在混合型组织中,什么是好的工作?论估值登记册排序的努力

IF 4.6 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-22 DOI:10.1108/aaaj-12-2019-4328
Ida Schrøder, Emilia Cederberg, A. M. Hauge
{"title":"在混合型组织中,什么是好的工作?论估值登记册排序的努力","authors":"Ida Schrøder, Emilia Cederberg, A. M. Hauge","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-12-2019-4328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper investigates how different and sometimes conflicting approaches to performance evaluations are hybridized in the day-to-day activities of a disciplined hybrid organization–i.e. a public child protection agency at the intersection between the market and the public sector.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on a one-year ethnography of how employees achieve to qualify their work as “good work” in situations with several and sometimes conflicting ideals of what “good work” is. Fieldwork material was collected by following casework activities across organizational boundaries. By combining accounting literature on hybridization with literature on practices of valuation, the paper develops a novel theoretical framework which allows for analyses of the various practices of valuation, when and where they clash and how they persist over time in everyday work.FindingsThroughout the study, four distinct registers of valuation were identified: feeling, theorizing, formalizing and costing. To denote the meticulous efforts of pursuing good work in all four registers of valuation, the authors propose the notion of sequencing. Sequencing is an ongoing process of moving conflicting registers away from each other and bringing them back together again. Correspondingly, at the operational level of a hybrid organization, temporary compartmentalization is a means of avoiding clashes, and in doing so, making it possible for different and sometimes conflicting ways of achieving good results to continuously hybridize and persist together.Research limitations/implicationsThe single-case approach allows for analytical depth, but limits the findings to theoretical, rather than empirical, generalizability. The framework the authors propose, however, is well-suited for mobilization and potential elaboration in further empirical contexts.Originality/valueThe paper provides a novel theoretical framework as well as rich empirical material from the highly political field of child protection work, which has seldomly been studied within accounting research.","PeriodicalId":48311,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is good work in a hybrid organization? On the efforts of sequencing registers of valuation\",\"authors\":\"Ida Schrøder, Emilia Cederberg, A. M. Hauge\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/aaaj-12-2019-4328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis paper investigates how different and sometimes conflicting approaches to performance evaluations are hybridized in the day-to-day activities of a disciplined hybrid organization–i.e. a public child protection agency at the intersection between the market and the public sector.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on a one-year ethnography of how employees achieve to qualify their work as “good work” in situations with several and sometimes conflicting ideals of what “good work” is. Fieldwork material was collected by following casework activities across organizational boundaries. By combining accounting literature on hybridization with literature on practices of valuation, the paper develops a novel theoretical framework which allows for analyses of the various practices of valuation, when and where they clash and how they persist over time in everyday work.FindingsThroughout the study, four distinct registers of valuation were identified: feeling, theorizing, formalizing and costing. To denote the meticulous efforts of pursuing good work in all four registers of valuation, the authors propose the notion of sequencing. Sequencing is an ongoing process of moving conflicting registers away from each other and bringing them back together again. Correspondingly, at the operational level of a hybrid organization, temporary compartmentalization is a means of avoiding clashes, and in doing so, making it possible for different and sometimes conflicting ways of achieving good results to continuously hybridize and persist together.Research limitations/implicationsThe single-case approach allows for analytical depth, but limits the findings to theoretical, rather than empirical, generalizability. The framework the authors propose, however, is well-suited for mobilization and potential elaboration in further empirical contexts.Originality/valueThe paper provides a novel theoretical framework as well as rich empirical material from the highly political field of child protection work, which has seldomly been studied within accounting research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-12-2019-4328\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-12-2019-4328","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的:本文研究了在一个有纪律的混合型组织的日常活动中,不同的、有时是相互冲突的绩效评估方法是如何混合在一起的。一个公共儿童保护机构,在市场和公共部门的交叉点。设计/方法/方法这篇论文是基于一项为期一年的民族志,研究员工如何在“好工作”的几种理想(有时是相互冲突的理想)的情况下,将自己的工作定义为“好工作”。实地工作材料是通过跨组织边界的案例工作活动收集的。通过将关于杂交的会计文献与关于估值实践的文献相结合,本文开发了一个新的理论框架,该框架允许分析各种估值实践,何时何地发生冲突以及它们如何在日常工作中持续存在。在整个研究中,确定了四种不同的估值记录:感觉、理论化、形式化和成本。为了表示在所有四个估值登记册中追求良好工作的细致努力,作者提出了排序的概念。排序是一个持续的过程,将相互冲突的寄存器从彼此移开,并将它们重新组合在一起。相应地,在混合型组织的操作层面,临时划分是避免冲突的一种手段,通过这样做,可以使实现良好结果的不同(有时是相互冲突的)方法不断混合并持续在一起。研究局限/启示单一案例方法允许深入分析,但将研究结果限制在理论上,而不是经验上的普遍性。然而,作者提出的框架非常适合在进一步的经验背景下进行动员和潜在的阐述。本文从高度政治化的儿童保护工作领域提供了一个新颖的理论框架和丰富的实证材料,这在会计研究中很少被研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What is good work in a hybrid organization? On the efforts of sequencing registers of valuation
PurposeThis paper investigates how different and sometimes conflicting approaches to performance evaluations are hybridized in the day-to-day activities of a disciplined hybrid organization–i.e. a public child protection agency at the intersection between the market and the public sector.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on a one-year ethnography of how employees achieve to qualify their work as “good work” in situations with several and sometimes conflicting ideals of what “good work” is. Fieldwork material was collected by following casework activities across organizational boundaries. By combining accounting literature on hybridization with literature on practices of valuation, the paper develops a novel theoretical framework which allows for analyses of the various practices of valuation, when and where they clash and how they persist over time in everyday work.FindingsThroughout the study, four distinct registers of valuation were identified: feeling, theorizing, formalizing and costing. To denote the meticulous efforts of pursuing good work in all four registers of valuation, the authors propose the notion of sequencing. Sequencing is an ongoing process of moving conflicting registers away from each other and bringing them back together again. Correspondingly, at the operational level of a hybrid organization, temporary compartmentalization is a means of avoiding clashes, and in doing so, making it possible for different and sometimes conflicting ways of achieving good results to continuously hybridize and persist together.Research limitations/implicationsThe single-case approach allows for analytical depth, but limits the findings to theoretical, rather than empirical, generalizability. The framework the authors propose, however, is well-suited for mobilization and potential elaboration in further empirical contexts.Originality/valueThe paper provides a novel theoretical framework as well as rich empirical material from the highly political field of child protection work, which has seldomly been studied within accounting research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Dedicated to the advancement of accounting knowledge, the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal publishes high quality manuscripts concerning the interaction between accounting/auditing and their socio-economic and political environments, encouraging critical analysis of policy and practice in these areas. The journal also seeks to encourage debate about the philosophies and traditions which underpin the accounting profession, the implications of new policy alternatives and the impact of accountancy on the socio-economic and political environment.
期刊最新文献
Exploring a Soccer Society: dreams, themes and the beautiful game Reporting controversial issues in controversial industries AAAJ Literature and Insights 36.7/8 Editorial The accounting profession is undergoing a change An autistic in postgraduate accounting
×
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