Search results

Modern intra- and inter-organizational arrangements require firms to cross boundaries, but this process represents a crucial and complex challenge, especially for organizations that face pluralistic tensions. Scholars still lack sufficient knowledge of how boundaries can be crossed and what kind of boundary management is necessary within pluralistic contexts. This paper aims to enrich the understanding of these issues by exploring how strategy maps can be mobilized and used as boundary objects to elicit boundary-spanning practices that foster cross-boundary collaboration in pluralistic organizations.

This paper employs the case study methodology to capture the dynamics of cross-boundary management elicited by the use of a strategy map within a pluralistic social/healthcare organizational context.

This study identifies four practices of boundary spanning (i.e. identifying and crossing problem boundaries, orchestrating collective responsibilities, acknowledging a common understanding of convergent values and goals, and evolving into action) in the analysed pluralistic context and investigates the conditions under which cross-boundary interactions can mobilize a shared zone of knowing via strategy maps.

This paper suggests a complex (and not linear) processual model of boundary management in pluralistic contexts in which the use of the strategy map mobilizes a dynamic of centrifugal and centripetal movements which engage plural actors in a shared site of collaborative knowing. The study contributes to a conceptualization of boundary management in pluralistic contexts as a progressive social accomplishment.

Despite the literature highlighting the relevance of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) as strategic options for organizations’ evolution, such events maintain a high failure rate. All stages of M&As generate considerable stress on management accounting systems (MASs) and related actors. This study aims to investigate management accounting change (MAC) throughout M&As to expand knowledge on the technical side of these changes. A deeper understanding of these changes and their relationship to the implementing agents could illuminate the causes of M&A success and failure.

The study uses an in-depth, qualitative case study analysis of two companies that completed an M&A. The MAC process was investigated based on Sulaiman and Mitchell’s (2005) typology. The authors collected information from internal documents, interviews, external reports and public information.

The findings indicate that MAC in M&As represents a comprehensive change that goes beyond the modifications outlined in Sulaiman and Mitchell’s (2005) original framework; the post-deal integration period can be broken down into early and full sub-phases; and the success of the MAC process rests on the different roles played by various change agents.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to apply and deepen a MAC framework focused on technical changes to MASs in the context of M&As. To date, the literature on M&A has mainly focused on behavioral or organizational changes while neglecting the technical dimension. In addition, by considering all the stakeholders of MASs, this study’s analyses expose the role of change agents who are not generally considered in the accounting literature.