Power and Politics and Their Interrelationship with Management Accounting Change

Hassan Yazdifar Davood Askarany Saeed Askary Alireza Daneshfar

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1370785

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT http://www.Management-Journal.com First published in 2005 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. 2005 (this paper), the author(s) 2005 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. ISSN: 1447-9524 (print), 1447-9575 (online) Publisher Site: http://www.Management-Journal.com The INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT is a peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee processes. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1370785

Power and Politics and Their Interrelationship with Management Accounting Change
Hassan Yazdifar, Sheffield University, United Kingdom Davood Askarany Saeed Askary Alireza Daneshfar
Abstract: The issue of organizational change has assumed central importance in business and management related research during the last two decades. The management literature also well documents the significance of power and politics in organizational change, and its implication at various hierarchical levels of an organization. Surprisingly, the management accounting literature boasts little work on power and politics, and its interrelationship with management accounting change process. The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of power and politics in organizational change, with direct implications for knowledge of management accounting change. Keywords: Management Accounting, Change, Power, Politics

Introduction
HE ISSUE OF organizational change has assumed central importance in business and management related research during the last two decades. The management literature also well documents the significance of power and politics in organizational change, and its implication at various hierarchical levels of an organization (see Buchanan and Badham, 1999; Dawson, 1994; Pfeffer, 1981; Giddens, 1976; Foucault, 1972, 1977). Surprisingly, the management accounting (MA) literature boasts little work on power and politics, and its interrelationship with MA change process (see Burns, 2000). The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of power and politics in organizational change, with direct implications for knowledge of MA change. It examines different pressures imposed on management accounting practices (MAP) , implicated in both extra- and/or intra-organizational factors that shape processes of accounting change. In so doing, the paper begins with defining power and politics and describing their differences. It also describes their respective inter-relationship with organizational change. Then, the paper provides illustrations of extra- and intra-organizational political factors which influence organizational and MA change through reviewing several prior case studies. Finally, concluding remarks are presented.

Definition and Distinction between Power and Politics

Although it is relatively straightforward to provide simple definitions of power (for example, the possession of a high-ranking position and/or of useful resources) and politics (for example, the deployment of influence/leverage), it is more difficult to distinguish between them (Drory and Romm, 1988). Drory and Romm (1988) argue that these two concepts are often used interchangeably and that the difference between the two has never been fully settled. The concept of power should also be separated from authority. Robbins (1987) drew an important distinction between authority and power. He says: [] we defined authority as the right to act, or command others to act, toward the attainment of organizational goals. Its unique characteristic, we said, was that this right had legitimacy based on the authority figures position in the organization. Authority goes with job []. When we use the term power we mean an individuals capacity to influence decisions [] the ability to influence based on an individuals legitimate position can affect decisions, but one does not require authority to have such influence (1987, p. 186)1. Having explained the distinction between power and authority, definitions of power and politics would

In support of his opinion, Robbins (1987, p.187) quotes the example of secretaries to high-ranking executives, who may have a great deal of power, by virtue of their ability to influence the flow of information and people to their bosses, but have very little actual authority. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 5, 2005/2006 http://www.Management-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9524 (print), 1447-9575 (online)
Common Ground, Hassan Yazdifar, Davood Askarany, Saeed Askary, Alireza Daneshfar, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 5

be appropriate at this stage. There are numerous definitions in the academic literature of power and politics. Robbins argues that power is the capacity to influence decisions while politics is the actual process of exerting this influence. This view that politics is merely the enactment of power, is held by many writers (e.g. Robbins, 1987; Clegg, 1989a,b; Burnes, 1996, 2000). Hardy defines power as a force that affects outcomes, whereas politics is, she says, power in action (1996, p. S3). These definitions highlight outcomes which, in the absence of power and politics, would probably not be achieved (see also Knights and Morgan, 1991). Baum adds: Power is the ability of different parties to achieve something together that/which they could not accomplish individually. This power governs a politics concerned with creating new possibilities in a world where resources may be joined and new resources created. This is winwin politics: victory is only collective, and one partys loss defeats all (1989, p.195; see also Arendt, 1958 ). So, power is a means of achieving desired goals and effects. Whereas, politics is the practical domain of power in action (Buchanan and Badham, 1999, p.11) and involves those activities or behaviors through which power is developed and used in organizational settings (Pfeffer, 1981, p.7).

