Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Editorial

Editorial QRAM 16,2 Enabling and coercive controls in the twenty-first century: future avenues for revisiting Adler and Borys Introduction More than 20 years ago, Adler and Borys (A&B) (1996) wrote a seminal article aiming to reconcile the conflicting views on bureaucracy in organizational research that formalizing work can either abrogate personal freedom and demotivate employees or that it can clarify responsibilities and reduce role stress. In particular, since its importation to accounting research by Ahrens and Chapman (2004), it has become a major theoretical framework to analyze accounting and control aspects in organizations (Chapman and Kihn, 2009; Englund and Gerdin, 2015; Free, 2007; Goretzki et al.,2018; Jordan and Messner, 2012; Jørgensen and Messner, 2009; Wouters, 2009; Wouters and Roijmans, 2011; Wouters and Wilderom, 2008). Although accounting and control researchers generated manifold insights into the organizing of formal bureaucracies, not all aspects of the original framework have been exploited yet, and there is still room for potential contributions to the domain of accounting and control research. For example, A&B argued that future research should focus on the individual differences and variability in how enabling characteristics are perceived over time. In addition, the societal and organizational conditions, which surrounded not only the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management Emerald Publishing

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/editorial-e0t00OqWHo
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1176-6093
DOI
10.1108/qram-03-2019-0049
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

QRAM 16,2 Enabling and coercive controls in the twenty-first century: future avenues for revisiting Adler and Borys Introduction More than 20 years ago, Adler and Borys (A&B) (1996) wrote a seminal article aiming to reconcile the conflicting views on bureaucracy in organizational research that formalizing work can either abrogate personal freedom and demotivate employees or that it can clarify responsibilities and reduce role stress. In particular, since its importation to accounting research by Ahrens and Chapman (2004), it has become a major theoretical framework to analyze accounting and control aspects in organizations (Chapman and Kihn, 2009; Englund and Gerdin, 2015; Free, 2007; Goretzki et al.,2018; Jordan and Messner, 2012; Jørgensen and Messner, 2009; Wouters, 2009; Wouters and Roijmans, 2011; Wouters and Wilderom, 2008). Although accounting and control researchers generated manifold insights into the organizing of formal bureaucracies, not all aspects of the original framework have been exploited yet, and there is still room for potential contributions to the domain of accounting and control research. For example, A&B argued that future research should focus on the individual differences and variability in how enabling characteristics are perceived over time. In addition, the societal and organizational conditions, which surrounded not only the

Journal

Qualitative Research in Accounting & ManagementEmerald Publishing

Published: Aug 16, 2019

References