Palestra realizada na UFPB sobre pesquisa em contabilidade gerencial. A palestra foi dividida em duas partes. Na primeira, a Professora Kate Horton apresentou o seu artigo e na segunda ela falou sobre o processo de publicação deste artigo.

1. Federal University of Paraiba (25th November 2016)
Kate Horton (Federal University of Pernambuco & Rotterdam
School of Management, the Netherlands)

2.  Thank you for the invite.
 Today, I will present our paper and will discuss the process of publishing it
in MAR.

4.  The project came about when Claudio saw an advertisement for a special
issue on the paradox of embedded agency in MAR.
 Special issue adverts usually
appear in journals and/or
on association list-services.
 We were both working on
the topic of change at the
time.

5.  The paradox of embedded agency poses the following puzzle:
“If actors are embedded in an institutional context which largely
conditions their (inter)actions, intentions, and rationality, how are they able
to envision new practices and accomplish institutional change?”
(Englund & Gerdin, 2013).
 We didn’t have any data aimed at addressing this question. But we did have
some ideas for a theoretical paper.
– Claudio had studied the role of institutional contradictions in change.
– I had written a review paper which highlighted the link between identity conflict
conflict and change, and which also incorporated accounting literature.
 These ideas formed the basis of our paper, which argues that identity
conflicts act as a stimulus of embedded agency / change amongst MAs.

6.  This is our final model
 To get a better idea of
what we proposed, I
will present each
element of the model
to you.

7.  We propose that MAs may experience a number of different identity conflicts
in the workplace. For example between:
– Involvement-independence. Lambert and Sponem (2012, p. 568) ask: “Can
accountants effectively wear both hats at the same time, one requiring a degree
degree of involvement with affiliated management and the other a degree of
independence from the same?”
– Multi-level conflicts. For example, when an individual’s conceptualization of
his professional role identity conflicts with an organization’s collective vision of
vision of what this role entails (Goretzki et al., 2013).
– Current and desired identities. MAs often perceive some level of conflict
between what their organization currently is and how they would like it to be in
be in the future, and / or the organization’s current image and their expectations
expectations /desires for its future image (e.g., see Abrahamsson et al, 2011).

8. Proposition 1:
 Management accountants will
experience identity conflicts
when the norms, values and
expectations associated with
different identity foci or different
temporal identities misalign.
Multiple identities
Multi-Foci
(e.g., identities /
interests
Multi-Temporal
(e.g., current / desired
identities)
P1+
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Individual or
multi-level
conflicts)
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Collective or
multi-level
conflicts)
Identity
Conflicts

9.  We propose that these conflicts create tension (threatening self-esteem and
self-consistency) stimulating change efforts aimed at reducing the perceived
discrepancy.
 MAs may accomplish change by engaging in active identity work and job
crafting, which change the roles, tasks and relational boundaries of MA
work.
– For example, Morales & Lambert (2013) found that when MAs experienced
conflicts between their idealized occupational aspirations’ and ‘situated
possibilities’ they reacted by adjusting their accounting practices - delegating
delegating and managing tasks to reduce the perceived conflicts.
– These practices, also fundamentally changed the nature of their task
boundaries.

10. Proposition 2:
 Multi-foci and multi-
temporal identity conflicts
are likely to lead to job
crafting and active identity
work aimed at changing MA
roles, tasks and relational
boundaries.
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Individual or
multi-level
conflicts)
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Collective or
multi-level
conflicts)
Identity
Conflicts
Behavioral Responses to Conflict
Agentic processes
Job crafting &
active identity work
(Individual level)
Job crafting &
active identity work
(Collective level)
Changes in MA
practices
Changes to MA
roles, tasks and
relational
boundaries
P2+

11.  However, identity conflicts don’t always lead to change efforts. In fact, some
MAs who experience identity conflict are powerless to make changes within
their organizations, while others may instead opt to leave their organization
(Lui et al, 2001).
 This leads to the key question => when does identity conflict provide a
stimulus for change?
 We identified two key moderators:
– Job discretion: We propose that MAs will have more freedom to adapt their
roles through active identity work and job crafting when they have high job
discretion (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

