The Joint Effect of Stakeholder and Incentive on the Acceptance of Budgetary Slack. Observed Differences in Hierarchy of Needs Indicated by Polish Management Accountants
Abstract: This research aims to investigate the joint effect of incentive and stakeholder type on the acceptance of the budgetary slack and examine the changes in rankings of five needs described in Maslow's pyramid concerning the acceptance of budgetary slack. Using experiment procedure among Polish management accounting practitioners, we document that motivational incentive and type of stakeholder interacted to affect the acceptance of budgetary slack. Specifically, management accountants experiencing non-monetary incentives and standing in a situation where internal stakeholders’ expectations can be met with budgetary slack showed the highest acceptance of budgetary slack as professional behaviour. With regards to Maslow's pyramid, we found that respondents not accepting budgetary slack as professional behavior ranked higher the needs that are on the top of Maslow’s pyramid. Contrary, those accepting budgetary slack were more often choosing safety needs suggesting that striving to keep a job is a significant decision-making determinant. The most important conclusion from this study indicates the threat of overstated or understated revenues and costs in budgetary planning due to self-interest and a desire to meet stakeholders' expectations. This finding, together with rankings of Maslow's needs, show a necessity for further research in order to deepen our knowledge in the field of ethical managerial decision-making.
<a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.15611/fins.2022.1.02">DOI: 10.15611/fins.2022.1.02</a>
<p>JEL Classification: M41, D91</p>
<p>Keywords: budgetary slack, hierarchy of needs,Maslow, stakeholder theory, behavioural accounting</p>
<h2>1. Introduction </h2>
<p>Budgetary decisions are one of the most important financial decisions
made by company management accountants , not always based only on a
financially rational basis. The self-interest of decision-makers, as
well as other factors, can influence them, and thus budgetary slacks are
created.</p>
<p>We define budgetary slack as an intentional overestimation or
underestimation of costs or revenues in a budget, resulting in
unrealistic forecasts of financial performance results. The slack can be
created to prepare an over-optimistic or over-pessimistic budget,
depending on the motives of a budget decision-makers. Therefore, the
budgetary slack can be twofold, leading to the overestimation or
underestimation of the forecasted financial results.</p>
<p>The study investigated the effect of the non-monetary incentives and
the type of stakeholder on the intention to accept a budgetary slack. It
also explored the relation between the management accountant's decision
to accept the budgetary slack and the decision-maker’s ranking of needs
formulated in Maslow’s theory. Therefore, the study is rooted in two
prominent theories: Maslow's hierarchy of needs concerning human beings,
and Freeman's stakeholder theory, concerning companies. Therefore, the
authors located the research within organisational and behavioural
contexts, and used an experimental procedure among management
accountants in Poland.</p>
<h2>2. Theoretical background</h2>
<h3>2.1. Stakeholder theory</h3>
<p>The stakeholder theory is probably one of the most important
revolutionary theories that challenged the shareholder-centred
approach.</p>
<p>A central issue in finance literature is whether managing for the
interest of stakeholders improves profits (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks,
Parmar, & de Colle, 2010). The debate is frequently approached in
terms of stakeholders versus shareholders, based on the assumption that
satisfying a broad group of stakeholders is inconsistent with the ideas
of shareholder wealth maximisation (Freeman et al., 2010).</p>
<p>The main argument relating to the stakeholder concept was the
so-called Friedman-Freedman debate contrasting the stockholder approach
with the stakeholder approach. These two stands were based on ethical
assumptions: Friedman's (shareholder) view puts the company's owner in
the centre, claiming that shareholders possess legitimacy based on
ownership rights and arguing that the managers have fiduciary
obligations towards them; the Freeman (stakeholder) approach emphasised
the different entities' rights, and argued that ownership rights are not
unlimited (Reynolds, Schultz, & Hekman, 2006).</p>
<p>Finance researchers acknowledge the moral foundation of the
stakeholder theory only when it relates to a company's obligation to its
shareholders and other owners and investors (Freeman et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, they recognise the importance of stakeholders in providing
high financial returns, which is consistent with an instrumental
stakeholder perspective (Jones, 1995).</p>
<p>Currently, there exists a whole set of stakeholder theories, which
can be classified into the main categories: instrumental (managerial)
stakeholder theories, normative stakeholder theories, and descriptive
stakeholder theories. As explained by Donaldson, the descriptive or
empirical use of stakeholder theory is to describe and sometimes explain
corporate characteristics and behaviour. The descriptive aspect of the
stakeholders theory reflects and explains the past, present and future
state of affairs of corporations and their stakeholders. The use of an
instrumental version of the stakeholder theory is to identify the
connections (or lack of them) between stakeholder management and the
achievement of traditional, commonly desired corporate objectives (such
as profitability, and growth). The normative use of the stakeholder
theory is to interpret the corporation's function, including the
identification of moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation
and management of corporations. Normative concerns have dominated the
classic stakeholder theory from the beginning, and even Friedman's
concern with corporate social responsibility was cast in normative
terms. The normative theory attempts to offer guidelines about the
investor-owned corporation based on some underlying moral or
philosophical principles (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).</p>
<p>Apart from the existence of different stakeholder theories, there are
different ways of understanding who and what the stakeholders are. There
is a broader and narrower view of who the stakeholder is. The narrow
view considers the fact of limited resources, time, managers' attention
etc., and restricts the stakeholders as groups of direct relevance to
the company's economic interests. The broad interpretation is based on
the observation that companies can impact or be impacted on by almost
all individuals and groups (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Miles
distinguishes 15 types of stakeholders: claimant, influencer,
collaborator, recipient, claimant-recipient, claimant-influencer,
influencer-collaborator, claimant-collaborator, collaborator-recipient,
influencer-recipient, claimant-influencer-recipient,
claimant-influencer-collaborator, claimant-collaborator-recipient,
influencer-collaborator-recipient,
claimant-influencer-collaborator-recipient) (Miles, 2017). Nevertheless,
one of the universal typologies distinguishes internal and external
stakeholders.</p>
<h3>2.2. Maslow's hierarchy of needs</h3>
<p>Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of the most widespread theories of
motivation, as stakeholder theory is the widespread theory of the firm.
The hierarchy of needs developed by Maslow contains:</p>
<ul><li>
<p>self-actualisation needs (Maslow 1943, 1954, 1970, 1987) (also called
self-fulfillment needs by McGregor (1957a, 1957b, 1960), and
self-realisation by McDermid (1960);</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>esteem needs (referred to as ego by McGregor (1957a, 1957b,
1960);</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>love and belonging needs referred to as social needs by McGregor
(1957a, 1957b, 1960), McDermid (1960), Stephens and Heil (1998),
Schermerhorn et al. (2014), Robbins Bergman, Stagg and Coulter (2015),
Robbins and Judge (2015);</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>safety needs, (Maslow 1943, 1954, 1970, 1987);</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>physiological needs (Maslow 1943, 1954, 1970, 1987).</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Physiological needs are the fundamental essentials for life, such as
food and water. Safety needs mean the protection from danger in the
environment. Belonging need is related to attachment. Esteem needs
consist in competence, respect from others and self. Self-actualisation
needs encompass the need for self-expression, creativity, and a sense of
connectedness with the broad universe. The specific path to
self-actualisation varies from person to person, and from time to time,
for each individual, it must be self-chosen (Gray, 2007).</p>
<p>Interestingly, although the needs were identified by Maslow himself,
the graphical forms (pyramid, ladder, or triangle) were not his idea,
and were introduced mainly for the consultancy and business education
needs by other scholars. Nevertheless, Maslow never opposed these ideas
(Bridgman, Cummings, & Ballard, 2019). Despite the criticism of
Maslow's theory, e.g. in a religious context, particularly Christianity
(McCleskey, & Ruddell, 2020) and Islam (Bouzenita, & Boulanouar,
2016), and doubts about its applicability in a modern-day global
society, the theory is widely applied in healthcare, emigration policy,
psychology, and sociology (Kessler, 2013). Maslow’s pyramid of needs is
still the most widely taught at business universities and included in
curricula. Moreover, Maslow’s ideas influenced other influential
theories of motivation, for example those developed by McGregor.</p>
<p>Moreover, the pyramid of needs served as the inspiration for using
this form in other contexts, including organisational studies (Villar,
&Kushner, 2010), and leadership (Eilertsen, 2015).</p>
<p>Numerous studies have used Maslow’s pyramid. Bjelajac and Filipović
explored the role of the media in food safety promotion, referring to it
as a manifestation of a safety need (Bjelajac and Filipović, 2020) Gabor
studied the household endowment with durable goods in Romania, referring
to satisfying basic needs from Maslow's pyramid (Gabor, 2013). Asamoah
et al. analysed the motives for buying branded goods, identifying
customer satisfaction as one of them (Asamoah, Chovancova, De Alwis,
Samarakoon, & Guo, 2011). Trail and James even argued that sports
spectators are striving for achievement as this can realise their esteem
needs, and without reaching achievements, they replace them by being
spectators of the achievements of others (Trail, &James, 2011).
Sharma and Venkatesan revealed that self-esteem (together with
extroversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism) correlates with
happiness and self-esteem (and extroversion), and also predicts
happiness levels (Sharma, &Venkatesan, 2021)</p>
<p>The review presented by Reid ( 2002) encompasses the set of
motivation theories that can be used in budgeting and enumerates
Maslow's hierarchy of needs as one of them.</p>
<p>Applying the pyramid model to budgeting, Johnson (1992) indicated
“real participation” resulting in “bottom-up employee empowerment”.
Employees at the base of the pyramid have access to detailed accounting
information and are encouraged and facilitated to use this, together
with their knowledge of the fundamentals of the organisation, to
progress and grow that organization, and ensure maximum efficiency and
effectiveness in the meeting of its goals. However, this idea is
criticised as a Utopian vision (Reid, 2002).</p>
<h2>3. Research hypotheses</h2>
<p>This research aimed to investigate (1) the effect of non-monetary
motivation incentive and the type of stakeholder on the acceptance of an
amended budget (budgetary slack), and (2) the ranking of five needs
incorporated into Maslow’s pyramid in relation to the decision to accept
the budgetary slack.</p>
<p>Past research indicates that both monetary and non-monetary
incentives influence decision-making by managers. There are influential
factors that induce decision-makers to make unethical and/or
economically irrational (from the point of interest of the entity)
decisions resulting in manipulated financial information. Past research
also shows that incentives influence CFO’s earnings management
(Beaudoin, Cianci, & Tsakumis, 2015), project assessment (Cianci,
Hannah, Roberts, & Tsakumis, 2014) as well as capital budgeting
(Denison, 2009). As the examined self-interest behaviour is costly for
the entity and its stakeholders (Cohen, Holder-Webb, Sharp, & Pant,
2007), the authors placed management accountants in a situation when
personal gain is in accordance with the benefit of stakeholders, and
evaluated the acceptance of budgetary slack. Based on the
above-presented literature review and the past findings confirming the
role of incentives, the study anticipated the joint effect of presence
of motivation incentive and type of stakeholder to influence the
acceptance of budgetary slack as professional behaviour. To the best of
the authors’ knowledge, stakeholders’ interest was not included in
budgetary slack research.</p>
<p>Thus, the following hypotheses were formulated:</p>
<p>H1: Management accountants will be more likely to accept budgetary
slack (as professional behaviour) when an incentive is present.</p>
<p>H2: Management accountants will be more likely to accept budgetary
slack (as professional behaviour) when its benefits favour internal
stakeholders.</p>
<p>H3: There is a combined effect of stakeholder type and incentive on
the acceptance of budgetary slack (as professional behaviour).The
prediction is that when an incentive is present and an internal
stakeholder is benefiting from the slack, management accountants will
demonstrate the highest acceptance of creating budgetary slack.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the authors assumed that the acceptance of budgetary
slack as a professional behaviour will be linked with the ranking of the
five needs indicated by Maslow's pyramid. This is also based on the past
research (described in Section 2.2), showing its importance not only in
personal life, but also regarding organisational issues. Therefore, the
fourth hypothesis was formulated as follows:</p>
<p>H4: The most important need indicated by proponents of budgetary
slack will be different from those who did not accept budgetary slack as
professional behaviour. In particular, this leads to the hypothesis that
management accountants denying budgetary slack will indicate the needs
placed higher in Maslow's pyramid.</p>
<h2>4. Experimental study
design and subjects</h2>
<p>To investigate the acceptance of the creation of budgetary slack as
professional behaviour, as suggested by the hypotheses, the authors
opted for an experimental design that allows to isolate each factor, as
practised in previous budget research (Church, Hannan, & Kuang,
2012; Church, Kuang, & Liu, 2019 Davis, DeZoort, & Kopp, 2006;
Webb, 2022). A full-factorial between-subjects 2×2 laboratory experiment
(as computer-assisted website interview) was conducted with
manipulations of internal/external stakeholder and incentive
absent/present.</p>
<p>In the experimental scenario, the participants acted as management
accountants whose task was to accept/deny the budgetary slack as
professional behaviour in the form of an amended budget that meets the
needs of one of two groups of stakeholders (independent variable):
administration employees (internal stakeholder), and environmental
association "Pure country" (external stakeholder). The amended budget
satisfied the needs of stakeholders but was based on manipulated data
and thus served as budgetary slack, helping managers to "make the
numbers" in accordance with stakeholders' expectations. The second
independent variable was motivated by the research of Harrel and
Harrison (1994), formulated as a non-monetary motivation incentive in
the form of a positive appraisal of an accountant's job by a specific
stakeholder.</p>
<p>For the dependent variable, the acceptance of an amended budget
(budgetary slack) as a professional activity, the study used the 5-point
Likert scale that allowed the respondents to indicate their level of
acceptance of budgetary slack as professional behaviour: "1" for
"definitely disagree", while "5" – "definitely agree". In accordance
