Editorial
[...]the main function of formalizing work is to coerce employees to behave as prescribed because work is a disutility which fosters dissatisfaction and demotivates employees (Adler and Borys, 1996; Arches, 1991) that will therefore be avoided by employees (Adler and Borys, 1996). [...]coercive form...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Qualitative research in accounting and management 2019-03, Vol.16 (2), p.182-196 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 196 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 182 |
| container_title | Qualitative research in accounting and management |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Strauss, Erik Tessier, Sophie |
| description | [...]the main function of formalizing work is to coerce employees to behave as prescribed because work is a disutility which fosters dissatisfaction and demotivates employees (Adler and Borys, 1996; Arches, 1991) that will therefore be avoided by employees (Adler and Borys, 1996). [...]coercive formalization does not allow employees to (simply) repair controls. [...]in a coercive formalization, actors’ possibilities to adapt the formalization are minimized; in an enabling formalization, however, employees would be offered some room for individual maneuver. [...]these authors argue that to contribute to knowledge, subsequent papers need to move beyond the fit test by using the method theory to contribute to a domain theory phenomenon, by contributing to the enhancement of the method theory, or both. Since Ahrens and Chapmans’ (2004) seminal paper, we have seen both types of contribution in the accounting literature. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1108/QRAM-03-2019-0049 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2273660383</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2273660383</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_22736603833</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYJA0NNAzNDSw0A8McvTVNTDWNTIwtNQ1MDCxZGLgNDQ3tdA1NzM1YQGyDc3NdM0MLI05GLiKi7MMDEwNTM3NOBk4XVMyS_KLMhNzeBhY0xJzilN5oTQ3g7Kba4izh25BUX5haWpxSXxWfmlRHlAq3sjI3NjMzMDYwtiYOFUAmFkrIw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2273660383</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Editorial</title><source>Emerald Journals</source><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><creator>Strauss, Erik ; Tessier, Sophie</creator><creatorcontrib>Strauss, Erik ; Tessier, Sophie</creatorcontrib><description>[...]the main function of formalizing work is to coerce employees to behave as prescribed because work is a disutility which fosters dissatisfaction and demotivates employees (Adler and Borys, 1996; Arches, 1991) that will therefore be avoided by employees (Adler and Borys, 1996). [...]coercive formalization does not allow employees to (simply) repair controls. [...]in a coercive formalization, actors’ possibilities to adapt the formalization are minimized; in an enabling formalization, however, employees would be offered some room for individual maneuver. [...]these authors argue that to contribute to knowledge, subsequent papers need to move beyond the fit test by using the method theory to contribute to a domain theory phenomenon, by contributing to the enhancement of the method theory, or both. Since Ahrens and Chapmans’ (2004) seminal paper, we have seen both types of contribution in the accounting literature.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1176-6093</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-7654</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-03-2019-0049</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Accounting ; Accounting systems ; Attitudes ; Bureaucracy ; Compliance ; Design ; Employees ; Flexibility ; Objectives ; Performance management ; Value creation ; Workflow software</subject><ispartof>Qualitative research in accounting and management, 2019-03, Vol.16 (2), p.182-196</ispartof><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,967,21695,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Strauss, Erik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tessier, Sophie</creatorcontrib><title>Editorial</title><title>Qualitative research in accounting and management</title><description>[...]the main function of formalizing work is to coerce employees to behave as prescribed because work is a disutility which fosters dissatisfaction and demotivates employees (Adler and Borys, 1996; Arches, 1991) that will therefore be avoided by employees (Adler and Borys, 1996). [...]coercive formalization does not allow employees to (simply) repair controls. [...]in a coercive formalization, actors’ possibilities to adapt the formalization are minimized; in an enabling formalization, however, employees would be offered some room for individual maneuver. [...]these authors argue that to contribute to knowledge, subsequent papers need to move beyond the fit test by using the method theory to contribute to a domain theory phenomenon, by contributing to the enhancement of the method theory, or both. Since Ahrens and Chapmans’ (2004) seminal paper, we have seen both types of contribution in the accounting literature.</description><subject>Accounting</subject><subject>Accounting systems</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Bureaucracy</subject><subject>Compliance</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Objectives</subject><subject>Performance management</subject><subject>Value creation</subject><subject>Workflow software</subject><issn>1176-6093</issn><issn>1758-7654</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYJA0NNAzNDSw0A8McvTVNTDWNTIwtNQ1MDCxZGLgNDQ3tdA1NzM1YQGyDc3NdM0MLI05GLiKi7MMDEwNTM3NOBk4XVMyS_KLMhNzeBhY0xJzilN5oTQ3g7Kba4izh25BUX5haWpxSXxWfmlRHlAq3sjI3NjMzMDYwtiYOFUAmFkrIw</recordid><startdate>20190315</startdate><enddate>20190315</enddate><creator>Strauss, Erik</creator><creator>Tessier, Sophie</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190315</creationdate><title>Editorial</title><author>Strauss, Erik ; Tessier, Sophie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_22736603833</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Accounting</topic><topic>Accounting systems</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Bureaucracy</topic><topic>Compliance</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Objectives</topic><topic>Performance management</topic><topic>Value creation</topic><topic>Workflow software</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Strauss, Erik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tessier, Sophie</creatorcontrib><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Qualitative research in accounting and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Strauss, Erik</au><au>Tessier, Sophie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Editorial</atitle><jtitle>Qualitative research in accounting and management</jtitle><date>2019-03-15</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>182</spage><epage>196</epage><pages>182-196</pages><issn>1176-6093</issn><eissn>1758-7654</eissn><abstract>[...]the main function of formalizing work is to coerce employees to behave as prescribed because work is a disutility which fosters dissatisfaction and demotivates employees (Adler and Borys, 1996; Arches, 1991) that will therefore be avoided by employees (Adler and Borys, 1996). [...]coercive formalization does not allow employees to (simply) repair controls. [...]in a coercive formalization, actors’ possibilities to adapt the formalization are minimized; in an enabling formalization, however, employees would be offered some room for individual maneuver. [...]these authors argue that to contribute to knowledge, subsequent papers need to move beyond the fit test by using the method theory to contribute to a domain theory phenomenon, by contributing to the enhancement of the method theory, or both. Since Ahrens and Chapmans’ (2004) seminal paper, we have seen both types of contribution in the accounting literature.</abstract><cop>Bradford</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/QRAM-03-2019-0049</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1176-6093 |
| ispartof | Qualitative research in accounting and management, 2019-03, Vol.16 (2), p.182-196 |
| issn | 1176-6093 1758-7654 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2273660383 |
| source | Emerald Journals; Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection |
| subjects | Accounting Accounting systems Attitudes Bureaucracy Compliance Design Employees Flexibility Objectives Performance management Value creation Workflow software |
| title | Editorial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T20%3A38%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Editorial&rft.jtitle=Qualitative%20research%20in%20accounting%20and%20management&rft.au=Strauss,%20Erik&rft.date=2019-03-15&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=182&rft.epage=196&rft.pages=182-196&rft.issn=1176-6093&rft.eissn=1758-7654&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/QRAM-03-2019-0049&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2273660383%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2273660383&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |