Management Accounting Change in Family Firms: The Ambivalent Role of the Successor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why does a process of management accounting change (MAC) that started with the best premises for a successful conclusion stop? What could be the causes of failure? In the last few decades, several authors have tried to answer these questions in the field of MAC by adopting different theoretical frameworks and offering various responses. However, few contributions have dealt with this theme from the family’s perspective, and they haven’t considered the specific challenges concerning such firms, like those connected to the succession process.However, few contributions have dealt with this theme from the perspective of family and considering their specific characteristics and challenges, as in particular the succession process. To fill this gap, this paper explores the relationship between MAC and the succession process aiming to answer the question: “How can a successor influence the start, development and final outcome of a MAC process in a family business?” Using a longitudinal case study, the paper explores an Italian family firm in which a MAC and a succession process started simultaneously. However, despite all the best premises for its development and implementation, the MAC process was interrupted. The analysis focuses on the successor and his goals and motivations to better understand which role he assumed in the MAC process. Findings suggest that a successor can play an ambivalent role. He can be a key agent in promoting and triggering a MAC process in family firms, but he can also become a major obstacle to the process of change when his personal objectives and interests prevail over the company’s needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".