Ties between management accountants and operational managers: A multiple case study approach

(1)

Ties between management accountants and operational managers:

A multiple case study approach

Milou de Roo S1888781

June 22nd, 2014

Key words Abstract

Management accountant Operational manager Relationship

Business partner

Social Exchange Theory Rules

Routines

Management accountants (MAs) have recently become more involved with business and operations, which makes operational managers (OMs) their primary clients (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Lambert and Sponem, 2012). Previous literature states that MAs need to have a ‘good’ relationship with OMs, but this topic has received little scrutiny so far. This study investigated which factors contribute to building and maintaining a strong relationship between MAs and OMs, with the help of Social Exchange Theory (SET) and literature on rules and routines. Four in-depth case studies have been conducted within the Netherlands. The results show that many factors are important to a strong relationship: reciprocity, frequent interaction, trust, social exchange, shared understanding and goals, information sharing, stability, reliability, open communication, honesty, loyalty, professionalism, respect, informality, knowledge of each other’s function and department, and physical proximity. Furthermore, rules and routines have been found to indirectly influence the relationship. In this way, this study contributes to the literature on the relationship between OMs and MAs and it can help managers create an environment in which these factors are facilitated.

Word count: 14154

Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen MSc Business Administration

Specialization: Organizational Management & Control

(2)

2

1. Introduction

Previous literature has extensively studied the roles of management accountants (MAs) in organizations (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Järvenpää, 2007; Baldvinsdottir et. al., 2009; Paulsson, 2012; Lambert and Sponem 2012). The main distinction made is the MA as the ‘bean-counter/number cruncher’ and that as the ‘business partner’ (Lambert and Sponem, 2012; Byrne and Pierce, 2007). MAs operating as bean-counters fulfils the role of bookkeeper, whereas business partners fulfil a more decision-maker facilitator role. Byrne and Pierce (2007) note that there is a shift from the role as bean-counter to the business partner, where MAs become more involved with business and operations. The business partner role makes operational managers (OMs) MAs’ primary clients (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). Therefore, the broadening role of the MA does not only affect MAs, but also OMs (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Lambert and Sponem, 2012).

Lambert and Sponem (2012) argue that the activities of MAs are loosely defined and conditioned by the nature of the relationships they succeed in establishing with OMs (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). However, there is a lack of common understanding between MAs and OMs (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). It is mentioned in literature that the MA needs to have a ‘good’ relationship with its manager (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Lambert and Sponem, 2012) and strong relationships are important as they yield benefits for an organization, such as improved performance (Flynn, 2003). However, literature on the relationship between OMs and the MA has received little scrutiny. Baldvinsdottir et. al. (2010) convey they cannot identify any research on the relationship between MAs and OMs. Since the shift in role means that MAs become more involved in the organization, MAs’ interaction with OMs increases (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Järvenpää, 2007; Lambert and Sponem, 2012). Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998) call for more research on ensuring effective interaction between operational personnel and MAs. Because of this and given the fact that interaction between OMs and MAs is increasing while research on the relationship between OMs and MAs remains scarce, it becomes interesting to study the relationship between them.

To help increase the understanding of the relationship between MAs and OMs, the goal of this study is to discover what factors are important to building strong relationships. This because, in order to create a ‘good’ relationship between MAs and OMs (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005), the factors that are important to such a relationship should become known. Therefore, this paper aims to answer the following question:

“What factors contribute to building and maintaining a strong relationship between management accountants and operational managers?”

(4)

4 sources of connections and understanding between people involved in organizations. Through these connections, people develop a shared understanding, information sharing is facilitated, and the reliability of a partner’s behaviour is increased (Feldman and Rafaeli, 2002; Monge and Contractor, 2002). For the reasons mentioned above, SET and rules and routines will help shed light and bring focus to studying this relationship.

Since literature on the relationship between MAs and OMs is scarce, the research question will be answered by conducting multiple case studies. In these case studies, pairs of MAs and OMs are interviewed. Case studies are conducted since they give the ability to check the fundamental values, beliefs and assumptions held within the organization (Eisenhardt, 1989). Data for the case studies will be gathered in four organizations in the Netherlands. Through in-depth interviews with MAs and OMs, a view on factors influencing the relationship can be obtained from both perspectives.

The results of this study contribute to the current literature on the relationship between MAs and OMs, as it provides insights into the relationship between them and which factors influence this relationship. The findings can help managers, MAs and OMs understand which factors are crucial to building and maintaining a strong relationship between MAs and OMs and what the role of rules and routines is in this relationship.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses relevant literature on management accountants and operational managers, social exchange theory, and rules and routines. Section 3 describes the methodology. Section 4 sets out the main findings of the four case studies. Here, not only the individual case studies are described, but also a cross-case analysis is provided. In section 5, the findings of the case studies are discussed and cross-examined with theory. Lastly, section 6 presents the main conclusions and contributions, as well as the limitations and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature review

2.1 Operational management and management accounting

Previous research argues that there is a natural tension between operational managers (OMs) and management accountants (MAs) (Johnston et. al., 2002). In addition, management accounting research has considered innovations in operations management to pose a challenge for more than two decades (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987; Kaplan, 1995; Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007). Both management accounting and operations management are disciplines with their own propositions for how to manage organisations (Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007). It is suggested that the different roles and perspectives between these two groups of people can lead to tension (Johnston et. al., 2002). Previous literature also mentions that the MA needs to have a ‘good’ relationship with its OM, especially since the changing role of the MA makes OMs their primary clients (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Lambert and Sponem, 2012). The activity of MAs are loosely defined and conditioned by the nature of the relationships they succeed in establishing with OMs (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). However, literature on the relationship between OMs and MAs is scarce. Therefore, this chapter will shed the light on the roles of OMs and MAs, possible reasons for tension between them and factors that can help resolve this tension.

(5)

5 with technological, architectural and organizational principles established to facilitate the lateral flow of goods and services (Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007). However, they tend to be preoccupied with the shorter-term planning and control activity. The increasing pressure to meet day-to-day targets and the high quantifiable nature of the role have geared the managers to focus on the short-term tasks (Hill, 1993). Furthermore, when time is given to improve existing processes and design new processes, operational managers tend to be concerned with bringing about change based on an expectation of operational benefits rather than trying to justify uncertain costs and identify unknown financial benefits (Johnston et. al. 2002).

The role of the management accountant differs from that of the operational manager, and has been extensively studied since the mid-1950s (Paulsson, 2012). Generally, this research indicates a change from a role as a passive producer of financial information, the bean-counter, to more active participation in decision making, business, operations and a focus on a broader set of information than only financial, the business partner (Granlund and Lukka, 1998; Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Järvenpää, 2007; Lambert and Sponem, 2012; Paulsson, 2012). The role change of the MA has been explored in different studies and from different perspectives (Granlund and Lukka, 1998; Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Järvenpää, 2007; Baldvinsdottir et. al., 2009; Paulsson, 2012; Lambert and Sponem 2012; Goretzki et. al., 2013).

The changing role of the MA is not the topic of research in this study, but can help explain the relationship with the OM in the organization. This is because the broadening role makes the OM the primary client of the MA. This ‘hybridisation’ of the role of the MA does not only affect them, but also the OM (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). As mentioned by Goretzki et. al. (2013), the role of the MA has been recognized in academic literature, but this also means that professional role change needs to be achieved within the organization. In addition, Lambert and Sponem (2012) show that both OMs and MAs must agree on changes in the MAs role for any changes to become reality. When this is not the case, there could be conflicts between OMs and MAs.

In the traditional role as bean-counter, a large part of the activities of management accountants concerns the operation of systems of budgetary control (Ezzamel et. al., 1990). In addition, the role of the bean-counter has been described as being characterized by routine work (Goretzki, et. al., 2013). This requires that managers should be made accountable for those costs and revenues for which they are responsible and which are controllable by them (Johnston et. al., 2002). Furthermore, this role means that the MA is focused on the past, and includes collecting and processing financial information.

(6)

6 based costing and the balanced scorecard (Järvenpää, 2007). The implementation of these techniques could enhance the business orientation of the MA (Friedman and Lyne, 1997; Vaivio, 1999). Furthermore, this broadening role indicates the importance of analytical skills and social aspects to the roles of MAs (Byrne and pierce, 2007; Johnston et. al., 2002). TABLE 1 below gives an overview of the differences between the roles of the MA.

According to Johnston et al. (2002), OMs and MAs meet regularly. Since the MA has become more involved in decision making, the interaction between MAs and OMs has become more frequent. This makes it both interesting and important to study the relationship between them. In addition, recent OM techniques, such as cross-functional teams, just-in-time management, and total quality management focus on the integration of functional departments, activities and organizational goals, and change the very nature of the planning and control tasks in operations which affects the role of the MA (Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007). However, research has suggested that both groups have different expectations (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). Operational managers expect a greater business and operations understanding, more flexibility, and a broader information focus from MAs (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). According to the study of Byrne and Pierce (2007), MAs need to understand their and other manager’s roles and that they can only resolve conflict by using objective financial data and having a total understanding of the business. Previous literature has stated that placing MAs in close proximity to OMs is important (Siegel and Sorensen, 2003; Pierce and O’Dea, 2003). In addition, building team relationships requires both physical proximity and psychological affinity (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Lambert and Sponem, 2012).

When budgetary control is used, the purpose is to help guide future decision making, but budgetary control is essentially a backward-looking assessment of events and their consequences. This may cause tension between OMs and MAs, since OMs are mainly focused on the events of today and tomorrow, and may feel that these guidelines are not applicable anymore, as market pressures, technologies, and processes have changed (Johnston et. al., 2002). Like management accounting, operational management deals with the transformation of inputs into outputs, but in contrast to MA, OM develops and explicates how this transformation takes place in detail (Hansen and Mouritsen, 2007). While management accounting is concerned with posing a series of questions about decision making, responsibility and accountability on the process of transformation, operational management is more focused on the specific steps in the transformation process. Furthermore, the perception of the role of the MA may differ between actors in the organization (Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Pierce and O’Dea, 2003; Paulsson, 2012). Granlund and Lukka (1997) mention that in the local part of the line organization a controller is the business oriented member of the managerial team and a

TABLE 1 – Characteristics of the roles of management accountants*

Bean-counter Business partner

Oriented on the past Oriented on the present and future

Information collector and processor Actively involved in the strategic and operational decision making processes No knowledge of operations and business

expected

Knowledge of operations and business expected

Analytical skills, accounting competence, independency

Analytical skills, accounting competence, independency, communication skills, cooperation and interpersonal skills, business management skills

(7)

7 financial advisor whereas in the accounting organization, a controller is more like the local guardian, ensuring that the corporate interests are not forgotten. Paulsson (2012) found that MAs are very influential, as they select the information that is used for the decision making process. In addition, there is a possibility for role conflict with MAs that are involved in the business while also maintaining a required degree of independence (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). In short, previous literature has stated that the relationship between OMs and MAs needs to be good, but has not explained how this relationship is build, maintained or influenced by different factors. Since the changing role of the MA makes the OM their primary client, it makes it interesting to study the relationship. The tensions as hypothesized by Johnston et. al. (2002) between OMs and MAs are the result of their differing perspectives and roles. To help understand the characteristics of the relationship between MAs and OMs, Social Exchange Theory is used as it is one of the most influential concepts for understanding workplace behaviour (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). This theory is described in the next section.

2.2 Social Exchange Theory

The foundation of Social Exchange Theory (SET) lies within anthropology, social psychology, economics, and sociology, and traces back to the 1950s (Homans, 1958). As was mentioned above, it helps understanding workplace behaviour. SET assumes that individuals form, maintain, or terminate relationships with each other on the basis of the perceived benefits to costs ratio in the relationship (Homans, 1974; Emerson, 1981). The theory argues that social exchange relationships involve multiple interactions between actors that are in a state of reciprocal interdependence that generate obligations (Blau, 1964). Research using SET indicates that social relationships at the workplace are reciprocal and that these interdependent interactions have the potential to generate high-quality relationships (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Reissner and Pagan, 2013). This is also the case with MAs and OMs, where high-quality relationships between them are of importance (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Lambert and Sponem, 2012).

A basic assumption of SET is that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments when both parties abide by the rules of exchange (Saks, 2006). Saks (2006) showed that employee engagement develops through a model of social exchange. These rules of exchange involve reciprocity, in which an action of one party leads to a response or action of another (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Saks, 2006). Social exchange is valuable, as it expresses supportiveness and friendliness, which symbolizes the quality of the relationship (Blau, 1964; Mossholder et. al., 2005). It has been said that social exchange is characterized by unspecified obligations and long-term orientation where trust exists between different actors in reciprocal relationships (Deckop et. al., 2003). Trust is identified as an outcome of favourable social exchanges (Blau, 1964; Holmes, 1981).

(8)

8 the relationship and maintain it (Chibucos, 2005). However, it does not mean that everyone values reciprocity to the same degree and there is evidence that there are cultural and individual differences (Corpanzano and Mitchell, 2005).

Research has found that relationships between individuals are stronger when social exchange and reciprocity are high (Eisenberger et. al, 1986; Ensher et. al., 2001). This because social exchange stimulates interaction amongst employees, which in turn encourages the development of a network of social relationships (Blau, 1964). In addition, an increased frequency of interaction contributes to a strong relationship (Flynn, 2003). Strong relationships are important, as past research has found that the strengthening of relationships yields benefits for an organization, such as reduced conflicts, improved performance, and enhanced knowledge sharing amongst employees (Flynn, 2003). In addition, strong relationships produce effective work behavior and positive employee attitudes (Corpanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Especially in the case of MAs and OMs strong relationships are important, as the activities of the MAs are conditioned by the nature of the relationship they succeed in establishing with the OMs (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). Furthermore, reciprocity in relationships moderates the relationship between participative decision-making and acceptance of group norms (Witt, 1992). Decision-making is important for MAs and OMs as the changing role of the MA means that they are more actively involved in strategic and operational decision making processes and oriented towards a forward looking, and collaborative role orientation (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Paulsson, 2012). In addition, reciprocity strengthens the effects of equal opportunity, attitudes, and individuals’ sensitivity to organizational politics (Andrews et. al., 2003). It also leads to an increased affinity for one another and greater understanding of underlying interests and values, which in turn leads to a more pleasant social exchange (Flynn, 2003) In general, reciprocity produces better work relationships and allows individuals to be more trusting and committed to each other (Flynn, 2003; Corpanzano and Mitchell, 2005)

In short, SET has long been used to understand workplace behaviour. SET indicates that relationships at the workplace are reciprocal and that these interdependent interactions have the potential to generate high-quality and strong relationships which is important as it yields benefits for organizations (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Reissner and Pagan, 2013). Meeker (1971) argues in his study that interpersonal exchange can be seen as individual decisions and as such, they require some rules or routines to guide choices. This brings us to our next section, namely organizational rules and routines.

2.3 Organizational rules and routines

(9)

9 reliability of a partner’s behavior is increased (Feldman and Rafaeli, 2002; Monge and Contractor, 2002).

Nelson and Winter (1982) were one of the first to describe and define routines. They define routines as ‘regular and predictable behavioural patterns’. In addition, they describe accounting as a highly structured set of routines. Since then, much research has been done and written about routines. Routine behaviour is easier to monitor and measure, and therefore enables coordination and control in a firm (Scapens, 1994; Cohendet and Llerena, 2003; Becker, 2004). Behaviour is important to observe, as it can help explain the relationship between MAs and OMs. Current routines can be observed as a truce established between those giving and those executing orders (Becker, 2004). This is called the ‘zone of indifference’, where orders are acceptable without conscious questioning the authority of those who give the orders. This applies not only to relationships between workers and managers, but also amongst them (Becker, 2004). In addition, routines enables individuals to handle recurring events semi-consciously, and focus their attention on non-routine effects (Becker, 2004). Additionally, routines provide some stability of behaviour, as was discussed above, but are subject to change over time (Baumol, 2002; Becker, 2004). Furthermore, they reduce uncertainty because behaviour becomes predictable (Scapens, 1994).

As was mentioned above, the ones to draw attention to the concept of routines were Nelson and Winter (1982). An important notion of routines are recurring patterns (Becker, 2004). Routines can refer to collective interaction patterns, but also to individual routines which are referred to as habits (Hodgson, 1993). Referring to routines as collective phenomena, routines involve multiple actors that might involve different locations (Scapens, 1994). Routines can be distributed across the organization, in which the multiple actors carrying out the routines belong to different organizational units (Becker, 2004). Nonetheless, these actors are linked by interaction, and the actors involved in the routine can even make up different communities (Cohendet and Llerena, 2003; Becker, 2004). Here, we can see the link between rules, routines, and relationships between people.

Another characteristic of routines is that they are embedded in an organization and its structures (Teece and Pisano, 1994; Teece et. al., 1997). Context is important to routines as there are complementarities between routines and their context, such as actions and rules (Burns and Scapens, 2000). In addition, external structures such as artifacts, help to control, prompt and coordinate individual actions (Becker, 2004). This leads us to rules, as this idea is consistent with the notion that general rules and procedures have to be incompletely specified when transferred across contexts, since they are different. Therefore, application of general rules require interpretation and judgment skills such as, for example, knowing when to perform which routine (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Becker, 2004). Rules are generally viewed as a form of bureaucratic procedure that are used to substitute for managerial supervision while behaviour that complies with the rules is regarded as central to control within organizations (Coyte et. al., 2010). This is supported by Lukka (2007), who mentions that rules are central in organizational coordination and building coherence amongst members. Furthermore, rule-enforcement plays a crucial role in making routine operation possible (Nelson and Winter, 1982). In addition, rules aim to influence action by establishing a routine that executes that rule (Cyote et. al., 2010). Therefore, rules and routines are intertwined.

(10)

10 are necessary to coordinate groups (Scapens, 1994). By repeatedly following rules, behaviour may become programmatic and based increasingly on tacit knowledge. Thus, rules are established and through their implementation, routines will emerge. This means that there is an ongoing interaction between rules and routines.

In short, rules and routines can influence the relationship between people, because rules and routines can be viewed as sources of connections and understanding between people involved in organizations. Therefore, rules and routines can lead to developing a shared understanding, information sharing is facilitated, and the reliability and stability of a partner’s behavior is increased (Feldman and Rafaeli, 2002; Monge and Contractor, 2002; Becker, 2004).

2.4 Research framework

The broadening role of MAs makes OMs the primary client of MAs. This does not only affect the MA, but also the OM (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). The activities of MAs are loosely defined and conditioned by the nature of the relationships they succeed in establishing with OMs (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). For these reasons, MAs need to have a ‘good’ relationship with OMs (Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Lambert and Sponem, 2012). However, literature on the relationship between MAs and OMs is scarce. Therefore, this study aims to give insight into the relationship between MAs and OMs.

Since the roles and perspectives of OMs and MAs are different from each other, there is potential for conflict and tension between them (Johnston et. Al., 2002). The role change has made the OM the MA’s primary client and they have more to do with each other than before. For this reason, and the reasons mentioned above, the relationship between them is important. In order to gain understanding of the relationship between MAs and OMs, SET has been used. SET is one of the most influential concepts for understanding workplace behaviour (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). According to SET, relationships at the workplace are reciprocal and these interactions have the potential to generate high-quality relationships (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Reissner and Pagan, 2013). Reciprocity and frequent interactions create strong relations, which is important to both MAs and OMs as it reduces conflicts, improves performance, enhances knowledge sharing, produces effective work behaviour, and increases positive employee attitudes (Flynn, 2003; Corpanzano and Mitchell, 2005).

(11)

11 This study aims to investigate the relationship between MAs and OMs by studying factors that are important to building strong relationships with the help of SET and in the light of rules and routines. FIGURE 1 below shows the research framework based on the reasoning as described above. The concepts constituting these constructs can be found in section 3.5 Constructs.

3. Methodology

3.1 Theory building

As literature on the relationship between operational managers (OMs) and management accountants (MAs) is scarce, this master thesis aims at theory development, where the underlying logic is grounded theory building which involves gathering data through case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989). This method is chosen as a grounded theory building approach is more likely to generate novel and accurate insights into the phenomena at hand, compared to relying on past research or office-bound thought experiments (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Case studies have been said to be a powerful research methodology that combines individual interviews with information extracted from company information and newspaper or magazine articles (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). Following Eisenhardt’s process of building theory from case studies, multiple case studies have been conducted. In studying multiple cases, a deeper understanding emerges (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). The cases have been investigated by conducting semi-structured interviews with OMs and MAs within the organization that are closely linked to each other. To obtain a view on the similarities and differences between the cases, a cross-case analysis has been performed. The intention of a cross-case analysis is to go beyond the initial impressions and capture novel findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). In the remainder of this chapter, an explanation of the sample, data collection methods, data analysis methods, constructs and the reliability and validity of this study is provided.

3.2 Sample

In total, four case studies have been conducted. The case firms were selected based on their willingness to participate, but also based upon their size and whether there is a MA and OM in full-time employment. Of the case firms selected, two are considered small companies and two are considered large companies. In this study, a company is considered a small company when there are less than 250 employees, while it is considered large when there are more than 250 employees (MKB, 2014). The distinction between large and small firms is taken because it can offer insights into whether there are differences between large and small firms. In order to

Management accountant (MA) Operational manager (OM) Rules and routines

FIGURE 1 – Research framework

Relationship between MA and OM Moderates the relationship

(12)

12 observe the relationship, pairs of MAs and OMs are interviewed in each of the four firms, which results in obtaining a view from both perspectives. This brings us to a total of eight interviews, of which four with OMs, and four with MAs. An overview and description of the four case firms is provided in TABLE 2.

TABLE 2 – Case firms

# Firm name Industry Number of

employees

Size firm

Interviewees Time employed

1 DER KREIS Kitchen industry

15 Small OM1 4 years

MA1 10 years 2 Royal Van Gorcum B.V. Publishing and printing industry

60 Small OM2 5 years

MA2 10 years

3 PRA

International

Pharmaceutical industry

450 Large OM3 8,5 years

MA3 4 years 4 ATAG Netherlands B.V. Kitchen industry

375 Large OM4 12 years

MA4 4,5 years

3.2.1 DER KREIS

The first case firm was DER KREIS. DER KREIS is a kitchen and bathroom buying group that unites independent retailers to work together in the field of purchasing and marketing within the kitchen and bathroom industry. In total, about 800 independent retailers are connected to DER KREIS in the Netherlands. With approximately 15 employees, DER KREIS supports these independent retailers through marketing activities and purchasing advantages from contracted suppliers. In addition, they provide private labels and other concepts so that the independent retailer can create a larger profit.

3.2.2 Royal Van Gorcum B.V.

The second case firm was Koninklijke Van Gorcum B.V., or Royal Van Gorcum B.V. Van Gorcum is a publishing house and printing office. They have existed for 214 years and since the beginning, both the publishing and printing divisions work together as well as apart. In total there are about 60 employees working at Van Gorcum.

3.2.3 PRA International

The third case firm was PRA International. PRA is one of the largest independent contract research organizations for clinical trials. In total, there are about 3000 employees, of which 450 are located in The Netherlands (PRA, 2014). The business division that was researched in this study was the Early Development Services (EDS) department, where medication is tested on healthy people. Within the Netherlands there are clinics, where drugs are tested on people for the first time, and bio analytical labs, where samples are tested. The EDS department is a firm on its own, with its own management and own business-unites. From this department, both one MA and one OM were interviewed, where the MA was responsible for both the clinics and labs, and the OM was responsible for one of the labs.

3.2.4 ATAG Netherlands B.V.

(13)

13 back office support take place. In addition, some of the production takes place in the Netherlands. In total, about 375 employees work at ATAG, together at one location.

3.3 Data collection

This study uses both primary and secondary sources of data in order to create a possibility for triangulation of evidence. Therefore, different data collection methods were used in different steps of the research. As primary sources, in-depth semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with OMs and MAs within each organization. Semi-structured interviews were chosen as it gives the opportunity to develop a dialogue between the interviewer and interviewee. Questions regarding day-to-day operations, rules, routines, communication, and the relationship between the OM and MA were asked. The interview guide can be found in section 8.1 appendix I – Interview guide. As mentioned before, eight interviews were held, all with a duration between 30 to 75 minutes. Furthermore, as secondary sources, media publications, company websites, and annual reports were used.

3.4 Data analysis

The semi-structured interviews that have been conducted were recorded, transcribed and coded, after which they were sent back to the interviewees in order to increase the reliability of interpretation. More on the reliability and validity can be found in section 3.6 Reliability and validity. An overview of the codes used can be found in section 8.2 appendix II – Coding guide. In addition, an example of a coded interview can be found in section 8.3 appendix II – Coded interview.

Using the interview transcripts, codes and the secondary sources, a case study for each company was written. All constructs and the interviewees’ position towards them were included per write-up. Even though similarities and differences between the cases were noted, further analysis was left until all case write-ups were completed in order to maintain the independence of the replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989). Once the write-ups of the individual cases were completed, a qualitative data matrix was created to more easily interpret the results, since the large amount of interview transcripts mean there is a lot of data to analyse. A qualitative data matrix can help facilitate the interpretation process (Miles and Huberman, 1994). It condenses the data into simple categories, reflects further analysis of the data to identify the degree of support, and provides a multidimensional summary that facilitates subsequent, more intensive analysis (Schutt, 2012). This qualitative data analysis can be found in section 4.5 Qualitative data matrix. Afterwards, a cross-case analysis was done to develop conceptual insights and to go beyond the initial impressions. The emphasis in this cross-case analysis was on what differences occur, why, and with what effect (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). The cross-case analysis has been based upon methods suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) and Eisenhardt (1989). In this way, the cases have been compared to identify common dilemmas and patterns, and to refine the unique aspects of each case.

3.5 Constructs

(14)

14 TABLE 3 - Constructs

Construct* Definition Concepts** References

Rules and routines

Rules - formal rules that are written down. Routines - the actual way of working and represent patterns of thought and action which are

habitually adopted by

groups of individuals (Burns and Scapens, 2000). Pattern, recurrence, collectivity, process, procedure, coordination, control, truce, uncertainty, stability, store knowledge.

Nelson and Winter, 1982; Hodgson, 1993; Teece and Pisano, 1994; Teece et. al., 1997; Scapens, 1994; Burns and Scapens, 2000; Boumol, 2002; Feldman and Rafaeli, 2002; Monge and Contractor, 2002; Cohendet and Llerena, 2003; Becker, 2004; Järvenpää, 2007; Lukka, 2007; Cyote, 2010. Social exchange relationship Social exchange relationships involve multiple interactions between actors that are in a state of reciprocal

interdependence that generate obligations. Social relationships at the

workplace are reciprocal and that these interdependent interactions have the potential to generate high-quality relationships. Trust, loyalty, mutual commitment, reciprocity, supportiveness, friendliness, frequency of interaction, social exchange Blau, 1964; Homans, 1974; Emerson, 1981; Holmes, 1981; Molm, 1998; Deckop et. al., 2003; Flynn, 2003; Chibucos, 2005; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Mossholder et. al., 2005; Saks, 2006; Reissner and Pagan, 2013

*Construct: an image or idea specifically invented for a given theory-building purpose

**Concept: a bundle of meanings or characteristics associated with certain events, objects, conditions, situations, or behaviours.

3.6 Reliability and validity

The method of gathering data through multiple case studies was chosen to develop theory and in order to answer the posed research question. The most important criteria to ensure the quality of these case studies are reliability and validity (Swanborn, 1996; Yin, 1994; Cooper and Schindler, 2008).

According to Yin (2003), the results of a study are reliable when they are independent of the particular characteristics of that study and can therefore be replicated in other studies. In order to guarantee the reliability of this research, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted (section 8.1 Appendix I – Interview guide). The advantage of in-depth interviews is that they provide much more detailed information than what is available through other data collection methods, such as surveys (Yin, 2003). Furthermore, in semi-structured interviews most questions are standardized. This increases data reliability and replication of the interviews is possible (De Roo, 2014). By transcribing and coding the interviews, a structured routine was provided for the analysis. Furthermore, the interviews were sent back to the interviewees to further ensure reliability.

(15)

15 interviewer to a specific answer. This is what Goldman (1999) calls a cold bias, where the interviewer may have been focused on confirming pre-held assumptions and propositions. Moreover, the interviews and analysis were conducted by only one researcher. This means that there is a potential researcher bias that could harm the reliability of this study. Aken et. al. (2012) mention that the smaller the possible influence of a researcher, the more objective the results are. Therefore, to improve researcher independency of the results, the standardization strategy was used. Standardization is the development and use of explicit procedures for data collection, analysis and interpretation (Aken et. al., 2012). By using semi-structured interviews and using a structured approach to analyze the cases, independency was obtained.

Validity refers to the relationship between a research result or conclusion and the way it has been generated (Aken et. al., 2012). There are three types of validity, namely construct, internal, and external validity. Construct validity is the extent to which measuring instruments measure what they need to measure (Aken et. al., 2012). To ensure construct validity multiple sources of evidence were used. By combining interviews and other secondary documents such as company websites the results of the study became more valid. Furthermore, a chain of evidence was created by recording and transcribing the interviews, which also ensures construct validity. Internal validity concerns conclusions about the relationships between phenomena (Aken et. al., 2012). To ensure the internal validity of the study, patterns were identified across cases. In addition, quotes from the interviewees were given to support the conclusions of the research. External validity refers to the generalizability of the research results. In order to increase the generalizability of the results, a relatively large sample of four case studies was conducted. In addition, external validity was ensured using the replication logic. All cases were analysed in the same way, and in the replication logic cases which confirm emergent relationships enhance confidence in the validity of the relationships, whereas cases that disconfirm the relationships often provide an opportunity to refine and extend the theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).

4. Results

In this section the results are described. Below, the findings are presented for every individual case study. The case studies start off with a short summary, after which the results are discussed more in-depth and supported with quotes from the interviewees. After this, a qualitative data matrix can be found in which results for the four case studies are combined. Finally, a summary of the results has been written where the cross-case analysis is performed. In the next chapter, the cases and theory are discussed and linked. Additionally, since the interviews were conducted in Dutch, an overview of the Dutch quotes and their translation can be found in section 8.4 appendix IV – Quotes.

4.1 DER KREIS

DER KREIS is an organisation that is characterized by its small size. The company is informal, and both the operational manager (OM) and management accountant (MA) are in the office together a lot. In addition, there is overlap between their jobs and they communicate on a daily basis. Before making decisions, they often discuss the matters first. Furthermore, sharing information and clarity in communication are considered important factors by both the OM and MA. In addition, the OM mentions that honesty, goal congruence, open communication and knowledge about each other’s profession are important.

(16)

16 “I don't think that rules and routines affect my relationship with him. Let me say it this way, it is not a barrier. The rules and routines that there are, we all utilize these, but they do not feel as a barrier. In addition, when something feels ‘wrong’ we can change things.” (OM2)

“Ultimately, yes. You need to keep to some rules, but not everyone wants to see it that way. I think that it definitely has an influence. I always try to explain why the rules are as they are, and then they are more easily accepted. However, sometimes it gives off pressure and that can be tedious, but the rules are there for a reason.” (MA2)

The organisation has rules and procedures that are written down. However, there is also a lot of freedom. This is highlighted by the OM of DER KREIS:

“Of course, what is expected from different persons is written down. Many rules are also made over time. [...] So yes, there are rules, but there you also have some degree of liberty. [...] We have procedures, at every department there are folders with procedures in it. You follow them. At a certain moment it becomes automatic, then you do not even notice that you follow the procedure. It becomes a routine. Next to that, we also have the freedom that if these procedures do not feel natural, they can be adjusted.” (OM2)

In addition, the MA highlights that there are financial rules that he needs comply with and that this is also checked by an external accountant. Within their role, both the OM and MA have their own routines. Since their company is quite small, they highlight that there is some overlap between their jobs and that they also do some work that might not fit their job description. They regularly discuss things that concern them both, but there is still a clear separation between their jobs:

“In finances, there are, of course, always rules. That is partly a separation of powers, which is necessary. [...] She contacts me, for example, about proposals. In those cases we look at the budgets and whether we can invest or not. Sometimes I come across things that I give to her. In that way, we do try to discuss a lot of things. [...] I think it should also be that way; that you work together a lot. That is when you accomplish most.” (MA2)

“In the background, he takes care of the finances. He manages the budgets and I take care of the more daily procedures. Really operational things, so that everything goes well.” (OM2)

As can be seen from the quote above, the OM and MA regularly discuss matters and they have a lot to do with each other. Therefore, both the OM and MA think that the relationship between them is important. They characterize their relationship as a good working relationship:

“The relationship is nice and thought-out, sometimes she also comes with good ideas. There is a nice, but clear structure about how we do things. You have a lot to do with each other. Yes, I believe it is a nice and funded collaboration.” (MA2)

(17)

17 most easily, but I think it is very important that you can communicate well to each other, that you take each other's needs and feelings into account, that you complete each other and that you all have the same goal.” (OM2)

Several factors contribute to them having a good relationship. It is characterized by collaboration and communication. The OM and MA do not decide matters by themselves that could concern the other. Both mention that their close proximity helps their collaboration in such a way that it becomes easier to communicate. In addition, the size of the company is also a factor.

“There is a lot of interaction between all of the departments and we help each other out. There is certainly a 'we' feeling. [...] We discuss a lot. Especially since the organization is so small, it is also very easy to do this. I think it is important that you can easily just walk into each other's offices.” (OM2)

“It is a small company, so everything goes very easily. You easily walk into each other's offices. I think it is also very important that there is a 'click' between you and the person you work together with. In addition, things I do not agree with can also be discussed.” (MA2)

4.2 Koninklijke Van Gorcum B.V.

Royal Van Gorcum B.V. is a combination of a publishing house and a printing office. Even though the combination of these two is not common, the company has been successful for over 200 years. The MA and OM have been employed at the company for a long time and mention that their relationship is very good, on both a work and a personal level. They mention that they communicate frequently, which is supported by the fact that they work in close proximity to each other. In order to maintain a good relationship, both mention that open communication, professionalism, and trust are important. In addition, the OM highlights that establishing boundaries is important, as their relationship has also evolved on a personal level. Furthermore, loyalty, reliability, informality, and sharing information are said to be important factors that support their relationship.

Both the OM and MA mention that the rules, routines, and procedures within the company do not affect their relationship. The OM explains:

“The rules and routines give clarity and intelligibility. We do not discuss them. If, because of circumstances, some rules cannot be followed, such as handing in something at a certain date, then you tell that to each other. You see each other daily in a company like this. You are informed quickly about what is happening. Despite the rules, routines, and procedures, not everything is written down. What is written down also cannot be discussed, that needs to be followed. So no, I do not think it really affects the relationship.” (OM3)

Even though the combination of a publishing house and printing office requires rules and many procedures, the company still feels like a family company, which has an informal culture, as described by the OM of Van Gorcum:

(18)

18 there is a description. This gives some support as to what you can expect from your colleagues and how they deliver their work.” (OM3)

Since a publishing house and a printing office are technically two completely different types of companies, the MA highlights that there are different kinds of people working at the company. Both the OM and MA try to facilitate these differences in order to create an environment where people can speak their mind.

“I always try to make people aware of what the numbers actually mean. Why are those costs there, why isn't there more profit or turnover. I am not the one that generates it, this is how you performed.” (MA3)

“There are periodical work meetings. In these we discuss, for example, the production data on a level that everyone can understand. We talk about themes such as collaboration. I don't know if people discuss everything, but we created it so that things can be discussed.” (OM3)

As we can see from above, both the OM and MA are open-minded and this also emerges from the role the MA fulfils. Both have been employed by Van Gorcum for a long time, the OM for almost 30 years and the MA for almost 10 years. The MA emphasises that he does not like only working with numbers, but also participates in business decisions.

“I have never really been an accountant. In accountancy you always look at the past. I call myself an undertaking controller. I like to keep my forecasting ability as high as possible. Next to that, you need to pay attention to and notice trends. [...] I would like to deliver a contribution to the business processes.” (MA3)

Since the MA is very involved in the company, and not only in the financial department, the OM and MA regularly meet. They both describe that their relationship is built on trust and that they share a lot.

“We are very informal towards each other. The relationship between him and me is one that is based upon great mutual trust. [...] It is a relationship that is based upon loyalty and reliability. He is my financial advisor and at the same time you also expect a certain degree of professional quality.” (OM3)

Since there is only one location, the communication is personal and direct. Both the MA and OM mention that the close proximity helps their communication. They try to work efficiently, and even though their relationship is not only work-related, they do draw lines.

“The company is set up professionally, but also informal. The main question is to what level do you share things with each other. You need to give off signals. I think that in that way we have a very easy-going relationship. From my point of view I feel that the relationship is quite informal and there is a lot of trust.” (MA3)

(19)

19 financial area, we share a lot and we also mention the boundaries of our relationship to each other. We are quite open in that way to each other.” (OM3)

4.3 PRA International

The Early Development Services (EDS) department of PRA International is characterized by many rules, routines and regulations. This is due to the fact that it operates within the pharmaceutical industry and tests drugs on people. However, even though the environment is highly regulated, the OM and MA describe their relationship as informal, personal, and friendly. They both believe that it is important in a relationship to know where you stand, where the other stands, to treat each other with respect, but also have knowledge about each other’s professions. Furthermore, they highlight that working in close proximity to each other is important for them to communicate well. They communicate on a regular basis, over the phone, as well as through e-mail and in person.

Both the MA and OM of PRA confirm that they work in a much regulated environment: “What we do is all written down in protocols, Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) etcetera. There are hundereds of SOPs, which also translates to the financial side. There are many internal rules for how we should deal with certain things, also financially.” (MA1)

“There are many rules. Almost everything is written down. We regularly get inspected whether we comply with all the rules. Next to this, there are not many routines I perform. I do not like routines a lot, since there are many rules and everything is very strict.” (OM1)

As we can see from above, due to the regulated environment in which they work, the OM mentions there are not many routines. This is in contrast to what the MA describes. There are tasks he needs to do daily, concerning for example proposals, and contracts. Furthermore, a weekly forecast on the revenues of the operational planning of the lab is constructed. The MA mentions that, since there are so many rules and routines, this also influences his relationship with others:

“It has two sides. On the one side it can work clarifying. On the other side it can be that some procedures are written down so extensively, that fast and practical working becomes hard. [...] A lot is written down, which helps. However, sometimes it can lead to excessive bureaucracy.” (MA1)

This is in contrast with the OM, who believes that rules and routines do not influence the relationship with others. This is because the rules are there, and people should comply with these. The MA believes that rules and routines do help in creating strong relationships:

“It creates a framework. If it is a basic framework such as how do we work with each other and what do we do, then I know what you do, because it is written down, and then I can assume that it happens. It should not become more than that. Not everything you do and what you have to do with one another should be written down or described in rules. That is when you take out every form of flexibility and interaction.” (MA1)

(20)

20 “Based upon the planning of the lab, we can see what the turnover will be. We update this every week and try to get the planning in line with the capacity. [...] If strange things turn up, such as large losses from one week to another, then that is something we look at and discuss together. It does not necessarily need to be our fault. These things can have operational reasons, but then we do know this.” (MA1)

Besides this, the OM and MA meet monthly to discuss the financial closings of the previous month. These financial statements are extensively discussed so that trends can be spotted, as well as possible improvements that can be made. Both the MA and OM mention that, even though their departments are intertwined, there is a certain degree of independence:

“I take part in the decision-making process. I am involved in the decision-making of investment, such as buying new machines for the lab. I will not decide whether there is a market for an extra machine, that it something the OM decides. [...] In that way you have a say in the daily decision-making process as financial department. This is not always pivotal, as many decisions are also commercial decisions.” (MA1)

“I do think that the financial department is a supporting department and that they should also know that they are supporting us. Finances gives me the financial statements, so that I can see how everything goes within my division. They do not decide what I do. We make decisions and they support us.” (OM1)

In short, the departments have a lot to do with each other. This makes the relationship between them important, as mentioned by the OM. The OM mentions that important factors for creating a good relationship are respect, and resolving conflicts together when conflicts occur. The OM and MA both mention that the relationship between them is good. The following quotes illustrate this:

“The OM and I know each other for quite some time, and therefore we also know how one another works. [...] We like each other. We are very different, since he is more commercial whereas I am more financial. Often, these are automatic opposites, but it works very well with him. [...] Sometimes we have a disagreement, but besides that we have a very friendly relationship. If something is up, we call each other and that works just fine.” (MA1)

“I would describe my relationship with the MA as very good, friendly, informal and sometimes even consciously unprofessional, as humour is very important in working relationships. We like some banter. When we must, we are serious, of course. We also treat each other respectfully. I respect his point of view, opinion, and authority, which also works the other way around. When there are disagreements, we solve them between us.” (OM1)

They mention that they have a preference for personal contact over communication through e-mail. This is possible due to close physical proximity; the MA and OM work about 30 minutes away from each other. Both the MA and OM mention that physical proximity is important to reduce conflicts, as well as building and maintaining a strong relationship:

(21)

21 together a lot, and it is not like we are all islands, working apart from each other. [...] Because we are very close to one another, we can keep it personal. Because we can sit at a table together, we can work together in an informal way.” (MA1)

“Everything within the organization is informal and open. I do prefer personal contact over communication through e-mail. [...] If I do not understand things concerning finances or if I have questions, I call the MA or meet up with him.” (OM1)

Another factor for building a good relationship is mentioned by the OM, namely that both parties know something about each other’s departments:

“For a good collaboration you need to know something about each others departments, so you understand each others point of view better. [...] I have taken a course with regard to finances and the MA has deepened his knowledge about how everything works here and how we do things.” (OM1)

4.4 ATAG Nederland B.V.

ATAG is an international supplier of kitchen appliances. They are part of a larger international group called Gorenje. However, the OM and MA still describe their company and relationship as informal and mention that they meet regularly to discuss the finances. In addition, they mention that trust is an important factor to their relationship, as well as transparency, clear communication, sharing knowledge, and honesty. Furthermore, appreciation for each other’s profession, as well as knowing their role within the company are mentioned as important factors to building and maintaining a strong working relationship.

The OM describes that the company is subject to many rules and that these influence the way in which people work, but that they are also necessary.

“We have a lot of rules, but many of these are really necessary, because otherwise we would become way too practical and people would agree to things that are not possible within the company. [...] If you look at an employee level, people can do many things themselves. However, if you come higher up in the hierarchy, more and more is set in rules. Rules should help to get out the subjectivity and to make smart decisions and get velocity and effectiveness in the process. However, they can also be an impediment to do business.” (OM4)

According to both the OM and MA, rules and routines have an influence on how the relationship between people is.

“Yes it influences the functioning of people. With rules you register the formal proceedings. Rules should not influence the thinking of people in a way that they don't think themselves anymore. Rules are there to be followed, but if you have other ideas, you're allowed to tell me them. Without rules it can become a chaos, so it should give structure, but should not work obstructing.” (MA4)

(22)

22 and mine, we can both do our thing within this and then it can work very positively. Everything has to do with finding a balance between this.” (OM4)

The MA mentions that financial departments are subject to many rules and routines, more than other departments within the company. However, he mentions that he does not actually notice this, since they happen naturally and frequently. The organization is informal, and the MA describes himself more as a business partner than really the person who only works with numbers.

“I always worked with numbers and I am good with them, but I am not really the bookkeeper, but the one who likes being the sparring partner of for example the board and I am someone who keeps himself busy with strategy, how do we continue and so on. The role of business partner is a role that I am cut out for and I have grown into this over the years.” (MA4)

In his role, the MA reports the financial statements every month, but also points out the trends within the market and the profitability and the development of profitability per product or product line. The MA mentions that people know how to find him for financial affairs and that he has a lot of contact with the whole management team. Overall, the MA and OM describe their relationship as good, with several factors that contribute to this.

“We know very well how to find each other. Regarding that, we also have a very informal way of communicating with each other. It is a relationship based on trust, which is very important to me. It is the basis for a relationship and besides that of course professionalism, that is also something that is on top of the list. Next to that, you need a click between people. You need to be able to communicate well.” (MA4)

“I would describe my relation with him (the MA) as very good. He reports to me when it is necessary. Next to that, he is very transparent. [...] In any case, trust is important. Trust needs to be earned. Next to that, you need to appreciate each other's profession and know which role you play within the company. Within that role you need to achieve the maximum. With that, you can help each other.” (OM4)

4.5 Qualitative data matrix

(23)

23 TABLE 4 - Qualitative data matrix*

Small firms Large firms

1 2 3 4

Role MA

Advising role + + + +

Budgetary control + + + +

Involved in decision making + + + +

Involved in strategic planning + + + +

Forward-looking + + + +

Spotting trends + + + +

Financial department seen as supporting - - + n/a

Relationship factors

Appreciation for each other's expertise + n/a + +

Conflict resolving + n/a + n/a

Good communication + + + +

Frequent interaction + + + +

Goal congruence + + + n/a

Honesty + + + n/a

Informality + + + +

Information sharing + + + +

Knowledge roles + n/a + +

Loyalty n/a + + n/a

Open communication n/a + + n/a

Open-door policy n/a + n/a +

Physical proximity + + + +

Professionalism n/a + + +

Reciprocity + + + +

Relationship building + + + n/a

Reliability + + + n/a

Respect n/a n/a + +

Satisfaction n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shared understanding + + + +

Social exchange + + + +

Stability n/a + + n/a

Transparency n/a + n/a +

Trust + + + +

Rules and routines

Financial department works alongside many rules and

routines + + + +

Many rules and routines in organization - - + +

Amount of rules restrict actions - - + -

Rules and routines influence the relationship +/- - +/- +

*combined from the interviews of the both MAs and OMs 1: DER KREIS

2: Royal Van Gorcum B.V. 3: PRA International 4: ATAG Netherlands B.V.

+: Positive confirmation by interviewees +/-: Contrasting views between OM and MA -: Negative confirmation by interviewees

(24)

24 4.6 Summary Results

From the case studies, it can be observed that all MAs fulfill the role of a business partner within their companies. The MAs mention that they are forward-looking and actively spot trends within their industries. In addition, they are involved in the decision-making process, as well as in the process of strategic planning. Moreover, based upon their knowledge, they give advice to operational managers OMs. Both the MAs and OMs mention that they are actively involved together and have frequent contact with each other in order to synchronize their activities. Especially in the small case firms they highlight that they are involved together within the day-to-day operations and talk to each other daily. This is accommodated by their physical proximity and the fact that they operate within one location. The MAs and OMs in the large case firms mention that they have contact frequently, but this is not on a daily basis.

Rules and routines were considered of influence to the relationship between MAs and OMs. As we can see from the qualitative data matrix, the financial department itself has many rules and routines. This is also because the financial department has to comply with many laws and regulations. In addition, we can see that the small firms itself do not have many rules and routines that cover the whole organization. This in contrast to the large firms, which state that the whole organization has many rules and routines. Especially in the case of the third firm, PRA International, the amount of rules and routines even restrict the actions of the employees. In addition, there are mixed responses as to whether rules and routines influence the relationship between people. Overall, the interviewees either believe rules and routines do not influence the relationship between them, since they do not form a barrier for them, or they respond that rules and routines influence their relationship indirectly as they create a frame of reference.

Since the interviewees mention that they are actively involved together within the firm, they also highlight that the relationship between them is considered important. The relationship was described by all interviewees as good and close. Overall, the factors that are considered to be important to their relationship do not differ on the basis of company size. According to the interviewees, communication between them is considered important, as well as information sharing, reciprocity, goal congruence, honesty, loyalty and shared understanding between them. In addition, by two of the cases, namely DER KREIS and PRA International, communication and frequent interaction were mentioned as ways to resolve conflicts between them. Furthermore, understanding their roles within the firms and appreciating and respecting each other’s expertise were highlighted by the case firms as factors that were important to building and maintaining a good relationship.

5. Discussion

(25)

25 Lambert and Sponem (2012), who stipulate that the broadening role makes OMs MAs’ primary clients.

The OM and MA are connected and communicate frequently and do not only share rules, but also routines. Of course, not all routines are the same, as both departments have their own functions. According to Feldman and Rafaeli (2002), routines can be viewed as sources of connections and understanding between people involved in organizations. Through these connections, people develop a shared understanding, information sharing is facilitated, and the reliability of a partner’s behaviour is increased (Feldman and Rafaeli, 2002; Monge and Contractor, 2002). Moreover, in line with the findings of this study, informality and reciprocity facilitate information sharing (Conway and Steward, 2009). Connected to this is another factor that was mentioned as being important by the interviewees. They mentioned that there needs to be an understanding of each other’s role, function, and department in order to have a good collaboration. This allows a better understanding and acceptance of each other’s point of view and makes resolving conflicts more easily.

According to Järvenpää (2007), the behaviour of individuals is determined by rules and routines. This was supported by the interviewees, as they stipulated that rules and routines create a frame of reference for people on how to react. Routines provide some stability of behaviour and they reduce uncertainty because behaviour becomes predictable (Scapens, 1994). In addition, routine behaviour is easier to monitor and measure, and therefore enables coordination and control in a firm (Scapens, 1994; Cohendet and Llerena, 2003; Becker, 2004). Behaviour of individuals is important to observe, as this helps explaining the relationship between the OM and MA. The amount of rules, procedures, and routines differed within each case study. The larger firms were characterised by strict rules, procedures, and routines, whereas this was less in the small firms. In the small firms, there were some rules, procedures, and routines, but these were not as strict and they could always be changed if they did not feel natural or when they slowed down the working processes. The size of the firm did not have an influence on whether the interviewees saw rules and routines influencing their relationship with either the OM or MA. There are opposing views as to whether rules and routines influence the relationship between them. On the one side, some interviewees mentioned that they did not influence the relationship, as they do not form a barrier to their relationship. On the other side, most MAs and OMs take the position that rules and routines indirectly influence the relationship as they create a frame of reference for people on how to work.

Ties between management accountants and operational managers: A multiple case study approach