Search results

This paper aims to examine how managers make non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) exclusion decisions depending on the regulatory guidance provided and their motivations. Guidance detail is a double-edged sword: resolving uncertainty but risking rule-based compliance over principled judgment.

This paper uses the context of non-GAAP measures in reporting, given the history of Securities and Exchange Commission changes in guidance detail. Drawing on theories of epistemic motivation and process accountability, this paper manipulates the goal of management (informativeness vs. opportunism) and guidance detail to examine effects on management decisions to exclude an ambiguous charge.

The 2×2 between participants experiment with 132 managers reveals that more detailed guidance increases likelihood of exclusion of an ambiguous charge. This paper further finds that this exclusion is more likely when management is given an informativeness goal, a result of a mediating effect of epistemic motivation. However, these findings only hold at low levels of process accountability.

The findings regarding the psychological concepts recognize the influence of perceived decision uncertainty by suggesting how managers respond to the level of regulatory guidance detail, offering regulators and auditors a basis for understanding and anticipating managerial reporting choices. Also, awareness of heightened epistemic motivation under the informativeness goal provides a nuanced practical understanding of non-GAAP decision drivers. Finally, the finding that effects are more pronounced for managers with lower process accountability highlights the significance of organizational accountability structures in guiding managerial choices, which can inform board-level governance and control decisions.

Pragmatically, this paper finds that detailed guidance leads to more appropriate exclusion decisions under a goal of informativeness but finds no such evidence where the goal is opportunism. No prior study has examined how the level of detail in guidance affects managers’ disclosure choices.

Acknowledging the importance of both lean thinking (LT) and Industry 4.0 (I4.0) for successful business performance and organisational success, the present study investigates the critical success factors (CSFs) for the concurrent implementation of both approaches, a field not yet significantly explored.

The study conducts two systematic literature reviews (SLRs), one on LT and the other one on I4.0 to map out the CSFs for the effective implementation of each approach. These CSFs are subsequently prioritised with the use of a Delphi Study. Finally, from the set of the common CSFs recognised through the two approaches, a more condensed list is put forward as the first step towards achieving a successful synergy between LT and I4.0.

The study’s findings suggest the most important CSFs and determine their definition in the context of a concurrent implementation of LT and I4.0. This can provide managers and practitioners with the awareness of crucial factors, enabling them to take the necessary steps for planning and implementing both approaches.

A concise set of CSFs for the concurrent implementation of both LT and I4.0 has been identified, which can be viewed as a starting point for providing top executives and managers with useful insights into enhanced business efficiency and performance. This study furthermore contributes to the overall body of knowledge on LT and I4.0.

The scholarly literature that explores a common set of CSFs for the concurrent implementation of LT and I4.0 is limited. This gap significantly enhances the importance of the present research, contributing to a better understanding amongst both academics and practitioners of the key supporting factors for the integration of the two approaches.

The purpose of the article is to outline the insights provided by Alan Fox in Man Mismanagement in relation to the rise of the New Right political economy and the spread of unitarist managerialism. The article assesses the contemporary work and employment relations implications of mismanagement arising from a “second wave” of the New Right ideology from 2010 in the UK.

Responding to the Special Issue on Alan Fox, the article focuses on Alan Fox's book Man Mismanagement, considering industrial relations developments arising between the 1st (1974b) and 2nd (1985) editions relating to the political rise of the New Right. It reviews various literature that illustrates the contemporary IR relevance of the book and Fox's insights.

The New Right’s ideology has further fragmented work, disjointed labour rights and undermined collective industrial relations institutions, and macho mismanagement praxis is even more commonplace, compared to when Fox wrote Man Mismanagement. The stripping away of the institutional architecture of IR renders the renewal of pluralist praxis, like collective bargaining and other forms of joint regulation of work, a formidable task.

The value of the article relates to the identification of dramatic historical industrial relations events and change in the UK in Alan Fox's book Man Mismanagement, most notably relating to the rise to power of the Thatcherite New Right in 1979. Originality is evidenced by the authors’ drawing on Fox's ideas and assessing the implications of the “second wave” of the New Right in the contemporary industrial relations (IR) context of the 2020s under the conceptual themes of fragmented work, disjointed labour rights and undermined collectivism.