A Conceptual Framework for
Assessing the Use of Strategic
Management Accounting in
Small and Medium Enterprises
Studies on how small- and medium-size enterprises
(SMEs) can use strategic management accounting
techniques to meet the challenges imposed by rapidly changing technology and increasing global competition are limited. Tapping into both contingency
theory and upper echelon theory, a new framework
for leaders of SMEs highlights the effect of perceived
environmental uncertainty, advanced manufacturing technology, and CEO characteristics on their
decisions regarding the use of strategic management accounting techniques, which ultimately may
have an impact on firm performance. © 2015 Wiley
­Periodicals, Inc.
Although studies on the use of management
accounting practices abound, there is a dearth of
research regarding the use of those practices among
small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), particularly when it comes to the application of more
advanced practices, such as strategic management
accounting. Analyzing the role that strategic management accounting can play in providing SME
managers with relevant and accurate information
can strengthen SMEs’ impact on the economic wellbeing of the areas in which they operate. Although
traditional management accounting practices are
primarily concerned with internal and historical
information about production costs, strategic decision-making requires external and future-oriented
information, such as information about customers
and competitors (Chenhall, 2003; Cravens & Guilding, 2001; Guilding, Cravens, & Tayles, 2000).
A B O L FA Z L A M A N O L L A H N E J A D K A L K H O U R A N ,
SITI ZALEHA ABDUL RASID,
SAUDAH SOFIAN,
and B A H A R E H H O S S E I N N E Z H A D N E D A E I
Otley (1980) found that there is no one best management control system for all companies; rather,
an organization’s systems should be contingent
on the circumstances it faces. Such a contingencytheory approach can be used to shed light on the
application of strategic management accounting
practices in SMEs. Accounting research based on
contingency theory has shown that various organizational attributes and circumstances, such as size,
environment, and technology, can affect business
leaders’ choice of the management accounting
techniques they use (Abdel-Kader & Luther, 2008;
Hoque & James, 2000; Luther & Longden, 2001;
O’Connor, Chow & Wu, 2004). The contingency
factors that should be considered for SMEs differ
significantly, however (Flacke & Segbers, 2005).
Few studies regarding SMEs have considered such
factors as external environment and technology
(Ahmad, 2012; Collis & Jarvis, 2002; Jänkälä, 2007;
O’Regan & Sims, 2008).
In its application of upper echelons theory, this
study considers both perceived environmental
uncer­
tainty and advanced manufacturing technology. Since the decision-making process in SMEs
is typically highly centralized and chief executive
officers (CEOs) strongly influence determinations
on whether to adopt certain practices (Ahn, Mortara, & Minshall, 2014), executive behavior also
will be taken into consideration. According to upper
echelons theory, executives’ experiences, values, and
personalities greatly influence their interpretations
©2015 Wi l ey Peri odi ca l s , I n c .
Publ i shed onl i ne i n Wi l ey Onl i ne Li brary (wi l eyonl i nel i bra ry. c o m )
Global Business and Organi zati onal Excel l ence • DOI : 10. 1002/j oe. 21644 • November/Decemb e r 2 0 1 5
45
of the situations they face and, in turn, affect their
choices (Hambrick, 2007), including the choice of
management accounting techniques. To date, few
studies have examined the role that executive behavior and characteristics play in the usage of strategic
management accounting techniques in SMEs (Jorissen, Laveren, Martens, & Reheul, 2002).
According to contingency theory, organizational
performance will improve if there is a suitable fit
between the management accounting and control
system and the context variables. Previous studies have investigated the mediating role of strategic management accounting (Cadez & Guilding,
2008; Santini, 2013). By considering the three contingency factors of perceived environmental uncertainty, advanced manufacturing technology, and
CEO characteristics, this study will shed light on
how they significantly affect strategic management
accounting. Ultimately, the goal is to develop a testable model of the relationship between these factors and the application of strategic management
accounting techniques and, in turn, the mediating
effect of these techniques on performance in SMEs.
Theories of Strategic Management Accounting
The term strategic management accounting was
first used by Simmonds (1981), who defined it as
the analysis of management accounting information
related to a business and its competitors in order to
develop business strategy. In another comprehensive study, Bromwich (1990) stated that strategic
management accounting goes beyond gathering
information on businesses and their competitors,
to covering the advantages that products offer to
customers and how these advantages contribute to
building and sustaining competitive advantage.
Although several studies on strategic management
accounting have focused on large-scale enterprises
(Cescon, Costantini, & Rossi, 2013; Cadez & Guilding, 2008), there has been limited attention paid to
the adoption of strategic management accounting
46
N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b er 2015
techniques in SMEs (Ahmad, 2013; Aziz, 2012;
Santini, 2013). Here, the focus will be on applying the perspective set forth by Cadez & Guilding
(2008)—that strategic management accounting is a
set of strategically oriented accounting techniques—
to SMEs. For the purposes of this study, two theories can be applied: contingency theory and upper
echelon theory.
Contingency Theory
Contingency theory has a long tradition in the
accounting control area of research (Chenhall,
2003; Chenhall & Langfield-Smith, 1998; Gerdin
& Greve, 2004; Otley, 1980). It is based on the
idea that there is no one generally suitable control or management accounting system that is relevant to every organization in all conditions and
circumstances (Fisher, 1995). Fitness, therefore, is
an important issue. The concept of fitness in contingency theory suggests that a suitable fit between
organizational features and contingent factors will
enhance organizational performance (Morton &
Hu, 2008). Drazin & Van de Ven (1985) considered three different approaches to appraising fit:
selection, interaction, and systems. Each of these
approaches meaningfully changes the principle of
contingency theory and the research undertaken.
In keeping with the objective to develop a testable
model for SMEs, the focus here will be on the systems approach.
Based on the conceptual framework of systems
theory (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985), the systems
approach is the most current form of contingency
theory and takes a holistic and universal approach
to examining interdependencies in corporations
(Selto, Renner, & Young, 1995; Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 1998). The fundamental premise of this
approach is that in order to understand organizational variables and performance, contingencies and
performance relationships must be studied holistically (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985). Thus, design
components and multiple contingencies are the
focus, rather than the single variables highlighted in
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Gl obal Busi ness and Organi zati onal Exce l l e n c e
the interaction and selection approaches. Chenhall
(2003) adds a new fit to Drazin and Van de Ven’s
(1985) approaches by referring to a fourth structural relation that comprises intervening variables
or mediating variables. Keeping in line with related
research, in this study this fit will be used for further
model development (Chenhall, 2003; Fisher, 1995;
Gerdin and Greve, 2004; Ittner and Larcker, 2001;
Langfield-Smith, 1997).
It is also important to examine the choice of factors that can affect the adoption of management
accounting practices in the context of SMEs.
Most studies on contingency factors related to
SMEs have considered such factors as external
environment, technology, and firm size (Ahmad,
2013; Collis & Jarvis, 2002; O’Regan & Sims,
2008). On the other hand, there is a lack of studies related to the characteristics of CEOs who are
responsible for solving problems and making decisions in SMEs (Sorooshian, Norzima, Yusof, &
Rosnah, 2010).
Upper Echelons Theory
The fundamental concept of this theory is well captured by the subheading of Mason and Hambrick’s
(1984) seminal study of the upper echelons perspective: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. The theory acknowledges that top managers
heavily influence organizational performance by the
choices they make, which in turn are affected by the
managers’ characteristics. In other words, the main
principle in upper echelons theory has two interrelated parts:
••
••
Executives act according to their personalized
interpretations of the strategic circumstances
they face.
These personalized interpretations are a function
of the executives’ personalities, experiences, and
values.
Over the last few decades, academic interest in the
characteristics of top business managers has greatly
G l o b a l B u s i n e s s and Organiz ational Ex cellence
increased, and upper echelons theory has fostered
this uptick in attention (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, &
Sanders, 2004; Nielsen, 2010). Recently, scholars
have started to draw on upper echelons theory to
analyze the association between the characteristics
of top executives and management accounting and
control systems (Hiebl, 2014).
Management accounting and control systems can
be seen as an organizational outcome or as an
aspect of organizational structure (Chenhall, 2003;
Strauss & Zecher, 2013) and, following upper echelons theory can also be expected to be influenced
by top-manager characteristics. Mason and Hambrick (1984) identified administrative complexity
as an important dimension of strategic choices that
is influenced by upper echelons and noted that it
is composed of “thoroughness of formal planning
systems, complexity of structures and coordination
devices, budgeting detail and thoroughness, and
complexity of incentive compensation schemes”
(p. 201). All these elements can be classified as management accounting or control practices (Chenhall
2003; Guenther 2013; Luft & Shields, 2003). In
line with this view, in their research on management
control systems Malmi and Brown (2008) acknowledged that organizational controls are “something
that managers can change, as opposed to something
that is imposed on them” (p. 294). Consequently, it
can be assumed that top managers and their characteristics have a substantial impact on the design
of management accounting and control systems
(Hiebl, 2014).
Toward a Conceptual Framework
If the ultimate goal of contingency-based management accounting research is to test a comprehensive model that includes multiple accounting
systems, multiple contingent variables, and multiple outcome variables (Fisher, 1995), this study
would appear to constitute a step in the desired
direction (Cadez & Guilding, 2008). The framework of this study examines the association among
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Novem ber/Decemb e r 2 0 1 5
47
three contingency factors—perceived environmental uncertainty, advanced manufacturing technology, and CEO characteristics—and their impact
on strategic management accounting techniques
and performance. Strategic management accounting techniques and their use are at the heart of the
model, and in keeping with previous related contingency-based research (Chenhall & Langfield-Smith,
1998; Cravens & Guilding, 2001; Gerdin, 2005;
Guilding, 1999; Hoque & James, 2000), strategic
management accounting is presented as an endogenous construct in the model. The dependent factor in this model is firm performance. The basic
principle of contingency theory holds that firm performance depends on the suitable fit between the
structure (use of strategic management accounting)
and context (contingency variables). Therefore, the
firm’s performance indicates whether structure and
context are well matched (Gerdin & Greve, 2004;
Ittner & Larcker, 2001). The suggested framework
is illustrated in Exhibit 1.
Perceived Environmental Uncertainty and
­Strategic Management Accounting
Perceived environmental uncertainty reflects managers’ inability to correctly forecast their external environment (Tymon, Stout, & Shaw, 1998).
Studies have shown that administrators respond
­
to perceptions of the external environment rather
than the actual external environment (Magnusson,
1981; Ferris, 1982). In management accounting
research, perceived environmental uncertainty has
been ­considered a key factor in contingency theories (Chenhall, 2003; Fisher, 1995; Otley & Wilkinson, 1988; Tymon, Stout, & Shaw, 1998).
Several studies empirically support the relationship
between perceived environmental uncertainty and
management accounting practices. For example,
Gordon and Miller (1976) and Khandwalla (1972)
contend that in times of uncertainty, corporations
expect more sophisticated accounting information
systems to offer more nonfinancial and external
Exhibit 1. A Contingency Model of Strategic Management Accounting Usage in SMEs
48
N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b er 2015
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Gl obal Busi ness and Organi zati onal Exce l l e n c e
information. McManus (2012) also maintains that
managers need information that is future orientated
and goes beyond the financial realm in order to
cope with the complexities of their external environment. This outlook ultimately is manifested in
the organization’s strategic management accounting
techniques. For instance, focus on budgets typically
intensifies under conditions of uncertainty. These
factors lead to the following hypothesis:
H1—There is a positive relationship between perceived environmental uncertainty and the adoption
of strategic management accounting techniques in
SMEs.
Advanced Manufacturing Technology and Strategic
Management Accounting
Traditional difficulties that business face in investment appraisal, cost allocation, performance evaluation, and overhead apportionment have been
complicated by advances in manufacturing technology. Therefore, business administrators and
accounting professionals have developed several
new accounting practices to deal with them (Hoque
& James, 2000; Bhimani & Bromwich, 1992).
For instance, some firms that have adopted advanced
manufacturing technology have altered their management accounting and control systems in order
to remain competitive while responding to changes
in information needs and operations brought on
by the new technology (Johnson & Kaplan, 1987).
New management accounting and control systems,
such as activity-based costing (ABC), can improve
the relevance and quality of information that management needs to keep the organization running
smoothly. When the business environment changes
and reliance on advanced manufacturing technology intensifies, executives tend to make greater use
of management accounting information in their
daily decision-making (Isa & Foong, 2005). Generally, the fundamental objectives of management
accounting in an advanced manufacturing technology environment are to cost products, value
G l o b a l B u s i n e s s and Organiz ational Ex cellence
inventory, measure performance, and make investment decisions (Jeans & Morrow, 1989).
Numerous studies have examined the influence of
advanced manufacturing technology on the design
of management accounting systems. For example,
Otley, Broadbent, and Berry (1995) found a positive
relationship between automation in manufacturing
and budget formality. On the other hand, Isa and
Foong (2005) argued that advanced manufacturing
technology leads to new costing techniques, such as
ABC, and a greater emphasis on nonfinancial performance measurement indicators.
Abdel-Maksoud, Dugdale, and Luther (2005) found
that advanced management accounting practices exist
in firms that have made significant investments in
total quality management (TQM), just-in-time (JIT)
initiatives, and advanced manufacturing technology.
Their findings were strengthened by Al-Omiri and
Drury (2007), who found that highly sophisticated
cost systems are positively related to lean production techniques and the degree of JIT implementation. According to Abdel-Kader and Luther (2008),
the level of management accounting sophistication is
influenced by the organization’s use of TQM, JIT, and
advanced manufacturing technology systems. Thus:
H2—There is a positive relationship between
advanced manufacturing technology and the extent
to which strategic management accounting techniques are adopted in SMEs.
CEO Characteristics and Strategic Management
Accounting
Executive characteristics have always been an
important contingency factor. Previous research
on management accounting systems design has
concentrated on such administrative features as
founder/non-founder status, expertise, entrepreneurial intensity, type and degree of education, and
experience (Beal & Yasai-Ardekani, 2000; Gibson
& Cassar, 2002; Jorissen et al., 2002; and Jorissen,
Laveren, Martens, & Reheul, 2008). The influence
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Novem ber/Decemb e r 2 0 1 5
49
of a CEO’s characteristics has been shown to take
on particular significance in SMEs (Flacke & Segbers, 2005; Jorissen et al., 2002, 2008) because
the CEO of an SME is frequently in a position to
exert extensive personal control (Flacke & Segbers, 2005). Studies have also shown that proficient
CEOs play a significant role in meeting the challenges that SMEs face (Sorooshian et al., 2010).
A high level of CEO education and experience
translates into an enhanced ability to make strategic
decisions and process information, innovation, and
flexibility to openness (Xiaowei & Zhang, 2010).
According to upper echelons theory, CEOs are typically unable to fully appreciate all the contextual
aspects within which their firms operate. Their limited awareness makes it more likely that they will
perceive a business situation based on their own
characteristics and/or past experience, and then
interpret it in their own way (Mason & Hambrick,
1984). Consequently, top managers and their characteristics are likely to have a substantial influence
on the design of management accounting and control systems (Hiebl, 2014), and highly educated and
experienced CEOs are more likely to adopt strategic management accounting techniques. Therefore,
the following hypotheses are suggested:
H3—There is a positive relationship between a
CEO’s education and the extent of adoption of strategic management accounting techniques in SMEs.
