Articles

Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of Sustainable Urban Development

A. MEHRPOUYA

Regulation and Governance

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, GREGHEC (CNRS)


Building the legitimacy of whistleblowers: A multi-case discourse analysis

H. STOLOWY, Y. GENDRON, J. MOLL, L. PAUGAM

Contemporary Accounting Research

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Mots clés : Whistleblowing; Fraud detection; Role definition; Discourse analysis; Legitimacy; Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)


Evidence suggests society still does not view whistleblowers as wholly legitimate – despite legal protections now offered in some jurisdictions, such as the United States. Drawing on a discourse analysis, (i.e., an examination of statements), we investigate the well-publicized stories of seven whistleblowers from 69 sources, including books, first- and second-hand interviews, websites and videos. Our focus is to examine how whistleblower discourses can build legitimacy by more tightly defining the whistleblower role and demonstrating its alignment with social norms. Using whistleblower self-narratives, we identify four narrative patterns: (1) Trigger(s): the event(s) leading to whistleblowing; (2) Personality traits: whistleblower’s morality, resourcefulness, and determination; (3) Constraints: barriers requiring regulatory and organizational change; and (4) Consequences: the longer-term positive impact of the whistleblowing act. These patterns rely on symbolic, analogical, and metaphorical framing to allow others to better understand the role of whistleblowers and enlist their support. Exploring a dataset of 1,621 press articles, we find indications that these narrative patterns resonate in the media – which provide a form of support and may be instrumental in legitimizing the whistleblower role. Grounded on these results, we develop a legitimacy construction model of the whistleblower role, i.e., a representation of how role legitimacy is produced and sustained. From this model, we identify a number of important areas for future research

Numbers in Regulatory Intermediation; Exploring the role of performance measurement between legitimacy and compliance

A. MEHRPOUYA, R. SAMIOLO

Regulation and Governance

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, GREGHEC (CNRS)


The multiplicity of performance management systems: heterogeneity in multinational corporations and management sense-making

M. EZZAMEL, D. COOPER, K. ROBSON

Contemporary Accounting Research

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion


The whistleblower: an important person in corporatelife? An answer from comparative law

N. STOLOWY, L. PAUGAM, A. LONDERO

Journal of Business Law

A paraître

Départements : Droit et fiscalité, GREGHEC (CNRS), Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion


Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism

F. HOOS, J. L. PRUIJSSERS, M. LANDER

Journal of Business Ethics

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, Management et Ressources Humaines, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Mots clés : Accountability, Auditors, Professional skepticism, Joint audit, Judgment, Experiment

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10551-017-3603-6.pdf


The European Commission has suggested that the use of joint audits should lead to improved auditor skepticism and—by extension—audit quality, throughincreased accountability. However, archival research does not find support for improved audit quality in a joint audit setting. To better understand the relationship between accountability in different review regimes and auditors’judgments, we examine the behavioral effect of implementing a joint audit relative to other review regimes based on a 1 9 3 experimental design. Forty-seven senior auditors and partners from a Big Four firm performed a goingconcern evaluation task under one of three review regimes: the joint audit, the internal review, and the no review regime. Notwithstanding the difference in the audiences to which auditors are accountable, there is no difference in thejudgment process. In terms of their judgment outcome, however, auditors in the joint audit setting were the least skeptical in their judgment of the going concern assumption. Overall, we suggest that the joint audit may lead tounintended behavioral consequences

An Experimental Investigation of the Interaction Effect of Management Training Ground and Reporting Lines on Internal Auditors’ Objectivity, International Journal of Auditing

F. HOOS, William F. MESSIER JR, Jason L. SMITH, Paulette R. TANDY

International Journal of Auditing

juillet 2018, vol. 22, n°2, pp.150-163

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion

Mots clés : Internal Audit Function, Internal Auditors, Management Training Ground, objectivity

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijau.12110


Seventy‐nine experienced internal auditors participated in an experiment investigating two factors that may affect internal auditors’ objectivity: (1) whether the internal audit function is used as a management training ground, and (2) whether the internal auditors’ reporting line is to management or the audit committee. Participants completed a case wherein management and the audit committee hold conflicting preferences regarding a major corporate investment opportunity. Participants evaluated relevant business risks and made an overall recommendation concerning the investment. The results include three important findings. First, we observe an interaction effect between management training ground and reporting line. When the internalaudit function is not used as a management training ground, internal auditors’ risks assessments do not significantly differ by reporting line. However, when the internal audit function is used as a management training ground, internal auditors’ risk assessments align with management's preferences when auditors report to senior management versus the audit committee. Second, when the internal audit function is a management training ground, internal auditors provide more favorable investment recommendations (i.e., consistent with management's preferences). Third, internal auditors unexpectedly provided more favorable recommendations to the audit committee than to management

Can innovation be measured? A framework of how measurement of innovation engages attention in firms

A. BRATTSTRÖM, J. FRISHAMMAR, A. RICHTNÉR, D. PFLUEGER

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management

avril-juin 2018, vol. 48, pp.64-75

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion

Mots clés : Innovation management, Key performance measurement, Measuring innovation, Attention, Attention based theory, Process model, Exploration and exploitation, Conversational measurement, Directional measurement

