Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue4.1997:

(1)

Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f

(2)

David R. Go o dwin and Bart de Go uw

Budge tary re spo nse attitude s in a unive rsity e nviro nme nt

Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f Educ atio nal Manage me nt 1 1 / 4 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 7 9 –1 8 6

T h e p a p er is or ga n ized a s follow s. In t h e n ext sect ion t h e t h eor et ica l b a sis for t h e st u dy is p r ov id ed . T h is is follow ed by sect ion s ou t lin in g t h e h y p ot h eses, m ea su r em en t of r esea r ch va r ia bles, d et a ils of t h e st u dy, r esu lt s a n d con clu sion .

Overview of the literature

Budgetary communication and budgetary response attitude

P a r t icip a t ion by em p loyees in t h e bu d get a r y p r ocess h a s r eceived con sid er a ble a t t en t ion in t h e a ca d em ic lit er a t u r e (Br ow n ell, 1982; Ken is, 1979; Mila n i, 1975). For bu d get a r y p a r t icip a t ion t o occu r, a p er son m u st b ecom e a ct ively in volved in t h e set t in g of bu d get goa ls by exch a n gin g in for m a t ion a n d in fl u -en cin g ou t com es (H a ssel, 1993).

Alt h ou gh a n u m b er of p r ev iou s st u d ies h ave t r ea t ed p a r t icip a t ion a s a u n id im en -sion a l con st r u ct , t h er e is ev id en ce t h a t it m ay b e a t lea st b id im en sion a l (Br ow n ell, 1982; H a ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m , 1993; Mila n i, 1975). F ir st , t h er e is t h e ext en t t h a t com m u n ica t ion occu r s w it h in t h e bu d get a r y p r ocess a n d , secon d , t h e ext en t t h a t a p a r t icip a n t feels t h a t h e or sh e in fl u en ces t h e bu d get fi n a lly a llo-ca t ed . As H a ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m (1993) h ave a r gu ed , w h ile a m a n a ger m ay h ave con sid er a ble com m u n ica t ion w it h m or e sen ior m a n -a gem en t over bu d get -a lloc-a t ion s, t h e d e gr ee of in fl u en ce over t h e fi n a l a lloca t ion m ay b e m in im a l.

E v id en ce su ggest s t h a t , w it h in u n iver sit ies, t h e op p or t u n it y for t h e h ea d s of a ca d em ic d e p a r t m en t s t o in fl u en ce bu d get a lloca t ion s d ir ect ly m ay b e lim it ed (P feffer a n d Moor e, 1980; P feffer a n d Sa la n cik , 1974). T h is is b eca u se in su ch in st it u t ion s bu d get a lloca -t ion s h ave b een r e p ea -t ed ly fou n d -t o r efl ec-t a n in cr em en t a list a p p r oa ch t h a t is d e p en d en t on wor k loa d ca r r ied , p u blica t ion s, r esea r ch gr a n t s ga in ed , a n d r e p r esen t a t ion on b ot h in t er n a l a n d ext er n a l com m it t ees (Saven ije, 1992). F u r t h er, a s E zza m el a n d Bou r n (1990) h ave fou n d , su ch a n a p p r oa ch is a lso u sed in t im es of r esou r ce sca r cit y, a t a t im e w h en a d m in ist r a t or s exer cise m or e in fl u en ce over ou t com es t h a n d oes t h e a ca d em ic com m u n it y.

It is t h er efor e a r gu ed t h a t , if bu d get a lloca -t ion s a r e -t o ga in a n y su p p or -t w t h in a n in s-t i-t u i-t ion , com m u n ica i-t ion w ii-t h in i-t h e bu d gei-t a r y p r ocess w ill b e cr it ica l. T h is com m u n ica t ion is n eed ed if t h ose r esp on sible for bu d get in g ou t com es a r e t o h ave a n y k n ow led ge of p r o-p osed bu d get a r y o-p r a ct ices a n d o-p r oced u r es, bu d get r a t ion a le, a n d in t en d ed bu d get goa ls (Ka t z a n d Ka h n , 1978). As Br ow n ell a n d Du n k (1991) h ave st a t ed , bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion

p r ov id es a n im p or t a n t in for m a t ion exch a n ge r ole.

Wh ile p r ev iou s r esea r ch h a s fou n d t h a t r eleva n t com m u n ica t ion ca n im p r ove in it ia l a t t it u d in a l r esp on ses t o bu d get a r y a lloca t ion s (Iva n cev ich a n d Ma t t eson , 1990), F r eed -m a n et a l. (1974) h ave a r gu ed t h a t t h e lik eli-h ood of su ccess is d e p en d en t on t eli-h r ee fa ct or s: t h e gen er a l en v ir on m en t a t t h e t im e, t h e m essa ge con t en t , a n d t r u st in t h e com m u n i-ca t ion p r ov id er by t h e m essa ge r eceiver. T h e m a jor it y of a ca d em ics w ill r ela t e ea sily t o a t lea st t wo of t h ese fa ct or s. F ir st , t h e gen er a l en v ir on m en t cu r r en t ly fa cin g u n iver sit ies is on e of r ed u ced fu n d in g (Deu t sch m a n , 1990; H a r dy, 1992; O’Reilly, 1994) a n d , given it s w id e m ed ia cover a ge, is a sit u a t ion w ell u n d er -st ood by a ca d em ics. Secon d , t h e m essa ge con t en t t h a t a r ed u ct ion in ext er n a l fu n d in g (gen er a l fu n d in g p r ov id ed by t h e gover n -m en t ) t r a n sla t es t o a r ed u ct ion in in t er n a l fu n d in g (fu n d s d ist r ibu t ed w it h in a u n iver -sit y by w ay of bu d get a r y a lloca t ion s) is a lso u n d er st ood . H ow ever, w h ile t h er e m ay b e a d e gr ee of a cce p t a n ce of b ot h t h ese fa ct or s, t h er e is ev id en ce of a gen er a l la ck of t r u st in t h e com m u n ica t ion p r ov id er ( t h a t is t h e fu n d in g a gen cies a n d u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a -t or s (Da h llof e-t a l., 1991; E zza m el a n d Bou r n , 1990). T h is w a s h igh ligh t ed in E zza m el a n d Bou r n (1990), w h er e t h ose r esp on sible for d ist r ibu t in g in for m a t ion r e ga r d in g m a jor bu d get cu t s w er e q u est ion ed b ot h fr om a t ech n ica l com p et en ce p er sp ect ive a n d a n eu -t r a li-t y p er sp ec-t ive. F u r -t h er -t h ey w er e bla m ed “for u n d er m in in g t h e q u a lit y a n d et h os of t h e wor k p la ce, a n d for ch a llen gin g t h e cu lt u r e of a ca d em ic fr eed om by p r om ot in g a ‘fi n a n cia l’ or a ccou n t in g ‘cu lt u r e’ w it h a d iffer en t m ix of va lu es” (p. 416). Acce p t in g t h is lim it a t ion of m ist r u st , bu t given t h e gen er a l a cce p t a n ce by a ca d em ics of t h e ot h er t wo fa ct or s, it is exp ect ed t h a t bu d get com m u n ica t ion is lik ely t o b e p osit ively r ela t ed t o bu d get r esp on se a t t it u d es for t h e a ca d em ic com m u n it y.

Su ch a r ela t ion sh ip is a lso exp ect ed for u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s bu t cou ld b e st r on ger t h a n t h a t d er ived fr om t h e a ca d em ic com m u n it y. T h is is b eca u se a d m in ist r a t or s a r e m or e lik ely t o h ave t r u st in t h e m essa ge p r ov id er w h o is m or e lik ely t o sh a r e a m a n -a ger i-a list ic or ien t -a t ion in t er m s of go-a l set .

Budgetary communication, influence over medium term goals, and budget response attitude

(3)

t h e ca se st u dy d escr ib ed in E zza m el a n d Bou r n (1990). In t h a t sit u a t ion , w h en u n iver -sit ies w er e a d eq u a t ely fu n d ed (1940s-1970s), “fi n a n cia l m ea su r es w er e com m on ly v iew ed a s p er ip h er a l a n d su b ser v ien t t o a ca d em ic m a t t er s” (p. 406). T h er e w a s a gen er a l p u r su it of a ca d em ic excellen ce. In t h e la t e 1980s, m a jor fu n d in g cu t s occu r r ed a n d t h ese w er e gen er a lly a cce p t ed by u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a -t or s. Ad m in is-t r a -t or s sou gh -t -t o m ee-t -t h e r ea lit y h ea d on a n d a s a r esu lt “fi n a n cia l con sid -er a t ion s w -er e b r ou gh t t o t h e for efr on t ” (p. 415). H ow ever, even in t h is en v ir on m en t , t h er e w er e a ca d em ics w h o con t in u ed t o a dvo-ca t e a dvo-ca d em ic a n d t ea ch in g excellen ce w h ile m a in t a in in g t h e exist in g a ca d em ic p or t folio of offer in gs in t h e u n iver sit y. Su ch a p ot en t ia l scen a r io is a lso over v iew ed in Da h llof et a l. (1991).

In a sit u a t ion of r ed u ced fu n d in g, it is a n id ea l t h a t bu d get a lloca t ion s w ill b e su p p or t ed by t h e a ca d em ic com m u n it y a n d t h e p r ocess n ot sa b ot a ged . If bu d get s a r e d isr e ga r d ed , a ch ievem en t of fi n a n cia l ou t com es b ecom es m or e d ifficu lt for t h e u n iver -sit y a d m in ist r a t ion . F u r t h er, it is m or e lik ely t h a t goa ls w ill n ot b e a ch ieved . Wh ile in t h e p r ev iou s sect ion it w a s sh ow n t h a t t h er e sh ou ld b e a p osit ive r ela t ion sh ip b et w een bu d get com m u n ica t ion a n d bu d get r esp on se a t t it u d es for b ot h a d m in ist r a t or s a n d a ca d e-m ics, t h e p r oblee-m r ee-m a in s of t h e d iffer in g goa l or ien t a t ion s b et w een t h e t wo gr ou p s. Sin ce bu d get a lloca t ion s a p p ea r la r gely in cr e-m en t a l, t h e p ossib ilit y of in cr ea sed fu n d in g b ein g a ch iev a b le t h r ou gh t h e in fl u en ce or p er su a sion of t h e a ca d em ic com m u n it y a p p ea r s u n lik ely. An a lt er n a t ive is for t h e a ca d em ics t o feel t h a t t h ey h ave b een a ble t o in fl u en ce t h e fu t u r e a ca d em ic goa l set of t h e u n iver sit y a n d t h u s en su r e t h a t t h e a ca d em ic cu lt u r e is p r eser ved , a s b est a s p ossible, w it h in fi n a n cia l con st r a in t s. Su ch a n in fl u en cin g p r ocess is con sist en t w it h t h eir h ist or -ica l st r u ggle for p ow er in t h e in st it u t ion a n d w h a t som e h ave t er m ed “t h eir self-in t er est ed b eh av iou r ” (Gu m p or t , 1993, p. 287). F u r t h er, if t h e in fl u en cin g p r ocess is su ccessfu l, it is m or e lik ely t h a t a gr eed goa ls w ill b e r esou r ced a d eq u a t ely. If t h is occu r s, it is exp ect ed t h a t t h e r esu lt a n t bu d get a lloca t ion s w ill ga in even st r on ger su p p or t . Wh ile su ch a m od el w a s su ggest ed in Saven ije (1992) a s b ein g a u sefu l p r ocess in d evelop in g bu d get -in g su p p or t fr om a ca d em ics, t h er e is n o ev i-d en ce of it b ein g em p ir ica lly t est ei-d b efor e t h is cu r r en t st u dy.

Lik ew ise for u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s, it is a lso exp ect ed t h a t t h e d e gr ee of in fl u en ce over m ed iu m / lon g t er m goa ls w ill b e r ela t ed

t o bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d es. For t h is gr ou p, a d eq u a t e fu n d in g m u st b e p r ov id ed if goa ls a r e t o b e a ch ieved . T h e d iffer en ce w it h t h is gr ou p, h ow ever, is t h a t it h a s m or e em p a -t h y -t ow a r d s fi n a n cia l s-t ew a r d sh ip. F u r -t h er, it s b a sic p r ofession a l goa l set is n ot p er ceived t o b e u n d er t h e sa m e d e gr ee of t h r ea t (P ollit t , 1990). H en ce, t h e n ecessit y for a d m in ist r a t or s t o h ave a h igh d e gr ee of in fl u en ce over fu t u r e goa ls is a r gu a b ly n ot a s cr it ica l. As n ot ed ea r lier (E zza m el a n d Bou r n , 1990), a d m in is-t r a is-t or s a r e m or e fi n a n cia lly or ien is-t a is-t ed a n d , h en ce, a n y in fl u en ce t h ey m ay h ave w ill focu s on n eed s r a t h er t h a n t h e p r eser va t ion of a cu lt u r e t h a t t r a d it ion a lly d iscou n t s a n y for m of fi n a n cia l con t r ol. Given t h is sit u a t ion , for a d m in ist r a t or s, it is n ot exp ect ed t h a t in fl u -en ce over t h e m ed iu m t er m goa l set w ill in t er a ct sign ifi ca n t ly in t h e bu d get com m u n ica t ion (bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e r ela t ion -sh ip ).

Hypotheses

Con sist en t w it h t h e ea r lier d iscu ssion , t h e follow in g h y p ot h eses a r e t est ed in t h is st u dy : H 1. For a ca d em ic h ea d s of d e p a r t m en t ,

t h er e is a p osit ive r ela t ion sh ip b et w een bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion a n d bu d get r esp on se a t t it u d e.

H 2. For u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s, t h er e is a p osit ive r ela t ion sh ip b et w een bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion a n d bu d get r esp on se a t t it u d e.

H 3. For a ca d em ic h ea d s of d e p a r t m en t , in fl u en ce in t h e set t in g of m ed iu m / lon g t er m goa ls m od er a t es t h e p osit ive r ela -t ion sh ip b e-t w een bu d ge-t a r y com m u n i-ca t ion a n d bu d get r esp on se a t t it u d e. H 4. For u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s, in fl u en ce

in t h e set t in g of m ed iu m / lon g t er m goa ls w ill n ot m od er a t e t h e p osit ive r ela t ion sh ip b et w een bu d get a r y com m u -n ica t io-n a -n d bu d get r esp o-n se a t t it u d e.

Measurement of research

variables

Budgetary communication

(4)

Budgetary response attitude

Bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e w a s m ea su r ed u sin g t h e Collin s (1978) n in e it em m ea su r e. As st a t ed in t h e Collin s (1978) st u dy, “T h e it em s a r e d iv isible in t o t wo gr ou p s: t h ose m ea su r in g su p p or t ive a n d t h ose m ea su r in g r esist a n t a t t it u d es” (p. 328). For t h e p r esen t st u dy, t h is gr ou p in g w a s a ga in con fi r m ed by fa ct or a n a ly sis. How ever, wh ile t h is gr ou p in g w a s con fi r m ed , it w a s t h e com p osit e n in e it em m ea su r e t h a t w a s p r im a r ily u sed in t h is st u dy. Su ch a u sa ge is con sist en t w it h ea r lier st u d ies a lso u sin g t h e m ea su r e (Collin s, 1978; Collin s et a l. 1987). T h e Cr on b a ch r elia b ilit y coefficien t w a s 0.61.

Influence over medium term goals T h i s m ea s u r e com p r i s ed t h r ee i t em s w h i ch w er e a d a p t ed fr om t h e M i la n i (1975) bu d -get a r y p a r t i ci p a t i on i n s t r u m en t . Wh i le Kr en (1992) u s ed s i m i la r i t em s t o m ea s u r e b u d -get a r y i n flu en ce, i n t h i s p r oject t h e i t em s u s ed w er e r ew or d ed t o r eflect t h e m ed i u m / lon g t er m goa l s et t i n g p r oces s w i t h i n a u n i -ver s i t y. T h i s r ew or d i n g w a s u n d er t a k en p r i or t o p i lot t es t i n g a n d n o fu r t h er ch a n ges w er e n eces s a r y a s a con s eq u en ce. F a ct or a n a ly s i s con fi r m ed t h e p r es en ce of on e fa c-t or. T h e Cr on b a ch r eli a b i li c-t y coeffi ci en c-t w a s 0.81.

