280 ACCOUNTING FOR MANAGERS
After that date it was increasingly recognized that organizations were highly inter-
dependent with their environments, and that boundaries are both permeable and
variable. Second, he distinguished betweenrational and natural systems models.
The rational systems model assumes that organizations are purposefully designed
for the pursuit of explicit objectives, whereas the natural systems model empha-
sizes the importance of unplanned and spontaneous processes, with organically
emerging informal structures supplementing or subduing rationally designed
frameworks. The distinction between rational and natural systems is applicable
to both sides of the closed-open system divide, resulting in the definition of the
four approaches.
We use these categories to summarize work in MCSs, although we recognize
that such categorization is not necessarily ‘neat’. Organizations can be viewed
as beingbothrational and natural, (Thompson, 1967; Boland and Pondy, 1983);
they are often intentionally designed to achieve specific purposes, yet also display
emergent properties. It can be argued that each successive theoretical devel-
opment provides an additional perspective which is helpful in understanding
organizational processes, and which is likely to be additional and complementary
to those which have preceded it. However, it is also recognized that this is a
controversial statement that would not be accepted by some of those adopting a
post-modernist viewpoint.
The Closed Rational Perspective This work is characterized by being both
universal in orientation and systematic in approach, scientific management being
a typical example. In the management control literature we find a continuing
emphasis on rational solutions, implicitly assuming a closed systems model of
organization, which are universalistic in nature. Indeed, this can also be seen in
much of the modern popular management literature, where a universal ‘how-to-
do-it’ approach continues to find a ready market.
From a research point of view, there is much work which has sought to identify
the ‘one best way’ to operate a control system. An excellent example of this
approach applied to budgetary control is that conducted by Hofstede (1968). He
sought to reconcile the US findings that budgets were extensively used in perfor-
mance evaluation and control, but were associated with negative feelings on the
part of many managers and dysfunctional consequences to the organization, with
the European experience that budgets wereseen positively but were little used.
Multiple perspectives are brought to bear, including systems theory, although this
draws primarily on cybernetics. His conclusions list several pages of recommen-
dations as to how budgets could be used effectively without engendering negative
consequences, and indicate an implicit universalistic orientation. Similarly, the
well known text co-authored by Anthony and a host of collaborators (seefor
example, Anthonyet al., 1984) also clearly falls into the closed rational mode with
its heavy emphasis on accounting controls.
The Closed Natural Perspective The closed natural approach is centred around
an increasing interest in the behavioural consequences of control systems opera-
tion. This was perhaps first introduced to the control literature by Argyris (1952)