IJSTR

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

IJSTR@Facebook IJSTR@Twitter IJSTR@Linkedin
Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
CALL FOR PAPERS
AUTHORS
DOWNLOADS
CONTACT
QR CODE
IJSTR-QR Code

IJSTR >> Volume 6 - Issue 4, April 2017 Edition



International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616



The Effects Of Leadership Styles On Goal Clarity And Fairness: Mediated Used Performance Measure

[Full Text]

 

AUTHOR(S)

Amris Rusli Tanjung, Yesi Mutia Basri

 

KEYWORDS

leadership style, initiating structure, consideration, goal clarity, fairness in evaluation

 

ABSTRACT

This paper investigate the effects of superiors’ performance evaluation behaviors on subordinates’ work-related attitudes mediated used performance measure. We used leadership style initiating structure and consideration and performance measure use (objective and subjective measures) on managerial work related attitudes (goal clarity and evaluation fairness). We test our hypotheses using survey data from 56 middle-level managers in 4 services organizations. The results from Structural Equation Model with PLS show that an initiating structure leadership style has significant effect goal clarity and used objective performance measure mediated relationship initiating structure and goal clarity and used subjective performance measure not mediated relationship consideration leadership style and fairness in evaluation. Consideration leadership behavior instead only has a direct impact on fairness in evaluation. These findings have important implications for management accounting research on superiors’ use of performance measures, and provide an explanation of some of the problematic findings in the literature.

 

REFERENCES

[1] Abernethy, M. A., Bouwens, J. and Van Lent, L. (2007) Leadership style and control system use, Working Paper, University of Melbourne.

[2] Bass, B. M. (1981) Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research (New York: Free Press).

[3] Bowen, D. E. and Lawler, E. E. (1992) The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and when, Sloan Management Review, 33, pp. 31–39.

[4] Chapman, C. S. (1997) Reflections on a contingent view of accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), pp. 189–205.

[5] Derfuss, K. (2009) The relationship of budgetary participation and reliance on accounting performance measures with individual-level consequent variables: a meta-analysis, European Accounting Review, 18(2), pp. 203–239.

[6] Hartmann, F. G. H. (2000) The appropriateness of RAPM: toward the further development of theory, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(4/5), pp. 451–482.

[7] Hartmann, F. G. H. (2005) The effects of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty on the appropriateness of accounting performance measures, Abacus, 41(3), pp. 241–264.

[8] Hartmann, F., D Naranjo, Gil Dan P Perego (2010) The Effects Of Leadership Styles and Use of Performance Measures on Managerial Work-Related Attitudes, European Accounting Review Vol. 19, No. 2, 275–310

[9] Hartmann, F. G. H. (2007) Does budgeting indeed reduce managerial ambiguity? Advances in Management Accounting, 16, pp. 159–180.

[10] Hopwood, A. G. (1972) An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation, Journal of Accounting Research, 10(3), pp. 156–182.

[11] Hopwood, A. G. (1973) An Accounting System and Managerial Behavior (London: Saxon House).

[12] Hopwood, A. G. (1974) Leadership climate and the use of accounting data in performance evaluation, The Accounting Review, 49(3), pp. 485–495.

[13] House, R. J. (1971) A path goal theory of leader effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly,16(3), pp. 321–339.

[14] House, R. J. (1996) Path–goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory, The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), pp. 323–352.

[15] Lau, C. M. and Moser, A. (2008) Behavioral effects of nonfinancial performance measures: the role of procedural fairness, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20, pp. 55–71.

[16] Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

[17] Locke, E. A., Chah, D. O., Harrison, S. and Lustgarten, N. (1989) Separating the effects of goal specificity from goal level, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, pp. 270–287.

[18] Luckett, P. F. and Eggleton, I. R. C. (1991) Feedback and management accounting: a review of research into behavioral consequences, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, pp. 371–394.

[19] Luft, J. and Shields, M. D. (2003) Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2/3),pp. 169–249.

[20] Malina, M. A. and Selto, F. H. (2004) Choice and change in performance measurement models, Management Accounting Research, 15(4), pp. 441–469.

[21] Marginson, D. and Ogden, S. (2005) Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers’ budgeting behaviors, Accounting, Organizations and Society,30(5), pp. 435–456.

[22] Merchant, K. A. (1984) Influences on departmental budgeting: an empirical examination of a contingency model, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(3/4), pp. 291–307.

[23] Merchant, K. A. (1985) Organizational controls and discretionary program decision making: a field study, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), pp. 67–85.

[24] Merchant, K. A. (1990) The effects of financial controls on data manipulation and management myopia, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(4), pp. 297–313.

[25] Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A. and Zheng, L. (2003) Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2), pp. 251–286.

[26] Moers, F. (2005) Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), pp. 67–80.

[27] Noeverman, J. and Koene, B. A. S. (2000) Evaluation and leadership: an explorative study of differences in evaluative style, Maandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfs economie, 74, pp.62–76.

[28] Noeverman, J., Koene, B. A. S. and Williams, R. (2005) Construct measurement of evaluative style: are view and proposal, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 2(1), pp. 77–107.

[29] Olson, O. and Rombach, B. (1996) The Treasurer’s department as a buffer organization, Financial Accountability and Management, 12, pp. 245–259.

[30] Otley, D. T. (1978) Budget use and managerial performance, Journal of Accounting Research, 16(1),pp. 122–149.

[31] Pollanen, R. and Otley, D. (2000) Budgetary criteria in performance evaluation: a critical appraisal using new evidence, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(4/5), pp. 483–496.

[32] Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J. and Lirtzman, S. I. (1970) Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, pp. 151–163.

[33] Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. and De Church, L. A. (2006) An investigation of path–goal and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual level of analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), pp. 21–38.

[34] Steers, R. M. (1976) Factors affecting job attitudes in a goal-setting environment, Academy of Management Journal, 19(1), pp. 6–16.

[35] Van Der Stede, W. A., Chow, C. and Lin, T. W. (2006) Strategy, choice of performance measures, and performance, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18, pp. 185–205.

[36] Yukl, G. A. (2005) Leadership in Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).310