IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/accper/v17y2018i4p555-587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construct Clarity in Management Accounting (With a Specific Application to Interactive Control Systems)

Author

Listed:
  • R. Murray Lindsay

Abstract

Construct clarity is associated with the process of taking imprecise notions and deriving crisp, agreed‐upon meanings within a scholarly community based on establishing the construct's constitutive theoretical properties and its range of applicability (Bisbe, Batista‐Foguet, and Chenhall, ). This article aims to provide an increased understanding of construct clarity by extending Bisbe et al.'s () analysis in several significant ways in the context of using practice‐defined variables. Specifically, it describes and illustrates why construct clarity is essential to the empirical research enterprise and the development of strong theory and how it can assist in closing the research‐practice gap. In addition, the article elaborates on the elements of construct clarity beyond the definitional component and provides concrete methodological guidance for improving construct clarity through the illustrative use of examples. Further, three management accounting research programs (two historical and one contemporary) are examined. The results support Bisbe et al.'s () assertion that the discipline lacks concern for this issue. They also indicate that the discipline has paid (and continues to pay) a significant price for this inattention. Finally, the process of improving constructs, including the translation of description and understanding into theoretical properties, is illustrated by conducting an analysis of the decision‐making process involved with managing strategic uncertainty and adapting strategy that is related to the interactive control systems construct introduced by Robert Simons. Clarté des concepts en comptabilité de gestion et application particulière aux systèmes de contrôle interactifs La clarté des concepts est associée au processus consistant à dériver de notions diffuses des sens précis sur lesquels s'entend le milieu universitaire, fondés sur la détermination des propriétés théoriques constitutives du concept et l'éventail défini de ses domaines d'application (Bisbe, Batista‐Foguet et Chenhall, 2007). L'auteur étend sur plusieurs plans l'analyse de la clarté des concepts proposée par Bisbe et al. (2007). Premièrement, il décrit en quoi la clarté des concepts est, à maints titres, essentielle aux activités de recherche. Deuxièmement, il explique quels sont les éléments de la clarté des concepts et certaines des mesures que réclame l'amélioration des concepts dans le contexte des variables définies par la pratique, notamment celles qui s'inscrivent temporellement dans les processus. Troisièmement, il analyse en profondeur la clarté des concepts dans trois exemples tirés de la comptabilité de gestion (deux exemples historiques et un exemple contemporain). Les résultats de l'étude confirment la thèse de Bisbe et al. (2007) selon laquelle la discipline n'accorde pas suffisamment d'importance à cette question. Ils révèlent également que cette négligence a coûté cher à la discipline qui continue d'en payer le prix. Quatrièmement, l'auteur illustre la démarche d'amélioration des concepts au moyen d'une analyse du processus décisionnel sous‐jacent à l'adaptation stratégique (l'innovation). Cette analyse engendre plusieurs produits dérivés. Elle révèle d'abord que la clarification des concepts est inextricablement liée au processus d'élaboration d'une théorie solide. Elle permet ensuite de constater qu'une plus grande clarté des variables définies par la pratique peut contribuer à réduire l'écart entre la recherche et la pratique. Elle sert enfin de guide aux chercheurs qui auraient pour objectif de clarifier le concept des systèmes de contrôle interactifs.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Murray Lindsay, 2018. "Construct Clarity in Management Accounting (With a Specific Application to Interactive Control Systems)," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 555-587, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:17:y:2018:i:4:p:555-587
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3838.12188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12188
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3838.12188?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Otley, David & Fakiolas, Alexander, 2000. "Reliance on accounting performance measures: dead end or new beginning?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 497-510, May.
    3. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    4. Hopwood, Ag, 1972. "Empirical Study Of Role Of Accounting Data In Performance Evaluation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10, pages 156-182.
    5. Simons, Robert, 1990. "The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: New perspectives," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 127-143.
    6. Antonio Davila & George Foster & Daniel Oyon, 2009. "Accounting and Control, Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Venturing into New Research Opportunities," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 281-311.
    7. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    8. Shields, J. F. & Shields, M. D., 1998. "Antecedents of participative budgeting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 49-76, January.
    9. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    10. Editors The, 2008. "From the Editors," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-3, January.
    11. Chenhall, Robert H., 2003. "Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 127-168.
    12. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    13. Robert Simons, 1994. "How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 169-189, March.
    14. Otley, Dt, 1978. "Budget Use And Managerial Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 122-149.
    15. Brownell, Peter & Dunk, Alan S., 1991. "Task uncertainty and its interaction with budgetary participation and budget emphasis: Some methodological issues and empirical investigation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 693-703.
    16. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    17. Editors The, 2008. "From the Editors," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-1, July.
    18. Silvana Revellino & Jan Mouritsen, 2009. "The Multiplicity of Controls and the Making of Innovation," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 341-369.
    19. Vagneur, K. & Peiperl, M., 2000. "Reconsidering performance evaluative style," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 511-525, May.
    20. Hartmann, Frank G. H., 2000. "The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 451-482, May.
    21. Robert Simons, 1991. "Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 49-62, January.
    22. Jan Noeverman & Bas A.S. Koene & Roger Williams, 2005. "Construct measurement of evaluative style: a review and proposal," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 2(1), pages 77-107, April.
    23. Mundy, Julia, 2010. "Creating dynamic tensions through a balanced use of management control systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 499-523, July.
    24. Simons, Robert, 1987. "Accounting control systems and business strategy: An empirical analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 357-374, June.
    25. Bisbe, Josep & Batista-Foguet, Joan-Manuel & Chenhall, Robert, 2007. "Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 789-820.
    26. Zimmerman, Jerold L., 2001. "Conjectures regarding empirical managerial accounting research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 411-427, December.
    27. Teemu Malmi & Markus Granlund, 2009. "In Search of Management Accounting Theory," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 597-620.
    28. Frank Hartmann & David Naranjo-Gil & Paolo Perego, 2010. "The Effects of Leadership Styles and Use of Performance Measures on Managerial Work-Related Attitudes," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 275-310.
    29. Hopwood, Ag, 1972. "Empirical Study Of Role Of Accounting Data In Performance Evaluation - Reply," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10, pages 189-193.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Habib Mahama & Zhichao (Alex) Wang, 2023. "Impact of the interactive and diagnostic uses of performance measurement systems on procedural fairness perception, cooperation and performance in supply alliances," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3253-3296, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klaus Derfuss, 2015. "Relating Context Variables to Participative Budgeting and Evaluative Use of Performance Measures: A Meta-analysis," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 238-278, June.
    2. Bisbe, Josep & Batista-Foguet, Joan-Manuel & Chenhall, Robert, 2007. "Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 789-820.
    3. Howard M. Armitage & Dorian Lane & Alan Webb, 2020. "Budget Development and Use in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Enterprises: A Field Investigation," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 205-240, September.
    4. Hall, Matthew, 2010. "Accounting information and managerial work," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Bhimani, Alnoor & Sivabalan, Prabhu & Soonawalla, Kazbi, 2018. "A study of the linkages between rolling budget forms, uncertainty and strategy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 306-323.
    6. Noeverman, J., 2010. "Within- and Between-group Agreement in Supervisor’s Evaluative Behaviours: Do evaluative ‘styles’ exist?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2010-002-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Jan Noeverman & Bas A.S. Koene & Roger Williams, 2005. "Construct measurement of evaluative style: a review and proposal," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 2(1), pages 77-107, April.
    8. Prabhu Sivabalan & Peter Booth & Teemu Malmi & David A. Brown, 2009. "An exploratory study of operational reasons to budget," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(4), pages 849-871, December.
    9. Löning, Hélène & Besson, M. & Mendoza, Carla, 2008. "Dual use of budgeting in uncertainty contexts: Explorative study of senior sales and marketing managers," HEC Research Papers Series 897, HEC Paris.
    10. Ho, Joanna L.Y. & Wu, Anne & Wu, Steve Y.C., 2014. "Performance measures, consensus on strategy implementation, and performance: Evidence from the operational-level of organizations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 38-58.
    11. Hall, Matthew, 2010. "Accounting information and managerial work," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 301-315, April.
    12. Marginson, David & Ogden, Stuart, 2005. "Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 435-456, July.
    13. Granlund, Markus & Lukka, Kari, 2017. "Investigating highly established research paradigms: Reviving contextuality in contingency theory based management accounting research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 63-80.
    14. Chenhall, Robert H., 2003. "Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 127-168.
    15. Stefan Hofmann & Andreas Wald & Ronald Gleich, 2012. "Determinants and effects of the diagnostic and interactive use of control systems: an empirical analysis on the use of budgets," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 153-182, December.
    16. Christina Boedker & Kar Ming Chong, 2022. "The mediating role of accounting controls between supervisors' empowering leadership style and subordinates' creativity and goal productivity," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(4), pages 4587-4614, December.
    17. Habib Mahama & Zhichao (Alex) Wang, 2023. "Impact of the interactive and diagnostic uses of performance measurement systems on procedural fairness perception, cooperation and performance in supply alliances," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3253-3296, September.
    18. Noeverman, J. & Koene, B.A.S., 2010. "Contextual Influences on Evaluative Style and its Effectiveness: Three Avenues for Future Research," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2010-047-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Widener, Sally K., 2007. "An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 757-788.
    20. Reheul, Anne-Mie & Jorissen, Ann, 2010. "Do CEOs Shape Planning, Control and Performance Evaluation Systems in SMEs?," Working Papers 2010/26, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:17:y:2018:i:4:p:555-587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3838 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.