Constructs | Assertions |
---|---|
Diagnostic Use of the Budget (Chong & Mahama, 2014Chong, K.M., & Mahama, H. (2014). The impact of interactive and diagnostic uses of budgets on team effectiveness. Management Accounting Research, 25(3), 206-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.10.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.10.00... ) |
How often the budget is used to ... Scale from 1 (never) to 7 (frequently). |
1. Track the team’s progress towards goals. | |
2. Monitor the team’s results. | |
3. Compare the team’s results with expectations. | |
4. Assess the competence of the team to develop the planned activities / tasks. | |
Interactive Use of the Budget (Chong & Mahama, 2014Chong, K.M., & Mahama, H. (2014). The impact of interactive and diagnostic uses of budgets on team effectiveness. Management Accounting Research, 25(3), 206-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.10.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.10.00... ) |
How often the budget is used to ... Scale from 1 (never) to 7 (frequently). |
1. Promote discussions in meetings among superiors, subordinates and peers. | |
2. Stimulate the continuous challenge and debate of budget premises, assumptions and action plans. | |
3. Provide a common view of your team. | |
4. Bring the team (s) together. | |
5. Encourage the team to focus on common issues. | |
6. Encourage the team to focus on the critical success factors. | |
7. Develop a common vocabulary among the team | |
Organizational Commitment (Mowday et al., 1979Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)900... ) |
Assess the extent to which the following situations characterize your organizational commitment to the organization you work for. Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). |
1. I am willing to make great effort beyond the normally expected of me, in order to help the organization succeed. | |
2. I tell my friends this is a great organization to work for. | |
3. I feel little loyalty to this organization. *(R) | |
4. I would accept almost any type of task assignment in order to continue to work for this organization. | |
5. I believe that my values and the values of the organization are very similar. | |
6. I am proud to tell others I am part of this organization. | |
7. I could work in a different organization, as long as the job is similar. *(R) | |
8. This organization really brings out my best to carry out the activities. | |
9. It would take very little change in my current situation to get me out of this organization. * (R) | |
10. I am extremely happy to have found this organization to work for, to the detriment of the others. | |
11. There is not much to gain from this organization indefinitely. * (R) | |
12. I often find it difficult to agree with this organization’s policies on important issues related to its employees. * (R) | |
13. I really care about the future of this organization. | |
14. For me, this is the best organization to work for. | |
15. The decision to work for this organization was definitely a mistake on my part. * (R) | |
Managerial Performance (Denison, Hooijberg & Quinn, 1995Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R.E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524-540. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.524 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.524... ) |
Assess the extent to which your managerial performance is presented in the following situations. |
Scale from 1 (below most standards) to 7 (above most standards). 1. My performance compared to the company’s standard performance. | |
Scale from 1 (worst performance) to 7 (best performance). 2. My performance compared to my co-workers’ performance. | |
Scale from 1 (weak model) to 7 (excellent model). 3. My performance as an exemplary model for my co-workers. | |
Scale from 1 (managerial failure) to 7 (managerial success). 4. My overall managerial success compared to other managers in the company. | |
Scale from 1 (ineffective manager) to 7 (effective manager). 5. My overall effectiveness as a manager compared to other managers in the company. |
Gender | Freq. | % | Educational Background | Freq. | % | Current Position | Freq. | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | 118 | 89 | Primary/Secondary | 4 | 3 | Analyst | 17 | 13 |
Degree | 54 | 41 | Supervisor | 4 | 3 | |||
Specialization or MBA | 68 | 51 | Coordinator | 41 | 31 | |||
Female | 15 | 11 | Master | 5 | 4 | Manager | 62 | 47 |
Doctorate | 2 | 2 | Director | 9 | 7 | |||
Age | Freq. | % | Time in the Company | Freq. | % | Time in the Position | Freq. | % |
Up to 30 | 24 | 18 | Up to 2 years | 36 | 27 | Up to 2 years | 52 | 39 |
Between 31 and 40 | 47 | 35 | From 2 years to 4 years | 29 | 22 | From 2 years to 4 years | 34 | 26 |
Between 41 and 50 | 42 | 32 | From 4 years to 8 years | 20 | 15 | From 4 years to 8 years | 32 | 24 |
Between 51 and 60 | 18 | 14 | From 8 years to 16 years | 23 | 17 | From 8 years to 16 years | 13 | 10 |
Above 60 | 2 | 2 | More than 16 years | 25 | 19 | More than 16 years | 2 | 2 |
Latent Variable | Indicators | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard Deviation | Kurtosis | Asymmetry |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic Use of the Budget (DUB) | DUB1 | 1 | 7 | 5.301 | 1.642 | 0.048 | -0.880 |
DUB2 | 1 | 7 | 5.368 | 1.545 | 0.031 | -0.838 | |
DUB3 | 1 | 7 | 5.308 | 1.629 | 0.281 | -0.980 | |
DUB4 | 1 | 7 | 4.797 | 1.618 | -0.194 | -0.591 | |
Interactive Use of the Budget (IUB) | IUB1 | 1 | 7 | 4.940 | 1.623 | -0.049 | -0.744 |
IUB2 | 1 | 7 | 4.902 | 1.660 | -0.443 | -0.518 | |
IUB3 | 1 | 7 | 4.662 | 1.678 | -0.659 | -0.359 | |
IUB4 | 1 | 7 | 4.263 | 1.687 | -0.644 | -0.212 | |
IUB5 | 1 | 7 | 4.617 | 1.465 | -0,483 | -0.131 | |
IUB6 | 1 | 7 | 4.752 | 1.484 | -0.001 | -0.608 | |
IUB7 | 1 | 7 | 4.451 | 1.654 | -0.682 | -0.311 | |
Organizational Commitment (OC) | OC1 | 4 | 7 | 6.421 | 0.751 | 0.412 | -1.089 |
OC 2 | 2 | 7 | 6.083 | 1.128 | 1.290 | -1.321 | |
OC 3 | 1 | 7 | 1.744 | 1.560 | 5.065 | 2.440 | |
OC 4 | 1 | 7 | 3.737 | 1.946 | -1.110 | 0.134 | |
OC 5 | 1 | 7 | 5.444 | 1.495 | 0.638 | -1.030 | |
OC 6 | 3 | 7 | 6.150 | 1.138 | 1.107 | -1.365 | |
OC 7 | 1 | 7 | 4.947 | 1.785 | -0.566 | -0.642 | |
OC 8 | 1 | 7 | 5.421 | 1.468 | 0.713 | -1.083 | |
OC 9 | 1 | 7 | 3.068 | 1.831 | -0.776 | 0.621 | |
OC 10 | 2 | 7 | 5.684 | 1.328 | -0.081 | -0.878 | |
OC 11 | 1 | 7 | 2.564 | 1.676 | -0.446 | 0.833 | |
OC 12 | 1 | 7 | 3.444 | 1.860 | -1.088 | 0.327 | |
OC 13 | 2 | 7 | 6.271 | 0.986 | 3.237 | -1.677 | |
OC 14 | 1 | 7 | 4.940 | 1.476 | 0.247 | -0.728 | |
OC 15 | 1 | 6 | 1.459 | 1.077 | 7.249 | 2.771 | |
Managerial Performance (MP) | MP1 | 1 | 7 | 5.677 | 1.105 | 3.276 | -1.519 |
MP 2 | 3 | 7 | 5.782 | 0.772 | 0.830 | -0.604 | |
MP 3 | 2 | 7 | 5.714 | 0.918 | 4.429 | -1.430 | |
MP 4 | 3 | 7 | 5.684 | 0.899 | 0.165 | -0.536 | |
MP 5 | 3 | 7 | 5.692 | 0.914 | 0.199 | -0,.675 |
Latent Variable | Indicators | Convergent validity | Internal consistency reliability | Discriminant validity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
External factorial loads | Reliability of indicators | AVE | Composite Reliability | Cronbach’s Alpha | HTMT confidence interval does not include value 1 | ||
Diagnostic Use of the Budget (DUB) | DUB1 | 0.914 | 0.835 | 0.828 | 0.951 | 0.931 | Yes |
DUB2 | 0.933 | 0.870 | |||||
DUB3 | 0.928 | 0.861 | |||||
DUB4 | 0.865 | 0.748 | |||||
Interactive Use of the Budget (IUB) | IUB1 | 0.800 | 0.641 | 0.728 | 0.949 | 0.937 | Yes |
IUB2 | 0.822 | 0.676 | |||||
IUB3 | 0.918 | 0.843 | |||||
IUB4 | 0.831 | 0.691 | |||||
IUB5 | 0.861 | 0.741 | |||||
IUB6 | 0.897 | 0.804 | |||||
IUB7 | 0.836 | 0.699 | |||||
Organizational Commitment (OC) | OC1 | 0.663 | 0.439 | 0.535 | 0.843 | 0.736 | Yes |
OC 2 | 0.788 | 0.621 | |||||
OC 5 | 0.861 | 0.741 | |||||
OC 6 | 0.843 | 0.711 | |||||
OC 8 | 0.761 | 0.580 | |||||
OC 10 | 0.823 | 0.677 | |||||
OC 11 | -0.568 | 0.322 | |||||
OC 12 | -0.549 | 0.301 | |||||
OC 13 | 0.603 | 0.363 | |||||
OC O14 | 0.768 | 0.590 | |||||
Managerial Performance (MP) | MP 1 | 0.789 | 0.623 | 0.579 | 0.873 | 0.836 | Yes |
MP 2 | 0.721 | 0.520 | |||||
MP 3 | 0.758 | 0.575 | |||||
MP 4 | 0.734 | 0.538 | |||||
MP 5 | 0.799 | 0.638 |
Panel A - DUB Direct Relationship | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Structural Relationship | Structural Coefficient | Standard Error | t- value | p- value | VIF | R 2 | Q 2 | f 2 |
DUB àMP | 0,041 | 0,073 | 0,556 | 0,579 | 1,385 | 0,259 | 0,101 | 0,002 |
OC à MP | 0,486 | 0,060 | 8,081 | 0,000* | 1,385 | 0,230 | ||
DUB à OC | 0,527 | 0,062 | 8,555 | 0,000* | 1,000 | 0,278 | 0,131 | 0,385 |
Panel B - DUB Mediation analysis | ||||||||
Structural Relationship | Effects | Structural Coefficient | Standard Error | t- value | p-value | Type of Mediation | ||
DUB à OC à MP | Indirect | 0.256 | 0.046 | 5.562 | 0.000* | Total mediation | ||
Total | 0.297 | 0.072 | 4.129 | 0.000* | ||||
Panel C - IUB Direct Relationship | ||||||||
Structural Relationship | Structural Coefficient | Standard Error | t- value | p-value | VIF | R 2 | Q 2 | f 2 |
IUB à MP | 0.027 | 0.095 | 0.282 | 0.778 | 1.590 | 0.256 | 0.098 | 0.001 |
OC à MP | 0.489 | 0.075 | 6.538 | 0.000* | 1.590 | 0.202 | ||
IUB à OC | 0.609 | 0.049 | 12.315 | 0.000* | 1.000 | 0.371 | 0.176 | 0.590 |
Panel D - IUB Mediation analysis | ||||||||
Structural Relationship | Effects | Structural Coefficient | Standard Error | t- value | p-value | Type of Mediation | ||
IUB à OC à MP | Indirect | 0.298 | 0.058 | 5.184 | 0.000* | Total mediation | ||
Total | 0.325 | 0.072 | 4.533 | 0.000* |