IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/metrik/v18y2007i1p7-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eine Analyse des moderierenden Einflusses der Faktoren Wettbewerbsintensität, Marktdynamik und dezentrale Autonomie auf die erfolgreiche Gestaltung der Budgetierung

Author

Listed:
  • Utz Schäffer
  • Michael Zyder

Abstract

Despite the high relevance of budgeting for organizational practice, our knowledge on the optimal design of this process is limited. In particular, empirical evidence on context-specific differences in relevant cause-and-effect relationships is rare. In a first step, this paper therefore derives and empirically tests an integrative model that relates selected design factors to budgetary as well as unit performance. In a second step, multi-sample analysis is used for an explorative analysis into the effects of intensity of competition, market dynamics and decentral autonomy on the above mentioned cause-and-effect relationships. The paper provides evidence for significant moderating effects. Therefore, ‘‘one size fits all’’-recommendations in parts of the literature and practice-oriented discussion should be treated with care. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Utz Schäffer & Michael Zyder, 2007. "Eine Analyse des moderierenden Einflusses der Faktoren Wettbewerbsintensität, Marktdynamik und dezentrale Autonomie auf die erfolgreiche Gestaltung der Budgetierung," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 7-33, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:metrik:v:18:y:2007:i:1:p:7-33
    DOI: 10.1007/s00187-007-0017-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00187-007-0017-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00187-007-0017-0?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. Briers, Michael & Hirst, Mark, 1990. "The role of budgetary information in performance evaluation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 373-398.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Langfield-Smith, Kim, 1997. "Management control systems and strategy: A critical review," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 207-232, February.
    4. Brownell, P, 1985. "Budgetary Systems And The Control Of Functionally Differentiated Organizational Activities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 502-512.
    5. Gordon, Lawrence A. & Narayanan, V. K., 1984. "Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: An empirical investigation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 33-47, January.
    6. Otley, David & Fakiolas, Alexander, 2000. "Reliance on accounting performance measures: dead end or new beginning?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 497-510, May.
    7. Govindarajan, V., 1984. "Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 125-135, June.
    8. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    9. Shields, J. F. & Shields, M. D., 1998. "Antecedents of participative budgeting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 49-76, January.
    10. Chenhall, Robert H., 2003. "Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 127-168.
    11. Marginson, David & Ogden, Stuart, 2005. "Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 435-456, July.
    12. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Souchon, Anne L., 1999. "Measuring Export Information Use: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-14, September.
    13. Baines, Annette & Langfield-Smith, Kim, 2003. "Antecedents to management accounting change: a structural equation approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 675-698.
    14. Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry S., 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," MPRA Paper 81694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Shields, Michael D. & Deng, F. Johnny & Kato, Yutaka, 2000. "The design and effects of control systems: tests of direct- and indirect-effects models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 185-202, February.
    16. Nouri, H. & Parker, R. J., 1998. "The relationship between budget participation and job performance: The roles of budget adequacy and organizational commitment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 467-483.
    17. Steven Salterio, 1994. "Researching for Accounting Precedents: Learning, Efficiency, and Effectiveness," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 515-542, June.
    18. Chenhall, R. H. & Morris, D., 1995. "Organic decision and communication processes and management accounting systems in entrepreneurial and conservative business organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 485-497, October.
    19. Vincent Chong & Kar Chong, 1997. "Strategic Choices, Environmental Uncertainty and SBU Performance: A Note on the Intervening Role of Management Accounting Systems," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 268-276.
    20. Bruns, Wj & Waterhouse, Jh, 1975. "Budgetary Control And Organization Structure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 177-203.
    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. Barbara Weißenberger & Benjamin Löhr, 2008. "Planung und Unternehmenserfolg: Stylized Facts aus der empirischen Controllingforschung im deutschsprachigen Raum von 1990–2007," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 335-363, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Himme, Alexander, 2008. "Erfolgsfaktoren des Kostenmanagements: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung," EconStor Preprints 22073, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    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. Chenhall, Robert H., 2003. "Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 127-168.
    2. Sebastian Goebel & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2017. "Effects of management control mechanisms: towards a more comprehensive analysis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 185-219, February.
    3. Klaus Derfuss, 2015. "Relating Context Variables to Participative Budgeting and Evaluative Use of Performance Measures: A Meta-analysis," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 238-278, June.
    4. Hall, Matthew, 2011. "Do comprehensive performance measurement systems help or hinder managers' mental model development?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Macinati, Manuela S. & Anessi-Pessina, E., 2014. "Management accounting use and financial performance in public health-care organisations: Evidence from the Italian National Health Service," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 98-111.
    6. Ellen Haustein & Robert Luther & Peter Schuster, 2014. "Management control systems in innovation companies: a literature based framework," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 343-382, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Cadez, Simon & Guilding, Chris, 2008. "An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 836-863.
    9. Adam Maiga & Anders Nilsson & Fred Jacobs, 2014. "Assessing the impact of budgetary participation on budgetary outcomes: the role of information technology for enhanced communication and activity-based costing," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 5-32, September.
    10. Arnold, Markus C. & Artz, Martin, 2015. "Target difficulty, target flexibility, and firm performance: Evidence from business units’ targets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 61-77.
    11. Adel R. Haedr & Messaoud Mehafdi, 2017. "Accounting for Management Control in Large Libyan Companies," Athens Journal of Business & Economics, Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), vol. 3(3), pages 279-304, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Jan Noeverman & Bas A.S. Koene & Roger Williams, 2005. "Construct measurement of evaluative style: a review and proposal," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 2(1), pages 77-107, April.
    14. Annukka Jokipii, 2010. "Determinants and consequences of internal control in firms: a contingency theory based analysis," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 14(2), pages 115-144, May.
    15. Hartmann, Frank G. H., 2000. "The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 451-482, May.
    16. Bisbe, Josep & Otley, David, 2004. "The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 709-737, November.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Bhimani, Alnoor & Sivabalan, Prabhu & Soonawalla, Kazbi, 2018. "A study of the linkages between rolling budget forms, uncertainty and strategy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 306-323.
    20. Arnold, Markus & Artz, Martin, 2019. "The use of a single budget or separate budgets for planning and performance evaluation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 50-67.

    More about this item

    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:spr:metrik:v:18:y:2007:i:1:p:7-33. 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.