>»
A
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
PARTICIPATION IN BUDGETING, LOCUS OF CONTROL
AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS - A FIELD EXTENSION
by
Peter Brownell
VVP
1169-80
November 1980
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
PARTICIPATION IN BUDGETING, LOCUS OF CONTROL
AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS - A FIELD EXTENSION
by
Peter Browncll
WP 1169-80
November 1980
Participation in Budgeting, Locus of Control
and Organizational Effectiveness - A Field Extension
ABSTRACT
This
extension
reports
paper
previous
to
findings
the
laboratory
of
a
results
field-study
which
conducted
showed
that
as
an
budgetary
participation was moderated by the personality variable locus of control,
in
its
confirm
effects
the
on
perfortnance
experimental
The results of the
.
results.
One
difference
field study generally
which
emerged
in
the
field study was the importance attached to participation in its direct (as
well as moderated)
job
satisfaction,
study.
effects on performance.
included
as
For job satisfaction,
important.
a
second
This result was not
criterion
variable
in
found
the
for
field
only the interaction effect was found to be
The ccmplimentarity of the two phases of research is considered
and suggestions for implications of the results are offered.
n^o'^iL
-1-
Participation in Budgeting, Locus of Control
Effectiveness - A Field Extension
and Organizational
The
will
question
lead
of
conditions
the
under
desirable organizational outcoTies
to
researchers in the area for two reasons:
believed
provide
to
organizational
literature
personnel;
motivation for
the
to
a
matter of concern to
participation is widely
evidence which exists
question
study reported elsev^ere [Brownell,
a
internal-external locus of control,
a
performance
improving
This
conflict.
considerable
in
is
secondly,
and
is
firstly,
approach
managerial
a
budgetary participation
vrtiich
of
in
the
provided
the
1980]
of the role of
personality variable,
as a moderator
of the relationship betv;een budgetary participation and performance.
Briefly,
locus
control
of
individual's
situation
•
centers
the
on
personality and
v^ich
in
the hypothesized moderating effects of
rationale behind
the
the
individual
the
notion
of
characteristics of
'
is
Several
placed.
between
congruence
a
an
related
task
studies
in
the
psychology literature indicate that "internals" (individuals who generally
feel they are in personal control of their own destiny)
better
in
"externals"
chance,
task
(individuals
fate
or
characterized
situations
luck)
attribute
who
prefer,
hands of others [Cromwell et al
Baumal,
in
a
1967;
Houston,
particular
. ,
and
"self-control",
outcome
perform better
1951;
The
1972].
situation"
and
the
by
prefer, and perform
of
v;hen
their
"1965;
control over
performance evaluation,
individual such control.
a
is
in
to
the
Watson and
parallelism between "source of control
budgetary
participation
derives
view that under conditions of high budgetary participation,
has substantial
actions
control
Rotter and Mulry,
while
parameter which often
an
from
the
individual
forms the basis
for
while low budgetary participation denies the
-2-
The results of
question,
this
test
laboratory experiment [Brownell, op. cit] designed to
a
confirmation
strong
provided
of
interactive effects of participation and locus of control
subjects
of
samples
graduate
accounting
organizations.
drawn
from
students
The
group
experiencing
Furthermore,
who
were
it
low
a
highest
the
to
congruent
their
a
high
externals were
from
in
treatment.
experimental
that subjects from both samples
participation
evidence
This
higher reported
"job
was
interpreted
satisfaction",
as
as
perhaps
well as with
indicated
condition,
more "enjoyment" in the experimental task employed in the study,
game.
under-
manufacturing
in
those
were
performing
participation
was noted parenthetically
assigned
managers
internals
performing
highest
participation condition while
the
middle-level
and
independent
for
populations,
different
quite
two
predicted
the
being
a
business
consistent
superior
with
performance,
among subjects in congruent conditions.
While the results of this study were encouraging,
For reasons of subject (at least
the research method must be kept in mind.
in the case of tne students),
task,
the limitations of
reward and situational surrogation, an
experimental approach suffers from potentially impaired generalizability to
the real-world setting of interest.
the
results
of
a
field-study
The purpose of this paper is to report
extension
satisfaction, as well as performance, as
of
a
research,
the
employing
job
focal dependent variable.
Hofstedt and Kinard [1970] view the role of
a
field study as
"....
best employed to verify laboratory results in a
this very ccmplexity is a
canplex environment
....
necessity in testing the practical value of results."
[p.
The
51 ].
role
of
the
field
extension
is
to
move
beyond
the
empirical
realizations of the laboratory with an appropriate shift from "experimental
realism" to "mundane realism" [Carlsmith, et al
.
,
1970,
p.
81].
Confirma-
-3-
tion
of
experimental
the
"multi-method/monotrait"
results
in
[Campbell
and
field
the
Fiske,
will
1959]
tend
provide
to
validity
test of
a
the
empirical realization of budgetary participation, the treatment variable in
the laboratory; at the same time,
it provides a
validity exanination of the
instrument employed to measure participation in the field.
The
complimentary nature of the experimental
is captured
in Figure
the laboratory,
survey phases
1.
INSERT FIGURE
In
field
and
HERE
1
statements of causation. are permitted (given the use of
true experimental designs), but the generalizability, or external validity,
of results
confined
is
often
suspect.
correlational
to
In
the
evidence,
it
field,
the
reverse
possible
is
is
test
to
true.
in
Ivlnile
the
field
whether the experimental result is strong enough to emerge in the face of
far
richer setting.
the other,
the
As
result,
a
each
phase of the
a
research complements
experimental phase addressing the causal linkage emong the
variables, while the field survey phase focuses on the generalizability of
the results.
The paper is organized
literature
review
presented
follows:
the next
previously
[Brownell,
as
section supplements the
op.
cit.],
and
reviews
the hypotheses, while further sections deal with method, statistical checks
and results; finally,
both phases
in the last section,
(experimental
and
survey)
an integration of the results of
will
be
presented
and
the light of the limitations of the entire research program.
discussed
in
.
-n-
FURTHER LITERATURE
A
review
literature
of
relating
participation and performance,
as a moderator
of this relationship,
However,
cit.].
criterion
variable
the
in
deserves
decision
decision
the
some
considerations.
to
is
elaboration.
First,
elsewhere [Brownell, op
presented
satisfaction
job
include
survey
field
between
potential role of locus of control
the
and
relationship
the
to
phase
noted
was
decision
The
as
above,
was
second
a
and
based
on
experimental evidence summarized
the
this
two
above,
specifically the result concerning "task enjoyment", suggests the role of
variable not dissimilar to job satisfaction as
which,
will
performance,
like
a
second dependent variable
by
affected
be
a
between
interaction
the
participation and locus of control.
Second, job satisfaction was viewed as an appropriate choice in terms
of evidence
effects
with
suggested
when
frcrr.
respect
the
financial
to
participation.
the
result
that
components
of
participation
the
budget
satisfaction, while participation in the
budget preparation had
it
was
respond
far
well
more
to
Hofstede
of external reference points
role
explaining
broad
past literature which has shown some important conditioned
a
likely
high
lower
participation
level
when
consistent
personality
with
variable
Vroom
[I960],
authoritarianism
participation/satisfaction relationship
the
on
job
Hofstede contended that
organizational
they
impact
of
standards component of
strong favorable impact.
that
development
little
had
example,
for
moderating variable
a
the
in
technical
input to make, based on their job specialty.
evidence
as
[1967],
felt
that
members
they had
a
would
valid
Additionally, Hofstede found
suggesting
as
a
the
role
moderater
of
of
the
the
.
.
-5-
Cierring ton
Cherrington
and
relationship
moderated
the
experience
participation
contingent
on
found
was
when
only
Conversely,
inappropriate
rewards
focus
a
structure"
individuals
that
foi-nd
satisfied
job
achievement.
budget
structure
reward
are
They
also.
"reward
that
found
[19731
on
nade
ars
budgets
conditions
under
v/ho
in
a
low
of
participation
Swieringa and Moncijr [1975],
level managers
in
electronics
fou>-
their questionnaire,
in
a
questionnaire survey of 137 middle-
ccmpanies,
independence of thought and
items
in
participation
in
three
that
found
action,
goal setting and participation in choice of methods, all loaded on
factor
in
a
individuals low on
who
relatively
are
that
each
vras
correlated
positively with
They noted, however, that this correlation was strongest
job satisfaction.
for
analysis and
factor
single
a
a
"
more
cautiousness " measure [Gordon,
cautious
sre
apparently
Managers
19531.
content
to
less
be
influential in budgeting than those who are mere aggressive.
Hopwood [19731
found that supervisory evaluative style interacted with
budgetary participation in affecting job
place
a
satisfaction.
Where
supervisors
heavy emphasis on the budget in their evaluation of subordinates,
participation in the process of budget setting was found to be positively
associated
with
satisfaction.
However,
no
relationship
could
be
shown
between participation and satisfaction where budgets were de-emphasized
These
results
ail
suggest
circunstances
moderated in its effects on job satisfaction,
where
and
participation will be
the decision
to
include
job satisfaction in this study is based, at least in part, on the framework
suggested by these results.
-6-
HYPOTHESES
hypothesis
The
participation
performance.
addition,
test
in
interact
would
the
previous
with
locus
study
was
control
of
that
budgetary
in
affecting
This hypothesis will again form the focus of this study.
evidence
further
interaction
at
in
its
effects
will
be
on
job
concerning
sought
satisfaction,
suggested by the analysis discussed previously.
In
a
the
role
dependent
of
In
this
variable
their null forms,
the
two hypxithesis are stated as follows:
H-
There will be no significant interaction between participation and
locus of control affecting performanc3.
H^
There will be no significant interaction between participation and
locus of control affecting job satisfaction.
METHOD
As indicated
in the introductory remarks,
in this phase of the research involved
to
forty-eight middle
level
the research method employed
survey questionnaire administered
a
cost-center managers employed
Francisco Bay Area manufacturing company.
by
a
large San
These managers were drawn
from
eight separate functional divisions of the organization, each of which was
involved in one phase of the production or distribution activities of the
business.
Preliminary
meetings
with
plant
management
indicated
that
technological and environmental characteristics, while not critical in and
of themselves, varied
of
a
somevhat across the divisions, resulting in the use
variety of managerial approaches.
This was an important consideration
since the focus on a single organization can not only impair generalizability but
also
substantially reduce the variance on the budgetary partici-
pation variable, making hypothesis testing very difficult.
-7-
The sample of managers was chosen by plant m.anagement,
ment in the project required
since involve-
one-half day leave from the company to take
a
part in the experimental phase of the research and the administering of the
questionnaire.
managers,
questionnaire
The
to
forty-eight
the
immediately following the debriefing conducted at the conclusion
laboratory sessions.
of the
administered
was
procedure eliminated non-response
This
(together with the biases usually associated
with it)
and
assured
that no
questionnaires from surrogate respondents were included in the sample.
Three
variables
performance,
measurement
required
satisfaction
job
phase;
Locus
participation.
budgetary
and
questionnaire
the
in
of
control was measured at the beginning of the laboratory sessions.
Performance
selection
the
In
issues had
self-ratings
performance
of
an
performance
dimensionality
instrument
Firstly,
addressed.
be
to
of
was
to
an
measure
two
key
assessment of the reliability of
necessary,
and,
secondly,
the
These
issues
consideration.
needed
performence,
issue
of
will
be
discussed in turn.
In
tne area of performance ratings, three basic sources of ratings are
possible;
self-ratings,
peer
these
is
traditionally
the
shown
that
superior
In
a
superiors
than
subordinates
Thornton,
tended
who
1968;
to
and,
in
ratings
to
Nealy
lesser
in
The
last of
research
extent)
has
suffer
multi-dimensional
series of studies using the Campbell and
subordinates
evaluating
and
addition,
a
error when used
evaluate
were
ratings.
superior
[1959] m.ulti-trait/multi-rater approach to
that
1968;
peer
"halo"
taxonomies of performance.
and
elusive
most
ratings (and
from relatively greater
Fiske
ratings
Owen,
validation,
on
themselves
1970].
a
more
[Lawler,
Apparently,
was
found
"global"
basis
it
1967;
Miner,
superiors
are
less able to discriminate between performance levels on various dimensions
than those being
are themselves able to do.
rated
Additionally,
superior
self ratings
in
terms of
"leniency" error (the tendency for mean ratings to be higher)
as
had
ratings
were
found
earlier
claimed
by
1962].
This
not
be
to
studies
preferred
so
Parker,
[eg.
organizational
of
a
et
al.,
Prien
1959;
been
Liske,
and
specific result was confirmed by Sharon and Eartlett [19691.
These findings prompted Eorman [1974]
facets
to
levels
probably
ratee's
job
to conclude that raters at different
observe
performance
such
vastly
a
validity
that
different
set
employing
tests
of
the
Campbell and Fiske [1959] approach should be viewed with caution;
assessing 'validity' of performance ratings, high
agreement between such raters (self and superior) may be
perhaps even an erroneous
an unduly severe and
requirement."
[Borman, p.
internal quotes in
105,
original, parentheses added].
"In
On the basis of these considerations,
it was decided
to employ a self-
rating method for performance evaluation.
Turning to the issue of dimensionality of the
the
problem of
extremes
had
to
avoided.
be
performance
one
the
On
seriously be denied that performance is multi-dimensional.
1930s
1940s,
and
accepted
the
[Gulick,
nature
multi-dimensional
1937;
Fayol,
1949].
On
of
the
construct,
hand,
As early as the
performance
ether
cannot
it
hand,
was
taxonomies
involving an excessive number of dimensions are also to be avoided.
in the unlikely event
independence of the dimensions in such
a
remain
statistical
be
for
respondents
This was
dimension
a
to
artifact alone.
discriminate
rating
scale
on a discriminant validity test.
et
and
would
It
between
conclusion of Kavanagh,
performance
Even
that one large set of orthogonal dimensions exists,
the true
a
well
al
all
.
rating instrunent would
cognitively impossible
dimensions
[1971]
v*io
of
a
employed
large
a
set.
twenty-
who obtained disappointing results
-9-
sets of considerations, a self-rating version of
On the basis of both
Mahoney,
the
et
dimensions together with
a
taxonomy
1965]
[1963,
si.
global rating
using
chosen for the present study.
vras
Heneman
Independent assessments of the Mahoney measure, due to
Penfield
Appendix
measure.
supportive
are
[197^],
of
reliability
the
performance
eight
validity
and
and
[1974]
of
the
presents the instrunent.
1
Job Satisfaction
The list of available instruments to measure job satisfaction is long.
Robinson,
to
be
et al
found
in
catalogued no less than sixteen different measures
[1969]
.
the
literature, and the nimber of ad
employed in the selection process.
measure
a
possible,
and
secondly,
a
Firstly,
reliability
which
for
measure
it
and
was viewed
satisfy
these
validity,
estimations
validity
extensively employed
been
1969] and the MSQ [Weiss, et al
,
criteria.
Gillet
examination
.
and
"because
extensively
In
Schwab
of
used
a
by
of
study
[1975]
chose
careful
their
in
desirable to
as
convergent
the
Two measures,
in
19671 appeared to
and
scales
for
they
have
because
and
the
discriiTiinant
MSQ
and
JDI
development
investigators
,
.
were.
literature
the
in
will allow integration of the results of the present study.
the JDI [Smith, et al
used
For the present study, two criteria viere
single studies defies estimation.
employ
hcc measures
field"
[p.
313].
Unfortunately the JDI was unsuitable for present purposes due tc the "preceding"
employed
in
the
design
of
the
questionnaire.
The
72
items,
addressing five scales of the measure, describe traits of the respondent's
job and
to
a
response of "yes", "no" or "?"
the general question,
the basis of pre-testing
no and
?)
(unsure)
is
called
for
in
answer
"Does your job possess the following trait?"
during
the
JDIs
development,
all
Cn
responses (yes,
are pre-coded as either satisfying or dissatisfying.
For example
-10-
the descriptor "asks my advice" is pre-coded "yes"
dissatisfying.
for
satisfied
are
with
seeking" on the part of
The MSQ,
the
in
variable
a
study
extent to which
such
"advice-
as
superior.
a
response on
a
scale (the polar
five-point, fully anchored
a
descriptors of which are "very dissatisfied" and "very satisfied") to
of job attributes.
The
twenty sub-scales.
due to Dunham,
the
JDI
group
a
set
items are made up of 5 items addressing each of
100
al.
found that the MSQ actually outperformed
who
[1977],
discriminant
data
including
data,
permitting
et
a
Independent assessment of the validity of the MSQ is
tests of
in
that
100-item Likert-type questionnaire, overcomes this problem
a
by calling for
of
level
of this
thesis
systematically differ
given
a
basic
the
is
it
externals may
internals and
they
However,
satisfying and "no"
for
comparison
validity.
are
managers,
for
with
In
of
results
the
addition,
extensive
norm
available
with
MSQ,
present
the
the
administration.
The entire instrument is reproduced in Appendix 2.
Participation
Several direct (as opposed to factor-analytic)
of
budgetary
participation
measures are due
[1971],
Vrocm
seriously
measures.
to
and
Vroom
[1973]
the
for
these
Only
to
be
found
Likert
[I960],
Yetton
considered
are
and
present
two measures
were
Hofstede [1967],
the
developed
Hofstede
for
use
and
in
Heller
two
these,
Of
[1975].
study,
Usable
literature.
the
in
[1961],
Milani
attempts at measurement
a
were
Milani
context
identical to the present context, and the use of either one will permit an
integration of
t'le
results of the present study into the most relevant body
of previous literature.
were
focus
employed
because,
in
this
unlike
For
study,
the
purposes of cross-validation,
although
Hofstede
the
Milani measure
measure,
it
is
a
both measures
deserves major
multi-item
measure
-11-
permitting
reliability assessment,
a
because
and
was
it
developed
more
recently, possibly benefiting from the more contemporary body of literature
extant at the time of Milani's work.
The Hofstede measure is
single Likert-type item with an eight point
a
while the Milani measure incorporates six
scale with eight verbal anchors,
Likert-type items with polar anchors at each end of
two measures are reproduced in Appendices
and
3
a
7
point scale.
The
respectively.
U
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY CHECKS
Prior to
a
discussion of the analyses related to the hypotheses of the
the results of seme statistical checks performed on the measurement
study,
instrunents will be presented.
Performance
It
decided
was
that
global
the
rating
the
from
Mahoney
instrument
form the basis for the test of H^ and the first
should, at least initially,
statistical check conducted was to assess the extent to utiich variations in
this rating can
To conduct
on
the
chis check,
ratings
regression.
in
the
global
significant
with
and
the global
the
on
rating for each respondent was regressed
dimensions
separate
eight
ratings,
the
to
with
five
explained
"investigating"
were
"planning"
Mahoney,
et
al's.
(t=1.73.
of
the
a
single
variance.
(t=2.55,
p<0,05).
developmental
were
cofimon
to
the
U52
dimensions
eight
Cf
the
p<0.01),
work
five,
multiple
where
managerial
to
contributing
the
three
"supervising"
results
These
approximately 55% of the functions critical
performance
in
The eight separate dimensions explained 60.8% of the variance
significantly
p<0.025)
explained by ratings on the eight separate dimensions.
be
it
are
was
most
(t=1.97,
consistent
found
that
effective managerial
assignments
in
thirteen
-12-
different
conpanies
[Mahoney, et al
Heneman's
.
,
[1974]
of
use
45?.
Mahoney measure.
the
specific
job
were
The results are also consistent with
106-107].
p.
1965,
approximately
while
studied,
Table
presents
1
si-nple
correlations between the global performance ratings and each of the eight
separate dimensions for both the present sample and Henenan's study.
INSERT TABLE
The results of this comparison
dimensions 2 (investigating)
similarly
important
and 4
sample and the present sample.
HERE
reveal that with the
explaining
in
1
(evaluation)
overall
possible exception of
the set of dimensions are
,
performance
both
in
Heneman's
Unfortunately, Heneman does not report the
multiple correlation coefficient from his analysis.
second
A
analysis
was
conducted
performance dimensions.
eight
Rubinfeld
[1976,
p.
68]
A
permits
rule of
the
a
independence
the
suggested by
thumb
conclusion
that
of
the
Pindyck and
multi-collinearity
above
is
problem if the sample correlation between two variables
is
among the independent variables used
likely to be
assess
to
in
the regression discussed
larger than the correlations of either or both of them with the dependent
variable.
Of
met
criterion.
this
twenty-eight possible comparisons,
The
two
performance
twelve intercorrelaticns
dimensions
which
appear
troublesome are coordinating and staffing and these two variables actually
the regression of
produced negative coefficients (neither significant)
in
overall
test
viewed
performance.
as
fairly
Overall,
satisfactory.
however,
the
Descriptive
measure responses are presented in Table
2.
above
statistics
results
for
the
can
be
Mahoney
-13-
Job Satisfaction
KSQ is made possible via
A reliability assessment of the
ccniparison
a
of the reliability coefficients computed for each of the tv/enty sub-scales,
plus the single overall rating,
groups reported by Weiss, et al.
a
the coefficients for twenty-seven ncmi
i^rith
also with the coefficients for
and
[1967]
sample of 135 managers also reported by Weiss, et al
of
technique,
variance
coefficients
from
are presented
in
used
by
Weiss,
Table
satisfactory.
in
Table
used
was
.
and
all
to
threa
those
reported
3
by
the
derive
sets of data
The reliability coefficients in table
3.
than
lower
al
present administration,
the
INSERT TABLE
generally
et
Hoyt analysis
The
,
while
3,
HERE
Weiss,
et
al
.
,
considered
are
Descriptive statistics for the KSQ responses are presented
4.
INSERT TABLE
M
HERE
Participation
As a simple test of convergent validity, the responses to the Hofstede
arid
Milani
result
is
participation
pleasing
since
reliability measure,
the
measures
were
measures
the
Milani
correlated
was
factor
the measure load
on
a
single
factor.
emergence of two eigenvalues greater
being
extracted.
The
rotated
factor
than
The
factor
unity,
loadings
two
are
As
a
As
analyzed.
multi-item, additive scale, one would hope to discover that all
in
This
(p<C. 01).
dissimilar.
quite
are
instrunent
0.74
six
analysis led
a
items
to
the
components therefore
presented
in
Table
5.
-14-
INSERT TABLE
The
results reveal
measure
indeed
that
load
on
with
a
the
single
5
HERE
exception
factor.
of
item
purposes of
For
items
in
the
providing
for
all
2,
canparability of the present results with those of Milani,
it
was
decided
construct participation scores using the responses to all six items in the
measure, the approach used by Milani,
Tables
6
and 7 present
descriptive
statistics for the Milani and Hofstede measures respectively.
Results
Questionnaires were collected from all forty-eight managers.
of responses were
omitted due
to
Two sets
improper completion of both the Mahoney
measure and the MSQ, while an additional six responses were omitted due to
evidence of response-set bias
size
for
testing
of
H,
in
therefore,
is,
The sample
ccmpletion of the MSQ only.
li=^6
and
N=40,
for
Hp,
the
model
and
eacn
hypothesis will be analyzed in turn.
Performance; H
The
equation
Y
=
performance
data
were
analyzed
using
presented
in
1.
+ 62X + yZ + 6XZ
6,
+
(1)
e
where Y is performance, the global rating
X is
Z
and
locus of control score, multiplied by
-1
is budgetary participation
XZ is the interaction between locus of control
and participation.
The null hypothesis is tested via examination of 6,
interaction
term.
However
the
use
of
raw
the coefficient for the
scores
variables led to substantial collinearity among them.
correlation
between
X
(locus
of
control
score)
and
on
In
XZ
the
independent
particular,
(the
the
interaction
15-
term)
was
difference
Therefore,
0.89.
subtracting each observation on X and
scores
constructed by
v.'ere
from X and 1 respectively,
Z
reduced the correlation between the independent variables,
permitting
maximum of -0.07,
the
interaction coefficient.
reversed
as
so
participation
combine
with
scores,
high
Z
locus
sign of the
The
(negatively
of
X,
Z
and XZ
,
much more reliable interpretation of
a
control
signed
predicted
in
socres,
of control
locus
clearly establish the
to more
then
This procedure
being constructed as the product of the difference terms.
a
XZ
sign of
difference
score
6,
v.'as
High
^.
terms),
externals,
(originally
X
score
to
now
indicating internals; also negatively signed in difference score terms'), to
produce
low
a
positive signed interaction score,
participation
(positively
to
outperform
negatively
control
v/ill
signed
other
the
term,
and
vice
versa,
term
two,
externals
these two groups
high
participation
The interaction term for the^e
(resulting
be negatively signed
participation
scores)
It is, of course,
externals and low participation internals.
last two groups
The same will be true for
difference
signed
(positively signed differences socres).
which are expected
XZ.
and
froin
positively
a
respectively).
The
the product of a
signed
coefficient
locus
for
of
the
interaction term is therefore predicted to be significantly positive, high
performance scores being associated
iiath
positive interaction terms and low
performance socres with negative interaction terms.
The results of this regression are presented in Table 8.
INSERT TABLE
5,
the interaction coefficient, was found
predicted,
8
HERE
to
be
significantly positive, as
permitting rejection of the null hypothesis,
Y,
the participa-
-16-
tion
coefficient
is
while
suggesting that
however,
significant,
also
the
interaction term is important, as hypothesized, participation alone exerts
a
substantial
difference
negative
with
higher
performance.
influence on
scores
performance
H.
levels)
rejected
is
that is
negatively signed,
participation
(higher
scores.
is
Y
on
the
associated
are
basis
these
of
results.
Job Satisfaction; H^
The same analysis was performed as for the performance data in H,, the
overall
job
satisfaction measure
substituted
as
the
Table 9 presents the results
for
the
from
dependent variable in equation (1).
MSO being
the
regression employed to test Hp.
INSERT TABLE
Again,
the
interaction
term,
rejection of H^.
Particiation
direct
on
locus
influence
of
contrcl.
job
This
is
<5,
,
it
is
in
HERE
found
be
to
permitting
significant,
noted, apparently exerts very little
satisfaction,
is
9
effects
its
contrast
to
the
strictly depending on
results
for
performance
discussed above.
Further Analysis
In
of
order to explore the relationship between participation
control
and
the
eight
sub-scales
from
the
Mahoney measure,
and
locus
separate
regressions, identical to the use of equation (1) above, were conducted for
each sub-scale.
10.
The results of these regressions
are
summarized
in
Table
While only two of the interaction terms taken alone are significant,
INSERT TABLE 10 HERE
-17-
positively signed direction.
all but one are in the predicted,
[Siegel,
wnich
for
staffing.
test
0.06.
The
reveals that the probability of this result is
1956]
subscales
A sign
interaction
the
subscales
The
for
significant
is
which the
coefficient
participation
for
planning, negotiating and representing,
significant are
planning
are
and
is
each of these
and
makes intuitive sense.
A similar
MSQ.
the
from
Table
analysis
performed
results of this
The
Seven
11.
u-as
set
being
tv.'enty
independence
subscales
sense
in
were
the
on
11
in
significant
are
including
direction)
both
of
strongest results
Tne
presented
are
HERE
responsibility
and
context of Hp.
the
coefficient
predicted
the
in
of regressions
twenty interaction coefficients
of the
INSERT TABLE
(all
twenty subscales
each of the
using
which
for
those
participation
ability utilization
subscales creativity and
the
intuitive
make
the
for
and
each of these results makes intuitive sense also.
One final result worthy of note is the correlation between performance
and
job
satisfaction.
control,
participation
r=0.332,
generally
between
the
two.
participation and
Before
and
is
due
to
the
removal
of
interaction,
past
results
partialing out
After
the
the
the
three
effects
of
show
an
of
association
effects of locus of control,
correlation
^.5% of the variance of one accounted
common
locus
correlation computed is
which
interaction, the computed
suggesting that only about
other
their
confirming
their
the
antecedents,
the
remainder
is
r=0.309.
for by the
being
the
result of either direct association or other common antecedents not studied
in
the present research.
-18-
DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
Overall,
results
the
of
various
phases
participation
of
study
this
Locus of control
experimental study.
effects
of
and
project
research
this
results
the
satisfaction,
job
the
and
the
complimentary
strongly
are
of
influanco on the
exerts substantial
performance
on
confirm
in
supporting this resuslt.
One result of the present research deserving elaboration concerns
role of
participation
satisfaction.
as
influence
direct
a
result was not
This
found
job
not
laboratory phase
the
in
but
performance,
on
the
of the
study and this was not surprising since care was taken in the design of the
experimental
groups
of
task
ensure
that
no
assigned
to
one
to
subjects
treatment conditions.
is
viewed
as
critical
illuminating to recall
to
or
of
it
that
one dimension
which
particular
aspect
is
decentralized,
such
performance
should
of
enjoyed
seems that participation
performance.
of performance,
as
by
participation
two
the
effective managerial
one
the
depend
on
It
is
planning,
expect that in an
We might
revealed very strong effects of participation.
organization
advantage was
other
field, however,
the
In
particular
under
a
study,
this
of
level
high
participation tc provide the communication channels necessary to integrate
the productive effort toward the output of one or
result
is
Galbraith,
consistent
19771
with
both
theoretical
and empirical evidence [eg.
a
few end products.
statements
on
issue
the
Bruns and Waterhouse,
This
[eg.
19751.
The most important caveat for consideration in evaluating this entire
Important,
research concerns the role of emitted variables.
interactions
may
well
be
observed
if
future
research
variables which are likely to impact the relationship.
one
variable
which
was
mentioned
in
the
previous
higher-order
includes
other
Reward structure is
paper
and
for
which
-19-
The most important caveat for consideration in evaluating
Important
research concerns the role of emitted variables.
may
interactions
well
observed
be
research
future
if
variable
evidence
[Gregory,
context.
of
v^ich
In
mentioned
was
exists
1978]
previous
the
in
includes
paper
and
importance
suggest its
to
higher-order
,
other
Reward structure is
variables which are likely to impact the relationship.
one
this entire
for
present
the
in
vjiich
addition, the question of the extent to vjhich various degrees
participation
attributions
might
control
situational
of
process
the budgetary
in
will
depend
induce differential
technological
the
on
characteristics and the environmental conditions faced by individual
organizational
sub-units.
predicted effects
sample
in
respondents
of
study may have
present
the
explanation
possible
One
employed
to
organizational
in
with
do
paper,
care
measurement
should
be
in
taken
instruments.
to
In
"'
survey pjhase '-epcrted
of the
recognize
the limitations
particular,
the
a
enjoy
vshich
'
case
the
the
use of
the
sub-units
substantial environmental buffering.
More specifically,
observing
for
'
in
this
inherent in the
measurement
of
budgetary
participation is an area where much work ronains to be done and the issue
of dimensionality of the construct was raised earlier
Also,
MSQ.
seme difficulties
It
were
reported
better.
in
the
present
this connection.
a-dministration
of the
is difficult to assess the precise nature of any qualifications to
the results which are called
the
noted
in
sub-scale
for
as
a
reliabilities
The single organizational
consequence but suffice to say that
for
the
measure
could
have
been
sample should also be kept in mind when
assessing the general izability of the results.
In
spite of the various limitations noted in both the experimental and
survey phases of the overall program of research, the mutually supporting
-20-
results from each phase do permit some useful observations on the issue of
the
practical
cit.],
implications
it was suggested
areas of
job
of
Previously
results.
the
[Brownell,
op.
that the results are probably most relevant in the
redesign
personnel
and
selection
placement.
and
For
organizations which are permitted discretion on the question of the level
of budgetary participation afforded to members, it is conceivable that role
specifications could be modified
suit
the
role
occupant
or
far as participation
(as
Conversely,
incumbent.
is concerned)
to
organizational
where
cirounstances more or less dictate the level of involvment and influence in
budgetary matters,
selection
and,
in
particular,
within the organization can be supported by
a
placa-nent
of
personnel
management awareness of the
appropriate "fit" between individual and role characteristics.
Further
situational
research
factors
which
explores
deserving
the
role
consideration
in
of
individual
other
budget
system
design
and
is
necessary in order to more fully understand the variables which govern the
suitability and effectiveness of budgetary control systans
.
-21-
FOOTNOTES
1.
2.
See footnote 7 in Erownell (op cit.).
Milani's original use of the participation measure actually involved
sixty-one point Likert scale.
a
-22-
TABLE
1
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OWRklL PERFORMANCE AND THE SEPARATE
DIMENSIONS OF MAHONEY MEASURE
Samole
-2 3-
TABLE
3
HOYT ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THREE SAMPLES
-24TABLE
n
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR MSQ
Theoretical Range for all scores (except total) is 5-25.
score, the theoretical range is 20-100,
ISub
Scale
For the total
-25TABLE 6
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR MILANI MEASURE
Mean
Item
1
Std. Dev'n
Theoretical Range
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
Actual Range
-26TABLE
9
RESULTS OF REGRESSION USING EQUATION (1):
Coefficient
H,
-27TABLE
11
t-STATISTICS FROM REGRESSIONS FOR MSQ SUBSCALES
Dimension
-28-
FIGURE
1
THE OITIRALL METHODOLOGY
w
-29-
REFERENCES
An Alternate
Borman, W.C., "The Hating of Individuals in Organizations:
Approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (197^, 12)
pp.
105-12iJ.
Brovmell, P., Participation in Budgeting, Locus of Control and
Organizational Effectiveness (Unpublished Manuscript, Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980).
Eruns, W.J. and J.H. Waterhouse, "Budgetary Control and Organization
Structure," Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn 1975) pp. 177-204.
Campbell, D. T. and D.V/. Fiske "Convergent an Discriminant Validation by
the Mjltiti-ait-Multimethod Matrix," Psychological Bulletin (1959, 56)
pp. 81-105.
,
Ellsworth, and E. Aronson, Methods of Research in
Addi son-Wesley, 1976).
Social Psychology (Reading:
Carl smith,
J.M.,
P. C.
Cherrington. D.J. and J.O. Cherrington, "Appropriate Reinforcement
Contingencies in the Budgeting Process," Empirical Research in
225-253.
Accounting:
Selected Studies (1973), PP
•
Crcmwell, R.L., D. Rosenthal, D. K. Shakow and T. P. Zahn "Reaction Time,
Locus of Control, Choice Behavior and Descriptions of Parental
Behavior in Schizophrenic and Normal Subjects," Journal of Personality
(1961, 29), pp. 363-380.
,
Snith and R. S. Blackburn, ''Validation of the Index of
Organizational Reactions with the J.D. I., the M. S. Q. and Faces Scale,"
Academy of Management Journal (1977, 20) pp. 420-^32.
EUnham,
R. B.
F.J.
,
Fayol, H., General and Industrial Administration (London:
Sons, 1949).
Pitman
Galbraith, J., Designing Complex Organizations (Reading:
Wesley, 1977).
Addison-
&
B. and D. P. Schwab, "Convergent and Discriminant Validities of
Corresponding Job Descriptive Index and Minnesota Satisfaction
CXiestionnaire Scales," Journal of Applied Psychology (1975, 60)
pp. 313-137.
Gillet,
(jordon,
L. V.
(3ordon Personal
,
Brace and World,
Inventory:
Manual (New York:
Karcourt,
1963).
"Locus of Control for Positive and Negative Cutccmes,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1978. 3), pp. 840-849,
(Gregory,
W.L.
,
Gulick, L,
"Notes on the Thieory of Administration," in Papers on the
Science of Administration (Institute of Public Administracion, 1937)
pp. 1-45.
,
-30Heller, F.A., Manager Decision Making (London:
Tavistock,
1971).
Heneman, H. G.
"Comparisons of Self and Superior Ratings of Managerial
Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology (197^^, 59) pp. 638-642.
,
Hofstede,
G. H.
,
The Gaiae of Budget Control (Assen:
Van Gorcum,
1967).
"A Strategy for Behavioral Accounting
Kofstedt, T.R. and J.C. Kinard
Research," The Accounting Review (January 1970) pp. 38-5^.
,
A.G., An Accounting System and Managerial Behaviour.
Hopwood
Saxon House, 1973).
,
(London:
Houston, B.K.
"Control Over Stress, Locus of Control, and Response to
Stress," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1972, 21), pp.
249-255.
,
Kavanagh, M.J., A.C. MacKinney and L. Wolins, "Issues in Managerial
Perfomance: Multitrait-Multimethod Analyses of Ratings,"
Psychological Bulletin (1971. 75) pp. 34-49.
Kerlinger, F.N. and E.J. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in Behavioral
Research (New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973).
Lawler
E.E,, "The Multitrait-Multirater Approach to Measuring
Managerial Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology (1967,
pp. 369-379.
,
Likert,
R.
,
New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill,
51)
1961).
Mahoney. T.A., T,H. Jerdee and S.J. Carroll, Eevelopment of Managerial
South-Western
Perforraance:
A Research Approach (Cincinatti:
Publishing Company, 1963).
Jerdee and S.J. Carroll, "The Jobs of Management,"
Industrial Relations (1965, 4) pp. 97-110.
,
T.H.
Milani, K.V/., "Thie Relationship of Participation in Budget-Setting to
A Field Study," The
Industrial Supervisor Performance and Attitudes:
Accounting Review (April 1975), pp. 274-284.
A Capsule Review and Current
J.B., "Management Appraisal:
References," Business Horizons (1968, 11) pp. 83-96.
Miner,
"A Multitrait Multimeth-^d Analysis of
S.M. and T.W. Cwen
Predictors and Criteria of Nursing Performance," Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance (1970, 5) pp. 348-365.
Nealy,
,
Parker, J.W., E.K. Taylor, R.S. Barrett and L. Martens, "Rating Scale
Content:
III.
Relationships Between Supervisory- and Self-Ratings,"
Personnel Psychology (1959, 12) pp. 49-63.
,
-31"Time Allocation Patterns and Effectiveness of
Penfield, R. V.
Managers," Personnel Psychology (T97H, 27) pp. 2^5-255.
,
Pindyck,
R. S.
and
D, L.
Forecasts (New York:
Rubinfeld, EconOTietric Models and Econcmic
McGraw Hill, 1976).
and R. E. Liske, "Assessments of Hig?ier-Level Personnel:
Comparative Analysis of Supervisor Ratings and Incumbent SelfRatings of Job Performance," Personnel Psychology (1962, 15)
Prien,
III.
E. P.
A
187-194.
pp.
Robinson, J. P.
R. Athanasiou and K.B. Head, Measures of Occupational
Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics (Survey Research Center,
Institute for Social research. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
1969).
Rotter, J.B, and R. Mulry, "Internal Versus External Control of
Reinforcement and Decision Time," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology (1965, 2), pp. 598-60^4.
Siegel, S., Non Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1956).
P.C., L.M. Ksndall and C. L. Hulin, The Measurement of
Rand McNally 1969).
Satisfaction in Work and Retirement (Chicago:
S(Tiith,
Swieringa, R.J. and R. H. Moncur
Some Effects of Participative Budgeting
National Association of
on Managerial Behavior (New York:
Accountants, 1975).
,
Thornton, G,C., "The Relationship Between Supervisory- and SelfAppraisals of Executive Performance," Personnel Psychology (1968, 21)
pp. 441-456.
Vroom
V. H., Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of
Participation (The Ford Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Series,
,
I960).
and P.W. Yetton
Leadership and Decision Making (University
of Pittsburgh Press, 1973).
,
Watson, D. and E. Baumal "Effects of Locus of Control and Expectation
of Future Control Upon Present Performance," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology (1967, 6) pp. 212-215.
,
D. J.,
R. V. Dawis,
G.W. England and L. H. Lofquist, Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Minnesota Studies in Vocational
Rehabilitation, 1967, vol XXII).
Weiss,
-32-
APPENDIX
MAHONEY.
ET AL.
1
PERFORMANCE MEASURE
Effective managerial performance may be regarded as depending on
competence in the areas of rrianageria! activity listed on the followina
activity,
please rate your own recent
of
For
each
area
page.
performan ce in each area.
to 9 in the appropriate
Please respond by placing a nurber from
in
area.
The followina
rate
own
recent
erformanc
e
each
space to
you'"
p
1
PERFOiRi'-'.ANCE
Below Average
Performance
1
2
3
Above Average
Performan ce
Average
Performance
4
5
6
Please turn over
7
8
«
;
Appendix
1
.
Continued
-
1
PERFORMANCE"
(number from
to 9)
P ann inq
1
I
Determining goals, policies and
courses of action;
work scheduling,
budgeting, setting uo procedures,
programming
2-
Investigating
Collecting and preparing information
for records, reports and accounts;
measuring output;
inventorying, job
anal ys
3•
4.
i
s
C oord n ot nq
Exchanging information with people
in other organizational units in
order to relate and adjust programs;
advising other departments, liason
with other managers
i
i
Eva luat inq
Assessment and appraisal of
proposals or of reported or observed
performance;
employee appraisals,
judging output records, judging
financial reports;
product
nspect ion
i
buperv s US
n
Directing, leading and developing
your subord na fes;
counseling,
training and explaining work rules
to subordinates
assigning work and
handling comolairits
1
1
i
Staf
f
i
nq
Maintain inq the work force of your
unit;
recruiting, interviewing and
selecting ne^ employees;
placing,
promoting and transferring employees
Negot at ng
Purchasing, selling or contracting
for goods or services, contacting
suppliers, dealing with sales
repreeentat ves
CO lect ve
i
i
I
barg-i
i
n
i
r,
i
I
g
Reoresent n_n
Attending conven f ons consultation
with oth-jr firms, b'.siness club
meetings, public speeches, community
aavar^cing the cener-al
drives;
interests of yoi.r ornjn zjt ion
i
i
,
i
Overal
I
F-r'-r-
e
)
-34APPEN'DIX 2
MINNESOTA SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
The following set of itens is used to allow you 1o indicate how you
feel abo u t you- pres ent ^ob.
Read each item carefully end decide hew
satisfied you feel
about the aspect of your Job described by the
statement.
Keeping the state^.ent
If
mind:-
in
that you are ver_y sat sf ed with the aspect of your
described by the statement, checK, the space under "VS"
you feel
i
i
job
(Very Sat isf ed
i
If you
feel that you are ^a_tl^_LLf^ with the aspect of your job
the
check
described
the
statement,
space
under
by
"S''
(Satisfied)
-
cannot make up your m ind whether you are satisfied or
dissatisfied with the aspect of your job described by the
(Neither Satisfied nor
statement, check the space under "N
Dissatisfied)
if
you
'
If you
feei that
job described by
(Dissatisfied)
you are d ssat sf ed with the aspect of
the statement, check the space under
i
i
i
If
you feel that you are very d ssat
your jcb described by the statement,
"VDS" (Very Dissatisfied)
i
Examp
i
s
f
i
ed
check
"DS"'
with the aspect of
the space under
I
On my present job this
is
how
I
feel
about
VDS
(a)
your
The chance to become wealthy
Please
take
possi ble.
csre
to
answer each
I^/J
item and
+o
be
as
DS
N
S
VS
CD CD CD CD
frank and
honest as
-35A
ppendix
2
- Continued
On my present job, this
is
hov/
!
feel
about
vpS
1.
The chance to be of service to others
2.
The chance to try out
3.
OS
N
§
VS
•CI CD CD Cj Cj
...CD
CD CD CD CD
Being able to do the job without feeling it
is rroralty wrong
,
C D
CD CD CD CD
4.
The chance to work by my sal
CD CD CD CD CD
5.
The varieiy
6.
7.
8.
9.
of my own
sorr;e
ideas
f
C D
CD CD CD CD
The chance fo have other workers look to me
for direction
L D
CD CD CD CD
The chance to do the kind of work that
do best
CD CD CD CD CD
my »ork
in
The social position
goes with the job
in
I
the community that
CD CD CD CD CD
The policies and practices toward employees
this company
C D
The way my supervisor and
each other
CD CD CD CD CD
of
10.
I
CD CD CD CD
understand
[] [] [J [] [1
11.
My job security
12.
The amount of pay for the work
13.
The working conditions (heating,
ventilation, etc.) on this job
I
do
.-Lj
lighting,
C
CD CD CD CD
DCDCDCDC
L J
CD CD CD CD CD
14.
The opportunities for advancement on this job
15.
The technical
16.
The spirit of ccoperafion among my co-workers
CD CD CD CD CD
17.
The chance to be responsible for nianning
my work
[] r] r] ^]
"know-how" of my supervisor ....C
am noticed when
18.
The way
19.
Being able to see the results of the work
do
I
I
do
a
good job
I
.
j
CD CD CD CD
[^
]
CD CD CD CD CD
.r
]
CD CD CD CD
20.
The chance to be active much of the time
[j CD CD CD CD
21.
The chance to be of service to pecple
C
D
CD CD CD CD
-36-
Appendix
2
- Continued
On my present job, Ihis is how
t
feol
about
VDS
DS
_N
S
C ]
C ]
[J
VS.
The chance to dc new and original th'ngs on
my own
CD
Being able to do things that don't go against
my religious beliefs
L
24.
The chance to work alone on the job
C] C3 LJ LJ Lj
25.
The chance to do different things from
to t ime
22.
23.
26.
27.
t
i
r 1
LJ LJ lJ LJ
J
rr.e
[ J
]
[ J
[
The chance to tel! other workers how to do
things
C J
C J
[J [J
[ J
The chance to do work that is well suited
to my abi ities
C
C J
C J
C J
[ J
.[]
[J [] CJ
[_;
L J
LJ LJ LJ
L_i
.[
I
28.
The chance to be "somebody" in the community
29.
Company policies and the way
are administered
in
J
]
L
which they
CJ CJ Cj CJ Cj
30.
The way my boss handles his men
31.
The way my job provides for
secure future ..[J
CJ CJ CJ LJ
32.
The chance to make as much money as my friendsL J
[J LJ CJ Cj
53.
The physical
34.
The chances of getting ahead on this job
L J
CJ CJ CJ Cj
35.
The competence of my supervisor in making
decisions
C J
CJ CJ CJ Cj
36.
The chance to develop close friendships with
my co-workers
Cj CJ LJ LJ Lj
37.
The chance to make decisions on my own
CJ CJ CJ CJ Cj
38.
The way
get full credit for the work
Ido.-CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
39.
Being able to rake pride
job well done .-C
J
CJ CJ CJ CJ
40.
Being able to do something much of the time .-C
J
CJ CJ CJ CJ
41.
The chance to help people
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
42.
The chance to try something different
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
43.
Being able to do things that don't go against
my conscience
I
a
surroundings where
in
a
I
LJ CJ CJ CJ Cj
work
.r
J
c
J
c J
c
J
c J
-37-
Appendix
2 -
Continued
On my present job,
this
is
now
I
fcol
about
VUS
DS
N
VS
S
44.
The chance ro be alone on the job
CI!
LI CJ Cj
Cll
4?,
The routine
[J
CI!
Cj CH
CI!
46.
The chance to supervise other people
C D
CD CJ CD LJ
47.
The chance to make use of my best abilities
-.CD
CD CD CD CD
48.
The chance to "rub elbows" with important
people
49.
50.
my work
in
,
CD CD CD CD CD
They way err-olcyees are informed about company
policies..
CD CD CD CD CD
The way my boss backs his men up (with top
management)
CD CD CD CD CD
51.
The way my job provides for steady employment.C
52.
How my pay compares with that for similar
jobs in other companies
»
D
CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD CJ
CD CD
L]
53.
The pleasantness of the working conditions ...C
54.
The way promotions are given out on This job
55.
The way my boss delegates work to others
CD CD CD CD CD
56.
The friendliness of my co-workers
C
57.
The chance to be responsible for the work of
others
CD CD CD CD L]
53.
The recognition
C
59.
Being able to do something worthwhile
CD CD CD CD CD
60.
Being able to stay busy
CD CD CD CD CD
61.
The chance to
CD CD CD CD CD
62.
The chanci' to develop new and betfer ways to
do the job
CD CD CD CD CD
The chance to do things that don't harm other
people
CD CD CD CD CD
63.
-io
get for the work
!
!
do
things for other people
D
.CD
D
D
L
li
CD CD CD CD
CD CD
CDCD
CD CD CD CD
64.
Tha chance to work
independently of others .--CD
CD CD CD CD
65.
Tne chance to do scmetM.ng '.iifterent every dayC D
CD CD CD CD
56.
The chance to tell
people what to do
CD CD CD CD CD
-38-
Appendix
2 -
Continued
Ony my present job, this
67.
58,
is
how
I
feel
about
The chance to do soriiething that makes use of
my abilities
The chance to be important
ofhers
in
VDS
D5
.[]
[] [] [] []
N
S
Vo
the eyes of
[] [1 [] [] []
69.
The way company policies are put into practice^
70.
The way my boss takes care of complaints
brought to him by his men
]
2
[3 LD [3
[j [] [] [] []
71.
How steady my job is
72.
My pay and the amount of work
73.
The physical
74.
The chances for advancement on this job
75.
The way my boss provides help on hard probiemsC D
76.
The way my co-workers are easy to make
friends with
...........[]
I
[_
[ ]
[ ]
CD
C
]
[] [j [] [J []
do
working conditions of the job ...C 1
77.
The freedom to use my own judgement
78.
The way they usually tell me when
I
[D CD CD CD
[] CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD
[] CD CD CD CD
C
D
CD CD CD CD
do my job
>'^>i
CD CD CD CD CD
79.
The chance To do my best at all times
CD CD CD CD CD
80.
The chance to be "on the go" all the time
CD CD CD CD CD
81.
The chance to be of some small service to
other people
CD CD CD CD CD
The chance to try my own methods of doing
+he job
CD CD CD CD CD
82.
83.
The chance to do the job without feeling
am cheating anyone
I
CD CD CD CD CD
84.
The chance to work away from, others
CD CD CD CD CD
85.
The chance to do many different things on
+he job
[] CD CD CD CD
86.
The chance to te!i others what to do
C D
87.
The chance to make use of mv abilities and
s'^i"^
'.
CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD
-39-
Appendix
2 -
Continued
On my present job, "this is now
i
fee!
about
VUS
88.
The chance to have
community
a
definite place
in
DS
N
S
VS
the
[] [] [] [] []
l3 CD CD Cj
39.
The way the company treats its employees
90.
The personal relationship between my boss and
his men
[J [] [] [] rj
91.
The way
my job
C ]
layoffs and transfers are avoided
[_
]
in
[ ]
L J
[ J
il
.'J
1
L3 LI lJ CD
The working conditions
C D
CD CD CD CD
94.
My chances for advancement
CD CD CD CD CD
95.
The way my boss trains his men
CD CD CD CD CD
92.
How my pay compares with that of other wcrkersC
93.
96.
The way my co-workers cet along with each
ether..
CD CD CD CD CD
:
97.
The responsibility of my job
C
D
CD CD CD CD
98.
The praise
C D
CD CD CD CD
99.
The feeling of accomo
job
100.
I
get for doing a good job
I
i
shment
I
Being able to keep busy ali the
get from the
CD CD CD CD CD
tirrve
C
D
CD CD CD CD
yy
-AO-
APPENDIX
3
MILANI PARTICIPATION MEASURE
•
The following items can be used to describe the re e v/hicn ycj play
Please respond by
in the developr^ent of the budget for your division.
of the following
for
each
scale
the
circling a number from
to 7 on
!
1
items.
Which category below best describes your activity when the budget
am involved in setting:being set?
(a)
12
A!
is
I
3
5
4
6
7
None of the
Budget
of the
Budget
I
catecory below best describes the reasoning provided by your
superior when budget revisions are made? The reasoning is:-
(b) V/hich
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
Very Arbitrary
and/or Illogical
Very Sound
and/or Logical
How often do you state your requests, opinions and/or
abouT the budget to your superior without being asked?
(c)
12
4
3
6
5
^^^y
I
12
How much influence do you feel you have on
(d)
4
3
fhe final
6
5
High
Amount
''^^^V
(e)
How
i
do
budget?
7
^Q^g
view
you
your
contribution
to
the
My contr
budget?
i
b'jt
ion
s :-
2
1
4
3
5
6
*
Very
important
(f)
7
Never
,
Frequent
suggestions
Very
Unimportant
-
How often does your superior seek your
suagestions when the budget is being set?
2
1
''-^y
Frequen
7
3
4
requests,
5
opinions
and/or
6.7
Never
t
I
e
-41-
APPENDIX
'4
HCFSTEDE PARTICIPATION MEASURE
Consider the influence and involvement you have in budqetarv
in the following scale,
please circle the number
matters in general.
from
to 8 which best characterizes your influence and involvement in
budgetary matters.
Be sure to read each item thoroughly before choosino
Be sure to select only ONE number.
the appropriate number.
1
(a)
Decision taken by me without consultation
(b)
Proposal by me, followed by consultation, wirh
genera My prevailing
8
my opinion
„
(c)
Proposal by me, decision made jointly
(d)
Proposal sonetimres by superior, sometimes by me, with
decision made jointly
(e)
(f)
..6
Proposal by superior, ny opinion is asked and
generally carries a lot of weight
it
Proposal by superior, my opinicn
tt
wei ght
generally carries
it
1
i
is
asked and
opinion not asked, but decision
(h) My
opinion not asked, decision
is
5
.......4
3
I
(g) My
7
explained to me
2
not explained to me
.1
is
Date Due
•B2i*'
IQpq
oto
r/fy
u
'•^c?^
MAR
U3 89
19^5 SE
5
Arn
J
j'^-^
IUG2l199')
%7l^
•JAN
tw/f§
J
OCT
W
?
Q 1986
^
»
'88
Lib-26-67
BO:!('':'r ,ui3 CO., IMC.
DEC 8
1983
100 camsi^idge street
cha:?lestown, mass.
HD28.M414 no.1174- 80
HD28.M414 no.1165- 80
McKersie, Robe/Change and continuity
D*BKS
741433
80
iio'
no.ll67no.
""
info™''°"
/Exe
John /Executive
UUIJOJ/.P
DARK'S
D»BK
HUZoWti
HD28.IVI414
Rockart,
-,t^Mt:'i
741452
740979
001.3^2,79,.
001 TT2 a3Q
TDflD
3
Brownell,
:
.
,
3
Pete/Leadership behavior, bu
00.132629
0».B!<S
Toao 001 TTs ao^
_
^
TOaO 002 0M2 a7M
s
TOflD DOM
3
,u5-?-^o 193
/
SE7 bMl
HD28.M414 no.ll68- 80
Brownell, Pete/Participation
budget
in
"
740958 ... .D»BKS
Toao 002 001 o?a
3
HD28-M414
Brownell,
no.
1169-
80
Pete/Participation
D»BKS
74097R
.
in
budget
.0013305/
.
iiiiiil
TOaO DOE DDl 055
3
IIC^C^'^O
3
TDfiO
003 OTl T53
H028.M414 noll70- 80
Brownell, Pete/The effects of personal
D»BKS
740974
3
001323
TOaO 001
HE
bbS
HD28.M414 no.ll71- 80
Brownell, Pete/The role of accounting
740972
3
D«BKS.
.QQ.13.23.7.L
TOaO 001 TTE bTT
HD28.IV1414 no.ll72- 80
Brownell, Pete/Participation
740970..
3
.D*BKS
.
.
in
the
bu
00132372
TOaO 001 TTE 715
HD28.M414 no.ll73- 80
Brownell,
74096?,,.
3
Pete/Improving the informati
.O^.BKS
001326"
,.
TOaO 001 TT5 TBI
\^S^