Search results

Employee participation in budgeting enhances motivation and commitment, leading to better performance by enhancing ownership. Within Iraqi higher education institutions (HEIs), the current investigation delves into the influence of participative budgeting on managerial performance. Drawing upon goal-setting theory, this study discerns budget goal commitment as a mediating variable while also examining directive leadership as a moderator in the dynamics of this association.

The current study used partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 4.0. 373 questionnaires were collected from managers in Iraqi public universities, with 58.37% responding.

The findings show that budget goal commitment partially mediates the connection between budget participation and managerial performance. Furthermore, the results showed that directive leadership increases the positive associations between budget goal commitment and managerial performance.

This study expands the existing literature by shedding light on the mediating role of budget goal commitment and the moderating influence of directive leadership. It also enriches the discourse in management accounting by providing a more elucidation of how employee involvement in the budgeting process enhances managerial performance.

This paper aims to examine how managers make non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) exclusion decisions depending on the regulatory guidance provided and their motivations. Guidance detail is a double-edged sword: resolving uncertainty but risking rule-based compliance over principled judgment.

This paper uses the context of non-GAAP measures in reporting, given the history of Securities and Exchange Commission changes in guidance detail. Drawing on theories of epistemic motivation and process accountability, this paper manipulates the goal of management (informativeness vs. opportunism) and guidance detail to examine effects on management decisions to exclude an ambiguous charge.

The 2×2 between participants experiment with 132 managers reveals that more detailed guidance increases likelihood of exclusion of an ambiguous charge. This paper further finds that this exclusion is more likely when management is given an informativeness goal, a result of a mediating effect of epistemic motivation. However, these findings only hold at low levels of process accountability.

The findings regarding the psychological concepts recognize the influence of perceived decision uncertainty by suggesting how managers respond to the level of regulatory guidance detail, offering regulators and auditors a basis for understanding and anticipating managerial reporting choices. Also, awareness of heightened epistemic motivation under the informativeness goal provides a nuanced practical understanding of non-GAAP decision drivers. Finally, the finding that effects are more pronounced for managers with lower process accountability highlights the significance of organizational accountability structures in guiding managerial choices, which can inform board-level governance and control decisions.

Pragmatically, this paper finds that detailed guidance leads to more appropriate exclusion decisions under a goal of informativeness but finds no such evidence where the goal is opportunism. No prior study has examined how the level of detail in guidance affects managers’ disclosure choices.