Purpose Integrated thinking is central to the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC’s) integrated reporting (IR) framework, which is in turn is related to a potential resurgence of intellectual capital (IC) reporting. However, it remains unclear how key IR stakeholders understand this concept in theory or practice. The purpose of this paper is to explore how key stakeholders interpret integrated thinking; and how pilot organizations are applying integrated thinking in practice. Design/methodology/approach The study involved in-depth semi-structured interviews with key IR stakeholders in Australia, including two IR pilot organizations, one professional association, an accounting professional body, an accounting firm and two IIRC officials. Findings First, the IIRC has not fully defined and articulated the concept of integrated thinking, and there is no shared consensus among practitioners. Second, there is evidence of an evolving understanding of integrated thinking within practice. What remains unclear is how this understanding will develop over time. Research limitations/implications Since interviews were conducted with a relatively small sample of participants in Australia, the results may not be generalizable across different contexts. The study emphasizes the need to interpret carefully IR’s potential contribution to organizational practice through either reporting in general, or IC reporting in particular. Originality/value Despite the centrality of integrated thinking to IR, there has been limited research to date on the concept. Clarifying what integrated thinking means in practice can improve our understanding of a key IR concept, and can advance our understanding of IR’s potential to improve IC reporting and research.

No abstract

No abstract

While performance management (PM) is pervasive across contemporary workplaces, extant research into how performance management affects workers is often indirect or scattered across disciplinary silos. This paper reviews and synthesizes this research, identifies key gaps and explores ‘recognition theory’ as a nascent framework that can further develop this important body of knowledge. The paper develops in three main stages. The first stage reviews ‘mainstream’ human resource management (HRM) research. While this research analyses workers’ reactions to performance management in some depth, its focus on serving organizational goals marginalizes extra‐organizational impacts. The second stage reviews more critical HRM research, which interprets performance management as a disciplinary, coercive or inequitable management device. While this literature adds an important focus on organizational power, there is scope to analyse further how PM affects workers’ well‐being. To develop this strand of PM research, the third stage turns to the emerging field of recognition theory independently developed by Axel Honneth and Christophe Dejours. The authors focus especially on recognition theory's exploration of how (in)adequate acknowledgement of workers’ contributions can significantly affect their well‐being at the level of self‐conception. Although recognition theory is inherently critical, the paper argues that it can advance both mainstream and critical performance management research, and also inform broader inquiry into recognition and identity at work.

Purpose Motivated by Morgan’s (1997) analysis of the “paradoxical” role of metaphors in understanding and managing organisations, the purpose of this paper is to assess in what respects organisations using integrated reporting (IR) are on a “journey” of organisational change. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyses IR practitioner literature to interpret the IR journey metaphor more precisely. The authors then use in-depth interviews to assess the extent to which this metaphor captures how six early adopter organisations in Australia implement IR, and what changes result, over four years. Findings The journey metaphor implies substantive and holistic organisational change. By contrast, the authors find organisations use IR in contextual, instrumental and piecemeal ways. The authors propose a “toolbox” metaphor to help (re)present how organisations adapt their reporting to fit decisions already made, and challenges presented, through ordinary and ongoing strategic management. Research limitations/implications Morgan (1997) stresses metaphors are invariably used to both describe and manage organisations. The authors’ analysis identifies specific ways the IR journey metaphor is descriptively misleading. The authors’ “toolbox” metaphor suggests different ways organisations are, or could, manage IR to create value. Originality/value This is the first paper to provide a systematic analysis of the IR journey metaphors, and to assess in what respects this metaphor captures actual organisational practice. The findings also challenge the broader notion in academic research that reporting frameworks can lead organisational change.