Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
Full metadata record
|dc.identifier.citation||Abacus, 2011; 47(2):234-265||en|
|dc.description.abstract||The historical classical management roots of contemporary accounting are still embedded in theory and practice, but invariably unacknowledged. This paper revisits the discourses and philosophies of three leading management writers generally regarded as proponents of scientific and classical management: Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and the longest standing advocate, Lyndall Urwick. The paper argues that traditionally Taylor has been regarded as the dominant influential figure on early management and later accounting theory, but that this reflects an inaccurate stereotyping that ignores the greater reflections in contemporary accounting of Fayol and Urwick. Their approaches to planning, control, and coordination, as well as their accounting and financial management philosophies are revisited. This examination aims to better recognize their contributions to the latent classicism that still pervades accounting thought and practice.||en|
|dc.description.statementofresponsibility||Lee D. Parker and Philip Ritson||en|
|dc.publisher||Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia||en|
|dc.rights||© 2011 The Authors. Abacus© 2011 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney||en|
|dc.subject||Accounting; Classical management; Financial management; Frederick Taylor; Henri Fayol; Lyndall Urwick; Scientific management||en|
|dc.title||Accounting's latent classicism: Revisiting classical management origins||en|
|Appears in Collections:||History publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.