Budgetary criteria in performance evaluation: A critical appraisal using new evidence

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Volumn 25, Issue 4-5, 2000, Pages 483-496

  Otley, David ^a   Pollanen, Raili M ^b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF REGINA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034179510     PISSN: 03613682     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(98)00031-2     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Brownell, P. (1982). The role of accounting data in performance evaluation, budgetary participation and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring), 12-27.
2. Brownell, P. (1985). Budgetary systems and the control of functionally differentiated organizational activities. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn), 502-512.
3. Brownell, P., & Dunk, A. (1991). Task uncertainty and its interaction with budgetary participation and budget emphasis: some methodological issues and empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 693-703.
4. Brownell, P., & Hirst, M. (1986). Reliance on accounting information, budgetary participation and task uncertainty: tests of a three-way interaction. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn), 241-249.
5. Bunce, P., Fraser, R., & Woodcock, L. (1995). Advanced budgeting: a journey to advanced management systems. Management Accounting Research, 253-265.
6. Duncan, R.B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 313-327.
7. Dunk, A.S. (1989). Budget emphasis, budgetary participation and managerial performance: a note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 321-324.
8. Harrison, G.L. (1992). The cross-cultural generalizability of the relation between participation, budget emphasis and job-related attitudes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1-15.
9. Hirst, M.K. (1981). Accounting information and the evaluation of subordinate performance: a situational approach. The Accounting Review, 771-784.
10. Hopwood, A.G. (1972). An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research, (Supplement), 156-182.
11. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. Toronto, Canada:John Wiley and Sons.
12. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13. Mahoney, T.A., Jerdee, T.H., & Carroll, S.J. (1963). Development of Managerial Performance: A Research Approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.
14. Milani, K. (1975). The relationship of participation in budget-setting to industrial supervisor performance and attitudes: a field study. The Accounting Review, 274-284.
15. Otley, D.T. (1978). Budget use and managerial performance. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring), 122-149.
16. Otley, D.T. (1994). Management control in contemporary organizations: towards a wider framework. Management Accounting Research, 289-299.
17. Otley, D.T., & Fakiolas, A. (1998). Reliance on accounting performance measures: dead end or new beginning? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 219-232.
18. Pope, P., & Otley, D.T. (1996). Budgetary control and performance evaluation: an empirical analysis of bank branches. Working Paper, University of Lancaster.
19. Sathe, V. (1974). Structural adaptation to environment: study of insurance company departments and branch banks. Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University.
20. Southwood, K.E. (1978). Substantive theory and statistical interaction: five models. American Journal of Sociology (March), 1154-1203.
21. Van de Ven, A.H., & Delbecq, A.L. (1974). A task contingent model of work-unit structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 183-197.
22. Weiss, D.J., Davis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 22, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center.