INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Personal and Environmental Antecedents of Budgetary  
Participation: A Literature Review within the Lens of Social  
Cognitive Theory  
Praja Hadi Saputra1, Mohd Lizam2*  
1,2Faculty of Technology Management & Business, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia  
1Faculty of Economics, Business & Politics, Universitas Muhammadiyah Kalimantan Timur  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91200052  
Received: 10 December 2025; Accepted: 17 December 2025; Published: 31 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This literature review investigates the personal and environmental drivers influencing budget participation. This  
is important because budgetary participation extends beyond a procedural task; it represents a cognitive and  
behavioral process influenced by individual capabilities and the context in which employees operate. A  
comprehensive understanding of these determinants enables organizations to develop budgeting systems that  
more effectively enhance employee motivation, minimize uncertainty, improve communication quality, and  
ultimately reinforce the overall effectiveness of decision-making. The current study considers two personal  
factors (self-efficacy and locus of control) and two environmental antecedents (task uncertainty and information  
technology for enhanced communication). Guided by Social Cognitive Theory, the review synthesizes how  
employees' cognitive beliefs interact with organizational conditions to influence their involvement in budgeting  
processes. Prior research shows that self-efficacy reinforces employees' confidence in contributing effectively  
to budget formulation, while locus of control affects their perceived autonomy and influence over budget  
outcomes. Environmentally, task uncertainty can stimulate greater participation when individuals seek clarity,  
yet may suppress involvement when ambiguity becomes excessive. Meanwhile, the adoption of information  
technology that enhances communication improves access to information, transparency, and collaborative  
decision-making, creating an environment that supports more active engagement. Therefore, this review  
provides a structured understanding of how personal and environmental factors, viewed through the lens of  
Social Cognitive Theory, shape employees' budgetary participation for both practitioners and researchers.  
Keywords: Budget participation, Self-efficacy, Locus of control, Task uncertainty, Information technology for  
enhanced communication, Social Cognitive Theory  
INTRODUCTION  
In contemporary organizational settings, budgetary participation has become a central topic in management  
accounting research due to its critical role in shaping employee behavior, decision-making quality, and overall  
organizational performance. Rather than being merely a procedural step in budget formulation, budgetary  
participation reflects a complex cognitive and behavioral process influenced by individuals' characteristics and  
the environments in which they operate. Understanding the personal and environmental antecedents that drive  
employees' involvement in budgeting is vital for organizations seeking to design practical and motivational  
budgeting systems. At the behavioral level, participatory budgeting fosters knowledge sharing and cross-  
functional collaboration, which is essential for generating novel ideas and implementing innovative solutions.  
Employees actively involved in budget decisions are more likely to share insights and contribute diverse  
perspectives, creating collective intelligence that drives innovation (Guisado-González et al., 2021).  
Furthermore, initiative-taking and risk tolerance are directly linked to the supportive and transparent  
environment cultivated through participatory practices (Zhang et al., 2019). These behaviors ultimately influence  
Page 593  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
job outcomes, as measured by the generation and implementation of creative solutions, process improvements,  
and new product development (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Damanpour, 1991).  
Research grounded in psychology emphasizes individual-level analysis, recognizing that the effects of budgetary  
processes differ across individuals (Covaleski et al., 2006). Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) offers a  
robust framework for understanding how budgetary participation may influence innovation performance. The  
theory posits that the dynamic interplay of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors shapes human  
behavior. In the context of organizational innovation, participatory budgeting can be a key environmental factor  
shaping employee cognition and behavior. When actively involved in budget-setting, employees are likely to  
perceive greater psychological ownership, leading to enhanced intrinsic motivation and greater commitment to  
organizational goals (Bandura, 1997; Zhang et al., 2019). This involvement, in turn, fosters an environment  
conducive to creativity and innovation by encouraging risk-taking, knowledge-sharing, and collaborative  
problem-solving (Guisado-González et al., 2021).  
The conceptual model underpinning this review draws from Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) to elucidate the  
mechanisms linking personal and environmental factors to budgetary participation. Personal factors, such as  
employees' self-efficacy and locus of control, influence participatory budgeting practices, providing individuals  
with a sense of agency and control over their work environment. This psychological empowerment encourages  
behaviors critical for innovation, such as creativity, collaboration, and proactive problem-solving (Amabile,  
1988; Bandura, 1999). Environmental factors, including organizational culture, leadership style, and resource  
availability, further shape these behaviors by enabling or constraining employees' capacity to innovate  
(Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Hofstede, 2001).  
