Commnets on “Problematizing Concepts - A Critical Perspective on
Trust and Management Control”
This paper critically examines the concepts of management control and trust in order to in
order to generate new research questions. It is contended that critical examinations,
informed by a pragmatic constructivism approach, problematize underlying assumptions
behind key concepts. It is argued that the findings indicate that a ‘rational or behavior- and
action-oriented’ perspective, and an ‘emotional or values- and belief-oriented’ perspective –
exist separately in the research area. Authors argue that both perspectives ignore some
aspects of the world as it is in practice, while this paper proposes new models (concepts)
that take a more holistic view of the reality described.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Three research questions are posed:
1) How are trust and management control concepts constructed?
2) What is the relationship between these concepts, and in what way can they be
re-concptualised?
3) How are these concepts designed and used in research?
METHODOLOGY(METHODS?)
Alvessons and Sandberg’s (2011) six principles shown below are used as an analytical
method of the paper.
Principles
Solutions & Adjustments
1) Identify a domain of
Trust and control literature is selected, with a focus on the special field of
management accounting and control.
literature
2) Identify and articulate
assumptions
3)
4)
5)
6)
Evaluate
articulated
assumptions
Develop
alternative
assumptions
Relate assumptions
to audience
The main identifying word used is ‘concepts’ rather than assumptions; however,
this is a minor problem as these words are often used synonymously. (Otherwise,
this principle is followed entirely).
The concepts are identified, described, evaluated and summarized.
The concepts are summarized in a new way that reflects an alternative view of
the original assumptions behind the concepts.
The major audiences are related to the challenged constructs, mostly using the
pragmatic constructivist approach.
Alternative constructs are presented in new models, primarily to open up new
areas of inquiry on issues by taking a new perspective).
Evaluate
alternative
assumptions
Table 1: Alvesson
and Sandberg’s (2011) six principles (in adjusted form) in the paper’s methodology
Pragmatic constructivism (Norreklit et al., 2006) is used to re-conceptualise and create new
models by integrating four aspects of reality: facts, logic, values and communication.
COMMENTS
This paper discusses number of academically important topics for critical accounting
researchers in an interesting and innovative manner. This paper covers vast range of
literature with varying methodological, theoretical approaches. It seems that theories,
concepts, and to a lesser extent models, are treated as empirical objects and analysed in
inductive manner using above mentioned methods.
Unfortunately, it seems that three research questions are not systematically answered in the
paper and the arguments developed is not easy to follow. This is partly because of the lack
of detailed knowledge of the reader/writer of this comments. The following are some of the
reasons why it is found to be difficult to follow.
1) Dichotomy between older management control types (Bureaucracy) and newer
management control types (Post-bureaucracy) does not fit well with current development in
the literature. For instance, enabling bureaucracy (Adler and Borys1996) and enabling
control (Ahrens & Chapman 2004) explicitly argue that two types are intertwined. In
management science, literature on organizational ambidexterity (Tushman & O’Reilly
1996) argues that any sustaibale competitiveness should rest upon the combination of two
types.
Older management control types
(Bureaucracy)
Newer management control types
(Post-bureaucracy)
Rational control System
Normative control
Meritocratic control
rationalizations
Organizational culture
Texts, scripts, protocols
Cultural control
Identification
& subjectification
Socio-ideological
control
= Attempts to control employees’
Beliefs
Depending on images
= Symbolic register
Predictable & determined practices
= Imaginary register
Ad hoc solutions require creativity
control to directly
TechnocraticFormulized
control = Attempts
control employees’ behavior
Table 2: Control concepts characteristic of the ‘Bureaucracy’ and the ‘Post-bureaucracy’
2) A proposed typology of management control summarized in Fig 3 seems very simplistic
if not misleading. For example, diagnostic control (Simons 1995) is said to focus on entire
control period while result control (Merchant & Van der Stede 2003) focus solely on end of
control period. Result control, if understood in combination with delegation of power and
responsibility and management by exception, has similar systematic structure and
functionality with diagnostic control to me.
3) Critical analysis of concepts of trust is based on the idea that there are two schools of
thought/discipline; behavioral school and psychological school. Please explain the reasons
why authors have chosen these two schools in expense of other schools and how authors
identified varying concepts with each school.
4) A proposed typology of trust summarized in Fig. 5 is confusing in various ways. Firstly,
Fig 5 has two different set of two axes, system-people trust axis (horizontal) and
emotional-rational trust axis (vertical). One set of axes is used to located different concepts
of trust in behavioral school, while the other set is used to locate same concepts in
psychological school. It implies that same label is used in two schools systematically
differently. Please elaborate how you developed those two sets of axes. Secondly, the
coordinate in Fig. 5 means that the distance from the origin matters. For example, “calculus
trust” and “deterrence trust” are in the same corner but calculus being more on the rational
trust side and less on the system trust side, whereas deterrence is on the less rational trust
side and more system trust side without no overlaps. It is not easy to understand how
authors located concepts in this way. Thirdly, with the exception of overlaps between
characteristic and knowledge trust, each trust concepts are separately located in the Fig. 5.
As far as definitions go, it is more likely that concepts are overlapping or in inclusion
relations. Fourthly, it is argued that interrogation mark “?” in Fig. 5 tells us that “no school
seems to include this dimension of trust” (p.18). For example, on the right bottom corner
has two interrogation marks, one on people trust side and the other on rational trust side.
Various types of agency theoretic studies as well as behavioral economics based research
seems examine issues in this corner in recent years.
5) The arguments represented in Fig. 8 is understandable that time matters. However,
combined with the topology represented in Fig . 5, it is confusing. Identification-based trust
in the Fig. 5 is located on the upper right corner (emotional-people trust), while the left box
of Fig. 8 shows that identification-based trust moves from emotional trust to rational trust,
which in turn implies that the identification-based trust in Fig. 5 should be relocated to the
bottom right corner (rational-people trust corner).
6) As many, if not most, of conceptual analysis and synthesis is difficult to follow, the final
analysis and synthesis of trust and control represented in Fig. 9 and 10 are not very
convincing, unfortunately. Adding to the above mentioned confusions, new confusions are
introduced here. For example, conceptually it is not clear why three structural domains, ie.,
physical, system-technical, and financial domains, are introduced. System-technical and
financial domains seems to share many fundamental features in comparison to physical
domain. Both system-technical domain and financial domain uses symbols to represent
something in physical domain. Before the introduction of modern IT system, book-keeping
system could be regarded as the system in the system-technical domain.
Overall, the arguments in the paper is too parsimonious for the themes that are covered. It is
may be worth considering that the theme of the paper could be more focused.