Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
Budgetary Evaluation, Environmental Uncertainty and Performance: Case of Moroccan Firms
Current Issue
Volume 2, 2015
Issue 1 (January)
Pages: 1-6   |   Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2015   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 92   Since Aug. 28, 2015 Views: 2193   Since Aug. 28, 2015
Authors
[1]
Azzouz Elhamma, National School of Business and Management, Ibn Tofaïl University Kenitra, Morocco.
[2]
Omar Taouab, National School of Business and Management, Ibn Tofaïl University Kenitra, Morocco.
Abstract
Using data from 62 firms based in Morocco, this research reports the findings of a study designed to examine the relationship between budgetary evaluation, environmental uncertainty and firms’ performance. In this research, we identified three principal styles of budgetary evaluation: “strict budgetary evaluation” adopted by 21% of the sample; “moderate budgetary evaluation” adopted by 27.4% of the surveyed enterprises and “lower budgetary evaluation” adopted by 51.6% of the sample. The environmental uncertainty doesn’t have a significant impact on diversity of budgetary evaluation systems. The relationship between budgetary evaluation and firm’s performance is significant and positive in enterprises operating in an uncertain environment and in those operating in a certain environment.
Keywords
Budgetary Evaluation, Contingency Approach, Environmental Uncertainty, Performance
Reference
[1]
Bruns, W. J. and Waterhouse, J. H. 1975. Budgetary control and organizational structure, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 33: 101-129.
[2]
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation, London: Tavistock.
[3]
Chapman, C.S. 1997. Reflections on a Contingent View of Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22, n° 2: 189-205.
[4]
Chenhall, R.H. 2003. Management Control Systems Design within its Organizational Context; Findings from Contingency-based Research and Directions for the Future, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 (2/3): 127–168.
[5]
Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure and strategies of control: a replication of the Aston studies, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17: 163-177.
[6]
Dent, J. F. 1990. Strategy, organization and control: Some possibilities for accounting research, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15, n° 1-2: 3-25.
[7]
Donaldson, L. 1996. The normal science of structural contingency theory, in Handook of organizational theory, ed. Clegg S.R., Hardy C. & Nord W.R: 57-76.
[8]
Elhamma, A. 2012. The relationship between firm size, activity based costing and performance: An application on Moroccan enterprises. Journal of Accounting, Business and Management 19 (1): 90-102.
[9]
Elhamma A. 2013. Influence de la taille, la stratégie et la structure organisationnelle sur l’adoption de la comptabilité par activités au Maroc, la Revue Gestion et Organisation, p.27-32.
[10]
Elhamma, A. and Yi Fei Z. 2013. The relationship between activity-based costing, business strategy and performance in Moroccan enterprises. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Vol. 12, n°1, pp. 22-38.
[11]
Ezzamel, M. 1990. The Impact of Environmental Uncertainty, Managerial Autonomy and Size on Budget Characteristics, Management Accounting Research, 1: 181–197.
[12]
Fisher, J. 1995. Contingency-Based Research on Management Control Systems: Categorization by Levels of Complexity, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 14: 24-53.
[13]
Fisher, J. 1998. Contingency theory, management control systems and firm outcomes: Past results and future directions. Behavioral Research In Accounting, (10 Supplement): 47-64.
[14]
Galbraith, J. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[15]
Gordon, L., Narayanan, V. 1984. Management Accounting Systems, Perceived Environmental Uncertainty and Organizations Structure: An Empirical Investigation, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 9, n° 1: 33-47.
[16]
Gosselin, M., Dubé, T. 2002. Influence de la stratégie sur l’adoption des mesures de performance en vigueur dans le système de comptabilité de gestion, 23ème congrès de l’Association Française de Comptabilité, Toulouse, 16 et 17mai.
[17]
Govindarajan, V. 1984. Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: an empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 9, n° 2, February: 125-135.
[18]
Govindarajan, V. 1988. A Contingency Approach To Strategy Implementation At The Business Unit Level: integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, n° 4: 828-853.
[19]
Gupta, A. K. 1987. SBU strategies, corporate-SBU relation relations, and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30, n° 3: 477-500.
