BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Nowak Marta (Wroclaw University of Economics and Business), Maruszewska Ewa Wanda (University of Economics in Katowice)
Tytuł
The Joint Effect of the Type of Stakeholder and Incentive on the Acceptance of Budgetary Slack. Observed Differences in the Hierarchy of Needs Indicated by Polish Management Accountants
Połączony wpływ typu interesariusza oraz występowania zachęty na manipulacje w budżecie. Zaobserwowane różnice w hierarchii potrzeb wskazanych przez polskich specjalistów z zakresu rachunkowości zarządczej
Źródło
Nauki o Finansach / Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu, 2022, vol. 27, nr 1, s. 14-27, tab., rys., bibliogr. 44 poz.
Financial Sciences / Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu
Słowa kluczowe
Rachunkowość behawioralna, Potrzeby człowieka, Interesariusze
Behavioural accounting, Human needs, Stakeholders
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: M41, D91
streszcz., summ.
Abstrakt
Celem artykułu jest określenie łącznego wpływu typu interesariusza oraz istnienia zachęty na akceptację manipulacji w budżecie, a także ranking hierarchii pięciu potrzeb z piramidy Maslowa. Używając eksperymentu, dowiedziono, iż zachęta motywacyjna oraz typ interesariusza łącznie wpływają na akceptację manipulacji w budżecie. Specjaliści z zakresu rachunkowości zarządczej, doświadczając zachęty o charakterze niematerialnym oraz będąc w sytuacji, gdy manipulacje w budżecie przynieść mogą korzyści interesariuszom wewnętrznym, w większym stopniu akceptują manipulacje w budżecie. Respondenci, którzy nie akceptują manipulacji w budżecie, nadają najwyższe rangi potrzebom znajdującym się na szczycie piramidy Maslowa.(abstrakt oryginalny)

We aimed to investigate the joint effect of the type of incentive and stakeholder on the acceptance of budgetary slack and examine the rankings of the five needs in Maslow's pyramid. Using experimental research we demonstrated that motivational incentive and type of stakeholder interacted to affect the acceptance of budgetary slack. Management accountants experiencing non-monetary incentives in a situation where internal stakeholders' expectations can be met with budgetary slack, showed the highest acceptance of budgetary slack. Respondents not accepting budgetary slack as professional behaviour ranked higher the needs that are on the top of Maslow's pyramid.(original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Szkoły Głównej Handlowej w Warszawie
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Asamoah, E. S., Chovancova, M., De Alwis, C., Samarakoon M., & Guo, Y. (2011). Motivation for buying branded items: A cross country application of Maslow's hierarchy of needs in consumer decision making. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics & Administration, 16(21), 6-18. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=70839100&site=ehost-live
  2. Beaudoin, C. A., Cianci, A. M., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2015). The impact of CFO's incentives and earnings management ethics on their financial reporting decisions: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 505-518.
  3. Bjelajac, Ž. & Filipović, A. (2020). The role of the media in the affirmation of the culture of food safety. Ekonomika poljoprivrede, 67(2), 609-622. doi: 10.5937/ekopolj2002609b
  4. Bouzenita, A. I., & Boulanouar, A. W. (2016). Maslow's hierarchy of needs: An Islamic critique. Intellectual Discourse, 24(1), 59-81.
  5. Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. (2019). Who built Maslow's pyramid? A history of the creation of management studies' most famous symbol and its implications for management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(1), 81-98. doi: 10.5465/amle.2017.0351
  6. Church, B. K., Hannan, R. L., & Kuang, X. (2012). Shared interest and honesty in budget reporting. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 37, 155-167.
  7. Church, B. K., Kuang, X., & Liu, Y. (2019). The effects of measurement basis and slack benefits on honesty in budget reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 72, 74-84. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.005.
  8. Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014). The effect of authentic leadership on followers' ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 581-594.
  9. Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L., Sharp, D. J., & Pant, L. W. (2007). The effect of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(4), 1119-1138.
  10. Conley, C. (2013). Peak leadership. Executive Forum, Winter.
  11. Davis, S., DeZoort, F. T., & Kopp, L. S. (2006). The effect of obedience pressure and perceived responsibility on management accountants' creation of budgetary slack. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18, 19-35.
  12. Denison, Ch. A. (2009). Real options and escalation of commitment: A behavioral analysis of capital investment decisions. The Accounting Review, 84(1), 133-155.
  13. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
  14. Douglas, P. C., & Wier, B. (2000). Integrating ethical dimensions into a model of budgetary slack creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 267-277. doi: 10.1023/A:1006241902011
  15. Dunk, A. S., & Nouri, H. (1998). Antecedents of budgetary slack: A literature review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 17, 72-96.
  16. Eilertsen, S. (2015). Power of purpose - The importance of deliberate leadership in a changing world. Leadership Excellence by HR.com, 29-30.
  17. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815768
  18. Gabor, M. R. (2013). Endowment with durable goods as welfare indicator. empirical study regarding post-communist behavior of Romanian consumers. Engineering Economics, 24(3), 244-253. doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.24.3.2349
  19. Gray, P. (2007) Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.
  20. Harrel, A., & Harrison, P. (1994). An incentive to shirk, privately held information, and managers' project evaluation decision, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 19(7), 569-577.
  21. Johnson, T. (1992). Relevance, regained: from top down control to bottom-up empowerment. New York: Free Press.
  22. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9507312924
  23. Kessler, E. H. (Ed.). (2013). Encyclopedia of management theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
  24. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
  25. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
  26. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
  27. Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
  28. McCleskey, J. A., & Ruddell, L. (2020). Taking a step back-Maslow's theory of motivation: A Christian critical perspective. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 23(1), 6-16. Retrieved from https://cbfa-cbar.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/548/552
  29. McDermid, C. D. (1960). How money motivates men. Business Horizons, 3(4), 93-100.
  30. McGregor, D. M. (1957a). The human side of enterprise. In Adventure in thought and action, Proceedings of the Fifth Anniversary Convocation of the School of Industrial Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, April 9.
  31. McGregor, D. M. (1957b). The human side of enterprise. Management Review, 46(11), 22-28.
  32. McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  33. Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437-459. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y
  34. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and saliency. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
  35. Reid, P. (2002). A critical evaluation of the effect of participation in budget target setting on motivation. Managerial Auditing Journal, 17(3), 122-129. doi: 10.1108/02686900210419903
  36. Reynolds, S. J., Schultz, F. C. & Hekman, D. R. (2006). Stakeholder theory and managerial decision-making: Constraints and implications of balancing stakeholder interests. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 285-301. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-5493-2.
  37. Robbins, S. P., Bergman, P., Stagg, I., & Coulter, M. (2015). Management. Sydney: Pearson.
  38. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Organizational behavior. Harlow: Pearson.
  39. Schermerhorn, J. R., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Woods, P., Simon, A. i McBarron, E. (2014). Management: Foundations and applications. Milton: John Wiley & Sons.
  40. Sharma, U., & Venkatesan, M. (2021). A study of personality, self-esteem and happiness among graduates. IUP Journal of Management Research, 20(1), 35-55. Retrieved from http://login.library.sheridanc.on.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=150180173&site=ehost-live&scope=site
  41. Stephens, D. C., & Heil, G. (1998). Introduction. In D. C. Stephens & G. Heil (Eds.), Maslow on management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  42. Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2011). Model of spectator sport consumption. American Marketing Association, 1-2.
  43. Villar, M., & Kushner, T. (2010). A framework to map and grow data strategy. Information Management, 20(6), 24-27.
  44. Webb, R. A. (2002). The impact of reputation and variance investigations on the creation of budget slack. Accounting. Organizations and Society, 27, 361-378.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2080-5993
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.15611/fins.2022.1.02
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu