Do Accounting Performance Measures Indeed Reduce Managerial Ambiguity Under Uncertainty

Research on budget-based performance evaluation traditionally predicts that the use of accounting performance measures (APM) in complex, dynamic, and uncertain situations results in dysfunctional managerial attitudes and behaviors. Although this suggests that such situations require the use of subjective performance measures (SPM), empirical evidence is inconclusive, as APM, rather than SPM, have been found to also have a negative effect on managerial ambiguity. This suggests that APM may be more, rather than less, appropriate than SPM in situations of high uncertainty. This paper explores whether acknowledgement of different types of uncertainty may explain these apparently conflicting research findings. It develops hypotheses that predict differential interactions between the environmental uncertainty and task uncertainty and APM and SPM on managerial ambiguity. These hypotheses are tested using survey data from 250 managers in 11 organizations. Tests using moderated regression analysis provide support for the existence of different interactions between uncertainty and the use of performance measures, and provide reconciliation for the opposing findings in the extant literature.

[1]  Denise M. English,et al.  Levers of Control , 1996 .

[2]  Kenneth A. Merchant,et al.  The effects of financial controls on data manipulation and management Myopia , 1990 .

[3]  M. Peiperl,et al.  Reconsidering performance evaluative style , 2000 .

[4]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  Budgeting Research: Three Theoretical Perspectives and Criteria for Selective Integration , 2003 .

[5]  A. N. Oppenheim,et al.  Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement , 1992 .

[6]  Kweku Ewusi-Mensah,et al.  The external organizational environment and its impact on management information systems , 1981 .

[7]  Margaret A. Abernethy,et al.  The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic change: an exploratory study , 1999 .

[8]  Lawrence A. Gordon,et al.  Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: An empirical investigation , 1984 .

[9]  D. Marginson,et al.  Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours , 2005 .

[10]  A. Hopwood.  An Empirical Study of the Role of Accounting Data in Performance Evaluation , 1972 .

[11]  Peter F. Luckett,et al.  Feedback and management accounting: A review of research into behavioural consequences , 1991 .

[12]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle,et al.  Using Budgets for Performance Evaluation: Effects of Resource Allocation and Horizontal Information Asymmetry on Budget Proposals, Budget Slack, and Performance , 2002 .

[13]  M. Hirst,et al.  The role of budgetary information in performance evaluation , 1990 .

[14]  Aaron Buchko,et al.  Conceptualization and Measurement of Environmental Uncertainty: An Assessment of the Miles and Snow Perceived Environmental Uncertainty Scale , 1994 .

[15]  H. Rainey,et al.  Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies , 2005 .

[16]  D. Otley.  BUDGET USE AND MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE , 1978 .

[17]  Henry L. Tosi.  A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance , 1991 .

[18]  Frank G. H. Hartmann,et al.  Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research: an evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis , 1999 .

[19]  Peter. Brownell.  Budgetary Systems And The Control Of Functionally Differentiated Organizational Activities , 1985 .

[20]  THE TREASURER'S DEPARTMENT AS A BUFFER ORGANIZATION , 1996 .

[21]  O. A. Imoisili,et al.  The role of budget data in the evaluation of managerial performance , 1989 .

[22]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects , 1986 .

[23]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[24]  P. Khandwalla.  The Effect of Different Types of Competition on the Use of Management Controls , 1972 .

[25]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Organization Design , 1977 .

[26]  P. Earley,et al.  Task planning and energy expended: Exploration of how goals influence performance. , 1987 .

[27]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[28]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Measures of Perrow's Work Unit Technology: An Empirical Assessment and a New Scale , 1983 .

[29]  Kenneth A. Merchant,et al.  Rewarding results : motivating profit center managers , 1989 .

[30]  R. J. House,et al.  A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness , 1971 .

[31]  Marshall W. Meyer,et al.  Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard , 2003 .

[32]  J. Sawyer.  Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs of Role Ambiguity and a Structural Equation Model of Their Antecedents and Consequences , 1992 .

[33]  M. Hirst.  RELIANCE ON ACCOUNTING PERFORMANCE-MEASURES, TASK UNCERTAINTY, AND DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR - SOME EXTENSIONS , 1983 .

[34]  Peter Brownell,et al.  Research methods in management accounting , 1995 .

[35]  J. Slocum,et al.  Environmental Uncertainty: The Construct and Its Application , 1975 .

[36]  Y. P. Singh,et al.  Effective personnel management , 1986 .

[37]  M. Ezzamel.  The impact of environmental uncertainty, managerial autonomy and size on budget characteristics , 1990 .

[38]  M. Mcconkie.  A Clarification of the Goal Setting And Appraisal Processes in MBO , 1979 .

[39]  Kenneth A. Merchant,et al.  Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems , 2003 .

[40]  G. Hofstede.  The game of budget control , 1972 .

[41]  Charles T. Horngren.  Introduction to Management Accounting , 1981 .

[42]  K. Merchant.  Influences on departmental budgeting: an empirical examination of a contingency model , 1984 .

[43]  D. Campbell.  Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis , 1988 .

[44]  S. Lirtzman,et al.  Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations. , 1970 .

[45]  W. MacLeod,et al.  On Optimal Contracting with Subjective Evaluation , 2001 .

[46]  Richard M. Steers,et al.  Factors Affecting Job Attitudes in a Goal-Setting Environment , 1976 .

[47]  Elazar J. Pedhazur,et al.  Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach , 1994 .

[48]  A. Ross.  Job related tension, budget emphasis and uncertainty: a research note , 1995 .

[49]  Frances J. Milliken.  Three Types of Perceived Uncertainty About the Environment: State, Effect, and Response Uncertainty , 1987 .

[50]  Christopher S. Chapman,et al.  Reflections on a contingent view of accounting , 1997 .

[51]  Frank G. H. Hartmann,et al.  The appropriateness of RAPM: Toward the further development of theory , 2000 .

[52]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  Influence of information, choice and task complexity upon goal acceptance, performance, and personal goals. , 1985 .

[53]  Frank Moers,et al.  Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation: The Impact of Diversity and Subjectivity , 2001 .

[54]  Steven E. Salterio,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures , 2000 .

[55]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. , 1987 .

[56]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. , 1991 .

[57]  Canice Prendergast,et al.  Uncertainty and Incentives , 2002, Journal of Labor Economics.

[58]  Pamela L. Alreck,et al.  The Survey Research Handbook , 1984 .

[59]  V. Govindarajan.  Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable☆ , 1984 .

[60]  Peter Brownell,et al.  Reliance on Accounting Information, Budgetary Participation, and Task Uncertainty: Tests of a Three-Way Interaction , 1986 .

[61]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory , 1967 .