[20]
Harrison, G.L. 1993. Reliance on accounting performance measures in superior evaluative style- the influence of national culture and personality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 18: 319-339.
[21]
Hartmann, F. G. H. 2000. The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 25, n° 4-5: 451-482.
[22]
Hartmann, F.G.H. and Moers, F., 1999, Testing Contingency Hypotheses in Budgetary Research: An Evaluation of the Use of Moderated Regression Analysis, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24: 291-315.
[23]
Hirst, M.K. 1981. Accounting information and the evaluation of subordinate performance: A situational approach, The Accounting Review, 56(October): 771-784.
[24]
Hopwood, A.G. 1972. An Empirical Study of the Role of Accounting Data in Performance Evaluation, Journal of Accounting Research, supplement, Vol. 10: 156-182.
[25]
Hopwood, A.G., 1973, An Accounting System and Managerial Behaviour, Saxon House, London.
[26]
Kalika, M. 1987. Structures d’entreprises, réalités, déterminants, performances, Economica.
[27]
Lal, M. 1991. Organizational size, structuring of activities, and control information system sophistication levels: an empirical study, Management International Review, Vol. 31, n° 2: 101-113.
[28]
Langevin, P., Naro, G. 2003. Contrôle et comportements : une revue de la littérature anglo-saxonne, actes du 26ème congrès de l’Association Française de Comptabilité, Louvain la neuve, 22 et 23 Mai.
[29]
Langfield-Smith, K. 1997. Management control systems and strategy: a critical review, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.22, n°2: 207-232.
[30]
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J. 1967. Organization and environment, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
[31]
Merchant, K. 1981. The design of the corporate budgeting system: influences on managerial behavior and performance, The Accounting Review, Vol. 4: 813-829.
[32]
Merchant, K. 1984. Influences on departmental budgeting: an empirical examination of a contingency model, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(3-4): 291-307.
[33]
Merchant, K. 1990. The effects of financial controls on data manipulation and management myopia, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15: 297-313.
[34]
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw Hill, New York.
[35]
Nobre, T. 2001. Méthodes et outils du contrôle de gestion dans les PME, Finance, Contrôle, Stratégie, Volume 4, n°2, juin : 119-148.
[36]
Otley, D., Pollanen, R.M., 2000. Budgetary Criteria in Performance Evaluation: A Critical Appraisal Using New Evidence, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 25: 483-496.
[37]
Otley, D.T. 1978. Budget Use and Managerial Performance, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 16: 142-149.
[38]
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. 1969. The context of organization Structures, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14: 91-114.
[39]
Ross, A. 1995. Job-Related Tension, Budget Emphasis and Uncertainty: A Research Note, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 6: 1-11.
[40]
Scott, W. 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
[41]
Scott, W. 2003. organizations: rational, natural and open systems, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[42]
Simons, R. 1987. Accounting control systems and business strategy: an empirical analysis, Accounting, Organization and Society, Vol. 12, n° 4: 357-374.
[43]
Soobaroyen, T. 2007. Management Control Systems and Managerial Dysfunctional Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Direct, Intervening and Moderating Effects, Doctoral Thesis, School of Management and Business, University of Wales.
[44]
Sponem, S. 2006. Budgetary control: technical efficiency or adaptation to institutionalized expectations? 8th interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting conference, Cardiff business School, July.
[45]
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action, New York: McGraw-Hill.
[46]
Van der Stede, W. 2001. Measuring tight budgetary control, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, n°1: 119-137.
[47]
Burrow J., Kleindl B. and Everard K. 2008. Business Principles and Management, South-westren:Thomson.
[48]
Horngren C. T., Datar S. M. and Rajan M. V. 2012. Cost Accounting: A managerial Emphasis, (14th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[49]
Elhamma A. 2012. L’impact de la stratégie sur le contenu des tableaux de bord : cas des entreprises au Maroc, Revue Congolaise de Gestion, n°14, Juillet – Décembre, p.57-77.
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
CONTACT US
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
E-mail:
LET'S GET IN TOUCH
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
SEND MASSAGE
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved