Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue4.1997:
Budgetary response attitudes in a university
environment
David R. Goodwin
Nanyang Te c hno lo gic al Unive rsity, Singapo re
Bart de Gouw
Linc o ln Unive rsity, Cante rbury, Ne w Z e aland
Hypothesizes that, for academics, while budgetary communication may be positively
related to budgetary attitudinal response, this relationship is dependent on the level
of infl uence allowed over the
medium/long term goal set.
For university administrators,
it is not expected that the
interaction between the level
of infl uence and budgetary
communication will be signifi cant. These differing outcomes are expected because
of the confl icting objectives
that exist between the two
groups. Tests the hypotheses
by surveying academic heads
of department and administrators from New Zealand
universities. The results
support the theorized expectations. Outlines the implications for university management and in particular the
potential impact for planning
structures.
The authors wish to
acknowledge the
contribution of Mahmoud
Ezzamel, Richard Fisher,
Jenny Goodwin, participants
at the Lincoln University
seminar series, and staff
members at Otago
University.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 ,4 [ 1997] 1 7 9 –1 8 6
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
Th er e is in cr ea sin g eviden ce th a t, over r ecen t
yea r s, th e pu blic fu n din g to m a n y u n iver sities h a s declin ed a n d con tin u es to do so in
r ea l ter m s (Altba ch a n d J oh n ston e, 1993;
Petr y a n d Ken n ey, 1991). Wh ile th is situ a tion
is a n ou tcom e of pu blic policy, it h a s h a d th e
effect of in cr ea sin g th e level of com petition
both between a n d w ith in u n iver sities for
fu n ds ava ila ble.
Alth ou gh pr eviou s r esea r ch h a s focu sed on
th e pr ocess a n d politics of bu dget a lloca tion
w ith in u n iver sities in a r edu cin g fu n ds envir on m en t (E zza m el a n d Bou r n , 1990; Ha ck m a n , 1985; Hills a n d Ma h on ey, 1978; P feffer
a n d Moor e, 1980), n o pr eviou s stu dy h a s
exa m in ed th e deter m in a n ts of a ttitu din a l
r espon ses th a t a r ise fr om th e pr ocess a dopted
to a lloca te th ese fu n ds. Su ch r espon ses h ave
been defin ed by Collin s (1978, p. 324) a s “th e
pr edisposition of people to su ppor t or w ith h old su ppor t of th e bu dget a n d even to sa bota ge th e bu dget”.
A bu dget is u sed w ith in a n or ga n iza tion to
a lloca te fin a n cia l r esou r ces so th a t objectives
ca n be a ch ieved. Con sisten t w ith th is,
Wildavsk y (1974) h a s descr ibed a bu dget a s a
set of objectives w ith pr ice ta gs a tta ch ed.
Given th e exter n a l a ccou n ta bilities n ow
dem a n ded of u n iver sities, th e bu dget is
th er efor e im por ta n t sin ce it pr ovides th e
fu n din g a lloca tion s to be u sed by con stitu en ts
of th e u n iver sity to m eet a gr eed objectives.
Th ese objectives a r e n or m a lly ou tlin ed in th e
str a te gic pla n . It is th is pla n th a t is u su a lly
u sed to a ssess th e a ch ievem en ts of th e
u n iver sity over a defi n ed per iod.
For str a te gic objectives to be a ch ieved, n ot
on ly does a ppr opr ia te fu n din g n eed to be
a lloca ted bu t ow n er sh ip of th e objectives a n d
th e a ssocia ted bu dget by th e va r iou s con stitu en ts a lso n eeds to occu r. With in a u n iver sity, th er e a r e two distin ct gr ou ps wh ich ea ch
play a sepa r a te bu t dom in a n t r ole (Da h llof et
a l., 1991). F ir st, th er e a r e th e u n iver sity
a dm in istr a tor s wh o, in m a n y in sta n ces, a ct
a s in ter m edia r ies between fu n din g bodies
a n d depa r tm en ta l or fa cu lty a ca dem ics
(Da h llof et a l., 1991). As Pollitt (1990) h a s com m en ted, th ese a dm in istr a tor s a r e often
r ecr u ited a s a llies for som e of cen tr a l gover n m en t’s pu r poses. Su bsequ en tly, a s fu n ds a r e
r edu ced, it is often th is gr ou p wh ich ta k es th e
pr im a r y r espon sibility for r a tion in g
r esou r ces a n d th en en su r in g th a t exter n a l
fin a n cia l a ccou n ta bilities a r e m et (Bla ck m or e, 1993; Fogelber g, 1994). Th ese fin a n cia l
a ccou n ta bilities a r e often of a sh or ter ter m
n a tu r e a n d cu lm in a te in th e pu blica tion of a n
a n n u a l set of fin a n cia l sta tem en ts. Th e secon d gr ou p, n a m ely fa cu lty or depa r tm en ta l
a ca dem ics, does n ot em br a ce th e sa m e fin a n cia l objectives a s u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s
(E zza m el a n d Bou r n ,1990; Hen k in a n d Per sson , 1992). Th is com m u n ity h a s objectives
th a t focu s on ou tpu ts r ela tin g to r esea r ch a n d
tea ch in g (Gu m por t, 1993; Pollitt, 1990). Wh ile
a ca dem ics discou n t h eavily th e sim ple qu a lity/ cost r ela tion sh ip (i.e. fin a n cia l a ccou n ta bility), th ey in sist th a t, if su ch is to be
im posed, th ey m u st h ave a sign ifica n t in fl u en ce over th e lon ger ter m u n iver sity goa l set
(Gu m por t, 1993; Hen k in a n d Per sson , 1992;
Saven ije, 1992). A goa l set is th e ba sk et of
goa ls th a t dr ives th e u n iver sity (Por ter, 1980).
Th is desir e for in flu en ce a r ises fr om a n h istor ica l str u ggle between a ca dem ics a n d
a dm in istr a tor s for le gitim a cy a n d power
(Gu m por t, 1993), wh er eby a ca dem ics h ave
sou gh t “to con tr ol n ot on ly th eir wor k bu t
a lso th e decision m a k in g pr ocesses a t th e
fa cu lty level a s well a s a t th e u n iver sity level”
(p. 644). Given th e pr im a r y a gen da of th is
gr ou p, it is to be expected th a t, if lower bu dgets a r e to be su ppor ted or r esista n ce m in im ized, th e a ca dem ic goa l set of excellen ce in
tea ch in g a n d r esea r ch w ill h ave to be a ccom m oda ted w ith in th e pr oposed fin a n cia l scen a r io.
In th is stu dy, it is h ypoth esized th a t, for
a ca dem ics, wh ile th e com m u n ica tion of bu dget r ela ted m a tter s (bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion ) m ay be positively r ela ted to bu dgeta r y
a ttitu din a l r espon se, th is r ela tion sh ip is
depen den t on th e level of in flu en ce a llowed
over th e m ediu m / lon g ter m goa l set. For
u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, it is n ot expected
th a t th e in ter a ction between th e level of in flu en ce a n d bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion w ill be
sign ifica n t. Th is is beca u se of th eir gen er a l
a ccepta n ce of th e n otion th a t fi n a n cia l a n d
m a n a ger ia listic ou tcom es sh ou ld be a ch ieved
a s a h igh pr ior ity.
[ 179 ]
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
Th e pa per is or ga n ized a s follow s. In th e
n ext section th e th eor etica l ba sis for th e
stu dy is pr ovided. Th is is followed by section s
ou tlin in g th e h ypoth eses, m ea su r em en t of
r esea r ch va r ia bles, deta ils of th e stu dy,
r esu lts a n d con clu sion .
Overview of the literature
Budgetary communication and budgetary
response attitude
P a r ticipa tion by em ployees in th e bu dgeta r y
pr ocess h a s r eceived con sider a ble a tten tion
in th e a ca dem ic liter a tu r e (Br ow n ell, 1982;
Ken is, 1979; Mila n i, 1975). For bu dgeta r y
pa r ticipa tion to occu r, a per son m u st becom e
a ctively in volved in th e settin g of bu dget
goa ls by exch a n gin g in for m a tion a n d in flu en cin g ou tcom es (Ha ssel, 1993).
Alth ou gh a n u m ber of pr eviou s stu dies
h ave tr ea ted pa r ticipa tion a s a u n idim en sion a l con str u ct, th er e is eviden ce th a t it m ay
be a t lea st bidim en sion a l (Br ow n ell, 1982;
Ha ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m , 1993; Mila n i, 1975).
F ir st, th er e is th e exten t th a t com m u n ica tion
occu r s w ith in th e bu dgeta r y pr ocess a n d,
secon d, th e exten t th a t a pa r ticipa n t feels th a t
h e or sh e in fl u en ces th e bu dget fi n a lly a lloca ted. As Ha ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m (1993) h ave
a r gu ed, wh ile a m a n a ger m ay h ave con sider a ble com m u n ica tion w ith m or e sen ior m a n a gem en t over bu dget a lloca tion s, th e de gr ee
of in flu en ce over th e fin a l a lloca tion m ay be
m in im a l.
E viden ce su ggests th a t, w ith in u n iver sities,
th e oppor tu n ity for th e h ea ds of a ca dem ic
depa r tm en ts to in flu en ce bu dget a lloca tion s
dir ectly m ay be lim ited (P feffer a n d Moor e,
1980; P feffer a n d Sa la n cik , 1974). Th is is
beca u se in su ch in stitu tion s bu dget a lloca tion s h ave been r epea tedly fou n d to r efl ect a n
in cr em en ta list a ppr oa ch th a t is depen den t on
wor k loa d ca r r ied, pu blica tion s, r esea r ch
gr a n ts ga in ed, a n d r epr esen ta tion on both
in ter n a l a n d exter n a l com m ittees (Saven ije,
1992). F u r th er, a s E zza m el a n d Bou r n (1990)
h ave fou n d, su ch a n a ppr oa ch is a lso u sed in
tim es of r esou r ce sca r city, a t a tim e wh en
a dm in istr a tor s exer cise m or e in flu en ce over
ou tcom es th a n does th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity.
It is th er efor e a r gu ed th a t, if bu dget a lloca tion s a r e to ga in a n y su ppor t w ith in a n in stitu tion , com m u n ica tion w ith in th e bu dgeta r y
pr ocess w ill be cr itica l. Th is com m u n ica tion
is n eeded if th ose r espon sible for bu dgetin g
ou tcom es a r e to h ave a n y k n ow ledge of pr oposed bu dgeta r y pr a ctices a n d pr ocedu r es,
bu dget r a tion a le, a n d in ten ded bu dget goa ls
(Ka tz a n d Ka h n , 1978). As Br ow n ell a n d Du n k
(1991) h ave sta ted, bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion
[ 180 ]
pr ovides a n im por ta n t in for m a tion exch a n ge
r ole.
Wh ile pr eviou s r esea r ch h a s fou n d th a t
r eleva n t com m u n ica tion ca n im pr ove in itia l
a ttitu din a l r espon ses to bu dgeta r y a lloca tion s (Iva n cevich a n d Ma tteson , 1990), F r eedm a n et a l. (1974) h ave a r gu ed th a t th e lik elih ood of su ccess is depen den t on th r ee fa ctor s:
th e gen er a l en vir on m en t a t th e tim e, th e
m essa ge con ten t, a n d tr u st in th e com m u n ica tion pr ovider by th e m essa ge r eceiver. Th e
m a jor ity of a ca dem ics w ill r ela te ea sily to a t
lea st two of th ese fa ctor s. F ir st, th e gen er a l
en vir on m en t cu r r en tly fa cin g u n iver sities is
on e of r edu ced fu n din g (Deu tsch m a n , 1990;
Ha r dy, 1992; O’Reilly, 1994) a n d, given its w ide
m edia cover a ge, is a situ a tion well u n der stood by a ca dem ics. Secon d, th e m essa ge
con ten t th a t a r edu ction in exter n a l fu n din g
(gen er a l fu n din g pr ovided by th e gover n m en t) tr a n sla tes to a r edu ction in in ter n a l
fu n din g (fu n ds distr ibu ted w ith in a u n iver sity by w ay of bu dgeta r y a lloca tion s) is a lso
u n der stood. However, wh ile th er e m ay be a
de gr ee of a ccepta n ce of both th ese fa ctor s,
th er e is eviden ce of a gen er a l la ck of tr u st in
th e com m u n ica tion pr ovider ( th a t is th e
fu n din g a gen cies a n d u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s (Da h llof et a l., 1991; E zza m el a n d Bou r n ,
1990). Th is w a s h igh ligh ted in E zza m el a n d
Bou r n (1990), wh er e th ose r espon sible for
distr ibu tin g in for m a tion r e ga r din g m a jor
bu dget cu ts wer e qu estion ed both fr om a
tech n ica l com peten ce per spective a n d a n eu tr a lity per spective. F u r th er th ey wer e bla m ed
“for u n der m in in g th e qu a lity a n d eth os of th e
wor k pla ce, a n d for ch a llen gin g th e cu ltu r e of
a ca dem ic fr eedom by pr om otin g a ‘fin a n cia l’
or a ccou n tin g ‘cu ltu r e’ w ith a differ en t m ix of
va lu es” (p. 416). Acceptin g th is lim ita tion of
m istr u st, bu t given th e gen er a l a ccepta n ce by
a ca dem ics of th e oth er two fa ctor s, it is
expected th a t bu dget com m u n ica tion is lik ely
to be positively r ela ted to bu dget r espon se
a ttitu des for th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity.
Su ch a r ela tion sh ip is a lso expected for
u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s bu t cou ld be
str on ger th a n th a t der ived fr om th e a ca dem ic
com m u n ity. Th is is beca u se a dm in istr a tor s
a r e m or e lik ely to h ave tr u st in th e m essa ge
pr ovider wh o is m or e lik ely to sh a r e a m a n a ger ia listic or ien ta tion in ter m s of goa l set.
Budgetary communication, influence over
medium term goals, and budget response
attitude
As pr eviou sly n oted, in a n en vir on m en t of
r edu ced fu n din g, th e con fl ictin g goa l sets of
u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s a n d a ca dem ics
becom e h igh ligh ted. Th is w a s illu str a ted in
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
th e ca se stu dy descr ibed in E zza m el a n d
Bou r n (1990). In th a t situ a tion , wh en u n iver sities wer e a dequ a tely fu n ded (1940s-1970s),
“fin a n cia l m ea su r es wer e com m on ly viewed
a s per iph er a l a n d su bser vien t to a ca dem ic
m a tter s” (p. 406). Th er e w a s a gen er a l pu r su it
of a ca dem ic excellen ce. In th e la te 1980s,
m a jor fu n din g cu ts occu r r ed a n d th ese wer e
gen er a lly a ccepted by u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s. Adm in istr a tor s sou gh t to m eet th e r ea lity h ea d-on a n d a s a r esu lt “fin a n cia l con sider a tion s wer e br ou gh t to th e for efr on t” (p.
415). However, even in th is en vir on m en t,
th er e wer e a ca dem ics wh o con tin u ed to a dvoca te a ca dem ic a n d tea ch in g excellen ce wh ile
m a in ta in in g th e existin g a ca dem ic por tfolio
of offer in gs in th e u n iver sity. Su ch a poten tia l
scen a r io is a lso over viewed in Da h llof et a l.
(1991).
In a situ a tion of r edu ced fu n din g, it is a n
idea l th a t bu dget a lloca tion s w ill be
su ppor ted by th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity a n d
th e pr ocess n ot sa bota ged. If bu dgets a r e
disr e ga r ded, a ch ievem en t of fin a n cia l ou tcom es becom es m or e difficu lt for th e u n iver sity a dm in istr a tion . F u r th er, it is m or e lik ely
th a t goa ls w ill n ot be a ch ieved. Wh ile in th e
pr eviou s section it w a s sh ow n th a t th er e
sh ou ld be a positive r ela tion sh ip between
bu dget com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se
a ttitu des for both a dm in istr a tor s a n d a ca dem ics, th e pr oblem r em a in s of th e differ in g
goa l or ien ta tion s between th e two gr ou ps.
Sin ce bu dget a lloca tion s a ppea r la r gely in cr em en ta l, th e possibility of in cr ea sed fu n din g
bein g a ch ieva ble th r ou gh th e in fl u en ce or
per su a sion of th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity
a ppea r s u n lik ely. An a lter n a tive is for th e
a ca dem ics to feel th a t th ey h ave been a ble to
in flu en ce th e fu tu r e a ca dem ic goa l set of th e
u n iver sity a n d th u s en su r e th a t th e a ca dem ic
cu ltu r e is pr eser ved, a s best a s possible,
w ith in fin a n cia l con str a in ts. Su ch a n in flu en cin g pr ocess is con sisten t w ith th eir h istor ica l str u ggle for power in th e in stitu tion a n d
wh a t som e h ave ter m ed “th eir self-in ter ested
beh aviou r ” (Gu m por t, 1993, p. 287). F u r th er, if
th e in flu en cin g pr ocess is su ccessfu l, it is
m or e lik ely th a t a gr eed goa ls w ill be
r esou r ced a dequ a tely. If th is occu r s, it is
expected th a t th e r esu lta n t bu dget a lloca tion s
w ill ga in even str on ger su ppor t. Wh ile su ch a
m odel w a s su ggested in Saven ije (1992) a s
bein g a u sefu l pr ocess in developin g bu dgetin g su ppor t fr om a ca dem ics, th er e is n o eviden ce of it bein g em pir ica lly tested befor e
th is cu r r en t stu dy.
Lik ew ise for u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, it is
a lso expected th a t th e de gr ee of in flu en ce
over m ediu m / lon g ter m goa ls w ill be r ela ted
to bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu des. For th is
gr ou p, a dequ a te fu n din g m u st be pr ovided if
goa ls a r e to be a ch ieved. Th e differ en ce w ith
th is gr ou p, h owever, is th a t it h a s m or e em pa th y tow a r ds fin a n cia l stew a r dsh ip. F u r th er,
its ba sic pr ofession a l goa l set is n ot per ceived
to be u n der th e sa m e de gr ee of th r ea t (Pollitt,
1990). Hen ce, th e n ecessity for a dm in istr a tor s
to h ave a h igh de gr ee of in flu en ce over fu tu r e
goa ls is a r gu a bly n ot a s cr itica l. As n oted
ea r lier (E zza m el a n d Bou r n , 1990), a dm in istr a tor s a r e m or e fin a n cia lly or ien ta ted a n d,
h en ce, a n y in fl u en ce th ey m ay h ave w ill focu s
on n eeds r a th er th a n th e pr eser va tion of a
cu ltu r e th a t tr a dition a lly discou n ts a n y for m
of fin a n cia l con tr ol. Given th is situ a tion , for
a dm in istr a tor s, it is n ot expected th a t in flu en ce over th e m ediu m ter m goa l set w ill
in ter a ct sign ifica n tly in th e bu dget com m u n ica tion (bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de r ela tion sh ip).
Hypotheses
Con sisten t w ith th e ea r lier discu ssion , th e
follow in g h ypoth eses a r e tested in th is stu dy:
H1. For a ca dem ic h ea ds of depa r tm en t,
th er e is a positive r ela tion sh ip between
bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget
r espon se a ttitu de.
H2. For u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, th er e is a
positive r ela tion sh ip between bu dgeta r y
com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se
a ttitu de.
H3. For a ca dem ic h ea ds of depa r tm en t,
in fl u en ce in th e settin g of m ediu m / lon g
ter m goa ls m oder a tes th e positive r ela tion sh ip between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se a ttitu de.
H4. For u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, in flu en ce
in th e settin g of m ediu m / lon g ter m
goa ls w ill n ot m oder a te th e positive
r ela tion sh ip between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se a ttitu de.
Measurement of research
variables
Budgetary communication
Th e th r ee item s u sed to m ea su r e bu dgeta r y
com m u n ica tion wer e a da pted fr om th e
Mila n i (1975) in str u m en t wh ich h a s been
u sed exten sively in pr eviou s stu dies
(Br ow n ell, 1982; Du n k , 1989; Mia , 1989). Th e
th r ee item s u sed a r e con sisten t w ith th ose
u sed in th e Ha ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m (1993)
stu dy. F a ctor a n a lysis con fir m ed th e u n idim en sion a lity of th e m ea su r e u sed. Th e Cr on ba ch r elia bility coefficien t w a s 0.89.
[ 181 ]
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
Budgetary response attitude
Bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de w a s m ea su r ed
u sin g th e Collin s (1978) n in e item m ea su r e.
As sta ted in th e Collin s (1978) stu dy, “Th e
item s a r e divisible in to two gr ou ps: th ose
m ea su r in g su ppor tive a n d th ose m ea su r in g
r esista n t a ttitu des” (p. 328). For th e pr esen t
stu dy, th is gr ou pin g w a s a ga in con fir m ed by
fa ctor a n a lysis. However, wh ile th is gr ou pin g
w a s con fir m ed, it w a s th e com posite n in e
item m ea su r e th a t w a s pr im a r ily u sed in th is
stu dy. Su ch a u sa ge is con sisten t w ith ea r lier
stu dies a lso u sin g th e m ea su r e (Collin s, 1978;
Collin s et a l. 1987). Th e Cr on ba ch r elia bility
coefficien t w a s 0.61.
Influence over medium term goals
T h is m ea su r e com p r ised t h r ee it em s w h ich
w er e a d a p t ed fr om t h e Mila n i (1975) bu d get a r y p a r t icip a t ion in st r u m en t . Wh ile Kr en
(1992) u sed sim ila r it em s t o m ea su r e bu d get a r y in flu en ce, in t h is p r oject t h e it em s
u sed w er e r ewor d ed t o r eflect t h e m ed iu m /
lon g t er m goa l set t in g p r ocess w it h in a u n iver sit y. T h is r ewor d in g w a s u n d er t a k en
p r ior t o p ilot t est in g a n d n o fu r t h er ch a n ges
w er e n eces sa r y a s a con seq u en ce. F a ct or
a n a ly sis con fir m ed t h e p r esen ce of on e fa ct or. T h e Cr on b a ch r elia b ilit y coefficien t
w a s 0.81.
The research study
Th e da ta u sed in th e stu dy wer e dr aw n fr om
th e N ew Zea la n d ter tia r y edu ca tion sector. In
th is sector, th e pu blic a ccou n ta bility of u n iver sities h a s stea dily in cr ea sed sin ce 1989.
Con cu r r en t w ith th is tr en d h a s been a sign ifica n t decr ea se in r ea l gover n m en t fu n din g
levels th a t h a s n ot been m a tch ed by in cr ea sed
in com e fr om th e in tr odu ction of stu den t fees.
Un iver sities h ave, th er efor e, been for ced
in cr ea sin gly to r a tion fu n ds a cr oss a ctivities
a n d pr ogr a m m es. Th is h a s h a d th e effect of
dr aw in g in to sh a r p con tr a st th e differ in g
va lu e sets th a t a tta ch to ea ch of th e two
gr ou ps u n der stu dy.
In tota l, 147 h ea ds of depa r tm en t a n d 80
a dm in istr a tor s (a ll a t a level im m edia tely
below th a t of u n iver sity r e gistr a r, exclu din g
fin a n ce r e gistr a r s) fr om th e seven u n iver sities wer e su r veyed by qu estion n a ir e. All
r espon den ts h a d bu dgeta r y r espon sibilities
a n d a ll wer e r espectively descr ibed in officia l
u n iver sity pu blica tion s a s eith er m em ber s of
th e a ca dem ic sta ff or sen ior m em ber s of r e gistr y or oth er sim ila r a dm in istr a tive cla ssifica tion s. F r om h ea ds of depa r tm en t, 102 (69
per cen t r espon se r a te) r espon ses wer e
r eceived. Sin ce 11 qu estion n a ir es wer e on ly
[ 182 ]
pa r tia lly com pleted, th e n u m ber of u sa ble
r espon ses w a s 91 (62 per cen t). F r om a dm in istr a tor s, 45 (56 per cen t r espon se r a te)
r espon ses wer e r eceived. Th e biogr a ph ics
r ela tin g to ea ch of th ese gr ou ps is sh ow n in
Ta ble I.
T h is st u dy u ses on ly a su b set of t h e d a t a
d er ived fr om a w id er su r vey. Releva n t t o t h is
p a p er, d a t a fr om t h r ee sect ion s of t h e q u est ion n a ir e w er e u sed , t h ese sect ion s b ein g:
level of in flu en ce over t h e set t in g of
m ed iu m / lon g t er m wor k r ela t ed goa ls, bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion , a n d bu d get a r y
r esp on se a t t it u d e. T h e d escr ip t ive st a t is t ics
a n d zer o or d er cor r ela t ion s a r e sh ow n in
Ta bles II a n d III.
Results
To test both H1 a n d H2, cor r ela tion coefficien ts wer e ca lcu la ted. As ca n be seen in
Ta ble III, th e cor r ela tion s for th e r ela tion sh ip
between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dTable I
Bio graphic s o f re spo nde nts
Range
University heads of department
Years employed in
current position
1-30
M ean
Standard
Deviation
5.29
5.95
Years employed by
current institution
1-39
14.51
9.00
Years of management
experience in a tertiary
institution
1-30
7.31
5.63
Qualifications held (%)
University matriculation 1.69
Vocational certificate
0.00
Bachelors degree
3.39
M asters degree
21.19
Doctorate
73.70
University administrators
Years employed in
current position
1-29
7.34
7.13
Years employed by
current institution
1-29
11.02
8.54
Years of management
experience in a tertiary
institution
1-33
10.07
8.72
Qualifications held (%)
University matriculation 6.52
Vocational certificate
8.69
Bachelors degree
34.78
M asters degree
28.26
Doctorate
21.74
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
Table II
De sc riptive statistic s
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
Variables
Theoretical
range
Actual
range
M ean
Standard
deviation
University heads of department
Budgetary response attitude
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
9-63
3-21
3-21
20-56
3-21
3-21
41.41
15.39
16.99
7.12
5.38
3.72
University administrators
Budgetary response attitude
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
9-63
3-21
3-21
31-56
6-21
3-21
45.55
18.58
13.10
5.78
3.45
5.96
Table III
Co rre latio ns be twe e n variable s
Variables
1
2
3
Academic heads of department
Budgetary response attitude
1.00
Budgetary communication
0.55
1.00
(0.000)
Goal influence
0.52
0.57
(0.000) (0.000)
University administrators
Budgetary response attitude
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
1.00
0.50
1.00
(0.001)
0.57
0.07
(0.000) (0.354)
1.00
1.00
Table IV
The re latio nship 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 spo nse attitude
Value
t -statistic
p values
38.144
–0.802
–0.300
6.475
–1.647
–0.802
0.0000
0.1032
0.4246
Variable
Academic heads of department
Intercept
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
Budgetary communication ×
Goal influence
University administrators
Intercept
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
Budgetary communication ×
Goal influence
0.076
2.772
0.0068
R2 = 41.6%
F3,87 = 20.666
p = 0.0000
32.261
0.341
–0.647
3.423
0.685
–0.835
0.0018
0.4984
0.4104
0.061
1.506
0.1426
F3,30 = 13.463
p = 0.0000
R2
= 57.4%
geta r y r espon se a ttitu de wer e both sign ifica n t a t < 0.05. Th is ou tcom e is con sisten t w ith
th e th eor etica l expecta tion s. Both h ypoth eses
a r e th er efor e su ppor ted.
To test H3 a n d H4, th e follow in g fir st or der
in ter a ction m odel w a s u sed:
Y = b 0 + b 1x 1 + b 2x 2 + b 3x 1x 2 + e
wh er e
Y = bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de;
x 1 = bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion ;
x 2 = in flu en ce over m ediu m ter m goa ls;
b i = r e gr ession pa r a m eter s, i = 0,1,2,3;
e = er r or ter m .
Th is m odel seek s to esta blish wh eth er th e
in ter a ction between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d th e in flu en ce over m ediu m / lon g
ter m goa ls, by ea ch of th e two gr ou ps, is sign ifi ca n tly r ela ted to bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de. To do th is, it w a s n ecessa r y to con fir m if
th e in ter a ction (b 3) is sign ifica n tly differ en t
fr om zer o a n d positive in ter m s of dir ection .
Th e r esu lts of u n der ta k in g th ese tests a r e
sh ow n in Ta ble IV.
As ca n be seen , for H3 (a ca dem ic h ea ds of
depa r tm en t), th e two-w ay in ter a ction
between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d in fl u en ce over th e m ediu m / lon g ter m goa l set w a s
sign ifica n t a t p = 0.0068. N ot on ly is b 3 sign ifi ca n t bu t it is a lso positive. Th e h ypoth esis is
th er efor e su ppor ted. Over a ll, th e m odel
expla in s 41.6 per cen t of th e va r ia n ce in bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de. Th e coefficien ts of
th e m a in effects do n ot n eed in ter pr eta tion
sin ce th e da ta wer e n ot m ea su r ed on r a tio
sca les (Sou th wood, 1978).
Wh en H 4 (u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s)
w a s t est ed , t h e r esu lt s d iffer ed fr om t h os e
ob t a in ed for H 3. As sh ow n in Ta ble IV, t h e
in t er a ct ion w a s n ot sign ifica n t (p = 0.1426)
bu t w a s p osit ive in t er m s of d ir ect ion . T h e
h y p ot h esis, t h a t for u n iver sit y a d m in is t r a t or s in flu en ce in t h e set t in g of m ed iu m 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 ion
a n d bu d get r esp on se a t t it u d e, is t h er efor e
su p p or t ed .
Alth ou gh th e r esu lts su ppor ted th e expecta tion s, it is n ot a ppa r en t fr om th e testin g
[ 183 ]
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
u n der ta k en wh eth er th e ou tcom es, fr om
testin g both H3 a n d H4, a r e sign ifica n tly differ en t. To deter m in e th is, a Ch ow Test (u sed
for testin g th e sign ifi ca n t differ en ce between
two or m or e r e gr ession s (Gu ja r a ti, 1988)) w a s
u sed. Th is test con fi r m ed th a t th e differ en ce
between th e two r e gr ession s w a s sign ifi ca n t
(F 2,123 = 11.383, p = < 0.01) th u s con fir m in g
th a t, for th e two gr ou ps, a positive bu dgeta r y
r espon se a ttitu de w ill be a tta in ed by u tilizin g
differ en t beh aviou r a l pr ocesses.
Discussion and conclusion
Th is stu dy w a s u n der ta k en in a u n iver sity
settin g wh er e, in r ecen t yea r s, fu n din g h a s
been sign ifica n tly r edu ced. Wh ile th ese
r edu ction s h ave im pa cted on both th e m a jor
gr ou ps wh ich exist in th is en vir on m en t (a ca dem ics a n d a dm in istr a tor s), th ese cu ts in
fu n din g h ave been per ceived by a ca dem ics a s
a th r ea t to th e h istor ica l objectives of
r esea r ch a n d tea ch in g. Alth ou gh a dm in istr a tor s h ave a lso expr essed sim ila r con cer n s,
th e r ea son s for th ese differ fr om th ose of th e
a ca dem ic com m u n ity. Given th ese differ en ces
in objectives, it w a s h ypoth esized in th is
pa per th a t if positive bu dgeta r y a ttitu din a l
r espon ses a r e to be cr ea ted by ea ch gr ou p, th e
beh aviou r a l pr ocess for th is to be a ch ieved is
lik ely to differ between th e two gr ou ps. Th e
r esu lts su ppor ted th is expecta tion .
“… Giv en th e im por ta n ce of th e tota l a ca d em ic bu d get in m ost
u n iv ersities, it is su rpr isin g th a t d epa r tm en ta l respon ses to
a lloca tion s h a v e previou sly a ttra cted little or n o resea rch
a tten tion … ”
Wh en a ca dem ic h ea ds of depa r tm en t wer e
su r veyed, it w a s fou n d th a t a h igh bu dgeta r y
r espon se a ttitu de is r ela ted to a n in ter a ction
between a h igh level of bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d a h igh level of in fl u en ce over th e
m ediu m ter m goa l set of th e depa r tm en t. Th is
r ela tion sh ip w a s expected. It a ppea r s th a t if
a ca dem ics per ceive th ey h ave a h igh level of
in flu en ce over th e m ediu m ter m goa l set, a n d
th ey h ave a h igh level of bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion , positive bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu des
a r e m or e lik ely to occu r.
Th e r esu lts, h owever, differ wh en th e
r espon ses fr om u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s a r e
con sider ed. For th is gr ou p, th e in ter a ction
between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d in flu en ce over th e m ediu m ter m goa l set is n ot
sign ifica n tly r ela ted to bu dgeta r y r espon se
a ttitu de even th ou gh a sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ip exists between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de. Th is
[ 184 ]
r esu lt w a s a lso expected. Wh en th e ou tcom es
fr om testin g th e r ela tion sh ips for th e two
gr ou ps wer e com pa r ed, it w a s fou n d th a t th ey
wer e sign ifica n tly differ en t. Th is is n ot su r pr isin g given th e differ in g or ien ta tion in
objectives between th e two gr ou ps. F u r th er, it
in dica tes th a t, for ea ch gr ou p, if bu dgeta r y
su ppor t is to be a ch ieved, th e beh aviou r a l
pr ocess is lik ely to differ.
Th is stu dy h a s im por ta n t im plica tion s for
th e sen ior m a n a gem en t of u n iver sities. F ir st,
for a ca dem ics to su ppor t th e level of fu n din g
a lloca ted to th em , th ey m u st be a llowed to
in fl u en ce th e m ediu m ter m goa l set a n d be
in clu ded in discu ssion s th a t su r r ou n d th e
bu dget a lloca tion pr ocess. If in flu en ce over
th e m ediu m / lon g ter m goa l set is lim ited, th e
r esu lts su ggest th a t su ppor t for bu dget a lloca tion s w ill be sign ifica n tly lower th a n cou ld
oth er w ise be expected. Bu dgets cou ld a lso be
sa bota ged. F u r th er, dysfu n ction a l ou tcom es,
su ch a s th ose iden tified in th e E zza m el a n d
Bou r n (1990) stu dy, cou ld be cr ea ted. In th a t
r esea r ch settin g, wh en u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s a ttem pted to r edu ce spen din g, a ca dem ics ch a r ged th em w ith “u n der m in in g th e
qu a lity a n d eth os of th e wor k pla ce, a n d for
ch a llen gin g th e cu ltu r e of a ca dem ic fr eedom
by pr om otin g a ‘fin a n cia l’ or a ccou n tin g cu ltu r e w ith a differ en t m ix of va lu es” (p.416).
Secon d, th e r esu lts con fir m th a t a ca dem ic
h ea ds of depa r tm en t do n eed to be in volved in
th e va r iou s levels of th e or ga n iza tion a l pla n n in g h ier a r ch y. As Min tzber g (1994) h a s
n oted, pla n n in g fr a m ewor k s a r e, h owever,
often sepa r a ted w ith in or ga n iza tion s. Wh ile
sen ior m a n a ger s dom in a te lon ger ter m pla n n in g pr ocesses, lower level m a n a ger s a r e
focu sed on bu dgeta r y or sh or ter ter m issu es.
For u n iver sities fa cin g bu dget cu ts, th e
r esu lts su ggest th a t su ch pla n n in g division s
sh ou ld n ot be a llowed to occu r sin ce it is
im por ta n t th a t a ca dem ics h ave a str on g in flu en ce over u n iver sity objectives. Th ir d, th e
r esu lts r ela tin g to u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s
(im m edia tely below u n iver sity r e gistr a r,
exclu din g fin a n ce r e gistr a r s) br in g in to qu estion th e n eed for th is gr ou p to be in clu ded in
h igh er level pla n n in g pr ocesses. Obviou sly,
th e w ith dr aw a l of a dm in istr a tor s fr om th ese
pr ocesses wou ld save costs. It wou ld a lso
sim plify th e con su lta tive pr ocess su r r ou n din g th is level of pla n n in g. It cou ld be, h ow ever, th a t, by a llow in g a dm in istr a tor s to in flu en ce th e m ediu m ter m goa l settin g pr ocess,
oth er ben efits a r e gen er a ted for th e em ployer.
Th ese possibilities a r e n ot explor ed in th is
stu dy a n d th er efor e cou ld gen er a te a fr u itfu l
a gen da for fu tu r e r esea r ch .
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
Th e stu dy is a lso im por ta n t for r esea r ch er s.
Alth ou gh pr eviou s stu dies h ave focu sed on
th e politics a n d pr ocesses su r r ou n din g th e
bu dget a lloca tion pr ocedu r es w ith in u n iver sities, th is pa per a ddr esses th e issu e of bu dget
su ppor t a t depa r tm en ta l level. Given th e
im por ta n ce of th e tota l a ca dem ic bu dget in
m ost u n iver sities, it is su r pr isin g th a t depa r tm en ta l r espon ses to a lloca tion s h ave pr eviou sly a ttr a cted little or n o r esea r ch a tten tion .
Secon d, it cou ld be th a t a u n iver sity settin g is
sim ila r in con text to oth er or ga n iza tion s in
ter m s of m a jor a n d power fu l em ployee gr ou pin gs th a t h ave m a r k edly differ en t goa l sets.
Th is is a n oppor tu n ity for fu tu r e r esea r ch . It
cou ld be th a t u n iver sity m a n a gem en ts cou ld
lea r n fr om th e pr a ctice of oth er su ch or ga n iza tion s if com m on gr ou n d ca n be esta blish ed.
Th e stu dy h a s sever a l lim ita tion s. F ir st, it
is a cr oss-section a l stu dy a t on e poin t in tim e
a n d it cou ld be th a t differ en t r esu lts m ay
occu r if a lon gitu din a l stu dy w a s u n der ta k en .
It is possible th a t cer ta in even ts specific to
th e r esea r ch settin g m ay h ave u n k n ow in gly
in flu en ced th e r esu lts. Secon d, th e da ta for
th e stu dy wer e sou r ced on ly in N ew Zea la n d.
It cou ld be th a t differ in g r esu lts wou ld a r ise if
th e r esea r ch w a s r eplica ted in a n oth er settin g. Th ir d, th e lim ita tion s a tta ch in g to qu estion n a ir e r esea r ch a r e well docu m en ted.
References
Altba ch , P.G. a n d J oh n ston e, D.B. (1993), T h e
Fu n d in g of High er Ed u ca tion : In ter n a tion a l
Perspectiv 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 edu ca tion : in cor por a tion ”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 7 N o.6, pp. 4-5.
Br ow n ell, P. (1982), “Th e r ole of a ccou n tin g da ta in
per for m a n ce eva lu a tion , bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion , a n d or ga n iza tion a l effectiven ess”, J ou r n a l of A ccou n tin g R esea rch , Spr in g, pp. 12-27.
Br ow n ell, P. a n d Du n k , A. (1991), “Ta sk u n cer ta in ty a n d its in ter a ction w ith bu dgeta r y
pa r ticipa tion a n d bu dget em ph a sis: som e
m eth odologica l issu es a n d em pir ica l in vestiga tion ”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety, Vol. 16 N o. 8, pp. 693-703.
Collin s, F. (1978), “Th e in ter a ction of bu dget ch a r a cter istics a n d per son a lity va r ia bles w ith
bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu des”, T h e A ccou n tin g R eview , Apr il, Vol. 53 N o. 2, pp. 324-35.
Collin s, F., Mu n ter, P. a n d F in n , D.W. (1987), “Th e
bu dgetin g ga m es people play”, T h e A ccou n tin g R eview , J a n u a r y, Vol. 62 N o. 1, pp. 29-49.
Da h llof, U., Ha r r is, J ., Sh a ttock , M., Sta r opoli, A.
a n d in ’t Veld, R. (1991), Dim en sion s of Eva lu a tion in High er Ed u ca tion , J essica Kin gsley,
Lon don .
Deu tsch m a n , A. (1990), “Wh y u n iver sities a r e
sh r in k in g”, For tu n e, Vol. 122 N o. 7, pp. 103-8.
Du n k , A.S. (1989), “Bu dget em ph a sis, bu dgeta r y
pa r ticipa tion a n d m a n a ger ia l per for m a n ce: a
n ote”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety,
Vol. 14 N o. 4, pp. 321-4.
E zza m el, M., a n d Bou r n , M. (1990), “Th e r oles of
a ccou n tin g in for m a tion system s in a n or ga n isa tion exper ien cin g fin a n cia l cr isis”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety, Vol. 15 N o. 5,
pp. 399-424.
Fogelber g, G. (1994), “Gr a em e Fogelber g: pr ofile of
a str a te gist”, N ew Z ea la n d S tra tegic M a n a gem en t, Vol. 1 N o. 2, pp. 13-19.
F r eedm a n , J .L., Ca r lsm ith , J .M. a n d Sea r s, D.O.
(1974), S ocia l Psych olog y, P r en tice Ha ll,
E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Gu ja r a ti, D.N. (1995), B a sic Econ om etr ics, 3r d
edition , McGr aw -Hill, Sin ga por e.
Gu m por t, P.J . (1993), “Th e con tested dom a in of
a ca dem ic pr ogr a m r edu ction ”, J ou r n a l of
High er Ed u ca tion , May-J u n e, pp. 281-311.
Ha ck m a n , D.J . (1985), “Power a n d cen tr a lity in th e
a lloca tion of r esou r ces in colle ges a n d u n iver sities”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly,
Ma r ch , Vol. 30, pp. 61-77.
Ha r dy, C. (1992), “Retr en ch m en t str a te gies in two
Ca n a dia n u n iver sities: a politica l a n a lysis”,
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, pp. 180-91.
Ha ssel, L.G. (1993), “Bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion :
m oder a tin g th e in con gr u en ce in bu dget
em ph a sis between th e su per ior a n d su bor din a te”, u n pu blish ed con fer en ce pa per, Eu ropea n A ccou n tin g Con gress, Tu r k u , F in la n d,
pp. 1-15.
Ha ssel, L.G. a n d Cu n n in gh a m , G.M. (1993), “Bu dget effectiven ess in m u ltin a tion a l com pa n ies:
a n em pir ica l exa m in a tion of en vir on m en ta l
in ter a ction on cogn itive a n d a ffective effects
of two dim en sion s of bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion ”, S ca n d in a via n J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t,
Vol. 9 N o. 4, pp. 299-318.
Hen k in , A.B. a n d Per sson , D. (1992), “F a cu lty a s
ga tek eeper s: n on -a ca dem ic sta ff pa r ticipa tion
in u n iver sity gover n a n ce”, J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Vol. 30 N o. 2, pp. 52-64.
Hills, F.S. a n d Ma h on ey, T.A. (1978), “Un iver sity
bu dgets a n d or ga n iza tion a l decision m a k in g”,
A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Septem ber,
Vol. 23, pp. 454-65.
Iva n cevich , J .M. a n d Ma tteson , M.T. (1990), Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior a n d M a n a gem en t, 2n d
edition , Ir w in , Hom ewood, IL.
Ka tz, D. a n d Ka h n , R.L. (1978), T h e S ocia l Psych olog y of Orga n iz a tion s, Wiley, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ken is, L. (1979), “E ffects of bu dgeta r y goa l ch a r a cter istics on m a n a ger ia l a ttitu des a n d per for m a n ce”, T h e A ccou n tin g R eview , October,
Vol. 54 N o. 4, pp. 707-21.
Kr en , L. (1992), “Bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion a n d
m a n a ger ia l per for m a n ce: th e im pa ct of in for m a tion a n d en vir on m en ta l vola tility”, T h e
A ccou n tin g R eview , J u ly, Vol. 67 N o. 3,
pp. 511-26.
[ 185 ]
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
[ 186 ]
Mia , L. (1989), “Th e im pa ct of pa r ticipa tion in
bu dgetin g a n d job difficu lty on m a n a ger ia l
per for m a n ce a n d wor k m otiva tion : a r esea r ch
n ote”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s, a n d S ociety,
Vol. 14 N o. 4, pp. 347-57.
Mila n i, K. (1975), “Th e r ela tion sh ip of pa r ticipa tion in bu dget settin g to in du str ia l per for m a n ce a n d a ttitu des: a fi eld stu dy”, T h e
A ccou n tin g R eview , Apr il, pp. 274-84.
Min tzber 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 tice Ha ll, Hem el Hem pstea d.
O’Reilly, B. (1994), “Wh a t’s k illin g th e bu sin ess
sch ool dea n s of Am er ica ?”, For tu n e, Vol. 130
N o. 3, pp. 64-8.
Petr y, J .R. a n d Ken n ey, G.E . (1991), “Th e im pa ct on
h igh er edu ca tion : fu n din g sh or tfa lls a n d th eir
im pa ct on policy m a k in g in th e 1990s”, u n pu blish ed con fer en ce pa per pr esen ted a t An n u a l
Meetin g of th e Am er ica n E du ca tion a l Stu dies
Associa tion , Ka n sa s, MO, 24 October, pp. 1-18.
P feffer, J . a n d Moor e, W.L. (1980), “Power in u n iver sity bu dgetin g: a r eplica tion a n d exten -
sion ”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly,
Vol. 25, pp. 637-53.
P feffer, J . a n d Sa la n cik , G.R. (1974), “Or ga n iza tion a l decision m a k in g a s a politica l pr ocess:
th e ca se of a u n iver sity bu dget”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Vol. 19, pp. 135-51.
Pollitt, C. (1990), “Mea su r in g u n iver sity per for m a n ce: n ever m in d th e qu a lity, n ever m in d
th e w idth ”, High er Ed u ca tion Qu a r terly,
Vol. 44 N o. 1, pp. 60-81.
Por ter, M.E . (1980), Com petitiv e S tra teg y: T ech n iqu es for A n a lysin g In d u str ies a n d Com petitors, F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Saven ije, B. (1992), “Un iver sity bu dgetin g: cr ea tin g in cen tives for ch a n ge?”, R esea rch in
High er Ed u ca tion , Vol 33 N o. 5, pp. 641-56.
Sou th wood, K.E . (1978), “Su bsta n tive th eor y a n d
sta tistica l in ter a ction : fi ve m odels”, A m er ica n
J ou r n a l of S ociolog y, Ma r ch , pp. 1154-203.
Wildavsk y, A. (1974), T h e Politics of th e B u d geta r y
Process, 2n d edition , Little Br ow n , Boston ,
MA.
environment
David R. Goodwin
Nanyang Te c hno lo gic al Unive rsity, Singapo re
Bart de Gouw
Linc o ln Unive rsity, Cante rbury, Ne w Z e aland
Hypothesizes that, for academics, while budgetary communication may be positively
related to budgetary attitudinal response, this relationship is dependent on the level
of infl uence allowed over the
medium/long term goal set.
For university administrators,
it is not expected that the
interaction between the level
of infl uence and budgetary
communication will be signifi cant. These differing outcomes are expected because
of the confl icting objectives
that exist between the two
groups. Tests the hypotheses
by surveying academic heads
of department and administrators from New Zealand
universities. The results
support the theorized expectations. Outlines the implications for university management and in particular the
potential impact for planning
structures.
The authors wish to
acknowledge the
contribution of Mahmoud
Ezzamel, Richard Fisher,
Jenny Goodwin, participants
at the Lincoln University
seminar series, and staff
members at Otago
University.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 ,4 [ 1997] 1 7 9 –1 8 6
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
Th er e is in cr ea sin g eviden ce th a t, over r ecen t
yea r s, th e pu blic fu n din g to m a n y u n iver sities h a s declin ed a n d con tin u es to do so in
r ea l ter m s (Altba ch a n d J oh n ston e, 1993;
Petr y a n d Ken n ey, 1991). Wh ile th is situ a tion
is a n ou tcom e of pu blic policy, it h a s h a d th e
effect of in cr ea sin g th e level of com petition
both between a n d w ith in u n iver sities for
fu n ds ava ila ble.
Alth ou gh pr eviou s r esea r ch h a s focu sed on
th e pr ocess a n d politics of bu dget a lloca tion
w ith in u n iver sities in a r edu cin g fu n ds envir on m en t (E zza m el a n d Bou r n , 1990; Ha ck m a n , 1985; Hills a n d Ma h on ey, 1978; P feffer
a n d Moor e, 1980), n o pr eviou s stu dy h a s
exa m in ed th e deter m in a n ts of a ttitu din a l
r espon ses th a t a r ise fr om th e pr ocess a dopted
to a lloca te th ese fu n ds. Su ch r espon ses h ave
been defin ed by Collin s (1978, p. 324) a s “th e
pr edisposition of people to su ppor t or w ith h old su ppor t of th e bu dget a n d even to sa bota ge th e bu dget”.
A bu dget is u sed w ith in a n or ga n iza tion to
a lloca te fin a n cia l r esou r ces so th a t objectives
ca n be a ch ieved. Con sisten t w ith th is,
Wildavsk y (1974) h a s descr ibed a bu dget a s a
set of objectives w ith pr ice ta gs a tta ch ed.
Given th e exter n a l a ccou n ta bilities n ow
dem a n ded of u n iver sities, th e bu dget is
th er efor e im por ta n t sin ce it pr ovides th e
fu n din g a lloca tion s to be u sed by con stitu en ts
of th e u n iver sity to m eet a gr eed objectives.
Th ese objectives a r e n or m a lly ou tlin ed in th e
str a te gic pla n . It is th is pla n th a t is u su a lly
u sed to a ssess th e a ch ievem en ts of th e
u n iver sity over a defi n ed per iod.
For str a te gic objectives to be a ch ieved, n ot
on ly does a ppr opr ia te fu n din g n eed to be
a lloca ted bu t ow n er sh ip of th e objectives a n d
th e a ssocia ted bu dget by th e va r iou s con stitu en ts a lso n eeds to occu r. With in a u n iver sity, th er e a r e two distin ct gr ou ps wh ich ea ch
play a sepa r a te bu t dom in a n t r ole (Da h llof et
a l., 1991). F ir st, th er e a r e th e u n iver sity
a dm in istr a tor s wh o, in m a n y in sta n ces, a ct
a s in ter m edia r ies between fu n din g bodies
a n d depa r tm en ta l or fa cu lty a ca dem ics
(Da h llof et a l., 1991). As Pollitt (1990) h a s com m en ted, th ese a dm in istr a tor s a r e often
r ecr u ited a s a llies for som e of cen tr a l gover n m en t’s pu r poses. Su bsequ en tly, a s fu n ds a r e
r edu ced, it is often th is gr ou p wh ich ta k es th e
pr im a r y r espon sibility for r a tion in g
r esou r ces a n d th en en su r in g th a t exter n a l
fin a n cia l a ccou n ta bilities a r e m et (Bla ck m or e, 1993; Fogelber g, 1994). Th ese fin a n cia l
a ccou n ta bilities a r e often of a sh or ter ter m
n a tu r e a n d cu lm in a te in th e pu blica tion of a n
a n n u a l set of fin a n cia l sta tem en ts. Th e secon d gr ou p, n a m ely fa cu lty or depa r tm en ta l
a ca dem ics, does n ot em br a ce th e sa m e fin a n cia l objectives a s u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s
(E zza m el a n d Bou r n ,1990; Hen k in a n d Per sson , 1992). Th is com m u n ity h a s objectives
th a t focu s on ou tpu ts r ela tin g to r esea r ch a n d
tea ch in g (Gu m por t, 1993; Pollitt, 1990). Wh ile
a ca dem ics discou n t h eavily th e sim ple qu a lity/ cost r ela tion sh ip (i.e. fin a n cia l a ccou n ta bility), th ey in sist th a t, if su ch is to be
im posed, th ey m u st h ave a sign ifica n t in fl u en ce over th e lon ger ter m u n iver sity goa l set
(Gu m por t, 1993; Hen k in a n d Per sson , 1992;
Saven ije, 1992). A goa l set is th e ba sk et of
goa ls th a t dr ives th e u n iver sity (Por ter, 1980).
Th is desir e for in flu en ce a r ises fr om a n h istor ica l str u ggle between a ca dem ics a n d
a dm in istr a tor s for le gitim a cy a n d power
(Gu m por t, 1993), wh er eby a ca dem ics h ave
sou gh t “to con tr ol n ot on ly th eir wor k bu t
a lso th e decision m a k in g pr ocesses a t th e
fa cu lty level a s well a s a t th e u n iver sity level”
(p. 644). Given th e pr im a r y a gen da of th is
gr ou p, it is to be expected th a t, if lower bu dgets a r e to be su ppor ted or r esista n ce m in im ized, th e a ca dem ic goa l set of excellen ce in
tea ch in g a n d r esea r ch w ill h ave to be a ccom m oda ted w ith in th e pr oposed fin a n cia l scen a r io.
In th is stu dy, it is h ypoth esized th a t, for
a ca dem ics, wh ile th e com m u n ica tion of bu dget r ela ted m a tter s (bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion ) m ay be positively r ela ted to bu dgeta r y
a ttitu din a l r espon se, th is r ela tion sh ip is
depen den t on th e level of in flu en ce a llowed
over th e m ediu m / lon g ter m goa l set. For
u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, it is n ot expected
th a t th e in ter a ction between th e level of in flu en ce a n d bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion w ill be
sign ifica n t. Th is is beca u se of th eir gen er a l
a ccepta n ce of th e n otion th a t fi n a n cia l a n d
m a n a ger ia listic ou tcom es sh ou ld be a ch ieved
a s a h igh pr ior ity.
[ 179 ]
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
Th e pa per is or ga n ized a s follow s. In th e
n ext section th e th eor etica l ba sis for th e
stu dy is pr ovided. Th is is followed by section s
ou tlin in g th e h ypoth eses, m ea su r em en t of
r esea r ch va r ia bles, deta ils of th e stu dy,
r esu lts a n d con clu sion .
Overview of the literature
Budgetary communication and budgetary
response attitude
P a r ticipa tion by em ployees in th e bu dgeta r y
pr ocess h a s r eceived con sider a ble a tten tion
in th e a ca dem ic liter a tu r e (Br ow n ell, 1982;
Ken is, 1979; Mila n i, 1975). For bu dgeta r y
pa r ticipa tion to occu r, a per son m u st becom e
a ctively in volved in th e settin g of bu dget
goa ls by exch a n gin g in for m a tion a n d in flu en cin g ou tcom es (Ha ssel, 1993).
Alth ou gh a n u m ber of pr eviou s stu dies
h ave tr ea ted pa r ticipa tion a s a u n idim en sion a l con str u ct, th er e is eviden ce th a t it m ay
be a t lea st bidim en sion a l (Br ow n ell, 1982;
Ha ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m , 1993; Mila n i, 1975).
F ir st, th er e is th e exten t th a t com m u n ica tion
occu r s w ith in th e bu dgeta r y pr ocess a n d,
secon d, th e exten t th a t a pa r ticipa n t feels th a t
h e or sh e in fl u en ces th e bu dget fi n a lly a lloca ted. As Ha ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m (1993) h ave
a r gu ed, wh ile a m a n a ger m ay h ave con sider a ble com m u n ica tion w ith m or e sen ior m a n a gem en t over bu dget a lloca tion s, th e de gr ee
of in flu en ce over th e fin a l a lloca tion m ay be
m in im a l.
E viden ce su ggests th a t, w ith in u n iver sities,
th e oppor tu n ity for th e h ea ds of a ca dem ic
depa r tm en ts to in flu en ce bu dget a lloca tion s
dir ectly m ay be lim ited (P feffer a n d Moor e,
1980; P feffer a n d Sa la n cik , 1974). Th is is
beca u se in su ch in stitu tion s bu dget a lloca tion s h ave been r epea tedly fou n d to r efl ect a n
in cr em en ta list a ppr oa ch th a t is depen den t on
wor k loa d ca r r ied, pu blica tion s, r esea r ch
gr a n ts ga in ed, a n d r epr esen ta tion on both
in ter n a l a n d exter n a l com m ittees (Saven ije,
1992). F u r th er, a s E zza m el a n d Bou r n (1990)
h ave fou n d, su ch a n a ppr oa ch is a lso u sed in
tim es of r esou r ce sca r city, a t a tim e wh en
a dm in istr a tor s exer cise m or e in flu en ce over
ou tcom es th a n does th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity.
It is th er efor e a r gu ed th a t, if bu dget a lloca tion s a r e to ga in a n y su ppor t w ith in a n in stitu tion , com m u n ica tion w ith in th e bu dgeta r y
pr ocess w ill be cr itica l. Th is com m u n ica tion
is n eeded if th ose r espon sible for bu dgetin g
ou tcom es a r e to h ave a n y k n ow ledge of pr oposed bu dgeta r y pr a ctices a n d pr ocedu r es,
bu dget r a tion a le, a n d in ten ded bu dget goa ls
(Ka tz a n d Ka h n , 1978). As Br ow n ell a n d Du n k
(1991) h ave sta ted, bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion
[ 180 ]
pr ovides a n im por ta n t in for m a tion exch a n ge
r ole.
Wh ile pr eviou s r esea r ch h a s fou n d th a t
r eleva n t com m u n ica tion ca n im pr ove in itia l
a ttitu din a l r espon ses to bu dgeta r y a lloca tion s (Iva n cevich a n d Ma tteson , 1990), F r eedm a n et a l. (1974) h ave a r gu ed th a t th e lik elih ood of su ccess is depen den t on th r ee fa ctor s:
th e gen er a l en vir on m en t a t th e tim e, th e
m essa ge con ten t, a n d tr u st in th e com m u n ica tion pr ovider by th e m essa ge r eceiver. Th e
m a jor ity of a ca dem ics w ill r ela te ea sily to a t
lea st two of th ese fa ctor s. F ir st, th e gen er a l
en vir on m en t cu r r en tly fa cin g u n iver sities is
on e of r edu ced fu n din g (Deu tsch m a n , 1990;
Ha r dy, 1992; O’Reilly, 1994) a n d, given its w ide
m edia cover a ge, is a situ a tion well u n der stood by a ca dem ics. Secon d, th e m essa ge
con ten t th a t a r edu ction in exter n a l fu n din g
(gen er a l fu n din g pr ovided by th e gover n m en t) tr a n sla tes to a r edu ction in in ter n a l
fu n din g (fu n ds distr ibu ted w ith in a u n iver sity by w ay of bu dgeta r y a lloca tion s) is a lso
u n der stood. However, wh ile th er e m ay be a
de gr ee of a ccepta n ce of both th ese fa ctor s,
th er e is eviden ce of a gen er a l la ck of tr u st in
th e com m u n ica tion pr ovider ( th a t is th e
fu n din g a gen cies a n d u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s (Da h llof et a l., 1991; E zza m el a n d Bou r n ,
1990). Th is w a s h igh ligh ted in E zza m el a n d
Bou r n (1990), wh er e th ose r espon sible for
distr ibu tin g in for m a tion r e ga r din g m a jor
bu dget cu ts wer e qu estion ed both fr om a
tech n ica l com peten ce per spective a n d a n eu tr a lity per spective. F u r th er th ey wer e bla m ed
“for u n der m in in g th e qu a lity a n d eth os of th e
wor k pla ce, a n d for ch a llen gin g th e cu ltu r e of
a ca dem ic fr eedom by pr om otin g a ‘fin a n cia l’
or a ccou n tin g ‘cu ltu r e’ w ith a differ en t m ix of
va lu es” (p. 416). Acceptin g th is lim ita tion of
m istr u st, bu t given th e gen er a l a ccepta n ce by
a ca dem ics of th e oth er two fa ctor s, it is
expected th a t bu dget com m u n ica tion is lik ely
to be positively r ela ted to bu dget r espon se
a ttitu des for th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity.
Su ch a r ela tion sh ip is a lso expected for
u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s bu t cou ld be
str on ger th a n th a t der ived fr om th e a ca dem ic
com m u n ity. Th is is beca u se a dm in istr a tor s
a r e m or e lik ely to h ave tr u st in th e m essa ge
pr ovider wh o is m or e lik ely to sh a r e a m a n a ger ia listic or ien ta tion in ter m s of goa l set.
Budgetary communication, influence over
medium term goals, and budget response
attitude
As pr eviou sly n oted, in a n en vir on m en t of
r edu ced fu n din g, th e con fl ictin g goa l sets of
u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s a n d a ca dem ics
becom e h igh ligh ted. Th is w a s illu str a ted in
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
th e ca se stu dy descr ibed in E zza m el a n d
Bou r n (1990). In th a t situ a tion , wh en u n iver sities wer e a dequ a tely fu n ded (1940s-1970s),
“fin a n cia l m ea su r es wer e com m on ly viewed
a s per iph er a l a n d su bser vien t to a ca dem ic
m a tter s” (p. 406). Th er e w a s a gen er a l pu r su it
of a ca dem ic excellen ce. In th e la te 1980s,
m a jor fu n din g cu ts occu r r ed a n d th ese wer e
gen er a lly a ccepted by u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s. Adm in istr a tor s sou gh t to m eet th e r ea lity h ea d-on a n d a s a r esu lt “fin a n cia l con sider a tion s wer e br ou gh t to th e for efr on t” (p.
415). However, even in th is en vir on m en t,
th er e wer e a ca dem ics wh o con tin u ed to a dvoca te a ca dem ic a n d tea ch in g excellen ce wh ile
m a in ta in in g th e existin g a ca dem ic por tfolio
of offer in gs in th e u n iver sity. Su ch a poten tia l
scen a r io is a lso over viewed in Da h llof et a l.
(1991).
In a situ a tion of r edu ced fu n din g, it is a n
idea l th a t bu dget a lloca tion s w ill be
su ppor ted by th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity a n d
th e pr ocess n ot sa bota ged. If bu dgets a r e
disr e ga r ded, a ch ievem en t of fin a n cia l ou tcom es becom es m or e difficu lt for th e u n iver sity a dm in istr a tion . F u r th er, it is m or e lik ely
th a t goa ls w ill n ot be a ch ieved. Wh ile in th e
pr eviou s section it w a s sh ow n th a t th er e
sh ou ld be a positive r ela tion sh ip between
bu dget com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se
a ttitu des for both a dm in istr a tor s a n d a ca dem ics, th e pr oblem r em a in s of th e differ in g
goa l or ien ta tion s between th e two gr ou ps.
Sin ce bu dget a lloca tion s a ppea r la r gely in cr em en ta l, th e possibility of in cr ea sed fu n din g
bein g a ch ieva ble th r ou gh th e in fl u en ce or
per su a sion of th e a ca dem ic com m u n ity
a ppea r s u n lik ely. An a lter n a tive is for th e
a ca dem ics to feel th a t th ey h ave been a ble to
in flu en ce th e fu tu r e a ca dem ic goa l set of th e
u n iver sity a n d th u s en su r e th a t th e a ca dem ic
cu ltu r e is pr eser ved, a s best a s possible,
w ith in fin a n cia l con str a in ts. Su ch a n in flu en cin g pr ocess is con sisten t w ith th eir h istor ica l str u ggle for power in th e in stitu tion a n d
wh a t som e h ave ter m ed “th eir self-in ter ested
beh aviou r ” (Gu m por t, 1993, p. 287). F u r th er, if
th e in flu en cin g pr ocess is su ccessfu l, it is
m or e lik ely th a t a gr eed goa ls w ill be
r esou r ced a dequ a tely. If th is occu r s, it is
expected th a t th e r esu lta n t bu dget a lloca tion s
w ill ga in even str on ger su ppor t. Wh ile su ch a
m odel w a s su ggested in Saven ije (1992) a s
bein g a u sefu l pr ocess in developin g bu dgetin g su ppor t fr om a ca dem ics, th er e is n o eviden ce of it bein g em pir ica lly tested befor e
th is cu r r en t stu dy.
Lik ew ise for u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, it is
a lso expected th a t th e de gr ee of in flu en ce
over m ediu m / lon g ter m goa ls w ill be r ela ted
to bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu des. For th is
gr ou p, a dequ a te fu n din g m u st be pr ovided if
goa ls a r e to be a ch ieved. Th e differ en ce w ith
th is gr ou p, h owever, is th a t it h a s m or e em pa th y tow a r ds fin a n cia l stew a r dsh ip. F u r th er,
its ba sic pr ofession a l goa l set is n ot per ceived
to be u n der th e sa m e de gr ee of th r ea t (Pollitt,
1990). Hen ce, th e n ecessity for a dm in istr a tor s
to h ave a h igh de gr ee of in flu en ce over fu tu r e
goa ls is a r gu a bly n ot a s cr itica l. As n oted
ea r lier (E zza m el a n d Bou r n , 1990), a dm in istr a tor s a r e m or e fin a n cia lly or ien ta ted a n d,
h en ce, a n y in fl u en ce th ey m ay h ave w ill focu s
on n eeds r a th er th a n th e pr eser va tion of a
cu ltu r e th a t tr a dition a lly discou n ts a n y for m
of fin a n cia l con tr ol. Given th is situ a tion , for
a dm in istr a tor s, it is n ot expected th a t in flu en ce over th e m ediu m ter m goa l set w ill
in ter a ct sign ifica n tly in th e bu dget com m u n ica tion (bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de r ela tion sh ip).
Hypotheses
Con sisten t w ith th e ea r lier discu ssion , th e
follow in g h ypoth eses a r e tested in th is stu dy:
H1. For a ca dem ic h ea ds of depa r tm en t,
th er e is a positive r ela tion sh ip between
bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget
r espon se a ttitu de.
H2. For u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, th er e is a
positive r ela tion sh ip between bu dgeta r y
com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se
a ttitu de.
H3. For a ca dem ic h ea ds of depa r tm en t,
in fl u en ce in th e settin g of m ediu m / lon g
ter m goa ls m oder a tes th e positive r ela tion sh ip between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se a ttitu de.
H4. For u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s, in flu en ce
in th e settin g of m ediu m / lon g ter m
goa ls w ill n ot m oder a te th e positive
r ela tion sh ip between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dget r espon se a ttitu de.
Measurement of research
variables
Budgetary communication
Th e th r ee item s u sed to m ea su r e bu dgeta r y
com m u n ica tion wer e a da pted fr om th e
Mila n i (1975) in str u m en t wh ich h a s been
u sed exten sively in pr eviou s stu dies
(Br ow n ell, 1982; Du n k , 1989; Mia , 1989). Th e
th r ee item s u sed a r e con sisten t w ith th ose
u sed in th e Ha ssel a n d Cu n n in gh a m (1993)
stu dy. F a ctor a n a lysis con fir m ed th e u n idim en sion a lity of th e m ea su r e u sed. Th e Cr on ba ch r elia bility coefficien t w a s 0.89.
[ 181 ]
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
Budgetary response attitude
Bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de w a s m ea su r ed
u sin g th e Collin s (1978) n in e item m ea su r e.
As sta ted in th e Collin s (1978) stu dy, “Th e
item s a r e divisible in to two gr ou ps: th ose
m ea su r in g su ppor tive a n d th ose m ea su r in g
r esista n t a ttitu des” (p. 328). For th e pr esen t
stu dy, th is gr ou pin g w a s a ga in con fir m ed by
fa ctor a n a lysis. However, wh ile th is gr ou pin g
w a s con fir m ed, it w a s th e com posite n in e
item m ea su r e th a t w a s pr im a r ily u sed in th is
stu dy. Su ch a u sa ge is con sisten t w ith ea r lier
stu dies a lso u sin g th e m ea su r e (Collin s, 1978;
Collin s et a l. 1987). Th e Cr on ba ch r elia bility
coefficien t w a s 0.61.
Influence over medium term goals
T h is m ea su r e com p r ised t h r ee it em s w h ich
w er e a d a p t ed fr om t h e Mila n i (1975) bu d get a r y p a r t icip a t ion in st r u m en t . Wh ile Kr en
(1992) u sed sim ila r it em s t o m ea su r e bu d get a r y in flu en ce, in t h is p r oject t h e it em s
u sed w er e r ewor d ed t o r eflect t h e m ed iu m /
lon g t er m goa l set t in g p r ocess w it h in a u n iver sit y. T h is r ewor d in g w a s u n d er t a k en
p r ior t o p ilot t est in g a n d n o fu r t h er ch a n ges
w er e n eces sa r y a s a con seq u en ce. F a ct or
a n a ly sis con fir m ed t h e p r esen ce of on e fa ct or. T h e Cr on b a ch r elia b ilit y coefficien t
w a s 0.81.
The research study
Th e da ta u sed in th e stu dy wer e dr aw n fr om
th e N ew Zea la n d ter tia r y edu ca tion sector. In
th is sector, th e pu blic a ccou n ta bility of u n iver sities h a s stea dily in cr ea sed sin ce 1989.
Con cu r r en t w ith th is tr en d h a s been a sign ifica n t decr ea se in r ea l gover n m en t fu n din g
levels th a t h a s n ot been m a tch ed by in cr ea sed
in com e fr om th e in tr odu ction of stu den t fees.
Un iver sities h ave, th er efor e, been for ced
in cr ea sin gly to r a tion fu n ds a cr oss a ctivities
a n d pr ogr a m m es. Th is h a s h a d th e effect of
dr aw in g in to sh a r p con tr a st th e differ in g
va lu e sets th a t a tta ch to ea ch of th e two
gr ou ps u n der stu dy.
In tota l, 147 h ea ds of depa r tm en t a n d 80
a dm in istr a tor s (a ll a t a level im m edia tely
below th a t of u n iver sity r e gistr a r, exclu din g
fin a n ce r e gistr a r s) fr om th e seven u n iver sities wer e su r veyed by qu estion n a ir e. All
r espon den ts h a d bu dgeta r y r espon sibilities
a n d a ll wer e r espectively descr ibed in officia l
u n iver sity pu blica tion s a s eith er m em ber s of
th e a ca dem ic sta ff or sen ior m em ber s of r e gistr y or oth er sim ila r a dm in istr a tive cla ssifica tion s. F r om h ea ds of depa r tm en t, 102 (69
per cen t r espon se r a te) r espon ses wer e
r eceived. Sin ce 11 qu estion n a ir es wer e on ly
[ 182 ]
pa r tia lly com pleted, th e n u m ber of u sa ble
r espon ses w a s 91 (62 per cen t). F r om a dm in istr a tor s, 45 (56 per cen t r espon se r a te)
r espon ses wer e r eceived. Th e biogr a ph ics
r ela tin g to ea ch of th ese gr ou ps is sh ow n in
Ta ble I.
T h is st u dy u ses on ly a su b set of t h e d a t a
d er ived fr om a w id er su r vey. Releva n t t o t h is
p a p er, d a t a fr om t h r ee sect ion s of t h e q u est ion n a ir e w er e u sed , t h ese sect ion s b ein g:
level of in flu en ce over t h e set t in g of
m ed iu m / lon g t er m wor k r ela t ed goa ls, bu d get a r y com m u n ica t ion , a n d bu d get a r y
r esp on se a t t it u d e. T h e d escr ip t ive st a t is t ics
a n d zer o or d er cor r ela t ion s a r e sh ow n in
Ta bles II a n d III.
Results
To test both H1 a n d H2, cor r ela tion coefficien ts wer e ca lcu la ted. As ca n be seen in
Ta ble III, th e cor r ela tion s for th e r ela tion sh ip
between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dTable I
Bio graphic s o f re spo nde nts
Range
University heads of department
Years employed in
current position
1-30
M ean
Standard
Deviation
5.29
5.95
Years employed by
current institution
1-39
14.51
9.00
Years of management
experience in a tertiary
institution
1-30
7.31
5.63
Qualifications held (%)
University matriculation 1.69
Vocational certificate
0.00
Bachelors degree
3.39
M asters degree
21.19
Doctorate
73.70
University administrators
Years employed in
current position
1-29
7.34
7.13
Years employed by
current institution
1-29
11.02
8.54
Years of management
experience in a tertiary
institution
1-33
10.07
8.72
Qualifications held (%)
University matriculation 6.52
Vocational certificate
8.69
Bachelors degree
34.78
M asters degree
28.26
Doctorate
21.74
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
Table II
De sc riptive statistic s
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
Variables
Theoretical
range
Actual
range
M ean
Standard
deviation
University heads of department
Budgetary response attitude
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
9-63
3-21
3-21
20-56
3-21
3-21
41.41
15.39
16.99
7.12
5.38
3.72
University administrators
Budgetary response attitude
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
9-63
3-21
3-21
31-56
6-21
3-21
45.55
18.58
13.10
5.78
3.45
5.96
Table III
Co rre latio ns be twe e n variable s
Variables
1
2
3
Academic heads of department
Budgetary response attitude
1.00
Budgetary communication
0.55
1.00
(0.000)
Goal influence
0.52
0.57
(0.000) (0.000)
University administrators
Budgetary response attitude
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
1.00
0.50
1.00
(0.001)
0.57
0.07
(0.000) (0.354)
1.00
1.00
Table IV
The re latio nship 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 spo nse attitude
Value
t -statistic
p values
38.144
–0.802
–0.300
6.475
–1.647
–0.802
0.0000
0.1032
0.4246
Variable
Academic heads of department
Intercept
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
Budgetary communication ×
Goal influence
University administrators
Intercept
Budgetary communication
Goal influence
Budgetary communication ×
Goal influence
0.076
2.772
0.0068
R2 = 41.6%
F3,87 = 20.666
p = 0.0000
32.261
0.341
–0.647
3.423
0.685
–0.835
0.0018
0.4984
0.4104
0.061
1.506
0.1426
F3,30 = 13.463
p = 0.0000
R2
= 57.4%
geta r y r espon se a ttitu de wer e both sign ifica n t a t < 0.05. Th is ou tcom e is con sisten t w ith
th e th eor etica l expecta tion s. Both h ypoth eses
a r e th er efor e su ppor ted.
To test H3 a n d H4, th e follow in g fir st or der
in ter a ction m odel w a s u sed:
Y = b 0 + b 1x 1 + b 2x 2 + b 3x 1x 2 + e
wh er e
Y = bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de;
x 1 = bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion ;
x 2 = in flu en ce over m ediu m ter m goa ls;
b i = r e gr ession pa r a m eter s, i = 0,1,2,3;
e = er r or ter m .
Th is m odel seek s to esta blish wh eth er th e
in ter a ction between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d th e in flu en ce over m ediu m / lon g
ter m goa ls, by ea ch of th e two gr ou ps, is sign ifi ca n tly r ela ted to bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de. To do th is, it w a s n ecessa r y to con fir m if
th e in ter a ction (b 3) is sign ifica n tly differ en t
fr om zer o a n d positive in ter m s of dir ection .
Th e r esu lts of u n der ta k in g th ese tests a r e
sh ow n in Ta ble IV.
As ca n be seen , for H3 (a ca dem ic h ea ds of
depa r tm en t), th e two-w ay in ter a ction
between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d in fl u en ce over th e m ediu m / lon g ter m goa l set w a s
sign ifica n t a t p = 0.0068. N ot on ly is b 3 sign ifi ca n t bu t it is a lso positive. Th e h ypoth esis is
th er efor e su ppor ted. Over a ll, th e m odel
expla in s 41.6 per cen t of th e va r ia n ce in bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de. Th e coefficien ts of
th e m a in effects do n ot n eed in ter pr eta tion
sin ce th e da ta wer e n ot m ea su r ed on r a tio
sca les (Sou th wood, 1978).
Wh en H 4 (u n iver sit y a d m in ist r a t or s)
w a s t est ed , t h e r esu lt s d iffer ed fr om t h os e
ob t a in ed for H 3. As sh ow n in Ta ble IV, t h e
in t er a ct ion w a s n ot sign ifica n t (p = 0.1426)
bu t w a s p osit ive in t er m s of d ir ect ion . T h e
h y p ot h esis, t h a t for u n iver sit y a d m in is t r a t or s in flu en ce in t h e set t in g of m ed iu m 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 ion
a n d bu d get r esp on se a t t it u d e, is t h er efor e
su p p or t ed .
Alth ou gh th e r esu lts su ppor ted th e expecta tion s, it is n ot a ppa r en t fr om th e testin g
[ 183 ]
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
u n der ta k en wh eth er th e ou tcom es, fr om
testin g both H3 a n d H4, a r e sign ifica n tly differ en t. To deter m in e th is, a Ch ow Test (u sed
for testin g th e sign ifi ca n t differ en ce between
two or m or e r e gr ession s (Gu ja r a ti, 1988)) w a s
u sed. Th is test con fi r m ed th a t th e differ en ce
between th e two r e gr ession s w a s sign ifi ca n t
(F 2,123 = 11.383, p = < 0.01) th u s con fir m in g
th a t, for th e two gr ou ps, a positive bu dgeta r y
r espon se a ttitu de w ill be a tta in ed by u tilizin g
differ en t beh aviou r a l pr ocesses.
Discussion and conclusion
Th is stu dy w a s u n der ta k en in a u n iver sity
settin g wh er e, in r ecen t yea r s, fu n din g h a s
been sign ifica n tly r edu ced. Wh ile th ese
r edu ction s h ave im pa cted on both th e m a jor
gr ou ps wh ich exist in th is en vir on m en t (a ca dem ics a n d a dm in istr a tor s), th ese cu ts in
fu n din g h ave been per ceived by a ca dem ics a s
a th r ea t to th e h istor ica l objectives of
r esea r ch a n d tea ch in g. Alth ou gh a dm in istr a tor s h ave a lso expr essed sim ila r con cer n s,
th e r ea son s for th ese differ fr om th ose of th e
a ca dem ic com m u n ity. Given th ese differ en ces
in objectives, it w a s h ypoth esized in th is
pa per th a t if positive bu dgeta r y a ttitu din a l
r espon ses a r e to be cr ea ted by ea ch gr ou p, th e
beh aviou r a l pr ocess for th is to be a ch ieved is
lik ely to differ between th e two gr ou ps. Th e
r esu lts su ppor ted th is expecta tion .
“… Giv en th e im por ta n ce of th e tota l a ca d em ic bu d get in m ost
u n iv ersities, it is su rpr isin g th a t d epa r tm en ta l respon ses to
a lloca tion s h a v e previou sly a ttra cted little or n o resea rch
a tten tion … ”
Wh en a ca dem ic h ea ds of depa r tm en t wer e
su r veyed, it w a s fou n d th a t a h igh bu dgeta r y
r espon se a ttitu de is r ela ted to a n in ter a ction
between a h igh level of bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d a h igh level of in fl u en ce over th e
m ediu m ter m goa l set of th e depa r tm en t. Th is
r ela tion sh ip w a s expected. It a ppea r s th a t if
a ca dem ics per ceive th ey h ave a h igh level of
in flu en ce over th e m ediu m ter m goa l set, a n d
th ey h ave a h igh level of bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion , positive bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu des
a r e m or e lik ely to occu r.
Th e r esu lts, h owever, differ wh en th e
r espon ses fr om u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s a r e
con sider ed. For th is gr ou p, th e in ter a ction
between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d in flu en ce over th e m ediu m ter m goa l set is n ot
sign ifica n tly r ela ted to bu dgeta r y r espon se
a ttitu de even th ou gh a sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ip exists between bu dgeta r y com m u n ica tion a n d bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu de. Th is
[ 184 ]
r esu lt w a s a lso expected. Wh en th e ou tcom es
fr om testin g th e r ela tion sh ips for th e two
gr ou ps wer e com pa r ed, it w a s fou n d th a t th ey
wer e sign ifica n tly differ en t. Th is is n ot su r pr isin g given th e differ in g or ien ta tion in
objectives between th e two gr ou ps. F u r th er, it
in dica tes th a t, for ea ch gr ou p, if bu dgeta r y
su ppor t is to be a ch ieved, th e beh aviou r a l
pr ocess is lik ely to differ.
Th is stu dy h a s im por ta n t im plica tion s for
th e sen ior m a n a gem en t of u n iver sities. F ir st,
for a ca dem ics to su ppor t th e level of fu n din g
a lloca ted to th em , th ey m u st be a llowed to
in fl u en ce th e m ediu m ter m goa l set a n d be
in clu ded in discu ssion s th a t su r r ou n d th e
bu dget a lloca tion pr ocess. If in flu en ce over
th e m ediu m / lon g ter m goa l set is lim ited, th e
r esu lts su ggest th a t su ppor t for bu dget a lloca tion s w ill be sign ifica n tly lower th a n cou ld
oth er w ise be expected. Bu dgets cou ld a lso be
sa bota ged. F u r th er, dysfu n ction a l ou tcom es,
su ch a s th ose iden tified in th e E zza m el a n d
Bou r n (1990) stu dy, cou ld be cr ea ted. In th a t
r esea r ch settin g, wh en u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s a ttem pted to r edu ce spen din g, a ca dem ics ch a r ged th em w ith “u n der m in in g th e
qu a lity a n d eth os of th e wor k pla ce, a n d for
ch a llen gin g th e cu ltu r e of a ca dem ic fr eedom
by pr om otin g a ‘fin a n cia l’ or a ccou n tin g cu ltu r e w ith a differ en t m ix of va lu es” (p.416).
Secon d, th e r esu lts con fir m th a t a ca dem ic
h ea ds of depa r tm en t do n eed to be in volved in
th e va r iou s levels of th e or ga n iza tion a l pla n n in g h ier a r ch y. As Min tzber g (1994) h a s
n oted, pla n n in g fr a m ewor k s a r e, h owever,
often sepa r a ted w ith in or ga n iza tion s. Wh ile
sen ior m a n a ger s dom in a te lon ger ter m pla n n in g pr ocesses, lower level m a n a ger s a r e
focu sed on bu dgeta r y or sh or ter ter m issu es.
For u n iver sities fa cin g bu dget cu ts, th e
r esu lts su ggest th a t su ch pla n n in g division s
sh ou ld n ot be a llowed to occu r sin ce it is
im por ta n t th a t a ca dem ics h ave a str on g in flu en ce over u n iver sity objectives. Th ir d, th e
r esu lts r ela tin g to u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s
(im m edia tely below u n iver sity r e gistr a r,
exclu din g fin a n ce r e gistr a r s) br in g in to qu estion th e n eed for th is gr ou p to be in clu ded in
h igh er level pla n n in g pr ocesses. Obviou sly,
th e w ith dr aw a l of a dm in istr a tor s fr om th ese
pr ocesses wou ld save costs. It wou ld a lso
sim plify th e con su lta tive pr ocess su r r ou n din g th is level of pla n n in g. It cou ld be, h ow ever, th a t, by a llow in g a dm in istr a tor s to in flu en ce th e m ediu m ter m goa l settin g pr ocess,
oth er ben efits a r e gen er a ted for th e em ployer.
Th ese possibilities a r e n ot explor ed in th is
stu dy a n d th er efor e cou ld gen er a te a fr u itfu l
a gen da for fu tu r e r esea r ch .
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
Th e stu dy is a lso im por ta n t for r esea r ch er s.
Alth ou gh pr eviou s stu dies h ave focu sed on
th e politics a n d pr ocesses su r r ou n din g th e
bu dget a lloca tion pr ocedu r es w ith in u n iver sities, th is pa per a ddr esses th e issu e of bu dget
su ppor t a t depa r tm en ta l level. Given th e
im por ta n ce of th e tota l a ca dem ic bu dget in
m ost u n iver sities, it is su r pr isin g th a t depa r tm en ta l r espon ses to a lloca tion s h ave pr eviou sly a ttr a cted little or n o r esea r ch a tten tion .
Secon d, it cou ld be th a t a u n iver sity settin g is
sim ila r in con text to oth er or ga n iza tion s in
ter m s of m a jor a n d power fu l em ployee gr ou pin gs th a t h ave m a r k edly differ en t goa l sets.
Th is is a n oppor tu n ity for fu tu r e r esea r ch . It
cou ld be th a t u n iver sity m a n a gem en ts cou ld
lea r n fr om th e pr a ctice of oth er su ch or ga n iza tion s if com m on gr ou n d ca n be esta blish ed.
Th e stu dy h a s sever a l lim ita tion s. F ir st, it
is a cr oss-section a l stu dy a t on e poin t in tim e
a n d it cou ld be th a t differ en t r esu lts m ay
occu r if a lon gitu din a l stu dy w a s u n der ta k en .
It is possible th a t cer ta in even ts specific to
th e r esea r ch settin g m ay h ave u n k n ow in gly
in flu en ced th e r esu lts. Secon d, th e da ta for
th e stu dy wer e sou r ced on ly in N ew Zea la n d.
It cou ld be th a t differ in g r esu lts wou ld a r ise if
th e r esea r ch w a s r eplica ted in a n oth er settin g. Th ir d, th e lim ita tion s a tta ch in g to qu estion n a ir e r esea r ch a r e well docu m en ted.
References
Altba ch , P.G. a n d J oh n ston e, D.B. (1993), T h e
Fu n d in g of High er Ed u ca tion : In ter n a tion a l
Perspectiv 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 edu ca tion : in cor por a tion ”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 7 N o.6, pp. 4-5.
Br ow n ell, P. (1982), “Th e r ole of a ccou n tin g da ta in
per for m a n ce eva lu a tion , bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion , a n d or ga n iza tion a l effectiven ess”, J ou r n a l of A ccou n tin g R esea rch , Spr in g, pp. 12-27.
Br ow n ell, P. a n d Du n k , A. (1991), “Ta sk u n cer ta in ty a n d its in ter a ction w ith bu dgeta r y
pa r ticipa tion a n d bu dget em ph a sis: som e
m eth odologica l issu es a n d em pir ica l in vestiga tion ”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety, Vol. 16 N o. 8, pp. 693-703.
Collin s, F. (1978), “Th e in ter a ction of bu dget ch a r a cter istics a n d per son a lity va r ia bles w ith
bu dgeta r y r espon se a ttitu des”, T h e A ccou n tin g R eview , Apr il, Vol. 53 N o. 2, pp. 324-35.
Collin s, F., Mu n ter, P. a n d F in n , D.W. (1987), “Th e
bu dgetin g ga m es people play”, T h e A ccou n tin g R eview , J a n u a r y, Vol. 62 N o. 1, pp. 29-49.
Da h llof, U., Ha r r is, J ., Sh a ttock , M., Sta r opoli, A.
a n d in ’t Veld, R. (1991), Dim en sion s of Eva lu a tion in High er Ed u ca tion , J essica Kin gsley,
Lon don .
Deu tsch m a n , A. (1990), “Wh y u n iver sities a r e
sh r in k in g”, For tu n e, Vol. 122 N o. 7, pp. 103-8.
Du n k , A.S. (1989), “Bu dget em ph a sis, bu dgeta r y
pa r ticipa tion a n d m a n a ger ia l per for m a n ce: a
n ote”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety,
Vol. 14 N o. 4, pp. 321-4.
E zza m el, M., a n d Bou r n , M. (1990), “Th e r oles of
a ccou n tin g in for m a tion system s in a n or ga n isa tion exper ien cin g fin a n cia l cr isis”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s a n d S ociety, Vol. 15 N o. 5,
pp. 399-424.
Fogelber g, G. (1994), “Gr a em e Fogelber g: pr ofile of
a str a te gist”, N ew Z ea la n d S tra tegic M a n a gem en t, Vol. 1 N o. 2, pp. 13-19.
F r eedm a n , J .L., Ca r lsm ith , J .M. a n d Sea r s, D.O.
(1974), S ocia l Psych olog y, P r en tice Ha ll,
E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Gu ja r a ti, D.N. (1995), B a sic Econ om etr ics, 3r d
edition , McGr aw -Hill, Sin ga por e.
Gu m por t, P.J . (1993), “Th e con tested dom a in of
a ca dem ic pr ogr a m r edu ction ”, J ou r n a l of
High er Ed u ca tion , May-J u n e, pp. 281-311.
Ha ck m a n , D.J . (1985), “Power a n d cen tr a lity in th e
a lloca tion of r esou r ces in colle ges a n d u n iver sities”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly,
Ma r ch , Vol. 30, pp. 61-77.
Ha r dy, C. (1992), “Retr en ch m en t str a te gies in two
Ca n a dia n u n iver sities: a politica l a n a lysis”,
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, pp. 180-91.
Ha ssel, L.G. (1993), “Bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion :
m oder a tin g th e in con gr u en ce in bu dget
em ph a sis between th e su per ior a n d su bor din a te”, u n pu blish ed con fer en ce pa per, Eu ropea n A ccou n tin g Con gress, Tu r k u , F in la n d,
pp. 1-15.
Ha ssel, L.G. a n d Cu n n in gh a m , G.M. (1993), “Bu dget effectiven ess in m u ltin a tion a l com pa n ies:
a n em pir ica l exa m in a tion of en vir on m en ta l
in ter a ction on cogn itive a n d a ffective effects
of two dim en sion s of bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion ”, S ca n d in a via n J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t,
Vol. 9 N o. 4, pp. 299-318.
Hen k in , A.B. a n d Per sson , D. (1992), “F a cu lty a s
ga tek eeper s: n on -a ca dem ic sta ff pa r ticipa tion
in u n iver sity gover n a n ce”, J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Vol. 30 N o. 2, pp. 52-64.
Hills, F.S. a n d Ma h on ey, T.A. (1978), “Un iver sity
bu dgets a n d or ga n iza tion a l decision m a k in g”,
A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Septem ber,
Vol. 23, pp. 454-65.
Iva n cevich , J .M. a n d Ma tteson , M.T. (1990), Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior a n d M a n a gem en t, 2n d
edition , Ir w in , Hom ewood, IL.
Ka tz, D. a n d Ka h n , R.L. (1978), T h e S ocia l Psych olog y of Orga n iz a tion s, Wiley, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ken is, L. (1979), “E ffects of bu dgeta r y goa l ch a r a cter istics on m a n a ger ia l a ttitu des a n d per for m a n ce”, T h e A ccou n tin g R eview , October,
Vol. 54 N o. 4, pp. 707-21.
Kr en , L. (1992), “Bu dgeta r y pa r ticipa tion a n d
m a n a ger ia l per for m a n ce: th e im pa ct of in for m a tion a n d en vir on m en ta l vola tility”, T h e
A ccou n tin g R eview , J u ly, Vol. 67 N o. 3,
pp. 511-26.
[ 185 ]
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
[ 186 ]
Mia , L. (1989), “Th e im pa ct of pa r ticipa tion in
bu dgetin g a n d job difficu lty on m a n a ger ia l
per for m a n ce a n d wor k m otiva tion : a r esea r ch
n ote”, A ccou n tin g, Orga n iz a tion s, a n d S ociety,
Vol. 14 N o. 4, pp. 347-57.
Mila n i, K. (1975), “Th e r ela tion sh ip of pa r ticipa tion in bu dget settin g to in du str ia l per for m a n ce a n d a ttitu des: a fi eld stu dy”, T h e
A ccou n tin g R eview , Apr il, pp. 274-84.
Min tzber 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 tice Ha ll, Hem el Hem pstea d.
O’Reilly, B. (1994), “Wh a t’s k illin g th e bu sin ess
sch ool dea n s of Am er ica ?”, For tu n e, Vol. 130
N o. 3, pp. 64-8.
Petr y, J .R. a n d Ken n ey, G.E . (1991), “Th e im pa ct on
h igh er edu ca tion : fu n din g sh or tfa lls a n d th eir
im pa ct on policy m a k in g in th e 1990s”, u n pu blish ed con fer en ce pa per pr esen ted a t An n u a l
Meetin g of th e Am er ica n E du ca tion a l Stu dies
Associa tion , Ka n sa s, MO, 24 October, pp. 1-18.
P feffer, J . a n d Moor e, W.L. (1980), “Power in u n iver sity bu dgetin g: a r eplica tion a n d exten -
sion ”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly,
Vol. 25, pp. 637-53.
P feffer, J . a n d Sa la n cik , G.R. (1974), “Or ga n iza tion a l decision m a k in g a s a politica l pr ocess:
th e ca se of a u n iver sity bu dget”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Vol. 19, pp. 135-51.
Pollitt, C. (1990), “Mea su r in g u n iver sity per for m a n ce: n ever m in d th e qu a lity, n ever m in d
th e w idth ”, High er Ed u ca tion Qu a r terly,
Vol. 44 N o. 1, pp. 60-81.
Por ter, M.E . (1980), Com petitiv e S tra teg y: T ech n iqu es for A n a lysin g In d u str ies a n d Com petitors, F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Saven ije, B. (1992), “Un iver sity bu dgetin g: cr ea tin g in cen tives for ch a n ge?”, R esea rch in
High er Ed u ca tion , Vol 33 N o. 5, pp. 641-56.
Sou th wood, K.E . (1978), “Su bsta n tive th eor y a n d
sta tistica l in ter a ction : fi ve m odels”, A m er ica n
J ou r n a l of S ociolog y, Ma r ch , pp. 1154-203.
Wildavsk y, A. (1974), T h e Politics of th e B u d geta r y
Process, 2n d edition , Little Br ow n , Boston ,
MA.