《10.1016@j.mar.2016.07.007.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《10.1016@j.mar.2016.07.007.docx（16页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、G Model YMARE-598; No. of Pages 16 ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: Ax, C., Greve, J., Adoption of management accounting innovations: Organizational culture compatibility and perceived outcomes. Manage. Account. Res. (2016), http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.007 Management
2、 Accounting Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx Adoption of management accounting innovations: Organizational culture compatibility and perceived outcomes Christian Axa, Jan Greveb a University of Gothenburg, School of Business, Economics and Law, P.O. Box 610, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden b rebro University
3、 School of Business, SE-701 82 rebro, Sweden a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 21 October 2013 Received in revised form 14 July 2016 Accepted 25 July 2016 Available online xxx Keywords: Management accounting innovations Diffusion Adoption Organizational culture Balanced
4、 scorecard New-institutional theory Although the introduction of a number of successful management accounting innovations over the past few decades has generated a vast amount of research, we have limited knowledge about how the diffusion of innovations is affected by the interplay between character
5、istics of adopters and characteristics of innovations. The study presented in this paper contributes to the literature that examines the adoption of innovations at the rm level of analysis. We develop and test an adoption model which draws on two recently introduced ideas about innovation adoptionth
6、e notion of compatibility between organizational culture and the values and beliefs embedded in innovations, and the perspective that early and late adopters might both be motivated to adopt based on expected economic and social gains and losses. In synthesising these models, we assume that a diffus
7、ing innovation that is compatible with a rms values and beliefs is adopted early if it is perceived as delivering adequate gains while the innovation is rejected if it is not perceived as doing so, and that a diffusing innovation that is incompatible with a rms values and beliefs is adopted late if
8、it is perceived as reducing the likelihood of incurring losses while the innovation is rejected if it is perceived as not doing so. Hypotheses are generated and tested using data provided by a web-based survey of Swedish manufacturing rms on the diffusion of the balanced scorecard across those rms.
9、In most respects, the pattern of results this study nds supports our model and assumptions. 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Research on the supply and demand of administrative innova- tions has emerged as fundamental in many elds. The introduction of management accounting inn
10、ovations (MAIs), such as activity- based costing, the balanced scorecard, strategic management accounting, target costing, and the beyond budgeting approach, has produced an impressive body of research (e.g. Ansari et al., 2007; Gosselin, 2007; Langeld-Smith, 2008; Zawawi and Hoque, 2010; Hoque, 201
11、4). The prevailing focus of such research has been on identifying general contextual factors and rm characteristics that inuence the adoption of innovations at the rm level (e.g. Cadez and Guilding, 2008; Abdel-Kader and Luther, 2008; Baird et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2004). Another research directi
12、on draws on the new-institutional perspective on diffusion (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983). Management accounting researchers have typically used the management fashion variant of Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: christian.axgu.se (C. Ax), jan.greveoru.se (J. Greve). new
13、-institutional theory (Abrahamson, 1991, 1996; Abrahamson and Fairchild, 1999; Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1993). Studies have reported how MAI adoption motivations vary through succes- sive phases of the diffusion trajectory (Malmi, 1999, 2001; Malmi and Ikheimo, 2003). Recent decades have, however,
14、witnessed the emergence of a debate about the application of new-institutional theory in the area of diffusion (e.g. Staw and Epstein, 2000; Lounsbury, 2008; Colyvas and Jonsson, 2011; Chandler, 2014). The inuential two- stage model of diffusion (Tolbert and Zucker, 1983) has been criticized for ove
15、rsimplifying behaviour in organizations because it ignores the fact that economic logic is institutionally determined (Lounsbury, 2007) and because it makes unrealistic assumptions about management, whereby early adopters are motivated by technical considerations and later adopters engage in mindles
16、s imi- tation fuelled by anxiety-driven pressures to conform (Lounsbury, 2008). Recently, two models that were designed to overcome some of the problems with new-institutional theory have been intro- duced in the literature. Presenting one such model, Love and Cebon (2008) argue that adoption behavi
17、our is connected to organizational culture but, http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.007 1044-5005/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Management Accounting Research journal homepage: G Model YMARE-598; ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Ax, J. Greve / Management A
18、ccounting Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx No. of Pages 16 2 Please cite this article in press as: Ax, C., Greve, J., Adoption of management accounting innovations: Organizational culture compatibility and perceived outcomes. Manage. Account. Res. (2016), http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.007 contrar
19、y to universal contextual models, theirs highlights the notion of compatibility (t) between organizational culture and the values and beliefs embedded in an innovation that is being con- sidered for adoption. They also demonstrate empirically a positive relationship between compatibility and innovat
20、ion adoption rates, but observe that the inuence of compatibility declines as diffusion unfolds over time. The study makes an important contribution to the eld by presenting compatibility as a factor explaining early versus late innovation adoption. In presenting the other model, Kennedy and Fiss (2
21、009) rethink the two-stage models relation- ship between adoption motivations and timing. Contrary to the conventional model, their model suggests that adoption in the early stage is related to opportunity framing and the motivation to achieve gains (both economic and social), while adoption in the
22、later stage is related to threat framing and the motivation to avoid losses (again both economic and social). Kennedy and Fiss (2009) argue that, therefore, economic and social motivations comple- ment rather than conict with each other.1 The approach addresses the criticism of the conventional two-
23、stage model that economic and social motivations to adopt are separated in space and time. The model makes an important contribution by highlighting the interplay between economic and social considerations in adoption decision-making over the diffusion trajectory. The overarching objective of the pr
24、esent study is to contribute to our understanding of the adoption of MAIs at the rm level of analysis. We attempt to do so by integrating insights from these recently introduced theoretical approaches, with the goal of pro- viding scholars with a model that explains the dynamic interplay between org
25、anizational culture, the values and beliefs embedded in an innovation, and motivations for adoption over the course of the diffusion process.2 Looking at these variables and their inter- play would provide a fuller understanding of innovation adoption decision-making in a collectivity than has previ
26、ously been recog- nized, with the potential to offer an enhanced understanding of why certain rms are early adopters and others are late adopters, how adoption motivations for early and late adopters differ, and why certain rms are non-adopters. Hypotheses are developed and tested using data from a
27、web- based survey of Swedish manufacturing business units on the diffusion of the balanced scorecard (BSC) during the time period 19922008. In most respects, the pattern of results this study nds supports our model and assumptions. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. The next section
28、 presents the studys theory and hypotheses. The research method is described in Section 3. Section 4 covers the data analysis and results. In the concluding section, we discuss the results, high- light our research contributions, note the studys limitations, and present suggestions for further resea
29、rch. 2. Theory and development of hypotheses In this section, we present the theoretical ideas on which our study draws. First, we discuss the link between organizational culture and management innovations. Second, we briey review 1 Kennedy and Fiss (2009) are not the rst to argue that economic and
30、social moti- vations for adoption complement each other rather than conict. Abrahamson and colleagues (e.g. Abrahamson, 1991; Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1993) discussed this idea in the 1990s. 2 The link between organizational culture and management accounting has gener- ally been overlooked in previ
31、ous research (Chenhall, 2003; Henri 2006). However, a few studies have investigated the link between organizational culture and the adop- the current debate about the validity of the new-institutional two-stage model of diffusion, and we present recent ideas within institutional analysis which cast
32、new light on the two-stage model and the relationship between adoption motivations and timing. Finally, based on the previous sub-sections, we develop hypotheses regarding innovation adoption. 2.1. Compatibility a link between organizational culture and management innovations The 1980s witnessed the
33、 emergence of organizational culture as an important concept in the analysis of organizations. Today, the concept is rmly established and has been linked to a num- ber of organizational activities and outcomes, including success and failure, innovativeness, creativity, change implementation, restruc
