Reviewer’s comments on Gurd, Helliar and Woods: “Looking for leaders:
‘balancing’ innovation, risk and management control systems”.
The paper draws on evidence collected from two case companies, identified as Zeta
and Eta, on the challenges associated with balancing innovation and risk
management within their respective management control regimes. Both companies
were also in the process of accommodating to a need for change, for different
reasons, in which new leaders were being sought in attempts to ensure a secure
commercial future. The resulting complex of organisational dynamics is viewed
initially from a largely conventional management control perspective, with the
leadership issues being considered from an institutional work perspective.
The paper is organised into six sections. Following an introductory overview, section
2 provides a cursory review of the literature on the relationship between risk and
innovation, together with two paragraphs that contextualise this couple from a
management control perspective. Section 3 is entitled “Method and Case
Introduction” and is constituted by a single paragraph that provides the basic
research design details. Section 4 is the longest section in the paper and reports the
findings of the interviews conducted in the case companies, Zeta and Eta, which are
described in some detail at the outset. The substantive findings are presented in five
subsections (pp10-16). Section 5 discusses the findings of the study from the
“looking for leaders” perspective identified in the paper’s title, the paper concluding
with a short conclusion in which the authors attempt to integrate their various
research foci and findings.
It is difficult to conclude other than at this time the authors find themselves in a
process of transition. This is most clearly evident in the lack of continuity in the paper
between sections 4 and 5. Section 4 documents the dynamic that exists within the
two case companies between their respective innovation, risk and control regimes,
which among other things identifies the diminished role that accountants have in
both companies. Section 5 would seem to focus very largely on a second, separate
set of findings relating to the imperative to address a need for leadership in both
companies. This would seem to suggest that the authors began their study with a
particular focus/foci in mind, only to discover another, more interesting set of issues
to explore and explain. This accords with what the authors write on page 4, where
they set out the three aims of the paper – no mention of “looking for leaders” here.
For me, the best way to deal with this dilemma is to develop two papers, although I
can appreciate that there may be a chance that neither would be sufficiently robust
to secure publication in higher end journals.
I have a series of concerns with the findings section of the paper. Initially I do not see
the benefit of providing details of the two case companies at the beginning of the
empirical chapter. This information probably belongs in section 3 (presently woefully
short). Second, cross-case comparison belongs at the end of the section, thereby
providing a link into the discussion, acknowledging the previous observation of
course. Third, I sensed that there was a difference in space/consideration accorded
to Eta in these pages (maybe less interesting?). This is a problem when you are only
looking at two case companies, as opposed to 6-10 as in a field study. Fourth, actual
quotations from interviewees are very scarce in this section. And finally, there is not
a single reference anywhere to be seen in the section.
On page 5 the authors state that within section 2 the theoretical framework of
institutional work is introduced. It isn’t I’m afraid. There is the beginnings of such an
exposition on pages 3-4 and a few more sentences in section 5. This is unfortunate
as many readers are probably not well-acquainted with this strain of institutional
theorising that finds its roots in the old institutional sociology of Selznick. I suspect
his contemporary Gouldner probably has something useful to add here too. This in
turn requires the authors to say something about what an institutional work
perspective offers beyond the more familiar institutional theory lexicon.
A final comment relates to what the paper, presumably unintentionally, demonstrates
– the limitations of what I described in my opening paragraph as the “conventional”
management control perspective. There is nothing remotely critical about the content
of section 4 of the paper, which is essentially made up of descriptions of current
management practices within two companies. Serious problems are identified of
course but the underlying agenda is to identify how these might be resolved within
the constraints attendant upon the prevailing social organisation of work. The
question is: does an institutional theory perspective enable us to do anything any
different/more radical?