مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد پذیرش نوآوری های حسابداری مدیریت – الزویر 2018

Although the introduction of a number of successful management accounting innovations over the past few decades has generated a vast amount of research, we have limited knowledge about how the diffusion of innovations is affected by the interplay between characteristics of adopters and characteristics of innovations. The study presented in this paper contributes to the literature that examines the adoption of innovations at the firm level of analysis. We develop and test an adoption model which draws on two recently introduced ideas aboutinnovation adoption—the notion of compatibility between organizational culture and the values and beliefs embedded in innovations, and the perspective that early and late adopters might both be motivated to adopt based on expected economic and social gains and losses. In synthesising these models, we assume that a diffusing innovation that is compatible with a firm’s values and beliefs is adopted early if it is perceived as delivering adequate gains while the innovation is rejected if it is not perceived as doing so, and that a diffusing innovation that is incompatible with a firm’s values and beliefs is adopted late if it is perceived as reducing the likelihood of incurring losses while the innovation is rejected if it is perceived as not doing so. Hypotheses are generated and tested using data provided by a web-based survey of Swedish manufacturing firms on the diffusion of the balanced scorecard across those firms. In most respects, the pattern of results this study finds supports our model and assumptions.

Introduction

Research on the supply and demand of administrative innovations has emerged as fundamental in many fields. The introduction of management accounting innovations (MAIs), such as activitybased costing, the balanced scorecard, strategic management accounting, target costing, and the beyond budgeting approach, has produced an impressive body of research (e.g. Ansari et al., 2007; Gosselin, 2007; Langfield-Smith, 2008; Zawawi and Hoque, 2010; Hoque, 2014). The prevailing focus of such research has been on identifying general contextual factors and firm characteristics that influence the adoption of innovations at the firm level (e.g. Cadez and Guilding, 2008; Abdel-Kader and Luther, 2008; Baird et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2004). Another research direction draws on the new-institutional perspective on diffusion (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983). Management accounting researchers have typically used the management fashion variant of new-institutional theory (Abrahamson, 1991, 1996; Abrahamson and Fairchild, 1999; Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1993). Studies have reported how MAI adoption motivations vary through successive phases of the diffusion trajectory (Malmi, 1999, 2001; Malmi and Ikäheimo, 2003). Recent decades have, however, witnessed the emergence of a debate about the application of new-institutional theory in the area of diffusion (e.g. Staw and Epstein, 2000; Lounsbury, 2008; Colyvas and Jonsson, 2011; Chandler, 2014). The influential twostage model of diffusion (Tolbert and Zucker, 1983) has been criticized for oversimplifying behaviour in organizations because it ignores the fact that economic logic is institutionally determined (Lounsbury, 2007) and because it makes unrealistic assumptions about management, whereby “early adopters are motivated by technical considerations and later adopters engage in mindless imitation fuelled by anxiety-driven pressures to conform” (Lounsbury, 2008). Recently, two models that were designed to overcome some of the problems with new-institutional theory have been introduced in the literature.