planning, the choice of technologies, criteria for evaluation and assessment, the allocation of rewards, and the control of information. This also enhances such individuals or groups ability to exercise direct influence on a whole range of decisions, including change in existing accounting systems (Robbins, 1987; Morgan, 1986; Perrow, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). It is also implied that political activity is likely to be most prevalent during periods of change, especially where such change is likely to challenge the status quo (Burnes, 1996, 2000). Documenting a major study of the introduction, and use, of new information technology Murray commented that: [...] the use of new technology is subject to processes of organizational decision-making and implementation characterised by often conflicting managerial objectives, rationalities and strategies developed through the mobilisation of organizational power (1989, p.285). Thus, as far as Burnes (1996; 2000), Murray (1989), Robbins (1987), Morgan (1986), Pfeffer (1981) and others are concerned, the process of organizational change is inherently a political one. Robbins (1987) noted that no more than fifty to sixty per cent of the variability in organizational structure could be explained by strategy, size, technology, and environmental factors. He also argued that a substantial proportion of the residual variance can be explained through those in positions of power who choose an organizational structure that will, as far as possible, maintain and enhance their personal control. He added that while strategy, size, technology and the environment define the minimum level of effectiveness, and sets the parameters within which self-serving choices will be made: [...] both technology and environment are chosen. Thus, those in power will select technologies and environments that will facilitate their maintenance of control (1987, p.200). Other examples are provided in Pettigrew's (1985 and 1987) and Child and Smith's (1987) detailed case studies of organizational decision-making and organizational change in ICI and Cadbury Ltd, respectively. Such research studies add weight to the view that management in general - and management of change in particular - is inherently a political process. Accounting is a generally accepted, if rather takenfor-granted process for guiding the allocation of resources in a variety of organizational contexts (Jones, 1985, 1992; Hopwood, 1990). It provides the

Power, Politics and Change

The organizational change literature stresses the importance of power and politics in organizational life and emphasises that in order to understand what makes an organization tick, how decisions are arrived at, why resources are allocated in a particular way and why certain changes are implemented while others are not, it is necessary to comprehend the possession and exercise of power and politics within that organization (see Pfeffer, 1978, 1981 and 1992; Robbins, 1987). The influence of power on organizational decision-making, and its implication in change has been viewed from many different angles. Some writers highlight this influence in terms of its affect on organizational structure, while others stress dominance over other key organizational processdriving factors. Robbins (1987) and Burnes (1996, 2000) stress the dominance of power when it affects organizational structure. The reason why power is so critical in such circumstances is that choice of organizational structure will automatically favour some groups while disadvantaging others (Burnes, 1996). Consequently, those in power will determine future

Robbins adds, they (secretaries) are low in the hierarchy, but are close to the power core. They can influence decisions because they are relied upon to regularly pass on information to their bosses, so they have some control of what is heard.

HASSAN YAZDIFAR, DAVOOD ASKARANY, SAEED ASKARY, ALIREZA DANESHFAR

appearance of neutrality, objectivity and verifiability, and may also serve as a convenient, auto regulatory means for allocating resources internally. In such terms, MA is both rational and covertly political. That is, accounting information may provide both a technical solution to the rationalistic goal of generating more resources and serve as a means for fostering political exchanges wherein social actors redistribute power. Accounting is a fundamental management tool for the purpose of allocating an organizations resources and the subsequent distribution of wealth. So, adoption of new MA techniques and change in management accounting practices (MAP) is a highly important - and personal matter - for those in power. Similarly, Jones (1985) states that management accounting systems (MAS) as part of the information system of an organization provides a power resource (Pettigrew, 1972) and therefore its changes become subject to political processes. Armstrong (1985) also argues that change in MAS and the adoption of new techniques involves interprofessional competition for key positions and control. He states that the representation of accountants and other financial specialists in the management hierarchies of capitalist enterprises depends on the adoption of accounting procedures as part of the strategy for controlling the labour process (1985, p.145). Thus, in studying MA change, investigation of the role of power and politics is considered essential (see Dawson, 1994; Pettigrew, 1973, 1985). Drawing on some case studies in the field of MA the following two sections explain the impact of extra-organizational pressures (power) on MAP, and highlight the potential impacts on MAP and the processes of MA change of different sources of power within organizations or at an intra-organizational level. The knowledge of the pressures on MA, will assist researchers and change leaders to be better positioned to study changes or stability in MAP, or plan for changes to the current practices and techniques.

