Search results

Program heads are key players in governmental budgeting because they are involved both in formulating their program’s budget and ensuring the program’s activities comply with the budget. This paper synthesizes past research pertaining to two aspects of a government’s budgeting system-formal budgetary procedures fairness and budgetary procedures implementation fairness-that influence program heads’ attitudes and behaviors. Criteria are identified for each of the two forms of budgetary procedures fairness, as are specific types of attitudinal and behavioral reactions on the part of program heads. Reasons that program heads value fair budgetary procedures are also discussed. The paper concludes by presenting implications the research has for people involved in designing and implementing governmental budgeting systems and for governmental budgeting researchers.

This study examines the contribution of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in Federal budget decision-making to Federal managers' commitment to the Federal government as an employing organization. A total of 1,358 useable surveys were received from a sample of 9,643 managers. Reliability coefficients were acceptable (> .70), and intercorrelations consistent with previous studies. Hierarchical regression analysis supported only maineffect relationships between procedural justice and interactional justice and managers' organizational commitment. No support was found for a main effect relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment -- or for any interactive effects. Contrary to models of bureaucratic behavior based on economic theory, these findings may suggest that Federal managers may be motivated primarily by psychological outcomes of budget decisions.

In a study consisting of 202 currently‐employed undergraduate students, we examined relationships between employees' perceptions of organizational justice and the styles they use for managing conflict with their supervisors. Regression analysis of questionnaire data indicated that distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were generally positively related to the use of more cooperative conflict management styles (i.e., integrating, obliging, and compromising). Two 2‐way interaction effects were observed as well, such that higher interactional justice was related to greater use of the integrating style primarily when distributive justice was low and procedural justice was high. Additionally, distributive justice was positively related to use of the avoiding style. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

We examined relationships between distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and two types of organization‐directed reactions—organizational commitment and turnover intention—across two employee samples each from the U.S. and Bangladesh. Regression analyses of questionnaire data indicated that the three forms of justice were related to the organization‐directed reactions of both the U.S. and Bangladesh employees. The specific nature of the justice relationships varied primarily when comparing employees across the four samples, rather than across the two countries.

This study examined, in an organizational budgeting context, several important psychological processes surrounding procedural justice. Specifically, the study tested a causal model in which voice has value‐expressive and control‐mediated effects on procedural justice, and procedural justice has positive effects on organizational commitment. Data were gathered with a survey of production workers (N = 157) and analyzed with a latent variable structural equation model. The results supported control‐mediated voice effects on procedural justice and procedural justice effects on organizational commitment, but failed to confirm value‐expressive voice effects. Based on the findings, we argue that value‐expressive voice effects may be less prevalent than previous research has suggested.

To summarize the findings of empirical studies the authors have conducted regarding budgetary procedures fairness and to discuss key implications of these findings.

Summary and synthesis of the authors' empirical research.

Identifies criteria for, and types of attitudinal and behavioral reactions that managers have toward, formal budgetary procedures fairness and budgetary procedures implementation fairness. Provides information regarding how the two forms of budgetary procedures fairness work together to influence managers' attitudes and behaviors, and how they reduce managers' negative reactions to unfavorable budgets. Presents reasons that fair budgetary procedures are important to managers.

The authors' studies used questionnaire data where all variables were measured at a single point in time, which provides little control over unmeasured variables and direction of causality. Future research should seek to expand the sets of criteria for and reactions toward budgetary procedures fairness, as well as to further detail the processes by which budgetary procedures fairness works. Also, relationships involving budgetary procedures fairness should be examined by means of laboratory experiments.

Underscores the importance of promoting formal budgetary procedures fairness and budgetary procedures implementation fairness in organizational budgetary systems, and provides concrete guidance in this regard.

Provides useful information to accounting and audit staff, budget committee members, supervisors, and other employees involved in designing and implementing organizational budgetary systems and to budgeting researchers.

Empirical evidence from governmental budgeting and related organizational decision‐making contexts suggests that program heads will be less likely to leave their governmental unit when they feel that governmental budgeting is fair. The purpose of this study is to examine relationships between three forms of fairness in governmental budgeting – distributive fairness, procedural fairness, and interactional fairness – and program heads' intention to leave the governmental unit.

Questionnaire data were gathered from 87 US federal government program heads with budget responsibility and analyzed with multiple regression.

Interactional budgetary fairness had a significant and positive unique relationship with intent to leave after controlling for the other two forms of budgetary fairness and three demographic variables. Neither distributive budgetary fairness nor procedural budgetary fairness had a significant unique relationship with intent to leave.

Budgetary decision makers and budget staff in governmental units can reduce program heads' intention to leave the governmental unit by promoting interactional budgetary fairness through steps such as treating the program heads with kindness and respect during budgeting and providing clear and adequate explanations for budgetary decisions.

This study is the first to examine relationships between the three forms of organizational decision‐making fairness and turnover intention in a governmental budgeting context.

Large organizations typically mandate that managers attend budget meetings and exchange budget reports with their immediate supervisor and budget staff. We explored whether such organization-mandated budgetary involvement is related to managers’ budgetary communication with their supervisor in terms of budgetary participation, budgetary explanation, and budgetary feedback. Questionnaire data from 148 managers employed by 94 different companies were analyzed with regression. Mandatory budget meetings with supervisor had a positive relationship with all three forms of budgetary communication with supervisor, and mandatory budget reports from supervisor had a positive relationship with budgetary explanation from supervisor. Mandatory budget meetings with budget staff had a positive relationship with both budgetary participation with supervisor and budgetary feedback from supervisor. Mandatory budget reports from budget staff had a negative relationship with all three forms of budgetary communication with supervisor. The results failed to support proposed relationships between mandatory budget reports to supervisor and budgetary participation with supervisor, and between mandatory budget reports from supervisor and budgetary explanation from supervisor. Implications of the results for future research and budgetary system design are discussed.

The motive to manage impressions has been broken down into protective and acquisitive orientations. A protective orientation exists when an individual is concerned primarily with encountering disapproval, rather than approval, from the relevant audience. An acquisitive orientation exists when an individual is concerned primarily with obtaining approval from the audience. This study tests the proposition that organizational managers have primarily an acquisitive orientation. The affective sentiments of 95 international middle‐ and upper‐level business managers toward their organization, its leaders, and its business control mechanisms were compared with their perceptions of the acquisitiveness and protectiveness of their work environment. The results indicate that affective sentiments of managers are correlated with the acquisitiveness, but not the protectiveness, of the work environment, supporting the notion that managers have primarily an acquisitive orientation.

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.