Content area
Full Text
1. Introduction
Accounting measurements (numbers, metrics, and indicators) as such are “neutral”, i.e. they do not have any inherent or embodied meaning. These measurements acquire a specific meaning in and through daily “accounting talk” developed by their users (Ahrens, 1997; Andon et al., 2007; Preston, 1986). Even if this process of giving sense to accounting measurements appears to be particularly relevant, very few studies have specifically examined, through a practice lens, how managers use, make sense of, and give sense to accounting numbers in order to manage the organization (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007; Hall, 2010; Jönsson, 1998). Therefore, there emerges the opportunity to investigate the processes of sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensebreaking in practice with reference to accounting measurements (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007; Almqvist et al., 2011; Catasús et al., 2009; Hall, 2010; Jönsson, 1998).
An emerging type of accounting numbers and metrics is represented by intellectual capital (IC) measurements, i.e. IC indicators and values. In fact, there is, both in literature and in practice, increasing attention placed on IC as it is generally recognized that its performance contributes to improving the firm’s overall performance (Guthrie et al., 2012). Although there is a strong belief in the possibilities of using measurements for managing organizations (Catasús et al., 2007), both academics and practitioners have questioned the actual use of IC measurements in the “real” world. More in depth, several researchers have started contributing to the stream of studies on “IC in practice” that focuses on what happens when IC is brought into an organization (Dumay, 2013; Guthrie et al., 2012).
Within the IC literature, there is a growing stream of research that aims to investigate how managers make sense of IC in order to intervene adequately, i.e. how managers move from “measuring” to “understanding” and on to “managing”. Some scholars have delved into this issue, making reference to the Latour’s ideas of ostensive and performative dimensions, to the adage “you can manage what you can measure”,to the “lock-in” phenomenon, to Kolb’s experiential learning theory model, etc., in order to understand how measuring IC can favour IC mobilization (Catasús et al., 2007; Chaminade and Roberts, 2003; Chiucchi, 2013; Chiucchi and Dumay, 2015; Dumay and Rooney, 2011; Mouritsen, 2006). One lens that...