Competing logics and institutionalization of cost calculation in pluralistic organizations. The role of affordances

Elodie Allain, Samuel Sponem, Frederic Munck
{"title":"Competing logics and institutionalization of cost calculation in pluralistic organizations. The role of affordances","authors":"Elodie Allain, Samuel Sponem, Frederic Munck","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-01-2022-5634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>For many years, universities have been confronted with the rise of a managerial logic, in line with the new public management movement. They have been encouraged to implement new accounting tools such as cost calculations. Literature shows mixed results regarding the institutionalization of such tools, and the logic they try to support. In most studies, the agency of actors is examined to explain the institutionalization of accounting tools and only few studies consider the specific characteristics of these accounting tools to understand this process. To enrich the literature on institutionalization, this article examines how the affordances of costing tools affect the institutionalization of these tools and the institutionalization of new logics in pluralistic organizations such as universities.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The data were collected at a French university which is considered as an example of successful institutionalization of the tool and is cited as a model to follow. The data include a four-month participant observation and 18 interviews. Access to internal and external documents was also available. The analysis of the data is based on a framework proposed by Jarzabkowski and Kaplan (2015), which draws on the concept of affordance of tools, to investigate how the possibilities and constraints of costing tools shape the selection, application and outcomes of cost calculations.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The results show that the affordances of cost calculations facilitate the institutionalization of a new logic and its coexistence with previous logics. Technical affordances are mobilized by actors aiming to bring in a new logic without directly confronting the old ones. Role affordances also play a major role in the institutionalization by facilitating the adhesion of the actors through multiple applications of the tool. Finally, value-based affordances reinforce the institutionalization of a managerial logic by emphasizing the values shared with the other logics and thus facilitating the coexistence of the three logics at stake in the university.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This research provides three main contributions. First, it contributes to the literature on the institutionalization of accounting tools. It shows the relevance of the concept of affordance (Leonardi and Vaast, 2017) to unpack the characteristics of accounting tools (including the constraints and the possibilities they offer) and to achieve a better understanding of the institutionalization of accounting tools. Second, this paper contributes to the literature dealing with the role of accounting tools in the institutionalization of logics. The results suggest that the institutionalization of tools and the institutionalization of logics are two different phenomena that move at different speeds. However, these phenomena interact: the institutionalization of accounting tools can facilitate the coexistence of different logics in pluralistic organizations. Third, this paper contributes to the literature on affordances. The data reveal several types of affordances for accounting tools: technical affordances that refer to the technical possibilities to shape and tweak the tool; role affordances that refer to the various roles and purposes that the tool can fulfill and value-based affordances that refer to the plasticity of the values and beliefs that the tool can convey. The study shows that each type of affordance is prevalent at a different time of the process of institutionalization and that the combination of these affordances contributes to the institutionalization of the tool and of new logics.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":501027,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-01-2022-5634","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

For many years, universities have been confronted with the rise of a managerial logic, in line with the new public management movement. They have been encouraged to implement new accounting tools such as cost calculations. Literature shows mixed results regarding the institutionalization of such tools, and the logic they try to support. In most studies, the agency of actors is examined to explain the institutionalization of accounting tools and only few studies consider the specific characteristics of these accounting tools to understand this process. To enrich the literature on institutionalization, this article examines how the affordances of costing tools affect the institutionalization of these tools and the institutionalization of new logics in pluralistic organizations such as universities.

Design/methodology/approach

The data were collected at a French university which is considered as an example of successful institutionalization of the tool and is cited as a model to follow. The data include a four-month participant observation and 18 interviews. Access to internal and external documents was also available. The analysis of the data is based on a framework proposed by Jarzabkowski and Kaplan (2015), which draws on the concept of affordance of tools, to investigate how the possibilities and constraints of costing tools shape the selection, application and outcomes of cost calculations.

Findings

The results show that the affordances of cost calculations facilitate the institutionalization of a new logic and its coexistence with previous logics. Technical affordances are mobilized by actors aiming to bring in a new logic without directly confronting the old ones. Role affordances also play a major role in the institutionalization by facilitating the adhesion of the actors through multiple applications of the tool. Finally, value-based affordances reinforce the institutionalization of a managerial logic by emphasizing the values shared with the other logics and thus facilitating the coexistence of the three logics at stake in the university.

Originality/value

This research provides three main contributions. First, it contributes to the literature on the institutionalization of accounting tools. It shows the relevance of the concept of affordance (Leonardi and Vaast, 2017) to unpack the characteristics of accounting tools (including the constraints and the possibilities they offer) and to achieve a better understanding of the institutionalization of accounting tools. Second, this paper contributes to the literature dealing with the role of accounting tools in the institutionalization of logics. The results suggest that the institutionalization of tools and the institutionalization of logics are two different phenomena that move at different speeds. However, these phenomena interact: the institutionalization of accounting tools can facilitate the coexistence of different logics in pluralistic organizations. Third, this paper contributes to the literature on affordances. The data reveal several types of affordances for accounting tools: technical affordances that refer to the technical possibilities to shape and tweak the tool; role affordances that refer to the various roles and purposes that the tool can fulfill and value-based affordances that refer to the plasticity of the values and beliefs that the tool can convey. The study shows that each type of affordance is prevalent at a different time of the process of institutionalization and that the combination of these affordances contributes to the institutionalization of the tool and of new logics.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多元组织中相互竞争的逻辑和成本计算的制度化。负担能力的作用
目的 多年来,大学一直面临着与新公共管理运动相一致的管理逻辑的兴起。人们鼓励大学采用新的会计工具,如成本计算。文献显示,关于这些工具的制度化及其试图支持的逻辑,结果不一。在大多数研究中,为解释会计工具的制度化,对行动者的作用进行了研究,只有少数研究考虑了这些会计工具的具体特点,以理解这一过程。为了丰富有关制度化的文献,本文探讨了成本核算工具的可承受性如何影响这些工具的制度化以及新逻辑在大学等多元化组织中的制度化。数据包括为期四个月的参与观察和 18 次访谈。此外,还查阅了内部和外部文件。对数据的分析基于 Jarzabkowski 和 Kaplan(2015 年)提出的框架,该框架借鉴了工具承受能力的概念,以研究成本计算工具的可能性和制约因素如何影响成本计算的选择、应用和结果。结果结果表明,成本计算的承受能力促进了新逻辑的制度化及其与先前逻辑的共存。行动者可以利用技术能力,在不直接面对旧逻辑的情况下引入新逻辑。角色能力在制度化过程中也发挥着重要作用,它通过多次应用工具促进行动者之间的融合。最后,基于价值的承受力通过强调与其他逻辑共享的价值,从而促进了大学中三种逻辑的共存,从而加强了管理逻辑的制度化。首先,它为有关会计工具制度化的文献做出了贡献。它显示了负担能力概念(Leonardi 和 Vaast,2017 年)在解读会计工具特征(包括其提供的限制和可能性)以及更好地理解会计工具制度化方面的相关性。其次,本文为研究会计工具在逻辑制度化中的作用的文献做出了贡献。研究结果表明,工具的制度化和逻辑的制度化是两种不同的现象,它们以不同的速度发展。然而,这两种现象是相互影响的:会计工具的制度化可以促进多元化组织中不同逻辑的共存。第三,本文对有关负担能力的文献有所贡献。数据揭示了会计工具的几种承受能力:技术承受能力指的是塑造和调整工具的技术可能性;角色承受能力指的是工具可以实现的各种角色和目的;基于价值的承受能力指的是工具可以传达的价值观和信念的可塑性。研究表明,每种负担能力在制度化进程的不同时期都很普遍,这些负担能力的结合有助于工具和新逻辑的制度化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ways of not seeing: visibility, blindness, and the transparency game Accounting for racial inequality in South Africa with the black economic empowerment policy Boundary objects: sustainability reporting and the production of organizational stability Responding to employee-based race inequalities in National Health Service (England): accountability and the Workforce Race Equality Standard The failure of the United Kingdom’s accounting and fiscal governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1