RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTINGFederal University of Paraiba (25th November 2016)

Kate Horton (Federal University of Pernambuco & Rotterdam School of Management, the Netherlands)

INTRODUCTION Thank you for the invite. Today, I will present our paper and will discuss the process of publishing it in MAR.

THE PAPER

INITIAL IDEAS The project came about when Claudio saw an advertisement for a special issue on the paradox of embedded agency in MAR.

Special issue adverts usually appear in journals and/or on association list-services.

We were both working on the topic of change at the time.

FIRST SUBMISSION The paradox of embedded agency poses the following puzzle: “If actors are embedded in an institutional context which largely

conditions their (inter)actions, intentions, and rationality, how are they able to envision new practices and accomplish institutional change?” (Englund & Gerdin, 2013). We didn’t have any data aimed at addressing this question. But we did have some ideas for a theoretical paper.

– Claudio had studied the role of institutional contradictions in change. – I had written a review paper which highlighted the link between identity

conflict and change, and which also incorporated accounting literature. These ideas formed the basis of our paper, which argues that identity conflicts act as a stimulus of embedded agency / change amongst MAs.

OUR MODEL This is our final model

To get a better idea of what we proposed, I will present each element of the model to you.

WHAT DO WE PROPOSE? We propose that MAs may experience a number of different identity conflicts in the workplace. For example between:

– Involvement-independence. Lambert and Sponem (2012, p. 568) ask: “Can accountants effectively wear both hats at the same time, one requiring a degree of involvement with affiliated management and the other a degree of independence from the same?”

– Multi-level conflicts. For example, when an individual’s conceptualization of his professional role identity conflicts with an organization’s collective vision of what this role entails (Goretzki et al., 2013).

– Current and desired identities. MAs often perceive some level of conflict between what their organization currently is and how they would like it to be in the future, and / or the organization’s current image and their expectations /desires for its future image (e.g., see Abrahamsson et al, 2011).

PROPOSITION 1Proposition 1: Management accountants will experience identity conflicts when the norms, values and expectations associated with different identity foci or different temporal identities misalign.

Multiple identities

 Multi-Foci

(e.g., identities / interests

  

Multi-Temporal (e.g., current / desired

identities) 

P1+

Multi-foci /

Multi-temporal(Individual or

multi-level conflicts)

 Multi-foci / Multi-temporal (Collective or

multi-level conflicts)

 

Identity

Conflicts  

 

WHAT DO WE PROPOSE? We propose that these conflicts create tension (threatening self-esteem and self-consistency) stimulating change efforts aimed at reducing the perceived discrepancy.

MAs may accomplish change by engaging in active identity work and job crafting, which change the roles, tasks and relational boundaries of MA work.

– For example, Morales & Lambert (2013) found that when MAs experienced conflicts between their idealized occupational aspirations’ and ‘situated possibilities’ they reacted by adjusting their accounting practices - delegating and managing tasks to reduce the perceived conflicts.

– These practices, also fundamentally changed the nature of their task boundaries.

PROPOSITION 2Proposition 2: Multi-foci and multi-temporal identity conflicts are likely to lead to job crafting and active identity work aimed at changing MA roles, tasks and relational boundaries.

Multi-foci /

Multi-temporal(Individual or

multi-level conflicts)

 Multi-foci / Multi-temporal (Collective or

multi-level conflicts)

 

Identity

Conflicts  

 

Behavioral Responses to Conflict 

 

 

 

 

 

Agentic processes

Job crafting & active identity work

(Individual level)Job crafting &

active identity work (Collective level)

 

Changes in MA practices

Changes to MA roles, tasks and

relational boundaries

 

P2+

WHAT DO WE PROPOSE? However, identity conflicts don’t always lead to change efforts. In fact, some MAs who experience identity conflict are powerless to make changes within their organizations, while others may instead opt to leave their organization (Lui et al, 2001).

This leads to the key question => when does identity conflict provide a stimulus for change?

We identified two key moderators:– Job discretion: We propose that MAs will have more freedom to

adapt their roles through active identity work and job crafting when they have high job discretion (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

PROPOSITION 3Proposition 3:The relationship between identity conflicts and behavioral responses will vary according to a management accountant’s level of job discretion, such that job crafting and active identity work will be more likely when management accountants have high job discretion.