12. Proposition 3:
The relationship between
identity conflicts and
behavioral responses will
vary according to a
management accountant’s
level of job discretion, such
that job crafting and active
identity work will be more
likely when management
accountants have high job
discretion.
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Individual or
multi-level
conflicts)
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Collective or
multi-level
conflicts)
Identity
Conflicts
Behavioral Responses to
Conflict
Agentic processes
Job crafting &
active identity work
(Individual level)
Job crafting &
active identity work
(Collective level)
Moderators
Job
discretion
P3+

13.  However, identity conflicts don’t always lead to change efforts. In fact, some
MAs who experience identity conflict are powerless to make changes within
their organizations, while others may instead opt to leave their organization
(Lui et al, 2001).
 This leads to the key question => when does identity conflict provide a
stimulus for change?
 We identified two key moderators:
– Job discretion: We propose that MAs will have more freedom to adapt their
roles through active identity work and job crafting when they have high job
discretion (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
– Business involvement: MAs with high business involvement have greater
visibility, support and legitimacy amongst operational managers (Emsley, 2005).
– We therefore propose that business partners are in a stronger position to
accomplish collective change actions, relative to their counterparts in low
involvement roles.

14. Proposition 4:
 The relationship between
identity conflicts and
behavioral responses will vary
according to an individual’s
level of business involvement,
such that collective job crafting
and identity work will be more
likely when management
accountants have high
business involvement and
individual job crafting and
identity work will be more likely
when management
accountants have low
business involvement.
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Individual or
multi-level
conflicts)
Multi-foci /
Multi-temporal
(Collective or
multi-level
conflicts)
Identity
Conflicts
Behavioral Responses to
Conflict
Agentic processes
Job crafting &
active identity work
(Individual level)
Job crafting &
active identity work
(Collective level)
Moderators
Job
discretion
Moderators
Business
involvement
P4+
P3+
P4-

15.  A final piece of the jigsaw is the reverse effects of changes in MA practices
on identities and identity conflicts.
 More specifically, research suggests that changes in MA practices can
challenge identities and create new identity conflicts.
– For example, Jarvinen (2009) found that changes in MA practices - including
the abandonment of the ABC cost system - had implications for MAs’
occupational identities, causing them to redefine their perceptions of their
professional roles.
– Similarly, Burns and Baldvinsdottir (2005) showed that new change policies
implemented by an organization created identity conflicts for a financial
manager - because they represented a move away from the traditional
accounting values which he held.

16. Proposition 5:
 Changes in MA practices
will lead to changes in
management accountants’
identities (through identity
work), and the experience
of identity conflict, if these
new practices diverge from
existing institutionalized
identities.

17.  One of the main challenges in publishing in international journals is
demonstrating the theoretical and practical implications of the work (in
both empirical and theoretical papers).
 International journals look for authors to explain the gap(s) in the literature
that they aim to address and to define their paper’s contribution to the
extant literature.
 In his 2014 review, MAR editor Bob Scapens stated that:
– “Failure to contribute to the management accounting literature is the primary
reason for the rejection of papers, both before review (desk reject) and after
review.”

18. What gaps in the literature did our model aim to fill?
 The main contributions of our model were to:
– Provide a more detailed explanation of the processes through which
embedded agency occurs, and in particular, the role of identity conflict in shaping
such change processes.
– (The extant literature on MA change has been widely criticized for its dominant
focus on external shocks and heroic models of change (Kilfoyle & Richardson,
2011), and for its failure to conceptualize when, why and how MAs facilitate
institutional entrepreneurship within organizations.)
– Hence our model adds to literature aimed at understanding the micro-
processes involved.

19. – We also responded to calls for greater engagement with identity scholarship
in the MA field (Abrahamsson et al., 2011; Empson, 2004).
 In addition, our model has practical implications. In particular in
relation to:
– How changes in MA roles from traditional bean-counters to more modern
business partner roles may be expected to shape experiences of identity
conflict and embedded agency.
– How agentic processes may be supported and facilitated by organizational
norms that advocate high levels of MA autonomy and business involvement.

21.  Overall, the paper tried to do too much:
– Our interdisciplinary approach was too broad / imprecise.
– We tried to bridge macro and micro literatures, but this led to conceptual
confusion regarding the main concepts and overarching framework.
 Our theoretical framework was therefore not considered strong enough.
 The paper received a fairly negative evaluation by the reviewers – despite
the revise & resubmit decision. The editors wrote:
 Rejections are common in international journals, even if an author initially
receives a R&R decision – especially if the revision is denoted ‘high risk.’

