The role of the management accountant, the relationship
between managers and management accountants and the
consequences for the social capital
Geeske Feenstra Student number: S2386070 g.f.feenstra@student.rug.nl
June, 2014
Thesis MSc Business Administration
Specialization: Organizational & Management Control University of Groningen
Supervisor: W.A. Moossdorff MSc Second assessor: Dr. B. Crom Word count (excl. appendices): 11.136
ABSTRACT Although the role of the management accountant in an organization has been studied
extensively over the last decades, little is known about its effect on the relationship between the management accountant and the manager. This qualitative paper attempts to identify a possible link between the role of the management accountant, the relationship between the management accountant and the manager and the consequences for the social capital. Social capital is used as the theoretical lens for this paper. A total of ten qualitative interviews with managers and management accountants in five Dutch organizations have been performed. The findings show indeed a linkage between the role of the management accountant and the intensity of the relationship. However, whether the quality of the relationship and the consequences for the social capital are considered positive or negative depends on several other factors as well, such as the presence of a head office, the character of the individual, the physical proximity and the perceived work pressure.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Several authors have been studying the role that the management accountant [MA] fulfills in a firm (Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Lambert and Sponem, 2012; Siegel and Sorensen, 1999). Granlund and Lukka (1997) identify the traditional bean counter role versus the modern business partner. The bean counter mainly focuses on reporting the past. The business partner’s tasks are complemented with providing company advices during the managerial decision-making process by providing relevant accounting information (Goretzki, Strauss and Weber, 2013; Granlund and Lukka, 2007). Multiple sources argue that in the last decades there has been a shift from the traditional role to the business partner role (Clinton and White, 2012; Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Siegel and Sorensen, 1999) meaning that in general the business partner is gaining ground compared to the bean counter.
According to Byrne and Pierce (2007) a result of the business partner role of the MA is increased interaction between a manager and a MA. The business partner who is involved in decision-making is expected to have more contact with a manager than the bean counter. Byrne and Pierce (2007) found that increased interaction does not merely have positive consequences for the firm. On the one hand more interaction leads to better use and quality of accounting information. On the other hand, more interaction can lead to a MA who is less independent and less objective (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). This may lead to role conflicts (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Hopper, 1980) or to the
“independence- involvement dilemma” (Lambert and Sponem, 2012, p. 586).
The relationships between members of an organization can be considered part of the social capital of a firm (Nahapiet and Goshal, 1998). Analyzing the relationship in terms of structural, cognitive and relational embeddedness enables a comprehensive view on the importance of good relationships for the firm (Karahanna and Preston, 2013). Finding out about the relationship between two members of an organization is relevant because social capital has a multiplier effect on a firm’s other capital, like economic capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Furthermore, social capital has an indirect effect on the firm performance, through knowledge-sharing (Chow and Chan, 2008; Karahanna and Preston, 2013; Kim et al., 2012; Lambooy, 2010).
2 may try to actively determine the role of the MA and actively steer the relationship between MAs and managers, in order to increase the social capital.
There seems to be a conflict between the findings that relationships between members of a firm lead to the creation of social capital (Karahanna and Preston, 2013) and that findings that increased interaction does not have solely positive consequences (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). It seems that interaction does not directly lead to a better relationship. Hence, the goal of this current study is to explore the possible linkage between the role of the MA, the relationship between manager and MA as well as the consequences for the social capital of the firm. This study follows the line of reasoning from Karahanna and Preston (2013) that an increased relationship between two members contributes to the social capital of a firm. It also keeps in mind the negative consequences of increased interaction due to the business partner role as mentioned by Byrne and Pierce (2007). The following research question is therefore considered the guidance for this study:
“How can the role of the management accountant be linked to the relationship between a management accountant and a manager, and what are the consequences for the social capital?”
This research question can be supported by some sub questions used to clear the concepts. What is the role of the MA in the firm? What is the effect of this role on the interaction between manager and MA? What type of relationship exists between the manager and the MA? How does this relationship link to the social capital of the firm?
Empirical research is needed to find an answer to the research questions. In this study this was done by performing qualitative research in the form of semi-structured interviews with managers as well as MAs. The interview is designed in a way from which the role of the MA can be identified as well as the relationship between the partners. Finally, the consequences of this relationship on the social capital are looked for.
3
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The following section is included to discuss the concepts that can be found in academic literature. The topics that will be explored are the role of the MA, the interaction and relationship between managers and MAs, and the theory on social capital. This chapter will conclude with defining the literature gap and stating the expectations.
2.1 The role of management accountants
For a number of decades the role of the MA in an organization has been subject to academic research. Lambert and Sponem (2012) cite Simon et al. who already in the 1950’s made a distinction between three functions of MAs: scorekeeping, attention-directing and problem-solving. The first two functions are forms of compliance reporting while problem-solving includes information provision for managerial decision-making. Throughout the years this distinction has grown towards a scale model with the bean counter on one extreme and the business partner on the other extreme (Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Siegel and Sorensen, 1999). Which one of these roles the MA performs, is usually determined by (1) the tasks and activities that a MA fulfills and (2) the level of authority the MA has (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). While some sources lean towards the assumption that in the last decades the business partner role has become the most common and the most preferable role for the MA in an organization (Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Järvenpää, 2007), others argue that “not all
firms yearn for business partners” (Lambert and Sponem, 2012, p. 566).
4
2.2 Consequences of increased interaction
It makes intuitive sense that providing relevant information for decision-making asks for more interaction with managers than only reporting past performance. This is congruent with Byrne and Pierce (2007) who indicate increased interaction between the MA and the manager as one of the result of the changing role of MAs towards a business partner role (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). More interaction has, according to them, an effect on three levels:
1) Performance: increased interaction results in better decision-making and enhanced management and control.
2) Information exchange: managers value the accounting information better and MAs understand the use of non-financial information exchange.
3) Role interface: increased interaction often enhances relationships but may also lead to role conflicts (Byrne and Pierce, 2007).
From the above numeration it appears that more interaction leads to several positive consequences for the firm, like more relevant information exchange and better evaluation of accounting information. Both the manager and the MA understand better what the other party needs and to what goal their job serves. According to Järvenpää (2007) the MA as a business partner adds more value to the firm than the bean counter due to his business orientation. He further argues that management accounting techniques such as activity-based costing, balanced scorecard, economic value added and target costing, lead to a more business oriented role of the MA (Järvenpää, 2007). These techniques both require more interaction and information exchange in order to work properly, while the outcomes of these methods may lead to more interaction and improved decision-making as well.
