Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: this study analyzes the interactions between budgetary participation, motivation at work (intrinsic and extrinsic), and commitment to budgetary goals. Methods: a survey was carried out with 131 intermediate level managers from different organizational areas of companies classified among the best and biggest companies in Brazil. Results: the results of modeling structural equations indicate that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations have different roles in their interactions with budgetary participation and commitment to goals. And their involvement in the budgetary process reveals behavioral and motivational effects. Conclusions: it is concluded that participation in the budgetary process can positively reflect on managerial performance, insofar as it is able to trigger intrinsic motivational effect and favor behaviors aimed at the commitment to budgetary goals.
Highlights
IntroductionThe budget is an instrument commonly used for management control (Frezatti, 2009), due to its significant contribution to assess managerial performance and influence the attitudes and behaviors of individuals in the workplace (Covaleski, Evans III, Luft, & Shields, 2007), providing different reactions and human interactions (Milani, 1975), which may imply greater efforts to achieve budgetary goals (Jacomossi, Schlup, & Zonatto, 2018; Lunardi, Zonatto, & Nascimento, 2020; Milani, 1975; Shields & Shields, 1998)
The measurement model demonstrated that all constructs have average variance extracted (AVE) greater than 0.5 (Hair et al, 2009)
The square root of each AVE presents a greater explanation in its own construct than the values referring to the correlations between the other constructs, with values higher than 0.7
Summary
The budget is an instrument commonly used for management control (Frezatti, 2009), due to its significant contribution to assess managerial performance and influence the attitudes and behaviors of individuals in the workplace (Covaleski, Evans III, Luft, & Shields, 2007), providing different reactions and human interactions (Milani, 1975), which may imply greater efforts to achieve budgetary goals (Jacomossi, Schlup, & Zonatto, 2018; Lunardi, Zonatto, & Nascimento, 2020; Milani, 1975; Shields & Shields, 1998). Research on the influence of budget participation on performance has been going on for several decades (Stearns, 2016), by exploring these interactions (e.g., Chong & Johnson, 2007; Dani, Zonatto, & Diehl, 2017; Derfuss, 2016; Isgiyarta, Nugroho, Ratmono, Helmina, & Pamungkas, 2019; Stearns, 2016) it has evidenced mixed, controversial, or inconsistent results This suggests that this relationship may be influenced by other mental or cognitive states of individuals (Covaleski et al, 2007). This justifies the inclusion of other intervening variables (Nouri & Parker, 1998) that can help explain the associated psychological and behavioral effects, which is the case of motivation (Baerdemaeker & Bruggeman, 2015; Brownell & McInnes, 1986) and the commitment to the goals (Kyj & Parker, 2008; Nouri & Parker, 1998; Parker & Kyj, 2006; Wentzel, 2002), in addition to explaining the conflicting results of direct analysis of the interaction (Dani et al, 2017; Derfuss, 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
