56 ACCOUNTING FOR MANAGERS
post rationalization of actions, rather than an ex ante statement of organizational
goals’ (p. 188).
A non-rational (as opposed to irrational) perspective has also been taken
in relation to non-financial performance measurement. For example, Waggoner
et al.(1999) took a multidisciplinary approach to the drivers of performance
measurement systems and identified four categories of force that can influence
the evolution of those systems: internal influences such as power relations and
dominant coalition interests within the firm; external influences such as legislation
and technology; process issues such as the implementation of innovation and the
management of political processes; and transformational issues including the level
of top-down support for and risks from change.
Bourneet al.(2000) developed a framework for analysing the implementation
of a performance measurement system and interpreted three case studies of man-
ufacturing companies against that framework. They identified problems in each
company with IT infrastructure, resistance to measurement and management com-
mitment that arose in designing, implementing, using and updating performance
measurement systems.
These perspectives can be linked to Scott’s (1998) conceptualization of orga-
nizations as rational, natural and open systems. Figure 5.1 shows the different
perspectives in diagrammatic form. Therational perspectiveis of the organization
as a goal-oriented collective that acts purposefully to achieve those goals through
a formal structure governing behaviour and the roles of organizational members.
Thenatural perspectiveis based on the human relations school and argues that rules
and roles do not significantly influence the actions of people in organizations. In
this natural perspective people are motivated by self-interest and the informal rela-
tions between them are more important than the formal organizational structure
in understanding organizational behaviour. These informal relations emphasize
the social aspect of organizations, which may operate inconsensuswhere common
goals are shared or inconflict. Conflictual approaches stress organizational struc-
tures as systems of power where the weaker groups are dominated by the more
powerful ones.
Both rational and natural perspectives view the organization as aclosed system,
separate from its environment. By contrast, theopen systems perspectiveempha-
sizes the impact of the environment on organizations. In the open perspective,
organizations are seen as shifting coalitions of participants and a collection of
interdependent activities that are tightly or loosely coupled.
Thompson (1967) contrasted the technical core of the organization with its
goal achievement and control-oriented rationality, implying a closed system
and the elimination of uncertainty, with the organization’s dependency and
lack of control at an institutional level where the greatest uncertainty existed,
implying an open system. Thompson argued that at a managerial level there was
mediation between the two, provided by a range of manoeuvring devices and
organizational structures.
Within the open systems perspective,contingency theory(see Chapter 11) sug-
gests that there is no one best way of exercising management control or of