The research study

T h e d a t a u sed in t h e st u dy w er e d r aw n fr om t h e N ew Zea la n d t er t ia r y ed u ca t ion sect or. In t h is sect or, t h e p u blic a ccou n t a b ilit y of u n i-ver sit ies h a s st ea d ily in cr ea sed sin ce 1989. Con cu r r en t w it h t h is t r en d h a s b een a sign ifi -ca n t d ecr ea se in r ea l gover n m en t fu n d in g levels t h a t h a s n ot b een m a t ch ed by in cr ea sed in com e fr om t h e in t r od u ct ion of st u d en t fees. Un iver sit ies h ave, t h er efor e, b een for ced in cr ea sin gly t o r a t ion fu n d s a cr oss a ct iv it ies a n d p r ogr a m m es. T h is h a s h a d t h e effect of d r aw in g in t o sh a r p con t r a st t h e d iffer in g va lu e set s t h a t a t t a ch t o ea ch of t h e t wo gr ou p s u n d er st u dy.

In t ot a l, 147 h ea d s of d e p a r t m en t a n d 80 a d m in ist r a t or s (a ll a t a level im m ed ia t ely b elow t h a t of u n iver sit y r e gist r a r, exclu d in g fi n a n ce r e gist r a r s) fr om t h e seven u n iver si-t ies w er e su r veyed by q u essi-t ion n a ir e. All r esp on d en t s h a d bu d get a r y r esp on sib ilit ies a n d a ll w er e r esp ect ively d escr ib ed in officia l u n iver sit y p u blica t ion s a s eit h er m em b er s of t h e a ca d em ic st a ff or sen ior m em b er s of r e gist r y or ot h er sim ila r a d m in gist r a t ive cla ssifi -ca t ion s. F r om h ea d s of d e p a r t m en t , 102 (69 p er cen t r esp on se r a t e) r esp on ses w er e r eceived . Sin ce 11 q u est ion n a ir es w er e on ly

p a r t ia lly com p let ed , t h e n u m b er of u sa ble r esp on ses w a s 91 (62 p er cen t ). F r om a d m in is-t r a is-t or s, 45 (56 p er cen is-t r esp on se r a is-t e)

r esp on ses w er e r eceived . T h e b iogr a p h ics r ela t in g t o ea ch of t h ese gr ou p s is sh ow n in Ta ble I.

T h i s s t u dy u s es on ly a s u b s et of t h e d a t a d er ived fr om a w i d er s u r vey. Relev a n t t o t h i s p a p er, d a t a fr om t h r ee s ect i on s of t h e q u es -t i on n a i r e w er e u s ed , -t h es e s ec-t i on s b ei n g: level of i n flu en ce over t h e s et t i n g of

m ed i u m / lon g t er m w or k r ela t ed goa ls, b u d -get a r y com m u n i ca t i on , a n d b u d -get a r y r es p on s e a t t i t u d e. T h e d es cr i p t ive s t a t i s t i cs a n d zer o or d er cor r ela t i on s a r e s h ow n i n Ta b les II a n d III.

Results

To t est b ot h H 1a n d H 2, cor r ela t ion coeffi-cien t s w er e ca lcu la t ed . As ca n b e seen in Ta ble III, t h e cor r ela t ion s for t h e r ela t ion sh ip b et w een bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion a n d bu d

-Table I

Bio graphic s o f re s po nde nts

Range M ean Standard

Deviation

University heads of department Years employed in

current position 1 -3 0 5 .2 9 5 .9 5

Years employed by

current institution 1 -3 9 1 4 .5 1 9 .0 0

Years of management experience in a tertiary

institution 1 -3 0 7 .3 1 5 .6 3

Qualifications held (%)

University matriculation 1 .6 9 Vocational certificate 0 .0 0

Bachelors degree 3 .3 9

M asters degree 2 1 .1 9

Doctorate 7 3 .7 0

University administrators Years employed in

current position 1 -2 9 7 .3 4 7 .1 3

Years employed by

current institution 1 -2 9 1 1 .0 2 8 .5 4

Years of management experience in a tertiary

institution 1 -3 3 1 0 .0 7 8 .7 2

Qualifications held (%)

University matriculation 6 .5 2 Vocational certificate 8 .6 9 Bachelors degree 3 4 .7 8

M asters degree 2 8 .2 6

(5)

get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e w er e b ot h sign ifi -ca n t a t < 0.05. T h is ou t com e is con sist en t w it h t h e t h eor et ica l exp ect a t ion s. Bot h h y p ot h eses a r e t h er efor e su p p or t ed .

To t est H 3a n d H 4, t h e follow in g fi r st or d er in t er a ct ion m od el w a s u sed :

Y=b₀+ b₁x₁+ b₂x₂+ b₃x₁x₂+ e w h er e

Y= bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e; x₁= bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion ; x₂= in fl u en ce over m ed iu m t er m goa ls; b_i= r e gr ession p a r a m et er s, i= 0,1,2,3; e = er r or t er m .

T h is m od el seek s t o est a blish w h et h er t h e in t er a ct ion b et w een bu d get a r y com m u n ica -t ion a n d -t h e in fl u en ce over m ed iu m / lon g t er m goa ls, by ea ch of t h e t wo gr ou p s, is sig-n ifi ca sig-n t ly r ela t ed t o bu d get a r y r esp osig-n se a t t i-t u d e. To d o i-t h is, ii-t w a s n ecessa r y i-t o con fi r m if t h e in t er a ct ion (b 3) is sign ifi ca n t ly d iffer en t fr om zer o a n d p osit ive in t er m s of d ir ect ion . T h e r esu lt s of u n d er t a k in g t h ese t est s a r e sh ow n in Ta ble IV.

As ca n b e seen , for H 3(a ca d em ic h ea d s of d e p a r t m en t ), t h e t wo-w ay in t er a ct ion

b et w een bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion a n d in fl u -en ce over t h e m ed iu m / lon g t er m goa l set w a s sign ifi ca n t a t p= 0.0068. N ot on ly is b₃sign ifi -ca n t bu t it is a lso p osit ive. T h e h y p ot h esis is t h er efor e su p p or t ed . Over a ll, t h e m od el exp la in s 41.6 p er cen t of t h e va r ia n ce in bu d -get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e. T h e coefficien t s of t h e m a in effect s d o n ot n eed in t er p r et a t ion sin ce t h e d a t a w er e n ot m ea su r ed on r a t io sca les (Sou t h wood , 1978).

