Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Management Accounting Research, 2001, 12, 403 435
What does organizational change mean?
Speculations on a taken for granted category
Paolo Quattrone* and Trevor Hopper†
Despite widespread research on why and how organizations change, what constitutes change is often taken for granted. Its definition is avoided. Studies based on individuals’ rational choice imply that change flows from purposive actions in accordance with an objective, external reality whereas contextualism argues that change results from institutional pressures, isomorphisms and routines. But both depict change as the passage of an entity, whether an organization or accounting practices, from one identifiable and unique status to another. Despite their differences over whether reality is independent, concrete and external, or socially constructed, both assume that actors (or researchers) can identify a reality to trace the scale and direction of changes. This reflects modernist beliefs that organizational space and time are unique and linear. The paper takes issue with this and argues that ‘a-centred organizations’ and ‘drift’ should replace conventional definitions of organizations and change. The arguments are inspired by the arguments of the sociology of translation and constructivism, and insights from two case studies of Enterprise Resource Planning system implementations in large multinational organizations. The latter illustrate how defining change is problematic—as new systems gave rise to multiple spaces and times within the organizations. The paper traces the implications of this for control and accounting studies tout court.
c 2001 Academic Press
Key words: ERP; SAP; organizational change; drift; a-centred organization; order; multinationals; sociology of translation; constructivism.
Address for correspondence: Paolo Quattrone, Departamento de Economía de la Empresa, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Calle Madrid, 126 Getafe, 28903 Madrid, Spain. E-mail: Quattron@emp.uc3m.es *Departamento de Economía de la Empresa, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain. †Manchester School of Accounting & Finance, The University of Manchester, UK. E-mail: Trevor.Hopper@man.ac.uk
1044 5005/01/040403 + 33/$35.00/0
c 2001 Academic Press
404 P. Quattrone and T. Hopper
Organizational change is a central issue within organization theory, management and, increasingly, accounting. Consultants argue that firms should adopt various ‘new’ accounting systems with acronyms such as ABC/M, EVA and TOC (Cooper and Kaplan, 1988; Johnson and Kaplan, 1987). Many firms have responded with alacrity, adopting them with varied results. Academics have commended various theoretical frameworks to explain these accounting changes, e.g. Briers and Chua (2001) commend Actor-Network Theory whereas Burns and Scapens (2000) proffer Old Institutional Economics. Research is divided over whether and how management accounting changes bring success (Cobb et al., 1992; Shields, 1995), and whether clear-cut definitions of success versus failure exist (Malmi, 1997). Change has been examined across different geographical and temporal spaces to find variations (Lukka, 1994). Resistance to accounting change (e.g. Scapens and Roberts, 1993; Ezzamel, 1994) has been identified alongside models of how to implement change (Innes and Mitchell, 1990; Vaivio, 1999). Since Hopwood’s frequently quoted claim that ‘very little is known of the processes of accounting change’ (1987, p. 207), studies on change have proliferated.
This has provoked controversy over the theory of why and how changes are occurring. Accounting change has been attributed to conditions of possibilities (Hopwood, 1987), the emergence of accounting constellations (Burchell et al., 1985), interplay between actions and institutions (Burns and Scapens, 2000), disciplinary regimes (Hoskin and Macve, 1986, 1988; Ezzamel, 1994; Miller and...
References: Arnold, P. J., 1998. The limits of postmodernism in accounting history: the decatur experience,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 665 684.
Barley, S. R. and Tolbert, P. S., 1997. Institutional and structuration: studying the links between
action and institution, Organisation Studies, 18, 93 117.
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T., 1966. The Social Contruction of Reality, New York, Doubleday
(Penguin edition, 1967).
Briers, M. and Chua, W. F., 2001. The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management
accounting change: a field study of the implementation of activity-based costing,
Brunsonn, N., 1985. The Irrational Organization. Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational Action
and Change, Copenhagen, Fagbokforlaget.
Brunsonn, N., 1990. Deciding for responsibility and legitimation: alternative interpretations of
organizational decision-making, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 47 59.
Brunsonn, N. and Sahlin-Andersson, K., 2000. Constructing organizations: the example of
public sector reform, Organization Studies, 21, 721 746.
