Hospital acquisitions,parenting styles and management accounting change: An institutional perspective

Abstract

Many healthcare scholars have applied institutional theories to the study of management accounting systems (MAS) change. However, little attention has been devoted to MAS change within groups. Kostova et al. highlight the limitations of traditional institutional frameworks in studying groups since they are characterised not only by the existence of external institutional environments but also by intra-organisational (meso-level) ones. Given this background, the research question is: how does the meso-level institutional environment affect MAS change in healthcare groups? We use a longitudinal multiple-case study design to understand the role of headquarters in shaping local MAS change. We would expect companies to adopt similar MAS. However, we argue that the relationship between external institutions and MAS change cannot be wholly understood without taking into consideration the role of headquarters. Our analysis shows how hospitals facing the same external institutional environment implement different MAS as a consequence of different parenting styles. From a scientific perspective, our article contributes to broaden traditional institutional theoretical frameworks.

Keywords

acquisition control packages healthcare organisations management accounting system change

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cardinaels

Sorderstom

. Managing in complex world: accounting and governance choices in hospitals. Eur Account Rev 2013; 22: 647–684.

Jones

. An empirical study of the evidence for contingency theories of management accounting systems following takeover or merger. Account Organ Soc 1985; 10: 177–200.

Granlund

. Management accounting systems integration in corporate mergers. A case study. Account Audit Account J 2003; 16: 208–243.

Granlund

. Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems. Manage Account Res 2001; 12: 141–166.

Jarvinen

. Institutional pressures for adopting new cost accounting systems in Finnish hospitals: two longitudinal case studies. Fin Account Manage 2006; 22: 21–46.

Burns

Scapens

. Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Manage Account Res 2000; 11: 3–25.

Kostova

Kendall

Dacin

. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: a critique and new directions. Acad Manage Rev 2008; 33: 994–1006.

Goold

Campbell

Alexander

. Corporate-level strategy, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

Eisenhardt

. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 1989; 14: 532–550.

10.

DiMaggio

Powell

. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. Am Sociol Rev 1983; 48: 147–160.

11.

Abernethy

Vagnoni

. Power, organisation design and managerial behaviour. Account Organ Soc 2004; 29: 207–225.

12.

Lehtonen

. DRG-based prospective pricing and case-mix accounting – exploring the mechanisms of successful implementation. Manage Account Res 2007; 18: 367–395.

13.

Abernethy

Chua

. A field study of control system “redesign”: the impact of institutional processes on strategic choice. Contemp Account Res 1996; 13: 569–606.

14.

Cardinaels

Roodhooft

Van Herk

. Drivers of cost system development in hospitals: results of a survey. Health Policy 2004; 69: 239–252.

15.

Krishnan

. Effects of changes in the regulatory structure and competition on firms’ accounting systems. Account Rev 2005; 80: 269–287.

16.

Pizzini

. The relation between cost-system design, managers evaluations of the relevance and usefulness of cost data, and financial performance: an empirical study of US hospitals. Account Organ Soc 2006; 31: 179–210.

17.

Kocher

. Hospital capital budgeting practices and their relation to key hospital characteristics: a survey of U.S. manager practices. J Global Bus Issues 2007; 1: 21–29.

18.

Hsu

. Cost information and pricing: empirical evidence. Contemp Account Res 2011; 28: 554–579.

19.

Chenhall

. Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Account Organ Soc 2003; 28: 127–168.

20.

Grabner

Moers

. Management control as a system or a package? Conceptual and empirical issues. Account Organ Soc 2013; 38: 407–419.

21.

Sulaiman

Mitchell

. Utilising a typology of management accounting change: an empirical analysis. Manage Account Res 2005; 16: 422–437.

22.

Goold

Campbell

Alexander

. Corporate strategy and management theory. Long Range Planning 1998; 31: 308–314.

23.

Nilsson

. Parenting styles and value creation: a management control approach. Manage Account Res 2000; 11: 89–112.

24.

Porter

. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Bus Rev 1987; 65: 43–59.

25.

Van de Ven

Huber

. Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes of organisational change. Organ Sci 1990; 1: 213–219.

26.

Yin

. Case study research: design and methods, London: Sage, 1994.

27.

Patton

. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2002.

28.

Langley

. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad Manage Rev 1999; 24: 691–710.

29.

Malmi

Brown

. Management control systems as a package – opportunities, challenges and research directions. Manage Account Res 2008; 19: 287–300.

30.

Davila

Foster

. Management accounting systems adoption decisions: evidence and performance implications from early-stage/start-up companies. Account Rev 2005; 80: 1039–1068.

31.

Lecci

Morelli

. Management Control Systems (MCS) change and the impact of top management characteristics. The case of healthcare organisations. J Manage Control 2014; 24: 267–298.