Wh en H 4(u n iver s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t or s ) w a s t es t ed , t h e r es u lt s d i ffer ed fr om t h os e ob t a i n ed for H 3. As s h ow n i n Ta b le IV, t h e i n t er a ct i on w a s n ot s i gn i fi ca n t (p= 0.1426) b u t w a s p os i t ive i n t er m s of d i r ect i on . T h e h y p ot h es i s, t h a t for u n iver s i t y a d m i n i s t r a -t or s i n flu en ce i n -t h e s e-t -t i n g of m ed i u m -t er m goa ls w i ll n ot m od er a t e t h e p os i t ive r ela t i on -s h i p b et w een b u d get a r y com m u n i ca t i on a n d b u d get r es p on s e a t t i t u d e, i s t h er efor e s u p p or t ed .

Alt h ou gh t h e r esu lt s su p p or t ed t h e exp ect a -t ion s, i-t is n o-t a p p a r en -t fr om -t h e -t es-t in g Table IV

The re latio ns hip be twe e n budge tary c o mmunic atio n, go al influe nc e , the inte rac tio n, and budge tary re s po ns e attitude

Variable Value t-statistic p values

Academic heads of department

Intercept 3 8 .1 4 4 6 .4 7 5 0 .0 0 0 0

Budgetary communication –0 .8 0 2 –1 .6 4 7 0 .1 0 3 2

Goal influence –0 .3 0 0 –0 .8 0 2 0 .4 2 4 6

Budgetary communication ×

Goal influence 0 .0 7 6 2 .7 7 2 0 .0 0 6 8

R2_{= 4 1 .6 %} _F

3 ,8 7= 2 0 .6 6 6 p = 0 .0 0 0 0

University administrators

Intercept 3 2 .2 6 1 3 .4 2 3 0 .0 0 1 8

Budgetary communication 0 .3 4 1 0 .6 8 5 0 .4 9 8 4

Goal influence –0 .6 4 7 –0 .8 3 5 0 .4 1 0 4

Budgetary communication ×

Goal influence 0 .0 6 1 1 .5 0 6 0 .1 4 2 6

R2_{= 5 7 .4 %} _F

3 ,3 0= 1 3 .4 6 3 p = 0 .0 0 0 0

Table III

Co rre latio ns be twe e n variable s

Variables 1 2 3

Academic heads of department Budgetary response attitude 1 .0 0 Budgetary communication 0 .5 5 1 .0 0

(0 .0 0 0 )

Goal influence 0 .5 2 0 .5 7 1 .0 0

(0 .0 0 0 ) (0 .0 0 0 )

Budgetary response attitude 1 .0 0 Budgetary communication 0 .5 0 1 .0 0

(0 .0 0 1 )

Goal influence 0 .5 7 0 .0 7 1 .0 0

(0 .0 0 0 ) (0 .3 5 4 ) Table II

De s c riptive s tatis tic s

Theoretical Actual Standard

Variables range range M ean deviation

University heads of department

Budgetary response attitude 9 -6 3 2 0 -5 6 4 1 .4 1 7 .1 2

Budgetary communication 3 -2 1 3 -2 1 1 5 .3 9 5 .3 8

Goal influence 3 -2 1 3 -2 1 1 6 .9 9 3 .7 2

Budgetary response attitude 9 -6 3 3 1 -5 6 4 5 .5 5 5 .7 8

Budgetary communication 3 -2 1 6 -2 1 1 8 .5 8 3 .4 5

(6)

u n d er t a k en w h et h er t h e ou t com es, fr om t est in g b ot h H 3a n d H 4, a r e sign ifi ca n t ly d if-fer en t . To d et er m in e t h is, a Ch ow Test (u sed for t est in g t h e sign ifi ca n t d iffer en ce b et w een t wo or m or e r e gr ession s (Gu ja r a t i, 1988)) w a s u sed . T h is t est con fi r m ed t h a t t h e d iffer en ce b et w een t h e t wo r e gr ession s w a s sign ifi ca n t (F_2,123= 11.383, p= < 0.01) t h u s con fi r m in g t h a t , for t h e t wo gr ou p s, a p osit ive bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e w ill b e a t t a in ed by u t ilizin g d iffer en t b eh av iou r a l p r ocesses.

Discussion and conclusion

T h is st u dy w a s u n d er t a k en in a u n iver sit y set t in g w h er e, in r ecen t yea r s, fu n d in g h a s b een sign ifi ca n t ly r ed u ced . Wh ile t h ese r ed u ct ion s h ave im p a ct ed on b ot h t h e m a jor gr ou p s w h ich exist in t h is en v ir on m en t (a ca -d em ics a n -d a -d m in ist r a t or s), t h ese cu t s in fu n d in g h ave b een p er ceived by a ca d em ics a s a t h r ea t t o t h e h ist or ica l ob ject ives of

r esea r ch a n d t ea ch in g. Alt h ou gh a d m in ist r a -t or s h ave a lso exp r essed sim ila r con cer n s, t h e r ea son s for t h ese d iffer fr om t h ose of t h e a ca d em ic com m u n it y. Given t h ese d iffer en ces in ob ject ives, it w a s h y p ot h esized in t h is p a p er t h a t if p osit ive bu d get a r y a t t it u d in a l r esp on ses a r e t o b e cr ea t ed by ea ch gr ou p, t h e b eh av iou r a l p r ocess for t h is t o b e a ch ieved is lik ely t o d iffer b et w een t h e t wo gr ou p s. T h e r esu lt s su p p or t ed t h is exp ect a t ion .

