The Role of Participation in Budgeting
The Role of Participation in Budgeting
Introduction
Although participation in budgeting may enforce the managerial performance, it has constrains and can cause some problems as well. This article analyses the possible advantages and limitations of the role of participation in budget setting. In the next section, the possible merits of budgetary participation are demonstrated. This is followed by a section that explains the equivocation existing in the relationship between budgetary participation and performance. Then, in the following section, some negative effects on the application of participation in budgeting progress are illustrated. The final section is the conclusion of the study.
The Possible Advantages of Budgetary Participation
According to the definition of budgeting, it is the ¡®estimation of all income and expenses for an accounting period or financial forecasting, planning, and controlling¡¯. (http://www.yourwebassistant.net/glossary/b11.htm#budgeting)
Comparing the budget with the real achievement of the company, it is possible to improve the decision-making process for the future development of the enterprise. So budgeting takes a crucial role in management accounting. Therefore, studying how to make budget setting more effective is important for the benefit of the enterprise.
Participation in budgeting is one of the useful approaches. It bears some possible advantages, which may enhance manager¡¯s commitment to budget objectives.
The following discussion (adapted from Lecture notes by Professor S. G. Ogden, 2004) bears the assumption that there is positive relationship between participation and performance. The contradictions will be discussed later in the following sections.
First of all, participation in budget setting can inspire the enthusiasm of the managers. Then they will intend to input more energy and time into the work to meet the budget targets. Because if they are involved in the process of budget setting, they
Introduction
Although participation in budgeting may enforce the managerial performance, it has constrains and can cause some problems as well. This article analyses the possible advantages and limitations of the role of participation in budget setting. In the next section, the possible merits of budgetary participation are demonstrated. This is followed by a section that explains the equivocation existing in the relationship between budgetary participation and performance. Then, in the following section, some negative effects on the application of participation in budgeting progress are illustrated. The final section is the conclusion of the study.
The Possible Advantages of Budgetary Participation
According to the definition of budgeting, it is the ¡®estimation of all income and expenses for an accounting period or financial forecasting, planning, and controlling¡¯. (http://www.yourwebassistant.net/glossary/b11.htm#budgeting)
Comparing the budget with the real achievement of the company, it is possible to improve the decision-making process for the future development of the enterprise. So budgeting takes a crucial role in management accounting. Therefore, studying how to make budget setting more effective is important for the benefit of the enterprise.
Participation in budgeting is one of the useful approaches. It bears some possible advantages, which may enhance manager¡¯s commitment to budget objectives.
The following discussion (adapted from Lecture notes by Professor S. G. Ogden, 2004) bears the assumption that there is positive relationship between participation and performance. The contradictions will be discussed later in the following sections.
First of all, participation in budget setting can inspire the enthusiasm of the managers. Then they will intend to input more energy and time into the work to meet the budget targets. Because if they are involved in the process of budget setting, they
References: Brownell, P. (1982). ¡®A field study examination of budgetary participation and locus of control¡¯. The Accounting Review. Vol. 57. pp. 766-777. Brownell, P Chenhall, R. (1986). ¡®Authoritarianism and participative budgeting: a dyadic analysis¡¯. The Accounting Review. Vol. 61. pp. 263-272. Chenhall, R. H. and Brownell, P. (1988). ¡®The effect of participative budgeting on job satisfaction and performance: Role ambiguity as an intervening variable¡¯. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 13. pp. 225-233. Collins, F. (1978). ¡®The interaction of budget characteristics and personality variables with budget response attitudes¡¯. The Accounting Review. Vol. 53. pp. 324-335. Dunk, A. S. (1989). ¡®Budget emphasis, budgetary participation and managerial performance: A note¡¯. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 14. pp. 321-324 Dunk, A Hartmann, F. G. H. (2000). ¡®The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory¡¯. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 25. pp. 451-482. Lau, M Merchant, K. A. (1981). ¡®The Design of the Corporate Budgeting System: Influences on Managerial Behavior and Performance¡¯. The Accounting Review. Vol. 56. pp. 813-829. Milani, K. (1975). ¡®The relationship of participation in budget setting to industrial supervisor performance and attitudes: a field study¡¯. The Accounting Review. Vol. 50. pp. 274-284.