untitled

The International Journal of Accounting Studies 45 2007 7 57 97 (1) (2) NSC92-2416-H-126-008 57 2005 11 2007 12

58 45 2007 7 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

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) ( )

60 45 2007 7 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

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)

62 45 2007 7 1. 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

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

64 45 2007 7 (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

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

66 45 2007 7 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

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

68 45 2007 7 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) 11 2 3 (0= 6= ) (1= 7= ) Likert (1=7= ) (1= 11 Bruns and Waterhouse (1975) Clinton and Hunton (2001)

69 7= ) DPA 6 Dpa i = 1 = i 6 6.......(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) ( ) 12 12 Parker, Taylor, Barrett and Martens (1959) (leniency bias)

70 45 2007 7 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)

71 Choi and Lee (2003) Choi and Lee (2003) Likert (1=7= ) 1. 15 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) 200 500 (1994) 350 1000 500 500 500

72 45 2007 7 16 Shields and Young (1993) 1000 32 500 1. 118 14 104 20.8% 500 59.62% 30 57.7% 31~40 52.9% 49% 5 58.6% 2. Chi-Square 24.4 (p<0.10) 3. 76 28 16 Brownell (1985)

73 t 17 Jrt5 Cp3 Cp4 (p<0.10) a % b % c 10 5 2 40.00 1.92 44 22 7 31.82 6.73 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 7 3 0 0.00 0.00 7 3 2 66.67 1.92 127 64 12 18.75 11.54 3 2 0 0.00 0.00 24 12 1 8.33 0.96 13 6 4 66.67 3.85 17 9 1 11.11 0.96 26 13 4 30.77 3.85 26 13 2 15.38 1.92 27 13 3 23.08 2.89 1 1 0 0.00 0.00 56 28 10 35.71 9.62 19 10 2 20.00 1.92 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 15 7 1 14.29 0.96 136 68 10 14.71 9.62 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 23 12 1 8.33 0.96 61 30 7 23.33 6.73 44 22 5 22.73 4.81 7 3 1 33.33 0.96 6 3 0 0.00 0.00 36 18 4 22.22 3.85 73 37 5 13.51 4.81 16 8 3 37.50 2.88 14 7 3 42.86 2.88 53 27 5 18.52 4.81 92 46 9 19.57 8.65 11 5 0 0.00 0.00 1000 500 104 1000 % = / % = / 17 Fowler (1988)

74 45 2007 7 % (n=104) (n=104) 4. 200 27 25.96 201~500 35 33.66 501~800 9 8.65 801~1000 6 5.77 1000 27 25.96 1 5 4.81 1~10 14 13.46 11~30 43 41.35 31~50 17 16.35 51~70 7 6.73 71~90 2 1.92 90 16 15.38 1 DPA (1.347) DPC (0.801) DPC (6.114) JRT (3.809) 4 a (DPA) 1 7 1.000 7.000 4.380 1.347 (PNP) 1 7 1.167 7.000 4.904 1.050 (DPC) 1 7 3.833 7.000 6.114 0.801 (SAT) 1 7 1.000 7.000 5.438 1.039 (JRT) 1 7 1.167 6.333 3.809 1.042 (CP) 1 7 3.833 7.000 4.813 1.263 (IP) 1 7 1.500 6.694 5.123 0.813 a. 104 Pearson

75 Pearson a DPA PNP DPC SAT JRT CP IP SIZE (DPA) 1.000 (PNP) 0.699 *** 1.000 (DPC) 0.466 *** 0.184 * * 1.000 (SAT) 0.393 *** 0.204 ** * 0.246 ** 1.000 (JRT) -0.161** 0.037-0.171-0.297 *** 1.000 (CP) 0.275 *** 0.141 0.308 *** 0.363 *** -0.364 *** 1.000 (IP) 0.402 *** 0.328 *** 0.282 *** 0.331 *** -0.484 *** 0.476 *** 1.000 (SIZE) 0.003 0.085-0.019 0.092-0.164 * 0.275 *** 0.103 1.000 a.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 104 1. (Nunnally 1978) Cronbach s α 18 0.7 Nunnally (1978) 2. (Nunnally 1978) 15 (Kerlinger 1986) 18 ( 2001) Cronbach s ( ) ( ) ( )

