As a first post it will perhaps be useful to document briefly how I came to this topic and my motivations for this PhD:
Introduction and Motivation for PhD from Undergraduate Dissertation;
Throughout my undergraduate course (Accounting and Finance at the Business School at Strathclyde) I became interested in management accounting, particularly in the relationship between management control and performance measurement systems and the behavioural consequences of these controls, often unintended or dysfunctional. For my honours dissertation I wanted to look at a performance measurement control system within an organisation; however the organisation I secured access to did not have a formalised performance measurement system. As such, I thought it would be interesting to explore the employees motivations for work within this company; since the company was doing well without a formalised performance measurement and incentive scheme, I wondered what 'soft' or informal measures were in place within the organisation which served to motivate the employees.
Adopting some principles from Grounded Theory Method I began an initial wide overview of the traditional literature in motivation theories, broadly covering content, needs and process theories; Maslow's (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg's (1959) Motivation-Hygiene Theory, McGregor's (1960) Theories X and Y, Deci and Ryan's Self Determination Theory (1970s/80s), and Ouchi's (1981) Theory Z. These theories all commented on a natural progression of requirements for motivation to occur, identified the separation between intrinsic (internally motivated) and extrinsic (motivated to move) motivation, commented on the differences between motivation and a standard of expectation required, the internal desire of people wanting to improve and better themselves, the problems of managing by the numbers and ignoring the underlying drivers of business value (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987) (since people stop using common sense and start responding solely to the institutional logic mode prevalent in the organisation), and the importance of informal support and a good community atmosphere within the organisation. They all hinted (or in stronger instances, implied) that financial reward was not an intrinsic motivator, and would not facilitate true motivation, innovation or team sharing which instead comes from a good working environment (team work, community spirit, feeling of belonging, information sharing etc.).
After my data collection some further areas were highlighted which were particularly prominent, but also linked to the initial literature review. After grouping these factors into unconscious, challenge, trust, and task/group characteristics I conducted a secondary stage literature review and looked at the literature developing certain aspects of the above seminal theories. In my wider reading, and concentrating in management accounting, there was a strand of developing literature exploring networks of organisational structure and inter-organisational relationships which seemed to display and promote many of the motivational factors I was seeing as important in the literature and in my study. My study concluded with an Alignment Model which suggested that alignment between a number of things must occur in order for intrinsic motivation to be achieved; if there is misalignment between any of these things then it is unlikely that intrinsic motivation will be achieved and the measures simply become tokenistic - it was suggested that this was perhaps the reason for a lack of intrinsic motivation in large organisations today who seek to reap the benefits of network relationships, autonomous, empowered employees, team work, a community spirit etc. through micro-level control; complex performance measurement, team structures, team building days etc. but whom fail to understand it is the underlying shift to a different culture and understanding of how the organisation operates as an empowered community rather than a top-down managed hierarchy which promotes these things. The model compared the relationships between a number of spectrums (ownership structure, extrinsic job factors, task enjoyment, working environment) which interact and can align to promote intrinsic motivation - hence the reason for a motivated but un-incentivised workforce.
Development of dissertation topic into PhD Proposal;
This sparked my interest in my current PhD topic. It seemed that the hierarchical orientation of management accounting (in top-down management style, prescriptive practices and guarded language) conflicted with simple organisational requirements of information sharing, intrinsic motivation, innovation and a community spirit. It seemed that this hierarchical orientation was further hindering the above concepts in terms of organisational structure in a number of cases, or more notably, that there were a number of non-hierarchically structured organisations who seemed to be promoting these concepts successfully and operating as efficient corporate organisations whilst also being considered good places to work (through the Fortune 500/Financial Times etc. reviews of best places to work). A few of these companies promoting these concepts were structured 'alternatively' and were based more on a flat/horizontal/lattice organisational or ownership structure; W L Gore and Associates, Google, John Lewis Partnership, MEC in Canada, The Co-op Group etc. Thus I thought it would be interesting to explore what management accounting was, how it operated, with whom it operated, and how it was perceived in these organisations - is it different to traditional hierarchically structured organisations? If so the practical applications would perhaps be applicable to traditional organisations in commenting on a more efficient way to promote the requirements of modern organisations, and explore less dysfunctional ways of management and control.
After further reading of the inter-organisational network literature I suspect that these organisations are using dynamic networks of employees within their organisation (for example W L Gore and Associates have no formal job titles, positions or structure - it is wholly fluid and forms based on the current project requirements) in order to promote their famed culture. However, the organisation needs management, control, drive, focus, alignment, information sharing, communication, financial understanding etc. - arguably the very centre of management accounting.
PhD Topic, Research Questions and Theoretical Perspectives;
Hence I arrived at the topic of exploring management accounting within horizontally structured organisations (which often coincides with whole employee-ownership, partnerships, cooperatives)* and more specifically exploring how it encourages intrinsic motivation, a community environment, a lack of disengagement with other function areas, and a network environment given its traditionally hierarchical orientation.
My research questions are not fixed yet, however I broadly have three topics; the intra-organisational networks within these organisations and how management accounting interacts and is used within these organisations, the perceptions of management accounting within these organisations as a result of what it is under these circumstances - i.e. is it perceived as more value adding and useful because the language of the organisation includes many areas of expertise; e.g. there are no management accountants, engineers, HR staff, IT personnel etc. and instead everyone in the organisation has an area of expertise but concurrently understands and is involved in the other function areas; is there a common discourse which includes accounting, finance, IT, product, engineering etc? Finally I would like to explore the change of management accounting within these organisations and again see if it is more dynamic given the culture and structure, or another potential topic is to look at performance management and strategy within these organisations and see how it compares to traditional organisations and literature; does the culture and structure encourage everyone to understand strategy better and actually align them with this, how does management accounting interact in this process? My initial impression is that perhaps less is more; without formalised and prescriptive management accounting practices, organisations benefit. But I would like to explore how management accounting is being used in these organisations and if it is a different phenomenon within these organisations.
As such the current literature I am focusing on is on networks and inter-organisational relationships in both the public and private (and cross-over) sectors (Miller, Kurunmaki, Dekker, Lapsley, Hakannson, Lind, Tomkins, O'Leary, Van der Meer-Kooistra, Vosselman, Kraus, Caglio etc.) Following this I am hoping to focus on perceptions, change and strategy (Pierce, O'Dea, Modell, Burns, Scapens, Baxter, Hansen, Parker etc.)
I haven't decided upon a theoretical perspective yet, but am interested in aspects of contingency theory, institutional theory, diffusion theory, structuration theory,actor network theory, industrial network approach, agency theory, and transaction cost economics, but feel I will end up using a sociology theory largely as my research interest focuses on the interaction between management accounting and the socially created environment within the organisation, especially in light of empowered, autonomous, and a strong community atmosphere within the employees.
Closing comments on Topic;
Thus my topic can be considered;
exploring management accounting within 'alternatively' structured organisations focusing on;
(i) what accounting is and by whom is it used within intra-organisational organisations;
(ii) the perceptions of management accounting, and;
(iii) either the characteristics of management accounting change, or strategy and the interlink within management accounting in these organisations.
Post-script;
*I am still unsure as to how exactly I will classify these organisations; 'alternatively structured' seems a good starting point since I want to look at horizontally structured organisations who are also owned by the employees (or at least not publicly owned), i.e. not Google who employ this organisational structure but not organisational ownership - perhaps this is the reason for their success but seemingly growing resentment from employees (this is a very broad interpretation and would be interesting to study at a later date, but I think will fall outside of the scope of my PhD).
No comments:
Post a Comment