22.  However, a few features of our paper probably increased the chances of a
revise & resubmit (R&R) at round 1.
 Inter-disciplinary nature of the paper:
– Although this resulted in some confusion, it also increased our chances of
acceptance.
– In particular, the basis of our research model (SIT) is very well-known in my
area of expertise but represented a new perspective for the accounting
literature.
 The ‘special issue’ effect:
– We almost certainly got a second chance (R1) because this was a special issue
and submission numbers were lower than for normal issues!
 An R&R decision is a reason for celebration as the majority of papers are
rejected at the desk or following the first review.

23.  After celebrating - the next step was to revise our paper and
outline in a letter how we had addressed the comments of
the reviewers and editors.
 My strategy for writing reviewers’ letters is:
– Read letter multiple times – and try to identify the most important points (i.e.,
look for consensus across the reviews and prioritize the points).
– Construct an overview document - integrating the reviewers’ points and resolving
discrepancies between the reviewers’ perspectives (paying close attention to the
editors’ suggestions).
– Amend the paper
– Construct a reviewers’ / editors’ letter - explaining (point by point) how I
addressed each point.

24.  International journals tend to have multiple reviewing rounds.
 The high impact journals normally require 2-4 revisions, which cycle through
high risk, major, minor revisions etc.
 Our paper went through 4 rounds of revisions:
– Major high risk revision (R&R1 in June 2014)
– Major revision (R&R2 April 2015)
– Minor revision (R&R3 December 2015)
– Conditional accept (R4 June 2016)
 The final paper was accepted in June 2016. So the review process took 2
years and 3 months in total!

25.  Very slow (often waited 6 months + for a decision per round).
– Potentially a down-side of special issues – they don’t abide by normal review
timescales.
 Very high quality reviews
– The reviewers and editors made many good points and the paper
undoubtedly improved during the review process.
– Excellent journals normally have excellent reviewers.
 Important to get the editors ‘on side’
– The editors were supportive from the beginning and were important
‘champions’ of the paper, which ultimately improved our chances of success.

26.  Consider inter-disciplinary co-authors (who can bring new perspectives to
your topic).
 Consider special issues (increases chance of acceptance!)
 Use the reviews as constructive criticism to improve the manuscript.
 Balance responsiveness and over-responsiveness in revisions. Specifically:
– Be polite and responsive but make sure that the overall storyline doesn’t
become disjointed as a result.
 Don’t expect a quick publication – this means that its important to consider a
mixed publishing strategy.
– Don’t ‘put all your eggs in one basket’ on a high risk project.
– Try to have multiple projects ongoing.
 Be persistent – and try to see it as a constructive (learning) process!

27. Any questions?

28.  Abrahamsson, G., Englund, H., Gerdin, J., (2011). Organizational identity and
management accounting change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
24(3), 345-376.
 Burns, J., Baldvinsdottir, G., (2005). An institutional perspective of accountants’
new roles – the interplay of contradictions and praxis. European Accounting
Review, 14(4), 725-757.
 Emsley, D., (2005). Restructuring the management accounting function: A note on
the effect of role involvement on innovativeness. Management Accounting
Research, 16(2), 157-177.
 Goretzki, L., Strauss, E., Weber, J., (2013). An institutional perspective on the
changes in management accountants’ professional role. Management Accounting
Research, 24, 41-63.
 Kilfoyle, E., Richardson, A.J., (2011). Agency and structure in budgeting: Thesis,
antithesis and synthesis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(2), 183-199.

29.  Jarvinen, J., (2009). Shifting NPM agendas and management accountants’
occupational identities. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1187-
1210.
 Lambert, C., Sponem, S., (2012). Roles authority and involvement at the
management accounting function: A multiple case study perspective. European
Accounting Review, 21(3), 565-589.
 Lui, S., Ngo, H-Y., Tsang, A. W-N., (2001). Interrole conflict as a predictor of job
satisfaction and propensity to leave: A study of professional accountants. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 16(6), 469-484.
 Morales, J., Lambert, C., (2013). Dirty work and the construction of identity: An
ethnographic study of management accounting practices. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 38, 228-244.
 Scapens, R. W. (2014). My final editorial. Management Accounting Research, 25(4),
245-250.