Bryman, A., 1984. Organization studies and the concept of rationality, Journal of Mangement
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. and Hopwood, A. G., 1985. Accounting in its social context: towards
a history of value added in the United Kingdom, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10,
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, S. and Nahapiet, J., 1980. The roles of accounting
in organizations and society, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5.
Burns, J., 2000. The dynamics of accounting change. Inter-play between new practices,
routines, institutions, power and politics, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13,
Burns, J. and Baldvinsdottir, G., 1999. Hybrids: the Changing Role of Accountants in Stam
Burns, J. and Scapens, R. W., 2000. Conceptualizing management accounting change:
an institutional framework, Management Accounting Research, 11, 3 25.
Callon, M., 1981. Struggles and Negotiation to Define What is Problematic and What is Not:
the Sociology of Translation, in K
Callon, M., 1986. The Sociology of Actor-Network: the Case of an Electric Vehicle, in M. Callon,
Callon, M., 1991. Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility, in J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of
Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, London, Routledge.
Carmona, S., Ezzamel, M. and Gutiérrez, F., 1998. Towards an institutional analysis of
accounting change in the royal tobacco factory of Seville, Accounting Historians Journal, 25.
Carruthers, B. G., 1995. Accounting, ambiguity and the new institutionalism, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 20.
Carruthers, B. G. and Espeland, W. N., 1991. Accounting for rationality: double-entry
bookkeeping and the rhetoric of economic rationality, American Journal of Sociology, 97.
Chua, W. F., 1986a. Radical developments in accounting thought, Accounting Review, Vol. LXI,
Chua, W. F., 1986b. Theoretical construction of and by the real, Accounting, Organizations and
Cobb, J., Mitchell, F. and Innes, J., 1992. Activity Based Costing: Problems in Practice, London,
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.
Cooper, D. J., Hayes, D. andWolf, F., 1981. Accounting in organized anarchies: understanding
and designing accounting systems in ambigous situations, Accounting, Organizations and
Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R. S., 1988. How cost accounting distorts product cost, Management
Accounting, April, 20 27.
Dermer, J. D. and Lucas, R. G., 1986. The illusion of managerial control, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 11.
Donzelli, F., 1986. Il concetto di equilibrio nella teoria neoclassica, Florence, La Nuova Italia
Ezzamel, M., 1994. Organizational change and accounting: understanding the budgeting
system in its organizational context, Organization Studies, 15, 213 240.
Foerster, (von), H., 1981. Observing Systems, Seaside (Cal.), Intersystems.
Friedman, M., 1935. Essay in Positive Economics, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Froud, J., Williams, K., Haslam, C., Johal, S. and Williams, J., 1998. Caterpillar: two stories and
an argument, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 685 708.
Gould, S. J., 1985. Il Darwinismo e l’ampliamento della teoria evoluzionista, in G. Bocchi,
Hodgson, G. M., 1988. Economics and Institutions: a Manifesto for Modern Institutional Economics,
Hogart, R. M., 1991. A perspective on cognitive research in accounting, The Accounting Review,
Hogart, R. M., 1993. Accounting for decision and decision for accounting, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 18.
Hogart, R. M. and Reder, M. W. (eds), 1987. Rational Choice: the Contrast Between Economics
and Psychology, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Hopwood, A. G., 1987. The archeology of accounting system, Accounting, Organizations and
Hoskin, K. W., 1994. Boxing clever: for, against and beyond Foucault in the battle for
accounting theory, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 5, 25 56.
Hoskin, K. W. and Macve, R. H., 1986. Accounting and the examination: a genealogy
of disciplinary power, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11, 105 136.
Hoskin, K. W. and Macve, R. H., 1988. The genesis of accountability: the west point connections,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13, 37 73.
Innes, J. and Mitchell, F., 1990. The process of change in management accounting: some field
study evidence, Management Accounting Research.
Jazayeri, M. and Scapens, R., 1999. Implementing ERP Systems: Accounting Implications of the SAP
Implementation at Building Materials Inc., Working Paper, University of Manchester.
Johnson, H. T. and Kaplan, R. S., 1987. Relevance Lost: the Rise and Fall of Management Accounting,
Harvard Business School Press.
Jones, T. C., 1992. Understanding management accountants: the rationality of social action,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2.
Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society,
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., 1991. We Have Never Been Modern, London, Sage.
Latour, B., 1999. Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, MA,
Harvard University Press.
Laudan, L., 1977. Progress and its Problems, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document