34、turing, and learning. There is no consensus in the literature on a denition of organizational culture. However, the major- ity of denitions highlight notions such as shared values, beliefs, and assumptions among organizational members (Schein, 1985; Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Detert et al., 2000; Jun
35、g et al., 2009; Bligh and Hatch, 2011).3 From this perspective, organizational cul- ture deeply affects how organizational members interpret social objects and practices, what goals members develop, and what strategies members enact to link the objects and practices to the goals (Love and Cebon, 200
36、8). The general idea that organizational culture t is an important factor inuencing behaviour and outcomes in organizations has been established in the literature for decades (Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Jung et al., 2009; Bligh and Hatch, 2011). In this study, we are especially interested in the noti
37、on of compatibility (t) between organizational culture and management innovations. An innova- tion is compatible with an organizations culture when the values and beliefs that are normatively desirable for effective use of the practice are similar to relevant shared values and beliefs of organi- zat
38、ional participants (Love and Cebon, 2008). Thus, compatibility refers to a relationship between a rm and an innovation (and is, thus, not a characteristic of the rm alone). The notion of com- patibility applied in this study is based on a framework that was developed by Detert et al. (2000). Their f
39、ramework gives particular importance to Scheins (1985) view of culture, mainly his values and beliefs dimension. Henceforth, we refer to compatible rms when organizational culture and the values and beliefs associated with an innovation are similar to or complement one another and to incompatible rm
40、s when organizational culture and the values and beliefs associated with an innovation are dissimilar. Prior research suggests that compatibility is linked to the dif- fusion process. The view that changes in practices that conict with existing cultural values and beliefs are likely to meet resis- t
41、ance among organizational members is widely accepted in the organizational culture literature. Studies suggest that new prac- tice implementation occurs more easily and is more successful, and that the continued and successful use of an innovation is more likely, when organizational culture ts with
42、the values and beliefs that are embedded in administrative innovations (Detert et al., 2000; Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001; Lozeau et al., 2002). To our knowledge, only one study has empirically examined the inuence of compatibility on innovation adoption. Love and Cebon (2008) examined the adoption of
43、best manufacturing practices, such as TQM, benchmarking, customer focus, and continuous improve- ment, among 1161 manufacturing sites in Australia and New Zealand. They found that adoption rates are directly related to the tion of MAIs (Baird et al., 2004; Baird, 2007). These studies see organizatio
44、nal culture as a general characteristic of the rm, thereby representing the view that some cul- tures are generally more adoption-oriented than others. As discussed above, this view of the link opposes the view of the present study (Love and Cebon, 2008). 3 Many denitions of organizational culture a
45、lso include artefacts, which are tan- gible organizational structures and processes, e.g., dress codes, furniture, symbols, organizational structures, and stories. Please cite this article in press as: Ax, C., Greve, J., Adoption of management accounting innovations: Organizational culture compatibi
46、lity and perceived outcomes. Manage. Account. Res. (2016), http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.007 G Model YMARE-598; No. of Pages 16 ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Ax, J. Greve / Management Accounting Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx 3 compatibility of the organizational culture of adopting rms with the values a
47、nd beliefs associated with best manufacturing prac- tices. However, they also reported dynamic interaction between these factors over the course of the diffusion process. They found that the inuence of organizational culture is stronger among early adopters and that the inuence of compatibility on a
48、dop- tion declines over time. The authors suggested that, as innovations become institutionalised at the eld level, the inuence of compat- ibility on adoption decisions is progressively pressed out. Love and Cebon (2008) conjectured, but did not empirically show, that the decreased inuence of compat
49、ibility could be linked to imitative behaviour, institutionalization of the innovation, and theorisation by knowledge entrepreneurs, i.e., actors on the supply side of the diffusion process. The idea of a dynamic relationship between organizational cul- ture and innovation characteristics, and of how this relationship relates to adoption motivation and timing, clearly provides a novel perspective on adoption. This reasoning signies a more c