The influence of organizational culture on the usefulness of budget participation by Singaporean-Chinese managers

Economic transition, strategy and the evolution of management accounting practices: the case of India

“…Fisher (1995) characterized extant contingency research on the basis of model complexity, defined by the number of contingent factors and management control mechanisms considered and by whether the impact of "fit" on organizational outcomes is examined. Although previous reseruch has been conducted at different levels (e.g., industry, firm, division or other sub-groups of a firm), we limit our discussion to research conducted at the level of the firm or major business unit---the level of analysis of this study, Two exogenous contextual factors that have been examined in relation to firm-level management accounting and control practices are: the nature of competition and environmental uncertainty (Khandwalla, 1972;Govindarajan, 1984); and, national culture (Gray, 1988;Skousen & Yang, 1988;Perera, 1989;Frucot and Shearon 1991;O'Connor, 1995).1 Consistent with the strategy-structureperformance paradigm, the most common endogenous factor that has been considered in relation to management accounting practices is firm strategy (Simons, 1987;Govindarajan, 1985Govindarajan, , 1988Govindarajan & Fisher, 1990;Dent, 1990). Other endogenous factors that have been considered are technology (Waterhouse & Tlessen, 1978;Ginzberg, 1980) and organizational culture (Thomas, 1989;O'Connor, 1995).…”

The Influence of Nationality and Gender on Ethical Sensitivity: An Application of the Issue-Contingent Model

“…Even though the Hofstede dimensions are widely utilized in cross-cultural research in accounting, marketing, human resource management, sociology and psychology (e.g., Blodgett et al, 2001;Chow et al, 1994;Chow et al, 1996;Chow et al, 1999;Fijneman et al, 1996;Frucot and Shearon, 1991;Harrison, 1992Harrison, , 1993Harrison et al, 1994;Jackson, 2001;Lau et al, 1995;Lincoln et al, 1986;Mc Sweeney, 2002;Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996;O'Connor, 1995;Vance et al, 1992), some researchers question the applicability of these dimensions to different cultures. For detailed discussions, see Harrison and McKinnon (1999) and Baskerville (2003).…”

Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: a review of the current state

“…Existing cross-cultural MCS research generally corroborates an association between culture (operationalized through measurement of the power distance and individualism/collectivism value dimensions) and participation (measured using the Milani (1975) six-item pencil and paper self-report instrument) (Harrison, 1992;O'Connor, 1995;Lau et al, 1995). However, with (and despite) the exception of the insight into the involvement and in¯uence sub-dimensions of participation in O' Connor's (1995) ®ndings, these studies and their constraining methods reveal nothing about the various forms participation may take in dierent societies, the various purposes participation may serve, or the dynamics of the process whereby participation takes place, including both the vehicles and mechanisms it may use and the roles of dierentiated actors in the participation process.…”

“…While it may be argued that such measurement is not necessary, on the grounds that culture's eects are present in the location of the individual in the society manifesting that culture, nonetheless it seems sensible to assess whether the respondent sample is consistent in its collective values with that of the society it is being used to represent. This is a methodological concern widely applicable to the extant research, in that few studies (exceptions are Chow et al, 1991;Harrison, 1992Harrison, , 1993Harrison et al, 1994;and O'Connor, 1995) have formally measured the cultural dimensions on which they rely for their respondent samples.…”