Accounting change in the Scottish and Westminster central
governments: a study of voice and legitimation
Hyndman, N., & Liguori, M. (2019). Accounting change in the Scottish and Westminster central governments: a
study of voice and legitimation.
Financial Accountability & Management
,
35
(4), 390-412.
https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12219
Published in:
Financial Accountability & Management
Document Version:
Peer reviewed version
Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:
Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal
Publisher rights
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other
copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated
with these rights.
Take down policy
The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to
ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the
Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.
Download date:10. Aug. 2022
1
Accepted Paper
Financial Accountability & Management
(Accepted September 2019)
Accounting change in the Scottish and Westminster central governments: a study of
voice and legitimation
Authors’ Details:
Noel Hyndman and Mariannuziata Liguori
Queen’s Management School
Queen’s University Belfast
Riddel Hall
185 Stranmillis Road
Belfast BT9 5EE
Northern Ireland, UK
Tel: +44 (0)28 90974933 / +44 (0)28 9097 4491
E-mail: n.hyndman@qub.ac.uk/m.liguori@qub.ac.uk
2
ACCOUNTING CHANGE IN THE SCOTTISH AND WESTMINSTER CENTRAL
GOVERNMENTS: A STUDY OF VOICE AND LEGITIMATION
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 horizontal/vertical and promotive/prohibitive dimensions) and legitimation strategies
subsequently used by the actors involved. In Westminster, where promotive vertical voicing was
particularly identifiable, interviewees predominantly legitimated change through rationalisation
strategies. In Scotland, where prohibitive, horizontal voice processes were more evident,
authorisation strategies tended to prevail. However, 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: accounting change, voice, legitimation, central government, managerialism
1. INTRODUCTION
Previous studies on the public sector in general, and on accounting 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 and Burns, 2013; Hyndman
and 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 levels. 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 dimensions of the voice process (direction and
content), in order to highlight possible links in the way organisational actors 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, representing different government levels (Westminster and the devolved
administration of Scotland
i
), this paper aims to explore whether 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
comparative approach, 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 and Olsen, 1993).
Drawing on management literature seldom used in accounting studies, this paper brings
together perceptions of how voice is exerted during processes of accounting change and individual
legitimations and accounts of such changes. The research thus contributes by shedding more light
on the individual processes of legitimation that may lead to different organisational results.
Moreover, while previous studies have focused on either the content of voice or its direction
separately (Liang et al., 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
3
section presents the literature on organisational voice processes and legitimation strategies;
subsequently, the methods are discussed, followed by the empirical context of 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.
2. VOICE 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 any proposed 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 they subsequently 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 literature and
findings in relation to organisational voice processes and legitimation strategies during
(accounting) change.
2.1 Voice and Accounting Change
During change, voicing processes have been shown to be crucial, for better or worse, within
organisations (Detert et al., 2013). Many scholars have argued 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 (Shapiro, 1993; Edmondson,
2003). Voice
ii
represents 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, motives are also possible). This contrasts with the extreme reaction of responding
to current situations, or proposed changes, with silent loyalty or exit (Hirschman, 1970). This study
specifically focuses on how voice can be exerted during change, rather than on the reasons and
effects of those who chose to exit. Voice is hard to punish for its absence and it is difficult to
evaluate (Van Dyne et al., 1995). As such, it can be a risky behaviour and have negative
consequences for the speaker
iii
. However, voice has great potential value to those who receive it,
thanks to the opportunity it provides to: spot possible problems before they occur; benefit from
the collective knowledge of others; and pursue suggested improvements. Voice often involves
challenging the status quo by suggesting changes to current practice, or adjusting proposed future
changes that have been announced but have yet 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).
On the basis of previous literature, two main dimensions of the voice process can be identified:
its direction and its content. Detert et al. (2013) have emphasised the importance of understanding
the structure of voice, and from whom and to whom it flows. However, current theory has not
specified the potential differences between voice directed laterally to peers, and upward to one’s
own boss (or to leaders elsewhere in the organisation) (Liu et al., 2010). Voice directed laterally to
co-workers to evaluate consensus on an issue, to vent, or to receive social support can have a
different, even harmful, effect on unit performance when compared to speaking up to a direct
boss. Previous research, indeed, has suggested that voice to individuals up the organisational
hierarchy (either direct bosses or managers at a higher level) may potentially generate more visible
change for the unit and the whole organisation (Brinsfield et al., 2009). Previous findings indicate
a reduced level of filtering or concern about the quality of a given idea prior to speaking to co-
workers; which contrasts with how employees reflect on what they say when speaking with people
4
with a higher position (and more power) within an organisation (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch,
2009).
The second dimension of voice is its content. Voice about improvements or existing failures in
the change process has been associated with positive organisational outcomes, such as team
learning, improved work processes, innovation and crisis prevention (Edmondson, 1999; Schwartz
and Wald, 2003). To include the expression of both constructive suggestions and concerns relating
to changes (proposed or enacted), some researchers have distinguished between promotive (to
improve existing work practices and procedures – Van Dyne and LePine, 1998) and prohibitive
(expressions of individuals’ dissent and concern about existing or impending practices – Rusbult
et al., 1988) aspects of voice, with less attention paid to the latter. Voice, indeed, can be critical and
signal an actor’s disengagement with an organisation and its practices. The effects of both types of
voice contents may not necessarily lead to improvements or positive outcomes for the
organisation. In accounting, voice processes have been investigated mostly in relation to budgeting.
Participative budgeting research has assumed a subordinate can influence their budget target and
provide input to the process (Otley et al., 1994). Byrne and Damon (2008), analysing multiple time
periods, found that, generally, subordinates who are given a voice in the budgeting process, but
for whom suggestions contained in the voicing are not reflected in final budget allocations,
perform better going forward if they receive an explanation of such a decision.
Of course, the categories proposed to identify the direction (vertical versus horizontal) and
content (promotive versus prohibitive) of voice represent the extremes of a spectrum along which
different behaviours and combinations can intertwine. The classifications proposed in this paper
are only a simplification of reality and aim to be a first step to reconcile and investigate the two
dimensions together. These categories are not exhaustive and more studies are needed in this
respect. In simplifying such reality, this paper argues that actors’ accounts expressed through
potentially different voice processes can, however, capture crucial aspects of information
transmission between the organisational members involved in, and affected by, change (Lines,
2005). Any type of change, indeed, entails a dialogue between participating actors, bringing
together arguments from differing views, and individuals with different goals and backgrounds
(Chattopadhyaty et al., 1999). Such dialogues and accounts, however, can be given regardless of
the actual level of participation in reaching a certain decision. The construction of individual
legitimation or delegitimation around a change (where change may be seen as either justifiable or
unjustifiable) is also reflected in the use of semantics and structures expressing positive or negative
connotations. Actors can contribute to the process of change not only by expressly voicing their
concerns in the ways here reviewed, but also through the implicit legitimation or delegitimation of
the change itself, which eventually is likely to affect the way changes are implemented and embed.
While these aspects pertain to the level of talk and decision making (Brunsson, 1989a, 1989b), it is
important to stress that the final results of a process of change will strongly mirror the actual
actions, and not only the talk, that were taken subsequently or as a result of a decision
iv
.
2.2 Legitimation and Delegitimation of Change
A preliminary condition for the implementation of change is that it has to be considered ‘legitimate’
within the very context in which it is to be applied, with delegitimation more likely to hamper any
change process. In order to explain why the introduction of a new practice succeeds or fails in a
certain institutional field, it is essential to understand how actors legitimate (justify) or delegitimate
(criticise) the change and the arguments they mobilise for it. In the field research reported in this
paper, six specific legitimation (or delegitimation) strategies are used to analyse the captured data
(see Table 1).
Table 1 here
