Search results

Participative budgeting can benefita firm by incorporating subordinates’ private information into financing and operating decisions. In the managerial accounting literature, studies of participative budgeting posit superiors that range from passively committed to highly active participants, some of whom are permitted to communicate, choose compensation schemes, negotiate with subordinates, and reject budgets. This paper synthesizes and analyzes experimental research in participative budgeting with a focus on the role of the superior defined in the research design, and on how that role affects budget outcomes, subordinate behavior, and in some cases superior behavior. We demonstrate how superior type influences economic and behavioral predictions, and likewise affects budgeting outcomes and the interpretation of the results. This paper is intended to further our understanding of how superior type affects behavior in participative budgeting studies, and to facilitate the choice of superior type in future research designs.

Despite the benefits of delegation, anecdotal and survey-based evidence suggests that firms do not optimally delegate decision-making authority. However, to date, no quantifiable evidence supports this claim.

We design an experiment to explore the superior’s choice between delegation and information elicitation. We also examine the effect of the superiors’ choice on the amount of effort provided by subordinates to gather decision-facilitating information.

We find that, compared to economic predictions, superiors delegate less often than they should. Subordinates exert lower effort when superiors elicit information than when superiors delegate the decision to them. As a result, superiors earn lower profit when they elicit information than when they delegate decision-making authority.

Our empirical evidence supports two main tenets espoused in the literature on the allocation of decision rights. First, the evidence of under delegation contributes to the literature which maintains that superiors’ tendency to under-delegate leads firms to become overly centralized.

By designing a novel experimental, we identify systematic ways in which behavior deviates from economic theory and contribute to the discussion on how firms utilize information. In particular, under delegation prevents firms from exploiting economies that arise from local capabilities and task specialization, and results in forgone profits.