The importance of mutual understanding between external accountants and owner-managers of SMEs

This study investigates the perspective of the owner–manager of a small or medium‐sized enterprise (SME) on the importance of mutual understanding with an external accountant. Mutual understanding means that the owner–manager understands what the accountant is saying and feels understood by the accountant. The results, based on 310 completed surveys of Belgian owner–managers, show that owner–managers who have a high level of mutual understanding use the advice of their external accountant more extensively. This is in turn positively linked to the financial health of an SME. Furthermore, several drivers that enable the establishment of a high level of mutual understanding are explored. Owner–managers with a high level of mutual understanding consider their accountant as a strategic partner, experience a high level of proactive behaviour with them, have a higher frequency of formal contact, and perceive informal contact as important. External accountants should consider these opportunities in their client management and training of internal staff. Education of clients and openness also seem very important, as the level of a client's accounting knowledge, the number of accounting topics owner–managers deal with, and transparency towards the accountant are significantly positively related to mutual understanding

The interplay between formal and informal elements in analysing situations of role conflict among construction participants

The interplay of formal and informal factors in construction teams influences the enactment of roles and the individuals who fulfil those roles. With a specific focus on a phenomenon called role conflict, the aim is to explore if and how the interaction of formal and informal elements would lead to situations of role conflict. This phenomenon proved to lead to frustration, tension and employee burnout. An analytical model of role interaction was developed, which disentangles formal and informal elements that shape role interactions. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews, project documents and observations. Four cases of role conflict are presented here. Contract, as a formal element, and participant’s values and interests, as informal elements, appeared to be the most important factor shaping participants’ expectations and behaviours. The analysis in this study showed that if a participant who faces role conflict is able to influence the formal elements in favour of his or her informal elements, then he or she may experience less frustration. At a more general level, the results suggest that increasing formality can increase participants’ frustration, which then would decrease the likelihood of collaboration. As the theoretical contribution, this research extends organizational role theory to deal with informal and formal aspects. Taking into account formal sources enables the study of how roles are institutionally governed while including informal sources allows for the idea that some of the aspects of the role, even in the context of work role, are socially constructed

Examining the Context of Strategy Instruction

The goal of literacy instruction is to teach reading and writing as tools to facilitate thinking and reasoning in a broad array of literacy events. An important difference in the disposition of children to participate in literacy experiences is the extent to which they engage in intentional self-regulated learning. The contexts attending six traditional models of strategy instruction are examined. An exploratory study, conducted with heterogeneous third graders, is reported, examining the implementation and outcomes of three models of strategy instruction—Direct Instruction, Reciprocal Teaching, and Collaborative Problem Solving—which manipulated teacher and student control of activity, as well as the instructional context.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69008/2/10.1177_074193259101200306.pd

The boomerang effect of radicalism in Discursive Psychology: A critical overview of the controversy with the Social Representations Theory.

This article provides a critical overview of the controversy between the Radical approach to Discursive Psychology (RDP) and the Social Representations Theory (SRT) and aims: a)?to show what is potentially complementary and contradictory in Discursive Psychology (DP) and the Social Representations Theory, when and why they are incompatible, and whether and how it is possible and/or desirable to integrate these two approaches. b)?to describe how the radicalism of the socio-constructionist thesis upheld by Discourse Analysis can give rise to several hard-to-solve problems, which may then be translated into a boomerang effect. In the final section, it highlights interest in dialog and “cross-fertilization” between researchers inspired by the less radical approach to discursive psychology and those inspired by the Social Representations Theory, pointing out the effect of methodological implications that would ensue