untitled

Transcription

1 The International Journal of Accounting Studies (1) (2) NSC H

2 The Effect of Participative Budgeting Congruence on the Individual Performance and Corporate Performance Yeun-Wen Chang Department of Public Finance and Taxation National Taichung Institute of Technology Ruey-Dang Chang Department of Business Administration National Sun Yat-Sen University Ching-Ping Chang Department of Business Administration National Sun Yat-Sen University Shao-Chun Wu Senior Deloitte & Touche Abstract We adopt the viewpoint of participative budgeting congruence to investigate the direct and indirect impact of budget participation on the corporate and individual performance. This study also adopts job satisfaction and job-related tension as the intermediate variables to discuss the relationship of budget participation and performance. The empirical results show that: (1) When the effect of participative budgeting congruence is not controlled, budget participation has an indirect impact on corporate performance through job satisfaction or individual performance. (2) When the effect of participative budgeting congruence is controlled, the budget participation has an indirect impact on corporate performance through individual performance. Besides, when the degree of participation congruence (DPC) is high, budget participation has a positive effect on individual performance through job satisfaction, then enhancing corporate performance. When the DPC is low, budget participation has a positive effect on individual performance through job-related tension, then improving the corporate performance. Keywords: Participative budgeting congruence, Corporate performance, Individual performance. Submitted November 2005 Accepted February 2007 After 3 rounds of review

3 59 (Shields and Shields 1998) 1 (1998) 2 (2005) (Merchant 1981; Kren 1992) (Bryan and Locke 1967) (Milani 1975) Chenhall and Brownell (1988) Greenberg, Greenberg and Nouri (1994) (meta-analysis) Shields and Shields (1998) 3 (2001) ( ) Chenhall and Brownell (1988) Clinton (1999) (degree of participation allowed, DPA) (perceived need for 1 Argyris (1952) 2 ( 1998) 3 Shields and Shields (1998) ( )

4 participation, DNP) (degree of participation congruence, DPC) 4 Clinton (1999) Clinton and Hunton (2001) Clinton (1999) (Lau and Tan 2003) (Lau and Buckland 2001) Milani (1975) Harrison (1992) Shields, Deng and Kato (2000) ( ) (Shields and Young 1993) Shields and Shields (1998) () ( Chenhall and Brownell 1988) ( Shields and Young 1993) Shields and Shields (1998) ( ) Shields and Shields (1998) 4

5 61 Clinton (1999) Clinton and Hunton (2001) : (1) Parker and Kyj (2006) Agbejule and Saarikoski (2006) (2) Shields and Shields (1998) ( ) (3) Clinton (1999) Clinton and Hunton (2001) Kenis (1979) Shields and Shields (1998)

6 Brownell (1985) Kren (1992) 2. (sense of control) (ego-involvement) Brownell (1982b) 3. ( ) ( )(Brownell 1982a) (Brownell 1982a) Merchant (1981) Kren (1992) Hansen and Van der Stede (2004) ( ) ( ) ( ) (2005) H1-1 H1-2

7 63 Martins, Eddleston and Veiga (2002) ( ) ( ) Shields and Shields (1998) (Kenis 1979; Brownell 1982b) (Brownell 1982a) (Bryan and Locke 1967) Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) Milani (1975) Petty, McGee and Cavender (1984) () ( Chenhall and Brownell 1988) ( Shields and Young 1993) Shields and Shields (1998) (Milani 1975) (Covaleski, Evans, Luft and Shields 2003) H2-1 H2-2

8 (Kenis 1979) (Shields et al. 2000) Kenis (1979) 5 Harrison (1992) Lau, Low and Eggleton (1995) (arousal model) U (Weick 1983) 6 (Edwards 1996) ( ) (Shields et al. 2000) Edwards (1996) Shields and Shields (1998) H3-1 H3-2 5 Kenis (1979) 6

9 65 Bruns and Waterhouse (1975) Merchant (1981) (2003) Vroom and Yetton (1973) 7 Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) ( ) 1. Vroom and Jago (1988) Vroom and Yetton (1973) VY VJ Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) 8 2. Margerison and Glube (1979) 7 Vroom and Yetton (1973) 8 ( ) 8 Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) Mann-Whitney U

10 Clinton (1999) Clinton (1999) Clinton and Hunton (2001) Brownell (1982a, 1982b) Vroom and Jago (1988) Shields and Shields (1998) ( ) (Vroom and Jago 1988) H4-1a H4-2a (Margerison and Glube 1979) H4-1b H4-2b

11 67 (Covaleski et al. 2003) H4-1c H4-2c 9 Kren (1992) 10 (+) SAT (+) DPA (+) CP IP (+) (--) (--) (--) JRT 9 () Hopwood (1972) 10 Kren (1992)

12 PNP DPA (+) SAT (+) (+) CP IP DPC (--) JRT (--) DPA DPA (+) SAT (+) (+) CP IP (+) (--) (--) (--) JRT 1. Kenis (1979) Clinton and Hunton (2001) 1 Bruns and Waterhouse (1975) (0= 6= ) (1= 7= ) Likert (1=7= ) (1= 11 Bruns and Waterhouse (1975) Clinton and Hunton (2001)

13 69 7= ) DPA 6 Dpa i = 1 = i (1) Pnpi = 1 PNP = i (2) 6 6 Dpa i Pnpi = 1 DPC = i (3) 6 DPA PNP DPC Dpa i Pnp i Dpc i i 2. Comer, Machleit and Lagace (1989) Likert (1=7= ) 3. Kenis (1979) Shields et al. (2000) Likert (1=7= ) 4. Govindarajan and Gupta (1985) ( ) Parker, Taylor, Barrett and Martens (1959) (leniency bias)

14 Steers (1975) Govindarajan and Gupta (1985) 13 Govindarajan and Gupta (1985) Nouri and Parker (1998) 14 Nouri and Parker (1998) Govindarajan and Gupta (1985) Nouri and Parker (1998) 6 ( Ipi IMPi ) i = 1 IP = (4) 6 IMPi i = 1 IP IP i i IMP i i Likert (1= / 7= / ) Chenhall and Brownell (1988) Kren (1992) Heneman (1974) Heneman (1974) (halo effect) 13 Govindarajan and Gupta (1985) 12 ( )( 12 ) 14 Nouri and Parker (1998)

15 71 Choi and Lee (2003) Choi and Lee (2003) Likert (1=7= ) CP = β 0 + β1dpa + β 2SAT + β 3JRT + β 4IP + β 5SIZE + ε... (1) IP = β 0 + β1dpa + β 2SAT + β 3JRT + ε (2) 2. SAT = β 0 + β1dpa + ε. (3) 3. JRT = β 0 + β1dpa + ε..(4) CP IP SIZEDPA SAT JRT Clinton and Hunton (2001) 15 1 Merchant (1981) (1994)

16 Shields and Young (1993) % % % 31~ % 49% % 2. Chi-Square 24.4 (p<0.10) Brownell (1985)

17 73 t 17 Jrt5 Cp3 Cp4 (p<0.10) a % b % c % = / % = / 17 Fowler (1988)

18 % (n=104) (n=104) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DPA (1.347) DPC (0.801) DPC (6.114) JRT (3.809) 4 a (DPA) (PNP) (DPC) (SAT) (JRT) (CP) (IP) a. 104 Pearson

19 75 Pearson a DPA PNP DPC SAT JRT CP IP SIZE (DPA) (PNP) *** (DPC) *** * * (SAT) *** ** * ** (JRT) ** *** (CP) *** *** *** *** (IP) *** *** *** *** *** *** (SIZE) * *** a.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) (Nunnally 1978) Cronbach s α Nunnally (1978) 2. (Nunnally 1978) 15 (Kerlinger 1986) 18 ( 2001) Cronbach s ( ) ( ) ( )

20 Kerlinger (1986) Sat3 Jrt3 0.4 Sat3 Jrt3 Kerlinger (1986) 0.5 d a b c Dpa Dpa Dpa Dpa Dpa Dpa Pnp Pnp Pnp Pnp Pnp Pnp Sat Sat Sat Sat Jrt Jrt Jrt Jrt Jrt Jrt Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Ip Ip Ip Ip Ip Ip a. (item-total correlation) b. (factor loading) c. Cronbach s α d (1) VIF (variance- inflation factor, VIF) VIF VIF<5 (Studenmund 2001)

21 77 (D-W) 20 (F ) 4 1% 1 (β=0.184 p<0.10) (β=0.317 p<0.01) H1-1 2 (β=0.301 p<0.01) (β= p<0.01) H1-2 Merchant (1981) Brownell (1982a) 3 4 (β=0.393 p<0.01) ( ) SIZE *** SAT * ** DPA JRT *** SAT CP *** DPA *** JRT *** IP ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 20 D-W D-W 2 (Studenmund 2001)

22 a CP = β 0 + β 1 DPA + β 2 SAT + β 3 JRT + β 4 IP + β 5 SIZE + ε 2 IP = β 0 + β 1 DPA + β 2 SAT + β 3 JRT + ε 3 SAT = β 0 + β 1 DPA + ε 4 JRT = β 0 + β 1 DPA + ε CP IP SAT JRT t t t t DPA *** *** SAT * JRT *** IP *** SIZE ** Adj. R F *** *** *** D-W Max VIF a. DPA= SAT=JRT= CP= IP= SIZE= ( =1 =0 b.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 104

23 79 (2) 21 ( Pearson ) (1) (2) (3) Baron and Kenny (1986) (1)(2) (3) ( ) (β=0.393 p<0.01 β=0.184 p<0.10) (β=0.301 p<0.01 β=0.317 p<0.01) (0.275) (0.057) (γ=0.393 p<0.01 γ=0.184 p<0.10) Baron and Kenny (1986) Baron and Kenny (1986) Milani (1975) H2-1 H2-2 H3-1 H3-2 Sobel (1982) t t (p<0.10) (p<0.05) 21 (Wonnacott and Wonnacott 1981)

24 e SAT DPA *** *** - - JRT DPA CP DPA *** a - SAT *** * b JRT *** c IP *** *** SIZE *** ** IP DPA *** *** d - SAT *** JRT *** *** a =0.393*0.184+(-0.161)*(-0.113) *0.091* *0.317+(-0.161)*(-0.408)*0.317 b =0.091*0.317 c =(-0.408)*0.317 d =0.393*0.091+(-0.161)*(-0.408) e. ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 104 b 1a Y 1 b 31 X a b 3a Y 3 b 2a b 32 Y 2 b 34 Y 1 b 1a b 41 X a b 4a Y 4 X a : Y 1 : Y 2 : b 2a b 42 Y 2 Y 3 : Y 4 : b ij : ( )

25 81 (IE) (B i ) (S i ) t X a Y 3 Y 1 b 1a b 31 = (b 2 31 s 2 1a +b 2 1a s 2 31 ) 1/2 = (B i -0) / S i = * Y 2 b 2a b 32 = (b 2 32 s 2 2a +b 2 2a s 2 32 ) 1/2 = (B i -0) / S i = Y 1 Y 4 b 1a b 41 b 34 = (b 2 34 s b 2 34 s 2 1a +b 2 41 s 2 1a +b s 34 +b 2 1a s b 2 1a s 2 34 ) 1/2 = (B i -0) / S i = Y 4 b 4a b 34 = (b 2 34 s 2 4a +b 2 4a s 2 34 ) 1/2 = (B i -0) / S i = ** Y 2 Y 4 b 2a b 42 b 34 = (b 2 34 s b 2 34 s 2 2a +b 2 42 s 2 2a +b s 34 +b 2 2a s b 2 2a s 2 34 ) 1/2 = (B i -0) / S i = X a Y 4 Y 1 b 1a b 41 = (b 2 41 s 2 1a +b 2 1a s 2 41 ) 1/2 = (B i -0) / S i = Y 2 b 2a b 42 = (b 2 42 s 2 2a +b 2 2a s 2 42 ) 1/2 = (B i -0) / S i = a. b ij : ( ) s ij : b. Sobel (1982) c. ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) (1) (VIF) (D-W) (F) 4 5% (β=0.371 p<0.05) (β=0.305 p<0.01 β=0.191 p<0.10 β= p<0.01) (β=0.285 p<0.05) (β=0.352 p<0.05) (β=0.342 p<0.05 β= p<0.01) (β=0.455 p<0.01 β= p<0.05)

26 a 1 CP = β 0 + β 1 DPA + β 2 SAT + β 3 JRT + β 4 IP + β 5 SIZE + ε 2 IP = β 0 + β 1 DPA + β 2 SAT + β 3 JRT + ε 3 SAT = β 0 + β 1 DPA + ε 4 JRT = β 0 + β 1 DPA + ε CP IP SAT JRT β t β t β t β t DPA *** ** SAT * JRT *** IP ** SIZE ** Adj. R F *** *** ** D-W Max VIF DPA ** *** ** SAT JRT *** IP ** SIZE Adj. R F *** *** *** ** D-W Max VIF a. DPA= SAT=JRT= CP= IP= SIZE= ( =1 =0) (n=63) (n=41) b.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( )

27 The International Journal of Accounting Studies ( ) SIZE ** SAT ** DPA CP DPA JRT ** SAT *** * ** IP JRT *** ( ) SIZE *** SAT DPA CP ** JRT *** SAT ** DPA ** ** JRT *** IP ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 83

28 (2) Pearson Baron and Kenny (1986) Sobel (1982) (p<0.10) Baron and Kenny (1986) Sobel (1982) 10% H4-1a H4-1b H4-1c H4-2a H4-2b H4-2c

29 85 Pearson a DPA SAT JRT CP IP SIZE (DPA) *** ** ** ** (SAT) ** ** *** (JRT) *** ** (CP) ** ** ** * (IP) ** *** *** *** (SIZE) ** a.(n=63) (n=41 b.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( e : SAT DPA ** ** - - JRT DPA CP DPA a SAT ** b JRT ** c IP *** ** SIZE ** ** IP DPA ** *** d - SAT *** * JRT *** *** : (IE) (B i ) (S i ) t X a Y 3 Y Y Y 1 Y Y * Y 2 Y X a Y 4 Y Y a =0.285* *(-0.011) *0.191* * *(-0.446)*0.37 b =0.191*0.37 c = (-0.446)*0.37 d =0.285* *( e. ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 63

30 e SAT DPA *** *** - - JRT DPA ** ** - - CP DPA a SAT *** b JRT *** c IP ** ** SIZE * IP DPA ** ** d - SAT JRT ** *** (IE) (B i ) (S i ) t X a Y 3 Y Y Y 1 Y Y Y 2 Y X a Y 4 Y Y * a =0.455*0.254+(-0.350)*(-0.160)+0.455*(-0.073) * *0.352+(-0.350)*(-0.406)*0.352 b =(-0.073)*0.35 c =(-0.406)*0.35 d =0.455*(-0.073)+(-0.350)*(-0.406) e. ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 41 Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) ( ) ( ) Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) Mann-Whitney U 絶 ( ) Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) 絶

31 87 (p<0.10) Mann-Whitney U 24 (p<0.01) (p<0.01) Mann-Whitney U a Mann-Whitney U (n=35) (n=6) Z Dpa Dpa Dpa Dpa Dpa Dpa Pnp *** Pnp ** Pnp *** Pnp *** Pnp *** Pnp * Dpa1 Pnp *** Dpa2 Pnp *** Dpa3 Pnp *** Dpa4 Pnp *** Dpa5 Pnp *** Dpa6 Pnp *** Mann-Whitney U (DPA) (PNP) *** (DPC) *** (SAT) (JRT) (CP) (IP) a.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) ( 2005) ( 6 ) t Mann-Whitney U 24 ( 6 ) Mann-Whitney U

32 Pearson Spearman 25 絶 ( ) - a DPA PNP SAT JRT CP IP (DPA) (1.000) *** (0.152) (-0.580) (-0.486) * (0.257) *** (0.429) (PNP) *** (0.011) (1.000) (-0.123) (-0.516) (-0.030) ** (0.820 ** ) (SAT) ** (-0.565) (-0.014) (1.000) ** (-0.261) *** (-0.319) (-0.058) (JRT) (-0.231) (-0.444) ** (-0.196) (1.000) ** (-0.200) *** ( ** ) (CP) ** (0.197) (0.031) *** (-0.506) *** (-0.277) (1.000) *** (0.143) (IP) *** (0.094) ** (0.623) (0.001) *** ( ** ) *** (0.064) (1.000) a. Pearson Spearman b. - (n=35) - (n=6 c.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ( Parker and Kyj 2006; Agbejule and Saarikoski 2006) Shields and Shields (1998) 25 Spearman ( 2005) 6 Spearman

33 89 ( ) Clinton (1999) Clinton and Hunton (2001) ( ) (Margerison and Glube 1979) (Covaleski et al. 2003) Brownell (1985) Harrison (1992) Parker et al. (1959)

34 (Hopwood 1972) (Hartmann and Moers 2003) (1)... (2) (3)... (4).. (5).. (6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

35 91 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6 ) ( )

36 (8 ) (10 ) (9 ) Agbejule, A., and L. Saarikoski The effect of cost management knowledge on the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial performance. The British Accounting Review 38 (December): Argyris, C The impact of budgets on people. Controllership Foundation. Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (December): Brownell, P. 1982a. The role of accounting data in performance evaluation, budgetary participation, and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (Spring): Brownell, P. 1982b. A field study examination of budgetary participation and locus of control. The Accounting Review 57 (October): Brownell, P Budgetary systems and the control of functionally differentiated organizational activities. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (Autumn): Bruns, W. J., and J. H. Waterhouse Budgetary control and organization structure. Journal of Accounting Research 13 (Autumn): Bryan, J. F., and E. A. Locke Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 51 (June): Chenhall, R. H., and P. Brownell The effect of participative budgeting on job satisfaction and performance: Role ambiguity as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (February):

37 93 Choi, B., and H. Lee An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information and Management 40 (May): Clinton, B. D Antecedents of budgetary participation: The effects of organizational, situational, and individual factors. Advances in Management Accounting 8: Clinton, B. D., and J. E. Hunton Linking participative budgeting congruence to organization performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting 13: Comer, J. M., K. A. Machleit, and R. R. Lagace Psychometric assessment of a reduced version of INDSALES. Journal of Business Research 18 (June): Covaleski, M. A., J. H. Evans, J. L. Luft, and M. D. Shields Budgeting research: Three theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration. Journal of Management Accounting Research 15: Doll, W. J., and G. Torkzadeh A congruence construct of user involvement. Decision Sciences 22 (Spring): Edwards, J. R An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal 39 (April): Fowler, F. J Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Govindarajan, V., and A. K. Gupta Linking control system to business unit strategy: Impact on performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10 (January): Greenberg, P. S., Greenberg, R. H., and H. Nouri Participative budgeting: A meta-analytic examination of methodological moderators. Journal of Accounting Literature 13: Hansen, S. C., and W. A. Van der Stede Multiple facets of budgeting: A exploratory analysis. Management Accounting Research 15 (December): Harrison, G. L The cross-cultural generalizability of the relation between participation, budget emphasis and job related attitudes. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (January): Hartmann, F. G. H., and F. Moers Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research using moderated regression analysis: A second look. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (October-November):

38 Heneman, H. G Comparisons of self- and superior ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (October): Hopwood, A. G An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research 10 (Supplement): Iaffaldano, M. T., and P. M. Muchinsky Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 97: Kenis, I Effects of budgetary goal characteristics on managerial attitudes and performance. The Accounting Review 54 (October): Kerlinger, F. N Foundations of Behavior Research. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kren, L Budgetary participation and managerial performance: The impact of information and environmental volatility. The Accounting Review 67 (July): Lau, C. M., L. C. Low, and I. R. C. Eggleton The impact of reliance on accounting performance measures on job-related tension and managerial performance: Additional evidence. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (July): Lau, C. M., and C. Buckland Budgetin The role of trust and participation: A research note. Abacus 37 (October): Lau, C. M., and S. L. C. Tan The effects of participation and job-relevant information on the relationship between evaluative style and job satisfaction. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 21: Margerison, C., and R. Glube Leadership decision-making: An empirical test of the Vroom and Yetton model. The Journal of Management Studies 16 (February): Martins, L. L., K. A. Eddleston, and J. F. Veiga Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 45 (April): Merchant, K. A The design of the corporate budgeting system: Influences on managerial behavior and performance. The Accounting Review 56 (October):

39 95 Milani, K The relationship of participation in budget-setting to industrial supervisor performance and attitudes: A field study. The Accounting Review 50 (April): Nouri, H., and R. J. Parker The relationship between budget participation and job performance: The roles of budget adequacy and organizational commitment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23 (July-August): Nunnally, J Psychometric Theory. New York, McGraw-Hill. Parker, J. W., E. K. Taylor, R. S. Barrett, and L. Martens Rating scale content: Relationship between supervisory- and self-ratings. Personnel Psychology 12 (Spring): Parker, R. J., and L. Kyj Vertical information sharing in the budgeting process. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (January): Petty, M. M., G. W. McGee, and J. W. Cavender A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review 9 (October): Shields, J. F., and M. D. Shields Antecedents of participative budgeting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23 (January): Shields, M. D., and S. M. Young Antecedents and consequences of participative budgeting: Evidence on the effects of asymmetrical information. Journal of Management Accounting Research 5: Shields, M. D., F. J. Deng, and Y. Kato The design and effects of control systems: Tests of direct- and indirect- models. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25 (February): Sobel, M. E Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. Sociological methodology 13: Steers, R. M Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (December): Studenmund, A. H Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide. Boston, Mass: Addison Wesley. Vroom, V. H., and P. W. Yetton Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Vroom, V. H., and S. G. Jago The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

40 Weick, K. E Stress in accounting systems. The Accounting Review 58 (April): Wonnacott, T. H., and R. J. Wonnacott Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing.