Confirmatory factor analysis of data (from 5 samples, n = 484 full-time employed management students; n = 550 public administrators; n = 214 university administrators; n = 250 bank managers and employees in Bangladesh; and n = 578 managers and employees) on the 28 items of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II were performed with LISREL 7. The results provided support for the convergent and discriminant validities of the subscales measuring the 5 styles of handling interpersonal conflict (integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising) and general support for the invariance of the 5-factor model across referent roles (i.e., superiors, subordinates, and peers), organizational levels (top, middle, lower, and nonmanagement), and 4 of the 5 samples.

Previous research has shown that outcome favorability and procedural fairness often interact to influence employeesÕ work attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the form of the interaction effect depends upon the dependent variable. Relative to when procedural fairness is low, high procedural fairness: (a) reduces the effect of outcome favorability on employeesÕ appraisals of the system (e.g., organizational commitment), and (b) heightens the effect of outcome favorability on employeesÕ evaluations of themselves (e.g., self-esteem). The present research provided external validity to the latter form of the interaction effect (Studies 1 and 4). We also found that the latter form of the interaction effect was based on peopleÕs use of procedural fairness information to make self-attributions for their outcomes (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, both forms of the interaction effect were obtained in Study 4, suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Previous accounting research has suggested that subordinate participation in the budgetary process has two cognitive aspects: ( I ) participation enhances budget quality, and hence the utility of budgets, by allowing subordinates to introduce private knowledge into the budgetary process, and (2) participation enables subordinates to obtain information that is relevant to performing their jobs. This study tests a model that encompasses both cognitive aspects of budgetary participation. Data were gathered with a questionnaire distributed to managers from a variety of different national origins who were working in many different global locations. The data were analysed with latent variable structural equation modelling, which provides several advantages over more conventional analytic methods generally used in budgetary participation and other behavioural accounting research. The results indicated that participation enhances budget quality and that budget quality, in turn, has a positive effect on budget utility. Participation was also found to have a direct and positive effect on job-relevant information. The results failed to support a proposed indirect effect of participation on job-relevant information through the enhancement of budget quality.

Purpose -To summarize the findings of empirical studies the authors have conducted regarding budgetary procedures fairness and to discuss key implications of these findings. Design/methodology/approach -Summary and synthesis of the authors' empirical research. Findings -Identifies criteria for, and types of attitudinal and behavioral reactions that managers have toward, formal budgetary procedures fairness and budgetary procedures implementation fairness. Provides information regarding how the two forms of budgetary procedures fairness work together to influence managers' attitudes and behaviors, and how they reduce managers' negative reactions to unfavorable budgets. Presents reasons that fair budgetary procedures are important to managers.Research limitations/implications -The authors' studies used questionnaire data where all variables were measured at a single point in time, which provides little control over unmeasured variables and direction of causality. Future research should seek to expand the sets of criteria for and reactions toward budgetary procedures fairness, as well as to further detail the processes by which budgetary procedures fairness works. Also, relationships involving budgetary procedures fairness should be examined by means of laboratory experiments. Practical implications -Underscores the importance of promoting formal budgetary procedures fairness and budgetary procedures implementation fairness in organizational budgetary systems, and provides concrete guidance in this regard. Originality/value -Provides useful information to accounting and audit staff, budget committee members, supervisors, and other employees involved in designing and implementing organizational budgetary systems and to budgeting researchers.

No abstract