Fewer studies have investigated the relationships
between the use of strategic management accounting techniques and organizational performance.
Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998) found significant relationships between those techniques and
business performance. Cadez and Guilding (2008),
on the other hand, found a weak bond between
the adoption of strategic management accounting
practices and performance, while Ş ener and Dirlik
(2012) found a medium-level relationship between
them. Despite these mixed results, a majority of
studies indicate a positive association between the
use of strategic management accounting and organizational performance. Therefore,
H5—There is a positive relationship between
the extent of adoption of strategic management
accounting techniques and firm performance.
The Mediating Effect of Strategic Management
Accounting
Strategic Management Accounting Usage and
Firm Performance
Although most researchers lend some support to
the idea that greater use of management accounting
is positively linked to the performance of an enterprise, in many cases, their findings are inconclusive
and context dependent (Cadez & Guilding, 2008).
This means that an organization’s control system
and its components can mediate the relationship
between context variables and performance.
The main role of an information system is to support
administrative decision-making (Abernethy & Bouwens, 2005). Better information leads to more effective administrative decisions, which in turn improve
performance (Baines & Langfield-Smith, 2003).
Many have noted this mediating effect in terms of
an organization’s control system and its components (Cadez & Guilding, 2008; Chenhall, 2003;
Chenhall & Langfield-Smith, 1998; Gul, 1991;
H4—There is a positive relationship between a
CEO’s prior work experience and the extent of
adoption of strategic management accounting techniques in SMEs.
50
The relationship between the adoption of management accounting practices and performance
has been the subject of broad empirical research.
Most studies support the view that the adoption of
management accounting practices that offer information that is broad in scope is positively related
to performance (Baines & Langfield-Smith, 2003;
Cravens & Guilding, 2001; Hoque & James, 2000;
Mahama, 2006).
N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b er 2015
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Gl obal Busi ness and Organi zati onal Exce l l e n c e
and Mahama, 2006), but few studies to date have
investigated the mediating effect of strategic management accounting practices on the relationship
between contingency variables and organizational
performance. For example, Cadez and Guilding
(2008) investigated the effect of strategic choices,
market orientation, and company size on two distinct dimensions of strategic management accounting and, in turn, the mediating effect of strategic
management accounting on company performance
in large Slovenian companies. In another study,
Santini (2013) found that SMEs that operate in a
highly complex environment make more extensive
use of strategic management accounting tools to
improve financial performance. Thus, it is expected
that a good fit between contingency variables and
advanced management accounting principles should
improve performance. In line with this rationale,
H6—Perceived environmental uncertainly has a
positive indirect effect on firm performance through
the mediating effect of strategic management
accounting in SMEs.
H7—Advanced manufacturing technology has a
positive indirect effect on firm performance through
the mediating effect of strategic management
accounting in SMEs.
H8—The CEO’s education has a positive indirect
effect on firm performance through the mediating
effect of strategic management accounting in SMEs.
H9—The CEO’s prior work experience has a positive indirect effect on firm performance through the
mediating effect of strategic management accounting in SMEs.
A Call for Additional Research
The proposed framework suggests that in order
to improve performance, leaders of SMEs should
devote particular attention to their use of strategic
management accounting, taking care to adopt the
G l o b a l B u s i n e s s and Organiz ational Ex cellence
unique practices best tailored to their special circumstances. Along with the hypotheses presented above,
the framework highlights three factors that have a
significant effect on the use of advanced management
accounting principles in SMEs: perceived environmental uncertainty, advanced manufacturing technology, and CEO characteristics. The conceptual
framework taps both contingency theory and upper
echelon theory to explain the relationships between
CEO characteristics and adoption of strategic management accounting. Looking ahead, empirical testing is needed to determine whether the hypothesized
relationships hold up in practice and to what extent
any associations might be most meaningful.
