The role of dialogue between executives and ground-level employees mediated by MACS

The purpose is to understand the manner in which companies use management accounting and control systems (MACS) for dialogical communication in assisting collaboration and the coordination of actions. The task of the research is to answer the following questions: why is it important to support dialogical communication by MACS in the organisation? Who are the salient stakeholder(s) in a company implementing collaboration and cooperation? How does one analyse and understand the role of MACS as a medium for supporting dialogical communication? Which aspects of dialogical communication are (not) fulfilled in the implementation of MACS and why?

This study's philosophical assumptions are based on relational constructivism as a social science perspective. This study uses a participative action and observation case study as its methodology.

Based on this case study, it can be concluded that most of the assumptions that dialogue could take place were fulfilled in departments in need of changes for competition and economic reasons. In the departments that did not need changes, assumptions of mutual openness, mutual confirmation and non-manipulation were not fulfilled – information from MACS was hidden and censored. The open dialogue by MACS between ground and senior groups was prevented resulting in a lack of information on different practices at the organisational level. One assumption that was problematic even in departments in need of changes was the assumption of non-evaluation. There is a paradox or contradiction between the contemporary business environment needing innovativeness and creativity, which means free and open communication without evaluation, and the coordination and control function which is a common part of MACS.

In this study, the data collection, documentation and analysis were carefully conducted and several methods applied to deal with possible bias. Nevertheless, the problem of the observer bias cannot be entirely eliminated since an individual researcher can never be separated from his or her background, philosophical views and experiences.

The paper makes a strong practical contribution. Based on this case study, it has been demonstrated that MACS could be a medium to support dialogue between senior and ground levels if: senior management sees the need for dialogue between organisational members; management and other organisational members support and believe in dialogue which could be mediated by MACS.

The conceptual novelty of the research lies in tying the concept of dialogue in the environment of stakeholder capitalism with the MACS framework. The contribution of this research is to shed more light on the role of MACS as one option of mediums for supporting dialogue between top and ground-level managers.