Wh en a ca d em ic h ea d s of d e p a r t m en t w er e su r veyed , it w a s fou n d t h a t a h igh bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e is r ela t ed t o a n in t er a ct ion b et w een a h igh level of bu d get a r y com m u n i-ca t ion a n d a h igh level of in fl u en ce over t h e m ed iu m t er m goa l set of t h e d e p a r t m en t . T h is r ela t ion sh ip w a s exp ect ed . It a p p ea r s t h a t if a ca d em ics p er ceive t h ey h ave a h igh level of in fl u en ce over t h e m ed iu m t er m goa l set , a n d t h ey h ave a h igh level of bu d get a r y com m u n i-ca t ion , p osit ive bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d es a r e m or e lik ely t o occu r.

T h e r esu lt s, h ow ever, d iffer w h en t h e r esp on ses fr om u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s a r e con sid er ed . For t h is gr ou p, t h e in t er a ct ion b et w een bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion a n d in fl u -en ce over t h e m ed iu m t er m goa l set is n ot sign ifi ca n t ly r ela t ed t o bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d e even t h ou gh a sign ifi ca n t r ela t ion sh ip exist s b et w een bu d get a r y com m u n ica -t ion a n d bu d ge-t a r y r esp on se a -t -t i-t u d e. T h is

r esu lt w a s a lso exp ect ed . Wh en t h e ou t com es fr om t est in g t h e r ela t ion sh ip s for t h e t wo gr ou p s w er e com p a r ed , it w a s fou n d t h a t t h ey w er e sign ifi ca n t ly d iffer en t . T h is is n ot su r -p r isin g given t h e d iffer in g or ien t a t ion in ob ject ives b et w een t h e t wo gr ou p s. F u r t h er, it in d ica t es t h a t , for ea ch gr ou p, if bu d get a r y su p p or t is t o b e a ch ieved , t h e b eh av iou r a l p r ocess is lik ely t o d iffer.

T h is st u dy h a s im p or t a n t im p lica t ion s for t h e sen ior m a n a gem en t of u n iver sit ies. F ir st , for a ca d em ics t o su p p or t t h e level of fu n d in g a lloca t ed t o t h em , t h ey m u st b e a llow ed t o in fl u en ce t h e m ed iu m t er m goa l set a n d b e in clu d ed in d iscu ssion s t h a t su r r ou n d t h e bu d get a lloca t ion p r ocess. If in fl u en ce over t h e m ed iu m / lon g t er m goa l set is lim it ed , t h e r esu lt s su ggest t h a t su p p or t for bu d get a lloca -t ion s w ill b e sign ifi ca n -t ly low er -t h a n cou ld ot h er w ise b e exp ect ed . Bu d get s cou ld a lso b e sa b ot a ged . F u r t h er, dy sfu n ct ion a l ou t com es, su ch a s t h ose id en t ifi ed in t h e E zza m el a n d Bou r n (1990) st u dy, cou ld b e cr ea t ed . In t h a t r esea r ch set t in g, w h en u n iver sit y a d m in is-t r a is-t or s a is-t is-t em p is-t ed is-t o r ed u ce sp en d in g, a ca d e-m ics ch a r ged t h ee-m w it h “u n d er e-m in in g t h e q u a lit y a n d et h os of t h e wor k p la ce, a n d for ch a llen gin g t h e cu lt u r e of a ca d em ic fr eed om by p r om ot in g a ‘fi n a n cia l’ or a ccou n t in g cu l-t u r e w il-t h a d iffer en l-t m ix of va lu es” (p.416). Secon d , t h e r esu lt s con fi r m t h a t a ca d em ic h ea d s of d e p a r t m en t d o n eed t o b e in volved in t h e va r iou s levels of t h e or ga n iza t ion a l p la n -n i-n g h ier a r ch y. As Mi-n t zb er g (1994) h a s n ot ed , p la n n in g fr a m ewor k s a r e, h ow ever, oft en se p a r a t ed w it h in or ga n iza t ion s. Wh ile sen ior m a n a ger s d om in a t e lon ger t er m p la n -n i-n g p r ocesses, low er level m a -n a ger s a r e focu sed on bu d get a r y or sh or t er t er m issu es. For u n iver sit ies fa cin g bu d get cu t s, t h e r esu lt s su ggest t h a t su ch p la n n in g d iv ision s sh ou ld n ot b e a llow ed t o occu r sin ce it is im p or t a n t t h a t a ca d em ics h ave a st r on g in fl u -en ce over u n iver sit y ob ject ives. T h ir d , t h e r esu lt s r ela t in g t o u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s (im m ed ia t ely b elow u n iver sit y r e gist r a r, exclu d in g fi n a n ce r e gist r a r s) b r in g in t o q u es-t ion es-t h e n eed for es-t h is gr ou p es-t o b e in clu d ed in h igh er level p la n n in g p r ocesses. Obv iou sly, t h e w it h d r aw a l of a d m in ist r a t or s fr om t h ese p r ocesses wou ld save cost s. It wou ld a lso sim p lify t h e con su lt a t ive p r ocess su r r ou n d in g t h is level of p la n n in g. It cou ld b e, h ow ever, t h a t , by a llow in g a d m in ist r a t or s t o in fl u -en ce t h e m ed iu m t er m goa l set t in g p r ocess, ot h er b en efi t s a r e gen er a t ed for t h e em p loyer. T h ese p ossib ilit ies a r e n ot exp lor ed in t h is st u dy a n d t h er efor e cou ld gen er a t e a fr u it fu l a gen d a for fu t u r e r esea r ch .

(7)

T h e st u dy is a lso im p or t a n t for r esea r ch er s. Alt h ou gh p r ev iou s st u d ies h ave focu sed on t h e p olit ics a n d p r ocesses su r r ou n d in g t h e bu d get a lloca t ion p r oced u r es w it h in u n iver si-t ies, si-t h is p a p er a d d r esses si-t h e issu e of bu d gesi-t su p p or t a t d e p a r t m en t a l level. Given t h e im p or t a n ce of t h e t ot a l a ca d em ic bu d get in m ost u n iver sit ies, it is su r p r isin g t h a t d e p a r t -m en t a l r esp on ses t o a lloca t ion s h ave p r ev i-ou sly a t t r a ct ed lit t le or n o r esea r ch a t t en t ion . Secon d , it cou ld b e t h a t a u n iver sit y set t in g is sim ila r in con t ext t o ot h er or ga n iza t ion s in t er m s of m a jor a n d p ow er fu l em p loyee gr ou p -in gs t h a t h ave m a r k ed ly d iffer en t goa l set s. T h is is a n op p or t u n it y for fu t u r e r esea r ch . It cou ld b e t h a t u n iver sit y m a n a gem en t s cou ld lea r n fr om t h e p r a ct ice of ot h er su ch or ga n i-za t ion s if com m on gr ou n d ca n b e est a blish ed .

T h e st u dy h a s sever a l lim it a t ion s. F ir st , it is a cr oss-sect ion a l st u dy a t on e p oin t in t im e a n d it cou ld b e t h a t d iffer en t r esu lt s m ay occu r if a lon git u d in a l st u dy w a s u n d er t a k en . It is p ossible t h a t cer t a in even t s sp ecifi c t o t h e r esea r ch set t in g m ay h ave u n k n ow in gly in fl u en ced t h e r esu lt s. Secon d , t h e d a t a for t h e st u dy w er e sou r ced on ly in N ew Zea la n d . It cou ld b e t h a t d iffer in g r esu lt s wou ld a r ise if t h e r esea r ch w a s r e p lica t ed in a n ot h er set -t in g. T h ir d , -t h e lim i-t a -t ion s a -t -t a ch in g -t o q u es-t ion n a ir e r esea r ch a r e w ell d ocu m en es-t ed .

References

Alt b a ch , P.G. a n d J oh n st on e, D.B. (1993), T h e Fu n d in g of H igh er E d u ca tion : In ter n a tion a l Persp ectiv es, Ga r la n d P u blish in g, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Bla ck m or e, R. (1993), “N ew ch a llen ges for ed u ca -t ion : in cor p or a -t ion ”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of E d u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 7 N o.6, p p. 4-5. Br ow n ell, P. (1982), “T h e r ole of a ccou n t in g d a t a in

p er for m a n ce eva lu a t ion , bu d get a r y p a r t icip a -t ion , a n d or ga n iza -t ion a l effec-t iven ess”, J ou r -n a l of A ccou -n ti-n g R esea rch, Sp r in g, p p. 12-27. Br ow n ell, P. a n d Du n k , A. (1991), “Ta sk u n cer

-t a in -t y a n d i-t s in -t er a c-t ion w i-t h bu d ge-t a r y p a r t icip a t ion a n d bu d get em p h a sis: som e m et h od ologica l issu es a n d em p ir ica l in vest i-ga t ion ”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S oci-ety, Vol. 16 N o. 8, p p. 693-703.

Collin s, F. (1978), “T h e in t er a ct ion of bu d get ch a r -a ct er ist ics -a n d p er son -a lit y v-a r i-a bles w it h bu d get a r y r esp on se a t t it u d es”, T h e A ccou n t-in g R ev iew, Ap r il, Vol. 53 N o. 2, p p. 324-35. Collin s, F., Mu n t er, P. a n d F in n , D.W. (1987), “T h e

bu d get in g ga m es p eop le p lay ”, T h e A ccou n t-in g R ev iew, J a n u a r y, Vol. 62 N o. 1, p p. 29-49. Da h llof, U., H a r r is, J ., Sh a t t ock , M., St a r op oli, A.

a n d in ’t Veld , R. (1991), Dim en sion s of E v a lu a -tion in H igh er E d u ca -tion, J essica Kin gsley, Lon d on .

Deu t sch m a n , A. (1990), “Wh y u n iver sit ies a r e sh r in k in g”, For tu n e, Vol. 122 N o. 7, p p. 103-8.

Du n k , A.S. (1989), “Bu d get em p h a sis, bu d get a r y p a r t icip a t ion a n d m a n a ger ia l p er for m a n ce: a n ot e”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety, Vol. 14 N o. 4, p p. 321-4.

E zza m el, M., a n d Bou r n , M. (1990), “T h e r oles of a ccou n t in g in for m a t ion sy st em s in a n or ga n i-sa t ion exp er ien cin g fi n a n cia l cr isis”, A ccou n t-in g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety, Vol. 15 N o. 5, p p. 399-424.

Fogelb er g, G. (1994), “Gr a em e Fogelb er g: p r ofi le of a st r a t e gist ”, N ew Z ea la n d S tra tegic M a n a ge-m en t, Vol. 1 N o. 2, p p. 13-19.

F r eed m a n , J .L., Ca r lsm it h , J .M. a n d Sea r s, D.O. (1974), S ocia l Psych olog y, P r en t ice H a ll, E n glewood Cliffs, N J .

Gu ja r a t i, D.N. (1995), B a sic E con om etr ics, 3r d ed it ion , McGr aw -H ill, Sin ga p or e.

Gu m p or t , P.J . (1993), “T h e con t est ed d om a in of a ca d em ic p r ogr a m r ed u ct ion ”, J ou r n a l of H igh er E d u ca tion, May -J u n e, p p. 281-311. H a ck m a n , D.J . (1985), “P ow er a n d cen t r a lit y in t h e

a lloca t ion of r esou r ces in colle ges a n d u n iver -sit ies”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Ma r ch , Vol. 30, p p. 61-77.

H a r dy, C. (1992), “Ret r en ch m en t st r a t e gies in t wo Ca n a d ia n u n iver sit ies: a p olit ica l a n a ly sis”,

Ca n a d ia n J ou r n a l of A d m in istra tiv e S cien ces, Vol. 9 N o. 3, p p. 180-91.

H a ssel, L.G. (1993), “Bu d get a r y p a r t icip a t ion : m od er a t in g t h e in con gr u en ce in bu d get em p h a sis b et w een t h e su p er ior a n d su b or d i-n a t e”, u i-n p u blish ed coi-n fer ei-n ce p a p er, E u r o-p ea n A ccou n tin g Con g ress, Tu r k u , F in la n d , p p. 1-15.

H a ssel, L.G. a n d Cu n n in gh a m , G.M. (1993), “Bu d -get effect iven ess in m u lt in a t ion a l com p a n ies: a n em p ir ica l exa m in a t ion of en v ir on m en t a l in t er a ct ion on cogn it ive a n d a ffect ive effect s of t wo d im en sion s of bu d get a r y p a r t icip a -t ion ”, S ca n d in a v ia n J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t, Vol. 9 N o. 4, p p. 299-318.

H en k in , A.B. a n d P er sson , D. (1992), “F a cu lt y a s ga t ek ee p er s: n on -a ca d em ic st a ff p a r t icip a t ion in u n iver sit y gover n a n ce”, J ou r n a l of E d u ca -tion a l A d m in istra -tion, Vol. 30 N o. 2, p p. 52-64. H ills, F.S. a n d Ma h on ey, T.A. (1978), “Un iver sit y

bu d get s a n d or ga n iza t ion a l d ecision m a k in g”,

A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Se p t em b er, Vol. 23, p p. 454-65.

Iva n cev ich , J .M. a n d Ma t t eson , M.T. (1990), Orga -n iz a tio-n a l B eh a v ior a -n d M a -n a gem e-n t, 2n d ed it ion , Ir w in , H om ewood , IL.

Ka t z, D. a n d Ka h n , R.L. (1978), T h e S ocia l Psych ol-og y of Orga n iz a tion s, Wiley, N ew Yor k , N Y. Ken is, L. (1979), “E ffect s of bu d get a r y goa l ch a r a

ct er isct ics on m a n a ger ia l a ct ct ict u d es a n d p er for -m a n ce”, T h e A ccou n tin g R ev iew, Oct ob er, Vol. 54 N o. 4, p p. 707-21.

(8)

Mia , L. (1989), “T h e im p a ct of p a r t icip a t ion in bu d get in g a n d job d ifficu lt y on m a n a ger ia l p er for m a n ce a n d wor k m ot iva t ion : a r esea r ch n ot e”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s, a n d S ociety, Vol. 14 N o. 4, p p. 347-57.

Mila n i, K. (1975), “T h e r ela t ion sh ip of p a r t icip a t ion in bu d get set t in g t o in d u st r ia l p er for -m a n ce a n d a t t it u d es: a fi eld st u dy ”, T h e A ccou n tin g R ev iew, Ap r il, p p. 274-84.

Min t zb er g, H . (1994), T h e R ise a n d Fa ll of S tra tegic Pla n n in g, P r en t ice H a ll, H em el H em p st ea d . O’Reilly, B. (1994), “Wh a t ’s k illin g t h e bu sin ess

sch ool d ea n s of Am er ica ?”, For tu n e, Vol. 130 N o. 3, p p. 64-8.

P et r y, J .R. a n d Ken n ey, G.E . (1991), “T h e im p a ct on h igh er ed u ca t ion : fu n d in g sh or t fa lls a n d t h eir im p a ct on p olicy m a k in g in t h e 1990s”, u n p u b -lish ed con fer en ce p a p er p r esen t ed a t An n u a l Meet in g of t h e Am er ica n E d u ca t ion a l St u d ies Associa t ion , Ka n sa s, MO, 24 Oct ob er, p p. 1-18. P feffer, J . a n d Moor e, W.L. (1980), “P ow er in u n

iver sit y bu d get in g: a r e p lica t ion a n d ext en

-sion ”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Vol. 25, p p. 637-53.

P feffer, J . a n d Sa la n cik , G.R. (1974), “Or ga n iza -t ion a l d ecision m a k in g a s a p oli-t ica l p r ocess: t h e ca se of a u n iver sit y bu d get ”, A d m in istra -tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Vol. 19, p p. 135-51. P ollit t , C. (1990), “Mea su r in g u n iver sit y p er for

-m a n ce: n ever -m in d t h e q u a lit y, n ever -m in d t h e w id t h ”, H igh er E d u ca tion Qu a r terly, Vol. 44 N o. 1, p p. 60-81.

P or t er, M.E . (1980), Com p etitiv e S tra teg y: T ech -n iqu es for A -n a lysi-n g I-n d u str ies a -n d Com p eti-tors, F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Saven ije, B. (1992), “Un iver sit y bu d get in g: cr ea t -in g -in cen t ives for ch a n ge?”, R esea rch in H igh er E d u ca tion, Vol 33 N o. 5, p p. 641-56. Sou t h wood , K.E . (1978), “Su b st a n t ive t h eor y a n d

st a t ist ica l in t er a ct ion : fi ve m od els”, A m er ica n J ou r n a l of S ociolog y, Ma r ch , p p. 1154-203. Wild av sk y, A. (1974), T h e Politics of th e B u d geta r y