With its focus on strategic management accounting,
this study contributes to broadening the literature
on improving organizational effectiveness. Subsequent research would do well to expand this line
of inquiry to include such contingency factors as
organizational culture and structure and additional
CEO characteristics, including executive turnover,
in assessing the adoption of strategic management
accounting practices in SMEs.
References
Abdel-Kader, M. & Luther, R. (2008). The impact of firm
characteristics on management accounting practices: A UKbased empirical analyses. The British Accounting Review,
40(1), 2–27.
Abdel-Maksoud, A., Dugdale, D. & Luther, R. (2005). Non–
financial performance measurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review, 37(3), 261–297.
Abernethy, M. and Bouwens, J. (2005). Determinants of
accounting innovation implementation. Abacus, 41(3),
217–240.
Ahmad, K. (2012). Factors explaining the extent of use of
management accounting practices in Malaysian medium
firms. Paper presented at the ASEAN Entrepreneurship Conference 2012 (AEC), 5-6 November 2012, Kuala Lumpur,
Retrieved from http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/3350/
Ahmad, K. (2013). The adoption of management accounting
practices in Malaysian small and medium-sized enterprises.
Asian Social Science, 10(2), 236–249.
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Novem ber/Decemb e r 2 0 1 5
51
Ahn, J., Mortara, L., & Minshall, T. (2014). Linkage between
CEO characteristics and OI adoption in innovative SMEs.
Paper presented at DRUID Academy conference on January
2014 in Rebild, Aalborg, Denmark. Retrieved from http://
druid8.sit.aau.dk/druid/acc_papers/r6ib4maacrcjtd19feop77faeh4u.pdf.
Al-Omiri, M., & Drury, C. (2007). A survey of factors influencing the choice of product costing systems in UK organizations. Management Accounting Research, 18(4), 399–424.
Aziz, M. A. (2012). Strategic role of strategic management
accounting towards enhancing SMEs’ performance in Iraq.
Master’s thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Baines, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to management accounting change: A structural equation approach.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7-8), 675–698.
Beal, R., & Yasai-Ardekani, M. (2000). Performance implications of aligning CEO functional experiences with competitive strategies. Journal of Management, 26(4), 733–762.
Bhimani, A., & Bromwich, M. (1992). Advanced manufacturing technology and accounting: a renewed alliance.
Advanced Manufacturing Engineering, 5(3), 199–207.
Bromwich, M. (1990). The case for strategic management
accounting: The role of accounting information for strategy in competitive markets. Accounting, Organizations and
­Society, 15(1), 27–46.
Cadez, S., & Guilding, C. (2008). An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
33(7-8), 836–863.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. & Sanders, W. G. (2004).
Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements,
and consequences of top management team composition.
Journal of Management, 30(2), 749–778.
Cescon, F., Costantini, A., & Rossi, G. (2013). The influence of business strategy and ownership on management
accounting innovations and risk management techniques:
An empirical analysis in large manufacturing companies in
Italy. Working paper, University of Udine.
Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design
within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 127–168.
Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (1998). Adoption
and benefits of management accounting practices: An Australian study. Management Accounting Research, 9(1), 1–19.
52
N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b er 2015
Collis, J., & Jarvis, R. (2002). Financial information and the
management of small private companies. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 9(2), 100–110.
Cravens K. S., & Guilding C. (2001). An empirical study of
the application of strategic management accounting techniques. Advances in Management Accounting, 10, 95–124.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of
fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,
30(4), 514–539.
Ferris, K. R. (1982). Perceived environmental uncertainty,
organizational adaptation, and employee performance: A
longitudinal study in professional accounting firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 7(1), 13–25.
Fisher, J. (1995). Contingency-based research on management control systems: Categorisation by level of complexity.
Journal of Accounting Literature, 14(1), 24–53.
Flacke, K., & Segbers, K. (2005). Does managerial accounting follow entrepreneurial characteristics? Results of an
empirical analysis of German SME. Retrieved from http://
www.wiwi.uni-muenster.de/ctrl.
Gerdin, J. (2005). Management accounting system design
in manufacturing departments: An empirical investigation using a multiple contingencies approach. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 30(2), 99–126.
Gerdin, J., & Greve, J. (2004). Forms of contingency fit in
management accounting research: A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3-4), 303–326.
Gibson, B., & G. Cassar (2002). Planning behaviour variables in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management,
40(3), 171–186.
Gordon, L. A., & Miller, D. (1976). A contingency framework for the design of accounting information systems.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1(1), 59–69.
Guenther, T. W. (2013). Conceptualisations of “controlling”
in German-speaking countries: Analysis and comparison
with Anglo-American management control frameworks.
Journal of Management Control, 23(4), 269–290.
Guilding, C. (1999). Competitor-focused accounting: An
exploratory note. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
24(7), 583–595.
Guilding, C., Cravens, K. S., & Tayles, M. (2000). An international comparison of strategic management accounting practices. Management Accounting Research, 11(1),
113–135.
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Gl obal Busi ness and Organi zati onal Exce l l e n c e
Gul, F. A. (1991). The effects of management accounting
systems and environmental uncertainty on small business
managers’ performance. Accounting and Business Research,
22(85), 57–61.
Luft, J., & Shields, M., 2003. Mapping management accounting: Graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical
research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3),
169–249.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update.
Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.
Luther, R. G., & Longden, S. (2001). Management accounting in companies adapting to structural change and volatility
in transition economies: A South African study. Management
Accounting Research, 12(3), 299–320.
Hiebl, M. R. W. (2014). Upper echelons theory in management accounting and control research. Journal of Management Control, 24(3), 223–240.
Hoque, Z., & James, W. (2000). Linking balanced scorecard
measures to size and market factors: Impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting
Research, 12(1), 1–17.
Isa, C. R., & Foong, S. A. (2005). Adoption of advanced manufacturing technology and management accounting practices:
The case of manufacturing firms in Malaysia. World Review of
Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 35–48.
Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2001). Assessing empirical
research in managerial accounting: A value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 32
(1-3), 349–410.
Jänkälä, S. (2007). Management control systems (MCS) in
the small business context. Universitatis Ouluensis, G 30.
Dissertation, University of Oulu, Finland.
Jeans, M., & Morrow, M. (1989). Management accounting in AMT environments: Product costing. Management
Accounting, April, 29–30.
Johnson H. T., & Kaplan R. S. (1987). Relevance lost: The
rise and fall of management accounting. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Jorissen, A., Laveren, E., Martens, R., & Reheul, A., (2002).
The relationship between management accounting systems,
firm strategy, perceived environmental uncertainty, networking, CEO characteristics and performance in SMEs. Project
number G.0186.00N.
Jorissen, A., Laveren, E., Martens, R., & Reheul, A. (2008).
The role of perceived environmental uncertainty and strategy
in the planning process of independent SMEs. Project number G.0186.00N.
Magnusson, D. (1981). Toward a psychology of situations:
An interactionist perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
­Erlbaum Associates.
Mahama, H. (2006). Management control systems, cooperation and performance in strategic supply relationships: A survey in the mines. Management Accounting Research, 17(3),
315–339.
Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package — Opportunities, challenges and research
directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4),
287–300.
Mason, P. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1984). Upper echelons:
The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
McManus, L. (2012). Customer accounting and marketing
performance measures in the hotel industry: Evidence from
Australia, AFAANZ Research Conference, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Morton, N. A., & Hu, Q. (2008). Implications of the fit
between organizational structure and ERP: A structural contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28(5), 391–402.
Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review
of theories and methodologies. international. Journal of
Management Review, 11(1), 301–316.
O’Connor, N. G., Chow, C. W., & Wu, A. (2004). The adoption of Western management accounting/controls in China’s state-owned enterprises during economic transition.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3-4), 349–375.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1972). The effect of different types of
competition on the use of management controls. Journal of
Accounting Research, 10(2), 275–285.
O’Regan, N., & Sims, M. A. (2008). Leaders, loungers, and
laggards: The strategic-planning-environment performance
relationship re-visited in manufacturing SMEs. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(1), 6–21.
Langfield-Smith, K. (1997). Management control systems
and strategy: A critical review. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 22(2), 207–232.
Otley, D. T. (1980). The contingency theory of management
accounting: achievement and prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(4), 413–428.
G l o b a l B u s i n e s s and Organiz ational Ex cellence
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Novem ber/Decemb e r 2 0 1 5
53
Otley, D., Broadbent, J., & Berry, A. (1995). Research in
management control: An overview of its development. British Journal of Management, 6(1), S31–S44.
Xiaowei, V. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). The effect of managerial
education and firm-ownership structure. Chinese Economy,
43(6), 34–53.
Otley, D. T., & Wilkinson, C. (1988). Organizational behavior: Strategy, structure, environment and technology. In K. R.
Ferris (Ed.), Behavioral accounting research: A critical analysis (pp. 147–170). New York: Century Publications Co.
Santini, F. (2013). Strategic management accounting and
financial performance in the small and medium sized Italian manufacturing enterprises. Management Control, 1(1),
77–107.
Selto, F. H., Renner, C. J., and Young, S. M. (1995). Assessing the organizational fit of a just-in-time manufacturing
system: Testing selection, interaction and systems models of
contingency theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
20(7/8), 665–684.
Ş ener, R., & Dirlik, S. (2012). Stratejik yönetim kapsamında
stratejik yönetim muhasebesi araçlarının kullanım düzeyi
üzerine ampirik bir araş tırma [An empirical research on the
usage level of strategic administration accounting tools in the
scope of strategic management]. Proceedings from 31st Turkey
Accounting Training Symposium, April 25–29, 2012, Muğ la.
Simmonds, K. (1981). Strategic management accounting.
Management Accounting, 59(4), 26–29.
Sorooshian, S., Norzima, Z., Yusof, I. and Rosnah, M. Y.
(2010). Structural modeling on entrepreneur’s effectiveness.
World Applied Sciences Journal, 10(8), 923–929.
Strauss, E. R., & Zecher, C. (2013). Management control
systems: A review. Journal of Management Control, 23(4),
233–268.
Tymon, W. G., Stout, D. E., & Shaw, K. N. (1998). Critical analysis and recommendations regarding the role of perceived environmental uncertainty in behavioral accounting
research. Behavioral Accounting Research, 10, 23–46.
54
N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b er 2015
Abolfazl Amanollah Nejad Kalkhouran, MBA, is a PhD candidate in the Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty
of Management, at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in Johor
Bahru. His research interests are in management accounting,
performance measurement, and risk management. He can
be reached at [email protected] or abolfazlaman@
gmail.com.
Siti Zaleha Abdul Rasid, PhD, MBA, is an associate professor in management accounting at Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia’s International Business School in Kuala Lumpur
and an associate member of the Malaysian Institute of
Accountants. Dr. Rasid’s research interests are in management accounting, risk management, and corporate governance. She can be reached at [email protected] or
[email protected].
Saudah Sofian, PhD, MBA, is an associate professor in management accounting at the Department of Accounting and
Finance, Faculty of Management, at Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia in Johor Bahru. Dr. Sofian has more than 25 years
of experience in the academic field, and her research interests
include management accounting, intellectual capital, performance management, and corporate social responsibility. She
can be reached at [email protected].
Bahareh Hossein Nezhad Nedaei, MBA, is a PhD candidate in the Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty
of Management, at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in Johor
Bahru. Her research interests are in enterprise risk management, management control systems, and management
accounting. She can be reached at [email protected] or
[email protected].
DOI : 10. 1002/j oe
Gl obal Busi ness and Organi zati onal Exce l l e n c e