IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jmgtco/v32y2021i2d10.1007_s00187-021-00318-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction and manufacturing performance: a replication of Lindquist (1995) with a focus on the importance of common metrics in experimental design

Author

Listed:
  • Tim M. Lindquist

    (The University of Northern Iowa)

  • Alexandra Rausch

    (Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt)

Abstract

This paper replicates Lindquist’s (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995) seminal research introducing the concepts of justice to the accounting literature. We use organizational justice theory, as did he, to replicate his study and, in doing so, question some findings of partial replications and extensions done over the past 25 years. We do this because work built off his study has challenged some of his findings. These challenges, we believe, have resulted from most researchers using different research metrics than did Lindquist. Many of these extensions have also used a mental-based task, instead of a manual-based one, in their experiments. We believe this constrains the ability to draw inferences and conclusions from this subsequent research. We further believe this constraint extends to much of the experimental research in the social sciences. In our research we replicate exactly Lindquist’s (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995) operationalizations of voice and vote and measure dependent outcomes for four of the same conditions he investigated. In contrast to most of other follow-up studies, we find, as did Lindquist, that having a voice only leads to significantly enhanced satisfaction with high-stretch targets, as compared to having a vote only or no input. We also corroborate Lindquist’s (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995) result that having a voice only leads to significantly greater satisfaction with the experimental task, as compared to participants with a vote only or no input. Additionally, unlike Lindquist (Lindquist, Journal of Management Accounting Research 7:122–147, 1995), we find participants allowed only a voice significantly outperform participants with a vote only and no input. We thus support Lindquist’s findings of a fair process effect for voice and perceptions of pseudo-participation related to vote.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim M. Lindquist & Alexandra Rausch, 2021. "The impact of procedural and distributive justice on satisfaction and manufacturing performance: a replication of Lindquist (1995) with a focus on the importance of common metrics in experimental desi," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 161-195, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jmgtco:v:32:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s00187-021-00318-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s00187-021-00318-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00187-021-00318-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00187-021-00318-3?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. Otley, David & Pollanen, Raili M., 2000. "Budgetary criteria in performance evaluation: a critical appraisal using new evidence," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 483-496, May.
    2. Katharina Eckartz & Oliver Kirchkamp & Daniel Schunk, 2012. "How do Incentives affect Creativity?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-068, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Thomas Liessem & Ivo Schedlinsky & Anja Schwering & Friedrich Sommer, 2015. "Budgetary slack under budget-based incentive schemes—the behavioral impact of social preferences, organizational justice, and moral disengagement," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 81-94, April.
    4. Libby, Theresa, 1999. "The influence of voice and explanation on performance in a participative budgeting setting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 125-137, April.
    5. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Henderson, Austin, 2018. "Experimental methods: Measuring effort in economics experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-87.
    6. Derfuss, Klaus, 2016. "Reconsidering the participative budgeting–performance relation: A meta-analysis regarding the impact of level of analysis, sample selection, measurement, and industry influences," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 17-37.
    7. 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.
    8. Young, Sm, 1985. "Participative Budgeting - The Effects Of Risk-Aversion And Asymmetric Information On Budgetary Slack," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 829-842.
    9. Ertambang Nahartyo, 2013. "Budgetary Participation And Procedural Justice: Evidence From Stretch Budget Condition," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 7(4), pages 85-100.
    10. Jörn Block & Andreas Kuckertz, 2018. "Seven principles of effective replication studies: strengthening the evidence base of management research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 355-359, November.
    11. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    12. Byrne, Suzanne & Damon, Fiona, 2008. "To participate or not to participate? Voice and explanation effects on performance in a multi-period budget setting," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 207-227.
    13. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Staci A. Kenno & Michelle C. Lau & Barbara J. Sainty, 2018. "In Search of a Theory of Budgeting: A Literature Review," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 507-553, December.
    2. Brinkerink, Jasper & De Massis, Alfredo & Kellermanns, Franz, 2022. "One finding is no finding: Toward a replication culture in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    3. Parker, Robert J. & Kyj, Larissa, 2006. "Vertical information sharing in the budgeting process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 27-45, January.
    4. Khalid Hasan Al Jasimee & Francisco Javier Blanco-Encomienda, 2023. "A SEM-NCA approach towards the impact of participative budgeting on budgetary slack and managerial performance: The mediating role of leadership style and leader-member exchange," Papers 2310.09993, arXiv.org.
    5. Adrien Bonache & Jonathan Maurice & Karen Moris & Irène Georgescu, 2009. "Enseignements d'une meta-analyse sur le lien participation budgétaire - performance managériale," Post-Print halshs-00460130, HAL.
    6. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    7. Stephan Kramer & Frank Hartmann, 2014. "How Top-down and Bottom-up Budgeting Affect Budget Slack and Performance through Social and Economic Exchange," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 50(3), pages 314-340, September.
    8. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2020. "Effort is not a monotonic function of skills: Results from a global mobile experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 634-652.
    9. Naranjo Gil, David & Rodríguez Rivero, Edilberto J. & Rabazo Martín, Aurora E., 2017. "Efecto del locus de control en la relación entre participación presupuestaria y rendimiento: un estudio experimental," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 73-81.
    10. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    11. 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.
    12. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2021. "Reproducibility and replicability crisis: How management compares to psychology and economics – A systematic review of literature," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 577-594.
    13. Langevin, Pascal & Mendoza, Carla, 2013. "How can management control system fairness reduce managers’ unethical behaviours?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 209-222.
    14. Thomas Liessem & Ivo Schedlinsky & Anja Schwering & Friedrich Sommer, 2015. "Budgetary slack under budget-based incentive schemes—the behavioral impact of social preferences, organizational justice, and moral disengagement," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 81-94, April.
    15. Derfuss, Klaus, 2016. "Reconsidering the participative budgeting–performance relation: A meta-analysis regarding the impact of level of analysis, sample selection, measurement, and industry influences," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 17-37.
    16. Byrne, Suzanne & Damon, Fiona, 2008. "To participate or not to participate? Voice and explanation effects on performance in a multi-period budget setting," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 207-227.
    17. Lau, Chong M. & Sholihin, Mahfud, 2005. "Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: How do they affect job satisfaction?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 389-413.
    18. Pascal Langevin & Gérald Naro, 2003. "Controle Et Comportements : Une Revue De La Litterature Anglo-Saxonne," Post-Print halshs-00582794, HAL.
    19. Lechthaler, Wolfgang & Ring, Patrick, 2021. "Labor force participation, job search effort and unemployment insurance in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 748-778.
    20. Giuseppe Attanasi & Michela Chessa & Sara Gil-Gallen & Patrick Llerena, 2021. "A survey on experimental elicitation of creativity in economics," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 273-324.

    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:spr:jmgtco:v:32:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s00187-021-00318-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.