However, increased interaction can also lead to role conflicts. Due to more interaction the MA might become less independent and less objective (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). This is also called the
“independence-involvement dilemma” (Lambert and Sponem, 2012, p. 586). A MA that is solely a
5 Furthermore, a debate is going on between the different views that managers and the MAs themselves have on the role of the MA and the interaction between manager and MA. This can be applied on both the current role that the MA plays as well as the preference for the future role of the MA (what role he should fulfill). Hopper (1980) found that often managers criticize the passivity of MAs. Managers prefer the MA to be more service-oriented, because the managers see themselves as the main clients of the MA (Hopper, 1980). The role that the MAs prefer themselves is related to the level of decentralization of the company: in centralized firms they prefer to perform the role of bean counter, in companies with a high level of decentralization they prefer to be a business partner (Hopper 1980). On the other hand, Lambert and Sponem (2012) found that the majority of MAs currently fulfilling a bean counter role aspire to become a business partner, and would like to have more interaction with the manager. The managers, meanwhile, are afraid that more interaction with the MA would negatively affect their freedom (Lambert and Sponem, 2012), therefore they prefer a MA in the role of a bean counter.
2.3 Relationship between managers and management accountants
While the above shows the pros and cons of increased interaction, it is hard to find any existing literature about the perceived quality of the relationship between the manager and the MA. Byrne and Pierce (2007) found mixed results how the relationship could be improved most. While in some cases increased interaction led to a better understanding between the MA and the manager, other respondents mentioned that the more objective and ‘hands-off’ the MA is, the better the relationship with the manager (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). It can be said that more interaction will only lead to a better relationship if the partners trust each other. To be precise, reciprocal trust “emerges
as both a prerequisite to business orientation and a consequence of it” (Lambert and Sponem, 2012,
p. 586). This is in line with Goretzki et al. (2013) who found that the relationship has to develop over time, because the institutionalization process of the new business partner MA role takes time.
6
2.4 Theoretical lens for analyzing the relationship: Social capital
Social capital is a term that originally stems from sociology rather than from business studies. The French sociologist Bourdieu (1986) states that it is impossible to understand the social world without considering both cultural capital and social capital next to economic capital. According to Bourdieu (1986) economic theories too narrowly focus on economic capital, money or capital that is directly convertible into money, and on the maximization of profit. Social capital adds value through non-financial aspects. While some sources define social capital solely as a network of relationships (Baker, 1990), others add the actual and potential resources that can be accessed through such networks (Bourdieu, 1986; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). This last view is consistent with the resource-based view as introduced by Barney (1991) stating that these resources are unique organizational assets which will lead to a competitive advantage.
Social capital is dependent on the individual (Bourdieu, 1986) and cannot be traded easily (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). It is collectively owned by the parties involved in a specific relationship, or by the members of a group, and by nature it is not possible to attain exclusive ownership rights (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Rather, social capital has a multiplier effect on the other capital that an individual (or firm) already possesses, resulting in increasing material or symbolic profits (Bourdieu, 1986). Multiple authors explain the positive effect of social capital on the total firm performance by the fact that social capital improves knowledge-sharing routines in firms (Chow and Chan, 2008; Karahanna and Preston, 2013; Kim et al., 2012; Lambooy, 2010).
The theory of social capital has been applied to many different situations, from families, clubs and the neighborhood (Bourdieu, 1986) to individuals in an organization (Karahanna and Preston, 2013; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) and the market relationships between firms (Baker, 1990). The current study applies the social capital theory on the relationship between two members of an organization, which can be seen as a variation on the study of Karahanna and Preston (2013).
Social capital can be divided into the structural dimension, the cognitive dimension and the relational dimension. This division helps to analyze the relationship between individuals. The structural
dimension creates the opportunity for interaction (Karahanna and Preston, 2013). It is based on the
7 (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The ability to understand each other through shared language and terminology is an important requirement of social capital (Karahanna and Preston, 2013). These factors are all resources that increase the understanding between two members of an organization (Chow and Chan, 2008). The third dimension is the relational dimension. This dimension is seen as the motivation for interaction and knowledge exchange (Karahanna and Preston, 2013). The type of personal relationship between two members of an organization is analyzed. The key word is social trust (Chow and Chan, 2008), and it asks to what degree someone is willing to be vulnerable for and dependent on the actions of colleagues (Kim et al., 2012).
2.5 The role, the relationship and the social capital
First of all, this paper aims to find out if there is a possible linkage between the role of the MA and the relationship between the MA and the manager. Based on literature it is expected that business partners have more interaction with manager than bean counters (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Lambert and Sponem, 2013), but that this interaction can have positive and negative consequences (Byrne and Pierce, 2007). Empirical research is needed to find more information on this matter. Moreover, Karahanna and Preston (2013) state that the relationship and the information exchange between the CIO and the top management team increases the social capital of the firm, and through this it adds value to the total firm. The current study aims to find out if the same applies to the relationship between managers and MAs. It copies therefore the line of reasoning of Karahanna and Preston (2013), however due to a limited scope this paper will only focus on the consequences for social capital and not for the total firm performance. It is expected that the intensive relationship between manager and MA, due to a business-oriented role of the MA, increases the social capital of the firm.
3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes how the current study attempts to fill the literature gap. It reveals the methods that are used, it provides a general description of the concepts, and it discloses the way in which the data has been collected and analyzed.
3.1 Research method
8 development; Eisenhardt (1989) provides a complete framework or “roadmap” (Eisenhardt, 1989: 532) of the process on how to generate theory from case studies. This framework will be followed as a guideline for this research.
3.2 Data collection
The case selection is done using theoretical sampling, as opposed to random sampling. According to Eisenhardt (1989), theoretical sampling may be used to select cases that are expected to confirm the emergent theory. Another advantage of theoretical sampling is the possibility to select multiple cases that are very different or “polar types” (Eisenhardt, 1989: 537). An important selection criterion for this study was that the company has at least one fulltime MA employed. Four for-profit organizations as well as one non-profit organization are studied, in different industries. In this way polar types have been selected, which has a positive effect on the interpretive generalizability (Hopper and Powell, 1985). Table 1 introduces the five firms in terms of general information such as type of industry and number of employees.
Table 1. General information case companies Company Industry Focus Number of employees
A IT/ software International focus 600-700 fte
B Construction National focus 90 fte
C Hospitality & events International focus 30 fte
D Production International focus 150 fte
E Local government Regional focus 150 fte
The selected respondents were required to know each other and to work on the same projects on a more or less regular basis. In the five selected companies a total of ten respondents have been interviewed. Five respondents are operational, sales or line managers in the case companies (respondents A1-E1). The other five respondents have a mainly financial function. Their function titles vary from controller to finance and control manager (respondent A2-E2). Nine out of the ten respondents are part of the management team of the company or of the specific location. This indicates the relative powerful and influencing position of the respondents in the company.
9 between a manager and a MA, that in each company at least one manager and one MA was interviewed. This increases the reliability of the outcomes, because it reduces the respondents’ bias.
3.3 Concepts
The interview questions are divided in three parts: the role of the MA, the relationship between the MA and the manager and the social capital of the firm. These are considered the three main concepts of this study. The interview questions are designed to not only draw conclusions on each concept separately, but also on the link between the three concepts. The interview questions (in Dutch) are to be found in appendix I. In order to assure that the interview questions cover the concepts, they are designed with the help of existing literature in the different fields. This increases the construct validity of the study.
Consistent with multiple studies (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Hopper, 1980; Lambert and Sponem, 2012) the interview questions in the first part did not literally ask which role the MA performs in the organization, but indirect questions about the daily tasks and activities, responsibilities and authority of the MA were asked. From these answers the role is interpreted using codes.
The second part of the interview questions is designed to find out about the interaction and the relationship between the manager and the MA. Interaction involves both formal and informal interaction between the two members of the organization. The questions for this part of the interview try to uncover three categories of consequences of increased interaction based on the article by Byrne and Pierce (2007), namely performance consequences, information exchange and role interface. Next to studying the positive effects of interaction also the possible negative interaction or conflict are taken into account (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Hopper, 1980).
The third part of the interview is designed to analyze the effect of the relationship between a manager and a MA on the firm’s social capital. The interview questions are again designed in a way which is consistent with prior studies (Chow and Chang, 2008; Karahanna and Preston, 2013; Kim et al., 2012). The interview include questions on (1) the structural position and informal interaction, (2) shared language, shared cognition, and other potential resources that increase understanding, and (3) mutual trust and commitment. The respondents were asked to comment on questions about the specific colleague, but also on issues regarding social capital in general. In this way it is prevented that the answers are biased due to people protecting each other.
10 The interviews were all recorded and transcribed, after which the analysis started. Following the steps as suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) data analysis consisted of two general steps. First, each case is subject to a within-case analysis. In the transcripts of the interviews specific codes are linked to the text fragments in order to analyze what have been said in the interviews, while still preserving a great amount of detail (Saldaña, 2012). The code book is to be found in appendix II. The two interviews in each case company are linked together in this phase of the analysis. In this way the answers of the manager and of the MA are compared with each other.
The second step is the cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989). This method makes it possible to compare the findings of the different case companies and look for patterns. Both similarities as well as differences are looked for. This also means looking for similarities in so-called polar types and for differences in cases that seem to be very alike at first sight. This systematic way of analyzing the data increases the internal validity of this study (Aken, Berends and Bij, 2012).
The ultimate goal of performing a multiple case study research is to develop a new (part of the) theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The aim of this current study is to make a preliminary step towards the development of a theory that explains the interplay between the role of the MA, the relationship between a manager and a MA and the firm’s social capital.
4. FINDINGS
The following chapter presents the main findings of the study. The outcomes of the interviews will be discussed per concept with the help of direct quotes.
4.1 The role of the management accountant
Although the function titles of the five MA respondents vary from controller to finance and control
manager, they can all be called MAs. In four of the five organizations (A, B, C, D) the MAs are part of
11 All respondents mentioned that the responsibility of the MA mainly lies in the financial area. Examples are forecasting costs and revenues, making (the framework for) the budgets, monitoring and adjusting the budgets during the year. In some cases the MAs write financial reports for the director or the headquarters (B, C, D). Next to that, the MAs have administrating tasks like making payments, payroll administration, contacts with external accountants, tax authority and pension funds. In case they do not perform these tasks themselves, they manage a team of employees who do this for them. In company C, D, and E, this adds people management, training and teaching to the list of tasks and activities.
Although from the above it appears that the MAs perform tasks that can be seen as traditional bookkeeping tasks, all ten respondents included in their answer that the MA is not solely a bean counter but has a broader range of tasks and responsibilities. For instance, multiple respondents mentioned that the MA does not only decide on financial issues but also looks critically at the processes throughout the company. The business partner MA looks at the processes, signals deviations and sometimes writes new procedures or develop new systems that support the business. C2 describes it as follows:
“In this function, we are allowed to actually interfere with all matters in the business. We don’t only do the financial part but we mainly monitor the whole company, we’re also process-oriented. We try to make combinations and connections between the different processes.” (C2)
Furthermore, advising the company has been mentioned as one of the main tasks and activities of the MA. This varies from advices about financial feasibility of investments, advices about risks of new projects, and asking critical questions. In some cases the MA is involved in HRM and operational decisions as well. This is especially visible in company A, B and C. According to A1, the MA has a
“helicopter view” of the total business. A1 describes it as follows:
“A2 is not a typical finance person. He has a lot of business experience and he looks further than only the financial matters. He is not an accountant or something.” (A1)
12
everyone”. In company E the role change happened in the last three to four years and still the MA
falls back in the old pattern now and then. According to the MA it is sometimes hard to determine what your own role is in the company:
“We used to be departmental controllers and we were part of the line, (…) as the right hand of the department head. Now we operate as a staff function. Sometimes you fall back into your old habits and you start operating as the right hand, but this happens less frequent than before.” (E2)
In all cases the manager and the MA more or less mention the same main tasks and responsibilities of the MA. Logically, the manager mentioned only a small part of the tasks that were mentioned by the MAs themselves. A notable finding is that often the responsibilities that MAs have to the headquarters (B, C, D) are not mentioned by the managers. Moreover, in most companies the respondents were satisfied with the current role of the MA. Only in company E the respondents both mentioned that they wanted the MA to change more towards a business partner role, as this is a recent development in the organization.
4.2 Interaction and relationship
In most organizations the manager and the MA have formal meetings, as well as occasional, less formal meetings. Most of the respondents are both part of the management team which gathers once a week to once a month. Next to this formal meeting, in company C and E the two respondents have another fixed meeting only with the two of them. As C2 describes it:
“We have one fixed moment per week that we see each other. I try to really hold on to that meeting, (…) that hour is sacred to me. ” (C2)
13
“In my opinion the contact is good as it is. (…) I think there is a right balance now and we can easily reach each other if there is something that cannot wait until the next monthly meeting. We get along well by telephone.” (A2)
The amount and type of information that is shared between the manager and the MA is in all cases basic financial information on budgeting, financial progress and investments. In other words they share everything that has financial consequences. In some cases the respondents mentioned that they also share their opinions on operational issues, like personnel decisions or processes. In company B it was noticeable that the way the manager and the MA experience the intensity of the relationship and the information sharing differs:
I really see B2 as a sparring partner (…) The contact is very casual. We also have a lot of contact: calling, e-mailing, and now and then we walk by each other’s offices and start philosophizing about things that concern us at that moment. (…) We actually share all kinds of information, not only financial, but also on ICT or HRM.” (B1)
“It’s really not that much information that we share. I also don’t have frequent meetings with him, but if something comes up, I can easily reach him.” (B2)
While most respondents are pleased with the intensity and the content-wise quality of the relationship, others mention the tension that they feel in the interaction and see room for improvement. The most striking examples of a tense relationship are present in company C and D. In both cases both the manager and the MA feel the tension and agree that the relationship could be improved. In company C, disagreement on tasks and the perception of high work pressure are mentioned as reasons.
“There is always tension between commerce and finance. (…) There are tasks of which the finance manager thinks they belong to the commercial manager while the commercial manager believes it is the responsibility of the finance manager.” (C1)
14 While they are both very clear about the challenges of their business relationship, at the same time they are convinced that this does not influence their personal relationship.
The tension that is present in company D is according to the respondents influenced by the fact that the manager and MA are in a different phase in live and work experience. The manager (D1) is young and has grown quickly inside the company. He has the role of manager only since 4 months. The MA, D2 is of an older age group and performs the same function in company D for 12 years already.
“He always was the ‘big man’ and I started off as a small one. (…) Before he was ‘more’ than I was, now that has changed and we are on an equal level.” (D1)
“Content-wise I wish to bring the discussion to a higher level. (…) But I came to the conclusion that I sometimes aimed too high for him financially seen.” (D2)
D1 and D2 agree that the communication can be better, but they are both confident that this will grow over time. Also in company D the respondents mention that personally they get along well.
4.3 Social capital - structural dimension
The structural dimension contains of the formal as well as the informal position that both the managers and the MAs have in the organization. The organizational chart has been sketched and the respondents explained who reports to whom. In company A, B, C, and D the MA and the manager have equal formal positions in the organizational chart. They are all part of the management team and directly report to the director or CEO. In company A there is a small step in between. Although it is not a formal rule, in practice the operational manager (A1) also reports to the MA (A2).
“A1 has a double role. On the one hand he is the operational manager of a foreign location; on the other hand he is part of the management team. (…) From this double role it is perceived as pleasant to report to each other as well. Reporting to someone else keeps you focused, it makes you eager to tell a good story and it makes you think about your output once more.” (A2)
15 Informal contact between the MA and the manager is present in most of the companies. All of them agree that they go along quite well, but do not have a private relationship next to the work environment. Most of the informal contact includes social talk, team building events or going to business related fairs. The respondents were also asked for their general opinion about informal contact between colleagues. Most of the respondents replied positively. They answered that it makes working easier if you get along well, it increases the team spirit, the atmosphere as well as the results. However, most of the respondents add the downside of being too close with colleagues. One could become less critical or even go against the company’s interest to protect each other. In general the respondents agree that performing the work right, is the primary goal. According the E1:
“I believe social talk is important as long as it does not become the leading factor. There are organizations in which relationship is considered more important than performance, (…) where people do not address others on their responsibilities anymore.” (E1)
4.4 Social capital - cognitive dimension
The cognitive dimension focuses on the degree to which managers and MAs share the same language, vision and goals. The same language was measured with the question if much jargon is used in the company. Although the organizations are rooted in very different industries, all respondents replied that jargon is used in the business. In general, most of the jargon exists of abbreviations of departments, products or reports. In some cases the jargon exists of technical terms that are only used in this type of industry. While most think that an outsider would have trouble to understand the language, almost no one experiences internal problems due to jargon. Only B1 admitted that it took a long time to get the hang of it. Meanwhile, in most organizations the MA uses more advanced financial-related terms than the manager. Some of the MAs explained that they use different language towards the team compared to the headquarters. E2 and B2 mention it as follows:
“Now and then I try to translate financial information for the budget holders and the managers (…). If I would use the exact same words that I have in my mind, it would not work out properly.” (E2)
16 The respondents were also asked to describe their vision on the future of the organization. This question was designed to be able to compare to what degree the answers of the manager and the MA are similar. The majority of the respondents indicated that the future is very hard to predict and is very much influenced by external events like government decisions, competitors, and the newest innovations. A1, B1 and E1 all mentioned that the organization should therefore become more flexible and able to move along with changes. They focus, for example, on lean management to achieve this goal (B1, E1). Others focus on new product innovation (D1, D2), attracting a different target group (C1) or becoming more customer-focused (A1, D2). Another goal is the increase of collaboration between the departments (C2, D1, E1) or with the headquarters (B2, C2, D2). It is striking that the increased co-operation with the headquarters is only mentioned by MAs and not by managers.
In some cases the respondents mentioned that the overall vision of the manager and the MA might be equal, but that their approach differs. Examples are visible in the answers of A1 and B1:
“The general vision of growing the business is similar; however our approach is very different. A2 favors a structural approach while I am more intuitive, I like to try out new things.” (A1)
“I know I am a generalist. I think in outlines and I can make decisions quickly. But then I skip the details, after which B2 says: Wait, stop the giant leaps and keep it small. That is very valuable.” (B1)
17
4.5 Social capital - relational dimension
The relational dimension is related to the level of commitment to the organization and the helpfulness of colleagues. Every single respondent answered that he or she is very committed to the organization. A lot of the respondents link commitment to the degree to which they feel responsible for the success of the business. This results in answers describing emotions. These emotions vary from stress, to pride, to connectedness and even fierce reactions.
“I think I am too committed. It’s in my blood, this company is my baby. It feels as if it is my business; I feel responsible for the people, the furnishing, the processes, and the positioning in the market.” (C1)
“We are both very company D-minded. We both have heart for the business. That’s why we both sometimes react too fierce. D2 thinks he needs to take care of everything, he is very concerned. This is positive, but it sometimes leads to a clash because we both think like this.” (D1)
“I think company D is a fantastic company. It would really hurt me if I couldn’t be a part of the company anymore or if the company would perform badly.” (D2)
Both respondents in company E mention that commitment has a limit for them. They realize that they are not responsible for every part of the business and that they cannot influence the business completely. They are not dependent on the organization. Except from D2, most of the respondents are convinced that they would feel committed to another company as well, if the time has come to change jobs. Most of the respondents, although committed to the current organization, answered to take their chances if a new opportunity came by that would fit their ambitions.
Trust also has to do with helpfulness and the degree to which one can depend on another in case of problems. The majority of the respondents mention that whenever you ask for support there is always someone available to help you out. However, according to B1, B2, C1, C2, E2 there is room for improvement when looking at taking initiative to help others. B1 describes it as follows:
18 Finally, the definition of offering help can be understood in different ways. A1 defines it is being social, having a solidary and non-competitive atmosphere inside the team. Others prefer different terms instead of helping, like: sparring (B2), supporting (D1) and collaborating (E2). The manager of organization E answers as follows:
“It depends on what you mean by helpfulness. One can think he is very helpful, but it could completely go against the interests of the other person. According to me helpfulness is that you agree that it brings both of the parties further. If you don’t watch out, ‘being helpful’ can really hinder the development.” (E1)
5. DISCUSSION
In the discussion the findings from the qualitative research are compared to the theory, in order to find out more about a possible linkage between the role of the MA and the relationship between the manager and the MA and the consequences for the social capital. Furthermore, this section will present additional influencing factors that are expected to have a strong influence on the relationship between the manager and the MA.
5.1 The link between role and relationship
If placed on the continuum from bean counter to business partner (Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Siegel and Sorensen, 1999), all five MA respondents tend more towards the business partner role. This conclusion is drawn based on the tasks and authority of the MAs as described by both the managers and the MAs in the case companies. The MAs do not only perform traditional accounting and control tasks, but also advise the company on a variety of organizational affairs. Moreover, the MA who is part of the management team is automatically aware of all organizational issues instead of only the financial issues. The formal position of the MA in the management team also generates a high level of authority, which is another indication for being a business partner (Lambert and Sponem, 2012). Although the MAs of all five case companies tend more towards the business partner role, the extent to which they are a real business partner differs among the cases. In company A and C the MAs are most involved in decision-making strategic issues like HRM and process efficiency, while the other three MAs advices are mainly limited to financial matters.
19 and therefore oversees the total organization better. He is currently more a helper for everyone in the company instead of only for the department head. In both cases this shift has intensified the relationship with the manager. This finding is in line with the theory on the changing role of a MA towards a business partner (Clinton and White, 2012; Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Siegel and Sorensen, 1999).
To describe the relationship a distinction can be made between (1) the intensity and (2) the content-wise quality of the relationship. The intensity of the relationship is about the number of contact moments and the formal and informal interaction between the manager and the MA. The intensity of the interaction in the case companies varies from daily face-to-face contact to weekly telephone calls. The most fixed contact moments are found in companies C and E. In company A, B and D, the interaction happens more in a spontaneous way. In company A the intensity is lowest, which can be explained by a lack of physical proximity, a factor that will be discussed later on in this chapter. In general it can be said that the intensity of the relationship is high in cases where the MA performs the role of a business partner. This is in line with Byrne and Pierce’s (2007) theory of increased interaction between a business partner and a manager. However, the findings show that the extent of being a real business partner does not automatically lead to the most interaction.
The perceived content-wise quality of the relationship is meant to describe how pleased one is with the content of the interaction and the way the communication takes place. The answers differ from ‘good’ and ‘casual’ to ‘room for improvement’ or even ‘tense’. In company A the respondents are most positive, followed by B and E. Although these respondents were pleased with the relationship, they mentioned that there was still room for improvement. In company C and D more tension between the MA and the manager is present. Possible reasons for this tension are differences in individual’s character and perceived work pressure. All in all, it can be said that the findings support Byrne and Pierce’s (2007) theory that increased interaction does not necessarily have positive consequences for the relationship. However, in contrast to Byrne and Pierce’s (2007) study, this paper provides several factors that explain why increased interaction is not always positive.
20 relationship. Therefore the conclusion can be drawn that whether the relationship is perceived as good or bad is not only a result of the role of the MA, but is also determined by other factors which will be discussed later on in this chapter. But first the consequences of the relationship on the social capital will be analyzed.
5.2 The consequences for social capital
The following paragraphs analyze how the role of the MA and the relationship between the MA and the manager influence the three dimensions of social capital: structural, cognitive and relational (Karahanna and Preston, 2013; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Again it can be said that the consequences are not simply positive or negative, but it depends on other factors.
5.2.1 Structural dimension
The structural dimension is about “who you reach and how you reach them” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 244). If the MA performs the role of a business partner, he and the manager reach each other often in formal and less formal situations. The manager and the business partner MA are clearly part of each other’s network as described by Granovetter (1973, 1983). A real informal, private relationship was not found in any of the cases, so the actors only meet in the business environment. The general feeling towards informal relationships was that it is nice and it could have positive effects for the performance of the business, but there are limits. Too much informal interaction might distract from the main goal: the performance of the company. Thus, intensive informal contact can indeed lead to an increase in social capital, but only until a certain point. After this point there is a serious risk that informal relationships jeopardize the company’s goals.
5.2.2 Cognitive dimension
21 real business partner role. Hence, the reasoning here has been turned around: the social capital provides the opportunity for a business partner role.
5.2.3 Relational dimension
The third dimension of social capital is the relational dimension, which centers on mutual trust (Chow and Chan, 2008), commitment and willingness to ask and offer help (Kim et al., 2012). All respondents replied to be highly committed to the organization. In some cases the fact that both the manager and the MA are both highly committed improved the relationship as they are proud of the business and both feel motivated to strive together for the success of the business. However, in other cases the fact that both people are so committed to the organization leads to problems. It makes people feel overly responsible, stressed and put under pressure. In these cases discussions arise about what is best for the company. In other words, commitment makes people emotional and these emotions can have positive as well as negative consequences for the relationship.
5.3 Influencing factors
As mentioned before, the findings show that an intensive relationship between a manager and a business partner MA exists, but it lacks to explain why perceived quality and the consequences for the social capital are sometimes positive and sometimes negative. From the findings four additional influencing factors are found which should be taken into account to determine the relationship between the manager and the MA. These factors are (1) physical proximity, (2) the presence of a headquarters, (3) the character of the individual, and (4) the perceived work pressure.
5.3.1 Physical proximity
22 5.3.2 The presence of a head office
An interesting finding on the role of the MA is seen in the companies where a head office is involved (company B, C and D). It appears that in these companies the MA reports both to the local business as well as to the headquarters, which often makes them loyal to both parties. This effect is also visible in the type of information that is shared between the manager and the MA. While the information on the local business is shared extensively inside the company, the financial information for the headquarters is often not shared with the manager. Furthermore, the personal vision of these MAs includes increased collaboration with the headquarters, while this is not mentioned by the managers. All in all, the findings show that managers have a more local and operational vision about the company, while MAs have a more overall view which also involves the head office. This raises the question: who is the main client of the MA, the local business or the headquarters? Lambert and Sponem (2012) have taken this question into account when they designed a model with four MA roles: discrete, safeguard, partner and omnipotent, in which the second and fourth role mainly serves headquarters and the discrete MA and partner MA both report mainly to the local business. This model is therefore very useful in the analysis of the relationship between a manager and a MA.
5.3.3 The character of the individual
According to Byrne and Pierce (2007) a negative consequence of intensive interaction is role conflict. In some of the cases these role conflicts are indeed found. In company D the MA explains the conflicts by emphasizing the differences in age category, management experience and affinity with finance between him and the manager. The manager, on the other hand, explains the clash by the fact that the MA is too involved in the business. This directly relates to the literature stating that:
“Managers do not seem to always welcome interaction that seeks to serve a monitoring, information gathering, or interfering function of the MA” (Byrne and Pierce, 2007, p. 492). Although in company D
differences in individual’s character clearly are negative consequences for the social capital, variety in professional knowledge and personal interest might also lead to the creation of a stable, multidimensional team. In company A, for example, the MA is very precise and structured, while the manager is more intuitive, and likes to try out new things. In company B the manager is a generalist who thinks in outlines, while the MA has more eye for detail. These characters complement each other. Thus, differences in character of the individual are considered an important factor to take into account when studying the relationship between a manager and a MA.
5.3.4 Perceived work pressure
23 of the independence-involvement dilemma (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Lambert and Sponem, 2012) of MAs can be discovered in this case. The manager expects complete involvement of the MA in the local business, with the sole aim of increasing the performance of this specific location. The MA, however, also has the duty to independently keep track of the financial feasibility of the business and also has responsibilities towards to headquarters. All in all, this may lead to a feeling of high work pressure for both parties. If the perceived work pressure is high, an intensive relationship might thus have negative consequences for social capital.
6. CONCLUSION
In the conclusion the main findings will be presented in the form of an answer to the research question. This chapter also summarizes the theoretical and managerial implications. Thereafter, the limitations of this study as well as suggestions for further research are provided.
6.1 Summary of the findings
Because existing literature has not yet investigated a possible link between the role of a MA and its effect on the relationship between the MA and the manager, and the social capital, this qualitative study has been performed. Its aim is to answer the following research question:
“How can the role of the management accountant be linked to the relationship between a management accountant and a manager, and what are the consequences for the social capital?”
The findings of this paper show that there is indeed an intensive relationship between MAs who perform the role of a business partner and managers. This is in line with the finding that years ago, when the MAs of the case companies were more bean counters, the relationship with the manager was less intensive. The role and the relationship can also be linked to the social capital. The structural dimension, for instance, is positively influenced by regular formal and less formal contact, but a real informal, private relationship would probably have negative consequences. The other way around, the cognitive dimension of social capital makes it possible for a MA to perform the role of a business partner, because they share the same language, vision and system of meaning.
24 the quality of the relationship. Therefore, intensive contact does not automatically lead to a better relationship. Second, the presence of the headquarters often drives a wedge between the goals and vision of the two parties, as the MA not only feels loyal to the local company but also has responsibilities towards the headquarters. Third, the differences in the characters of the individuals may lead to tension in some cases while in other cases it leads to the creation of a stable, multidimensional team. Fourth, while intensive interaction may have positive consequences, it might have the opposite effect in cases where people perceive high work pressure and don’t make the effort to step into each other’s world.
6.1 Theoretical contributions
The theoretical contributions of this paper are twofold. On the one hand, this paper contributes to the literature on the role of the management in a company. While existing literature usually comes up with new roles and antecedents, this paper tries to identify how the theory on MA roles can be linked to the intensity and quality of the relationship that the MA has with the manager. On the other hand, this paper contributes to the literature on social capital. It takes one specific relationship as a part of the total network of relationships inside a company and describes how interaction, relationship and social capital are related on an individual level. This paper, together with the one by Karahanna and Preston (2013) can be seen as a starting point for further investigating how individual relationships between people in an organization may contribute to the social capital of the firm.
6.2 Managerial implications
Next to the contribution this paper makes to the literature, there are also several practical implications. First, if companies strive to create business partners who advise the organization on a variety of organizational issues, it helps to make the MA a member of the management team and let managers and MAs meet each other regularly. This helps to create room for an intensive relationship. The quality of the relationship, however, is influenced by the character of the individuals and the perceived work pressure as well. Second, informal contact between colleagues should not become more important than the performance of the business. Companies should take measures to prevent this from happening. Finally, managers should keep in mind that if there is a head office involved the MA often has more duties to this stakeholder then they have themselves, which can lead to an asymmetric vision.
6.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research
25 limitations, the following three suggestions need to be taken into account when performing future research. First, the MAs in all of the five studied cases are business partners. This is a limitation because the conclusion that a business partner has indeed more interaction with the manager than a bean counter would have is now only based on the respondents’ opinions of former times. Future studies should therefore include cases where the MA really performs a bean counter role, to check whether a bean counter would indeed have less intensive interaction with a manager, like this paper suggests. Further research could justify the preliminary causal relationship between the role of the MA and the intensity of the relationship between a manager and a MA.
Second, all selected cases are Dutch companies. Yet, the cultural influence is expected to be high if the same study would be conducted in different countries. For instance, culture is expected to influence the hierarchy and the informal relationships in a company. During the interviews two of the respondents explicitly mentioned the difference between Dutch and French culture. Spontaneous or informal meetings might not occur in France, which is expected to influence the relationship between the manager and the MA. Therefore this can be considered a limitation for the international generalizability of the findings. For future research it is therefore suggested to study the same concepts in multiple countries.
26
REFERENCE LIST
Aken, J.E. van, Berends, H., and Bij, H. van der (2012). Problem solving in organizations: a
methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, W. (1990). Market networks and corporate behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 96: 589-625.
Barney, J.B. (1991): Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1): pp. 99-120.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J.G. Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education: pp. 241-258. New York: Greenwood.
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., and Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: a social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 1: pp. 14-31.
Burns, J. and Baldvinsdottir, G. (2005). An Institutional Perspective of Accountants’ New Roles - The Interplay of Contradictions and Praxis. European Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 4: pp. 725-757.
Byrne, S. and Pierce, B. (2007). Towards a more comprehensive understanding of the roles of management accountants. European Accounting Review, Vol. 16, No. 3: pp. 469-498. Clinton, B.D. and White, L.R. (2012). The role of the management accountant: 2003-2012.
Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1: pp. 40-74.
Chow, W.S. and Chan, L.S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45: pp. 458-465.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review 14 (4): 532-550.
Goretzki, L., Strauss, E., and Weber, J. (2013). An institutional perspective on the changes in
management accountants’ professional role. Management Accounting Research, Vol. 24: pp. 41-63.
Granlund, M. and Lukka, K. (1997). From bean-counters to change agents: the Finnish management accounting culture in transition. The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 46, No. 3: pp. 213–255.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6: pp. 1360-1380.
Hopper, T. M. (1980). Role conflicts of management accountants and their position within
27 Hopper, T. and Powell, A. (1985). Making sense of research into the organizational and social aspects
of management accounting: a review of its underlying assumptions. Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 22, No. 5: 429-465.
Karahanna, E. and Preston, D.S. (2013). The Effect of Social Capital of the Relationship Between CIO and Top Management Team on Firm Performance. Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 30, No. 1: pp. 15-55.
Kim, T.T., Lee, G., Paek, S., and Lee, S. (2012). Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational performance: What structural relationships do they have in hotels? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, No. 5: pp. 683-704.
Lambert, C. and Sponem, S. (2012). Roles, Authority and Involvement of the Management Accounting Function: A Multiple Case-study Perspective. European Accounting Review, Vol. 21, No. 3: pp. 565-589.
Lambooy, J.G. (2010). Knowledge Transfers, Spillovers and Actors: The Role of Context and Social Capital. European Planning Studies, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 873-891.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2: pp. 242-266.
Saldaña, J. (2012). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Siegel, G. and Sorensen, J.E. (1999). Counting more, counting less: Transformations in the
28
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Interview questions p. 29-37
29
APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
The role of the management accountant, the relationship
between managers and management accountants and the
consequences for the social capital
Master’s thesis Geeske Feenstra
30
INTERVIEW VRAGEN MANAGERS
(A) Algemene informatie
Naam van de geïnterviewde: Functie van de geïnterviewde:
Kunt u iets meer vertellen over de organisatie waarvoor u werkt?
o Naam van de organisatie o Branche
o Onderdeel/ afdeling van een ander bedrijf o Aantal werknemers
(B) De rol van de management accountant
Deel B is bedoeld om erachter te komen wat de rol van de management accountant is in dit bedrijf. De vraag zal niet letterlijk gesteld worden, de rol zal worden afgeleid uit de antwoorden op subtiele vragen over taken, activiteiten en verantwoordelijkheden van de management accountant.
Kunt u een beschrijving geven van uw belangrijkste taken en activiteiten?
o Hoe ziet een gemiddelde werkdag eruit? o Wat zijn subtaken van uw functie?
Hoeveel verantwoordelijkheid draagt u binnen het bedrijf?
o In vergelijking met collega’s, hoeveel verantwoordelijkheid draagt u?
o Past deze mate van verantwoordelijkheid bij de functie die u heeft binnen het bedrijf? o Hoeveel vrijheid krijgt u om zelfstandig beslissingen te nemen?
o Hoeveel invloed heeft u/ hebben uw beslissingen binnen het bedrijf?
o Bent u tevreden met de verantwoordelijkheden en invloed die u heeft binnen het bedrijf?
Wat zijn volgens u de belangrijkste taken en activiteiten van de management accountant?
o Als u de taken van de management accountant zou bepalen, wat zou u dan veranderen?
31 o Ten opzichte van uw eigen verantwoordelijkheid?
o Hoeveel vrijheid krijgt de management accountant om zelfstandig beslissingen te nemen? o Hoeveel invloed heeft de management accountant/ hebben zijn/haar beslissingen binnen het
bedrijf?
In de wetenschappelijke literatuur zijn er twee rollen die vaak gezien worden als de uitersten: aan de ene kant de bean-counter die voornamelijk bezig is met het rapporteren van de finaciën en de kosten die al zijn gemaakt. Aan de andere kant de business partner, die betrokken is bij de beslissingen voor toekomstige projecten etc.
Welke van deze twee rollen past volgens u het beste bij de werkzaaheden die uw collega verricht?
(C) Interactie tussen manager and management accountant
Het volgende interview onderdeel is ontworpen om te kijken naar de interactie en de relatie tussen de manager en de management accountant. De vragen passen bij de consequenties van meer interactie, zoals omschreven door Byrne en Pierce (2007). (Performance consequences, information
exchange consequences, role interface consequences)
Hoe zou u het contact met de management accountant willen omschrijven?
o Frequentie
o Communicatiemiddel (mail, telefoon, face-to-face)
o Nut: Heeft de interactie tussen u en de MA bijvoorbeeld positieve gevolgen voor het nemen van beslissingen binnen het bedrijf?
Hoeveel en welk soort informatie deelt u met de management accountant?
o Bent u afhankelijk van informatie die u van de management accountant krijgt? o Voelt u zich wel eens verplicht om informatie te delen?
o Heeft u wel eens bewust informatie achtergehouden?
Zou u iets willen veranderen in het contact met de management accountant?
o Meer/ minder contact en betrokkenheid aan elkaars functie? o Zou u meer/ minder of ander soort informatie willen delen?
32
(D) Social capital
Het vierde onderdeel van dit interview is bedoeld om een beschrijving te geven van de relatie tussen managers en management accountants aan de hand van de theorie over social capital. De volgende vragen passen binnen de drie dimensies van social capital en zijn ontworpen aan de hand van eerdere onderzoeken door Chow en Chan (2008) en Karahanna en Preston (2013). (Structural social
capital: structural position and informal interaction; Cognitive social capital: shared language and shared goals; Relational social capital: commitment and trust)
-Structural social capital -
Kunt u in grote lijnen het organogram van uw organisatie schetsen inclusief uw positie en die van de management accountant?
o Bent u onderdeel van het management team?
o Hoeveel niveaus bent u verwijderd van de CEO? En de management accountant?
We hebben het net gehad over het contact dat u heeft met de management accountant. Heeft u ook informeel contact met de management accountant?
o Op het werk (tijdens lunchpauze, etc.); Tijdens werkgerelateerde borrels of evenementen; Privé, buiten de werkomgeving
o Zo niet, heeft u dit wel met andere collega’s?
Denkt u dat, in het algemeen, een informele relatie tussen collega’s iets bij kan dragen voor het bedrijf?
- Cognitive social capital -
Wordt er binnen de organisatie een bepaalde terminologie of vakjargon gebruikt?
o Wie gebruikt dat wel/ niet?
o Ontstaan er daardoor wel eens problemen?
o Gebruikt u dezelfde taal (terminologie/vakjargon) als de management accountant?
Hoe zou u de visie en de toekomstige doelstellingen van de organisatie omschrijven?
33
Denkt u dat de management accountant dezelfde doelen zou omschrijven?
Wat zijn uw persoonlijke ambities met het oog op uw carrière binnen deze organisatie?
- Relational social capital -
Hoe toegewijd bent u aan de organisatie?
o Wat betekent uw werk voor u?
o Werkt u vaak extra uren buiten werktijd?
Denkt u dat de management accountant net zo toegewijd is aan de organisatie als u bent?
In het algemeen, hoe hulpvaardig zijn collega’s onderling in de organisatie?
o Krijgt u hulp van anderen als u problemen ervaart met betrekking tot het werk? o Helpt u zelf vaak collega’s die problemen ervaren?
o Zijn er mensen die uw werk gemakkelijker maken?
o Probeert u het werk van anderen gemakkelijker te maken?
34
INTERVIEW VRAGEN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANT
(A) Algemene informatie
Naam van de geïnterviewde: Functie van de geïnterviewde:
Kunt u iets meer vertellen over de organisatie waarvoor u werkt?
o Naam van de organisatie o Branche
o Onderdeel/ afdeling van een ander bedrijf o Aantal werknemers
(B) De rol van de management accountant
Deel B is bedoeld om erachter te komen wat de rol van de management accountant is in dit bedrijf. De vraag zal niet letterlijk gesteld worden, de rol zal worden afgeleidt uit de antwoorden op subtiele vragen over taken, activiteiten en verantwoordelijkheden van de management accountant.
Kunt u een beschrijving geven van uw belangrijkste taken en activiteiten?
o Hoe ziet een gemiddelde werkdag eruit? o Wat zijn subtaken van uw functie?
Hoeveel verantwoordelijkheid draagt u binnen het bedrijf?
o In vergelijking met collega’s, hoeveel verantwoordelijkheid draagt u?
o Past deze mate van verantwoordelijkheid bij de functie die u heeft binnen het bedrijf? o Hoeveel vrijheid krijgt u om zelfstandig beslissingen te nemen?
o Hoeveel invloed heeft u/ hebben uw beslissingen binnen het bedrijf?
o Bent u tevreden met de verantwoordelijkheden en invloed die u heeft binnen het bedrijf?
35
Welke van deze twee rollen past volgens u het beste bij de werkzaaheden die u verricht?
(C) Interactie tussen manager and management accountant
Het volgende interview onderdeel is ontworpen om te kijken naar de interactie en de relatie tussen de manager en de management accountant. De vragen passen bij de consequenties van meer interactie, zoals omschreven door Byrne en Pierce (2007). (Performance consequences, information
exchange consequences, role interface consequences)
Hoe zou u het contact met de manager willen omschrijven?
o Frequentie
o Communicatiemiddel (mail, telefoon, face-to-face)
o Nut: Heeft de interactie tussen u en de manager positieve gevolgen voor het bedrijf, bijvoorbeeld voor het nemen van beslissingen?
Hoeveel en welk soort informatie deelt u met de manager?
o Bent u afhankelijk van informatie die u van de manager krijgt? o Voelt u zich wel eens verplicht om informatie te delen? o Heeft u wel eens bewust informatie achtergehouden?
Zou u iets willen veranderen in het contact met de manager?
o Meer/ minder contact en betrokkenheid aan elkaars functie? o Zou u meer/ minder of ander soort informatie willen delen?
Denkt u dat uw interactie met de manager anders was geweest als u meer een business partner rol had gehad?
(D) Social capital
36
capital: structural position and informal interaction; Cognitive social capital: shared language and shared goals; Relational social capital: commitment and trust)
-Structural social capital -
Kunt u in grote lijnen het organogram van uw organisatie schetsen inclusief uw positie en die van de manager?
o Bent u onderdeel van het management team?
o Hoeveel niveaus bent u verwijderd van de CEO? En de manager?
We hebben het net gehad over het contact dat u heeft met de management accountant. Heeft u ook informeel contact met de manager?
o Op het werk (tijdens lunchpauze, etc.); Tijdens werkgerelateerde borrels of evenementen; Privé, buiten de werkomgeving
o Zo niet, heeft u dit wel met andere collega’s?
Denkt u dat, in het algemeen, een informele relatie tussen collega’s iets bij kan dragen voor het bedrijf?
- Cognitive social capital -
Wordt er binnen de organisatie een bepaalde terminologie of vakjargon gebruikt?
o Wie gebruikt dat wel/ niet?
o Ontstaan er daardoor wel eens problemen?
o Gebruikt u dezelfde taal (terminologie/vakjargon) als de manager?
Hoe zou u de visie en de toekomstige doelstellingen van de organisatie omschrijven?
o Wat is belangrijk voor de organisatie om deze doelen te bereiken? o Wat is uw bijdrage in het bereiken van deze doelen?
Denkt u dat de manager dezelfde doelen zou omschrijven?
Wat zijn uw persoonlijke ambities met het oog op uw carrière binnen deze organisatie?
- Relational social capital -
Hoe toegewijd bent u aan de organisatie?