Multi-foci /

Multi-temporal(Individual or

multi-level conflicts)

 Multi-foci / Multi-temporal (Collective or

multi-level conflicts)

 

Identity

Conflicts  

 

Behavioral Responses to Conflict

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agentic processes

Job crafting & active identity work

(Individual level)Job crafting &

active identity work (Collective level)

 

ModeratorsJob

discretion

P3+

WHAT DO WE PROPOSE? However, identity conflicts don’t always lead to change efforts. In fact, some MAs who experience identity conflict are powerless to make changes within their organizations, while others may instead opt to leave their organization (Lui et al, 2001).

This leads to the key question => when does identity conflict provide a stimulus for change?

We identified two key moderators:– Job discretion: We propose that MAs will have more freedom to adapt

their roles through active identity work and job crafting when they have high job discretion (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

– Business involvement: MAs with high business involvement have greater visibility, support and legitimacy amongst operational managers (Emsley, 2005).

– We therefore propose that business partners are in a stronger position to accomplish collective change actions, relative to their counterparts in low involvement roles.

PROPOSITION 4 Proposition 4: The relationship between identity conflicts and behavioral responses will vary according to an individual’s level of business involvement, such that collective job crafting and identity work will be more likely when management accountants have high business involvement and individual job crafting and identity work will be more likely when management accountants have low business involvement.

Multi-foci /

Multi-temporal(Individual or

multi-level conflicts)

 Multi-foci / Multi-temporal (Collective or

multi-level conflicts)

 

Identity

Conflicts  

 

Behavioral Responses to Conflict

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agentic processes

Job crafting & active identity work

(Individual level)Job crafting &

active identity work (Collective level)

 

ModeratorsJob

discretion

ModeratorsBusiness

involvement

P4+

P3+

P4-

WHAT DO WE PROPOSE? A final piece of the jigsaw is the reverse effects of changes in MA practices on identities and identity conflicts.

More specifically, research suggests that changes in MA practices can challenge identities and create new identity conflicts.

– For example, Jarvinen (2009) found that changes in MA practices - including the abandonment of the ABC cost system - had implications for MAs’ occupational identities, causing them to redefine their perceptions of their professional roles.

– Similarly, Burns and Baldvinsdottir (2005) showed that new change policies implemented by an organization created identity conflicts for a financial manager - because they represented a move away from the traditional accounting values which he held.

PROPOSITION 5Proposition 5: Changes in MA practices will lead to changes in management accountants’ identities (through identity work), and the experience of identity conflict, if these new practices diverge from existing institutionalized identities.

CONTRIBUTIONS One of the main challenges in publishing in international journals is demonstrating the theoretical and practical implications of the work (in both empirical and theoretical papers).

International journals look for authors to explain the gap(s) in the literature that they aim to address and to define their paper’s contribution to the extant literature.

In his 2014 review, MAR editor Bob Scapens stated that:

– “Failure to contribute to the management accounting literature is the primary reason for the rejection of papers, both before review (desk reject) and after review.”

CONTRIBUTIONSWhat gaps in the literature did our model aim to fill?

The main contributions of our model were to:– Provide a more detailed explanation of the processes through

which embedded agency occurs, and in particular, the role of identity conflict in shaping such change processes.

– (The extant literature on MA change has been widely criticized for its dominant focus on external shocks and heroic models of change (Kilfoyle & Richardson, 2011), and for its failure to conceptualize when, why and how MAs facilitate institutional entrepreneurship within organizations.)

– Hence our model adds to literature aimed at understanding the micro-processes involved.

CONTRIBUTIONS– We also responded to calls for greater engagement with identity

scholarship in the MA field (Abrahamsson et al., 2011; Empson, 2004).

In addition, our model has practical implications. In particular in relation to:

– How changes in MA roles from traditional bean-counters to more modern business partner roles may be expected to shape experiences of identity conflict and embedded agency.

– How agentic processes may be supported and facilitated by organizational norms that advocate high levels of MA autonomy and business involvement.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

PUBLISHING PROSPECTS: THE NEGATIVES Overall, the paper tried to do too much:

– Our interdisciplinary approach was too broad / imprecise. – We tried to bridge macro and micro literatures, but this led to

conceptual confusion regarding the main concepts and overarching framework.

Our theoretical framework was therefore not considered strong enough.

The paper received a fairly negative evaluation by the reviewers – despite the revise & resubmit decision. The editors wrote:

Rejections are common in international journals, even if an author initially receives a R&R decision – especially if the revision is denoted ‘high risk.’

PUBLISHING PROSPECTS: THE POSITIVES However, a few features of our paper probably increased the chances of a revise & resubmit (R&R) at round 1.

Inter-disciplinary nature of the paper: – Although this resulted in some confusion, it also increased our chances of

acceptance.– In particular, the basis of our research model (SIT) is very well-known in

my area of expertise but represented a new perspective for the accounting literature.

The ‘special issue’ effect:– We almost certainly got a second chance (R1) because this was a special

issue and submission numbers were lower than for normal issues! An R&R decision is a reason for celebration as the majority of papers are rejected at the desk or following the first review.

LETTER TO REVIEWERS / EDITOR After celebrating - the next step was to revise our paper and outline in a letter how we had addressed the comments of the reviewers and editors.

My strategy for writing reviewers’ letters is:– Read letter multiple times – and try to identify the most important

points (i.e., look for consensus across the reviews and prioritize the points).

– Construct an overview document - integrating the reviewers’ points and resolving discrepancies between the reviewers’ perspectives (paying close attention to the editors’ suggestions).

– Amend the paper– Construct a reviewers’ / editors’ letter - explaining (point by point)

how I addressed each point.

MULTIPLE REVIEWING ROUNDS International journals tend to have multiple reviewing rounds. The high impact journals normally require 2-4 revisions, which cycle through high risk, major, minor revisions etc.

Our paper went through 4 rounds of revisions:– Major high risk revision (R&R1 in June 2014)– Major revision (R&R2 April 2015)– Minor revision (R&R3 December 2015)– Conditional accept (R4 June 2016)

The final paper was accepted in June 2016. So the review process took 2 years and 3 months in total!

OUR OVERALL EXPERIENCE OF THE MAR REVIEW PROCESS Very slow (often waited 6 months + for a decision per round).

– Potentially a down-side of special issues – they don’t abide by normal review timescales.

Very high quality reviews– The reviewers and editors made many good points and the paper

undoubtedly improved during the review process. – Excellent journals normally have excellent reviewers.

Important to get the editors ‘on side’ – The editors were supportive from the beginning and were important

‘champions’ of the paper, which ultimately improved our chances of success.

GENERAL TIPS BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE: Consider inter-disciplinary co-authors (who can bring new perspectives to your topic).

Consider special issues (increases chance of acceptance!) Use the reviews as constructive criticism to improve the manuscript. Balance responsiveness and over-responsiveness in revisions. Specifically:

– Be polite and responsive but make sure that the overall storyline doesn’t become disjointed as a result.

Don’t expect a quick publication – this means that its important to consider a mixed publishing strategy.

– Don’t ‘put all your eggs in one basket’ on a high risk project.– Try to have multiple projects ongoing.

Be persistent – and try to see it as a constructive (learning) process!

THANK YOUAny questions?

REFERENCES: Abrahamsson, G., Englund, H., Gerdin, J., (2011). Organizational identity and

management accounting change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(3), 345-376.

Burns, J., Baldvinsdottir, G., (2005). An institutional perspective of accountants’ new roles – the interplay of contradictions and praxis. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 725-757.

Emsley, D., (2005). Restructuring the management accounting function: A note on the effect of role involvement on innovativeness. Management Accounting Research, 16(2), 157-177.

Goretzki, L., Strauss, E., Weber, J., (2013). An institutional perspective on the changes in management accountants’ professional role. Management Accounting Research, 24, 41-63.

Kilfoyle, E., Richardson, A.J., (2011). Agency and structure in budgeting: Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(2), 183-199.

REFERENCES: Jarvinen, J., (2009). Shifting NPM agendas and management accountants’

occupational identities. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1187-1210.

Lambert, C., Sponem, S., (2012). Roles authority and involvement at the management accounting function: A multiple case study perspective. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 565-589.

Lui, S., Ngo, H-Y., Tsang, A. W-N., (2001). Interrole conflict as a predictor of job satisfaction and propensity to leave: A study of professional accountants. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(6), 469-484.

Morales, J., Lambert, C., (2013). Dirty work and the construction of identity: An ethnographic study of management accounting practices. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38, 228-244.

Scapens, R. W. (2014). My final editorial. Management Accounting Research, 25(4), 245-250.