with the scale, the larger the numerical response, the higher the
acceptance of budgetary slack as professional behaviour.</p>
<p>In the second part of the questionnaire developed for this research,
the participants were asked to rank the importance of five needs
influencing the decision to accept the budgetary slack as professional
behaviour. The authors chose five needs based on Maslow’s pyramid:</p>
<ol><li>
<p>physiological,</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>safety,</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>belonging,</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>esteem,</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>self-actualisation.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>In the last part of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to
provide some demographic data such as sex, years of experience, type of
experience, and place of experience.</p>
<p>Data were collected from 127 management accountants that were
randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups. This decision was
based on the fact that most job descriptions of management accountants
include budgeting as well as controlling and forecasting income and
expenditure. The average experience in management accounting was 5.24
years (Me = 3, SD = 5.077). Most of the respondents were women (n=80).
The subjects declared experience in operational management accounting (n
= 48, 37.8%), process management (n = 43, 33.9%), human resources
management (n = 31, 24.4%), IT within management accounting (n = 17,
13.4%), and strategic management accounting (n = 10, 7.9%). The majority
gained experience in the private sector (n = 90, 70.9%), and 27.6% (n =
35) in the public sector. Almost half of the respondents gained their
experience in service companies (n=62, 48.8%), while 22.8% (n = 29) in
manufacturing companies; 74 of the respondents (58.3%) indicated Polish
ownership of the company in which they gained experience, while 48
declared the foreign origins of capital.</p>
<h2>5. Results</h2>
<h3>5.1. The
joint effect of incentive and stakeholder type on the acceptance of
budgetary slack</h3>
<p>A two-way ANOVA together with descriptive statistics was conducted to
analyse the main effects of incentive absent/present (H1), the type of
stakeholder (H2), as well as interaction effect (H3). The results are
presented in Table 1.</p>
<p><strong>Table 1.</strong> Summary of results – dependent variable –
the acceptance of budgetary slack as professional behaviour</p>
<table class="table table-bordered">
<colgroup>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
</colgroup>
<tr><td>Panel A: Descriptive statistics</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><em>Stakeholder type</em></td>
<td><em>Incentive</em></td>
<td>TOTALS</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Absent (2)</td>
<td>Present (1)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>Me/SD/n</td>
<td>Me/SD/n</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Internal stakeholder (1)</p>
</td>
<td>29/2.241/ .988</td>
<td>36/2.916/1.131</td>
<td>65/2.615/1.114</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>External stakeholder (2)</p>
</td>
<td>33/2.606/1.059</td>
<td>29/2.276/1.032</td>
<td>62/2.451/1.051</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>TOTALS</p>
</td>
<td>62/2.436/1.034</td>
<td>65/2.631/1.126</td>
<td>127/2.535/1.082</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table class="table table-bordered">
<colgroup>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
</colgroup>
<tr><td>Panel B: Two-way analysis of variance</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
</td><td>DF</td>
<td>Type III SS</td>
<td>Mea square</td>
<td>F-statistic</td>
<td>p-value</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Incentive</p>
</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>.937</td>
<td>.937</td>
<td>.837</td>
<td>.362</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Stakeholder</p>
</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>.600</td>
<td>.600</td>
<td>.536</td>
<td>.466</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Incentive*stakeholder</p>
</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>7.958</td>
<td>7.758</td>
<td>7.107</td>
<td>.009</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Error</p>
</td>
<td>123</td>
<td>137.732</td>
<td>1.120</td>
<td>
</td><td>
</td></tr>
<tr><td>TOTAL</td>
<td>127</td>
<td>
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr>
</table>
<p>* 1– definitely disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neither disagree nor
agree, 4 – agree, 5 – definitely agree.</p>
<p>Source: own elaboration.</p>
<p>
<img src="/articles/2022/Nowak_Maruszewska/media/image1.png" />
</p>
<p><strong>Fig. 1.</strong> The acceptance of budgetary slack as
professional behaviour</p>
<p>Source: own elaboration</p>
<p>Table 1 indicates that most respondents disagreed that budgetary
slack is a professional behaviour (Panel A). Thus, the main effects in
the form of H1 and H2 were not confirmed in the experiment (Panel B), as
there are no statistically significant differences between the
acceptance of budgetary slack as professional behaviour in the case of
incentive absent/present (F(1,127) = .837, η² = .007, p = .362), and in
the case of internal/external stakeholder (F(1,127) = .536, η² = .004, p
= .466). Contrary to H1 and H2, H3 was confirmed (F(1,127) = 7.107, η² =
.055, = p = .009). Figure 1 shows the joint effect of incentive and type
of stakeholder on the acceptance of budgetary slack as professional
behaviour (H3). Management accountants experiencing the scenario with
incentive present and the internal stakeholder indicated the highest
acceptance of the budgetary slack as professional behaviour.
Furthermore, management accountants situated in a scenario with
incentive absent and internal stakeholder, least accepted budgetary
slack as professional behaviour. On the other hand, management
accountants who in a scenario with the external stakeholder and
incentive present were less prone to accept budgetary slack as a
professional experience when compared to their counterparts in the
fourth scenario with external stakeholder and incentive absent.</p>
<h3>5.2. Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs and the acceptance of budgetary slack</h3>
<p>As the authors also assumed the changes in rankings of the five needs
described in Maslow’s pyramid, the hierarchy indicated by respondents
was analysed. The frequency of the answers regarding Maslow’s five needs
are presented in Table 2.</p>
<p><strong>Table 2.</strong> Frequency – Maslow’s pyramid</p>
<table class="table table-bordered">
<colgroup>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
<col></col>
</colgroup>
<tr><td>
<p><strong>Type of need</strong></p>
</td>
<td><strong>1st rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>2nd rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>3rd rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>4th rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>5th rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Self-actualisation</p>
</td>
<td><p>6</p>
<p>(4.7%)</p></td>
<td><p>11</p>
<p>(8.7%)</p></td>
<td><p>35</p>
<p>(27.6%)</p></td>
<td><p>40</p>
<p>(31.5%)</p></td>
<td><p>35</p>
<p>(27.6%)</p></td>
<td>127 (100%)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Esteem</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
<p>(8.7%)</p></td>
<td><p>10</p>
<p>(7.9%)</p></td>
<td><p>16</p>
<p>(12.6%)</p></td>
<td><p>37</p>
<p>(29.1%)</p></td>
<td><p>53</p>
<p>(41.7%)</p></td>
<td>127 (100%)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Belonging</p>
</td>
<td><p>14</p>
<p>(11.0%)</p></td>
<td><p>25</p>
<p>(19.7%)</p></td>
<td><p>39</p>
<p>(30.7%)</p></td>
<td><p>28</p>
<p>(22.0%)</p></td>
<td><p>21</p>
<p>(16.5%)</p></td>
<td>127 (100%)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Safety</p>
</td>
<td>51 (40.2%)</td>
<td>42 (33.1%)</td>
<td><p>18</p>
<p>(14.2%)</p></td>
<td><p>13</p>
<p>(10.2%)</p></td>
<td><p>3</p>
<p>(2.4%)</p></td>
<td>127 (100%)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td>
<p>Physiological</p>
</td>
<td>45 (35.4%)</td>
<td>41 (32.3%)</td>
<td>17 (13.4%)</td>
<td><p>9</p>
<p>(7.1%)</p></td>
<td><p>15</p>
<p>(11.8%)</p></td>
<td>127 (100%)</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>* 1st rank means the most important need, while
5th rank indicates the least important need.</p>
<p>Source: own elaboration.</p>
<p>Table 2 shows that the first two needs (those lowest in Maslow’s
pyramid) were the most often ranked 1st and 2nd.
This result indicates that professional judgment, in this case about the
professional behaviour in the form of acceptance of budgetary slack, is
– in the respondents’ opinion – under the impact of physiological needs
and safety needs.</p>
<p>Furthermore, to confirm H4, the authors conducted the Wilcoxon
signed-rank test for paired samples, and compared the answers of the
respondents indicating the most important need when judging the
acceptance of budgetary slack as a professional behaviour, with the
subjects' acceptance of budgetary slack shown in the experiment. The
results revealed a statistically significant difference between the
respondents accepting budgetary slack, the respondents not accepting
budgetary slack, and those undecided (Z = -5.611, p < 0.001). Thus H4
was confirmed.</p>
<p>The respondents accepting budgetary slack more often indicated a
higher rank of safety need (n = 13, 48.1%) than those disagreeing with
budgetary slack (n = 24, 34.3%). On the contrary, those disagreeing more
often pointed to a higher rank of physiological needs (n = 28, 40%) than
subjects accepting budgetary slack (n = 7, 25.9%). In addition, the
disagreeing respondents more often indicated a higher rank of satisfying
the need of belonging (n = 8, 11.4%) and esteem need (n = 7, 10.0%) than
two other groups. In comparison, the group of accepting respondents
indicated higher rank self-actualisation (n = 3, 11.1%).</p>
<h2>6. Concluding discussion</h2>
<h3>6.1. The
joint effect of incentive and stakeholder type on the acceptance of
budgetary slack</h3>
<p>There is a joint effect of incentive and stakeholder type on
accepting budgetary slack (as professional behaviour). In particular,
management accountants experiencing the scenario with incentive present
and internal stakeholders indicated the highest acceptance of budgetary
slack as professional behaviour. The result is consistent with the
previous studies which revealed the effect of incentives and sharing
profit from slack with others. The experiment (Church, Kuang, & Liu,
2019) demonstrated that executives report less honestly when the benefit
of slack is shared than when it is not shared, regardless of whether
others are aware of the misreporting. This supports the theory that
managers use common interests as an excuse for misreporting (Church,
Kuang, & Liu, 2019). Although this study did not include
profit-sharing (as it encompassed non-monetary incentive) and did not
make management accountants responsible for implementation of the
budget, the results are in line with previous studies indicating the
importance of different incentives in decision-making among
managers.</p>
<p>Past research (Reynolds, Schultz, Hekman, 2006) revealed that
balancing stakeholder interest depends on divisibility of resources,
stakeholders' involvement in the decision, stakeholder saliency, and the
possibility of an across-decision approach. Stakeholder claims of
relatively equal saliency lead to more balanced stakeholder interests
than stakeholder claims of relatively unequal saliency (Reynolds,
Schultz and Hekman, 2006). The authors’ research suggests that internal
and external stakeholders, together with motivational incentives, are
influential factors that can change the acceptance of budgetary slack as
professional behaviour. Management accountants can perceive internal
stakeholders as salient, and moreover, the internal stakeholders can be
seen as a peer group, which has a lot in common with management
accountants. Further, the managerial accountant can also perceive the
situation as an "exchange for future favours".</p>
<p>Due to the above, this research adds to previous literature by
indicating the threat of budgetary slack creation resulting in
overstated or understated revenues and/or costs in financial plans. To
the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research in
Poland. Thus, it should be stressed that the joint effect of the two
investigated factors can occur in practice, as the self-interest of the
decision-maker can coincide with the stakeholders' expectations for
positive financial information. This may be, as was shown, detrimental
to the financial information derived from management accounting.</p>
<h3>6.2. Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs and the acceptance of budgetary slack </h3>
<p>In addition, this research aimed at investigating the changes in the
ranking of the five needs described by Maslow. The authors found a
relation between the acceptance of budgetary slack as professional
behaviour with the priorities indicated by management accountants.</p>
<p>These result add to past literature using Maslow's pyramid in
organisational studies, as the study indicates that management
accountants accepting budgetary slack most often indicated safety needs
as the most important factor. This suggests that accepting budgetary
slack to meet stakeholders' expectations is perceived as a behaviour
serving safety needs, possibly in terms of job safety.</p>
<p>The results show that the group of management accountants accepting
budgetary slack indicated a higher rank of self-actualisation,
suggesting that overestimating or underestimating revenues and costs can
also be derived from the highest need in Maslow's pyramid. This finding
is very pessimistic, suggesting that professionals acting to satisfy
low-level needs and those who justify their activities with the highest
Maslow’s need may behave unethically to the detriment of financial
information.</p>
<p>In accordance with the authors’ assumptions, management accountants
who disagreed with budgetary slack as professional behaviour pointed to
a higher rank of physiological needs than the respondents accepting
budgetary slack. This result, together with the finding that most
respondents disagreed that budgetary slack is professional behaviour,
allows for the formulation of a positive conclusion regarding the threat
of budgetary slack creation.</p>
<h3>6.3. Limitations of the research</h3>
<p>The above-described results of the research should be interpreted
with caution. First, due to the limited number of respondents and the
single geographical region where the experiment was conducted. Second,
as in all experimental procedures, other factors that may influence the
decision-making process were eliminated in the study. Finally, the
respondents, although having diverse professional experience in
management accounting, were fairly young employees with many years of
professional experience in front of them.</p>
<p>Thus, the recommendations for future research can be made. The
authors suggest deepening the study by focusing on a specific scope of
management accountants' activities as they may affect budgetary slack
behaviour. In addition, the authors assume that expanding the research
in the scope of Maslow’s pyramid (e.g. including detailed needs linked
to the organisational environment) may provide even more interesting
observations.</p>
<p>References</p>
<p>Asamoah, E. S., Chovancova, M., De Alwis, C., Samarakoon M., &
Guo, Y. (2011). Motivation for buying branded items: A cross country
application of Maslow's hierarchy of needs in consumer decision making.
