Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 25 Download : 13

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to find empirical evidence of the direct influence of each budgeting characteristic, namely participation, clarity of targets, difficulty of targets, and budget feedback on managerial performance. In addition, this study wants to test the suitability of the perceived environmental uncertainty factor with the characteristics of budgeting targets. The respondents of this study were all structural officials within UKI Toraja totaling 110 people. This study uses two models to test each hypothesis developed in this study, namely regression analysis (stepwise), which is used to test hypotheses 1 to 4 and multiple regression methods with residual forms (residual approach) to test hypotheses 5 to 8. significant. The results showed that there was no significant influence of budget preparation participation and clarity of budget targets on managerial performance. However, this study shows that the lack of fit between characteristics and environmental uncertainty has an insignificant relationship. In other words, there is no expected inconsistency related to poor managerial performance. The ambiguity of these results may be caused by factors that have not been considered and controlled in relation to the use of residual analysis.

Keywords

Characteristics of Budgeting System Budgeting Participation Goal Clarity; Goal Difficulty Feedback Managerial Performance Environmental Uncertainty University Budget

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

By exercising the Licensed Rights, You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License.

How to Cite
Pasoloran, O., & Matasik, A. L. (2024). Characteristics of University Budgeting Systems and Perceived Uncertainty Enviromental . Kontigensi : Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, 12(2), 875-880. https://doi.org/10.56457/jimk.v12i2.624

References

  1. Anthony, R.N. dan V. Govindarajan. 1995. Manajement Control System. Eight Edition. International Student Edition. Richard D. Irwin Inc. U.S.A.
  2. Argyris, C. 1952. The Impact of Budgets on People. Ithaca New York. The Controllership Foundation Inc. Cornell University.
  3. Bambang Supomo dan N. Indriantoro, 1998. “Pengaruh Struktur dan Kultur Organisasional terhadap Keefektifan Anggaran Partisipatif dalam Peningkatan Kinerja Majerial: Kelola. No.18/VIII. pp. 61-84.
  4. Brownell, P. 1982a. “Participation in the Budgeting Process: What it Works and Whwn it Doesn’t”. Journal of Accounting Literatur. Vol. 1., pp. 124-153
  5. Brownell, P. 1982b. “A Field Study Examination of Budgetary Participation and Locus of Control”. The Accounting Review. Vol. LVII. No.4, pp. 766-777
  6. Brownell, P., dan Hirst, M. 1986. “Reliance on Accounting Information, Budgetary Partisipation, and Task Uncertainty”. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol. 24. pp. 241-249
  7. Brownell, P. dan M. McInnes. 1986. “Budgetary Participation, Motivation and Managerial Performance”. The Accounting Review. Vol.LVII No.4. October. pp. 766-777.
  8. Caplan, Edwin. H. 1971. “Management Accounting and Behavioral Science”, Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley
  9. Carroll, S. J. dan H. L. Tosi. 1970. “Goal Characteristics and Personality Faktors in a Management by Objectives Program”. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 295-305
  10. Cherrinton, David J. dan J. Owen Cherrington. 1973. “Approriate Reinforcement Contingencies in Budgeting Process”. Journal of Accounting Research (Suplement). pp. 225-253.
  11. Chow, C.W., Jean C.C., dan William S.W. 1988. “Participative Budgeting Effects of a Truth-Inducing Pay Scheme and Information Asymmetry on Slack and Performance”. The Accounting Review. No.1. January. pp. 111-122.
  12. Duncan, Keith dan Ken Moores. 1989. “Residual Analysis: A Better Methodology for Contingency Studies in Management Accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Review. Vol.1. pp 89-102.
  13. Duncan, R. B. 1972. “Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty”. Administrative Science Querterly.pp. 313-327.
  14. Dunk, Alan S., Arthur F. Lysons. 1995. “Budgetary Participation, Environmental Dimensionality and Departemental Performance: An Examination in Public Sector Organization”. Financial Accountability & Management, Vol.13, No.1, pp 1-15
  15. Gordon, L. A., dan Narayanan, V. K. 1984. “Management Accounting System, Perceived Enviromental Uncertainty and Organization Structure: An Emperical Investigation, Accounting, Organization, and Society, Vol. 9, pp. 33-47
  16. Govindarajan, V. 1986. “Impact of Participation in Budgetary Process on Attitudes and Performance: Universalistic and Contigency Perspectives”. Decisions Sciences. Fall. pp. 196-516.
  17. Hansen, Don R dan M.M. Mowen. 2000. Management Accounting. 5th Edition. Shouth-Western College Publishing.
  18. Hanson, Ernest. I. 1966. “The Budgetary Control Function”. The Accounting Review. pp. 239-243.
  19. Hofstede, G.H., 1967. The Game of Budgeting Control. The Netherlands; Koninlijke Van Gorcum and Com.N.V.Asen.
  20. Kenis, I. 1979. “Effects of Budgetary Goal Characteristics on Managerial Attitudes and Performance”. The Accounting Review. Vol. LIV. No.4. October. pp. 707-721.
  21. Kim, J. S., dan W. C. Hamner. 1976. “Effect of Performance Feedback and Goal Setting on Productivity and Satisfaction in an Organizational Setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 45-57
  22. Kren, L. 1992. “Budgetary Partsipation and Managerial Performance: The Impact of Information and Environmental Volatility. The Accounting Review. pp.511-526
  23. Latham, G. P., dan G. A. Yukl. 1975. “A Review of Research on the Aplication of Goal Setting in Organization”. Academy of management Journal. pp. 824-845
  24. Locke, E. A. 1968. “Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentive”. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, pp. 157-189
  25. McCluskey, F., & Winter, M. (2012). The Idea of the Digital University: Ancient Traditions, Disruptive Technologies, and the Battle for the Soul of Higher Education.
  26. Milani, K. 1975. “The Relationship of Participation in Budget-Setting to Industrial Supervisor Performance and Attitudes: A Field Study”. The Accounting Review. April. pp. 274-284.
  27. Milliken, F. J. 1987. “Three Types of Perceived Uncertainty About the Enviroment: State, Effect and Response Uncertainty. Academy of Mangement Review, Vol. 12, pp. 133-143
  28. Murray, D. 1990. “The performance Effects on Participative Budgeting: An Integration of Intervening and Moderating Variabels”. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Vo.2. pp. 104-123.
  29. Muslimah. S. 1998. “Dampak Gaya Kepemimpinan, Ketidakpastian Lingkungan, dan Informasi Job-Relevant terhadap Perceived Usefulness Sistem Penganggaran”. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Indonesia.Vol.1, No.2. pp. 219-238.
  30. Polimeni, R.S., F.J. Fabozzi, dan Artur H. Adelberg. 1986. Akuntansi Biaya; Konsep dan Aplikasi untuk Pengambilan Keputusan Manajerial. Jilid 2. Edisi Bahasa Indonesia. Penerbit Erlangga.
  31. Riyanto, L.S. Bambang, 2001. “Alternative Approach to Examining a Contingency Model in Accounting Research: A Comparison. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi, Manajemen, Ekonomi. Vol.1 No.1., pp 13-32
  32. Santoso, Singgih. 2001. SPSS versi 10. Mengolah Data Statistik Secara Profesiona, Penerbit PT Elex Media Komputindo, Jakarta..
  33. Schiff, M dan Arie Y. Lewin. 1970. “The Impact of People on Budgets”. The Accounting Review. April. pp. 259-269.
  34. Schiff, M dan Arie Y. Lewin. 1974. “Behavioral Aspects of Accounting”. Englewood Cliffs, N.N. : Prentice Hall . pp. 118.
  35. Shields, Michael D., F. Johnny Deng dan Yutaka Kato. 2000. “The Design and Effect of Control Systems: Test of Direct and Indirect Effects Models”. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 25. pp. 185-202.
  36. Steer, R. M. 1975. “Faktor Affecting Job Attitudes in Goal-Setting Enviroment”. Academy of Management Jounal. pp. 6-16.