IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v78y2019ics0361368219300443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subordinate perceptions of the superior and agency costs: Theory and evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Douthit, Jeremy
  • Majerczyk, Michael

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of subordinate perceptions of the legitimacy of the superior in her role on subordinate misreporting. Using social norm theory regarding property rights, we predict that when subordinates perceive a superior as having more role legitimacy, they perceive the superior as being a more rightful claimant of project profits, which reduces misreporting. We test this prediction using a participative budgeting experiment that manipulates perceptions of the superior's role legitimacy. We find that budgetary slack is lower when subordinates perceive superiors to be legitimate in their roles than when subordinates perceive superiors to be illegitimate. Further, comparisons to a baseline treatment intended to induce neutral perceptions of role legitimacy, as in prior research, suggest that superior role legitimacy decreases slack. Supplemental experiments suggest that these results are generally robust to several design choices. The results from our three experiments suggest that role legitimacy decreases slack relative to random (neutral) perceptions; however, we do not find a statistically significant increase in slack from role illegitimacy relative to random perceptions across our three experiments. We discuss methodological implications from focusing on promoting role legitimacy and implications for practice, which has largely focused on problems from, and avoidance of, illegitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Douthit, Jeremy & Majerczyk, Michael, 2019. "Subordinate perceptions of the superior and agency costs: Theory and evidence," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:78:y:2019:i:c:s0361368219300443
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2019.07.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368219300443
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2019.07.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
    2. Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Hardnose the Dictator," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1218-1221, September.
    3. Shields, J. F. & Shields, M. D., 1998. "Antecedents of participative budgeting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 49-76, January.
    4. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    5. Stevens, Douglas E. & Thevaranjan, Alex, 2010. "A moral solution to the moral hazard problem," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 125-139, January.
    6. Smith,Vernon L., 2009. "Rationality in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521133388, October.
    7. Rick Antle & Gary D. Eppen, 1985. "Capital Rationing and Organizational Slack in Capital Budgeting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 163-174, February.
    8. Church, Bryan K. & Hannan, R. Lynn & Kuang, Xi (Jason), 2012. "Shared interest and honesty in budget reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 155-167.
    9. Eddy Cardinaels & Huaxiang Yin, 2015. "Think Twice Before Going for Incentives: Social Norms and the Principal's Decision on Compensation Contracts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 985-1015, December.
    10. R. Lynn Hannan & Frederick W. Rankin & Kristy L. Towry, 2006. "The Effect of Information Systems on Honesty in Managerial Reporting: A Behavioral Perspective," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 885-918, December.
    11. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    12. Oxoby, Robert J. & Spraggon, John, 2008. "Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 703-713, March.
    13. Hart, Oliver, 1995. "Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288817.
    14. Guillaume Fréchette, 2012. "Session-effects in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 485-498, September.
    15. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Todd A. Thornock & Michael G. Williamson, 2016. "Communicated Values as Informal Controls: Promoting Quality While Undermining Productivity?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1411-1434, December.
    16. Bicchieri,Cristina, 2006. "The Grammar of Society," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521574907, September.
    17. Robert Libby & Kristina Rennekamp, 2012. "Self‐Serving Attribution Bias, Overconfidence, and the Issuance of Management Forecasts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 197-231, March.
    18. Abdel-Rahim, Heba Y. & Stevens, Douglas E., 2018. "Information system precision and honesty in managerial reporting: A re-examination of information asymmetry effects," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 31-43.
    19. Markus Brunner & Andreas Ostermaier, 2019. "Sabotage in Capital Budgeting: The Effects of Control and Honesty on Investment Decisions," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 71-100, January.
    20. Swieringa, Rj & Weick, Ke, 1982. "An Assessment Of Laboratory Experiments In Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20, pages 56-101.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maas, Victor S. & Yin, Huaxiang, 2022. "Finding partners in crime? How transparency about managers’ behavior affects employee collusion," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Godsell, David & Huang, Kelly & Lao, Brent, 2023. "Managers’ rank & file employee coordination costs and real activities manipulation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Ravenscroft, Sue & Williams, Paul F., 2021. "Sustaining discreditable accounting research through ignorance: The mainstream elite’s response to the 2008 financial crisis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Brunner & Andreas Ostermaier, 2019. "Peer Influence on Managerial Honesty: The Role of Transparency and Expectations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 127-145, January.
    2. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    3. Christian Daumoser & Bernhard Hirsch & Matthias Sohn, 2018. "Honesty in budgeting: a review of morality and control aspects in the budgetary slack literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 115-159, August.
    4. Riccardo Ghidoni & Matteo Ploner, 2014. "When do the Expectations of Others Matter? An Experiment on Distributional Justice and Guilt Aversion," CEEL Working Papers 1403, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    5. Abdel-Rahim, Heba Y. & Stevens, Douglas E., 2018. "Information system precision and honesty in managerial reporting: A re-examination of information asymmetry effects," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 31-43.
    6. Schreck, Philipp, 2015. "Honesty in managerial reporting: How competition affects the benefits and costs of lying," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 177-188.
    7. Janne O. Y. Chung & Sylvia H. Hsu, 2017. "The Effect of Cognitive Moral Development on Honesty in Managerial Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 563-575, October.
    8. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    9. Ostermaier, Andreas, 2016. "Reciprocity and honesty in capital budgeting: Positive spill-over effects of reporting," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145904, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc, 2011. "The influence of decision power on distributive fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 246-255, August.
    11. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata & Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2011. "Can real-effort investments inhibit the convergence of experimental markets?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 97-103, January.
    12. Katarína Danková & Hodaka Morita & Maroš Servátka & Le Zhang, 2022. "Fairness concerns and job assignment to positions with different surplus," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(4), pages 1490-1516, April.
    13. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 144-165.
    14. Mago, Shakun D. & Pate, Jennifer & Razzolini, Laura, 2024. "Experimental evidence on the role of outside obligations in wage negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 528-548.
    15. Bart J. Wilson, 2012. "Contra Private Fairness," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 407-435, April.
    16. Yoshio Iida, 2020. "Confidence, power and distributive preferences," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(2), pages 207-222, November.
    17. Iida, Yoshio, 2015. "Task-based income inequalities and redistribution preferences: A comparison of China and Japan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 91-102.
    18. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    19. William B. Tayler & Robert J. Bloomfield, 2011. "Norms, Conformity, and Controls," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 753-790, June.
    20. Ogawa, Kazuhito & Takemoto, Toru & Takahashi, Hiromasa & Suzuki, Akihiro, 2012. "Income earning opportunity and work performance affect donating behavior: Evidence from dictator game experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 816-826.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Role legitimacy; Participative budgeting; Random assignment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M51 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:78:y:2019:i:c:s0361368219300443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.