BUDGETARY PARTICIPATION AND STRETCH TARGETS: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN A STRETCH BUDGET CONDITION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24034/j25485024.y2012.v16.i1.138Keywords:
Partisipasi anggaran, stretch budget, keadilan prosedural, komitmen anggaranAbstract
Penganggaran yang berkaitan dengan masalah perilaku memiliki pengaruh penting pada efektivitas organisasi. Partisipasi anggaran umumnya mengacu pada sejauh mana bawahan berpartisipasi dalam penyusunan anggaran dan mempengaruhi sasaran anggaran. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji apakah komponen kontrol (ekonomi) dari keadilan prosedural memberi kontribusi yang signifikan dalam menjelaskan hubungan antara partisipasi anggaran dan komitmen anggaran dalam kondisi stretch budget. Mahasiswa melaksanakan tugas yang melibatkan keputusan penganggaran dasar. Tugas utama mereka adalah mengkode simbol sebanyak mungkin dalam sesi pekerjaan atas kondisi yang berbeda. Manipulasi suara, pilihan, dan jenis anggaran secara acak ditugaskan pada partisipan. Dua variabel dependen, judgment keadilan prosedural dan komitmen anggaran, diukur. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kombinasi suara dan pilihan mempengaruhi judgment keadilan prosedural. Dalam kondisi stretch budget, keadilan prosedural memiliki pengaruh mediasi dalam hubungan antara suara dan pilihan dan komitmen anggaran. Selain itu, studi ini menemukan bahwa dalam kondisi stretch budget, suara dan pilihan memiliki hubungan negatif dengan komitmen anggaran, hal tersebut menunjukkan bahwa partisipasi anggaran menciptakan masalah perilaku.
References
Brett, J. M. and S. B. Goldberg. 1983. Mediator-Advisors: A New Third Party Role. In M. Bazerman and R. Lewicki (Eds.). Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brockner, J., P. Siegel, J. Daly, C. Martin, and T. Tyler. 1997. When Trust Matters: the Moderating Effect of Outcome Favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 558-584.
Brockner, J., T. R. Tyler, R. Cooper Schneider. 1992. The Influence of Prior Commitment to an Institution on Reactions to Perceived Unfair ness: the Higher They Are, the Harder They Fall. Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 241-262.
Brockner, J., Y. Chen, E. Mannix, K. Leung, and D. Skarlicki. 2000. Culture and Procedural Fairness: When the Effects of What You Do Depend on How You Do It. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly 45: 138-160.
Davis, S., F. T. DeZoort, and L. S. Kopp. 2006. The Effect of Obedience Pres sure and Perceived Respon- sibility on Management Accoun- tants’ Creation of Budgetary Slack. Beha- vioral Research in Accounting 18: 19-35.
Derfuss, K. 2008. The Relationship of Budgetary Participation and Reliance on Accounting Performance Measures with Individual-Level Consequent Variables: A MetaAnalysis. European Accounting Review 18(2): 203-239.
Fisher, J., J. R. Frederickson, and S. A. Peffer. 2002. The Effect of Infor mation Asymmetry on Negotiated Budgets: an Empirical Investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27: 27-43.
Folger, R. and M. A. Konovsky. 1989. Effects of Procedural and Distri butive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy of Mana gement Journal 32: 115-130.
Fuller, J. and M. C. Jensen. 2010. Just Say No to Wall Street: Putting a Stop to the Earnings Game. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 22(1) (Winter).
Jensen, M. C. 2001. Corporate Budgeting is Broken, Let’s Fix It. Harvard Business Review (November): 94-101.
Kenis, I. 1979. Effects of Budgetary Goal Characteristics on Managerial Attitudes and Performance. The Accoun ting Review 54: 707-721.
Klein, H. J., M. J. Wesson, J. R. Hollenbeck, and B. J. Alge. 2001. Goal Commitment and The Goal Setting Process: Conceptual Clari fication and Empirical Synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 885-896.
Konovsky, M. A. 2000. Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business Organizations. Journal of Management 26: 489-511.
Kwong, J. and K. Leung. 2002. A Moderator of the Interaction Effect of Procedural Justice and Outcome Favorability: Importance of Relation ship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87: 278-299.
Libby, T. 1999. The Influence of Voice and Explanation on Performance in a Participative Budgeting Setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24: 125-138.
Lilis, A. M. and J. Mundy. 2005. Cross Sectional Field Studies in Management Accounting ResearchClosing the Gaps between Surveys and Case Studies. Journal of Management Accounting Research 17.
Lind, E. A., R. Kanfer, and P. C. Earley. 1990. Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Nonin strumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 952-959.
Lind, E. A., L. Kray, and L. Thompson. 2001. Primacy Effects in Justice Judgments: Testing Predictions from Fairness Heuristic Theory. Organi zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85: 189-210.
Lindquist, T. M. 1995. Fairness as an Antecedent to Participative Budgeting: Examining the Effects of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Referent Cognitions on Satisfaction and Performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, Fall: 122-147.
Masterson, S. S. 2001. A Trickle-Down Model of Organizational Justice: Relating Employees’ and Customers’ Perceptions of and Reactions to Fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 594-604.
Milani, K. 1975. Budget-Setting, Performance and Attitudes. Accounting Review 5: 274-284.
Naumann, S. and N. Bennett. 2000. A Case for Procedural Justice Climate: Development and Test of Multilevel Model. Academy of Management Journal 43: 881-889.
Nouri, H. and R. J. Parker. 1998. The Relationship between Budget Parti cipation and Job Performance: the Roles of Budget Adequacy and Organizational Commitment. Accoun ting, Organizations and Society 23: 467-483.
Poon, M., R. Pike, and D. Tjosvold. 2001. Budget Participation, Goal Inter dependence and Controversy: A Study of a Chinese Public Utility. Management Accounting Research 12(1) (March)
See, K. E. 2009. Reaction to Decisions with Uncertain Consequences: Reliance on Perceived Fairness versus Predicted Outcomes Depends on Knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(1): 104-118.
Shields, M. D. and S. M. Young. 1993. Antecedents and Consequences of Participative Budgeting: Evidence on the Effects of Asymmetrical Infor mation. Journal of Management Accounting Research 5: 266-280.
Stevens, D.E. 2002. The Effects of Reputation and Ethics on Budgetary Slack. Journal of Management Accoun ting Research 14.
Thibaut, J. and L. Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice A Psychological Ana lysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, N. J.
Tyler, T. and P. Degoey. 1996. Trust in Organizational Authorities: The Influ ence of Motive Attributions on Willing ness to Accept Decisions. In R. Kramer and T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vermunt, R., D. V. Knippenberg, B. V. Knippenberg, and E. Blaauw. 2001. Self-Esteem and Outcome Fairness: Differential Importance of Pro cedural and Outcome Considerations. Journal of Applied Psycho logy 86: 621-628.