The analysis brings to the fore a number of issues about the process of accounting change. First, the examination points to the possibility that factors which find their origins outside the organization can come to be lodged within it, instilling sources of influence which affect its internal processes. The organization ultimately reveals particular forms of administration, systems of operation and modes of action which appear to be internally rooted, and not dependent on any historical antecedents, but which in fact find their provenance in historical changes and extra-organizational forces. The analysis illustrates the manner in which the specificity of Renaults internal functioning can be interpreted in part, as arising from earlier external influences, rather than solely from the notions of functional requirements dictated by forces internal to the organization (Bhimani, 1993, p.35). Thus, Bhimani sees a possibility for accounting systems that is at least in part a function of external organizational impacts or events. Vamosi (2000) in a case study carried out in a Hungarian company observes that the changes in MAP to a large extent are a consequence of changes in the environment (which is why adaptation is necessary) and not merely a historical, intra-organizational result or traditions, requirements and processes. He concludes that the changes in the companys environment have to be seen as a catalyst for the transition process towards more market oriented logics and processes (2000, p.46), including changes in accounting practices. A survey undertaken by Jones (1985) in several group companies also reveals that an extra organizational level agent such as a parent (acquiring) company places pressures on its subsidiary (acquired) organizations to adopt a certain type of MIS and MAS. He argues that the MAS as a facilitator of integration and motivation was considered highly important by acquirers. Consequently, MAS assumed significantly greater importance in acquired organizations following acquisitions. Jones also pointed out that however, choice by dominant partner may prevail even when it results in apparently reduced MAS sophistication (1985, p.184). Similarly, Granlund and Lukka (1998) label extraorganizational powers and pressures as drivers of management accounting practices and classify them in four groups as below:

Extra-Organizational Political Factors and Management Accounting Change

Several studies illustrate that MAP, adoption of new MA techniques, and the processes of MA change within an organization are impacted by different sources of power from extra-organizational level (for example Granlund and Lukka, 1998; Dent, 1996; Jones, 1985, 1992; Collier, 2001; Soin et al., 2002). Bhimani (1993), for example, from his longitudinal case study of change in accounting practice in Renault Company concludes:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 5

1.

2.

Economic pressures Owing to various economic factors, MAP are adaptive to changes in their environment with various degrees of responsiveness. Such economic factors are many and include: global economic fluctuations, recessions, and deregulation of markets; increased competition; advanced production technology (e.g., JIT); and advanced manufacturing technology (e.g., integrated systems such as SAP, expert systems and electronic data interchange). Granlund and Lukka (1998) use an example derived from their research in . They state that the current trend in is to utilise the possibilities of modern electronic data processing-technology by using data-warehouse types of integrated information systems (such as SAP R/3 or J.D. Edwards). Such systems lead to the standardisation of data collection format and reporting patterns in the production of accounting information. Granlund and Lukka recognised that ever-widening groups of organizations are applying these types of software packages. According to Granlund and Lukka, accountants in believe that these integrated accounting systems may relieve pressures caused by current reporting routines and provide an opportunity for further analysis and decision support. Therefore, the economic pressures have impacted on current MAP and stimulated accountants to adopt new techniques. Coercive pressures Granlund and Lukka (1998) argue that coercive pressures reflect the enforcing regulative aspects of certain rules and settings which facilitate, enable and/or constrain organizational behaviour in general, and MAP in particular. They argue that there are clear pressures on organizations to change their MAP in order to be consistent with the mandates of transnational institutions (e.g., European Union, headquarters) in addition to compliance trade

3.

4.

agreements (e.g., GATT/WTO and NAFTA). These two writers bring an example about Finnish organizations. They say that under coercive pressure, international Finnish organizations tend to apply internationally accepted accounting principles (such as IASCs standards or US GAAP). They add that the effect of these tendencies are not only visible in financial accounting, but in MA as well. An example of these, they claim, is the tendency to move from variable costing to absorption costing. Normative pressures According to Granlund and Lukka (1998), normative pressures arise from social obligations and the need to undertake appropriate social conduct, mediated by appropriate values, norms and roles. Such pressures emerge from different interested groups such as the MA profession and their professional publications (e.g. CIMA in the , with its publicity outlet, Financial Management); and, academic researchers2. Mimetic processes To Granlund and Lukka (1998), organizations under the previous aforementioned pressures adopt mimetic processes or fashion pressures for imitating acceptable operations/activities (e.g., MA techniques). For example, benchmarking and McDonaldism3 are two mimetic processes which are mainly used by consultants and practitioners to mimic, especially successful organizations that have a good reputation. The motivation for imitation is gaining external legitimacy in their operating environment (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Granlund and Lukka, 1998). Nevertheless, there have been criticisms concerning the relevance of the existing MAP which are being imitated. Having explained the impact of extra-organizational pressures (power) on MAP, the following also highlights the potential impacts of different sources of power within organization or at intra-

The explained three pressures highlight the pressures and influence of society at an extra organizational level on organizations. However, there is a major difference between economic and two other pressures: coercive and normative-which are institutional pressures (Scott, 1995, calls them institutions). The difference is the fact that economic rationality is such an eternal phenomenon existing outside time and space, while socially constructed institutional effects are always located in a certain time and space (Granlund and Lukka, 1998, p.158). 3 Granlund and Lukka (1998) say that consultants mediate the pressures of global change into their client organizations by promoting the same ideas as responses to these pressures. This process, in which an idea or a technique is simplified, commercialised and sold as a new one (often old wine in new bottles) is condensed into a pattern called McDonaldism (see also Ritzer, 1993).

HASSAN YAZDIFAR, DAVOOD ASKARANY, SAEED ASKARY, ALIREZA DANESHFAR

organizational level on MAP and the processes of MA change. These sources of power are mobilised by an organization and its dominant coalition (Cyert and March, 1963; Thompson, 1967) the group within the organization that has the power, and the potential ability to change behaviour through political influence (Pfeffer, 1992), to achieve their own goals and ends (Collier, 2001).

Intra-Organizational Political Factors and Management Accounting Change

Hardy (1996) presents a model that encompasses four dimensions of power, based on early pioneering ideas of Lukes (1974). The following discusses Hardys (1996) framework of power and how the ideas will be useful for unravelling pressures on MAP and processes of MA change (see Burns, 2000, for earlier use of this framework). Hardy categorises power into four dimensions, namely: (1) power over resources; (2) power over decision-making processes; (3) power over meaning; and, finally, (4) power of the system. All four dimensions of power will now be explained further. Power over resources Power over resources is exercised by actors to modify the behaviour of others through the deployment and/or restriction of key resources on which others depend. Such key resources include: information, expertise, political access, creditability, stature and prestige, access to higher echelon members, control of money, rewards and sanctions. This form of power manipulation can have limited impact, when set against initial expectations, since it tends to be task-oriented and involves continual use of carrot and stick persuasion. Further, excessive use of coercion may cause a backlash from the subjects on whom power is being exercised. Power over decision-making processes Power over decision-making processes, not surprisingly, resides in organizational decision-making processes which incorporate a variety of procedures and political routines that can be invoked by dominant groups to influence outcomes (Hardy, 1996, p. S7). Such influence and power is exerted over subordinates participation in decisionmaking - i.e., by preventing subordinates participation and/or enhancing participation (Hardy, 1996). Such manipulation of power permits the powerful actors to determine outcomes from behind the scenes, through the use of political manoeuvring. Hence, such dimensions of power highlight that power is not exercised exclusively in explicit making of key decisions; and, high-

lights that the most observable decision makers are not certainly the most powerful. Power over meaning Hardy (1996) argues that power can be exercised to prevent overt conflict from emerging in the first place, through nondecision-making. Power over meanings, as it is called, is exercised in order to influence, and shape, people's perceptions, cognitions and preferences -i.e., in order that they accept the status quo, since they fail to perceive any potential alternatives. Alternatively, power over meanings may be exercised to convince people that change should take place. According to this viewpoint, a study of power cannot be restricted: [...] to observable conflict, to the outcomes of decisions or even to suppressed issues. It must also consider the question of political quiescence (Hardy, 1996, p. S8).

Although the initial concept of this dimension of power was related to societal and class mechanisms which were deemed to perpetuate the status quo (Hardy, 1996), certain writers explore a similar conceptualisation of power in a variety of different arenas including management (e.g., Pettigrew, 1979; Clegg 1975; Hardy, 1996) and MA (Burns, 2000). Power over meaning that seems probably the most sophisticated and broadsweeping, implies that managers who want to avoid/break resistance to change from different groups: employees and unions, use some symbols, such as redundancy compensation and also some reports (e.g., accounting/MA reports) (Hardy, 1996) to legitimise/justify their managerial decisions. In the sphere of MA, research undertaken by Burns (2000) examined the importance of power over meanings in directing the processes of accounting change. He explained how a managing director, through skillful mobilisation of (particularly at board level) meanings, convinced others that new accounting systems were both desirable and legitimate. One of Burnss (2000) research implications was that by mobilising power over meanings, managers can impose new MAS on the members of an organization that are perceived as beneficial for members and the organization, thus paving the way for MA change that is unchallenged (Burns, 2000). Further, over time, such perceptions, which will often be shaped by routines and institutional culture omnipresent throughout the organization, gaining legitimacy and being welcomed by members. Burns adds that power over meaning is not enough if new emerging rules and routines do not align to local ways of thinking and institutions; new accounting procedures must work alongside the many other organisational routines and institutions already in place.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 5

Power of the system The fourth dimension that of, power of the system is deeply embedded within the organization4. Power of the system is supported by the unconscious acceptance of existing, prevalent organizational values, traditions, cultures and structure. Such characteristics are taken for granted assumptions which capture all organizational members in its web. As Hardy explains: Since it advantages or disadvantages individuals without being consciously mobilized, even those who profit from it find it difficult to change. [...] Since it is vested in the status quo, it is unlikely to lead to advantage in the absence of any countervailing power (1996, p. S8-9)5.

mensions of power as being key drivers (both facilitators and hindrances) to the implementation of accounting change in a small UK chemicals manufacturer. This case study demonstrates potential barriers to change, and the potential for conflict, as new accounting routines fail to impinge on existing organizational meanings and settled ways of thinking (i.e., institutions, the system). Burns observes that: In [the R&D department], we saw the difficulties involved when imposing accounting change on a setting where existing institutions [i.e., taken-for-granted assumptions] were not congruent to new routines and intended ways of thinking. Implementation of accounting change thus requires that serious consideration be given to the local institutional context where such change is to take place. And, as the case revealed, this can mean lower level (eg., departmental, functional) contexts, as well as (the wider) organisational and external contexts (1999, p.29). Thus, from the review of the literature, the implementation of new MA techniques or a change in MAP with its considerable effect on structure, resource allocation, performance measurement, reporting, decision-making, and more - is a political process rather than application of rational analysis. As Robbins notes: [...] for rationality to prevail an organisation must have either a single goal or agreement over the multiple goals. Neither case exists in most organisations (1987, p.200). In summary, and as Covaleski et al. (1993) argue, accounting processes do not evolve in the way they do merely to satisfy rational objectives. Rather, accounting is a complex phenomena that requires researchers to look beyond explanation purely in terms of rational economic goals and processes. In this respect, an appreciation of social values is important (Burns, 1996). Jones defines MAS and its role:

Although all four dimensions of power (discussed above) are reproduced at all levels of hierarchy in an organization, the power of the system dimension is more systemic than the other three and encompasses most organizational members in its web. It is argued, these powers, and the politics underpinning them, can be both key facilitators and/or prohibitors to the process through which new MA techniques evolve and change. Power of the system6 comprises taken for granted assumptions and beliefs amongst organizational members. So, in order to understand changes in existing MAP (i.e., assumed to be institutionalised) or implement change, the power of the organizational system, and its potential to resist consequential change, should be thoroughly acknowledged. As Hardy (1996) states, overcoming the power embedded in the system (i.e., intra-organizational institutional context), the three other dimensions of power (manipulation) will be critically important: When managers attempts [...] change, they must use the three dimensions of power to modify those parts of the existing systems that inhibit the new behaviour necessary to support their initiatives (1996, p. S9). Consistent with this view, is the case study undertaken by Burns (2000) which highlights all four di4

Power of system is also emphasised in the work of Foucault (1979, 1980, 1982) who stresses the degree to which all individuals are limited in resisting the system. 5 Hardy (1996, p. S8-9) adds, It is against this dimension of power that managers must employ the other three dimensions if they are to bring about strategic action. 6 This form of power mirrors the notion of institution according to old institutional economic (OIE) theory. From an institutional viewpoint, existing exchange or power structures are not legitimised, although co-operation or harmony is not denied. The issue of power and its consequent conflict form a primary focus of inquiry. The OIE view is that institutions shape humans perception of their interests and preferences stating that studying institutions as mechanisms - which mould power structures classifying and weighting preferences across individuals (or groups) - is critically important (Hodgson, 1989). As Burns explains: Institutions shape action and thoughts either backed up by the rules or in a taken for granted way. Such institutions may serve the interests of a select few rather than be beneficial to a community in general. It is a focus on the latter which distinguishes OIE from most neoclassical economics (1996, p.51).

HASSAN YAZDIFAR, DAVOOD ASKARANY, SAEED ASKARY, ALIREZA DANESHFAR

Management accounting system form an integral part of an organizations structure and processes to effect control. Their importance stems from the ability to facilitate organizational integration, to motivate, to assist decision-making, and to provide measurements of performance through enabling characteristics such as the delegation of authority, communication of objectives, participation, and informational feedback (1985, p.197). Jones then argues that extra-organizational factors and powerful people in companies do influence the choice of MAS adopted following organizational change such as mergers and acquisitions. He concludes that in such circumstance, political process rather than structural logic, may have determined the MAS adopted (1985). Jones argues that there are many other examples of changes being introduced on the basis of personal choice, by individuals who were able to dominate the process of change, rather than in accordance with any theory of MAS design.

Concluding Remarks
This paper concludes that one central insight from the literature on organizational and MA change is a complex process. Also, in studying MAP, with a view to teasing out the complex characteristics of the processes of change in organizations, the importance of extra- organizational factors and intra-organizational pressures on MAP and its change should be considered. The review of the literature highlight that MAS change does not, then, occur in a vacuum: it takes place in a system in which a certain distribution of

power (at both extra- and intra-organizational levels) is already entrenched. Thus the change leaders should be aware that organizational reality paints a political picture (Hardy, 1996, p. S14) (although even the most experienced managers rarely seem willing to admit it) and the aversion to discussing power restricts the understanding of power and impedes effective change. This also implies that the use of hierarchical power alone is not always enough to ensure the success of a new system. Given the influence of the role of power and politics in organizational change expressed in this paper, one of the main implications of this study is that if decision-makers are willing to facilitate the diffusion of MA techniques in their organisations, they should carefully recognize political atmosphere of the organization and the real centre of the power behind the scene. The present study also adds further weight to Burns and Scapens (2000) and Burns (2000) argument that conventional wisdom is too simplistic to be of any significant use to accounting practitioners in the throes of, or considering, change implementation. Nor does the conventional view assist change leaders to learn and anticipate potential problems in their own organizational change programmes. In this research, an attempt has been made to identify those conditions that ease or impede the adoption of new MA techniques with the hope of gaining a better understanding of how different sources of pressures affect practices of MA. Hence, this research provides an increased understanding of the process of MA change. However, more research needs to be done to shed light on the level of association between MA change and behind scene power sources.

References
Arendt, H. The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Armstrong, P. Changing Management Control Strategies: The Role of Competition Between Accountancy and Other Organisational Professions, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1985, 10:2, pp. 129-148. Baum, H. S. Organizational Politics Against Organizational Culture: A Psychoanalytic Perspective, Human Resource Management, 1989, 28:2, pp. 191-206. Bhimani, A. Indeterminacy and the Specificity of Accounting Change: Renault 1898-1938, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 1993, 18:1, pp. 1-39. Buchanan, D. and R. Badham. Power, Politics and organizational change: Winning the Turf Game, London: Sage Publication, 1999. Burnes, B. Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, 2nd ed, London: Pitman, 1996. Burnes, B. Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, 3rd ed, London: Pitman, 2000. Burns, J. The Institutionalization of Accounting - The Case of X Ltd, The 3rd Management Control Systems Symposium, July 1995, Imperial College, London, Conference Proceedings, 1996. Burns, J. The Dynamics of Accounting Change: Inter-Play between New Practices, Routines, Institutions, Power and Politics, Working paper, 1999. Burns, J. The Dynamics of Accounting Change: Inter-Play Between New Practices, Routines, Institutions, Power and Politics, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2000, 13:5, pp. 566-596. Child, J. and C. Smith. The Context and Process of Organisational Transformation- Cadbury Limited in its Sector, Journal of Management Studies, 1987, 24:6, pp. 565-93. Clegg, S. R. Power, Rule and Domination, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1975.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 5

Clegg, S. R. Framework of Power, London: Sage, 1989 Clegg, S. R. Radical Revisions: Power, Discipline and Organizations, Organization Studies, 1989b, pp. 97-115. Collier, P. M. The Power of Accounting: a Field Study of Local Financial Management in a Police Force, Management Accounting Research, 2001, 12, pp. 465-486. Covaleski, M., M. Dirsmith and J. Michelman. An Institutional Theory Perspective on the DRG Framework, Case-mix Accounting Systems and Health Care Organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1993, 18:1, pp. 65-80. Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1963. Dawson, P. Organizational Change: A Processual Approach, London: Paul Chapman, 1994. Dent, J. F. Global Competition: Challenges for Management Accounting and Control, Management Accounting Research, 1996, 7, pp. 247-269. DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 1983, 48, pp. 147-160. Drory, A. and T. Romm. Politics in the Organization and its Perception within the Organization, Organization Studies, 1988, 9:2, pp. 165-79. Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock Publications, 1972. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Middlesex: Peregrine Books, 1977. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Foucault, M. Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 in C. Gordon (eds), Harvester Press, Brighton, 1980. Foucault, M. The Subject and Power in H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds): Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1982, pp. 208-226. Giddens, A. New Rules of Sociological Method, Basic Books, London /Hutchinson, New York, 1976. Granlund, M. and K. Lukka. Its a Small World of Management Accounting Practices, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 1998, 10, pp. 153-179. Hardy, C. Understanding Power: Bringing About Strategic Change, British Journal of Management, (March 1996), 7, Special Issue, pp. S3-S16. Hopwood, A. Accounting and Organizational Change, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1990, 3:1, pp. 7-17. Jones, C. S. An Empirical Study of the Role of Management Accounting Systems following Takeover and Merger, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 1985, 10:2, pp. 177-200. Jones, C. S. The Attitudes of Owner-managers towards Accounting Control Systems following Management Buyout, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 1992, 17:2, pp. 151-168. Knights, D. G. and G. Morgan. Strategic Discourse and Subjectivity in Organisations, Organisation Studies, 1991, 12:3, pp. 251-273. Lukes, S. Power: A Radical View, Macmillan, London, New York, 1974. Morgan, G. Images of Organizations, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986. Murray, F. The Organizational Politics of Information Technology; Studies from the UK Financial Services Industry, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1989, 1:30, pp. 285-97. Perrow, C. The Organizational Context of Human Factors Engineering, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28, pp. 521-41. Pettigrew, A. M. The Politics of Organizational Decision Making, London: Tavistock Publications, 1973. Pettigrew, A. M. On Studying Organizational Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24, pp. 570-581. Pettigrew, A. M. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change at ICI, Oxford: Blackwell, 1985. Pettigrew, A. M. Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm, Journal of Management Sciences, 1987, 24:6, pp. 649-70. Pfeffer, J. Organizational Design, USA: AHM Publishing, Arlington Heights, III, 1978. Pfeffer, J. Power in Organizations, Cambridge: Pitman, 1981. Pfeffer, J. Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Ma, USA, 1992. Ritzer, G. The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation Into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life, Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1993. Robbins, S. P. Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Applications, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1987. Soin, K., W. Seal and J. Cullen. ABC and Organizational Change: An Institutional Perspective, Management Accounting Research, 2002, 13, pp. 249-271. Thompson, J. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967. Vamosi, T. S. Continuity and Change; Management Accounting During Processes of Transition, Management Accounting Research, 2000, 11, pp. 27-63.

About the Authors

Dr Hassan Yazdifar

HASSAN YAZDIFAR, DAVOOD ASKARANY, SAEED ASKARY, ALIREZA DANESHFAR

Dr Hassan Yazdifar is a lecturer in accounting at the University of Sheffield, UK.Dr Hassan Yazdifar is a lecturer in accounting. Prior to joining Sheffield in 2001, he has taught at several universities in the UK (i.e., the universities of Manchester and UMIST) and also overseas. Hassan has facilitated several seminars and has taught on a wide range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses. He is currently module leader for one of the compulsory accounting modules on the full-time postgraduate course (Leisure Management Programme), one MBA module (Strategic Management Accounting) and two undergraduate modules (Introduction to Management Accounting and Introduction to Financial Accounting). In addition he is a member of IT Committee. Hassan is financial board member and consultant for some local and national companies. Davood Askarany Dr Askarany is a lecturer at the University of Auckland.Dr Askarany is a lecturer at the University of Auckland. Prior to joining the University of Auckland he was a research associate at the University of South Australia (UNISA). He has also taught management accounting courses at different universities and institutions for last twenty years. He has got his PhD from UNISA and was nominated as the best postgraduate student (research) of the year in University of South Australia in 2003. He has been an active researcher and one of his paper was selected for the best paper of the year award of "US Informing Science and Information Technology Conference" in 2004. Please see Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, (2004)1, 179-188). For further information please visit his website at:http://staff.business.auckland.ac.nz/daskarany Saeed Askary Dr Saeed Askary is a lecturer in Accounting at the School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Deakin University.Dr Saeed Askary is a lecturer in Accounting at the School of Accounting,Economics and Finance, Deakin University since 2003. Saeed has taught Auditing and Financial Accounting Theory and acted as the Unit Chair and Unit coordinator since that time. Since he joined to the School, he participated in different academic roles and published about 10 papers in referral conferences and journals. Alireza Daneshfar Dr. Alireza Daneshfar is an associate professor of accounting at the University of New Haven, CT, U.S.Alireza's scholarly research includes investigation of issues related to business performance evaluation, alliances and joint ventures formation and performance, quality of reported earnings and investors' use of accounting information. He has taught accounting graduate and undergraduate courses such as current topics in financial reporting, advanced accounting theory, intermediate accounting and financial accounting seminars for executives. He is the editor of working paper series at UNH School of Business and has been member of committees such as graduate curriculum, budget and development and academic computing facilities. His professional work experience includes eight years of practice as business consultant, CFO and Auditor. Alireza is financial board member and consultant for some local and national companies in the Northeast, U.S. and also advisor to the CGA-Research Center at University of Ottawa.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT EDITORS Mary Kalantzis, RMIT University, Australia. Bill Cope, Common Ground, Australia. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Eleni Karantzola, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Gerasimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Greece. Leslie Johnson, University of Greenwich, UK. Bruce Cronin, University of Greenwich, UK. Martyn Laycock, University of Greenwich and managingtransitions.net, UK. Dave Snowden, Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity, UK. Stavros Ioannides, Pantion University, Athens, Greece. David Lyon, Queens University, Ontario, Canada. Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, USA. Claudia Schmitz, Cenandu Learning Agency, Germany. Bill Martin, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Robert Brooks, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Margaret Jackson, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. David Hakken, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Zainal Ariffin, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. David Gurteen, Gurteen Knowledge, UK. Verna Allee, Verna Allee Associates, California, USA. Rod Dilnutt, William Bethway and Associates, Melbourne, Australia. Judith Ellis, Enterprise Knowledge, Melbourne, Australia. Kirpal Singh, Singapore Management University, Singapore. ASSOCIATE EDITORS, 2005 Visit: http://www.Management-Journal.com SCOPE AND CONCERNS Visit: http://www.Management-Journal.com SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Visit: http://www.Management-Journal.com INQUIRIES Email: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com