Introducing accounting small talk: on genres of accounting talk

The purposes of this paper are to explore accounting talk events and to contribute to the literature by presenting a model of accounting talk genres. As noted by Jørgensen and Messner (2010) and Jordan and Messner (2012), accounting reports do not inherently convey meaning. Therefore, individuals must talk about accounting. In fact, accounting scholars have shown that discussions about accounts are prevalent within organizations and that “accounting, as a subject of conversation, differs from its representation in documents or data analysis” (Baker et al., 2022, p. 1478). The examination of accounting discourse becomes particularly pertinent when considering the ongoing proliferation of accounting practices, often termed “accountingization” (see, e.g. Kraus, 2012).

The volume of accounting reports is expanding, as is the impact of these reports on organizations (Daff and Parker, 2020), thereby reinforcing the notion that accounting serves as the “language of business” (see, e.g. Avery, 1953; Lavoie, 1987; Graham, 2013). While this characterization may be somewhat exaggerated (as discussions within organizations cover a wide array of topics beyond accounting), it aligns with the idea that organizational actors engage in conversations related to performance reports, budgets, and forecasts. In fact, the literature on accounting talk views accounting inscriptions as catalysts for interactions among organizational members (Mahama and Chua, 2016) and demonstrates that reports garner attention (Simons, 1994). Instead of presupposing a link between, for instance, a report and subsequent action, the accounting talk literature explores how actors make sense of both the numerical data and the organization itself through dialogue.

An accounting talk perspective allows us to explore how accounting reports are put into practice. As described by Ahrens and Chapman (2007, p. 9), accounting talk occurs “in offices and workshops, involving configurations of machines and computers, enabling organizational members to negotiate strategies, budgets, and performance targets.” Consequently, this stream of research investigates how the proliferation of accounting practices has affected spoken discourse within organizations. It also directs attention toward the interactions among accounts, accountants, and other actors within the organization (e.g. Ahrens, 1997; Ahrens and Chapman, 2007; Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Jönsson, 1998; Jönsson and Solli, 1993; Daff and Parker, 2020; Stone, 2011).

Studies of accounting talk have primarily examined how managers and communicative accountants engage in discussions about accounting (Ahrens, 1997; Ahrens and Chapman, 2007; Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Daff and Jack, 2018; Daff and Parker, 2020; Goretzki et al., 2013; Hall, 2010; Järvenpää, 2007; Jönsson and Solli, 1993; Jönsson, 1998; Morales and Lambert, 2013; Stone, 2011). However, the accounting talk literature also links accounting to interactions among non-accountants (Baker et al., 2022), and shows that talk about accounting may strengthen identities and relationships among any organizational members. Such research has, for instance, examined how CEOs communicate with investors (Graaf, 2013) and how auditors engage with shareholders (Johed and Catasús, 2018). Thus, extant studies have shown that accounting talk occurs in many instances and with different goals.

Analytically inspired by Baker et al.’s (2022) focus on the “talk” portion of “accounting talk,” we seek to further explore those talk events in which accountants participate. That is, instead of pursuing a study of what talk does to accounting, we are interested in investigating what accounting does to talk. This shift in focus prompted us to seek intellectual support from the field of sociolinguistics (e.g. Coupland, 2014). Empirically, we examine the practices of controllers ^[1] in Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic. In essence, this study can be viewed as a natural experiment, as governmental directives classified many employees, including accountants, as “non-essential,” and required them to work from home during the investigation period. This challenged the status quo in terms of the occurrence and design of talk events. This unique circumstance made a variety of talk events visible and allowed us to study how these professionals discussed accounts. We used this situation to address the following research question: How do controllers engage in accounting talk?

With this empirical endeavor in mind, we aim to enrich the accounting talk literature by nuancing its approach to “talk.” To do so, we adopt a sociolinguistic perspective that considers the social nuances of talk in face-to-face interactions. The sociolinguistic literature explores how talk both influences and is influenced by various societal aspects (Seedhouse, 2013). Some of this research highlights the practice of small talk, a form of communication often seen as devoid of direct task requirements (Coupland, 2014; McCarthy, 2014), and offers a more nuanced view of talk events. This perspective on talk challenges the traditional focus of the accounting talk literature, which primarily emphasizes variations in sensemaking of accounts.

Our main contribution to the accounting talk literature (e.g. Baker et al., 2022; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016; Kraus and Strömsten, 2016; Tekathen and Dechow, 2020) is a conceptual model of accounting talk genres. This model suggests that accountants are involved in a variety of talk events varying from talk that helps strengthen social bonds (phatic talk) to formal reporting (accounting monologue) in which unidirectional talk and non-personal expertise are expected. Our conceptual model also includes the events that have garnered the most interest in the extant literature – talk events in which accountants meet with organizational members to discuss the ways in which accounting representations can be meaningful for the organization. Accounting talk is a genre of talk in which a meeting is organized, an agenda is set, and an accounting inscription is talked about and has an explicit purpose. We add “accounting small talk” to these three genres (i.e. phatic talk, accounting monologue, and accounting talk).

By introducing the genre of accounting small talk, we emphasize that discussions related to accounting occur beyond formal settings in organizations. Accounting small talk is characterized by spontaneous, risk-free, and personal dialogue about accounting matters. Unlike structured accounting discussions, accounting small talk does not require formal frameworks or agendas, and it facilitates reflective conversations. It typically involves organizational members who already share a social relationship and imbues those exchanges with a personal touch. By categorizing accounting small talk as a distinct genre of accounting discourse, we invite exploration of how accounting is engaged informally outside structured events. This conceptualization of accounting small talk represents our second contribution.

Our third contribution relates to the common distinction between “bean counters” and business controllers (Baldvinsdottir et al., 2009; Goretzki and Messner, 2019; Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Holmgren Caicedo et al., 2017). We show that all accountants engage in accounting small talk. More specifically, all accountants engage in accounting discussions in various contexts beyond dedicated accounting talk events. Accounting small talk is beneficial for bean counters involved in data input, as it can enhance both efficiency (by facilitating the acquisition of accurate accounts) and quality (by aligning the numbers with more realistic forecasts). In this respect, our study also enhances the accounting talk literature by providing a deeper understanding of how the balance between producing and communicating accounting information unfolds.

The accounting talk literature can be situated within the broader context of accounting communication literature (Jack et al., 2013). Broadly, “accounting communication” encompasses the transactional exchange of information, knowledge, and ideas along with the ways in which individuals establish, maintain, and reshape relationships within their social environments (Baker et al., 2022; Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2017). Here, accounting serves as a medium for conveying (financial) information between various groups (Avery, 1953; Belkaoui, 1978; Graham, 2013; Lavoie, 1987). However, effectively communicating accounting information can be difficult. In practice, organizations often employ visual aids and graphical representations to make financial information more accessible or to emphasize specific points (Jack et al., 2013). Nonetheless, as underscored by Jack et al. (2013), accounting communication can also occur through verbal interactions (i.e. accounting talk).

Research indicates that accountants play a central role in accounting talk because they serve as both producers and communicators of accounts (Fauré et al., 2010). According to the literature, accountants face at least two, sometimes conflicting, sets of expectations. First, accountants are expected to contribute to the organization by generating high-quality reports for discussion and action. Accountants focused on the production of accounts are sometimes referred to as bean counters (Byrne and Pierce, 2007; Caglio et al., 2019; Holmgren Caicedo et al., 2017; Järvenpää, 2007; Parker and Warren, 2017; Wolf et al., 2020). Second, accountants are expected to actively participate in managing the organization. In this capacity, they utilize accounting information to influence the organization’s trajectory. This role is often described as that of a “business partner” or “change agent,” as accountants are expected to create value through the analysis and communication of accounts (Baldvinsdottir et al., 2009; Goretzki and Messner, 2019; Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Holmgren Caicedo et al., 2017).

Early research on accounting talk emphasized how managers use verbal discourse to provide an understanding of accounting reports. In an action research study conducted within a municipality, Jönsson and Solli (1993) reported that non-accountants displayed skepticism about participating in accounting talk, as they perceived inscriptions as belonging exclusively to the management team and not integral to the organization’s core activities. The study highlighted the challenges accountants faced in making accounting reports relevant. In another early study, Ahrens (1997, p. 618) found that accounting information became actively involved in business decisions through interactive and dynamic verbal exchanges. In this context, accounting inscriptions were accepted as relevant components of organizational knowledge and were, thus, mobilized in daily work. Accounting talk played a crucial role in operational matters, implicitly suggesting that written reports alone did not suffice as meaningful representations at the operational level (see also, e.g. Ahrens, 1997; Hall, 2010; Jönsson, 1998).

Jönsson (1998) argues that the extent to which accounting information is discussed correlates with whether the accounts align with managerial concerns. In contrast, Hall (2010) posits that numbers are not inherently relevant. Rather, managers can make them pertinent through verbal discussions. Accounting talk thus acts as a resource that managers can use to bridge managerial concerns with numerical data and vice versa and, thereby, address issues such as organizational changes (Abrahamsson et al., 2016), performance (Englund and Gerdin, 2015; Goretzki et al., 2013), budgets (Fauré and Rouleau, 2011), and accountability relationships (Fauré et al., 2010).

Recent studies have explicitly demonstrated how accounting talk is perceived as a means to achieve an accountant’s higher-end ambitions (Baker et al., 2022; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016; Kraus and Strömsten, 2016; Tekathen and Dechow, 2020). Carlsson-Wall et al. (2016) reveal that managers use metaphors during accounting talk to connect abstract inscriptions to interlocutors’ practices, deepening the understanding of practice. Tekathen and Dechow (2020) suggest that accounting talk or, in their case, “risk talk” goes beyond a mere exercise in semantic interpretation (e.g. taking EBIT too literally) and creates opportunities for reflection. In this regard, the role of accounting talk extends beyond making sense of accounts – it also serves to enhance the understanding of practice.

As emphasized by Drujon d’Astros and Morales (2023) and Drujon d’Astros et al. (2024), a focus on silences is also meaningful when examining talk events. In their study of how accounting as a daily organizational practice produces silence in a 400-year-old French credit institution, Drujon d’Astros et al. (2024) find that accounting limits talk because some issues become unspeakable, unsaid, and inaudible. This highlights the fact that accounting hides some issues, some issues cannot be discussed because doing so might affect the legitimacy of the organization, and some issues may be talked about that others do not want to hear. By emphasizing silences, Drujon d’Astros et al. (2024) make a key point – we can study what accounting does to talk and not only what talk does to accounting.

Given that accounting talk is confined to interactions among individuals, some authors have stressed the social dimensions of meetings involving accounting talk. For example, Kraus and Strömsten (2016) analyze the role of power in shaping intra- or inter-firm dynamics, by doing that they illustrate how accounting talk influences control dynamics and the mobilization of power. Baker et al. (2022) propose that accounting talk enables the reshaping of social relationships and responsibilities. They offer an analysis of conversations involving accounting within the workplace, thereby uncovering the social dynamics at play during accounting talk. They also reveal that when accounts are constructed through dialogues, the relationships among participants are redefined. Through a detailed examination of these conversations, their study underscores the conversation itself as a fundamental unit of analysis within the accounting talk literature.

In summary, the accounting talk literature (Daff and Parker, 2020; Jönsson, 1998; Jönsson and Solli, 1993; Stone, 2011) underscores the importance of discussions not only in managerial work (Hall, 2010) but also for accountants actively contributing to that work (Fauré et al., 2010). This literature has primarily explored how talk affects the role of accounting (Daff and Parker, 2020; Jönsson, 1998; Jönsson and Solli, 1993; Stone, 2011), and how accounting can promote a particular focus of talk (Kraus et al., 2017). One issue that remains underexplored is how accounting is mobilized in different talk events.

In line with Czarniawska-Joerges and Joerges (1988), we consider organizational talk crucial for linking organizational symbols (e.g. accounting) to reality. These authors define talk as “social action, in the sense that it is composed of intentional acts taking place between actors within a given social order” (Czarniawska-Joerges and Joerges, 1988, p. 173). However, organizational talk is not just “decision-useful” – it also establishes personal bonds (Coupland, 2014, p. 70). Thus, talk both amalgamates and mobilizes organizational members.

Conversation analysts highlight this dualism: talk can be task-directed and instrumental (aiming to change the world) or person-directed and interactional (aiming to change participant relationships). This analytical distinction is nuanced, with labels like “transactional” versus “interactional” talk (Mirivel and Tracy, 2005), “big” versus “small” talk (Macdonald, 2016), and “institutional” versus regular talk (Benwell and McCreaddie, 2016). For this paper, we merge Mirivel and Tracy’s (2005) and Macdonald’s (2016) concepts and distinguish between small talk (for relationship building) and transactional talk (for maintaining or changing practices).

