Article Sidebar

Download
Full text PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 289 Download : 258

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study evaluates the susceptibility of management (especially management accountants) in creating budgetary slack by violating company policies. Reducing the creation of budgetary slack was evaluated by the relationship of the effects of peer pressure and perceived self-statement mechanisms within the scope of each social ethical dimension. Experimental results with 133 management accountants show that social and ethical friction can reduce the creation of budgetary slack by emphasizing peer pressure and self-assessment mechanisms. All experimental subjects could not violate company policy and it was proven by decreasing budgetary slack when faced with conditions without peer pressure and without a self-assessment mechanism. This finding provides evidence that budgetary slack is created when management is fully involved in setting the company's budget without any control from colleagues or leaders. The importance of social ethics in budgeting is raised by collegiate decisions in the team and creates a self-assessment mechanism for managers. Thus, resistance to creating budgetary slack can be increased and managers are held accountable for making budgetary decisions.

Keywords

Social ethics peer pressure budgetary slack

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Apriwandi Apriwandi, Debbie Christine

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). 
How to Cite
Apriwandi, A., & Christine, D. (2023). Peer pressure and self-statement mechanism to mitigate management behavior in budgetary slack: An experimental approach. Journal of Contemporary Accounting, 5(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.20885/jca.vol5.iss2.art1
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ang, N., & Cheng, M. M. (2016). Does self-certification encourage or reduce opportunistic behavior? Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-51468
  2. Baird, J., & Zelin, R. (2000). The effects of information ordering on investor perceptions: An experiment utilizing presidents’ letters. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 13(3), 71–80.
  3. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bishop, C. C., Dezoort, F. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2017). The effect of CEO social influence pressure and CFO accounting experience on CFO financial reporting decisions. Auditing, 36(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51507
  5. Brownell, P., & McInnes, M. (1986). Budgetary participation, motivation, and managerial performance. Accounting Review, 61(4), 587. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4479014&site=ehost-live
  6. Cahyaningrum, C. D., & Utami, I. (2015). Do obedience pressure and task complexity affect audit decision? Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 11(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2015.06
  7. Chong, V. K., & Khudzir, N. F. (2018). The effect of mutual monitoring and need for achievement on budgetary slack in a team-based environment. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 21.
  8. Davidson, B. I., & Stevens, D. E. (2013). Can a code of ethics improve manager behavior and investor confidence? An experimental study. Accounting Review, 88(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50272
  9. 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(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2006.18.1.19
  10. De Baerdemaeker, J., & Bruggeman, W. (2015). The impact of participation in strategic planning on managers’ creation of budgetary slack: The mediating role of autonomous motivation and affective organisational commitment. Management Accounting Research, 29, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.06.002
  11. DeZoort, F. T., & Lord, A. T. (1997). A review and synthesis of pressure effects research in accounting Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Journal of Accounting Literature, 16, 28–85.
  12. Douthit, J. D., & Stevens, D. E. (2015). The robustness of honesty effects on budget proposals when the superior has rejection authority. Accounting Review, 90(2), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50937
  13. Douthit, J. D., Kearney, L., & Stevens, D. (2012). Can agent cheap talk mitigate agency problems in the presence of a noisy performance measure? an experimental test in a single- and multi-period setting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 24(1), 135-158.
  14. Dunk, A. S. (1995). The joint effect of participative budgeting and managerial interest in innovation on departmental performance. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(94)00030-L
  15. Fenigstein, A. (2015). Milgram’s shock experiments and the Nazi perpetrators: A contrarian perspective on the role of obedience pressures during the Holocaust. Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315601904
  16. Fisher, J. G., Frederickson, J. R., & Peffer, S. A. (2000). Budgeting: An Experimental the Effects of Negotiation. The Accounting Review, 75(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2000.75.1.93
  17. Gago-Rodríguez, S., & Naranjo-Gil, D. (2016). Effects of trust and distrust on effort and budgetary slack: an experiment. Management Decision, 54(8), 1908–1928. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2015-0480
  18. Huang, C. L., & Chen, M. L. (2009). The effect of attitudes towards the budgetary process on attitudes towards budgetary slack and behaviors to create budgetary slack. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(5), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.5.661
  19. Kramer, S., & Hartmann, F. (2014). How top-down and bottom-up budgeting affect budget slack and performance through social and economic exchange. Abacus, 50(3), 314–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12032
  20. Kren, L., & Maiga, A. (2007). The intervening effect of information asymmetry on budget participation and segment slack. Advances in Management Accounting, 16.
  21. Lucyanda, J., & Sholihin, M. (2023). The effect of gender and code of ethics on budgetary slack ethical judgment: experimental evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEFAS-05-2021-0044
  22. Merchant, K. A. (1984). Influences on departmental budgeting: an empirical examination of a contingency model. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(3), 291–307.
  23. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  24. Mowchan, M., Lowe, D. J., & Reckers, P. M. J. (2015). Antecedents to unethical corporate conduct: Characteristics of the complicit follower. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 27(2), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-51186
  25. Nouri, H. (1992). The effects of budgetary participation on job performance: A conceptual model and its empirical test. Dissertation Temple University Graduate Board.
  26. Nouri, H., & Kyj, L. (2013). An experimental examination of the combined effects of normative and instrumental commitments on budgetary slack creation: Comparing individuals versus group members. Advances in Management Accounting, 22, 225–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7871(2013)0000022014
  27. Prananjaya, K. P., & Narsa, N. P. D. R. H. (2019). Obedience pressure and tax sanction: An experimental study on tax compliance. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 21(2), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.9744/jak.21.2.68-81
  28. Schwering, A. (2017). The influence of peer honesty and anonymity on managerial reporting. Journal of Business Economics, 87(9), 1151–1172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0861-9
  29. Shields, M. D., & Shields, J. F. (1998). Antecendets of participative budgeting. Accounting, Organizations and Society Organizations Society, 23(1), 49–76.
  30. Stevens, D. E. (2002). The effects of reputation and ethics on budgetary slack. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 14(1), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2002.14.1.153
  31. Young, S. M. (1985). Participative budgeting: The effects of risk aversion and asymmetric information on budgetary slack. Journal of Accounting Research, 23(2), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490840
  32. Yuen, D. (2007). Antecedents of budgetary participation: Enhancing employees’ job performance. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(5), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900710750793