, theo-s are seen as representing an external realityping to create it.ond the scope of this paper to explore the var-tion theories beyond repeating the criticism


of the rational choice approach that organizations haveunclear goals and high uncertainty about the technical ef-ciency of administrative technologies,. . . (Malmi, 1999, p.652). Given space limitations, it is probably more produc-tive to indicate research approaches in the managementaccounting literature that are closely related to the dis-course analysis in this paper. One such approach exploresthe impacts of rhetoric (Nrreklit, 2003) and communication(Ax and Bjrnenak, 2005). Noting the widespread adoptionof the balance scorecard, thesepapers argue that the imple-mentation of particular management accounting conceptsis helped ifrhetoric. Astinction beparticularlytheoreticallfailed to pe

Althougused by thacceptanceof senior mvincing frowith the inthere is a csuppliers ofnance andthen managcally decieapproachesbased approor rhetoricathe contribmore nuancVBM by vienical speciof the techn

3.5. Locatinin the CCC

Texts onication ofarguments.are usuallymance of d2008; Bhimtext of divisto be betteamount of pital employthe assumpvia residualresidual incfrom nanc

8 The allegements from are more easi(OHanlan & P

9 See also thand Granlund

key nancial metric in VBM is residual income, then thelatter can be presented as Wall Streets gift to manage-ment accounting (OHanlan and Peasnell, 1998). Yet bothROI and VBM are more than just metrics. Malmi andGranlund argue that VBM is not a theory of account-ing practice but a theory of organizational performance,including accounting-related issues as a mechanism ofexplaining outcomes (2009, p. 605).

For reasons that will be explained later, the third con-ceptof SMA is exceptionallyhard to summarizeandwill notalways be found in management accounting textbooks. As

y geness of pata abloping, p. 26ase stativehts froarr, 1eoreticent acces asanageizatioon geBM anas drabe seefrom

; Malmeemsas wilic hasse it wutionaration

I andionalis

histoially ipt whn thatby be

d stratng thed thatnal strurse oxpansn, 198part o

e allegesing ROwith re

it considf criticirury, 20the basic ideas are presented via an effectivewill be shown later, Norreklits (2003) dis-

tween convincing and persuasive arguments ispertinent when considering why apparently

y convincing approaches (such as SMA) haversuade practitioners.h the secret of persuasion lies in the rhetorice proponents of an innovation, the secret oflies in the interests of the potential audienceanagement. In short, a practice may be con-m an academic point of view but may clashterests of senior managers. For example, if

onict between the interests of managers andcapital as is suggested in the corporate gover-

agency literatures (Shleifer and Vishny, 1997),ers may prefer a metric that may be theoreti-nt8 (such as ROI) over alternative, value-based. Even more subtly, they may adopt a value-ach but apply it in an incomplete, inconsistentl manner (Malmi and Ikheimo, 2003). One ofutions of rhetorical analysis is that it offers aed interpretation of concepts such as ROI andwing them as innovation bundlespart tech-cation and part rhetoric to promote the effectsiques (Ax and Bjrnenak, 2005).

g the conceptual status of ROI, VBM and SMA

ROI, VBM and SMA usually combine a spec-technical characteristics with justicatory

In textbooks, ROI and VBM are concepts thatfound in chapters on measuring the perfor-ivisions that are investment centres (Drury,ani et al., 2008; Seal et al., 2008). In the con-ional performance measurement, ROI is arguedr than prot because it is a ratio that links therot made in the division to a measure of cap-ed. The argument for VBM9 is usually based ontion that shareholder value is best measuredincome. The alleged theoretical superiority ofome over ROI is based on arguments drawne theory (Solomon, 1966). In particular, if the

d theoretical deciency of ROI is generally based on argu-nance that value based measures such as residual incomely equated with stock market related valuation modelseasnell, 1998).e recent discussion on the theory status of VBM in Malmi(2009).

a verproceing ddeve1981the cnorminsigand Cits thagemsciengic morganfocusics. Vwellmaycepts1999ROI sYet,metrbecauinstitcorpo

4. ROdivis

Inespecconceshowaidedlinkeportiarguezatiodiscorate eKaplaearly

10 Thagers uUnlikeexplicsorts o(e.g. Dral working denition, SMA may be seen as therovision and analysis ofmanagement account-out a business and its competitors for use inand monitoring business strategy (Simmonds,). As will be elaborated later in the context ofudy, it is also important to regard SMA as adiscourse that can potentially unify theoreticalm nance and strategic management (Tomkins996). In its essence, SMA is transdisciplinary inal scope, drawing on general logics from man-counting, nance, economics, and behaviouralwell as more specialised concepts from strate-ment. SMA tends to rely on a broader set ofnal outcomes than ROI and VBM with moreneric strategies and market positioning log-d ROI are also transdisciplinary concepts. Aswing on nance and accounting logics, VBMn as encapsulating implicit and explicit con-organizational and behavioural theory (Otley,i and Granlund, 2009). Of the three concepts,to be the most focused on accounting logics.l be shown below, this particular accountingplayed a signicant historical role in the CCCas associated with a wider organizational andldevelopmentthe spreadof thedivisionalised.

the managerial discourse of theed corporation

rical terms, ROI precedes SMA and VBM and,n the VBM discourse, is presented as the awedich can, and should, be replaced.10 It will bethe impact of ROI on practice was signicantlying part of a wider managerial discourse thategy, structure and accounting metrics. By sup-growth of the divisionalised corporation, it isthe famous Du Pont ROI model linked organi-

ucture and management accounting into a singlen the best way to enable and manage corpo-ion (Sloan, 1965; Chandler, 1962; Johnson and7). In historical terms, the period begins in thef the 20th century and ends with the fall of the

d aws of ROI include the possibility that divisional man-Iwill reject projects that corporatemanagerswould accept.sidual income (the preferred metric in VBM), there is noeration of the cost of capital (see also footnote 8). Thesesms may be found in management accounting textbooks08; Seal et al., 2008).


Fig. 2. Relatio(from Phillips

Berlin Wallthe term ththinking indowned (Tcorporationof theColdWitalist ideolschools tenof manager

The devpreted byAlthough thof the divisiCDA todeveaction, textnot all acticourses andet al. (2004step by stecourse; andtext is closeinvolves thtriggered b2004, p. 64more likelyfrom sensetions legitiactors.

The nexcerns the etake the fopretable, aon other teestablishedmore likelyfrom discocoherent andiscourseto produceaction, textFig. 2.

4.1. Historical and contingent factors in the relationshipbetween action and discourse

e relationship between action and discourse variestime and according to the complexity of the man-ent task. Early texts, usually written by managersselves, often exhibit a sort of informal contingencyy coupled with strong functionalist interpretationssiness. The managers relate how they faced speciclems ag withroblemed anbecome. Forpropon indu; Bhim

ROI an

e busere ind of thlmerticularuencing ofied oures ter et aknewaanies,l chartlips etandleontribal disclly assanag

ldson, 1965he prior siment renship between action, texts, discourse and institutionset al., 2004).

(Thrift, 2005). In terms of the CCC, Thrift coinse Joshua discourse to characterise managerialan era when the hierarchical and button-

hrift, 2005, p. 31) world of the divisionalisedseemed congruent with the wider certaintiesar and rivalry betweenovert socialist and cap-

ogies. This periodwas also an erawhenbusinessded to follow rather than lead in the productionial knowledge.elopment and diffusion of ROI may be inter-extending the work of Phillips et al. (2004).ey applied their approach to explain the spreadonalised corporation, Phillips et al. (2004) usedlop a generalmodel of the relationship betweens, discourse and institutions. Recognizing thatons produce texts, not all texts produce dis-not all discourses produce institutions, Phillips) put forward propositions which suggest ap progression from action to text; text to dis-discourse to institutions. Action that produces

ly related toorganizational sensemakingwhiche retrospective interpretation of actions and isy surprises, puzzles, or problems (Phillips et al.,1). Phillips et al. (2004) propose that texts areto be widely disseminated if they have resulted

Thoveragemthemtheorof buprob(alonthe pmalisitselfcoursit isdrive2008

4.2.

ThROI wspreaof Paa parits inthinkidentpressPalmtors comptiona(Phil

Chkey cageriusuakey mDonaSloanhad tpanydiffermaking activity, if they enhance the organiza-

macy and if they are produced by signicant

t stage in the institutionalization process con-mbedding of text in discourse. Those texts thatrm of genres, which are recognizable, inter-nd usable in other organizations and drawxts within the discourse and on other well-discourses (Phillips et al., 2004, p. 644) areto succeed here. Finally, in respect of the moveurse to institution, discourses that are mored structured and are supported by broader

(Phillips et al., 2004, p. 645) are more likelyinstitutions. The general relationship betweens, institutions and discourse is summarized in

form of dectices that bthe rm anrealm thatinvestors, blished in leadisseminatthrough thement innovfurther emb

11 The inuework from therole in the spprepared vidend crises and how their accounting techniquesother practices) could be seen as solutions tos (Sloan, 1965). As the texts become more for-

d institutionalized, the contingency approaches institutionalized in the managerial dis-

example, in management accounting textbookssed that process costing ts certain processstries whilst job costing ts others (Drury,ani et al., 2008; Seal et al., 2008).

d divisionalisation: contexts and texts

iness and organizational contexts for texts ontimately associated with the development ande multi-divisional corporation. Citing the work

et al. (1993), Phillips et al. (2004) argue thattext by Chandler (1962) was central through

e in elite business schools and hence on thesenior managers. Furthermore, although theyther isomorphic inuences such as the mimetichat derived from interlocking directorships,l. (1993) argued that most of what the direc-bout their owncompanies, andespecially otherwould have come from texts such as organiza-s, reports, conversations, stories, and so forthal., 2004, p. 639).11

rs work was important but there were otherutors to managerial texts. The original man-ourse of the divisionalised company story isociated with the actions and writings of a fewers such as Sloan at General Motors (GM) andBrownat bothGMandDuPont (Chandler, 1962;). The pioneers of the divisionalised companyme motives of either wishing to grow the com-ply of trying to control companies that had forasons become too large to controlwithout someentralization (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987). Prac-egan as innovations were reproduced withind institutionalized in the wider institutionalwas comprised of other rms in the industry,anks and professions. As they became estab-dingrms, thepractices become routinised anded through imitation, professional norms andinuence of specialist practitioners ofmanage-ations such as consultants. These actions wereedded through the production of a managerial

nce of textsmaybe corroborated andupdated througheld-case study in this paper where it was discovered that a keyread of value based management in GEC was a speciallyo that was shown throughout the company.


discourse that legitimised a new breed of diversied con-glomerates, such as GEC, that emerged in the 1960s and70s.

Strategy and structure (Chandler, 1962) was a key textbecause itw(1962) focutionally mabeyond acc17). Chandltions develoof companEach compatices of Amexample, Ge1920s in ardemand. GMThe new stof standardon standardas the new1987).

4.3. Sloan aaccounting

Althoughis own vedescribed ttime at GMrole of thepractices haSloan (1965texts and prthe early pa

The specwere intcame tothe begiassociatwho wacontribuognizedclassicsconceptsp. 116).

Sloansmanagers tgency basismay even ethe relationple, Sloan (gamewheargued that

. . .I imagterms ofto speak

Since inconstruct th

nizational charts, sales graphs and so on, it can be seenthat such texts do not simply represent reality, they helpto shape it (Phillips and Hardy, 2002). The constitutivenature of management accounting rules and routines in

oordinrationapabilpts. In

are oftas coSeal etritingitial p

), Channd div

Geneterprip lineeratinvisionsisteded aloncentrms ofowns

andleof an

theyc:

odernlocatiodureswell aonomonitore standntinen

he ins

andlestitutany. Aminisecamel parlavel ofand itsentat, an elivisions alsoorganietorictries.ationcial con).as sowidely used in business schools. Chandlersed on four rms that initially were conven-naged by American standards but then wentepted practices in American industry (1962, p.er made the point that organizational innova-ped independently in each company as result

y growth, complexity and chosen strategies.ny found that the old (institutionalized) prac-erican industry were no longer adequate. ForneralMotors (GM) faced a series of crises in the

eas such as liquidity, stock control, and volatileevolved a new structure of divisionalisation.

ructures were supported by the introductionised accounting rules, standard costing basedvolumes and centralized cash controls as wellROI model (Sloan, 1965; Johnson and Kaplan,

nd the constitutive role of managementconcepts

h he did not use the term, Sloan (1965) hadrsion of organizational sensemaking as hehe challenges and solutions developed in his. Sloan (1965) was unambiguous about the keyprinciple of rate of return (ROI) and how thed been brought in by executives from Du Pont.) also described how the interaction betweenactice had inuenced the nancial discourse inrt of the 20th century. He explained that:

ic forms of nancial control in GeneralMotorsroduced in good part byDonaldson Brown,whoGeneral Motors from the du Pont Company atnning of 1921, and Albert Bradley, his younge who came to General Motors in 1919 ands to succeed me as chairman of the board. Theirtions to nancial thought have long been rec-. They wrote papers on the subject which areof the 1920s, and at the same time put theirinto practice in General Motors. (Sloan, 1965,

(1965) work shows that although practicingend to rationalise their decisions on a contin-, they also recognize the inuence of texts andxhibit an ontologically sophisticated view onship between texts and practice. For exam-1965) used the imagery of the rules of then talking about business. In respect to ROI, Sloan:

ine that every businessman evaluates prots inhis total investment. It is a rule of the game so(1965, p. 140, emphasis added).

discourse analysis, it is argued that managerseir organizational reality from accounts, orga-

the ccorpoand cconcetionsuchtre (

Wthe in1962ROI a

AtentoopdiAsiscoteBr

Chtancewhatput it

(Malceasecmthco

4.4. T

Chthe incompof adROI btionathe lepanyrepremorethe d waThisor rhindusregulnan1987ation of the rm means that the divisionalisedis dened and enabled through the availabilityity of management accounting procedures anddeed, the forms of organizational decentraliza-en expressed in terms of accounting conceptsst centre, prot centre and investment cen-al., 2008).in an accounting journal some years afterublication of Strategy and Structure (Chandler,dler andDaemsexplained the key link betweenisionalisation as follows:

ral Motors and du Pont, as became true at otherses adopting the new multidivisional form, theexecutives were relieved of all day-to-day

g responsibility. These tasks were left to themanagersand their linedepartmentexecutives.by a large nancial and advisory staff (organ-ng functional lines), the general executivesrated on monitoring divisional performance inrate of return on investment (using Donaldsonformula) and market share (1979, p. 14).

r and Daems (1979) acknowledged the impor-emerging managerial discourse in spreading

all modern techniques.AsChandler andDaems

methods of administrative coordination andn) . . . have become the standard operating pro-in most modern business enterprises in Europes theUnited States to carry out the fundamentalic functions of the modern rm: coordination,ing and allocation. And so they have becomeard subjects taught at business schools onbothts (1979, p. 17).

titutionalization of the nancial control style

r and Daems (1979) were in effect announcingionalization of both ROI and the divisionalisedt the level of the company, the techniques

tration associated with divisionalisation andstandard operating procedures or in institu-

nce, routinised (Burns and Scapens, 2000). Atacademic institutions, the divisionalised com-s associated control techniques were taught asive of good practice and modernity. Further-aboration on the discourse of the expansion ofalised company the diversied conglomerateproposed as a desirable organizational form.zational form had its own specic discoursebased around the expansion into unrelated

Such unrelated expansion avoided anti-trustbut was enabled through a particular type oftrol style (Fligstein, 1991; Goold and Campbell,


4.5. Changes in the wider managerial discourse: thede-institutionalization of the conglomerate and criticismsof ROI

In CDA,conditionsJust as organd practiized via diprocess ofthe same eby the 19course swuet al., 1994pany or M(Hoskissonemphasisedand Hamelhierarchicaperiod alsoresidual inas part of2001).

Some oftraced to thcourse. In pnance witive in geimplicit crilary of thedemergingcore activitfor modernion for focuin the 1990ever had vaprovide invcation (Leliterature, cgestions fo1966).

Overall,strategy lithe congloal., 1994).that the rtion couldby a self-it:

One posket valuof the 1capital mglomerathe 1960ing the atheoristallocatiothe who1992, p.

4.6. The impact on the managerial discourse of materialand regulatory changes

Economic and regulatory changesmay be seen as eventsh playns of o

., evention aacticeres; arite, co5).

e decol styc ande avaased is a mist-uptime,ade a980s sS (Jen, hostierican (19

e dismuyersection. . (19eant

able foholder.e nexl practandSMase illay thnal bo. It alsquesti

C: a cnizatio

pandiadoptetyle wisionaodel iined tanywy theg thegemees oned it tool systthe relationship between changes in materialand discourses can work in both directions.anizational forms such as the conglomerateces such as ROI can become institutional-scourse (Phillips et al., 2004); the oppositede-institutionalization can be modelled usinglements of action, text and discourse. Thus80s and 90s, the strategic managerial dis-ng against the conglomerate structure (Davis). Suggestions that the multi-divisional com--form had become an organizational fossilet al., 1993) were related to arguments thata search for core competencies (Prahalad

, 1990) and proposed networked rather thanl organizational structures (Thrift, 2005). This

saw the revival of interest in forms ofcome such as Economic Value Added (EVA)a wider call for VBM (Ittner and Larcker,

the criticisms of the conglomerate could beeoretical developments in the academic dis-articular, the Modigliani-Miller revolution in

th its advocacy of the homemade alterna-aring and dividends had long provided anticism of corporate diversication. The corol-se views was that value may be created byunrelated businesses and subcontracting non-ies (Davis et al., 1994). Indeed, the challengenance theory is not in explaining the fash-s that emerged in US and UK capital marketss but rather in explaining why conglomerateslue in nancial markets that were supposed toestors with opportunities for low cost diversi-vy and Sarnat, 1970). In the related accountingriticisms of ROI were emerging along with sug-r the adoption of residual income (Solomon,

it seemed that discourses in the nance andteratures were beginning to de-legitimisemerate form of organization (Davis etFor example, Baker (1992) hypothesised

ise and fall of the diversied conglomera-be explained as a market error inducedserving managerial discourse. As he put

sible explanation of these facts is that the mar-e increases that accompanied the acquisitions960s and early 1970s were the result of thearkets misunderstanding of the effects of con-

tion. Such a hypothesis supposes that durings and 1970s investors were fooled into accept-rguments ofmanagers (andmanymanagements) that centralized decision-making and capitaln would lead to synergies which would makele worth more than the sum of the parts (Baker,1111).

whictatio

. .laprtuw92

Thcontrnomias thincreate aa busameicy mThe 1the Ulargeof Amizatioof thgic ba rerm.tion mavailsharepowe

ThsociaVBMGEC cthe wnatiotionswasSMA.

5. GEorga

ExGECtrol sof divUS msustacompand bDurinmanacoursthat lcontra particularly signicant role in CDA interpre-rganizational change. According to Fairclough:

ts (and therefore texts) are points of articu-nd tension between two causal forces: socials and, through their mediation, social struc-nd the agency of the social actors who speak,mpose, read, listen to, interpret them. (2005, p.

line of the conglomerate and of the nancialle was prompted by a convergence of eco-regulatory events. Baker (1992) argued thatilability of managerial expertise and capitaln 1980s, the advantages of the conglomer-ni capital market became less signicant andstrategy became an efcient option. At thea more relaxed attitude in US anti-trust pol-cquisitions in the same industry much easier.aw the rise of the bust-up hostile take-over insen, 1986). Bhagat et al., argued that (B)y andle takeovers represent the de-conglomerationn business and a return to corporate special-90, p. 2). They concluded that the main buyersembered pieces of conglomerates were strate-and that hostile takeovers . . .are not typicallyof change in the internal organization of the90, p. 57). The relaxation of anti-trust regula-that diversication was no longer the only router growth-minded predators that could capturer value through the simple exercise of market

t section picks up the relationship betweenice and discourse as the varying fortunes of ROI,Aare traced inanhistorical accountofGEC. The

ustrates the international scope of the CCC andat managerial knowledge is transferred acrossundaries and across organizations and institu-o covers a period when the hegemony of ROIoned in the emergent discourses of VBM and

ase study in relation betweennal change and managerial discourses

ng through acquisitions in the 1960s and 70s,d a divisional structure and a nancial con-hich seemed to imitate the American pioneerslisation. GEC followed a similar pattern to then that the action and texts that produced andhe structures and control mechanisms of theere legitimised in thewider institutional sphereprevailing discourse on strategy and structure.1980s and 90s, however, the structure and

nt style of GEC were criticized through new dis-organizational structure and nancial strategychange its strategy, structure andmanagementem.


5.1. Accounting ratios and control routines in GEC

Just as the early days of divisionalisation in the US wereassociated with a few pioneering individuals so the busi-ness style ocircle compDavid Lewisseemed haphaphazardsystem. Arlows:

In time,emphasiperformthat thistook sevbut by thfor manmanage

Weinstostatistics. Husingmana1998). He dagers to theresulting Pointernal repthe introdu

On theback, Wwhich threturn ocapital eand pro

GEC appspartan heaber of genemany as 14market envGEC as manAccording ttrol style ofand does nogies but mseems totthe responsstock moniand oftenbetween thularly tightencouragin

Lord Weon businthem tostock woand he sand youyour prop. 118).

Business units had to submit a monthly report, whichwould be analysed by Weinstock. The format was rigid.The rst page contained a number of gures such as theratio of sales and prot to capital employed, debtors ratios

a cumt pagenancia

ovisionwas idarent rempharesultd scruool ter (Beshort,

nes ofe pionas Dupwere960sgh acqxpanspolicythe imerivedboom

hich hgemefamouf orgaloyd, 1einstortanceutionaent stectinBritishand seinstoh electy gurol of i4). Thuoutinellishediationstockshort,wasstockvestoror parsobscu

. As wtrust ps werventustock mdifcucus bf GEC was developed and sustained by an innerrising Arnold Weinstock, Kenneth Bond and.While the growthofGECmay sometimeshavehazard and opportunistic, there was nothing

about what Aris (1998) dubbed the Weinstockis describes the impact of Weinstock as fol-

the Weinstock system with its hard-drivingsonmanagerial accountability andquantiableancewould become legendary. It should be saidsystem did not come into being overnight: iteral years of trial and error for it to be rened,e mid-1960s, the main elements of what was,

y, a new and thoroughly alarming system ofment were in place and in force (1998, p. 39).

ck was a graduate of the LSE with training ine was dismissive of the emerging craze forgement consultants and employingMBAs (Aris,id, however, send one of his top nance man-US to learn about the use of nancial ratios. Thewell report became the basis for GECsmonthlyorting system. Brummer and Cowe describedction of ratio analysis as follows:

basis of the information that Powell broughteinstock and Bond built seven key ratios byeir operating companies would be measured:n capital, return on sales, sales as a multiple ofmployed,xedassets andstocks, aswell as salest per employee (1999, p. 98).

lied a management style based on a small andd ofce that sought to control a large num-rally unrelated business units (sometimes as0). Never designed to t a particular product-ironment, Goold and Campbell (1987) classiedaging diversity through a nancial control style.o Goold and Campbell (1987), the nancial con-management creates stand-alone companies,t formally intervene in the companies strate-

onitors results through nancial targets. GECthemodel perfectly becausewhile strategywasibility of the various investment centres, Wein-tored their nancial performance frequentlypersonally. In GECs case, the nancial linkse centre and the business units were partic-. The approach was constraining rather thang. Goold and Campbell put it thus:

instock sees his role as acting as a constraintess management rather than as encouragingbe bold. As Derek Roberts explained, Wein-uld say that if you come to him with a projectays to you No, dont go ahead with that one,go away andnever raise the subject again, themject cant have been very important.. . .. (1987,

andquento a of prcashthe plittleidatewoula schbette

Inrouti

ThsuchROI)the 1throuThe ementfromples din thetry wmanaan inlack oand L

Wimpoinstitagemas rethatmything WBritisa kesymbp. 22ing rembeassocWein

InstockWeinas intion fcouldtionsanti-sitionjointnewmoregic foulative record of sales per employee. Subse-s would include further details of signicancel accounting perspective such as a breakdowns and capital employed. In the latter analysis,entied as negative fundingthe property ofather than the subsidiary! There was relativelysis on prot and loss and no attempt to consol-s until the year-end. Every month, Weinstocktinize the nancial gures and mark them likeacher10 percent return on sales? Could donnett, p. 2, 1996).accounting ratios were a central part of GECsmanagement and internal reporting.eering practices of divisionalised companiesont and General Motors (including the use of

common knowledge in Britain by the end ofas were the more recent examples of growthuisition by companies such as Litton industriesion of GEC may have been aided by UK govern-but the management style was derived partlyitation of US methods and partly from princi-from Weinstocks earlier business experienceand bust cycles of the UK TV and radio indus-

ad taught him the survival value of careful cashnt. Indeed, over time, the companyaccumulateds cash mountain as well as a reputation for anic growth (Goold and Campbell, 1987; Manley989).cks career and the growth of GEC illustrate theof understanding the interplay between action,l forces and managerial discourse. GECs man-yle was widely admired in the 1960s and 70sg just the sort of modern and disciplined traitsindustry had previously lacked. The role of

ymbolism was extremely important in explain-cks emergence as the dominant gure in therical industry. In the late 1960s,Weinstockwase of contemporary British mythology and andustrial efciency (Jones and Marriott, 1970,s although there was substance in the report-s that Weinstock introduced, their power wasbeyond the connes of the company by theirwith the mythological aura that surrounded

for at least two decades.the managerial rhetoric associated with Wein-at least as inuential as the substance of thesystem in persuading key external actors suchs and government. Thus, polishing its reputa-imony and tight nancial control, the companyre a lack of organic growth through acquisi-ith US conglomerates in the 1960s and 70s,roblems could be avoided as long as the acqui-e not in related industries or were disguised asres (as with Siemens and Plessey). But, with a

arket climate in the 1990s making life muchlt for the conglomerate, demerger and strate-ecame more fashionable and the Weinstock


Fig. 3. GEC/MAs explained l ed char

approach scourse.

5.2. Specic

GEC hadcisms of itspointed oucost-plustight accouroundly critronics sectby the manlent exampbeen so in

In termtronicsprocesseagementhe earlyment oflean cornanciamance tstrategy

One of tstructure aket performdescribed abeen spectaabout the oin the 1990as nance twith returnle. As canthe FT All smanageme

If the chmarket failuthe institutemerging c

questiEC buthe ceuct-maated tis an inurse int arguefci(suppalmarhat thtors monstrualonethe sa

The Simanag

thouggh theand ein 199, procothernd BTRreatorarconi against the FTAllshare index.ater the company changed its name from GEC to Marconi. The down load

eemed out of step with a new managerial dis-

criticisms of GEC in the managerial discourse

long been the target of more specic criti-management style (Foster, 1989). Aris (1998)

t that while the company could milk the cosyrelationships in defence and telecoms throughnting controls, this form of management wasticized in the more competitive consumer elec-or.Aris (1998)quotes awidelypublicized reportagement consultants McKinsey that is an excel-le of the change in business rhetoric that haduential in the US. McKinsey stated that:

s of organisational evolution, many UK elec-companies have structures and managements which were state of the art for the man-t of diversied portfolios in the late 1960s and1970s, but which worked against the develop-successful international businesses. Each haveporate centres primarily playing the role of al holding company,monitoring nancial perfor-ightly but providing very limited planning andformulation support (Aris, 1998, p. 164165).

he reasons that GEC could resist changing itsnd processes was that although its stock mar-

cicjust Gdoesproddelegofferdiscomighmoreviewcapitand tinvesand cstandto do

5.3.new m

Althroucomsonlytureswithson athe cance was sometimes lacklustre, it could not bes catastrophic. Its early growth and rewards hadcular and even Weinstocks critics were unsureverall verdict on his era (Lorenz, 1996). Indeed,s, the company actually performed pretty muchheory would predict for a diversied companys that matched its particular (low) risk pro-be seen in Fig. 3, GEC approximately trackedhare index in the period before the change ofnt and strategy in 1996.ange of strategy at GEC was not forced by stockre, then there must have been other factors in

ional realm and, even more importantly, in theritique of the conglomerate. Indeed, one spe-

on until hecontrol sysdirector (Geteam took o

Respondformance tawarded antom optionthan genuiholders nsimilarly lin1996, p. 23Simpson cial ratio st referred to the companys new name.

on in the managerial discourse challenged nott other nancial control companies: what valuentre add? (Goold and Campbell, 1987). For ifrket strategy planning and implementation is

o the business unit, then all the centre seems toternal capital allocation role.Whilst thenancethe early days of the divisionalised company

e that an internal capital market might operateently than the external market, the emergentorted by nance theory) was that the externalketwas at least as efcient as internal allocatione centre did not add any value. Furthermore,ight prefer to take the homemade alternativect their own portfolios through investment inbusinesses rather thanpay corporatemanagersme job!

pson-Mayo era: new managers enact theerial discourse

h GECs institutional supports were weakenedprivatization and de-regulation of the UK tele-

lectricity generating sectors in the 1980s, it was6 that the company began to change its struc-esses and strategies (Aris, 1998). In commonwell known British conglomerates such as Han-, GEC faced a crisis of succession as Weinstock,and driving force behind the company, worked

was 72. The dismantling of the Weinstock

tem nally came about when a new managingorge Simpson) and a new senior managementver in 1996.ing to fashionable calls to tie managerial per-o the stock market, Simpson was initiallyextremely generous contract based on phan-

s that rewarded share price uctuation ratherne growth. Pressure from institutional share-ally produced a scheme that was tighter butked to GECs stock market performance (Cave,; Laurance, 1996, p. 7). Interestingly, one ofrst changes was to ditch Weinstocks nan-ystem (Observer, 1996, p. 21) and introduce


an EVA form of value-based management. These changesin nancial control systems accompanied a new strategythat rapidly moved the company away from its diversi-ed structure. GEC now had a new business rhetoric thatsimultaneofocus.

The newwith the twtry focus. Thnancial ansupportedcommunitiCity). Inpar1990s not otioned thecorporationit to identifand Hamel,agement etparticular inmunicationchanged itspioneer oftions divisio

The newworking. Inlargely unrcompanywwould enhAcquisitioncross-sellinincluded aEurope, Nobined withreports thaarrayed inprot and louct and regmore outsomulti-functwell as VBMin reportinular, non-directly to tformance Im

5.4. Postscrand product

From aa series ofand a coll2002. GEC/the UK ecoence betwecompaniesglomeratecontrolled bsurvival as awith the acqin 2003.

The GEC debacle illustrates very neatly a number ofthemes in this paper. A key associate of Simpson and for-mer nance director of GEC, John Mayo published a seriesof articles in the Financial Times in which he reected on

le in tstrateges. As

arehowindiwhichkeoverlocateeans tten bether th

irdly,t held,, p. 18)sharin an

s selfng it a

ccessftitorsstomey enabey deseet theecutivem soe feelsorth reen reaMarco02, p.

ese ecial pr

rhapsives at abounningrategyss to t

e timwhic

and inspeci

ncoheurse

e casecongloof orger frage in ite of thusly espoused shareholder value and industrial

rhetoric for GEC was completely consistentin managerial discourses of VBM and indus-e call for industry focus can be found in bothd strategic management discourses and was

by powerful institutions such as the nanciales inNewYork and London (Wall Street and Theticular, the strategicmanagerial discourseof thenly criticized the conglomerate but even ques-M-form (Bettis, 1991). Rather than seeing theas a collection of businesses, the quest was for

y and nurture its core competences (Prahalad1990). George Simpson instigated a new man-hos of GEC to be no. 1 or no. 2 in the world industries with a specic focus on the telecom-

s industry. As a symbol of the new focus, GECname to Marconi, a name reminiscent of the

radio and already used by its telecommunica-n.strategic direction involved different ways ofparticular, the old source of expansion throughelated acquisition had been abandoned. Theas seeking organic growth and acquisitions thatance its market and technological capability.s were intended to be integrated to fully exploitg and technological synergies. Other changespolicy of globalization, with acquisitions in

rth America and the AsiaPacic region com-a greater integration of acquisitions. Financialt were sent to the group nance ofce werea matrix structure so that items such as sales,ss, and so on, could be viewed from both prod-ional perspectives. The company introducedurcing, with a new emphasis on process andional teams in supply chain management. As, the company encouraged a greater diversity

g and decision-making innovations. In partic-nancial performance indicators were reportedhe nance group by a specially designated Per-provement function.

ipt on GEC: the tension between nancial--market strategies

share price that peaked at over 12 in 2000,prot warnings culminated in huge losses

apse in the share price to a few pence inMarconi became the biggest corporate failurenomy had ever known. However, the differ-en Marconi and many other high-tech bubblewas its transformation from a cash-rich con-as GEC to a company that was effectivelyy its debt and bond-holders and whose futuren independent manufacturing company endeduisition of the rump of its factories by Ericsson

his ronewerenc

Shunoftaalmofra

Thpile i2002

BybasedMayoputti

Supecuerthmexseonwbeof20

Thnan

Peutnorustne

ThFig. 4textswith

5.5. Idisco

Thfromtraitsa widUnlikcourshe debacle. Mayo effectively argued that GECsy was entirely a response to shareholder pref-he put it:

lders rightly wanted three things. First, theng of the poison pill joint ventures, one effectwas to protect management from unwanted

s. Second, they wanted focus, so they couldtheir funds according to sectors. However, thishat a companys share price performance candictated by the markets view of the sectoran the companys own performance. . .

investorswanted thebusiness to invest the cashas cash cannot earn the cost of capital (Mayo,.eholders, Mayo meant nancial institutionsd around the City of London. In response to-valedictory analysis, Kay was quite scathing,s follows:

ul businesses aremoreeffective than their com-in delivering goods and services that theirrs want. They add value if their superior deliv-les them to command a premium price: or ifign their operations in such a way that theyse needs at lower cost. The job of the corporatee is to achieve these objectives. These pointsbasic to any understanding of business thatembarrassed at writing them down. If they arepeating, it is as a reminder to those who haveding John Mayos account of his stewardshipni in recent issues of the Financial Times (Kay,13).

xchanges signify far more than a spat in theess. As Kay himself opined:

we shallmove into an age inwhich senior exec-gain understand that managing companies istmergers, acquisitions anddisposals, but aboutoperating businesses well. And that corporateis about matching the capabilities of the busi-he needs of its customers (2002, p. 13).

eline of these developments may be traced inh links general relationships between action,stitutions in the evolution of divisionalisationc events and discoursal action at GEC/Marconi.

rence at GEC and in the wider managerial

of GEC/Marconi illustrates not just a changemerate to focus and from ROI to VBM but alsoanizational incoherence which can be linked tomentation of managerial discourse in the CCC.

s earlier days of divisionalisation when the dis-e M-form and nancial control via ROI were


Fig. 4. Actioncompany.

closely linkthe nanciaIndeed, desdisastrousof shareholbetween ntraced in aex post anaKay, 2002).is not just afailure canstand-alonea much grecorrect thanIn terms ofpanys strathe diversibase its strdifferent inROI or residuct varietyIt is not tharather thatmarket strainsufcient

As the cto integrategest that sounderstandaccountinga potentialstrategy (SiCarr, 1996;

12 A versionkey metric in

In the next section, the paper moves on to a discussionandcomparisonof the impact of the threekeymanagementaccounting concepts: ROI, VBM and SMA. Each conceptis informed by different relationships between academicand practitimore, the papproaches

ution h

iscussiI, EVA

e mafor twnd VBcouldach tgic di

of thetechn

r signis of ROble 1.discouassessresseditive eather tsess wing a d

ROI

e tableen inn-for gon Johutionaits ori, text and discourse in the evolution of the divisionalised

ed (Sloan, 1965), the strategy discourse andl discourse became uncoupled from each other.pite its adoption of VBM, GEC itself followed astrategy that ended with massive destructionder value. In the case of GEC, the disjunctionancial and corporate strategies can actually beccounts of boardroom disagreements and thelysis of the companys collapse (Mayo, 2002;It can also be argued that the demise of GECpart of the story of the dotcom bubble. GECsbe linked to a specic problem that, as thecompany that it had become, GEC was under

ater pressure to get its product/market strategyit was when it was a diversied conglomerate.managerial discourse, the single sector com-

tegy is more product- than nance-led. Unlike

instittice.

6. Dof RO

ThroleROI aSMA,approstratetionthesewidestatuin Tatext,thenbe stdenbut rto asstitutCCC.

6.1.

Thhas btakerateinstitfromed company, the focused company cannot just

ategy on managing a portfolio of products industries and employ nancial metrics such asual income12 as a way of coping with the prod-(Fligstein, 1991; Goold and Campbell, 1987).t nancial metrics may not be necessaryit isif they are not linked to an appropriate product-tegy they might, as in GECs case, prove to be anguide to managerial action.ompany failed, the ultimate inability of GECstrategic and nancial logics seemed to sug-

me form of SMA could have helped managersthe threats and opportunities. Managementresearchers have suggested that SMA offersunication between accounting and businessmmonds, 1981; Bromwich, 1990; Tomkins andShank, 1989).

of residual income (such as EVA) is usually seen to be thea value based strategy approach.

making. Asmanagerialconcept of Raccountinged and legreporting (L

The usenot uniquethe conuetutional anconsistent wAt a more gat a time wemphasised

GEC wain movingwider de-inal., 1994). Ture of thebecause of toner texts, discourses and institutions. Further-aper argues that the relative status of theseon the spectrum of action, text, discourse andelps to explain their differing impacts on prac-

on: discourses, theories and the impactsand SMA on practice

nagerial discourse of GEC/Marconi includes ao specic management accounting concepts:M. A third management accounting approach,be seen as the dog that did not barkan

hat potentially just might have agged up thefculties on the telecom industry. In this sec-paper, the discussion of the relative impact ofiques on GEC is broadened out to review theircance in the CCC (Thrift, 2005). The relativeI, VBM and SMA may be shown schematically

Each approach is compared in terms of action,rse and institutionalization. The nal columnes the relative inuence on practice. It shouldthat the aim of the table is not to present a

mpirical position on the use of these techniqueso illustrate how the CDA approach can be usedhether a particular concept can be seen as con-iscourse and has been institutionalized in the

e suggests that the inuence of ROI on practicestitutionalizedthat it is so prevalent that it isranted. More critically, we might even elabo-nson and Kaplan (1987) who argued that thelization of ROI in business schools detached itginally, productive role in organizational sense-well as becoming embedded in the dominantdiscourse of the divisionalised company, theOI could be also be related to a wider nancialdiscourse of ratio analysis, which was codi-itimised by the wider institutions of nanciallwellyn and Milne, 2007).of ROI and other nancial ratios at GEC wasbecause the company was one organization atnce of the factors that contributed to the insti-d organizational embedding of ROI. ROI wasith the organization form and strategy at GEC.

eneral and abstract level, ROI began and spreadhen the managerial discourse of capitalismorder and control (Thrift, 2005).

s only unusual in that it was relatively lateaway from the conglomerate form given thestitutionalization of that structure (Davis ethe late change in GEC was not due to a fail-

new managerial discourse of focus but ratherhe absence of nancial crisis at GEC and the pro-


Table 1Comparisons of ROI, VBM and SMA.

Management accounting technique Source of text/action Part of managerial discourse? Institutionalized? Impact on practice?

Return on Investment (ROI) Organizational sensemaking Yes Yes HighEconomic VaStrategic Ma

longed domthe newmato focus thlier (Fairclohuman agepowerful or

6.2. VBM

In acadeas competintrast to ROIin the 1960the widerinto VBM aneral decadeincome remdid not affepart of the mtants is impalso be tracwhich affec(e.g., M-formetrics. Inthat the Citnies and thawhich was1998). In teagerial discGEC were le

6.3. SMA

SMAsuppanys newby senior mmanagemeanticipate tleast accordIn short, thagement achas to be Shave savedorganizationand certain

A case is not partiand case stand Hart, 2be presenteinexplicablysible to argbefore it co

an eaeferrek (200s assocollecging d

2000ngs, pt notctureilitaryen gairporat

a si) mad

of SMAas aresentcard thome i

optedaccoueld-Sve lans moregerially chaiuted tith somademid thatn the aA in

evelope or cot thebe pu

ray ofh an aptructuand nesearchgisingal andda (Wh

nclus

this plue Added (EVA) Academy/consultants Yesnagement Accounting Academy No

inance of Weinstock. Once Weinstock retired,nagerial teamof Simpson andMayowere quicke company and introduce VBM. As noted ear-ugh, 1995), CDA allows space for the impact ofncy and interests especially when there wereganizational players such as Weinstock.

mic texts residual incomeandROIarepresentedg divisional performance metrics. Yet, in con-, residual income emerged as an academic texts (Solomon, 1966) but then failed to penetratemanagerial discourse until its transformationd promotion by management consultants sev-s later as EVA (Otley, 1999). In short, residualained as a theory, as an academic text, but

ct practice until, with some changes, it becameanagerial discourse. Whilst the role of consul-

ortant, the resurgence of residual income coulded to the growing inuence of nance theoryted discourses about modes of divisionalisationm v conglomerate) as well as specic nancialGEC, the new management team understoody liked strategically focused, free play compa-t it also liked the rhetoric of shareholder valueassociated with VBM (OHanlan and Peasnell,rms of the Phillips et al. (2004) model, the man-ourses that inuenced management change atgitimised by wider institutions.

ports Kays critique (2002) of GEC that the com-strategic position had not been fully analysedanagers. GEC de-diversied (as suggested by

nt and nance theories) but then neglected tohe action of competitors apart from hoping (ating to Mayo) that they could be taken over!

e most ineffective approach of the three man-counting concepts in terms of practical impactMA. For an approach that might, in principle,GEC/Marconi, there is little evidenceof it as anal sensemaking device, as amanagerial discourse

ly no evidence of institutionalization.nding which reports a lack of impact of SMAcularly surprising and conrms other surveyudy research (Guilding et al., 2000; Roslender003). Yet the lack of impact of SMA cannotd in terms of a powerful academic discourse

Evenhe prShanpieceing aemer

Bynibulembeco

In(2008tionSMAnet pscorehad sis adment(Langto haseemmanasuppattrib

Wof acarguewithifor SMnot dcours

Yemustdisarwhicand scismof restratejournagen

7. Co

In

rejected by practitioners. Indeed, it is plau-

ue that SMA failed as an academic discourseuld inuence the wider managerial discourse.

links acadebetween acaction geneNo ModerateNo Negligible

rly and prominent advocate of SMA [althoughd the term, strategic cost management (SCM)],7) argued that there was an unravelling of theciated with the SCM/SMA literature suggest-

tion of isolated texts rather than evidence of aniscourse. As Shank put it:

, therewas a fteen-year history of great begin-ilot projects, and cameo appearances for SCM,much more. It has been a great topic on thecircuit and in cost management symposia. Inparlance, it briefs well! But the topics had notning traction in mainstream academe or in thee world. . .(2007, p. 359).

milarly pessimistic review, Langeld-Smithe much of the difculty in agreeing a deni-. If a broad denition is accepted which sees

collection of well-known techniques such asvalue, activity-based costing and the balanceden it might be argued that these practices havempact on practice. But if a narrow denitionwhich seeks an explicit link between manage-nting tools and strategicmanagement conceptsmith, 2008) then the practice of SMA seemsguished. In this paper, the narrower denitionappropriate since whilst GEC did adopt manyinnovations in performance management andn management, its ultimate collapse could beo faulty strategic positioning.e critics suggesting that SMA is just a gment

c imagination (Lord, 1996, p. 364), it might beSMAhasnot achievedmuch respectability evencademy. Strong theoretically-based proposals

individual texts (see, e.g. Bromwich, 1990) haveed into either a coherent normative SMA dis-ntributed much to the managerial discourse.apparent incoherence of the SMA discourset into the context of the fragmentation andthe wider strategic management discourse inparently settled relationship between strategyre (Chandler, 1962) has been replaced by criti-glect (Whittington, 2002). Indeed, the absenceon strategy and structure and the process ofhave led to the recent establishment of a newwebsite in order to try and revive this researchittington, 2003).

ions

aper, it is assumed that managerial discourse

mic theory and practice through the interplaytion, text, and institutions. Some managerialrates texts which become part of wider dis-


courses. These discourses are legitimised by specialistinstitutional producers of managerial texts such as busi-ness schools and management consultants. Thus seniormanagers, business schools, management consultants andmanagemeagerial discdiscoursesreexive orfor some ac

The chanto explainaccountingthe particucompany, itlink betweeROI. ROI maof the manathereforehin the diverrial discourform and tVBM such amanagerialdemic textsby some in tachieved thof ROI in itby academidiscourse, hfar, has had

More geagerial discinterplay bcepts fromis a far frommay feed inother textssive basis ovalidity andthe academon academiresearch mmay hinderproductionmanagemediscourse.

Similarlyacademy tomaybeapphow powertance or rejinstances inhas not ledrial discourto practiseto re-uniterespect toVmore signicept has beespousedbythan the de

rics and carefully designed remuneration packages whichreward long- and medium- rather than short-term perfor-mance.

A key implication of this paper is that by analysing theral proanage

nderstconsummay cway tadopt

e risksest bets a poructivitioneers caal engnormseect

owled

wouldus Mirevie

ences

s, T., Chcountinamson,d Rejec6612.on, M.,organiz25114ic, J., Cr

ontreal.., 1998.ndon., Bjrnecountinn. ManaG.P., 19urnal of, S., Kunative ideience Qutt, N., D2.R.A., 19say. Orgt, S., Shle returnds.), Broookingsni, A., Hcountinich, M.

le of acccountiner, A.,

emier In, S., 199idge, M., J., Scag changsearch 1A., 1996aph, Sepntgurusall contribute to theproductionofman-ourse. The paper has argued that managerialhave changed as capitalism has become moreknowing with an increasing role in the CCC

ademic theories.ging nature of the managerial discourse helpschanges in the application of managementconcepts such as ROI, VBM and SMA. Tracinglar managerial discourse of the divisionalisedis argued that for many years there was a tightn corporate strategy, corporate structure andde sense to organizational members, was partgerial discourse, and was institutionalized, andada considerable impact onmanagerial practicesied conglomerate organization. The manage-se changed with criticisms of the conglomeratehe espousal of alternative metrics related tos residual income. VBM did become part of thediscourse in that itwas supported by some aca-, by some senior organizational members andhenancial community.However, VBMhasnote level of acceptance or the impact on practices heyday. Lastly, SMA was a concept producedcs which has not become part of the managerialas never been institutionalized and, at least soa negligible impact on practice.nerally, although it has been argued that man-ourse links theory and practice through theetween actions and texts, the transfer of con-theory to practice and from practice to theory

seamless process. Whilst academic theoriesto the managerial discourse by linking up within wider organizational discourses, the discur-f such links may not usually be the criteria ofrigour that generally legitimises research in

y. Thus, the inuence of managerial practicec theory may be weakened because legitimisedethods and knowledge claims in the academyappropriate forms of investigation and theory

. These tendencies have long been noted in thent accounting literature in the relevance lost

, the transfer of theoretical concepts from thepractice may either fail to take place or theory

lied inapartial or rhetoricalmanner. CDAshows, self-interest and rhetoric can affect the accep-ection of managerial theories. In the particularthis paper, a strong intellectual case for SMAto its acceptance in the mainstream manage-

sewith a corresponding reluctance ofmanagersits techniques and realise its potential capacitynancial- and product-market strategies. WithBM, although the inuenceonpracticehasbeencant than with SMA, the application of the con-en partial. The rhetoric of shareholder wealthVBMhasbeenembracedmoreenthusiasticallytailed technology of revised accounting met-

genethe mter uandagerssomelesslyof thcan badopConstpracttitionCriticownand r

Ackn

IMarkmous

Refer

AhrenAc

Abrahan58

Alvessof11

AmernM

Aris, SLo

Ax, C.acde

Baker,Jo

BarleymSc

Bennep.

Bettis,es

Bhagath(EBr

BhimaAc

BromwroAc

BrummPr

Brunsbr

BurnsinRe

Cave,grcesses of managerial knowledge production,ment accounting academy can develop a bet-anding of its particular role in the productionption of managerial discourse. Senior man-

ontinue to reject academic concepts because inhey threaten their interests or they may reck-theoretical concepts with little understanding

. Yet both self-interested and reckless practiceexposed and challenged by an academy thatsture of constructive, yet critical engagement.e engagementmeans that academics understandrs problems and respect the role that prac-n play in managerial knowledge production.agement means that academics nurture theirand standardswhich enable them to standbackon managerial practices.

gements

like to thank Laurie Cohen, James Guthrie,lne, Hattie Duguid and especially two anony-wers for their helpful comments.

apman, C., 2007. Management accounting as practice.g, Organizations and Society 32, 127.E., 1991. Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusiontion of Innovations. Academy of Management Review 16,

Karreman, D., 2000. Varieties of discourse: on the studyations through discourse analysis. Human Relations 53,9.aig, R., 2006. CEO Speak. McGill-Queens University Press,

Arnold Weinstock and The Making of GEC. Aurum Press,

nak, T., 2005. Bundling and diffusion of managementg innovationsthe case of the balanced scorecard in Swe-gement Accounting Research 16, 120.92. Beatrice: a study in the creation anddestruction of value.Finance 47, 10811119.da,G., 1992.Designanddevotion: surgesof rational andnor-ologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrativearterly 37, 363399.

ecember 8, 1996. EC Car Boot Sale. Sunday Telegraph, p. 2,

91. Strategic management and the straitjacket: an editorialanization Science 2, 315319.eifer, A., Vishny, R., 1990. Hostile takeovers in the 1980s:to corporate specialization. In: Baily, M.N., Winston, C.

okings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1990.Institution, Washington, pp. 184.orngren, C., Datar, S., Foster, G., 2008.Management and Costg, 4th Edition. Prentice Hall, Harlow., 1990. The case for strategic management accounting: theounting information for strategy in competitive markets.g, Organizations and Society 15, 2746.Cowe, R., 1998. Weinstock: The Life and Times of Britainsdustrialist. Harper Collins, London.7. Managers Lives. Harvard Business School Press, Cam-A.pens, R., 2000. Conceptualising management account-e: An institutional framework. Management Accounting1, 325.. GEC tightens pay conditions for Simpson. The Daily Tele-tember 3, p. 23.


Chandler, A., 1962. Strategy and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Chandler, A., Daems, H., 1979. Administrative coordination, allocation and

monitoring; a comparative analysis of the emergence of accountingand organization in the U.S.A and Europe. Accounting, Organizationsand Society 4, 320.

Davis, G., Diekmann, K., Tinsley, C., 1994. The decline and fall of theconglomerate rm in the 1980s: the deinstitutionalisation of anorganisational form. American Sociological Review 59, 547570.

Drury, C., 2008. Management and Cost Accounting, 7th Edition. SouthWestern, London.

Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Lan-guage. Longman, London.

Fairclough, N.,studies: th

Fligstein, N.,try: an inslargest rmNew InstitPress, Chic

Foster, A., 198Ghoshal, S., 20

agement p4, 7591.

Goold,M., Camin Managi

Guilding, C., Cring: an in113135.

Hall, S., 2001.M., Taylor,Sage, Lond

Hoskisson,R.Eorganizati269298.

Ittner, C., Larcrial accouAccountin

Jensen, M., 198Takeovers

Jessop, B., 2002Johnson, H., Ka

ment AccoJones, R., Marr

and EnglisKaplan, R.S., 1

tion Actio10, 89118

Kasanen, E., Lmanageming Resear

Kay, J., 29 JanuKeynes, J.M.,

Money. MKlamer, A., Mc

EconomicsLangeld-Smi

have we cJournal 21

Laurance, B.,Options. O

Levy, H., SarnJournal of

Llwellyn, S.,MAuditing a

Lord, B., 1996clothes? M

Lorenz, A., Octdon, pp. 44

Lukka, K.,Moumanagem

Malmi, T., 199exploratorzation and

Malmi, T., Granlund, M., 2009. In search of management accounting the-ory. European Accounting Review 18, 597620.

Malmi, T., Ikheimo, S., 2003. Value Based Management practicessomeevidence from the eld. Management Accounting Research 14,235254.

Manley, J., Lloyd, T., 1989. A deal too far? Financial Weekly (April), 2429.Mayo, J., 18 January 2002. Exploding Some Marconi Myths. Financial

Times, p. 13.Mouck, T., 2004. Institutional reality, nancial reporting and the rules

of the game. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29, 525541.

Napier, C., 1996. Accounting and the absence of a business economicsdition i9481.lit, H., 2

l analysiciety 28lit, L., N

ent contcountiner, 199

lan, J., PecountinanagemD., 199

ent cont3382.r, D., Jeisionald econo1.s, N., HaSocial Csearch 5s, N., Lademy oad, C., Hrvard Bder, R.,g: theoresearch 1R., Scapegy in Fis, R.Wrspectivcountin., Garrin. McGr, J., 200ht (?) sues in M. 3553, J., 1989rnal ofr, A., Visance 52nds, K.countinA., 196ndon.on, E., 1True YcountinN., 2005ns, C., Cmmentaement Angton,: Pettigndbook8.ngton, Re perspe2005. Peripheral vision: discourse analysis in organizationecase for critical realism.OrganizationStudies26,915939.1991. The structural transformation of American indus-titutionalist account of the causes of diversication in thes, 1919-1979. In: Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The

utionalism inOrganisationalAnalysis. University of Chicagoago.9. How bad is GEC? Management Today, 4046.05. Bad management theories are destroying good man-ractices. Academy of Management Learning and Education

pbell, A., 1987. Strategies and Styles: The Role of the Centreng Diversied Corporations. Blackwell, Oxford.avens, K., Tayles, M., 2000. Strategic management account-ternational study. Management Accounting Research 11,

Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse. In: Wetherell,S., Yates, S.J. (Eds.),DiscourseTheoryandPractice:AReader.on, pp. 7281..,Hill, C.W.,Hicheon,K., 1993. Themultidivisional structure:onal fossil or source of value? Journal of Management 19,

ker, D., 2001. Assessing empirical research in manage-nting: a value-based management perspective. Journal ofg and Economics 32, 349410.6. Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and

. American Economic Review 76, 323329.. The Future of the Capitalist State. Polity Press, Cambridge.plan, R., 1987. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Manage-unting. Harvard University Press, Boston.iott, O., 1970. Anatomy of a Merger: A History of GEC, AEIh Electric. Jonathan Cape, London.998. Creating new management practice through Innova-n Research. Journal of Management Accounting Research.

ukka, K., Siitonen, A., 1993. The constructive approach inent accounting research. Journal of Management Account-ch 5, 243264.ary 2002. Vital Item is Missing. Financial Times, p. 18.1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest andacmillan, London.Closkey, D., 1992. Accounting as the master metaphor of. European Accounting Review 1, 145160.th, K., 2008. Strategic management accounting: how farome in 25 years? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 204228.September 1, 1996. See-saw Simpson, Phantom of thebserver, p. 7.at, M., 1970. The uneasy case for conglomerate mergers.Finance 25, 795802.ilne,M., 2007. Accounting as codieddiscourse. Accounting,nd Accountability Journal 20, 805824.. Strategic management accounting: the Emperors newanagement Accounting Research 7, 347366.ober 1996. Time to Unpick GEC. Management Today, Lon-49.

ritsen, J., 2002.Homogeneity orheterogeneity of research inent accounting? European Accounting Review 11, 805811.9. Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: any empirical analysis of Finnish rms. Accounting, Organi-Society 24, 649672.

tra44

NrrekcaSo

NrrekmAc

ObservOHan

acM

Otley,m36

Palmedivan13

PhillipofRe

PhillipAc

PrahalHa

RosleninRe

Ryan,olo

ScapenpeAc

Seal, Wtio

ShankrigIsspp

ShankJou

ShleifeFin

SimmoAc

Sloan,Lo

SolomtoAc

Thrift,Tomki

coag

WhittiInHa13

Whittiticn the United Kingdom. European Accounting Review 5,

003. The balanced scorecard: what is the score? A rhetori-s of the balanced scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and, 591619.rreklit, H., Israelsen, P., 2006. The validity of manage-

rol topoi. Towards constructivist pragmatism. Managementg Research 17, 4271.6. November 11, p. 21.asnell, K., 1998. Wall Streets contribution to management

g: the Stern Stewart EVA nancial management system.ent Accounting Research 9, 421444.9. Performance management: a framework for manage-rol systems research.ManagementAccountingResearch10,

nnings, P., Zhou, X., 1993. Late adoption of the multi-form by large U.S. corporations: institutional, political,mic accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 100

rdy, C., 2002. Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processesonstruction. Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative0. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

awrence, T., Hardy, C., 2004. Discourse and institutions.f Management Review 29, 635652.amel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation.

usiness Review (MayJune), 7991.Hart, S., 2003. In search of strategic management account-tical andeld studyperspectives.ManagementAccounting4, 255279.ns, R., Theobald, M., 2002. Research Method and Method-nance and Accounting, 2nd Edition. Thomson, London.., 1994. Never mind the gap: towards an institutionale on management accounting practice. Managementg Research 5, 301321.son, R., Noreen, E., 2008. Management Accounting, 3rd Edi-aw-Hill, London.7. Strategic cost management: upsizing, downsizing, andizing. In: Alnoor Bhimani (Ed.), Chapter in Contemporaryanagement Accounting. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

79.. Strategic costmanagement: newwine, or just newbottles?Management Accounting Research (Fall), 4765.hny, R., 1997. A survey of corporate governance. Journal of, 737783., 1981. Strategic management accounting. Managementg (CIMA) (April), 2629.5. My Years with General Motors. Sidgwick and Jackson,

966. Return of Investment: The Relation of Book Yieldsield, in Research in Accounting Measurement. Americang Association,

managerial discourse and the link between theory and practice from roi to value based management...

Documents