Boundary spanners and calculative practices

• Author: Pinar Guven‐Uslu,Zlatinka Blaber,Pawan Adhikari
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12266

Received: 28 February2019 Revised: 12 July 2020 Accepted:13 July 2020

DOI: 10.1111/faam.12266

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Boundary spanners and calculative practices

Pinar Guven-Uslu1Zlatinka Blaber2Pawan Adhikari3

1Norwich Business School, University of East

Anglia, Norwich, UK

2Salem State University, Salem,

Massachusetts, USA

3EssexBusiness School, University of Essex,

Colchester, UK

Correspondence

PinarGuven-Uslu, Norwich Business School,

Universityof East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ,

UK.

Email:p.guven@uea.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper questions to what extent particular calculative

practices used for inter-organisational decision-making

help or hinder boundary spanners meet performativity

ideals. It uses programmatic rationalities of governmentas a

framework to study reciprocity between them and the con-

ditions of performativity.Empirical data were collected from

healthcare commissioning spaces of English National Health

Service (NHS). Data triangulation was achievedthrough doc-

umentary analysis, data collected through interviews, and

observation notes taken in local commissioning meetings

and national conferences. Findings revealed an appar-

ent lack of reciprocity between programmatic rationality

and calculative practices surrounding the commissioning

activities of boundary spanners. As a consequence, in local

commissioning situations boundary spanners with formal

roles used calculative practices differently than semi-formal

boundary spanners. Unlike their formal counterparts, who

used mainly accounting information in their calculative

practices, semi-formal boundary spanners incorporated

non-accounting information and devised alternative calcu-

lative practices. In addition, while formal boundary spanners

on NHS Committees used calculative practices in maintain-

ing clear boundaries between commissioning and provider

organisations, semi-formal boundary spanners made use of

the data of both parties in order to reach inter organisational

decisions. The study has three main contributions. First, it

differentiates boundary spanners and explains differences

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in anymedium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2020 The Authors. Financial Accountability & Management published by John Wiley& Sons Ltd

Financial Acc & Man. 2020;36:439–460. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faam 439

440 GUVEN-USLU ET AL.

in their interaction with calculative practices. Second, it

introduces the concept of reciprocity to inter-organisational

studies in accounting. Third, it shows how conditions of

performativity reflected in micro-settings influenced how

semi-formal boundary spanners used calculative prac-

tices (and other supplementary information) to achieve

performance ideals of government programmes.

KEYWORDS

boundary spanners, calculative practices, commissioning, health-

care, inter-organisational, decision-making

1INTRODUCTION

This paper focuses on two prominent features that characterise contemporary public sector management. These are

inter-organisational decision-making where two or more organisations enter into dialogue and negotiation (Anderson

& Dekker,2014; Anderson & Sedatole, 2003; Dekker, 2016) and the ‘calculative practices’of new public management

(Kurunmaki, Mennicken, & Miller,2016; Lapsley & Miller, 2019; Miller, 2001; Steccolini, 2019) for managing and con-

trolling public sector organisations (Lapsley, 2008). Inter-organisational relations and inter-organisational decision-

making (hereafter IODM) are not only pertinent to the public sector but also contemporary management accounting

research in various contexts and organisational settings (Anderson et al., 2015; Dekker,2004). Within the literature,

there is agreement about the importance of individuals and the need to study them further so thatinter-organisational

decision-making processes and the way management accounting is implicated in such processes can be better under-

stood (Abernethy,Bouwens, & van Lent, 2004; Anderson et al., 2015).

In the literature, ‘boundary spanners’ are defined individuals who are responsible for management and decision-

making between two or more organisations (Zaheer, McEvily,& Perrone, 1998). Boundary spanners have distinctive

roles and a range of responsibilities in inter-organisational spaces and face the challenge of meeting the multiple

expectations of partner organisations. The aforementioned literature is limited in its documentation for public sec-

tor organisations how the attributes of calculative practices (Miller, 2001)help and/or hinder boundary spanners in

delivering outcomes that are in line with the expectations (defined by governmentprogrammes and policies) of their

organisations. In previous studies of calculative practices,researchers use the performativity principle to explain how

individuals are shaped bythese practices (Kurunmaki et al., 2016). However, it is not well known from empirical studies

whether and how these individuals have any influence on shaping calculative practicesto meet performativity ideals

when two or more organisations interact. Therefore, the main research question in this study is how boundary span-

ners use (and influence the use of) calculative practices in IODM to achieve performativity ideals defined bygovern-

ment programmes.

Additionally, in studies of calculative practices there is an underlying assumption of reciprocity (Rose & Miller,

1992). Reciprocity in this context is defined as having in place relevant and adequate calculative practices that are

at the disposal of individuals in order to meet performativity ideals. In other words, reciprocity indicates that calcula-

tivepractices serve to meet the performativity ideals of government programmes. What is not clear is what individuals

do if the calculative practices that are in place are not adequate to achieveperformativity ideals. Inter-organisational

spaces offer a fertile field of study where multiple calculative practices and accounting technologies are at playsimul-

taneously and different organisations might have different priorities and diverging expectations. As a consequence

existing calculative practicesmight not always be adequate to address the needs of one or both parties involved. This