Holmes (2000) suggests small talk includes both phatic (trivial but socially bonding) and social (personal and relational) small talk. Phatic small talk can involve trivial communication, like greetings, talk about the weather or supportive sounds (e.g. “mm,” “yes”), and helps build relationships and a sense of belonging. Social small talk involves personal conversations that may indirectly affect organizational performance by strengthening social bonds.

Holmes (2000) further divides transactional talk into work-related and core business talk. Work-related talk, which is agenda-driven but open to relational aspects, is typical in project meetings where dialogue about organizational matters is encouraged. In contrast, core business talk, which is found in, for instance, shareholder meetings or CEO speeches, is highly consequential, focused on organizational issues, informative, relevant, context bound, and often prepared in advance.

Research shows that conversational genres often overlap in organizational settings. McCarthy (2003) identifies blends of transactional and relational talk and suggests that social and core business conversations exist on a continuum and can intersect. Recognition of these genres enhances our understanding of organizational talk.

The literature on small talk serves as a starting point for a model of accounting talk genres. In line with Holmes (2000, 2019), we acknowledge the value of considering conversations along a continuum and recognize that organizational dialogues simultaneously serve multiple functions (McCarthy, 2003). However, a conceptual model of accounting talk must acknowledge that, in contrast to Holmes’s model (2000), conversations evolve around an inscription and are (often) led by professionals; accounting talk events are characterized by controllers discussing accounting matters. Thus, the conceptual model for genres of accounting talk must consider both the specific actors responsible for communicating as well as a particular artifact. Like Holmes (2000), we propose two forms of talk (interactional and transactional) and four genres of accounting talk (phatic small talk, accounting small talk, accounting talk, and accounting monologue).

Phatic small talk is influenced by professional role expectations (Holmes, 2005). For controllers, phatic small talk addresses the social demands placed on them (Lepistö and Ihantola, 2018), and establishes contact and maintains a sense of social belonging to the organization, unit, or group. Thus, although phatic talk is not unique to controllers, it may be more crucial for them because they may be expected to be boring (Jeacle, 2008) or gloomy. Although not personal, phatic talk influences how professionals transition to other genres of talk (Coupland, 2003). Baker et al. (2022) illustrate that workplace conversations abound with phatic talk, such as greetings and laughter, indicating how individuals position themselves relative to each other. Refusal to engage in phatic small talk can result in social distance and diminished report influence (Coupland, 2003), even though it is relational, ritualistic, and generally disagreement free.

Akin to Holmes’s (2005) social small talk, accounting small talk emerges from social relationships, and encompasses both personal and accounting-related discussions. Examples include discussing KPIs, vacation plans, or IT-system complaints over coffee, which highlight its relational nature and fluid topic transitions. Accounting small talk has no agenda, occurs spontaneously, and is often found in informal settings. Drawing on Holmes (2005), we highlight that accounting small talk also involves talk about both mundane and matters of personal interest. Unconstrained by traditional meeting structures, specific business issues, or organizational action, it allows for questions or suggestions without an expectation of reciprocity. As a result, accounting small talk helps make accounting relatable on a personal level.

In order to align to earlier research, we have kept the label accounting talk as a form of transactional talk initiated to convey information, often with the intent of influencing action (see, e.g. Swieringa and Weick, 1983). Accounting talk situations are frequently structured, such as formal meetings that may include Q&A sessions or discussions of performance metrics (Ahrens, 1997). A notable distinction between accounting talk and accounting small talk is that the former is planned and organized to achieve a particular end. Accounting talk aims to establish common ground or facilitate sense-making of an account. These aims can be achieved through certain actions, such as explicitly stating that the numbers are incomplete (Jordan and Messner, 2012) or using metaphors to explain them (Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016). Typically, the controller assumes a specific role as a sounding board, teacher, strategist, or contributor to the discussion. In essence, the extant literature expects a business partner to be heavily invested in accounting talk events.

We label the endpoint of our conceptual model accounting monologue. This conceptualization differs from Holmes’s (2005) model, which primarily focuses on conversation analysis. However, controllers are sometimes required to orally present written reports (Gray, 2010; see also Johed and Catasús, 2018). In this context, the controller presents a selection of inscriptions, and this presentation is expected to take the form of a professional monologue with accurate, on-topic, relevant numbers. In an organizational setting, not everyone is allowed to engage in accounting monologue because the presenter is expected to have a particular status. Unlike other accounting talk genres, this type of information transfer is not relational in the sense of opening up a dialogue. Instead, an accounting monologue focuses on the expert’s description of the state of affairs. In this regard, an accounting monologue is one-sided, and relationships are inconsequential because the audience is expected to be both knowledgeable and inclined to accept the account, which, in turn, should influence decisions and actions. Table 1 below provides a summary of our definitions for our model of accounting talk genres.

To address our empirical research question, we studied controllers who worked from home due to pandemic-related restrictions. The sudden shift from the office to home workplaces meant that many regular routines were no longer applicable. Telecommuting, which involves working from a location other than the company’s office with the aid of technology, was not a new phenomenon. However, according to previous organizational studies, it had not had a significant impact due to social and cultural traditions within organizations (Orlikowski and Barley, 2001). The pandemic not only compelled companies and their employees to adapt their behaviors but also made telecommuting a substitute for office work.

Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences provided a natural experiment. The implemented restrictions created a situation in which we, as researchers, had no control over the surrounding circumstances (Leatherdale, 2019; Morgan, 2013; Petticrew et al., 2005). This offered a rich research context that would have been challenging to construct artificially (Morgan, 2013). Consequently, this situation presented an opportunity to utilize an exploratory approach to analyze the preparation and communication of numbers while working from home and not interacting with others (Azungah, 2018; Doz, 2011).

We primarily collected empirical data through semi-structured interviews. In contrast to traditional conversation analyses (see, e.g. Baker et al., 2022), our empirical material revolves around how individuals “talk about talk.” Given the unique situation (i.e. working from home during the pandemic), data collection was relatively straightforward, and the controllers were willing to provide rich, detailed reflections and accounts of their situations. We approached 13 accountants in early December 2020 and reached out to another 14 in January 2021, initiating contact via email.

In total, we conducted 20 interviews (11 women and 9 men) between December 14, 2020, and March 4, 2021 (see  Appendix 1 for an overview of the interviewees). Of those interviewed, 15 were controllers, and 5 were chief financial officers (CFOs). Due to the size or structure of their organizations, CFOs’ responsibilities included tasks typically assigned to controllers. The interviews ranged in duration from about 20 to 59 minutes, with an average of approximately 40 minutes. All interviewees granted us permission to audio-record the interviews, which were later transcribed by one of the researchers and pseudonymized. All interviews were conducted in Swedish.

The interviewees represented organizations across various sectors, including housing, transportation, trade unions, manufacturing, employer organizations, medical research and development, banking, construction, healthcare, and various public authorities. The selection of organizations was relatively evenly distributed between the public and private sectors, with a few organizations operating in the non-profit sector. In terms of size, the organizations ranged from around 15 to approximately 24,000 employees. The diverse backgrounds of the interviewees ensured a heterogeneous participant group, which was beneficial in light of the study’s focus, and enhanced the possibility of capturing various aspects and establishing a more nuanced picture. Given the circumstances, we conducted the interviews via Zoom, aiming for a conversational style.

Based on an initial review of the extant accounting talk literature, the questions were categorized into themes reflecting the accountants’ work processes related to the collection, analysis, and distribution of accounting information (see  Appendix 2 for the interview guide). This allowed us to gain insights into how these processes operated and the various purposes communication could serve. For instance, we were interested in the materials accountants required, interviewees’ interactions during the collection and analysis phases, and how interviewees perceived communication before and during the pandemic. While the interview guide ensured that all interviews followed the same thematic approach (Bryman and Bell, 2015; Qu and Dumay, 2011), the semi-structured format provided flexibility in the order of the questions and allowed us to ask probing questions to encourage interviewees to elaborate on their experiences and thoughts.

Our second data source was a two-hour workshop on accounting communication hosted by one of the researchers and involving 20 controllers. After analyzing the interview results, we presented our initial empirical findings as well as a simplified version of our conceptual model during the workshop. The study resonated with the controllers, as evidenced by the extensive discussion of their experiences with working remotely. The workshop data proved to be not only engaging for the participants but also valuable for us, as it added nuances and illustrations of how controllers use small talk in organizations.

We simultaneously conducted data analysis, data collection, and theory development in an abductive process (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006; Lukka and Modell, 2010). We did not use a formal coding program; instead, we followed a fluid process for making sense of the data (Irvine and Gaffikin, 2006). This approach took advantage of the fact that the pandemic provided an opportunity to analyze the preparation and communication of numbers within organizations in the absence of face-to-face communication. In this regard, we propose that problems in face-to-face communication in accounting can be detected when studying the absence of such communication, as the latter situation enables organizational actors to reflect on what used to be. Our approach to our study also affected the ways in which we analyzed the material.

As a first step, we used general coding focused on the collection, analysis, and distribution of accounting information. It became clear that the empirical issue was the extent to which the controllers missed the small talk that had been part of their everyday work practices. The key statement that made us return to the empirics came from an interview undertaken late in the study. A controller (interview #18) working for a public authority said:

Inspired by Swedish terminology, we tried to analyze our data using the dichotomy of “cold talk” versus “hot talk.” This allowed us to emphasize the degrees in the continuum and to develop a concept like “warm talk,” thereby linking our work to McCarthy (2014). However, we found that “hot talk” could lead to problematic associations in English. Furthermore, one feature of accounting talk is that the inscriptions are (part of) the unit of analysis, which led us to reconfigure core business talk as monologue accounting talk because this type of talk builds on the artifact and is an oral version of the inscription. In the end, we developed the conceptual model presented in Table 1 by combining concepts from the small-talk literature with ideas presented in the literature on accounting communication.

In general, the respondents in our study reported that the digital environment made their communication activities more structured, regardless of whether those activities involved small or transactional talk. This aspect was discussed extensively during the workshop. For instance, one controller commented that the meetings had become “a little stiffer, and the social codes have changed. The group dynamics are also very different when you’re working from home” (state agency, workshop). Another controller stated, “[Previously], some people would dominate the meetings … but that is not allowed now, especially because we try to maintain a structured approach using methods like raising hands. You have the time you need. It is actually an advantage” (public authority, workshop).

In addition, as all meeting participants were displayed in small squares on a computer screen, some challenges associated with face-to-face meetings disappeared. One controller, who did not work at the head office, had a positive view of virtual meetings because “usually, I am always at a disadvantage. … The physical location matters more than I realized. Typically, I feel like a guest at the head office” (state agency, workshop). Face-to-face meetings in an office involve certain social dynamics that can enhance the influence of some individuals in making sense of the accounts (Ahrens, 1997). Some controllers found that the digital arena helped them communicate with other members of the organization.

Others had a different experience. Due to the transition to remote work, the controllers had fewer opportunities for talk. For some controllers, this was a minor change, as their role primarily focused on the production of accounts (“the bean-counter role”) rather than transactional talk related to accounts (“the business-controller role”). In such cases, reports were mainly transmitted through IT systems and distributed throughout the organization. One controller said:

The above quote suggests that being off-site did not have any major effect on the ways the controllers communicate with the organization. For others, however, working from home affected communication. Against this backdrop, we present how controllers communicate when they work from home and analyze these empirical finding by applying the conceptual model of genres of accounting talk (Table 1).

Small talk serves multiple purposes in accounting communication. By engaging in small talk, controllers re-establish themselves in the organization (Goffman, 1959; Baxter et al., 2022) and create a comfortable proximity with other organizational members (Sundström and Catasús, 2022). Although small talk is social (i.e. with little or no organizational context), it provides controllers with clues about what the organization deems important. These clues can be valuable for figuring out “what to analyze” (controller, interview #19, public authority). However, the move to a digital space changed the nature of small talk, which had implications for accounting communication.

Phatic small talk plays a crucial role in lubricating the social machinery of organizations (Holmes, 2000), and is the way in which the controllers engage in a sense of shared identity or commonality. Phatic small talk is not particular to the controllers, but rather a means by which any organizational actors (including controllers) talk to others about issues that are neither personal nor directly relevant for organizational performance. Phatic small talk can include, for instance, conversations about the weather, the taste of the coffee, or traffic problems. As social linguists suggest, phatic small talk is key to getting a conversation going.

The lack of phatic small talk when working remotely was noted by the controllers:

This quote indicates that phatic talk is needed to enter into more on-topic talk. If phatic small talk does not occur, the rest of the talk event may be a failure. This corroborates one of the main contributions made by small-talk literature, as it emphasizes that social events, such as talk events, depend on the possibility to engage in phatic small talk. In fact, phatic small talk may be obligatory if the ambition is to engage in conversations and discussions about work-related topics.

In another interview (#17), a controller expressed frustration about being unable to have the camera on during meetings due to limited internet bandwidth. Without visual cues and the associated verbalizations of “mm-hmm” or “yes,” controllers found it difficult to “read and hear the room.” Thus, an absence of phatic talk seems to interfere with the other genres of accounting talk. This, in turn, has consequences for the controller’s work:

The absence of small utterances or facial expressions made communication more challenging and hindered the controllers’ abilities to adapt their communication strategies to fit their communication partners (Daff and Parker, 2021). As highlighted by other controllers, the ability to hear and read reactions and moods is crucial for determining whether a talk event is meaningful.

The importance of phatic talk is most obvious when it is missing. The absence of phatic talk made it harder for controllers to enter into on-topic talks. While phatic small talk is free from an organizational-performance context, it is necessary if controllers are to effectively conduct their work, as phatic talk establishes contact with others. The controllers were frustrated with the effects of working from home because phatic talk was either carried out as yet another performance (“going around the table”) or without the possibility to get acknowledgment (e.g. “hmm” and “yes”) because the microphones were muted. In other words, the controllers lost some of the potential to ease the path towards accounting small talk.

Accounting small talk goes beyond the non-commiting conversations in phatic talk and is characterized by more fluid and personal conversations. Accoounting small talk is also characterized by the presence of a (present or imagined)inscription. Thus, it is an unstructured conversation in which there is a place for discussing personal matters as well as, for instance, the organization’s goals, performance, plans, and forecasts. The interviews made it clear that accounting small talk is both relational and spontaneous. A controller at the workshop discussed this duality:

Accounting small talk was the accounting talk genre that the controllers missed the most when working from home. Although some controllers indicated that working remotely improved their work-life balance, they also felt restricted in their ability to contribute to the organization, as “coffee-machine conversations” and spontaneous meetings in the corridor were lacking. This hindered their understanding of who to talk to and what was behind the numbers. Accounting small talk offers the potential to gain insights into the story behind the numbers, as a CFO explained:

Opportunities to casually talk to people create possibilities for controllers to make the numbers actionable. The controllers also emphasized that although the reporting infrastructure was clear (i.e. what should be reported, who should get the reports and when), it was sometimes beneficial to talk to people outside the reporting hierarchy. As one controller (interview #2, transportation) argued, even if a manager is formally responsible for a specific area, the controller may know that it would be better to approach another organizational member regarding certain issues. Although the controllers did not say that this contextual competence was totally lost while working remotely, it shows that accounting small talk is valued by the controllers because it helps them put the accounts into context.

One effect of accounting small talk is that it can enhance the quality of a report. For example, a controller from the transportation industry (interview #2) explained that, during a visit to the head office, they had an informal conversation with an IT colleague at a coffee table, during which they learned about various things that could affect the financial forecast. Another controller expressed it in a similar way:

As the quote shows, the controller was aware that accounting small talk includes both off-topic social talk (“ordinary things”) and on-topic issues (“recruiting problems”). Without such talk, the controllers may miss insights into the activities hidden by the numbers (Drujon d’Astros et al., 2024). This issue is often neglected in the accounting literature, where the production of accounts is described as an activity that is carried out in solitude and is affected primarily by the system’s design. Accounting small talk makes it possible for a controller to move from “problems with recruiting” to “be better prepared to produce forecasts”. One controller (interview #3, transportation) summarized the effect of controllers not being in the office by stating, “it leads to a loss of information that is without comparison.” Another controller reflected on the benefits of on-site office work, saying:

This quote highlights the fact that accounting small talk is essential for the production, analysis, and communication of accounts. It allows for unexpected analyses to “pop up,” but controllers working remotely faced barriers in contacting their colleagues and seeking the information they needed. As a result, they found it more time-consuming to seek out information. Short on-site encounters facilitated moving from phatic small talk to accounting small talk without a clear agenda, which made questions (and answers) less dramatic. The mutual nature of such short encounters allowed for the exchange of information about, for instance, performance or budgets as well as the enhancement of the reports’ quality. These effects were recognized by top management. In fact, many organizations organized virtual coffee rooms and offered opportunities to chat informally. A controller said:

In the Swedish workplace, management typically does not organize a fika, as it is generally a spontaneous event, or is organized by one or a few individuals who want to engage in small talk. Therefore, fikas are considered optional rather than mandatory. The digital fikas and chat forums were not successful during the pandemic, and controllers were skeptical about the value of these organized encounters. As one controller stated:

Typically, accounting small talk is directed towards one or a few colleagues, and the topics discussed are not intended for all ears. However, accounting small talk also has an element of serendipity – it may involve people with whom the controller does not usually speak. This can make digital meetings problematic, as discussions often “go around the table.” Accounting small talk is more about discussing issues that come to mind and trying out solutions. In fact, some controllers indicated that accounting small talk acts as a preamble to accounting talk and serves as a way to test ideas:

The foundations of accounting small talk lie in social interaction, but it may also involve dialogue related to the collection, analysis, and distribution of accounting numbers. We can conclude that the genre of small talk was missing when working remotely, which frustrated the controllers. Small talk seems to influence not only meetings in which accounts are presented (business-controller role) but also the possibility to ensure the quality of those accounts (bean-counter role) when collecting and analyzing the data.

Transactional talk is a form of organized communication that aims to encourage action through a focus on relevant organizational matters. In the accounting context, transactional talk is initiated through an inscription, with the inscription itself being the primary “matter of concern” and the relational aspect being less emphasized. However, prior research has found that accounting talk involves engaging in dialogue about the numbers, thereby highlighting the importance of the social dimension for understanding how accounting reports are made. To further elaborate on the transactional aspects of accounting talk, our conceptual model (Table 1) suggests that transactional talk can be divided into accounting talk and monologue accounting.

