An old boys’ club on the threshold to becoming a professional association: The emergence and development of the association of German controllers from 1975 to 1989

The congress

The first congress took place on 24 May 1976 at the Steigenberger Airport Hotel in Frankfurt, with the title “Current tasks and the position of the controller in company practice”. The role of the controller and related questions like their tasks, organisation of the department, and responsibilities were the focus of the congress, rather than specific technical questions. All speakers came from corporate practice; in 1979; the first academic speaker made an appearance in 1979. While the attendees were primarily practitioners, an analysis of the attendance list reveals that some professors and doctoral students were also present. In total there were 217 attendees, making it a big event for the young association. The participants came from large corporations and smaller companies alike, with middle to upper management forming the larger part of the audience. Members of the CV received a discount of 70 DM off the normal fee of 235 DM.

The congress was a success for the CV in several dimensions. The congress, with more than 200 attendees, was a good stage from which to introduce the association as an institution to the interested community. Additionally, the congress made a profit of more than 15,000 DM according to the annual accounts of the CV, and had a turnover of more than 46,000 DM. This was a valuable and necessary source of income for the association.

While legally the CV was the sole host, legally, the marketing flyer mentioned both the association and the CA. The CA was clearly the stronger “brand name” at that time and was a well-known institution for controllers. It is not clear whether this was the reason for including the CA on the flyer, whether the CA was to profit from such an event, or whether a mix of motives was responsible for the decision. Certainly, it tied the CV to the CA in the public eye.

The first general meeting

The first general meeting took place on Sunday, 23 May 1976 at the Steigenberger Airport Hotel in Frankfurt. It took place on the day before the congress – an arrangement that is still in place today. Thirty-eight members were present (in comparison with 88 members at the end of 1976). The meeting was preceded by a meeting of the workgroup leaders and the managing committee. A debate took place around the question of whether to keep the subscription to the CM as a part of the membership of the association. The status quo was that the subscription to the magazine was included in the membership fee of 60 DM. However, the subscription fee for the magazine paid by the association, while cheaper than the normal subscription fee, was almost as high as the membership fee. In 1976, income from membership fees was 5,280 DM, and the subscription income from the magazine was 4,590 DM. The only other source of income was the congress, which generated the lion’s share of the income, but was not a secure source. The general meeting produced a unanimous vote (with one abstention) to include the magazine in the association fee. More controversial was the following debate on the level of the membership fee. Since subscription to the magazine was maintained, there was a need to increase the fee; however, the suggestion to increase the fee to 100 DM was rejected by a vote of 21 to 16. The following suggestion to increase the fee to 80 DM was accepted.

Questions related to the activities of the association and its character were discussed as well. One central question affected the acceptance of members in the association and in regional workgroups. The protocol records the answer of the president that the meeting of the workgroup leaders backed the strategy that “the acceptance of new members and a certain rotation is welcome, but that this should be done selectively”. The principle that “full members can only be those whom we got to know through work” was affirmed. Membership applications by letter from people unknown to the association or the CA were thought to be undesirable. The second, and longer, discussion point was the question of whether the association should try to achieve a voice in regulatory processes. While Deyhle supported this in principle and suggested that one of the tasks of the association one day would be the formulation of “generally accepted controlling principles”, he stressed the point that this would be a long way off, and the congress would be an important element in this process.

The Controller Magazin

The first issue of the CM appeared in 1976. This new monthly magazine was the first professional magazine with “Controller” or “Controlling” in the title in Germany. The publisher was the Management Service Verlag, founded by Deyhle a few years earlier. The official publisher was not the association, as planned in the constitution, but the CA. The masthead, however, noted that “CM is an organ of the Controller Verein e. V., München”. This kept the magazine de facto in the hands of Deyhle, but connected it to the association. It is doubtful whether the association would have had the resources, that is, in terms of finances and personnel, to publish a magazine, so this arrangement was not debated and Deyhle’s influence was affirmed.

The way in which the association participated in the magazine was not very formalised. There was no regular column, page, or anything similar through which the association reported. However, in the first pages of every issue, the purpose of the CM was stated as a “collecting point for work results of the Controller Akademie and Controller Verein” (CM, 1976: 2). In addition, the first CM editorial was written by Dietz, then the president of the association – a clear sign of the bond with the association. He introduced the association and connected it to the academy and the magazine:

On this difficult and interesting career path, the Controller Akademie wants to be your partner for the “training”, and the Controller Verein for the “clearing”, which means an exchange of experience between well-respected professionals. Through the Controller Magazin, you will have the possibility to follow us and to participate actively, as well as improving your professional work.

The first issue provided a brief report on a CV event, which was called “Controller’s Erfahrungsaustausch” (“Controller’s Experience Exchange”) in October 1975. This article did not include much general information about the association, and there was no active advertising of it.

The articles that were published within our time period of interest (1976–1989) cover some core topics and more en vogue themes, which were only of interest for a short time, meaning that they were only covered by one or two articles in total. In the first issue, the CA and CV’s understanding of controlling was published in the CM. From their perspective, controlling means:

… calculation and planning and convincing employees to support these activities. [The person] who is executing the controller function has a service task: In [the] sense of accounting’s and corporate planning’s tool shop as well as [in the form of] tool setter for the management where controlling tools are needed. (CM, 1976: 38)

In the sixth CM issue in 1976, the understanding of controlling was picked up again and corroborated:

Controlling, interpreted from a business administration perspective, means the translation of tasks in numbers; or requesting tasks because of the numbers. The structure of numbers defines the feasibility of the tasks and, accordingly, the firm’s ability to survive. […] The controller is offering a service function. He has to be able to offer the instruments [for] navigating […] and a controller has to persuade for the consequences that are based in the numbers. (CM, 1976: 214)

Due to the strong connection between the CM and the CV, that is, the fact that the CM was characterized as a collecting point for the work results of the CA and CV, the abovementioned descriptions reflect the CV’s understanding of controlling to a large extent.

Moreover, from 1976 to 1978 several articles in different issues of the CM focused on the controller role, and gave attention to topics such as whether the controller is a professional or not, how controllers support the executive board, whether controllers are “stressors”, the transition from bean-counter to controller, and a role comparison with the certified management accountant (CMA). During the later 1970s, these topics were supplemented by en vogue themes such as “pricing”, “budgeting and cost monitoring”, “internal transfer prices”, “investment controlling” and “controlling and electronic data processing”. At the beginning of the 1980s, the core topics of the CM changed from the “role model of the controller” to “controllers’ tasks and [the] controllers’ organization”. Tasks and organization remained recurring topics until 1989. Articles covered topics such as “controlling for the controller him/herself”, “controller and evaluation analysis”, “controlling in multinational firms” and “organization of the controlling department”. In addition to the controller him/herself, a couple of regular topics focused on the functional perspective – that is, controlling. From 1984 to 1989, “marketing controlling” and “project controlling” articles were published frequently, and the German controlling community discussed aspects like “market information and demand planning”, “customer profit accounting”, “customer controlling”, “sales force controlling by marginal costing” and “controlling within the R&D department”. Overall, the CM as a journal was an important step for the profession, serving as a “signal of movement” (Lee, 2006: 7) and as a platform for open discourse about important aspects of the new controller profession, such as the role of controllers or their tasks.

The regional workgroups

One of the main activities in the initial years was the foundation of regional workgroups. By the first general meeting on 23 May 1976, the workgroups South (led by Mr Kohlbauer), South-West (led by Mr Neidlinger), Central (led by Mr Trosch), North (led by Mr Kühl), Switzerland (led by Mr Real) and Vienna (led by Dr Blazek) had already been founded. A workgroup normally consisted of 15 to 30 people; members of workgroups were also meant to be members of the association, but this rule was frequently neglected. A workgroup had a leader, appointed by the managing committee, who was responsible for administrative tasks, like the compilation and update of member lists. Most workgroups met twice or three times a year at the company offices of one of the workgroup members; meetings typically lasted a full day. The bulk of the meetings was reserved to discuss technical topics and open questions from members, complemented by a presentation by the hosting company. The regional workgroups were very important for the CV; they were the core of the association’s activities. The CV was founded out of the wish to meet and discuss frequently, and the regional workgroups offered the possibility to do this.

While the workgroups met independently of the managing committee and organised their meetings on their own, they sent protocols of their meetings to the headquarters. This guaranteed that the headquarters was informed about what was going on in the workgroups, and could see how many members of the workgroup were members of the association. The fact that the leaders of the workgroups were chosen by the managing committee, and the tight information policy due to the meeting protocols, allowed close control of the regional groups by the headquarters. On some occasions, managing committee members (mostly Deyhle), or trainers of the CA (Blazek in the first years) visited the meetings to give talks or lectures about certain topics. The members also met on a supra-regional level at the “Controller’s Experience Exchange” on 9 and 10 October 1976 in Feldafing, near Munich. In previous years, a similar event with the same name was organised by the CA, but now the association took over the organising role.

The workgroup leaders, although not an official body of the association, formed a very important group within the CV. They met once a year with the managing committee to discuss the strategy of the association. These workgroup leaders worked on an honorary basis as well, and usually used the infrastructure of their employers, including their assistants, to administrate their workgroups. This group of people, who were handpicked by the managing committee, was the backbone of the association; it was their dedication that constituted the association. To further advance the cohesion of the group, Deyhle organised frequent, typically once a year, family social events (e.g. a raft ride).

One more regional workgroup (the seventh) was founded in 1976: the workgroup “West”. Mr Helffenstein, the vice-president, was the workgroup leader. Deyhle sent out a letter on 21 October 1976 to those alumni of the CA who lived near Düsseldorf, advertising the new workgroup. According to the letter, which was sent out to 23 people, the main goal of the workgroup was “professional small talk, the chance to ask questions, discuss technical problems, and compare experiences with a group of people who have the same concept in mind and use the same language”. The first experience exchange, as the meetings were called, took place on 28 January with 18 participants, of which five came from Henkel, the company at which Mr Helffenstein worked. The results of the meeting were put in writing under quite a formal protocol, stating the aim of the workgroup:

The work group West pursues the goal of bringing work-related problems of the controller’s work closer to a solution.

The protocol stated the means as well:

A problem-oriented discussion with an exchange of participants’ experience should serve this purpose. “Purely” seminar-like work should be avoided to a large extent.

The locations of the meetings varied, but were meant to be the company offices of the participants or “neutral” places, which presumably indicated hotels. It was planned that the workgroup would meet three times a year. The group wanted to discuss multiple topics at each meeting, and decided on a perpetual list of prioritised topics, of which the first three would be discussed at the next meeting:

The workgroup alternated between being demonstratively informal and using very formalised language, like that used in corporate board meetings, mirroring the association’s efforts at that time. While it was stressed that the meeting took place “between colleagues”, with the peer-level character of the meeting emphasised, a formal protocol with formalised group goals was written and distributed. However, these formalised aspects could also be interpreted as a result of Deyhle’s ambition to be in charge of all activities of the CM, CA, and CV.

Activities

The congress remained the main event for the association. Over the next seven years it took place in the same hotel in Frankfurt. The number of participants increased slightly, but remained relatively stable. In 1977, the congress had about 240 participants. Topics still involved the broad concept of controlling: “The collaboration of the manager and the controller in corporate control” (1977), “Controlling in action” (1978), “The controller […] and others” (1979), and “Controller practice as a team” (1980). Speakers came mainly from company practice. In 1979, the first professor, Professor Popp from the University of Bern, spoke about “Optimal budgeting”.

In 1980, the organisation of the congress changed marginally. For the first time, the congress lasted over two days. It included not only speeches or a panel discussion, but also workshops, which took place in smaller groups of participants and were more interactive. The workshops were called PROLÖT, an acronym for Problem-Lösungs-Team (problem-solving team). The speeches were still mostly on quite broad topics, but the workshops dealt with concrete technical questions. The new congress format was quite successful, with 254 participants.

On a supra-regional level, the CV hosted an annual symposium in 1976 and 1977. This was abolished in 1978, due to opinions expressed in the general meeting that the regional workgroups were already quite time consuming – an indication that these workgroups were well established. Instead, an expert symposium was organised in 1978, which was open to the public but included reports from the regional workgroups as well. This symposium had the function of a small congress. It took place in late autumn, while the official congress took place in the spring. It bumped along and made a small surplus of ca. 400 DM. The symposium took place in 1979 and 1980 as well, but always remained very small. In 1980 it had only 17 participants, with similar attendance in the years before.

Apart from these efforts, the association was not greatly visible to the outside world. Public relations did not take place on a systematic level, and therefore the association was mentioned only rarely in articles about controllers. One exception is a short article by Klaus Neidlinger (Neidlinger, 1977), himself a member of the CV, in the Wirtschaftswoche, an important weekly business magazine in Germany. The article describes the new profession of the controller; a small box on the same page mentions the CV as the official professional association. The lack of public relations work was due to various reasons. First, the association did not aim to grow aggressively; it was not keen on members who heard about the association and applied for membership anonymously. Second, the association did not have the resources for active public relations work, since the managing committee members worked on an honorary basis. The same applied to the workgroup leaders, who, while very active internally, did not have the authority to speak for the association. Only one person was granted the right to speak for the CV as an institution: Deyhle himself, who was a well-known figure in the community and was frequently cited in articles.

The main work took place in the regional workgroups; this is reflected in the protocols of the general meetings. In all protocols from 1976 to 1980, the report about the activities of the association, presented by the president, started with a report about the activities in the workgroups. Some of the presentations and discussions were made public in the CM, for example, the Central workgroup discussed questions of R&D-controlling and published an article about that topic in the CM (Controller Magazin, 1977).

Internal developments

The membership base grew steadily from 152 members in 1978 to 254 in 1980. Still, the CA was the main source for new members, which strengthened the alumni character of the CV. A reason for the limited application outside the CA could be that there was no active marketing for new members who were non-CA. However, the CV’s constitution arranged for the possibility of companies becoming long-term members. This was debated, especially in relation to the fee level, at the general meeting in 1977. While no fixed fee was decided on, a minimum of 500 DM was set. Companies could, in principle, decide how much they were able to give, with 1,000 DM as a guidance level. There was a broader debate about whether company membership was needed at all, but because of the tight budget, there was no strict decision against this. Some members agreed to support such memberships for their companies, however this was not implemented within the next several years. The issue was discussed at the general meeting in 1978, but due to time constraints on Deyhle who as executive director and face of the CV was the key figure in this effort, no progress was made. Over the next several years it was neither implemented nor discussed. Support for company membership was never high, as interviews revealed the association understood itself as a club which was owned and governed by member. This would be threatened by the implementation of company memberships. Particularly, Deyhle saw a danger that firms would call for more rights to control the direction of the CV, as Dr Zeplin said:

Dr Deyhle mentioned “if a corporation pays more than an individual member, the corporation wants to contribute or control more, that’s natural. And the membership fee could be written down and we could say: X percent or shares or voting rights or so. However, this would mean that we wouldn’t be able to determine the direction [of the CV]”. (Zeplin, Interview)

Additionally, Deyhle interpreted the CA and the CV as his lifework, and was therefore keen to keep it protected from extra-associational influences (such as firm influences) in the long run. Therefore, he was mindful that firm memberships could limit the possible options in terms of transforming the current organisation of the CA and CV into something that was in his interest.

Administration of the CV was done by the staff of the CA. Deyhle did not want the association to incur labour costs, for formal reasons and because of the volatile earnings situation of the association, so the CA took over the administrative tasks and invoiced the cost to the association. In the early years the association was not charged the full cost, but only the amount it was able to pay while making a small surplus, as Deyhle officially stated at the general meeting. Although no one could check the correctness of the claim and the bill, because Deyhle was the owner of the CA and executive director of the CV, the amount seems plausible if one analyses the development of the administrative costs in those years and compares it to the costs a few years later (for example, after the move to Gauting, the administrative costs tripled), when the CA was no longer responsible for the administration.

The question of formally licensing controllers arose at the general meeting in 1978. This was a recurring question for the association, as it was concerned with the structure of the profession and the role of the association. In only the second issue of the CM, Deyhle wrote on the question “Is the management-calculator (Management-Rechner) a profession?”. He mentioned that for financial accountants there is an exam and a diploma, while there is no equivalent for controllers. The article mentioned that a “Certified Management Accountant” similar to the CPA had emerged three years previously, and it went on to ask the following:

Question: Are there tendencies for something similar to emerge here? Maybe the introduction of the “Licensed Controller”? The training programme of the Controller Academy is only constructed to accomplish the job in companies in the area of accounting, planning, and leadership. But the factor of a systematic education towards the controller is included in our five-stage programme – maybe one day including examination. (Deyhle, 1976)

Deyhle’s short statement clearly reflected the fact that the CV compared itself to the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) rather than other associations like the Financial Executives Institute (FEI) that were more focused on top-level managers that control the organizational accounting function. The discussion about some kind of certificate was connected to recent developments in the CA. Up to this point, there had been no further advanced courses after stage five; this changed in 1978, when a series of three seminars, mostly for alumni of the stage-five course, took place. The seminars focused on accounting (seminar 1), planning (seminar 2) and leadership (seminar 3). The CA considered the possibility of ending this seminar with an exam leading to, which would lead to the “Controller’s Diploma CA”, a private certificate which should reflect the competency of the certified controller rather than indicating a closing of the profession. The examination board was comprised largely of members of the CV. Deyhle introduced the project at the general meeting in 1978, mentioning the constitution of the CV, which envisioned this licensing. The CA experimented with exams but did not implement them. The five-stage programme led to a “controller’s certificate”, which was given to every participant without them having to take an exam. The didactic concept of the CA was built on very interactive coursework, and it was not easy to implement exams within this workshop style. Of the CA’s experience with exams, Blazek recalls:

[…] that harms the relationship [with] our customers. The exam does not fit into how we market our products. So we abolished it. But the topic was still on, so we said, if we do something like an exam, everybody should be permitted to take it. Not only members of the association or attendees of the Controller Akademie; that is not going to work. Everybody is permitted and the association could do it. But it never happened. […] I believe we already said in the late 1970s this could only be done by the association. (Blazek, Interview)

Deyhle was confirmed as the executive director by the president and vice-president in 1979. Also in 1979, the general meeting decided that the managing committee was too small for the CV, which had grown to 195 members and 13 regional workgroups – a significant increase compared to four years before. Thus, in order to enlarge the size of the managing committee, the constitution needed to be changed. The general meeting increased the size of the committee to five persons, adding two members without any specific title or responsibility to the committee. While the term of managing committee members (with the exception of the executive director) was five years, it was decided that if new members were elected mid-term, they would serve only for the remainder of that term. The vote was unanimous with three abstentions. In the following election, Mr Herbert Heller from Vienna, Austria, and Mr Hansruedi Kehl from Zurich, Switzerland, were elected. In the next years, an Austrian and a Swiss member were always represented in the managing committee. Although the association was founded and maintained its registered office in Germany, it did not consider itself as a German association, but rather an association for German-speaking countries. This was not specified in the constitution, but was visible very early on, as the regional workgroups founded in Vienna and Zurich were among the first to be established.

In 1980, the general meeting had to elect a new managing committee for the first time in the history of the association. Deyhle’s appointment as the executive director had been extended the year before, so four members needed to be elected. While the general meeting technically elects the managing committee members, who then elect the president and vice-president, these roles were discussed prior to the election and proposed to the members. The invitation to the meeting sent out by Deyhle stated:

The term of the founding Managing Committee ends in May 1980, so we need to elect a new Managing Committee. First, I should inform you on behalf of Mr Dietz that he does not wish to stand for a position in the Managing Committe of the CV due to changed professional responsiblities, he does not want to run for a position in the Managing Committee of the CV. The other Managing Committee members, Helffenstein, Heller, and Kehl, seek re-election. The body of workgroup leaders, which act as an advisory board in the CV, proposes the election of Dr Karlheinz Hillenbrand to the Managing Committe as successor to Mr Dietz.

This once again shows the power held by the workgroup leaders, who proposed the successor. Moreover, Deyhle stressed the importance and influence of the work group leaders. Hillenbrand was head of the business management and organisation department at Reemtsma. As a controller working at head office, he maintained the balance between head office and plant controllers.Hillenbrand ranked highly in the firm hierarchy, which was important in representing the CV. At the general meeting, Deyhle emphasised the point that the candidacy had been approved by the board of Reemtsma, and he stressed the importance of such an agreement. He asked the members for further suggestions for the managing committee. Hillenbrand had not visited the CA but had sent many employees to the courses and knew Deyhle quite well. Additionally, he represented the workgroup leaders. As the leader of the North workgroup, he was an active member of the association rather than only a figurehead.

The general meeting took place after the congress, which, for the first time, lasted two days. Of the 254 members of the association at that time, 83 were present. Only those mentioned in the invitation were running for the managing committee, so the election was a mere formality. It was therefore held openly, and all candidates were elected without dissenting votes. Hillenbrand, as the designated president of the association, took over as chairman of the meeting.

Activities

The main activities continued to take place in the workgroups. The workgroups, and especially their leaders, remained the organisational backbone. The most visible activity, and the one which required the lion’s share of the resources, remained the congress. In 1981 and 1982, the topics for the congress remained broad: “Controller work today” and “Controller: quo vadis?”.

While the list of speakers was still dominated by practitioners from industry, there was greater variety. Professors (Professor Männel from the University of Dortmund), members of institutes for advanced studies (Mr Stengl from VA-Akademie für Führen und Verkaufen) and consultants (Dr Roever from McKinsey & Company) were among the presenters at the congress. The increased importance of the congress was evident in the press. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the major German newspapers, covered the event on their business pages, and mentioned the CV as well (FAZ, 1981). A total of 260 participants visited the congress, which was a small increase on previous years but far below the growth in membership. The CV stopped organising the symposium, which was quite small compared to the congress, in the autumn; the congress was now the only main activity of the association.

Due to the higher costs and lower margins of the two-day congresses, the general meeting in 1981 decided to alternate between one and two-day congresses. Thus, the congress in 1982 lasted for one day only. The general meeting took place the day before the congress, so the organisation switched back to the way it had been between 1976 and 1979. A large number of the speakers came from the CV or the CA; in addition to Deyhle and Hillenbrand, Blazek and Küchle both gave presentations. Only three external speakers from corporate practice were present at the congress. With 327 participants, this was the biggest congress so far. The congress was established as a brand, controlling was more established than in the years before, and there was not yet the competition that would arise later in the 1980s. The main reason for the large number of participants was probably that a one-day congress took less time and cost less. The fee was only 285 DM (225 DM for members of the CV), compared to 485 DM (435 DM for members of the CV) the year before when the congress was longer. In 1983, The number of participants decreased to 207 in 1983 when the congress was again held over two days.

Internal developments

Hillenbrand as president was a little more independent from Deyhle because he never visited the CA and ranked highly in the hierarchy of his company. Deyhle was still in charge of the day-to-day operations and remained the powerful core of the association. Most members came through the CA after finishing the five-stage course, having experienced Deyhle as a trainer with a charismatic training style.

A policed growth was still the association’s strategy. The protocol for the general meeting in 1981 states:

The executive director Dr Deyhle adds to the report of Dr Hillenbrand about the question of how the association finds new members: The rules of the game remain the same, only people “we know through work” can become members of the CV. This means that we have a strategy of limited growth in the association.

Participants of stages 4 and 5 of the Controller Academy are asked systematically whether they want to become members of the Controller Verein. The workgroup leaders resolved to check whether the members in the workgroup have become members of the association as well.

The following discussion signalled agreement with this strategy, but also concluded that a membership campaign should be undertaken. The membership base rose from 293 in 1981 to 330 in 1982 and 378 in 1983. While the absolute growth in members remained relatively constant compared to the years before (roughly 40 new members a year, with the exception of 1980 which had 59 new members), the relative growth declined from around 30 per cent to approximately 15 per cent. New workgroups were founded if necessary; in 1981, the workgroup “Berlin” was founded. This closed the last geographic gap, which existed because of the island status of Berlin due to the existence of the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany (GDR). The workgroup leader was Dr Zeplin, an associated (freelancing) trainer of the CA and an acquaintance of Deyhle. The close connection through Deyhle of the CV, the CA, and the CM remained. Deyhle was still the dominating figure in the association.

Two questions repeatedly came up for debate: whether the CM should be included in the membership fee and remain a members’ magazine, and, related to the first question, what the right amount was for the membership fee. In 1981, the first question was discussed at the general meeting. Deyhle stressed the point that the magazine was a tangible benefit of membership in the association and had been an important cornerstone since the beginning, when other benefits of membership in the association were less clear. Meanwhile, the association had become established enough that affiliation with the magazine was no longer necessary. The discussion among the members indicated that the CM should remain with the association. This led to the question of the membership fee. The deficit per member out of the ordinary budget was 39 DM in 1980, which was, which was an untenable situation for the association due to the uncertain amount of profit from the congress. After some discussion, opinions about the right amount varied between the status quo of 80 DM and 130 DM. A middle-ground solution of 100 DM was suggested and accepted, with 83 yes votes and 30 no votes.

In 1983, the first workgroup organised by industry rather than region was founded. The “Controlling in insurance companies” workgroup was the eighteenth workgroup founded. Representatives of insurance companies from all over Germany joined the workgroup and changed (or complemented) an organisational principle that workgroups covered certain regions. An industry workgroup had the potential to professionalise the association further by issuing industry-wide opinions, and this was a tentative sign of a further departure from the CA alumni concept.

The year 1983 brought the first major change for the CV since its foundation. In addition to the regular meeting that the workgroup leaders had twice a year with the managing committee, a strategy conference took place from 12 to 14 May 1983, the so-called “Spitzingsee-Klausur”, named after the location of the meeting. Seventeen out of the 18 workgroup leaders were present, as well as the complete managing committee. The workgroup leaders were very active in the discussion, which can be seen as another indicator of their influence within the CV in that time. In a similar fashion to the congress, problem-solving teams worked on four different topics. The protocol of the general meeting in 1983, which took place four weeks later, recalled the topics of the conference:

The range of topics is diverse. Points (a) and (d) are concerned with internal organisational issues, (b) is an overarching question about the structure of the profession and the role the association should have in this, whereas (c) is a content question that had concerned the association, workgroups, and members since the association’s foundation. Point (c) did not have any consequences, so we will focus on the remaining three. The role of the workgroups was defined as creating:

Goals like experience exchange; alignment of methods; mutual consulting: leadership-oriented work packages like mutual help; assur[ance of] the feeling of being up to date; and the advancement to further delineation of generally accepted controlling principles.

This was hardly a change from the factual status quo. The role of the workgroups had never been formalised, but the implicit understanding captured these tasks. Only the last point deserves attention: the delineation of generally accepted controlling principles was not the official role of the association and implied an involvement with legislation, which the association had not had thus far. The fact that the workgroups had this responsibility reflected the organisational structure of the association; other than the workgroups, there was no body or organisation that could possibly have done this.

The second question had been discussed before. Licensing as a means to formal closure was a frequent topic in debates within the association. The protocol of the general meeting in 1983 states clearly:

The Controller Verein, with its workgroups, and the controller congress should concentrate on clearing and advocating controller tasks. With regard to the question of granting a diploma, the workgroup leaders suggested leaving this to educating institutions in the area of controlling.

This was a clear answer to the question and ended the discussion for some time. The reasons for this can only be speculated upon. It is important to note that the group did not abolish the idea of a formal diploma, but rather delegated this to training institutions. At that time, the CA was the leading institution in this area. A different strategic choice, that is, to involve the association with the education and licensing of controllers, or even to lobby for a license as a legal prerequisite for controllers, would have meant a huge change for the association. It is questionable whether the CV would have been able, resource-wise, to engage in this kind of activity.

It is the last question that had the most impact on the CV over the next several years. The slow growth, the tight bond between the association and the CA, and the high profile of Deyhle and his individual preferences for the CV were a concern for some members. The workgroup leaders decided that the association should become more self-contained; therefore, a detachment from the CA was necessary. It should be noted that 1983 was also the last year of Deyhle’s term as executive director; it either had to be renewed, or a new executive director had to be chosen. While formally this was a decision for the managing committee, the workgroup leaders were involved in it as well.

The workgroup leaders voted on the question of whether Deyhle should remain executive director, and whether the administration of the association should be done by the CA. With a narrow margin of ten votes to eight, the workgroup leaders decided that “the currently existing office and executive director arrangement should not be maintained. A corresponding recommendation was sent to the Managing Committee” (Protocol General Meeting, 1983).

There was already a new designated executive director among the workgroup leaders: Dr Zeplin, leader of the Berlin workgroup. Together with a partner, he had a small consulting and training firm, Dr Zeplin & Frische. This ensured that he had access to the necessary resources without the association needing to hire new staff, rent a new office, etc., because the day-to-day operations of the association and the administrative work had to be done from the place in which the executive director was based. The choice of Zeplin was an explicit decision to separate the CV from the CA, which meant a disentanglement of the CV from Deyhle’s individual influence. Associated with this decision was a stronger focus on growth and external visibility. The protocol states:

With Dr Zeplin, the statutory duties of the Controller Verein will be strengthened. There is a need to win new members systematically. Additionally, it proved to be necessary to build a big clearing topic database out of the rich material collected in the workgroups […] The association should report more systematically in the Controller Magazin compared to now.

Deyhle agreed to work as the executive director for a transition period until the end of 1983, when Zeplin would take over. It was planned that the congress would take place in Berlin, which was beneficial for a variety of reasons. It was easier from an administrative standpoint, because the executive director was mainly responsible for the organisation of the congress. Second, Berlin was a desirable location for participants, turning the congress into more of a social event, with the possibility of an exciting social programme. Third, events in West Berlin were subsidised by the government, which made it financially attractive to hold the congress in Berlin.

However, it was not planned for the CV to separate completely from the CA, or even from Deyhle, because he was still too important and well known in relation to the entire CV. Nevertheless, Deyhle was left without any official position after his term as executive director expired at the end of 1983, but he would still participate in managing committee meetings with an advisory vote.

Activities

The congress remained the main activity of the association. The congress venue was the ICC, a monumental congress centre in Berlin, built five years previously. The congress lasted only one day, as the decision to alternate between one and two-day congresses was still effective. The title of the congress was “Controlling on track”, and Deyhle and Zeplin were among the six speakers. The ICC was a far bigger venue than the airport hotel in Frankfurt where the congress had been held before. The atmosphere of the Berlin congress was perceived by some members as less “family-like” than previous congresses, as the protocol and a letter from Deyhle reveal. Some members also noted the increased travel effort.

In 1984, the first year of his term as executive director, Zeplin initiated the production of a short leaflet which contained the basic facts about the CV (“The Controller Verein introduces itself”, see Appendix 2). It consisted of two pages of description and the professional contact details of the managing committee and workgroup leaders. The document is interesting for a variety of reasons. It was the first material for a membership campaign in the history of the association, even though it was not very sophisticated. The mere fact that the association now had a flyer that prompted people to become new members signalled a change in its strategy and a shift in its self-concept. A section entitled “Who is a member of the Controller Verein?” referenced the foundation through alumni of the CA, however this was the only reference to the CA in the whole document. The document did not refer to Deyhle personally, even though he was still the public face of the association. A section called “What happens in the Controller Verein?” referred to three points: the regional workgroups as a platform from which to exchange experiences; the congress; and the general meeting. Another section called “How is the Controller Verein organised?” stated:

The Controller Verein consists of the members, the Managing Committee, the executive director, and the workgroup leaders. The Managing Committee consists of 4 members and the executive director. At the moment, 20 workgroups exist. More workgroups are planned.

It is interesting that the executive director is mentioned separately and is distinct from the managing committee (to which he formally belonged) in the first sentence of the excerpt above. The workgroup leaders are mentioned as a special group of people within the association, although not a formal organ of the association. This reflects again the strong position and importance of this group. The section “How do you become a member?” reads:

Everyone who carries out a controller role in business can become a member. Beyond that, individuals who carry out or carried out a role in near or similar areas can apply for membership.

This is a visible departure from the strategy that “only people we know through work” can become members of the association. Although this rule had been unofficially softened in previous years, it had still been the normal case for membership. Only now was the association explicitly open to all controllers.

In 1985, the congress title was “Ten years on- after – Controlling today”. This title seems to allude to the foundation of the CV in 1975 and gives the impression that controlling was invented – or at least officially introduced – by the CV, a sign of the self-understanding of the CV as the professional association for controllers and not simply an alumni organisation of the CA.

The congress in 1986 had the title “Controller’s quality ’86 [English in original]: Topics, trends, tendencies”. Again, it lasted two days – a change from the rule to alternate between one and two-day congresses. The 367 participants meant small growth compared to the year before, so the congress had a high and stable attendance in Berlin despite emerging competition, for example, from the “First German controlling congress” organized by Professor Thomas Reichmann from the University of Dortmund.

In 1987, the title of the congress was “Controller & information management”. The attendance of 400 participants again marked growth. It was the last congress held in Berlin; after that, the congress moved back to Munich due to internal developments in the CV described below.

Internal developments

With Zeplin in the position of executive director and the separation from the CA, the management of the governance of the association became more formalised and more professional. While the cost of administration was kept artificially low by Deyhle, in order to enable the foundation and growth of the association, now with Zeplin, the association had to bear its own costs. The administrative costs (personnel and non-personnel) increased from 25,845 DM in 1983 (in Gauting) to 38,550 DM in 1984 and 52,200 DM in 1985 (in Berlin). The expectation of this cost increase and the increased costs of the CM made an increase in membership fee necessary if the subscription was to stay part of the membership. This led to major discussions at the general meeting in 1984. Hillenbrand suggested disassociating the magazine from the association so that every member could decide whether or not to order the magazine. He also suggested keeping the membership fee on its current level of 100 DM – but without the CM. This suggestion raised some protest in the meeting. After some discussion, Hillenbrand suggested keeping the magazine as part of the affiliation with the association, and increasing the fee to 170 DM. The proposal was accepted with 52 yes votes and 28 no votes.

Another step in formalising the association was to compile first detailed statistics on the members of the workgroups in autumn 1984, which included recording members and prospects for each workgroup. In addition, the document recorded who among the workgroup members was also a member of the CV. The systematic recording of CV members and workgroup participants revealed that several participants were not CV members, although this should not have been the case. While in the previous years this situation had been allowed, the managing committee tried to change it by requesting that workgroup leaders invite the participants to become a member of the association. As a result, the managing committee reported 81 new members, a growth of 21 per cent to 459 members, at the general meeting in 1984.

The separation of the association and the CA was complete; Zeplin was responsible for the day-to-day management of the association. As a consequence, Deyhle, who had run the association so far, felt that things were moving in the wrong direction because the association and the congress had become more formal, and the “family-like” atmosphere of previous years was gone. Deyhle could attend meetings of the managing committee, but only with an advisory vote, and he was not elected by the members and thus was in a formally weak position. Nevertheless, he was still the most popular figure internally and externally, as a trainer, head of the CA, and editor-in-chief of the CM. Deyhle felt that he needed more formal control over the association. In 1985, elections for the managing committee were scheduled, which opened up the possibility for Deyhle to become a member of the managing committee and to control the association – and the executive director – more closely. Deyhle saw the need for a president who could devote more time to the administration of the CV – and the only person who would be able to do this was Deyhle himself. To make this happen, a managing committee-member had to step down. Mr Heller volunteered, but he represented the Austrian members and would need to have been replaced by an Austrian. Thus, it was either Hillenbrand or Helffenstein who had to step down for Deyhle to become a member of the managing committee. Different solutions were discussed in personal meetings and correspondence; one alternative was to establish a board of trustees, as already planned in the constitution, with Hillenbrand as the first chairman. Another solution would have been for Helffenstein to step down as vice-president – a solution Hillenbrand seemed to favour. In the end it was Hillenbrand who did not run for office again; the official reasons stated in the general meeting were new professional responsibilities. To replace him, Deyhle was elected president at the general meeting. This solution had been arranged prior to the general meeting and largely behind closed doors; there was no competitive election at the meeting. Deyhle was elected unanimously, with one abstention, a sign that the struggle was solved in a friendly manner. Manfred Blachfellner took over Heller’s position, and Helffenstein and Kehl, the remaining members of the managing committee, were elected in the same manner as Deyhle.

Thus, Deyhle was now once again the most powerful figure in the association, in terms of being both the executive director and the dominating character in the managing committee. This can be illustrated by the fact that some managing committee meetings, for example, on 17 and 18 August 1985, were held just between Deyhle and Zeplin. This meeting confirmed the priority of winning new members for the association first, and only then, after they became CV members, allocating them to workgroups. This was different from the beginning of the association, when, in order to make the regional workgroups attractive, it was accepted that participants did not have to be members of the CV.

Although Deyhle took over responsiblilty for the CV again, professionalisation of the administration of the association continued, and the basic decision to open membership to everyone was not officially revised; the association remained open to every controller who wanted to become a member. Further proof of that development was the key figures chart presented at the meeting of the managing committee following the general meeting (see Appendix 3). This chart documents the development of key indicators, such as the number of members, the number of workgroups, the number of congress participants, and key financial figures for 1980 to 1985. Such a formalised tracking of developments was new for the association.

It is, however, questionable as to whether the opening-up and of the association was a priority for Deyhle. The association’s new flyer was more focused on an explanation of controlling and its benefits for companies than on advertising for new members. The flyer explicitly discussed whether the controller is a role within a company or a profession:

Has the controller – initially understood as a role – become a profession? Is it both a profession and a role […]? (Flyer CV, 1985)

The generally accepted controlling principles, discussed at the very beginning of the association but neglected in the following years, were mentioned again, together with an allusion to licensing:

Generally accepted controlling principles emerge if a competent group of participants helps each other with concrete examples, conducts mutual consulting, and relies on the reference of others, who are in the same profession. He who belongs to the Controller Verein holds a license for the controller profession. (Flyer CV, 1985; emphasis in original)

The CA is mentioned more prominently than previously, and not only as the foundational core of the association, but as connected to the CV. However, the last sentence in this section reads:

Due to the seminars of the Controller Akademie, new members are consantly dropping in at the Controller Verein and the workgroups, but the membership in the Controller Verein is not dependent upon a prior visit to the Controller Akademie.

In the following two years, the agreed strategic direction was maintained, leading to a steady growth of 80 people each year; in 1987, the association had approximately 700 members. In order to offer workgroups for the new members, two new workgroups were founded in 1985/1986 (North III and Austria III). However, the CV was still not able to pay a competitive salary to the executive director. Zeplin’s consulting business increased in volume, making it increasingly difficult for Zeplin to invest enough time in the administration of the association and the organisation of the congress. The congress in 1987 was shortened to one day. Zeplin’s term as an executive director expired at the end of 1987, and the managing committee and Zeplin decided in a meeting in Bremen in 1987 that the office and administration of the association should move back to Gauting, the city in which the CA was based, so as to be reunited with the administration of the CA. In order to guarantee a proper takeover, Zeplin agreed to serve for two more years as executive director, until the end of 1989. The 1988 congress took place in Munich and was largely organised by Deyhle and the staff of the CA.

Activities

The congress took place at the Sheraton Hotel in Munich. For the first time it did not have a title but instead considered three main topics: “corporate planning”, “accounting”, and “leadership by objectives”. It lasted for two days, with the structure largely following that of the previous two-day congresses, and the problem-solving teams doing their work on the afternoon of the first day. The congress had a couple of high-profile speakers, for example Roland Berger, head and owner of a large German consultancy, and Manfred Remmel, head of the controlling department of Daimler-Benz and member of the CV. The invitation and programme for the congress contained a greeting from Franz Josef Strauß, then the prime minister of Bavaria, highlighting the role of the controller. It was important for the association and for Deyhle that the first congress in Munich was a success. For the first time, the association conducted systematic public relations exercises, led by Mr Krug, leader of the Central workgroup. With ca. 500 participants, more than 100 more than the year before in Berlin, the congress was also quite successful. This was the case despite the fact that the fee more than doubled compared to that in Berlin. In 1986 (the last two-day congress), the fee for non-members was 485 DM. This increased to 980 DM in 1988. The growth of the congress continued; in 1989 the congress had more than 700 participants, by far the highest attendance in its history. The topics for this congress were “accounting”, “information”, and “communication”, and the congress was held in a manner that was very similar to that of the year before.

Internal developments

In the workgroup leader strategy meeting, which was still conducted annually, the managing committee and the workgroup leaders discussed whether the CV was an official professional body which would issue a formal position on technical questions – the often-discussed generally accepted controlling principles. At that time, the legal status of the association was that of a registered association, not an official professional body. This debate was presented to the members at the general meeting in 1988, together with considerations about whether the association would need a full-time executive director. Deyhle mentioned competition from universities, which were hard to compete with, given the decentralised nature of the association. However, no decision was made. The association experienced the strongest growth thus far in absolute terms with 852 members. It is likely that this was partly due to the congress, which was connected to the CV in flyers and the programme in a more visible way.

The debate about the role of the association continued in 1989. At the annual strategy meeting in 1989, it was finally decided to develop generally accepted controlling principles in the 1990s. The principles were to be developed on certain topics. The association now had almost 1,000 members (956 members at the general meeting on 11 June) and was not comprised solely of CA alumni.

The year 1989 served as a sort of transition. The position of executive director needed to be filled, and in 1990 a new managing committee was up for election. With regard to the executive director, the 1983 decision to separate the association from the academy, something Deyhle called a “strategic mistake” in a 1987 letter, was revised. The deputy managing director of the CA, Conrad Günther, was made the executive director of the association. As in the period from 1975 to 1983, both organisations were managed by the same person. This decision by the managing committee was announced at the general meeting in 1989. At the same meeting, and of more significance for the association, Deyhle publicly suggested Manfred Remmel, the head of the controlling department of Daimler-Benz, as his successor as the president of the association. Remmel said in the general meeting that he:

[…] would consider it and align this with the company; as of now his decision would be “rather yes”. (Protocol General Meeting, 1989)

Remmel was an important figure in the German business world as the chief controller of what may have been the most prestigious company in Germany. He was, however, not very active in the association. Deyhle’s predecessor Hillenbrand, for example, had been a workgroup leader, and while his status in the company had clearly mattered in the decision, it was more his work in the CV that made him president. This pattern now changed; the new status of the association demanded a more prominent face for the outside world.