298 ACCOUNTING FOR MANAGERS
managerial accounting with a focus on the issue as to whether these various per-
spectives can be meaningfully blended, or whether a ‘‘champion’’ perspective may
emerge. This section also addresses issues pertaining to assessing the credibility
of the field-based research methods commonly (but not necessarily) utilized in
these alternative theoretical traditions.^2 Finally, this section considers the unique
contributions that the different organizational and sociological theories may make
beyond those offered by more traditional approaches.
Contingency theory
Contingency theory has provided considerable inspiration to managerial account-
ing researchers through an elaboration of the basic theme that ‘‘tight’’ control
systems should be used in centralized organizations faced with simple technol-
ogy and stable task environments; ‘‘loose’’ control systems should be used in
decentralized organizations, presumably faced with dynamic, complex task envi-
ronments. Furthermore, a given means of control such as embedded in managerial
accounting information can only be understood through reference to other control
approaches used in organizations as well as their organizational/task environment
context. For example, budgets may take on important meaning both for planning
and control purposes for work processes or product lines which are more rou-
tine, standardized and predictable. However, in situations where the processes or
product lines are less routine, less standardized and less predictable, the budgets
may be generated but are subject to much revision and are of little use as a control
benchmark (Swieringa and Moncur 1975). Contingency theory is essentially a the-
oretical perspective of organizational behavior that emphasizes how contingent
factors such as technology and the task environment affected the design and func-
tioning of organizations. For example, Thompson’s (1967)Organizations in Action
attempted to link task environment and technological contingencies to various
organizational arrangements, focusing particularly on the different mechanisms
of coordination which were appropriate for more complex, dynamic technologies
and task environmental conditions. Perrow’s (1967) theory of technology focused
on the congruence between different types of technologies and organizational
arrangements, emphasizing that more flexible, loosely-structured arrangements
were more appropriate for organizations with non-routine technologies, while
just the opposite type of organizational arrangements were more likely to fit
routine technologies. Lawrence and Lorsch’s (1969)Organizations and Environment
developed, in a related manner the fit between organizational arrangements,
(^2) Our paper is primarily organized along theoretical traditions, thus cutting across method-
ological approaches including fieldwork, surveys, lab experiments, etc., without a particular
intent to critique the use of these various methods. In this sense, our paper complements the
recent work of Keating (1995) who examined management accounting research in terms of
methodology – focusing exclusively on case research in managerial accounting with the intent of
providing an in-depth review of case research as a methodology – without a particular concern
to critique the theoretical traditions which motivate these research studies.