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092347481730125X


Many firms manage the innovation process by using metrics. Yet, whether measurement supports or hinders innovation continues to be a topic of debate. To shed new light on this debate, this paper presents a conceptual framework of how measurement engages attention in firms. We draw on attention based theory and conceptualize innovation measurement as an attention-focusing device. We identify two ideal types of measurement practices. i) Directional Measurement: which is based on few and unidirectional metrics and encourages exploitative innovation efforts. ii) Conversational Measurement: which is based on multiple and ambiguous metrics and encourages exploration. We extend theory building in the technology and accounting literatures by theorizing the role of metrics and measurement for attention and by discussing the implications of such attentional engagement for innovation performance. In so doing, we engage closely with the managerial task of managing innovation while simplifying its conditions, thereby providing actionable advice

Le chercheur écrit

A. SOLE

Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels

2018, vol. 57, n°XXIV, pp.91-106

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion

Mots clés : science, langage, écriture, le travail du chercheur, réalité, «créateur de réalité», «raconteur d’histoires», «histoire scientifique» / science, language, writing, researcher’s activity, reality, “reality maker”, “story teller”, “scientific story”

https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychosociologie-de-gestion-des-comportements-organisationnels-2018-57-p-91.htm


Quelle que soit sa discipline, que fait le chercheur lorsqu’il est au travail – dans son bureau, dans un laboratoire ou sur le « terrain » ? Il écrit, en particulier. Ce papier explore les relations, très peu étudiées, entre science, travail de recherche et écriture. Quand il écrit un article, un livre ou une communication à un congrès, le chercheur raconte une histoire (ou une série d’histoires). Comme on le verra, le contenu qui est donné au mot histoire déleste celui-ci de toute connotation péjorative ou critique. Les « histoires scientifiques » que le chercheur écrit visent à créer de la réalité – une « réalité partagée » par les autres chercheurs. Le chercheur est un « raconteur d’histoires », un « créateur de réalité ». Telle est la thèse, de caractère anthropologique, qui est exposée

Making a Niche: The Marketization of Management Research and the Rise of “Knowledge Branding”

A. MEHRPOUYA, H. WILLMOTT

Journal of Management Studies

juin 2018, vol. 55, n°4, pp.728-734

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, GREGHEC (CNRS)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.12336/abstract?campaign=wolacceptedarticle


In this essay, we discuss an underexplored and consequential aspect of management scholarship that we term ‘Knowledge Branding’. Knowledge Branding refers to forms of market‐oriented work undertaken when creating, maintaining and developing niches of research. We consider some of the conditions and consequences of Knowledge Branding in the formation and expansion of management research sub‐fields, and then suggest how its more damaging effects might be mitigated.We invite participation in a ‘difficult conversation’ about the culture of market‐oriented knowledge production in management research, not only by raising uncomfortable questions about its grip on our field but also because we acknowledge our complicity in what we discuss. One of us (Hugh) has had an academic career spanning four decades, has been keenly observing the evolution of management scholarship, and has been questioning recent trends such as the commercialization and marketization of higher education, the commodification of academic labour, and the rise of managerialism evident in the use of performance measurement systems such as journal lists. At the same time, he has served on panels responsible for evaluating business and management research (e.g., the UK research evaluation exercises, RAE and REF). By associating funding more directly to short(‐ish) term performance metrics, such exercises are seen to have accelerated the marketization of research that we consider here. The other (Afshin) has started his academic career relatively recently. He has closely and personally experienced and observed the intensifying pressures upon Early Career Researchers (ECRs) to maximize ‘hits’ in ‘top’ journals that are fuelled by the importance placed by ‘consumers’ (students) and managers (deans, appointment and promotion committee members) on rankings of business schools and universities.Writing this essay was prompted by our reflections on the process of preparing and revising a paper for a special issue of Journal of Management Studies dedicated to ‘Political CSR’ (Scherer et al., 2016). Our participation in a number of workshops, conference sessions, and the review processes in relation to the preparation and revision of the paper led us to reflect in a more sustained way upon a process that we believe to be consequential in the rise of Political CSR, and that we characterize as Knowledge Branding. Based on personal experiences and discussions with a number of colleagues, we have come to believe that Knowledge Branding exerts an increasing influence in the formation and expansion of management research sub‐fields which we term Knowledge Brands (KBs). Examples with which we have more familiarity include ‘Political CSR’, ‘Strategy‐as‐Practice’, ‘Institutional Logics’ and ‘Institutional Work’. There are also methodological KBs, such as the ‘Gioia Methodology’, that cut across diverse sub‐fields. This list is by no means exhaustive and it would be surprising, in the context of intensifying competition to occupy the restricted spaces in ‘top’ journals, if the phenomena of Knowledge Branding and KBs were absent from other management sub‐disciplines (e.g., finance and marketing) or other fields of the social sciences.We are not taking issue with the disciplinarity of research in management and the lifecycle of sub‐disciplines that have been explored and debated extensively by others. Nor do we seek to reflect on the role of management academics (along with consultants and other professional groups) in developing and marketing managerial techniques and in giving rise to ‘management fashions’ (Abrahamson, 1996). Instead, our essay foregrounds the nature and effects of an intensification of market‐based organizing in the establishment and consolidation of management research sub‐fields. We do not suggest here that Knowledge Branding is a wholly new phenomenon. We do believe, however, that it is becoming more widespread and significant as an outcome, but also as a medium, of the intensification of market pressures and managerialism in our field. If our speculative observations resonate with our readers, then we hope that our sketch of Knowledge Branding will prompt more systematic scrutiny and evaluation of its operation and effects


JavaScriptSettings