<em>Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty
of Economics & Administration</em>, <em>16</em>(21), 6–18. Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=70839100&site=ehost-live</p>
<p>Beaudoin, C. A., Cianci, A. M., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2015). The
impact of CFO’s incentives and earnings management ethics on their
financial reporting decisions: The mediating role of moral
disengagement. <em>Journal of Business Ethics</em>, <em>128</em>,
505-518.</p>
<p>Bjelajac, Ž. & Filipović, A. (2020). The role of the media in the
affirmation of the culture of food safety. <em>Ekonomika
poljoprivrede</em>, <em>67</em>(2), 609-622. doi:
10.5937/ekopolj2002609b</p>
<p>Bouzenita, A. I., & Boulanouar, A. W. (2016). Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs: An Islamic critique. <em>Intellectual Discourse</em>,
<em>24</em>(1), 59-81.</p>
<p>Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. (2019). Who built
Maslow’s pyramid? A history of the creation of management studies’ most
famous symbol and its implications for management education. <em>Academy
of Management Learning and Education</em>, <em>18</em>(1), 81-98. doi:
10.5465/amle.2017.0351</p>
<p>Church B. K., Hannan R. L., & Kuang X. (2012). Shared interest
and honesty in budget reporting. <em>Accounting, Organizations, and
Society</em>, <em>37</em>, 155-167.</p>
<p>Church, B. K., Kuang, X., & Liu, Y. (2019). The effects of
measurement basis and slack benefits on honesty in budget reporting.
<em>Accounting, Organizations and Society</em>, <em>72</em>, 74-84. doi:
10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.005.</p>
<p>Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T.
(2014). The effect of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical
decision-making in the face of temptation: An experimental study<em>.
The Leadership Quarterly</em>, <em>25</em>, 581-594.</p>
<p>Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L., Sharp, D. J., & Pant, L. W.
(2007). The effect of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior.
<em>Contemporary Accounting Research</em>, <em>24</em>(4),
1119-1138.</p>
<p>Conley, C. (2013). Peak leadership. <em>Executive Forum</em>,
Winter.</p>
<p>Davis, S., DeZoort, F. T., & Kopp, L. S. (2006). The effect of
obedience pressure and perceived responsibility on management
accountants’ creation of budgetary slack. <em>Behavioral Research in
Accounting</em>, <em>18</em>, 19-35.</p>
<p>Denison, Ch. A. (2009). Real options and escalation of commitment: A
behavioral analysis of capital investment decisions. <em>The Accounting
Review</em>, <em>84</em>(1), 133-155.</p>
<p>Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of
the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. <em>Academy of
Management Review</em>, <em>20</em>(1), 65-91. doi:
10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992</p>
<p>Douglas, P. C., & Wier, B. (2000). Integrating ethical dimensions
into a model of budgetary slack creation. <em>Journal of Business
Ethics</em>, <em>28</em>(3), 267-277. doi: 10.1023/A:1006241902011</p>
<p>Dunk, A. S., & Nouri, H. (1998). Antecedents of budgetary slack:
A literature review and synthesis<em>. Journal of Accounting
Literature</em>, <em>17</em>, 72-96.</p>
<p>Eilertsen, S. (2015). Power of purpose – The importance of deliberate
leadership in a changing world<em>. Leadership Excellence by
HR.com</em>, 29-30.</p>
<p>Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & de Colle,
S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art.<em>The Academy of
Management Annals</em>, <em>4</em>(1).doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815768</p>
<p>Gabor, M. R. (2013). Endowment with durable goods as welfare
indicator. empirical study regarding post-communist behavior of Romanian
consumers. <em>Engineering Economics</em>, <em>24</em>(3), 244-253. doi:
10.5755/j01.ee.24.3.2349</p>
<p>Gray, P. (2007) <em>Psychology</em>. New York: Worth Publishers.</p>
<p>Harrel, A., & Harrison, P. (1994) “An incentive to shirk,
privately held information, and managers’ project evaluation decisions”,
<em>Accounting, Organizations, and Society</em> 19 (7): 569 – 577.</p>
<p>Johnson, T. (1992). <em>Relevance , regained: from top down control
to bottom-up empowerment</em>, New Yourk: Free Press.</p>
<p>Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of
ethics and economics. <em>Academy of Management Review</em>,
<em>20</em>(2), 404-437. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9507312924</p>
<p>Kessler, E. H. (Ed.) (2013). <em>Encyclopedia of Management
Theory</em>. Los Angeles: Sage.</p>
<p>Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. <em>Psychological
Review</em>, <em>50</em>(4), 370-396.</p>
<p>Maslow, A. H. (1954). <em>Motivation and personality</em>. New York:
Harper & Row.</p>
<p>Maslow, A. H. (1970). <em>Motivation and Personality</em>
(2nd. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.</p>
<p>Maslow, A. H. (1987). <em>Motivation and Personality</em> (3rd ed.).