The controllers in our study arguably wanted the numbers to matter for the organization. This was particularly clear in terms of how they prepared for meetings and imagined what would happen when they started talking about the numbers. Although the preparations were ”not the same” when working remotely, the controllers still invested time in developing communication strategies (Daff and Parker, 2020). The head of the controller group at a bank stated:

The head of the bank’s controller group organized meetings to encourage controllers to learn from each other and increase the value of their reports. Another controller (interview #10, employment services) noted that when employees were in the office, spontaneous discussions could arise before a management meeting. In such cases, meeting preparations were supported by relational talk, which characterizes small talk. According to the controller, those meetings involved controllers “bouncing around some ideas” before heading into meetings with the entire management team. Thus, the preparation of accounting talk was either organized, or spontaneous and more social. This illustrates that conversations may move freely between different genres of talk, as predicted by McCarthy (2003). Furthermore, it shows that accounting talk not only occurs between accountants and non-accountants, but also among accountants themselves, highlighting that professionals share an ambition to improve themselves.

In the absence of colleagues, controllers rely on reactions from non-accountants or on “knowing their audience.” Earlier literature has emphasized the latter and shown how controllers adapt the ways in which they present accounting (e.g. Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016; Daff and Parker, 2021). The desire to improve is evident in the following comment made by a public-authority controller (#19):

This self-consciousness is made clear in the interviews. The controllers are aware that what they say might be ignored (or inaudible; see Drujon d’Astros et al. (2024)). To mitigate this, the accountants open up for the importance of phatic talk and the possibility of future accounting small talk:

The controllers view questions as a good start for a dialogue. At the same time, questions may be an indication of poor performance by the controller. One public-agency controller shared that a non-accountant colleague once described the numbers in a report as “flat.” Initially, this confused the controller, as controllers tend to perceive the numbers in a three-dimensional manner. In other words, as experts in their field, controllers can see beyond the numbers because they participate in the report’s production and can connect the numbers to relevant operations, while non-controllers may struggle to make this connection. Consequently, controllers eagerly await reactions from their audience when presenting reports. For controllers, the accounts hold significance and, ideally, their reports should spark intense discussions, with the numbers at the center of the meetings. However, digital meetings do not offer the same level of immediate feedback, making it challenging for controllers to assess the impact of their accounting talk:

The controller’s frustration over not being able to “read the room” and adjust their message accordingly highlights the importance of phatic talk even in the context of accounting talk – while accounting talk focuses on organizational matters, it is also relational. The controllers agreed that a key indicator of the success of accounting talk is whether the audience asks questions. A public-authority controller said, “We prefer that the audience interrupts us when we present our reports. We want them to ask questions because we want a dialogue” (interview #17). Questions not only provide an opportunity to clarify technical details in the report but also indicate that the report has created some audience engagement. Still, accounting talk is not risk free, as indicated by a controller:

Distinct from the more informal accounting small talk, the context of accounting talk events encompasses the anticipation of high-quality dialogue. Specifically, controllers believe that less thoughtful questions might not be well-received. Therefore, they endeavor to articulate financial discussions in a manner that encourages meaningful questions from individuals outside the accounting sphere, with the aim of ensuring engagement without discomfort. Effectively navigating this nuanced communication presents a challenge for the controller.

The concern for the “other”, expressed through the desire to create a context which encourages engagement, is a defining characteristic of controllers and aligns with the extant literature on accounting talk. An understanding of the “other” and the ability to discuss the accounts in a way that makes the numbers relevant are crucial (Abrahamsson et al., 2016; Daff and Parker, 2021), which implies that accounting talk is both a strategic activity and a pedagogical activity. For instance, Daff and Parker (2020) demonstrate that controllers employ various strategies to help other organizational members understand financial numbers, while Fauré and Rouleau (2011) illustrate how controllers make numbers functional through dialogue when attempting to align budget practices with strategic concerns. Another essential characteristic of accounting talk is its relational nature, and its success relies on engaging in dialogue.

Accounting talk events played a crucial role by providing controllers with opportunities to initiate meaningful dialogue with non-controllers. This engagement can then evolve into accounting small talk, an element controllers deem important for making the accounts meaningful:

Accounting talk provides controllers with an opportunity to contextualize the reported numbers and collaborate with others with the aim of transforming two-dimensional data into a three-dimensional figure that holds significance. According to one controller (interview #2, transportation), these professional discussions can pave the way for more informal conversations, such as accounting small talk, between controllers and non-controllers. Management aims to facilitate this transition from transactional talk to small talk. In one organization we studied, management had attempted to organize small-talk sessions both before and after meetings:

However, accounting small talk is hard to organize. The human-resources controller in the quote above deemed the “check-ins” successful and described them as phatic small talk. In contrast, the “check-outs” were not successful:

This is intriguing from a sociolinguistic perspective (Holmes, 2000) because phatic small talk often serves as an interlude between different genres of talk. For controllers and other professionals, phatic small talk needs to strike a balance between the relational and professional aspects of conversation. However, for management, a paradox arises. They recognize the importance of accounting small talk for enhancing report quality, influencing report analyses, facilitating the development of new reports, and improving the integration of reports into practice, but they struggle to effectively organize accounting small talk events.

Accounting monologue primarily focuses on information transfers in which written text is presented orally and placed within an organizational context, keeping it highly relevant. Consequently, the relational aspect takes a backseat, creating a situation in which the sender conveys information about the past, present, or future using minimal dialogue. The controllers noted that dialogue decreased when working remotely. Notably, some controllers argued that the absence of follow-up questions could be seen as a positive sign, suggesting that “no news is good news.” From this perspective, the effectiveness of discussing accounting would, paradoxically, be reflected in silence (Drujon d’Astros et al., 2024). Nevertheless, many controllers found this lack of dialogue frustrating.

The challenge for these controllers was to find a balance. They needed to demonstrate and leverage their expertise, while acknowledging and responding to the fact that their reports could be difficult for many organizational actors to understand. In other words, the controllers' professionalism and the associated accounting jargon could hinder the understanding of non-specialists. One controller reflected on this:

This controller pointed out that although an accounting monologue is on-topic, relevant, focused, packed with information (Holmes, 2000), and tailored to a top-management audience, it may hinder comprehension of the accounts. The CFO’s frustration stems from the belief that an accounting monologue on its own falls short. One consequence of an increased emphasis on monologue communication is that it tends to perpetuate more monologues, as controllers become uncertain about whether they are contributing effectively to the organization. One controller expressed this by stating that people often “hide” behind the screen and that they had observed a decline in the quality of questions asked during meetings. The controller remarked, “you do not know if you are connecting [to their practice] at all,” echoing Waters (1979) in questioning whether there is any meaningful engagement from the audience. This aligns with the central argument in the accounting talk literature, which emphasizes the importance of discussing accounting to make it relevant (Ahrens, 1997; Jönsson, 1998).

While accounting monologue does not typically lead to dialogue, some controllers discovered that monologues could stimulate written communication in the digital realm. One controller even noted that working from home had resulted in a surge of questions from non-specialists:

Could a digital environment offer opportunities for interaction through written communication rather than through traditional accounting discussions? The heightened demand for documentation from controllers might appear to suggest that they were not providing the necessary information. However, the controllers perceived this as an opportunity to enhance the quality of their reports. They were acutely aware of the challenges posed by the pandemic and recognized the importance of providing more comprehensive information to assist their audience. One controller summarized the effects of being unable to engage in accounting talk and accounting small talk:

While other scholars have suggested that organizational talk in general (Cooren, 2004) and accounting talk in particular (Baker et al., 2022) simultaneously generate and sustain their organizations through conversations, this finding suggests that silence has a similar impact (see Drujon d’Astros et al., 2024).

This paper contributes to the extant literature on accounting talk by asking what accounting does to talk and thereby providing new perspectives on the relationship between “accounting” and “talk.” Empirically, the paper is grounded in interviews and discussions with controllers regarding the evolution of their work when working from home. Specifically, we analyzed controllers’ accounts of how they engaged (or did not engage) in discussions related to accounting matters while working from home. Our empirical dataset allowed us to uncover aspects of the controllers’ practices that were previously overlooked. We initially conducted a review of the extant literature on accounting talk as well as the sociolinguistic literature on small talk. Subsequently, we developed a conceptual model of accounting talk genres (Table 1). In this section, we present and discuss three key findings that contribute to the accounting talk literature (Baker et al., 2022; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016; Drujon d’Astros et al., 2024; Kraus and Strömsten, 2016; Tekathen and Dechow, 2020). In addition, we contribute to the discussion about bean counters versus business controllers (Baldvinsdottir et al., 2009; Goretzki and Messner, 2019; Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Holmgren Caicedo et al., 2017).

The core argument in the extant accounting talk literature revolves around a critique of the notion that accounts alone suffice as control instruments. It emphasizes that actors within organizations engage in communication (Czarniawska-Joerges and Joerges, 1988) and that reports require discussion if they are to serve as effective control instruments (Baker et al., 2022; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016; Kraus and Strömsten, 2016; Tekathen and Dechow, 2020). Our study reinforces this argument and underscores the importance of accounting talk, supporting the conclusion that “talk is important for ‘doing business’” (Baker et al., 2022, p. 1465). Our study corroborates earlier studies highlighting several functions of accounting talk, such as sensemaking (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007), metaphors (Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016), and positioning (Baker et al., 2022; Daff and Parker, 2020; Jönsson, 1998; Jönsson and Solli, 1993; Stone, 2011). However, we also found that accounting is part of other talk events. To better understand the “talk” part of accounting talk, we must consider how accounting talk occurs in different talk events. To do so, we developed and tested a conceptual model of accounting talk based on the literature on small talk in sociolinguistics and, in particular, on Holmes's (2000) model of organizational talk.

The conceptual model on genres of accounting talk (Table 1) highlights that controllers are involved in both transactional and interactional talk. Transactional talk occurs in organized talk events that have an explicit (or implicit) ambition to further an organizational agenda. In an accounting setting, transactional talk can be recognized by the presence of an accounting inscription. The extant accountant talk literature has explored and theorized situations in which organizational members convene to discuss accounting matters, thereby attributing significance to accountants and accounting. These talk events can be classified as transactional talk, wherein the account and the accountant are focal points essential for the discussion.

The conceptual model also points to another type of transactional talk event in which the accountant is responsible for disseminating accounts: accounting monologue. In this talk event, the controllers convey accounting information expected to be useful for decision-making. Accounting monologue requires preparation and, intriguingly, questions related to the presentations are perceived as failures, as it is assumed that such questions should have been addressed by the monologue (see, e.g. Johed and Catasús, 2018; Graaf, 2013). Therefore, accounting monologues are typically meticulously prepared.

In contrast to transactional talk, interactional talk events are characterized by a relational nature. In addition, they involve off-topic discussions, lack inscriptions, and have no immediate expectations of action. Such talk, which is often labeled “small talk” in the sociolinguistic literature, helps to strengthen social relationships (Goffman, 1959, 1967). Thus, corroborating and expanding the study by Baker et al. (2022), we show how controllers are involved in relation building. Interactional talk encompasses informal conversations in which people exchange greetings, discuss their projects, chat about budget matters, and discuss problems of recruiting. In other words, interactional talk events occur in different places, and may or may not allude directly to organizational matters.

Although the accounting talk literature mainly revolves around studies of transactional talk, talk events are understood as having a social dimension. As Fauré et al. (2010) and others show, such events start with an inscription and bring in the social in order to make sense of the numbers (Baker et al., 2022). However, the conceptual model offers the potential to nuance and analyze the ways in which this small talk occurs. Phatic small talk is not particular to controllers but, as sociolinguists point out, it is key to understanding the rest of the discourse. Phatic talk is often minimized as unimportant or even meaningless (Coupland, 2014), as it does not contain any particular on-topic content. However, phatic small talk is key to establishing relationships between controllers and other actors. Therefore, it is an integral part of controllers’ activities, and these short encounters in the office affected the ways in which they are accepted as organizational members that was both an expert and a colleague (Ahrne, 1994).

The conceptual framework also introduces accounting small talk. This genre of accounting talk is characterized as interactional but, in contrast to phatic talk, it is filled with content that may be either personal or on-topic for the organization. Accounting small talk is defined as informal conversations regarding personal and accounting matters that people typically have in corridors, colleagues’ offices, by the coffee machine, or even outside the office. These discussions do not necessitate the presence of a report, but can be about, for instance, performance or plans without an inscription at hand. These conversations have certain functions in terms of supporting the controller in, for instance, contextualizing the numbers, trying new ways of making sense of a report, or improving the quality of reports.

Although our conceptual model presents four different types of talk events, they may occur at the same time. For instance, monologue accounting events often start with phatic small talk, and are prepared on the basis of both accounting small talk and accounting talk. Our conceptual model points to new research avenues, as talking is what many of us do at work. In particular, we stress the importance of interactional talk in general and accounting small talk in particular. Although small talk may be viewed as empty and meaningless, our study shows that it is vital. This is particularly true for accounting small talk.

Our primary contribution to the accounting talk literature lies in our introduction of the concept of accounting small talk. While the literature covers accounting talk situations and acknowledges the existence of accounting monologues (Johed and Catasús, 2018) as well as the relevance of phatic small talk for all organizational actors (Baker et al., 2022), a focus on accounting small talk is a novelty in the accounting literature. In line with Holmes’s (2005) argument that small talk is often underestimated, we speculate that one reason for the extant literature’s neglect of this area may be the perception that small talk is not viewed as “real work.” We assert that accounting small talk is a valuable, if not an essential, component of controllers’ work.

As accounting small talk is relational in a more personal sense, it aligns with the argument that organizations encompass more than just contractual agreements – they are, in many ways, webs of social relationships with shifting roles (Baker et al., 2022). In this context, conversations within the workplace extend beyond “shop talk.” Consequently, we can expect organizational actors to discuss personal and relational matters in conversations that also cover accounting topics. This suggests that controllers can seamlessly transition from on-topic discussions to personal matters and vice versa. In fact, this genre of talk is unique because it blends aspects of being on-topic, contextual, and relational without expecting a specific response. This highlights a key distinction between accounting small talk and other forms of talk – namely, the former’s highly relational nature, where even on-topic issues become intertwined with personal connections.

Consequently, accounting small talk has an intimate character. As our study shows, when communication is digital, the discourse changes and it becomes harder to engage in accounting small talk. The difficulty to engage in accounting small talk in the digital sphere also suggests that accounting small talk is a form of safe conversation between colleagues that has the potential to create room for reflection on their work. We suggest that accounting small talk is important because it involves less risk than, for instance, accounting talk or accounting monologue, as there is no expectation of a particular performance or outcome. Another potentially significant finding is that accounting small talk may not only promote a relational aspect in association with reporting, but also simultaneously create opportunities for experimentation and non-committal reflections on matters of accounting. According to the controllers in our study, accounting small talk serves as a resource when speaking to other professionals, regardless of whether they are controllers.

The extant literature (e.g. Ahrens, 1997; Baker et al., 2022; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016; Englund and Gerdin, 2015; Fauré et al., 2010; Fauré and Rouleau, 2011; Jönsson, 1998; Kraus and Strömsten, 2016; Tekathen and Dechow, 2020) has predominantly focused on situations in which accountants and managers engage in on-topic conversations about numerical data. This is logical as, when studying accounting talk, one should observe events centered around accounting discussions. However, this empirical approach, which often involves participating in meetings related to accounting reports (e.g. Carlsson-Wall et al., 2016) or conducting in-depth conversation analyses of accountant interactions (e.g. Baker et al., 2022), could limit our understanding of how communication and accounting intertwine in organizations. This is especially relevant for contexts not explicitly labeled “accounting talk events.” We found that controllers engage in accounting discussions in various contexts beyond dedicated accounting talk events. In particular, we found that controllers who do not participate in accounting talk events (bean counters) also rely on talk to carry out their jobs.

The literature on bean counters and business controllers (Baldvinsdottir et al., 2009; Goretzki and Messner, 2019; Granlund and Lukka, 1997; Holmgren Caicedo et al., 2017) clearly distinguishes between controllers who produce reports, and those who interact with managers and the rest of the organization. However, our study shows that all controllers were concerned about the absence of accounting discourse while working from home, regardless of whether they were primarily involved in data collection and input, or in communicating financial accounts. This highlights another issue related to the two stereotypes depicted in the literature on controllers. In one stereotype, controllers involved in the analysis and communication of financial data are expected to be sociable (Caglio et al., 2019), central figures, or even responsible for accounting talk events. The other stereotype primarily characterizes controllers as diligent but perhaps less engaging figures (Caglio et al., 2019) who prioritize numerical accuracy (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). The focus on these tasks as well as the inclination in the accounting literature to study business controllers could downplay the involvement of bean counters in various forms of accounting talk. In fact, our study reveals that both types of controllers engage in discourse beyond transactional talk. As our empirical data demonstrates, accounting small talk can be beneficial for controllers involved in data input, as it can enhance both efficiency (by facilitating the acquisition of accurate accounts) and quality (by aligning the numbers with more realistic forecasts).

Our study examined controllers working from home and highlighted that technological advancements enabled them to effectively perform their tasks outside the office. However, it also revealed that physical presence is crucial for certain elements and demonstrated the significance of accounting small talk, which was partly hindered by remote work. The lack of accounting small talk thus emphasizes that controllers’ work benefits from casual interactions like coffee-machine chats or informal, post-meeting discussions.

Our findings indicate that accounting small talk is essential, as it is a space in which accounting can be discussed from a personal point of view without risking to lose face (Goffman, 1967). It bridges formal accounting (e.g. budget presentations) and daily operations. Limited opportunities for such small talk can affect both the controller’s work and the quality of reports. Recognition of the importance of accounting small talk is crucial for practitioners and researchers, which suggests that business education should emphasize the value of talk alongside numbers.

Future research could further explore the implications of accounting small talk in the everyday work with numbers. This paper calls for a detailed discussion of the genres of accounting talk. We acknowledge this paper’s limited empirical reach due to the unique societal situation during the study and we question whether this context significantly influenced our findings. Therefore, we encourage studies in more typical work environments. Overall, this paper aligns with studies of accounting in action, and highlights the value of examining how accounts circulate within organizations and society.

The authors are especially grateful for comments and insights provided at the Musica Research Group’s seminar at Stockholm Business School in December, 2021, a research seminar at Stockholm School of Economics in February, 2022, the Nordic Workshop XXV in Management Accounting in February, 2022, and the European Accounting Conference in Bergen in May, 2022. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for valuable and insightful comments. In addition, we would like to thank Tina Pedersen for language editing. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the respondents who have participated in and aided this research. The paper has benefitted from funding from Handelsbankens Forskningsstiftelser as well as the Digital Business project, which is funded by Equinor. The authors would like to express their thanks for these funds, that were provided on an unconditional basis and without any specifications regarding their use.