Workability of a management control model in service organizations: a comparative study of reactive, proactive and coactive philosophies

Workability of a management control model in service organizations: a comparative study of reactive, proactive and coactive philosophies

Joshua Onome Imoniana

Methodist University of São Paulo, Brazil

^{Address for correspondence}

ABSTRACT

The main objective of this study was to compare and contrast the three philosophies of management control models in the process of decision-making, namely reactive, proactive and the coactive. The research methodology was based on literature review and descriptive-exploratory approach and additionally a survey of 20 service organizations were carried out in order to enhance the analysis of the state of the art. To execute the aforementioned, firstly, we highlight the fundamentals of the reactive, proactive and coactive models. Secondly, compared the management behaviors in the three approaches, hitherto highlighting the concepts and their practical application, thus retrieving the management relationships in the organization. By so doing we draw the hypothesis that, middle and top managers who adopt control models that are distant from a more coactive one, generally, spend a greater number of working hours in problems solutions leaving little or no time for planning purposes. Finally, in order to consolidate this study we adopted a qualitative data gathering style of semi-structured instrument for the collection of data whereby a content analysis with the assistance of six categories were drawn. Results revealed that there is a need for a change in management paradigms so that firms are not only compared from the financial perspectives without analysis of management control models which according to this study, directly influence the operational results of the organizations.

Keyword: management, control, systems, models.

INTRODUCTION

The form (semiotics), characteristics (biological) and essence (abstraction) are the three key items deliberated when we discuss management control models and its reporting structure in a controllership department that is meant to serve the higher echelon of an organization. Reflections upon these issues therefore, are very important not just to produce insight into the business but also enhance decision-making and generate reasonable hypothesis upon the problematic of the creation of a competitive edge by the organizations through management control models. Thus, as the management is charged with the compromise to develop and implement a more conducive control environment to enhance attainment of business objective, it is more than known that a clear-cut operations models should be deterministic and results oriented.

Thus, if we try to resuscitate the impact of neofeudalism, we wouldn't forget that it tentatively tried to abridge the distance established between the employee and the employer through the management control models. So, it is worth mentioning that even the top management tasked with the implementation of business strategies aimed at giving coverage to the business missions are also handicapped when faced with the decisions to soften their approaches.

Can you remember the empire constructed by Al-Fayed, the London business tycoon that immortalized Harrods (Rodney Toys)? Even in the middle of 21^st century, implemented a rigid management control model, which obliges besides the clients of his chain stores the searching of the employees when they come in and exit the stores by checking if the invoices are in agreement with the goods effectively purchased. He is a businessman that comes early to the establishment and normally is the last to leave by the end of the day, thereby serving as an example to the employees themselves. He visits his employees in various departments trying to be closer to their problems. This invariably gave him the fame of a serious business proprietor who is compromised socially, and also in terms of value-added to the business. Would one say that this environment is retrograded?

As a result of the aforementioned, we raise the following research questions:

a) Is it possible to perceive the predominance of reactive, proactive or coactive control models in any organization?

b) Is the adoption of the control model related to the way information is disseminated in the organization?

c) Does the distribution of powers in the decision-taking process have an influence on the models adopted?

d) Does the behaviors of the managers and other employees contribute to the enhancement of the control model towards a more coactive one?

BACKGROUND

An internal control mechanism forms a backbone of the exercise of business management. When its models are consistently designed and implemented in a more conducive environment it tends to enhance the attainment of expected results.

Controls could be dependent or independent, of which could be manual or computerized. On one hand when the controls are dependent the recommendations of the control has to be performed firstly before the execution of the next functional activity. If one tentatively omits a dependent control an operational process could run to a deadlock. On the other hand, the independent control refers to those activities that do not lock a transaction flow of a business operation, IMONIANA & NOHARA (2004).

Control models are bent to vary, to some essence, there is no doubt about that, mainly because people in the management are different, brought-up in different homes and bare distinctive identities from variable cultures. Besides, some managers are more risk takers than the others. This naturally stimulates the implementation of a standard principle for a model differently. In another perspective, this is associable to the taught of the contingency theory, as mentioned in BOWDITCH & BUONO (1999:17) the universally accepted principles could be applied indiscriminately, thus, there is a need for situational approach to decision taking in the organization.

According to COSO-Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, in Internal Control Integrated Framework, "Senior executives have long sought ways to better control the enterprises they run. Internal controls are put in place to keep the company on course toward profitability goals and achievement of its mission, and to minimize surprises along the way. They enable management to deal with rapidly changing economic and competitive environments, shifting customer demands and priorities, and restructuring for future growth. Internal controls promote efficiency, reduce risk of asset loss, and help ensure the reliability of financial statements and compliance with laws and regulations".

And so, this study tends to expatiates on the reactive, proactive and coactive models adopted by the executives thereby providing answers to the research questions by collecting data from a group of managers who in one way or the other might have expedited action in their various positions.

REACTIVE MODEL

The reactive model has in its basic foundation, the general principles of administration stated by Fayol which emphasizes division of labor, authorities and the management business units; being the functional structure observed in the organizations who adopt this model, restricting the autonomies of managers and the independence in the decision-making process. A body with two heads is a monster in a social and animal world. FAYOL (1950:41).

In a reactive management model, controls serves as fire extinguishers or fighters, ready to give a response to problems that resurge. Management is rapidly informed about fire breakouts (problems) and it is binding upon him to react immediately to give solutions by executing the control procedures.

In the reactive model, involvement of colleagues to clear operation backlogs is palliative. When one articulates a supportive action therefore, it is deemed to eliminate bottlenecks created by this backlogs.

A phenomenon that has been present in the reactive model is the hierarchical and totalitarian style, where “he who pays the pipers calls the tune” in all areas. And so, as a continuation of this style, the middle management institutes a line of functional responsibility and the segregation of duties. Where this is damaging is that everyone accounts only for the happenings around his or her job description; anything outside is not their responsibility. The employees could be imagined sat in a rowing boat with each occupying a seat and holding an ore. A leak appears in an unoccupied part of the boat. All the employees announce that this leak is not their responsibility because it has not occurred in their part of the boat. This short-sighted behavior ignores that if the boat sinks, everybody will be sent overboard into the water? Another analogy of this model could be derived from a finance department that has the Payable Clerk and the Finance Supervisor operating daily activities. As departmental transactions grow, they postpone the thorough filing procedures because they have been continually overworked they try to keep the documents in organized, perhaps pilling the documents. At some point this gets out of hand. The finance manager then solicits everybody in the department to assist the colleagues of the Controllers department, one weekend to assist in getting the filling system up to date. This is brought to order after two weeks overtime.

A growth in the volume of transactions that has not been matched with an increase in the headcount will quickly get out of hand again. The suggested measure is to bring in somebody to correct the problem of inappropriate filling procedures that could be perpetrated for fraud purposes.

From another perspective, consider a fully-fledged company whose top management has directives that established that the company may not invest surpluses of its working capital in options. A Chairman & CEO has the task to implement such a stand and to disseminate their corporate strategies through the company policy and to charge the executive manager with establishing a guide or operating procedures to achieve the standards setup in the policy mentioned. The lower middle management makes sure that the procedures are detailed, explicitly, and are followed. So auditors perform checks and balances to ensure that the procedure exists and that they are effective. Unknown to the Headquarters, in an effort to create a more conducive environment, a manager makes this policy formal. What should happen to this manager, according to our recommendations? Would a dedicated employee whose commitment is well known in the organization be penalized as a result of problems of communication?

PROACTIVE MODEL

With the era of management flat pyramids CEOs are changing their expectations for the senior finance position. Thus, passive, uninvolved management styles no longer are desirable; rather, executives who adopt a proactive, hands-on-job management style are demanded for, to assist in obtaining business objectives. What is confusing is that these CEOs having changed their tastes for a more flexible and dynamic environment, does not want to loose hand of a good controllership department that often accomplishes its objectives through strong leadership, team building, and delegation of responsibilities, normally attributed to the reactive model.

The proactive management model seems to be an innovation however not much better. This model prevents problems from occurring by tracking it at the front-end, the reactive model, with the identification of risks, assessment, quantification and subsequent establishment of control strategies to mitigate it. While this would tend to reduce the occurrence of problems, it also requires that all potential problems be identified so that the proactive person could immediately go after them and resolve the problems.

Proactive management models begin with those in the upper reaches of the organization defining control objectives. Their views of the actual business process are from afar. While the board of directors and top management may be able to identify major potential problems external to the business, their lack of involvement in day-to-day operations limits the reality of a successful proactive management model. TONGREN (1995)

While the risk assessment concept is sound, implementation is frequently lacking. Lack of commitment, lack of resources, and even lack of management interest are common. Perhaps the primary problem lies in the inherent assumption that management knows best.

Unfortunately, because of the distance between the employees in the floor of the industry and the management at the higher echelon that thrives on action and chaos in the heat of problem solving may not be in the know of the whole risk exposures. Therefore, in order to be proactive consultants are required to gather necessary information to enhance decision-making process.

COACTIVE MODEL

The word coactive means integration, collaboration and interaction. North-south, east-west dichotomy transmits it operational waves to every corner of the establishment. All sided, as it is know, bears a compassed management approach.

This is a management model that tries to hurt the boss type hierarchical management and installs leaders to head groups in the operating processes.

To explain the phenomenon e few questions ought to be asked. Does it mean that the hierarchical figure of boss is no more needed? What of those who work only when they know that the boss is around? Is the auditor key point of observation (segregation of duties) no more needed? Is the rotation of employees so that every sector of the company would always have a human backup to rescue situations in case of absence no more generate a potential risk for need to know basis? What of the demand that the CFOs should develop a strategy for increasing their understanding of the functioning of departments about which they know the least?

In a close look, we would observe that the aforementioned models hold the stand that the management is alpha and omega in the business establishment, and that in all that he says no one trespasses. It is contrary to these stands that coactive works. It holds the ground that apparently all are equal before the business process and so all could be heard during decision-making. Therefore, the top-down and the bottom-up approaches are counter balanced, joining various actors such as:

1. Directors, who are indirectly involved in the process, have power but have little or no knowledge about the bottlenecks in the business process and only delegate's functions;

2. Managers who are directly involved in the process who are handicapped to expedite action for lack of authorities and powers;

3. Operations functions at the bottom of iceberg that handles periodic commitments such as: Help desk in the IT department when the Outsourcing is not operating, unrecorded overtime by the accounts department to report on the 5

   ^th working day, just to mention but a few.

As we mention the flexible structure presented by co-active model in business control processes, TOMASKO (1.994:146) shows a hypothetical plastic structure in figure 1 below, thereby comparing architectural structures that adopts geometrical shapes, applicable in various situations as in Santa Sofia, Istanbul, that has been a Cathedral, Mosque and is currently Museum. The author considers that these structures are highly flexible taking as a basis of analysis a dynamic space through which the object as a result of incompatibility could be bent here and there thereby favouring communications between teams and the processes.

For the author, structures in this type of organization should be conducive for interaction between processes, employees, clients, and outside actors. Additionally, it should:

• Present a distribution of resources that is in alignment with the organizations strategy;

• Count with a minimum scale of action that propitiates a maximum combination of compatible functions;

• Hold an operational environment with porous functional boundaries that could be permeated; and

• Enhance the smooth flow of information, such that the natural means of communication amongst colleagues gains confidence.

One of the mechanisms used to maintain integration and plasticity of the organizational structure is the adoption of business units, which TOMASKO (1.995: 165) considers as responsible for the vanguard capability and the constructive criticisms to an organization that focalises common necessities of the clients. Thus, this is disaggregated to the organization, as it grows and solidifies as a business entity.

To ensure integration therefore, the author compares the structure of an organization to the domes, which are structures used to cover wide areas such as that used to cover the St. Peter's Basilica where there are strong base on the sides that corresponds interaction among the teams in a business process, the sustentation in the intermediate levels signifies the middle managers, responsible for the focalisation of the processes and the connections at the extreme top which are small as a result of habiliment of the structure. Yet, there is a vertical connection that clothes the sides thereby enhancing the maintenance of the organizational equilibrium.

Comparison of the Reactive, Proactive and Coactive Models

In order to analyze the three philosophies, we present in table 1 a detailed comparison of the models based on reflection and assumption from literature review.

Workability of a management control model in the Service Organization

Upon analysis of the breadth, boldness, and eclecticism with which TONGREN (1995) observed the issue of re-active, pro-active and co-active models, it becomes so appealing that it stimulates a long lasting reflections. But a further reflections show that there is a need to refine the last model on the arguments that it appears to flaw if we think about its workability. Is it because we are afraid of anything that is new? How do we proceed then? The first model, re-active, traditional is not being questioned, and the second model, pro-active seems to be a brief shift from the first, however, not creating any harms for its implementation since they all operate under the same umbrella of the departmentalized organizations. The problem is co-active which requires a new paradigm in a process inclined operating environments.

Historically, power tussle, tasks, responsibilities and the related practices have suggested a management model that ranges from reactive to proactive. They give rooms for constructive criticism but are skeptical. They seem, as strategies in a secret pot with details only know to the higher echelon of the organization. Thus, it shows of course, another noble savage fantasy. As Drunker (1973:134) would have it, society was deschooled not so long ago-not much more than a century ago. We have ample documents from this preschool era, e.g., the copious investigations into the life and development of children will become creative and learn by themselves if only they are not subjected to the mismanagement of the school. Schools at all levels do indeed need drastic changes. But what we need is not a nonschool, but a properly functioning and properly managed learning institution

In this respect, in order to expatiate on the co-active model, we borrow a leave from the statements of COSO - Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission published in 1992. Which breaks components the internal control framework into five. They are:

• Control Environment - The control environment dictates the management tune while it tries to sensitise employees. It is the basis for other control procedures and disciplines the structure.

• Risk Assessment - Every entity in order to meet its objectives faces a variety of business risks, be it internal or external that should be evaluated.

• Control Activities - Control Activities or control procedures otherwise known as policies or guidelines, assures the compliance of objectives and identification of associated risks.

• Information and Communication - Information must be identified and disseminated in an intelligible format to the users in a timely manner so that they would meet up with their obligations. Relevant messages or information should be transmitted to every person in the organization.

• Monitoring - Internal control systems should be monitored - assesses the quality and the performance of the systems periodically and thus reviews policies and procedures as and when necessary.

Based on the fundamentals stated by COSO it is clear that the horizons of management control paradigms need to be given a closer inspection as part of models analysis.

As part of the model analysis and based on the fundamentals stated by COSO, it is clear that a closer inspection should be given to the management control paradigms.

METODOLOGY

As the main objective of this study was to compare and contrast the three philosophies of management decision control models namely reactive, proactive and the coactive, the basic approach was a descriptive one. However, in order to enhance the data gathering process a qualitative semi-structured instrument was adopted. Furthermore, we applied the content analysis with the assistance of six categories which are characterized by a qualitative approach as in BARDIN(1977). This seems to be the method that answers the researches hypothesis and demonstrates the characteristic of the organizations through the managerial flexible or rigid control frameworks, thus, describing the real phenomenon of organization models and management in action.

Selected randomly, the subjects of this research were 20 managers in service organizations, who are already exercising a control functions in their various business segments. We adopted the time-inclusive criteria for the selection of the subjects considering people with approximately five years experience as managers. This allowed us to interview people who might have gone through some periods of frustrating/grating limitations and or environmental changes.

Initially we selected 30 people for interview but due to the nature of corroboratory inquiry into the workability of control models, and the mutually exclusive models that could exist considering issues such as business culture and time limit, to mention just a few, we decided upon restricting our samples to 20 of which 14 responded to the questionnaires. And so, we undermine the moves by Iuri Lotman, the leading figure of the Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics, in his Selected Essays shortly before he died in 1993 to "naturalize" human culture by suggesting links and analogies to such scientific phenomena as biogeochemistry, the structure of the brain, and molecular symmetry. Lotman's aim is to propose a model of how culture works everywhere around the globe, this probably requires further studies.

Data Collection and Analysis

For the collection of the data a semi-structured interview questionnaires were used to obtain necessary information from the middle and senior managers of the different organizations. This allowed the obtainment of a historic data of the respondents and the state of the art of management control of the organization sampled.

According to TRIVINOS (1995, p.146) "a semi-structured interview is that which takes as a base questionnaires supported by literature reviews and hypothesis that interest a research and that if adequately followed would offer an ample field of interrogation".

With the data collected through the questionnaires, see appendix, we exercised a generalized quantitative analysis. As in figure 2 we observe that it is unanimous a greater number of working hours dedicated for problem solution thereby living little or no time for improvement and preventive actions. This therefore, confirms our research hypothesis.

Additionally, upon performing the qualitative analysis, we attached categorization codes to questions responded as a way of analyzing the contexts given them. This BOGDAN & BIKLEN (1994) denominates the category of classification of interview answers, a means of classifying and analyzing data. Thus upon analysis of the questions we have the following:

a) Influence of the working experience

All the respondent of this research possesses work experience above 6 years in the management level showing that they are more conversant with control models. 7 have experience above 13 years in the private sector, while 4 with more that 13 in the public sector. The rest of the respondents have between 7 and 13 years experience in the private sector. Only have 7 through 13 in the 3rd sector.

b) Distribution of daily activities

Since the managers plans their working hours so as to entirely occupy themselves in the monitoring activities, that tends to emphasize the independent controls needed to review management reports and not the operations flow interference. One would expect that managers concentrate their valuable hours in planning, designing and instituting preventive measures. But our result shows that in the models sampled, 9 of them spends average 50% of their time extinguishing fire and the rest spends between 2 to 3 hours, that is above 50% of the dedicated time Another task that consumes more working hour is guaranteeing the working condition. This means that managers almost fight for the existence of their business units, living no time for implementation of actions and plans.

c) Expediting action

If the manager does not have the autonomy, he is debarred from being proactive not even talking of coactive; therefore, actions are not expedited on timely bases. What triggers decision that moves the mountain is managers found in a move to assume certain hierarchical risk level. Of the respondents 70% are tied to decision taking with their superiors followed by 20% of the decisions taken in individual business units (proactive) and final 10% with other units (co-active).

d) Impact of Management Control Systems

When the models are proactive and coactive types, the information relating to controls are available in the management systems but are analyzed and distributed to the BUs and the focal points performs the follows-up and shares the data relating to his or her unit. On the contrary when it is reactive, information is reserved with the superior and not made available for the general use. Our findings shows that 50% retains information with the higher echelon of the organizations making the models more reactive and 30% have them available in the management systems and 20% available, consolidated and distributed among the business units.

e) Management actions

In the transitions flow of a more proactive ad coactive models, managerial behaviors are spontaneous and have wiliness to take action, the reactive models waits for command. The readiness of the managers to take action in the organizations is highly centered with the senior management thereby confirming the more reactive model. More than decides as relating to invoicing, costing, loose of clients, working difficulties, process, employee and compromise with the senior management. 40% decides individually thereby confirming the inclination to more proactive model and 10% shares with colleagues.

f) Reporting

Performance evaluation reports and Follow-up of budgetary results are accompanies daily in a proactive and coactive models. This is possible because the users go after them or uses the query facilities in the databases to fetch this information. The reactive models awaits the reports been printed and remitted to him. Our findings reveal that 80% of the respondents use the varied type of information and 20% dos not use them owing to control weaknesses.

Also, as a general analysis, question 4 that indicates the attitudes the managers would take in certain circumstances significantly correlated with question 5, the alternative characteristics of behaviors of the employees of the organization in the three models, thereby, confirming the restrictions both figures have hierarchically. Therefore, based on the mentioned above, we characterized behaviors as follows in the three models:

Management and Employee Behaviors in Reactive Models

General data collection and analysis reflected the following information:

• Actions are related to guaranteeing minimum working conditions for he Business Units;

• Budgetary premise and definitions only and nothing else

• No management systems but each unit produced information for decision taking

• Solution to problems; "fire extinguishing always"

• Difficulties in the work flow process

• Has problems relating to employee compromise in the work place.

• They normally wait for the orientation of the immediate boss to give solutions to the problems that appears

Management and Employee Behaviors in Proactive Models

General data collection and analysis reflected the following information:

• Implement recommended measures to prevent problems and errors

• Take immediate decisions that could result to material losses

• Maintains standards for the Business Units (BUs);

• Use available information in the Management Control Systems, analyzes and distributed to the BUs

• Nurture effective control framework and good information structure in the organization

• Dribbles difficulties in work flow process but takes harassments for unauthorized decision taking;

• Avoids eminent loss with his hand-on-job nature;

• Develop various types of jobs to meet up results;

• Take individual initiatives to resolve problems.

Management and Employee Behaviors in Coactive Models

General data collection and analysis reflected the following information:

• Implementing previously planned actions with the assistance of the team

• Use information in the management control systems as available and consolidated by the senior management;

• Employees use information that is available in the Management Control Systems and are homogeneously used by the managers and the senior managers

• Take decision that would prevent eminent material losses whether relating to invoicing, costing or likely matters in group;

• Take initiatives as a team to resolve unforeseen circumstances that appears

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this exploratory study offer a rich portrait of how organizational models are affected by its control cultures. When it is rigid and individualistic at one end, it tends to be reactive and when it is democratic and team-based it is coactive; and the proactive model appears in the middle of the two to counter balance and re-direct the control model chosen be any organization.

Because a good number of the entrepreneurs are conservative and so they seem to be traditionally inclined, probably as a result of the globalization of economies, and the growing use of information technology to control the strategic process, as a trend, one is forced to believe and value models that are reactive and proactive and therefore conclude that their existence in the business environments have a course..

In the mentioned environments in the organizations, there is either a perceived predominance of reactive, proactive or coactive control models when their characteristics are analyzed and the adoption of the control model related to the way information is disseminated signals so. The organization and the distribution of powers in the decision-taking process have an influence on the model adopted and the behaviors of the managers and other employees contribute to the enhancement of the control model towards a more coactive one.

However, notwithstanding the limitations of this research which barely concentrated on the avaliability of the managers to answer our questionnaires particularly because of the culture of reactive and proactiveness, we recommend that the control models of the nowadays organizations should adapt to hands-on-job style that values its management capacities and competences that delegates sufficiently responsibilities that are result oriented. That is, not just tying the process by attaching action to bureaucratic procedures that retards action and makes organizations to loose a competitive edge.

The data collected and analyzed in this study confirm the predominance of a reactive model hence the dedication of more that half working hours in problem solving.

The analysis of the growth, adoption or not of proactive and coactive models, knowing fully well, was not the object of this study, the main contribution of this study was that it created more rooms for discussion concerning management control models. Thus, indicating the need for further studies to assist in concluding about the extent to which organizations are prepared to re-discuss their paradigms as relating to the implementation of control models.

Finally, as the line of study considered in the research could be associated with the epistemological approach in treating problems relating to managerial studies, one would recommend future studies in the areas relating to the quantification of the relative importance giving control culture as the organizations adopt different types of management control models.

Manuscript first received: 4/10/2005

Manuscript accepted: 15/03/2006

APPENDIX - Questionnaires for the evaluation of Control Models

2. Tick in the column that which better represent the reality of your work. Decisions relating to item 1 above are taken with the participation of:

3. Fill in the correct alternative(s). relating to information control systems in your organization:

4. In the following situations, indicate which attitude you consider as the characteristics of the managerial behaviours of your organization:

5. Which of the following alternatives better characterizes the behaviors of the employees of your organization

6. Fill in the type of information used in your BU and inform how they are obtained:

• BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de Conteúdo. Edições 70. Lisboa, 1977.
• BOGDAN, R. C.; Biklen. S. K. Qualitative Investigation in Education. 1^st Edition Porto: Porto Editora, 1994.
• BOWDITCH, James L., Anthony F. Buono. Elementos de comportamento organizacional. São Paulo: Pioneira, 1999.
• DRUNKER, Peter F. Management: Tasks-responsibilities-Practices. Claremont, California: Harper & Row, 1973.
• FAYOL, Henry. Administração Industrial e Geral. São Paulo: Atlas, 1950.
• IMONIANA, J. O. & Nohara, Jouliana J. Cognition of the Internal Control Structure: An Exploratory Study. XXVIII ENANPAD - Encontro Nacional de Programas de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, 2004, Curitiba-PR.
• LOTMAN, Iurii. Selected Essays: Vol. 1: Essays on Semiotics and the Typology of Culture. Tallinn: Aleksandra, 1992.
• LOTMAN, Iurii. Selected Essays: Vol. 3: Essays on the History of Russian Literature, The Theory and Semiotics of the Other Arts, The Mechanisms of Culture. Tallinn: Aleksandra, 1993.
• TRIVINOS, A. N. S. Introdução à Pesquisa em Ciências Sociais. 1Ş edição. São Paulo: Atlas, 1995.
• TOMASKO, R, . Rethinking: repensando as corporações São Paulo: Makron Books, 1.995.
• TONGREN. John D. Imposed internalcontrol doesn't work in the reengineered environments of today. Internal Auditor, Jun95, Vol. 52 Issue 3, p42, 3p

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  21 Feb 2011
• Date of issue
  2006