The Presence of Bureaucracy in the Balanced Scorecard
La Presencia de la Burocracia en el Balanced Scorecard
Supporting Agencies
- We thank participants at XVIIIth International Conference of the Accounting Teachers and Researchers Association of Spain (Asociación Española de Profesores Universitarios de Contabilidad) and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.
- This work was carried out using funding provided by the European Commission’s COMPETE PROGRAM (reference No.POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006683), the FCT/MEC (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P./Ministério da Educação e Ciência), and the European Regional Development Fund – ERDF through the Operational Programme on Competitiveness and Internationalization – COMPETE 2020 and the PT2020 Partnership Agreement.
Abstract
Despite being widely pilloried, bureaucratic processes are present in many organizations as a form of neo-bureaucracy. In this paper, we analyse whether a technique used in Management Accounting Systems (MAS), known as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), represents a bureaucratic order. We propose the following set of concepts to identify a bureaucratic order: authority, jurisdiction, professional qualifications, knowledge, rationality, discipline, accountability, systematization and transparency. We discuss the presence of such a set of concepts in the design and implementation of the BSC and conclude that the BSC is an example of a neo-bureaucratic order. This paper also underlines another important finding, the value of bureaucracy in attaining good MAS. The theme we explore is overlooked in the accounting literature. This paper can be a starting point for further research.
Downloads
References
Adler, P., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracies: enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61–89.
Adler, P. S. (1992). The Learning Bureaucracy: New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Adler, P. S. (1993). Time-and-motion regained. Harvard Business Review, 71(1), 97–108.
Alexander, M. (1997). Getting to grips with the virtual organization. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 122–124.
Ax, C., & Greve, J. (2017). Adoption of management accounting innovations: Organizational culture compatibility and perceived outcomes. Management Accounting Research, 34, 59–74.
Bauman, Z. (2008). The Art of Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Callon, M. (2002). Writing and (re)writing devices as tools for managing complexity. In Law, J. & Mol, A. (eds) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare. London: Sage.
Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization, 12(2), 147–167.
Cokins, G. (2014). Top 7 trends in management accounting, Part 2. Strategic Finance, January, 41–47.
Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination: power in soft bureaucracies. Organization Studies, 21(1), 141–161.
Craig, T. (1995). Achieving innovation through bureaucracy: lessons from the Japanese brewing industry. California Management Review, 38(1), 8–36.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large mature organizations: overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1120–1153.
Du Gay, P. (2005). The Values of Bureaucracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Farrell, C., & Morris, J. (2003). The “neo-bureaucratic” state: Professionals, managers and professional managers in schools, general practices and social work. Organization, 10(1), 129–156.
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.
Ferner, A. (2000). The underpinnings of “bureaucratic” control systems: HRM in European multinationals. Journal of Management Studies, 37(4), 521–539.
Garston, N. (1993). Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Goodsell, C. (2004). The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. Washington: CQ Press.
Guillén, M. F. (1994). Models of Management: Work, Authority, and Organization in a Comparative Perspective. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Hales, C. (2002). “Bureaucracy-lite” and continuities in managerial work. British Journal of Management, 13, 51–66.
Hlavacek, J. D., & Thompson, V. A. (1973). Bureaucracy and new product innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 16(3), 361–372.
Holmes, S., & Sunstein, C. (1999). The Cost of Rights. New York: W.W. Norton.
Hoskin, K. W., & Macve, R. H. (1986). Accounting and the examination: a genealogy of disciplinary power. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(2), 105–136.
Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Innovations in performance measurement: trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 205–238.
Jones, C., Parker, M., & Ten Bos, R. (2005). For Business Ethics. London and New York: Routledge.
Kallinikos, J. (2004). The social foundations of the bureaucratic order. Organization, 11(1), 13–36.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2004). How strategy maps frame an organisation’s objectives. Financial Executive, 20(2), 40-45.
Kärreman, D., & Alvesson, M. (2004). Cages in tandem: management control, social identity, and identification in a knowledge-intensive firm. Organization, 11(1), 149–175.
Korczynski, M. (2002). Human Resource Management and Service Work: The Fragile Social Order. London: Palgrave.
Kotorov, R. P. (2001). Virtual organization: conceptual analysis of the limits of its decentralization. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(1), 55–62.
Malmi, T. (2001). Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: a research note. Management Accounting Research, 12(2), 207–220.
Maniha, J. K. (1975). Universalism and particularism in bureaucratizing organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 177–190.
Midler, C. (1995). “Projectification” of the firm: the Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 363–375.
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1993). Governing economic life. In Gane, M. & Johnson, T. (eds), Foucault’s New Domains (pp. 75–106). London: Routledge.
Newton, J. (2005). Bending bureaucracy: leadership and multi-level governance. In Paul Du Gay, The Values of Bureaucracy (pp. 191–209). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nørreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65–88.
Oliver, A. L. (2004). On the duality of competition and collaboration: network-based knowledge relations in the biotechnology industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20(1–2), 151–171.
Pérez Granero, L., Guillén, M., & Bañón-Gomis, A. J. (2017). Influencia de los factores de contingencia en el desarrollo del cuadro de mando integral y su asociación con un rendimiento mejor. El caso de las empresas españolas. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 20(1), 82–94.
Quattrone, P. (2015). Governing social orders, unfolding rationality, and Jesuit accounting practices: a procedural approach to institutional logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3), 411-445.
Quesado, P. R., Guzmán, B. A., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2014). La influencia de factores relativos a la estrategia organizativa y al entorno en la adopción del Cuadro de Mando Integral en empresas portuguesas. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 17(2), 163–173.
Reed, M. (2005). Beyond iron cage? Bureaucracy and democracy in the knowledge economy and society. In The Values of Bureaucracy (pp. 112–140). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of Society. London: Sage.
Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2003). “Control – what control?” Culture and ambiguity within a knowledge intensive firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 831–858.
Salaman, G. (2005). Bureaucracy and beyond: managers and leaders in the “post bureaucratic” organization. In Paul Du Gay, The Values of Bureaucracy, (pp. 141–164). New York: Oxford University Press.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., & Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A descriptive analysis on the implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 361–388.
Stinchcombe, A. (1959). Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: a comparative study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(2), 168–188.
Styhre, A. (2007). The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity. London and New York: Routledge.
Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (1998). An assembly line in the head: the call centre labour process. Industrial Relations Journal, 30(2), 101–117.
Thompson, P., & Alvesson, M. (2005). Bureaucracy at work: misunderstandings and mixed blessings. In Paul Du Gay, The Values of Bureaucracy (pp. 89–113). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, R. J. (1993). Bureaucracy and society: an institutionalist perspective. In Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms (pp. 189–204). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Torsteinsen, H. (2012). Why does post-bureaucracy lead to more formalisation? Local Government Studies, 38(3), 321–344.
Weber, M. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Trans. G. Roth and C. Wittich as Economy and Society. Reprint. California: University of California Press, 1978.
-
Abstract1029
-
PDF1137
The publications in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia (EDITUM) and ASEPUC conserve the patrimonial rights (copyright) of the published manuscripts, and favour and allow their reuse under the licence of use indicated in point 2.
2. The manuscripts are published in the electronic edition of the journal under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. It allows to copy, distribute and include the article in a collective work (for example, an anthology), as long as there is no commercial purpose, the article is not altered or modified and the original work is properly cited. This journal is free of charge for the Open Access publication. ASEPUC and EDITUM finance the productiona and publication costs of the manuscripts.
3. Conditions for self-archiving. Authors are permitted and encouraged to electronically disseminate the published version of their works, as it favors their circulation and dissemination and thus a possible increase in their citation and reach among the academic community.
