Accounting change in the Scottish and Westminster central governments: A study of voice and legitimation

• Published date: 01 November 2019
• Date: 01 November 2019
• Author: Noel Hyndman,Mariannuziata Liguori
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12219

Received: 28 February2018 Revised: 27 August 2019 Accepted:4 September 2019

DOI: 10.1111/faam.12219

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Accounting change in the Scottish and

Westminster central governments: A study

of voice and legitimation

Noel Hyndman Mariannuziata Liguori

Queen’s Management School, Queen’s University

Belfast, Belfast, UK

Correspondence

MariannuziataLiguori, Queen’s Management

School,Queen’s University Belfast, Riddel Hall,

185Stranmillis Road, Belfast BT9 5EE, Northern

Ireland,UK.

Email:m.liguori@qub.ac.uk

Abstract

Organisational voice processes are crucial during change. These

will affect actors’ individual understanding of change and the way

in which change is perceived and legitimated generally. Looking at

accounting changes at two government levels (Westminster and

Scotland), this paper explores relationships between organisational

voice processes during change (exploring these in terms of horizon-

tal/vertical and promotive/prohibitive dimensions) and legitimation

strategiessubsequently used by the actors involved.In Westminster,

where promotive vertical voicing was particularly identifiable, inter-

viewees predominantly legitimated change through rationalisation

strategies.In Scotland, where prohibitive, horizontal voice processes

were more evident, authorisation strategies tended to prevail. How-

ever,regardless of the content and direction of voice, ultimately, the

vast majority of key accounting changes in both Westminster and

Scotland were supported (legitimated) by actors.

KEYWORDS

accountingchange, central government, legitimation, managerialism,

voice

1INTRODUCTION

Previous studies on the public sector in general, and onaccounting in particular, have investigated the implementation

of change at the organisational level, while much less attention has been paid to understanding the role individuals

have in shaping it (Contrafatto & Burns, 2013; Hyndman & Liguori, 2017). We claim that language and organisational

dialogues have an important function in shaping the process of change at both the organisational and individual lev-

els. Actors’ participation and voice, in particular,can capture crucial aspects of information transmission and exchange

between the organisational members involved in and affected by change (Lines, 2005). This will, in turn, affect the

actors’ understanding of change and the way they talk about and legitimate it. This study brings together two dimen-

sions of the voice process (direction and content), in order to highlight possible links in the way organisational actors

390 c

2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faam FinancialAcc & Man. 2019;35:390–412.

HYNDMAN ANDLIGUORI 391

understand and legitimate change. In particular, looking at the introduction of new financial accounting, budgeting,

and performance-management techniques (collectively referred to as “accounting”for convenience) in two cases, rep-

resenting different government levels(Westminster and the devolved administration of Scotland1), this paper aims to

explorewhether a relationship exists between organisational voice processes (as perceived by the main organisational

actors)that take place during change and legitimation strategies used by the actors involved in the change itself.Using a

comparativeapproach, the study focuses on the arguments, voices, and legitimation strategies that may be used by the

organisational members to support or criticise these changes. Rather than investigate a change implementation gap

(as many studies have done in the past), the paper considers the talk and decision stages during change, as suggested

by Brunsson (1989a, 1989b; see also Brunsson & Olsen, 1993).

Drawing on management literature seldom used in accounting studies, this paper brings together perceptions of

how voice is exertedduring processes of accounting change and individual legitimations and accounts of such changes.

Theresearch thus contributes by shedding more light on the individual processes of legitimation that may lead to differ-

ent organisational results. Moreover,while previous studies have focused on either the content of voice or its direction

separately (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012), this paper looks at these dimensions together,investigating a case of change in a

calculative practice (accounting change).The paper is organised as follows: The next section presents the literature on

organisational voice processes and legitimation strategies; subsequently,the methods are discussed, followed by the

empirical contextof the research and the results in Westminster and Scotland. Finally, a discussion of the main findings

of the research is presented, followed by conclusions. Included with the conclusions is a discussion of further research

avenues which outlines possible aspects of a research agenda for those interested in adding to knowledge in the much

under-researched area of voice processes and public-sector accounting change.

2VOICE PROCESSES AND LEGITIMATION STRATEGIES

Change generates uncertainty,which is often responded to by organisational actors through discussions and possibly

justification (or expressions of concern) for anyproposed new course of action or structure. The relationship between

the channels and processes through which organisational actors voice their opinions during change and the arguments

theysubsequently use to give sense to it has been little investigated in the past, especially in relation to accounting. This

paper aims to contribute to fill this gap. The following subsections review the main literatureand findings in relation to

organisational voice processes and legitimation strategies during (accounting) change.

2.1 Voice and accounting change

During change, voicingprocesses have been shown to be crucial, for better or worse, within organisations (Detert, Bur-

ris, Harrison, & Martin, 2013). Many scholars haveargued that expressing voice can have positive effects, in particular

with respect to engagement in activities, focusing on the reduction of errors, improving organisational routines, and

producing innovations (Edmondson, 2003; Shapiro, 1993). Voice2represents a transmission of information between

two parties, from a speaker to a target, perhaps with the intention of making things better via proactive behaviour

(although other, more negative, motivesare also possible). This contrasts with the extreme reaction of responding to

current situations, or proposed changes, with silent loyaltyor exit (Hirschman, 1970). This study specifically focuses on

how voicecan be exerted during change, rather than on the reasons and effects of those who chose to exit. Voiceis hard

to punish for its absence, and it is difficult to evaluate (VanDyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). As such, it can be

a risky behaviour and havenegative consequences for the speaker.3However, voicehas great potential value to those

who receive it, thanks to the opportunity it provides to spot possible problems before theyoccur; benefit from the col-

lective knowledge of others; and pursue suggested improvements. Voiceoften involves challenging the status quo by

suggesting changes to current practice, or adjusting proposed future changes that have been announced but haveyet

to be implemented. In addition, it can, and often does, emanate from individuals with limited formal decision-making

and resource-allocation power to effect change (Detert et al., 2013).