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

Learn More →

Think (not so) straight, talk (not so) straight

Think (not so) straight, talk (not so) straight Purpose – This paper aims to provide an analysis of the choices Arthur Andersen faced in dealing with the crisis that ultimately let to its downfall in 2001-2002. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is built around institutional theory. Specifically, it applies the propositions provided by Oliver (1990, 1991) to the historical record. Findings – The failure to develop a coherent response, combined with a failure to anticipate the specific role of the state led to Andersen’s inability to navigate the institutional field. Research limitations/implications – The usual limitations of institutional theory are acknowledged. These pertain to the lack of a micro-level analysis, the additional impact of pure economic rationality and the chance that every crisis of faith is unique. Practical implications – The article adds to our appreciation of what not to do in the face of crisis by the government and those in charge of large accounting organizations. Social implications – The article adds to the recently in the news “too big to fail” problem with successful economic agents. Originality/value – The article adds to institutional theory by providing a different story than the usual, where everything is cleverly managed and the crisis is overcome. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change Emerald Publishing

Think (not so) straight, talk (not so) straight

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/think-not-so-straight-talk-not-so-straight-5OPzxbQyfJ
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1832-5912
DOI
10.1108/JAOC-01-2012-0006
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to provide an analysis of the choices Arthur Andersen faced in dealing with the crisis that ultimately let to its downfall in 2001-2002. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is built around institutional theory. Specifically, it applies the propositions provided by Oliver (1990, 1991) to the historical record. Findings – The failure to develop a coherent response, combined with a failure to anticipate the specific role of the state led to Andersen’s inability to navigate the institutional field. Research limitations/implications – The usual limitations of institutional theory are acknowledged. These pertain to the lack of a micro-level analysis, the additional impact of pure economic rationality and the chance that every crisis of faith is unique. Practical implications – The article adds to our appreciation of what not to do in the face of crisis by the government and those in charge of large accounting organizations. Social implications – The article adds to the recently in the news “too big to fail” problem with successful economic agents. Originality/value – The article adds to institutional theory by providing a different story than the usual, where everything is cleverly managed and the crisis is overcome.

Journal

Journal of Accounting & Organizational ChangeEmerald Publishing

Published: Mar 2, 2015

There are no references for this article.