76 45 2007 7 Kerlinger (1986) Sat3 Jrt3 0.4 Sat3 Jrt3 Kerlinger (1986) 0.5 d a b c Dpa1 0.614 0.743 Dpa2 0.689 0.788 Dpa3 0.762 0.849 Dpa4 0.576 0.702 Dpa5 0.767 0.856 Dpa6 0.597 0.723 Pnp1 0.583 0.726 Pnp2 0.747 0.835 Pnp3 0.706 0.811 Pnp4 0.561 0.692 Pnp5 0.717 0.823 Pnp6 0.549 0.687 Sat1 0.785 0.874 Sat2 0.882 0.936 Sat4 0.842 0.915 Sat5 0.784 0.883 Jrt1 0.555 0.709 Jrt2 0.505 0.659 Jrt4 0.403 0.558 Jrt5 0.543 0.708 Jrt6 0.733 0.845 Jrt7 0.674 0.803 Cp1 0.731 0.835 Cp2 0.776 0.866 Cp3 0.751 0.848 Cp4 0.660 0.782 Cp5 0.690 0.802 Ip1 0.637 0.779 Ip2 0.576 0.728 Ip3 0.663 0.797 Ip4 0.638 0.759 Ip5 0.570 0.689 Ip6 0.596 0.713 a. (item-total correlation) b. (factor loading) c. Cronbach s α d. 104 1. (1) 3.64 60.74 0.869 3.50 58.49 0.856 3.25 81.42 0.924 3.10 51.80 0.808 3.42 68.44 0.884 3.33 55.56 0.839 VIF 19 19 (variance- inflation factor, VIF) VIF VIF<5 (Studenmund 2001)

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=-0.408 p<0.01) H1-2 Merchant (1981) Brownell (1982a) 3 4 (β=0.393 p<0.01) ( ) SIZE 0.393 *** SAT 0.184 * 0.207 ** DPA 0.057-0.161 JRT -0.113 0.393 *** SAT 0.091 CP 0.317 *** DPA -0.161 0.301 *** JRT -0.408 *** IP ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 20 D-W D-W 2 (Studenmund 2001)

78 45 2007 7 a 1 0.016 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 1 2 3 4 CP IP SAT JRT t t t t DPA 0.057 0.594 0.301 *** 3.420 0.393 *** 4.316-0.161-1.648 SAT 0.184 * 1.961 0.091 1.003 JRT -0.113-1.167-0.408 *** -4.826 IP 0.317 *** 3.093 SIZE 0.207 ** 2.464 Adj. R 2 0.297 0.329 0.146 F 9.702 *** 17.843 *** 18.629 *** 2.716 D-W 2.024 1.823 1.958 1.747 Max 1.537 1.267 1.000 1.000 VIF a. DPA= SAT=JRT= CP= IP= SIZE= ( =1 =0 b.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 104

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)

80 45 2007 7 e SAT DPA 0.393 *** 0.393 *** - - JRT DPA -0.161-0.161 - - CP DPA 0.275 *** 0.057 0.218 a - SAT 0.363 *** 0.184 * 0.029 b 0.150 JRT -0.364 *** -0.113-0.129 c -0.122 IP 0.476 *** 0.137 *** - 0.159 SIZE 0.275 *** 0.207 ** - 0.068 IP DPA 0.402 *** 0.301 *** 0.101 d - SAT 0.331 *** 0.091-0.240 JRT -0.484 *** -0.408 *** - -0.076 a. 0.218=0.393*0.184+(-0.161)*(-0.113)+ 0.393*0.091*0.317+0.301*0.317+(-0.161)*(-0.408)*0.317 b. 0.029=0.091*0.317 c. -0.129=(-0.408)*0.317 d. 0.101=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 : ( )

81 (IE) (B i ) (S i ) t X a Y 3 Y 1 b 1a b 31 =0.0721 (b 2 31 s 2 1a +b 2 1a s 2 31 ) 1/2 =0.0404 (B i -0) / S i =1.7855 * Y 2 b 2a b 32 =0.0182 (b 2 32 s 2 2a +b 2 2a s 2 32 ) 1/2 =0.0191 (B i -0) / S i =0.9524 Y 1 Y 4 b 1a b 41 b 34 =0.0113 (b 2 34 s 2 41 +b 2 34 s 2 1a +b 2 41 s 2 1a +b 2 2 41 s 34 +b 2 1a s 2 41 +b 2 1a s 2 34 ) 1/2 =0.0686 (B i -0) / S i =0.1653 Y 4 b 4a b 34 =0.0952 (b 2 34 s 2 4a +b 2 4a s 2 34 ) 1/2 =0.0415 (B i -0) / S i =2.2939 ** Y 2 Y 4 b 2a b 42 b 34 =0.0208 (b 2 34 s 2 42 +b 2 34 s 2 2a +b 2 42 s 2 2a +b 2 2 42 s 34 +b 2 2a s 2 42 +b 2 2a s 2 34 ) 1/2 =0.0740 (B i -0) / S i =0.2816 X a Y 4 Y 1 b 1a b 41 =0.0358 (b 2 41 s 2 1a +b 2 1a s 2 41 ) 1/2 =0.0367 (B i -0) / S i =0.9773 Y 2 b 2a b 42 =0.0658 (b 2 42 s 2 2a +b 2 2a s 2 42 ) 1/2 =0.0422 (B i -0) / S i =1.5597 a. b ij : ( ) s ij : b. Sobel (1982) c. ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 104 2. (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=-0.446 p<0.01) (β=0.285 p<0.05) (β=0.352 p<0.05) (β=0.342 p<0.05 β=-0.406 p<0.01) (β=0.455 p<0.01 β=-0.350 p<0.05)

82 45 2007 7 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 1 2 3 4 CP IP SAT JRT β t β t β t β t DPA -0.079-0.611 0.305 *** 2.771 0.285 ** 2.320 0.112 0.882 SAT 0.147 1.171 0.191 * 1.715 JRT -0.011-0.080-0.446 *** -4.145 IP 0.371 ** 2.584 SIZE 0.272 ** 2.321 Adj. R 2 0.203 0.333 0.066-0.004 F 4.164 *** 11.324 *** 5.383 ** 0.778 D-W 1.801 1.948 1.784 1.754 Max VIF 1.607 1.157 1.000 1.000 DPA 0.022 0.131 0.342 ** 2.229 0.455 *** 3.187-0.350 ** -2.332 SAT 0.254 1.662-0.073-0.470 JRT -0.160-1.012-0.406 *** -2.740 IP 0.352 ** 2.127 SIZE 0.143 1.031 Adj. R 2 0.330 0.285 0.186 0.100 F 4.934 *** 6.326 *** 10.156 *** 5.440 ** D-W 2.382 1.528 2.220 1.905 Max VIF 1.635 1.361 1.000 1.000 a. DPA= SAT=JRT= CP= IP= SIZE= ( =1 =0) (n=63) (n=41) b.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( )

The International Journal of Accounting Studies 45 2007 7 57 97 ( ) SIZE 0.285 ** SAT 0.147 0.272 ** DPA -0.079 CP DPA 0.112 JRT -0.011 0.285 ** SAT 0.305 *** 0.191 * 0.371 ** IP 0.112 JRT -0.446 *** ( ) SIZE 0.455 *** SAT 0.254 0.143 DPA 0.022 CP -0.350 ** JRT -0.160 0.455 *** SAT -0.073 0.352 ** DPA -0.350 ** 0.342 ** JRT -0.406 *** IP ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 83

84 45 2007 7 (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

85 Pearson a DPA SAT JRT CP IP SIZE (DPA) 1.000 0.455 *** -0.350 ** 0.336 ** 0.451 ** -0.109 (SAT) 0.285 ** 1.000-0.386 ** 0.421 *** 0.239 0.079 (JRT) 0.112-0.200 1.000-0.460 *** -0.498 ** -0.139 (CP) 0.099 0.289 ** -0.264 ** 1.000 0.535 ** 0.264 * (IP) 0.309 ** 0.367 *** -0.450 *** 0.410 *** 1.000 0.230 (SIZE) 0.081 0.098-0.177 0.287 ** 0.015 1.000 a.(n=63) (n=41 b.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( e : SAT DPA 0.285 ** 0.285 ** - - JRT DPA 0.112 0.112 - - CP DPA 0.099-0.079 0.155 a 0.023 SAT 0.289 ** 0.147 0.071 b 0.071 JRT -0.264 ** -0.011-0.165 c -0.088 IP 0.410 *** 0.371 ** - 0.039 SIZE 0.287 ** 0.272 ** - 0.015 IP DPA 0.309 ** 0.305 *** 0.004 d - SAT 0.367 *** 0.191 * - 0.176 JRT -0.450 *** -0.446 *** - -0.004 : (IE) (B i ) (S i ) t X a Y 3 Y 1 0.0659 0.0630 1.0453 Y 2-0.0019 0.0244-0.0796 Y 1 Y 4 0.0319 0.1392 0.2293 Y 4 0.1786 0.0945 1.8898 * Y 2 Y 4-0.0293 0.1494-0.1964 X a Y 4 Y 1 0.0662 0.0480 1.3789 Y 2-0.0608 0.0705-0.8620 a. 0.155=0.285*0.147+0.112*(-0.011)+ 0.285*0.191*0.371+0.305*0.371+0.112*(-0.446)*0.37 b. 0.071=0.191*0.37 c. -0.165= (-0.446)*0.37 d. 0.004=0.285*0.191+0.112*(-0.446 e. ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 63

86 45 2007 7 e SAT DPA 0.455 *** 0.455 *** - - JRT DPA -0.350 ** -0.350 ** - - CP DPA 0.336 0.022 0.330 a -0.016 SAT 0.421 *** 0.254-0.026 b 0.193 JRT -0.460 *** -0.160-0.143 c -0.157 IP 0.535 ** 0.352 ** - 0.183 SIZE 0.264 * 0.143-0.121 IP DPA 0.451 ** 0.342 ** 0.109 d - SAT 0.239-0.073-0.321 JRT -0.498 ** -0.406 *** - -0.092 (IE) (B i ) (S i ) t X a Y 3 Y 1 0.1318 0.0895 1.4738 Y 2 0.0685 0.0738 0.9285 Y 1 Y 4-0.0134 0.1568-0.0855 Y 4 0.1303 0.0847 1.5388 Y 2 Y 4 0.0615 0.1686 0.3645 X a Y 4 Y 1-0.0313 0.0673-0.4650 Y 2 0.1335 0.0752 1.7759 * a. 0.330=0.455*0.254+(-0.350)*(-0.160)+0.455*(-0.073) *0.352+0.342*0.352+(-0.350)*(-0.406)*0.352 b. -0.026=(-0.073)*0.35 c. -0.143=(-0.406)*0.35 d. 0.109=0.455*(-0.073)+(-0.350)*(-0.406) e. ***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 41 Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) ( ) ( ) Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) 35 6 22 Mann-Whitney U 23 22 絶 ( ) Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) 絶

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 Dpa1 21.44 18.42-0.588 Dpa2 21.71 16.83-0.963 Dpa3 22.79 10.58-2.445 Dpa4 22.03 15.00-1.421 Dpa5 21.54 17.83-0.728 Dpa6 22.11 14.50-1.494 Pnp1 18.60 35.00-3.140 *** Pnp2 19.24 31.25-2.314 ** Pnp3 18.33 36.58-3.520 *** Pnp4 18.46 35.83-3.339 *** Pnp5 18.59 35.08-3.157 *** Pnp6 19.69 28.67-1.735 * Dpa1 Pnp1 23.40 7.00-3.146 *** Dpa2 Pnp2 23.00 9.33-2.615 *** Dpa3 Pnp3 23.84 4.42-3.743 *** Dpa4 Pnp4 23.77 4.83-3.655 *** Dpa5 Pnp5 23.44 6.75-3.216 *** Dpa6 Pnp6 23.50 6.42-3.277 *** Mann-Whitney U (DPA) 22.13 14.42-1.464 (PNP) 18.30 36.75-3.491 *** (DPC) 24.00 3.50-3.881 *** (SAT) 19.76 28.25-1.617 (JRT) 22.11 14.50-1.442 (CP) 20.46 24.17-0.702 (IP) 20.31 25.00-0.886 a.***(**)[*] 1%(5%)[10%] ( ) 41 23 ( 2005) ( 6 ) t Mann-Whitney U 24 ( 6 ) Mann-Whitney U

88 45 2007 7 Pearson Spearman 25 絶 ( ) - a DPA PNP SAT JRT CP IP (DPA) 1.000 (1.000) 0.737 *** (0.152) 0.251 (-0.580) -0.222 (-0.486) 0.303 * (0.257) 0.508 *** (0.429) (PNP) 0.715 *** (0.011) 1.000 (1.000) 0.007 (-0.123) -0.005 (-0.516) 0.102 (-0.030) 0.410 ** (0.820 ** ) (SAT) 0.415 ** (-0.565) 0.185 (-0.014) 1.000 (1.000) -0.342 ** (-0.261) 0.460 *** (-0.319) 0.249 (-0.058) (JRT) -0.276 (-0.231) -0.092 (-0.444) -0.357 ** (-0.196) 1.000 (1.000) -0.404 ** (-0.200) -0.445 *** (-0.829 ** ) (CP) 0.366 ** (0.197) 0.152 (0.031) 0.465 *** (-0.506) -0.472 *** (-0.277) 1.000 (1.000) 0.577 *** (0.143) (IP) 0.497 *** (0.094) 0.362 ** (0.623) 0.230 (0.001) -0.450 *** (-0.823 ** ) 0.587 *** (0.064) 1.000 (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

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

90 45 2007 7 (Hopwood 1972) (Hartmann and Moers 2003) (1)... (2) (3)... (4).. (5).. (6)... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

91 (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (7) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2).. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2001 1998 6 2 (6 ) 293-330 2005( )

92 45 2007 7 2005 22 4 (8 ) 549-567 2003 20 5 (10 ) 1023-1043 2001 2 3 (9 ) 299-318 1994 Agbejule, A., and L. Saarikoski. 2006. The effect of cost management knowledge on the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial performance. The British Accounting Review 38 (December): 427-440. Argyris, C. 1952. The impact of budgets on people. Controllership Foundation. Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (December): 1173-1182. Brownell, P. 1982a. The role of accounting data in performance evaluation, budgetary participation, and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (Spring): 12-27. Brownell, P. 1982b. A field study examination of budgetary participation and locus of control. The Accounting Review 57 (October): 766-777. Brownell, P. 1985. Budgetary systems and the control of functionally differentiated organizational activities. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (Autumn): 502-512. Bruns, W. J., and J. H. Waterhouse. 1975. Budgetary control and organization structure. Journal of Accounting Research 13 (Autumn): 177-203. Bryan, J. F., and E. A. Locke. 1967. Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 51 (June): 274-277. Chenhall, R. H., and P. Brownell. 1988. The effect of participative budgeting on job satisfaction and performance: Role ambiguity as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (February): 225-233.

93 Choi, B., and H. Lee. 2003. An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information and Management 40 (May): 403-417. Clinton, B. D. 1999. Antecedents of budgetary participation: The effects of organizational, situational, and individual factors. Advances in Management Accounting 8: 45-70. Clinton, B. D., and J. E. Hunton. 2001. Linking participative budgeting congruence to organization performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting 13: 127-141. Comer, J. M., K. A. Machleit, and R. R. Lagace. 1989. Psychometric assessment of a reduced version of INDSALES. Journal of Business Research 18 (June): 291-302. Covaleski, M. A., J. H. Evans, J. L. Luft, and M. D. Shields. 2003. Budgeting research: Three theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration. Journal of Management Accounting Research 15: 3-49. Doll, W. J., and G. Torkzadeh. 1991. A congruence construct of user involvement. Decision Sciences 22 (Spring): 443-453. Edwards, J. R. 1996. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal 39 (April): 292-339. Fowler, F. J. 1988. Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Govindarajan, V., and A. K. Gupta. 1985. Linking control system to business unit strategy: Impact on performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10 (January): 51-66. Greenberg, P. S., Greenberg, R. H., and H. Nouri. 1994. Participative budgeting: A meta-analytic examination of methodological moderators. Journal of Accounting Literature 13: 117-141. Hansen, S. C., and W. A. Van der Stede. 2004. Multiple facets of budgeting: A exploratory analysis. Management Accounting Research 15 (December): 415-439. Harrison, G. L. 1992. The cross-cultural generalizability of the relation between participation, budget emphasis and job related attitudes. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (January): 1-15. Hartmann, F. G. H., and F. Moers. 2003. Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research using moderated regression analysis: A second look. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (October-November): 803-809.

94 45 2007 7 Heneman, H. G. 1974. Comparisons of self- and superior ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (October): 638-642. Hopwood, A. G. 1972. An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research 10 (Supplement): 156-182. Iaffaldano, M. T., and P. M. Muchinsky. 1985. Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 97: 251-273. Kenis, I. 1979. Effects of budgetary goal characteristics on managerial attitudes and performance. The Accounting Review 54 (October): 707-721. Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of Behavior Research. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kren, L. 1992. Budgetary participation and managerial performance: The impact of information and environmental volatility. The Accounting Review 67 (July): 511-526. Lau, C. M., L. C. Low, and I. R. C. Eggleton. 1995. The impact of reliance on accounting performance measures on job-related tension and managerial performance: Additional evidence. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (July): 359-381. Lau, C. M., and C. Buckland. 2001. Budgetin The role of trust and participation: A research note. Abacus 37 (October): 369-388. Lau, C. M., and S. L. C. Tan. 2003. The effects of participation and job-relevant information on the relationship between evaluative style and job satisfaction. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 21: 17-34. Margerison, C., and R. Glube. 1979. Leadership decision-making: An empirical test of the Vroom and Yetton model. The Journal of Management Studies 16 (February): 45-55. Martins, L. L., K. A. Eddleston, and J. F. Veiga. 2002. Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 45 (April): 399-409. Merchant, K. A. 1981. The design of the corporate budgeting system: Influences on managerial behavior and performance. The Accounting Review 56 (October): 813-829.

95 Milani, K. 1975. The relationship of participation in budget-setting to industrial supervisor performance and attitudes: A field study. The Accounting Review 50 (April): 274-284. Nouri, H., and R. J. Parker. 1998. The relationship between budget participation and job performance: The roles of budget adequacy and organizational commitment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23 (July-August): 467-483. Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York, McGraw-Hill. Parker, J. W., E. K. Taylor, R. S. Barrett, and L. Martens. 1959. Rating scale content: Relationship between supervisory- and self-ratings. Personnel Psychology 12 (Spring): 49-63. Parker, R. J., and L. Kyj. 2006. Vertical information sharing in the budgeting process. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (January): 27-45. Petty, M. M., G. W. McGee, and J. W. Cavender. 1984. A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review 9 (October): 712-721. Shields, J. F., and M. D. Shields. 1998. Antecedents of participative budgeting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23 (January): 49-76. Shields, M. D., and S. M. Young. 1993. Antecedents and consequences of participative budgeting: Evidence on the effects of asymmetrical information. Journal of Management Accounting Research 5: 265-280. Shields, M. D., F. J. Deng, and Y. Kato. 2000. The design and effects of control systems: Tests of direct- and indirect- models. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25 (February): 185-202. Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. Sociological methodology 13: 290-312. Steers, R. M. 1975. Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (December): 546-558. Studenmund, A. H. 2001. Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide. Boston, Mass: Addison Wesley. Vroom, V. H., and P. W. Yetton. 1973. Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Vroom, V. H., and S. G. Jago. 1988. The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

96 45 2007 7 Weick, K. E. 1983. Stress in accounting systems. The Accounting Review 58 (April): 350-369. Wonnacott, T. H., and R. J. Wonnacott. 1981. Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing.