El bien común y el interés general son principios componentes de la función social de la propiedad (…)".

We return again to a common issue in any theory about organisational change; that each theory attempts to explain change in terms of only one or a few aspects. As mentioned previously, when we focus on some specific aspect, we ignore what is happening in the surrounding context. This can be illustrated by using the picture in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Changes in the Context

(Source: Vloothuis, 2008)

It is a picture of three people cycling at three different speeds. It exemplifies that if observers focus on one object/aspect at a given moment, they will ignore the impermanence of other aspects; furthermore observers are not able to trace the impermanence in other aspects very clearly. The picture focuses on the person in the middle, and so does not capture the other objects clearly, as they are moving faster or slower than the person in focus. Similarly, if we focus only on one aspect and the change in that aspect is perceived at a slower pace relative to another aspect, we will not be able to perceive a change in the first object with respect to the other. Therefore, concentration on only one aspect will result in loss of information, misunderstanding and misinterpretation. However, if we can incorporate all the aspects of the context together, we can construct a comprehensive sequence of instances of change of the context, with more information that can explain how each instance is linked to another. A

91

change that cannot be explained in one aspect can be explained using another aspect. Therefore, I suggest that we should consider the whole context to explain impermanence in organisations and accounting practices comprehensively.

The empirical material collected regarding the context of the organisation provides evidence of various aspects of impermanence of what has affected the organisation and accounting practices. Further, the perceived change in various other aspects was observed at different point instances and at irregular time intervals. If we limit our explanation of change of an organisation or an accounting practice to only one or a few aspects of the context of the organisation, we will ignore the changes in other variables in the context and their impact over the organisation or accounting practices.

Another analogy is the tower used by Chandawimala Thero (1947), mentioned in Chapter Two. We can construct realities (e.g., an organisation, an accounting practice), assign attributes and try to explain those realities in terms of other selected aspects of the context of the organisation. Similar to the tower example, observers construct a concept called an organisation and explain its attributes in terms of other variables that can be perceived in the context of the organisation. Accordingly, the nature and the attributes of the organisation depend on how an observer perceives the context. Similar to the river example mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, a reality at a given point in time is a construction of an observer. It comprises a series of moments of different aspects of the context, where the observer understands the organisation in terms of what he perceives. Thus, whereas change explained in terms of only one or a few aspects of change will present only a partial explanation, substituting impermanence for change and considering multiple aspects at frequent point instances presents an explanation greater comprehensiveness.

Hence, I found that application of extant organisational change theories are not adequate to explain this complex nature of change, because each theory explains only a part of the change process. If we concentrate on only one aspect of change, we will ignore change in other aspects. Thus, selection of a single or only a few predetermined aspects to study might exclude important turning points in perceiving the impermanence of the organisation and would lead to partial and probably misleading conclusions. Studies on accounting change, rather than confining their scope to a few aspects of the context of the organisation, should instead investigate the context of the organisation as a whole. However, even when we

92

observe change in the context, we will not perceive changes in each aspect in similar point instances owing to limitations in our perceptions.

How three different people perceive impermanence of a single object was illustrated in Figures 7-9. These figures focus on only one moving image, whereas, when looking at what we call organisations, we will perceive impermanence of many objects/aspects in the environment in constructing a reality. Similarly, other individuals construct a reality of what is usually regarded as the same organisation, and assign attributes to the organisation they constructed according to what they perceived in the environment. To explain the complex nature of change, I have attempted to improve the initial explanation about change shown in Figures 7-9 by incorporating many other aspects of change. My attempt is illustrated in Figure 11. It shows an observer’s perception of impermanence in Technology, Employees and Accounting. As shown previously in Figure 5, change is a continuous process of point instances. Points of change in an aspect of the context of the organisation are shown by vertical lines. However, in practice, observers would not be able to perceive this change process fully (i.e., all point instances). If the observer had focused on only one aspect of the context, then she would have perceived only a limited number of changes with lengthy intervals between. Thus, explanations based on only one aspect would result in information gaps. However, by incorporating observations of other aspects of change, she was able to close these information gaps to a certain extent, and offer a relatively comprehensive explanation of the impermanent process and how each instance is linked to others, as shown in the bottom line of the figure, labelled Combined.

If we pay attention to the context as a whole, even if we do not perceive a change in one aspect of the context, a change perceived in another aspect may help to explain change. If we focus on only one aspect and do not perceive all changes in that aspect, then outcomes of the change in the context cannot be explained in terms of the aspect that we are focussing on. In the example shown in Figure 11, if we are concerned only about technological change of the organisation and change in accounting practices, we will not perceive the change in accounting practices due to change in employees, that is at points E1, E2 and E3.

93

Therefore, we cannot explain the change perceived in accounting practices at points A1 and

A2; and it will appear that, even without a change in Technology, accounting practices have

changed twice. The change perceived at A3 may be explained in terms of the change

perceived in Technology, although it may also be a result of changes in employees. The dotted lines show how we can explain change using perceived changes in each aspect.

The bottom line shows the overall perceived change in the context, which is more frequent. Thus, we can explain impermanence more comprehensively as we perceive impermanence in various aspects and in the context. Accordingly, I will explain change in accounting practices as a sequence of instances in various aspects in the context. Change that is seen in this way can explain impermanence in accounting practices more comprehensively.