New York: Harper & Row.</p>
<p>McCleskey, J. A., & Ruddell, L. (2020). Taking a step
back-Maslow’s theory of motivation: A Christian critical perspective.
<em>Journal of Biblical Integration in Business</em>, <em>23</em>(1),
6-16. Retrieved from
https://cbfa-cbar.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/548/552</p>
<p>McDermid, C. D. (1960). How money motivates men. <em>Business
Horizons</em>, <em>3</em>(4), 93-100.</p>
<p>McGregor, D. M. (1957a). The human side of enterprise. In
<em>Adventure in thought and action, Proceedings of the Fifth
Anniversary Convocation of the School of Industrial Management</em>,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, April 9.</p>
<p>McGregor, D. M. (1957b). The human side of enterprise. <em>Management
Review</em>, <em>46</em>(11), 22-28.</p>
<p>McGregor, D. M. (1960). <em>The human side of enterprise</em>. New
York: McGraw-Hill.</p>
<p>Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical
and empirical evaluation of definitions. <em>Journal of Business
Ethics</em>, <em>142</em>(3), 437-459. doi:
10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y</p>
<p>Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory
of stakeholder identification and saliency. <em>Academy of Management
Review</em>, <em>22</em>(4), 853-886.</p>
<p>Reid, P. (2002). A critical evaluation of the effect of participation
in budget target setting on motivation. <em>Managerial Auditing
Journal</em>, <em>17</em>(3), 122-129. doi:
10.1108/02686900210419903.</p>
<p>Reynolds, S. J., Schultz, F. C. & Hekman, D. R. (2006).
Stakeholder theory and managerial decision-making: Constraints and
implications of balancing stakeholder interests. <em>Journal of Business
Ethics</em>, <em>64</em>(3), 285-301. doi:
10.1007/s10551-005-5493-2.</p>
<p>Robbins, S. P., Bergman, P., Stagg, I., & Coulter, M. (2015).
<em>Management.</em> Sydney: Pearson.</p>
<p>Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2015). <em>Organizational
behavior</em>. Harlow: Pearson.</p>
<p>Schermerhorn, J. R., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Woods, P., Simon, A. i
McBarron, E. (2014). <em>Management: Foundations and applications.</em>
Milton: John Wiley & Sons.</p>
<p>Sharma, U., & Venkatesan, M. (2021). A study of personality,
self-esteem and happiness among graduates. <em>IUP Journal of Management
Research</em>, <em>20</em>(1), 35-55. Retrieved from <a href="http://login.library.sheridanc.on.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=150180173&site=ehost-live&scope=site">http://login.library.sheridanc.on.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=150180173&site=ehost-live&scope=site</a></p>
<p>Stephens, D. C., & Heil, G. (1998). <em>Introduction.</em> In: D.
C. Stephens & G. Heil (Eds<em>.</em>), <em>Maslow on
management.</em> New York: John Wiley & Sons.</p>
<p>Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2011). Model of spectator sport
consumption. <em>American Marketing Association</em>, 1-2.</p>
<p>Villar, M., & Kushner, T. (2010). A framework to map and grow
data strategy. <em>Information Management</em>, <em>20</em>(6),
24-27.</p>
<p>Webb, R. A. (2002). The impact of reputation and variance
investigations on the creation of budget slack. <em>Accounting.
Organizations and Society</em>, <em>27</em>, 361-378.</p>