Despite the extensive body of research on budgetary participation, empirical findings regarding its determinants  
remain fragmented and, in many cases, inconclusive (Bartocci et al., 2023). Studies have shown that not all  
employees respond equally to opportunities for participation; some perceive budget involvement as empowering,  
while others view it as burdensome or symbolic, reflecting compliance rather than genuine engagement. These  
inconsistencies highlight a persistent gap in understanding why participation levels vary significantly across  
organizational contexts and among individuals who operate under the same budgeting system. Moreover, many  
organizations continue to struggle with implementing participatory budgeting effectively, as participation often  
becomes a formality rather than a meaningful process that reflects employees' cognitive, motivational, and  
contextual realities. This gap underscores the need for a more integrated theoretical lens that can explain how  
personal dispositions and environmental conditions jointly shape employees' willingness and ability to  
participate. SCT provides a robust framework for understanding how individual factors, such as self-efficacy  
and locus of control, interact with environmental influences, including organizational culture and leadership  
style, to shape participatory budgeting behaviors. However, the application of this theory in the budgeting  
literature remains limited and lacks a synthesis.  
Therefore, this literature review aims to consolidate dispersed empirical evidence, identify theoretical  
inconsistencies, and offer a more coherent understanding of the personal and environmental antecedents of  
budgetary participation. By applying Social Cognitive Theory as the guiding lens, this study seeks to advance  
theoretical clarity and offer insights that can inform both future research and the design of more effective  
participatory budgeting practices in organizations.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
Defining Budgetary Participation  
The exploration of managerial involvement in decision-making has been a longstanding area of interest in  
management accounting literature, particularly within studies centered on budgeting. Harris & Durden (2012)  
highlighted that budgeting studies that include managerial participation constitute a significant category within  
current themes and concerns in management accounting. This emphasis may be more critical than other  
budgeting-related variables (Brownell, 1981). Argyris (1952) highlighted numerous advantages of enabling  
employee involvement in decision-making, particularly in the budgeting process. He asserted that the crux of  
Page 594  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
achieving effective performance lies in garnering acceptance of budgetary goals, with subordinates' active  
participation playing a pivotal role in this attainment.  
Furthermore, budgetary participation, especially within participative management, presents numerous  
advantages for organizations, particularly concerning employees. According to Macinati & Rizzo (2014),  
budgetary participation is crucial in motivating employees to exhibit positive behaviors. In the context of  
budgetary participation, subordinates can combine their specialized knowledge and experience to make more  
informed budgetary decisions.  
Budgetary participation refers to the involvement of individuals within an organization, typically employees at  
various levels, in creating, determining, or influencing the budgetary decisions of the organization. It  
encompasses a participative approach in which individuals contribute to formulating, negotiating, or approving  
budgets, offering insights, perspectives, and expertise on financial and resource allocation. This participation  
can take various forms, from direct involvement in setting specific budget targets or providing input on resource  
allocation to having a say in the overall budgeting process. It is not merely about creating budgets but also  
involves engaging employees in discussions, soliciting their ideas, and considering their input to make the  
budgeting process more inclusive and reflective of the diverse perspectives within the organization.  
The concept of budgetary participation aims to empower individuals by giving them a role in budget decision-  
making. It is often associated with the belief that involving employees in setting budgetary goals and targets can  
lead to increased motivation, greater commitment to organizational objectives, a better understanding of  
financial constraints, and, ultimately, improved performance and goal attainment. Budgetary participation is of  
significant importance in organizational settings. One primary rationale for implementing budgetary  
participation systems within companies is to enhance individual motivation and improve performance. One  
perspective posits that "engaging in participation enhances a subordinate's trust, sense of control, and personal  
investment in the organization, leading collectively to reduced resistance to change and increased acceptance  
and dedication to budget decisions, consequently resulting in enhanced performance" (Shields & Shields, 1998).  
This viewpoint is supported by Chong & Chong (2002), who argue that involving subordinates in activities such  
as budget-setting or in budget-related decisions can establish a favorable organizational environment and  
enhance performance.  
Social Cognitive Theory  
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), developed by Albert Bandura, offers an extensive explanatory framework for  
understanding human behavior as the product of ongoing interactions among personal, environmental, and  
behavioral determinants. Building on principles from Social Learning Theory, Bandura advanced the notion that  
individuals are not passive recipients of external influences but are capable of intentional action, reflective  
thought, and anticipatory self-guidance (Bandura, 1986, 1999). This perspective positions individuals as  
adaptive agents who actively interpret and influence their surroundings.  
Central to SCT is the principle of triadic reciprocal causation, which posits that cognition and affective states,  
environmental conditions, and behavioral responses continuously and mutually influence one another. Instead  
of assuming a unidirectional or static causal sequence, the theory highlights the dynamic and bidirectional  
interplay among these factors. Such an interactive framework is particularly relevant for complex organizational  
processes, including budgetary participation, where decisions emerge from the simultaneous influence of  
personal beliefs, contextual cues, and prior behavioral experiences. A distinctive contribution of SCT is its  
agentic view of human functioning, emphasizing individuals' capacity for self-regulation, deliberate goal setting,  
and evaluative judgment. Constructs such as self-efficacy, self-observation, and reflective appraisal elucidate  
how individuals assess their capabilities, monitor progress, and maintain effort in challenging contexts. These  
mechanisms are critical in organizational environments, where managerial decisions depend not only on  
structural controls or incentives but also on subjective interpretations of competence and control.  
Within management accounting research, SCT has been instrumental in explaining how personal characteristics  
and contextual supports jointly shape managerial behavior. Wood and Bandura (1989) demonstrated the theory's  
value in clarifying how psychological processes mediate the relationship between organizational systems and  
Page 595  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
performance outcomes. For instance, a manager's belief in their capability to execute budgeting tasks influences  
their readiness to participate in planning activities, while environmental enablers, such as accessible information  
systems or reduced task ambiguity, reinforce confidence and support effective behavioral engagement.  
RESEARCH METHOD  
This study employs a qualitative literature review approach to synthesize existing knowledge on the personal  
and environmental determinants of budgetary participation, examined through the theoretical lens of Social  
Cognitive Theory (SCT). To fulfill this objective, the review systematically analyzes a wide range of scholarly  
sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles and reputable research reports. The analysis focuses on two  
major domains: (1) personal factors such as self-efficacy and locus of control, and (2) environmental factors  
including task uncertainty and information technology support. Each domain is reviewed with attention to how  
these constructs influence managerial engagement in budgeting activities, consistent with SCT's emphasis on  
reciprocal interactions between individuals and their work environment. The key insights from the reviewed  
literature are synthesized in the final section, providing a consolidated understanding of antecedents that shape  
budget participation behavior.  
DISCUSSION  
Personal Antecedents that Initiate Employees' Budgetary Participation  
The inclusion of self-efficacy and locus of control as key personal determinants in this review is based on their  
centrality within Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1999), which underscores the influence of cognitive  
appraisals on human action. Self-efficacy captures individuals' confidence in their capacity to perform tasks and  
manage obstacles. In contrast, locus of control reflects the extent to which individuals perceive outcomes as  
contingent upon their own actions or external circumstances. These constructs have been extensively employed  
in managerial and behavioral accounting scholarship to explain variations in motivation, initiative-taking, and  
decision behaviors (Ahmad et al., 2022; Paramaswary et al., 2024). In the budgetary context, managers who hold  
stronger beliefs in their capabilities and view themselves as agents capable of shaping outcomes tend to be more  
involved in budgeting activities. Both constructs are therefore consistent with SCT's focus on personal agency  
and self-regulatory processes as foundations for purposeful, goal-oriented behavior.  
Self-Efficacy on Budgetary Participation  
Self-efficacy has long been recognized as a central motivational construct within contemporary psychological  
theory, serving as a foundational element in frameworks such as Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1999) and  
Goal-Setting Theory (Latham & Locke, 1991). Its prominence stems from early evidence demonstrating that  
individuals' beliefs in their capabilities strongly influence how they confront challenges and regulate their own  
behavior. Following Bandura's foundational work in the late 1970s, self-efficacy has been conceptualized as  
individuals' judgments regarding their ability to execute specific tasks effectively and to manage the situational  
demands associated with those tasks.  
Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) extend this view by defining self-efficacy as a conviction in one's capacity to  
mobilize motivation, cognitive resources, and action strategies required to accomplish particular goals. This  
belief system is critical because it shapes individuals' willingness to engage with strenuous activities, the  
intensity of effort they exert, and the persistence they demonstrate when encountering obstacles. In essence, self-  
efficacy reflects an internalized expectation about one's performance potential; individuals with strong efficacy  
beliefs are more inclined to approach demanding tasks with confidence and view challenges as opportunities to  
demonstrate competence rather than threats to be avoided. Consequently, high self-efficacy typically translates  
into stronger motivation, deeper task engagement, and more consistent performance (Wood & Bandura, 1989).  
For more than three decades, self-efficacy has served as a core variable in organizational behavior research, often  
examined as an antecedent, mediator, or moderator in models of job performance and other work-related  
outcomes. Empirical studies consistently demonstrate that self-efficacy influences performance through  
mechanisms such as greater effort investment, elevated personal goal standards, perseverance under pressure,  
Page 596  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
and more effective problem-solving strategies (Bandura, 1986; Latham et al., 1994). Research across multiple  
sectors corroborates its predictive strength. Luthans and Peterson (2002), for example, show that managerial  
self-efficacy significantly enhances managerial effectiveness and strengthens the linkage between employee  
engagement and managerial outcomes. Similar results have been documented in various cultural and  
occupational contexts, including evidence that self-efficacy partially mediates the effects of leadership on job  
satisfaction (Liu et al., 2010) and that employees with higher efficacy beliefs consistently demonstrate superior  
performance (Etehadi & Karatepe, 2019).  
Within the budgeting domain, empirical work has begun to highlight the relevance of self-efficacy in shaping  
managers' involvement in the budgeting process. Macinati et al. (2016) provide evidence that self-efficacy  
contributes meaningfully to the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial performance.  
Participatory budgeting creates opportunities to exchange operational knowledge, clarify managerial  
responsibilities, and align organizational expectations. When viewed through the lens of self-efficacy, managers  
who strongly believe in their ability to meet budget targets and navigate budget-related tasks are more motivated  
to participate in budget discussions and contribute their insights. Participation becomes not merely a procedural  
activity but an expression of confidence in fulfilling the responsibilities embedded in budget execution. Further  
reinforcing this relationship, Latham et al. (1994) argue that participative decision-making is closely linked to  
self-efficacy and that this connection plays a critical role in enhancing performance. Managers with higher self-  
efficacy are more likely to interpret successes and failures in budgeting as within their sphere of control, thereby  
strengthening their willingness to engage in future budgeting cycles. Conversely, managers with weak efficacy  
beliefs tend to avoid budget-setting activities, perceiving them as arenas where their lack of capability might be  
exposed. Taken together, the literature suggests that self-efficacy functions as a pivotal personal antecedent of  
budgetary participation. It shapes how managers evaluate their capacity to contribute to budgeting, influences  
the extent of their involvement, and ultimately affects the quality of decisions and outcomes produced through  
the budgeting system.  
Table 1: Synthesis of Prior Study on Self-Efficacy and Budgetary Participation  
Author(s)  
& Years  
Research  
Context/Method  
Key concept of Self- Key Findings  
Efficacy  
Implication  
Budgetary  
for  
Participation  
Bandura  
(1977,  
1986, 1999)  
Foundational  
psychological  
studies  
Self-efficacy is defined High  
as an individual's belief enhances persistence, basis that individuals  
in their capability to effort, and task with higher  
execute tasks; a engagement  
foundational construct  
in Social Cognitive  
self-efficacy Provide a theoretical  
confidence are more  
willing to engage in  
complex tasks, such  
as budgeting  
Theory  
Latham  
Locke  
& Organizational  
psychology  
Link  
setting,  
between  
goal- Participation enhances Suggests  
that  
the  
participation, self-efficacy, which in participatory process  
(1991);  
Latham  
al. (1994)  
and self-efficacy  
turn  
performance  
improves in  
strengthens  
budgeting  
task-  
et  
related confidence  
Wood  
Bandura  
(1989)  
& Experimental and Self-regulatory  
field settings mechanisms  
Self-efficacy  
influences the choice individuals confident  
of  
Suggests that  
activities, in their abilities are  
and more likely to initiate  
persistence,  
performance strategies and  
involvement  
complex  
processes  
sustain  
in  
budgeting  
Page 597  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Stajkovic & Conceptual  
Luthans  
(1998)  
and Self-efficacy  
empirical study belief in the ability to performance through confident  
mobilize resources and motivation and abilities  
actions persistence  
is  
the Strong predictor of job Employees who are  
in  
their  
are  
more  
inclined to participate  
in decision-making  
activities  
Luthans & Managers  
in Managerial self-efficacy Self-efficacy  
Higher self-efficacy  
Peterson  
(2002)  
Various  
Sectors  
UK  
positively  
managerial  
effectiveness  
predicts may  
increase  
meaningful  
participation  
in  
budgeting activities  
Lui et al. Employees  
in Self-efficacy  
as  
a Self-efficacy partially Demonstrates  
the  
(2010)  
multiple sectors in mediator variable  
China  
mediates the effect of mediating nature of  
transformational  
self-efficacy  
in  
leadership  
on  
job organizational  
satisfaction  
processes, including  
budgeting  
Macinati et Healthcare  
Self-efficacy and job Self-efficacy mediates Direct evidence that  
al. (2016)  
managers in Italy  
engagement  
the  
between  
participation  
performance  
relationship higher  
budgetary increases motivation  
and to participate in  
budgeting due to a  
self-efficacy  
stronger  
belief  
in  
completing  
related tasks  
budget-  
Etehadi  
Karatepe  
(2019)  
& Hospitality sector Performance-related  
Higher  
enhances  
performance  
self-efficacy The study implies that  
employees  
self-efficacy  
employee self-efficacy  
strengthen  
may  
engagement  
in  
performance-oriented  
tasks  
such  
as  
budgeting  
Locus of Control on Budgetary Participation  
Asecond key personal factor within Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory that helps explain variations in budgetary  
participation is locus of control. Within the triadic reciprocal framework, individual dispositions interact  
continuously with environmental conditions to shape behavioral outcomes. Locus of control is an essential socio-  
cognitive construct because it captures systematic differences in how individuals perceive their ability to  
influence events and outcomes around them (Domino et al., 2015). Originating from Rotter's (1966) social  
learning theory, it has become a foundational variable in understanding behavioral responses across diverse  
contexts, including organizational decision-making.  
The concept refers to individuals' generalized beliefs about the extent to which life events are under their personal  
control. Individuals with an internal locus of control view outcomes as consequences of their own decisions and  
efforts; they perceive themselves as responsible for successes and failures. In contrast, individuals with an  
external locus of control attribute outcomes to factors beyond their control, such as chance, fate, or external  
authority (Gil et al., 2017). These differing beliefs help explain why some individuals actively confront  
challenging situations while others experience disengagement or helplessness. In organizational settings, locus  
of control has been used to explain variations in motivation, effort, and responses to managerial systems. It is  
Page 598  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
generally conceptualized as a belief system influencing whether employees perceive work-related rewards, such  
as pay, promotions, recognition, or performance evaluations, as contingent upon their behavior or determined by  
external forces (Rotter, 1966; Spector, 1988). These beliefs influence not only individual behavior but also  
managerial effectiveness and role engagement.  
Research on participative budgeting has long recognized locus of control as a significant antecedent shaping  
budgeting behavior. In early work, Brownell (1981) demonstrated that locus of control moderates the  
relationship between budgetary participation and performance: managers with a stronger internal locus of control  
exhibited higher motivation and engagement in budgetary participation than those with an external locus of  
control. Subsequent cross-cultural research by Frucot and Shearon (1991) confirmed these findings among  
Mexican managers, showing that internality strengthens the participation–performance relationship, particularly  
among higher-level managers. More recent work continues to support the notion that locus of control positively  
influences managers' intentions to participate in budget-setting procedures (Mahlendorf et al., 2015).  
A growing body of literature also underscores locus of control as a factor explaining inconsistent findings in  
participative budgeting research. Gil et al. (2017) argue that discrepancies between budgetary participation and  
performance may be partially attributed to managers with an external locus of control, who fail to see a  
connection between their behavior and organizational outcomes. Such individuals are less motivated to  
contribute to budgeting because they perceive little personal influence. Conversely, managers with an internal  
locus of control exhibit stronger motivation, greater involvement in decision-making, and improved  
performance, which, in turn, translate into higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Chhabra,  
2019). Together, these findings highlight locus of control as a pivotal psychological mechanism through which  
individual differences shape participative budgeting behavior. As a personal antecedent, it determines not only  
the extent to which managers choose to engage in budget-setting but also how effectively they use participatory  
processes to enhance performance outcomes.  
Table 2: Synthesis of Prior Study on Locus of Control and Budgetary Participation  
Author(s)  
& Years  
Research  
Context/Method  
Key Concept of Locus Key Findings  
of Control  
Implication  
Budgetary Participation  
for  
Rotter  
(1966)  
Social  
Theory  
Learning Locus  
defines  
beliefs regarding the control  
degree of control over psychological  
of  
Control Identifies internal vs Individuals  
with  
an  
individuals' external  
locus  
as  
of internal locus of control  
distinct perceive stronger personal  
control, making them more  
likely to engage actively in  
decision processes such as  
budgeting  
life events  
orientations  
Spector  
(1988)  
Organizational  
psychology  
Locus  
influences  
of  
control Internal  
behavioral control  
locus  
linked  
of Employees with an internal  
to locus of control exhibit a  
expectations regarding higher motivation and greater  
willingness  
to  
work outcomes belief in self-driven influence work processes,  
outcomes  
including  
budgetary  
participation  
Brownell  
(1981)  
Laboratory  
experiment  
U.S. Managers  
Examines  
locus  
of Internal  
locus  
of Internals locus of control is  
motivated to  
on control as a personality control strengthens the more  
factor moderating performance effects of participate  
behavioral responses  
in  
budget-  
perceiving  
as  
budgetary  
participation,  
setting,  
and participation  
externals respond less  
meaningful  
controllable  
and  
Page 599  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Frucot  
Shearon  
(1991)  
& Survey  
Mexican  
on Replicates  
model in a different interaction  
cultural setting locus of control and stronger engagement in  
Brownell's Confirms  
significant Internal locus of control  
between consistently predicts  
Managers  
budgetary  
participation  
performance  
participatory  
in even across  
contexts  
budgeting,  
cultural  
Mahlendorf  
et al. (2015)  
Field Study  
Investigates individual's Locus  
locus of control predicts  
differences in budgeting intentions in budget- intentions to participate in  
of  
control Internal locus of control  
managerial positively  
influences  
behavior  
related tasks  
budget-setting  
Domino et Socio-cognitive  
al. (2015) framework  
Locus of control as an Locus  
essential socio- captures  
cognitive trait within differences  
Social Cognitive Theory behavioral  
expectations  
of  
control Integration of locus of  
cognitive control  
shaping participation  
strengthens  
into  
budgetary  
models  
Social  
Cognitive  
Theory-based  
explanations of budgeting  
behavior  
Gil et al. Organizational  
Examines the mismatch An external locus of External locus of control  
between participation control leads to a shows lower motivation to  
(2017)  
behavior study  
expectations  
outcomes  
and weaker  
linkage  
perceived participate, and internal  
between locus of control finds  
behavior  
and participation  
more  
outcomes  
rewarding and efficacious  
Chhabra  
(2019)  
Employee attitude Focuses on locus of Internal  
study control and  
related attitudes  
locus  
of Internal locus of control  
work- control is associated may indirectly encourage  
with higher job active budget participation  
and through enhanced  
satisfaction  
commitment  
commitment and proactive  
behavior  
Environmental Antecedents that Initiate Employees' Budgetary Participation  
From an environmental standpoint, this study incorporates task uncertainty and information technology (IT)  
support as key contextual conditions that shape the managerial decision environment. Within the framework of  
Social Cognitive Theory, environmental cues are understood to interact dynamically with personal cognitions,  
influencing behavioral choices through mechanisms such as situational feedback, modeled experiences, and  
expectations regarding potential outcomes (Bandura, 2001). Task uncertainty captures the extent to which work  
activities are characterized by ambiguity, unpredictability, and frequent change features that may either constrain  
or encourage managers' involvement in budgeting, depending on how these conditions are interpreted and  
addressed (Frederica & Augustine, 2020). In parallel, IT-enabled communication plays an increasingly vital role  
in fostering participatory budgeting by ensuring timely information sharing and supporting coordination,  
particularly when technological systems are accessible, dependable, and integrated into routine workflows  
(Jaiswal et al., 2022). These environmental factors are especially pertinent in manufacturing environments,  
where effective budgeting relies heavily on inter-unit collaboration and accurate, real-time information flows.  
Task Uncertainty on Budgetary Participation  
Task uncertainty has long been recognized as a central environmental variable in management accounting  
research, particularly in studies examining budgeting behavior and control systems (Brownell & Dunk, 1991;  
Chong, 1996; Chong & Johnson, 2007; Hartmann & Maas, 2011; Maiga, 2005; Williams & Seaman, 2002).  
Page 600  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Prior findings consistently show that when managers operate under ambiguous or unpredictable task conditions,  
they tend to seek greater involvement in budgeting to reduce uncertainty and facilitate information exchange.  
For example, Brownell and Dunk (1991) observed that Australian manufacturing managers experiencing high  
levels of task uncertainty were more inclined to participate in budgeting because the process enabled the sharing  
of essential information, even in contexts where budget emphasis was minimal. Similarly, Maiga (2005)  
demonstrated that task-related uncertainty significantly influenced both communication and influence within the  
budgeting process among U.S. managers, underscoring its role as a meaningful antecedent of budgetary  
participation.  
Within the framework of Social Cognitive Theory, this study conceptualizes task uncertainty as an environmental  
condition that shapes managers' motivation to engage in budget-setting activities. The existing literature suggests  
that when task environments are characterized by ambiguity or rapid change, managers rely more heavily on  
management accounting mechanisms to acquire, interpret, and integrate critical information (Chong, 1996).  
Budgetary participation, as a core component of such systems (Atkinson et al., 2012), provides a structured  
platform for managers and subordinates to exchange knowledge, clarify expectations, and make more informed  
decisions. Participatory budgeting, therefore, becomes particularly valuable in uncertain environments because  
it provides managers with a broader range of operational, financial, and strategic insights needed to develop  
accurate and achievable budgets.  
In situations of high task uncertainty, the demand for timely, diverse information intensifies. Managers who  
actively participate in budget formulation are better positioned to collect relevant information, refine their  
understanding of task requirements, and adapt their decisions accordingly. This increased access to information  
enhances their ability to meet budget targets and perform effectively. Consequently, organizations operating in  
uncertain task environments are likely to stimulate higher levels of managerial participation in budgeting, as the  
process supports information acquisition, reduces ambiguity, and strengthens managerial capability in realizing  
budget objectives.  
Table 3: Synthesis of Prior Study on Task Uncertainty and Budgetary Participation  
Author(s) & Research  
Key Concept of Task Key Findings  
Uncertainty  
Implication  
Budgetary  
for  
Years  
Context/Method  
Participation  
Brownell & Australian  
Dunk (1991) manufacturing  
managers  
Task  
characterized  
ambiguous  
uncertainty  
is Managers facing high High task uncertainty  
by task uncertainty tend to increases the need for  
task rely  
more  
on open communication  
requirements  
and participative budgeting channels,  
in because it serves as a managers  
motivating  
to  
frequent  
changes  
operational  
conditions, mechanism for sharing participate actively in  
which require continuous critical information  
information exchange.  
budgeting to reduce  
ambiguity and enhance  
coordination  
Chong  
(1996)  
Australian  
managers  
Task  
indicates the extent to uncertain tasks depend budgeting  
which tasks lack on management more valuable because  
structure and predictable accounting systems to it functions as a key  
uncertainty Managers dealing with Participatory  
becomes  
outcomes, prompting a obtain  
need for more timely information  
information  
diverse  
and mechanism  
acquiring  
for  
the  
information needed to  
handle  
uncertainty  
effectively  
Page 601  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Williams & Cross-industry  
Task  
encompasses  
uncertainty Task  
conditions  
uncertainty Budget  
participation  
Seaman  
managers  
intensify provides a structured  
unpredictability in task managers' reliance on platform to exchange  
conditions that requires participative expectations and  
managers to adjust their mechanisms to align mitigate the adverse  
actions frequently  
expectations and clarify effects of ambiguity  
responsibilities  
Maiga  
(2005)  
U.S.  
respondents  
managerial Task uncertainty refers to Environmental  
a lack of clarity regarding uncertainty  
task outcomes, significantly influences utilize budgeting as an  
procedures, and required budget communication information-gathering  
resources that affect and budget influence, tool, strengthening  
the two core their involvement in  
dimensions  
budgetary participation  
Under  
conditions, managers  
uncertain  
decision-making  
accuracy  
of both  
communicating  
and influencing budget  
decisions  
Chong  
Johnson  
(2007)  
& Financial services Task  
employees represents variability in budgeting  
task processes and depends on the degree budgeting  
outcomes that heightens of uncertainty managers  
uncertainty The effectiveness of When  
uncertainty  
practices rises, involvement in  
provides  
with  
information needs for surrounding tasks and essential opportunities  
accurate  
evaluation  
performance workflow complexity  
to secure information  
and justify resource  
allocations  
Hartmann & European  
Maas (2011) managers  
Task uncertainty reflects Managers  
a gap between available uncertainty  
in  
high- Shared  
improves  
benefit and  
information required to more from participatory uncertainty  
perform tasks effectively controls that enable collective  
shared sense-making  
participation  
alignment  
reduces  
information  
and  
the environments  
through  
interpretation  
information  
of  
Information and Communication Technology on Budgetary Participation  
As a core planning mechanism in management accounting, budgetary participation enables managers at all  
hierarchical levels and across functional units to share supplementary insights and exchange information  
necessary for developing more accurate and informed budget decisions. Consistent with the principle of  
timeliness, integrating information technology (IT) into communication processes enhances the speed and  
quality of information flows, thereby strengthening the effectiveness of participative budgeting. Winata and Mia  
(2005) argue that the use of IT-based communication tools improves the quality of managerial involvement in  
budget-setting by ensuring timely access to relevant information. Their empirical evidence demonstrates that  
hotel managers' reliance on IT for communication is positively associated with both their level of budgetary  
participation and their perceived performance.  
Furthermore, Maiga et al. (2014) emphasize that IT serves as a critical enabler of information exchange between  
supervisors and subordinates during the budgeting process. Their findings indicate that, within manufacturing  
firms, IT-supported communication significantly reinforces the relationship between budgetary participation and  
managerial performance. Collectively, these studies suggest that IT-enhanced communication is an essential  
contextual factor that enhances the efficiency, accuracy, and utility of participative budgeting.  
Table 4: Synthesis of Prior Study on Information & Communication Technology and Budgetary Participation  
Page 602  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Author(s)  
& Years  
Research  
Context/Method  
Key Concept of ICT  
Key Findings  
Implication  
Budgetary  
for  
Participation  
Winata  
& Empirical study in IT support enhances the Use  
of  
IT-based IT systems facilitate  
Mia (2005)  
the  
industry  
managers)  
hospitality timeliness, accessibility, communication  
is faster  
information  
enabling  
to  
(hotel and  
quality  
used  
of positively  
in with  
associated exchange,  
managers' managers  
participate  
information  
managerial  
making  
decision- budgetary  
participation  
more  
and effectively in budget-  
perceived performance setting and contribute  
higher-quality input  
Maiga et al. Empirical  
IT support serves as an IT-enabled  
in integrative communication  
communication significantly  
Strong  
communication  
systems  
IT  
(2014)  
research  
manufacturing  
firms  
strengthen  
mechanism  
organizational  
between influences  
levels participation–  
the the usefulness  
of  
by  
accurate,  
participation  
ensuring  
by timely  
during budgeting  
performance  
relationship  
information  
budget  
improving the flow of for  
information  
superiors  
between formulation  
and  
subordinates  
CONCLUSION  
In conclusion, the accumulated evidence underscores the central role of personal and environmental conditions  
in shaping employees' engagement in budget participation. Over the years, research has increasingly emphasized  
that participation in budgeting is not solely an administrative requirement, but a cognitive–behavioral process  
influenced by individuals' beliefs, capabilities, and perceptions of their work environment. These studies  
collectively show that when organizational settings provide supportive structures, clear expectations, and  
constructive supervisory behaviors, employees exhibit stronger psychological readiness to participate  
meaningfully in budgeting activities. At the same time, personal characteristics, such as self-efficacy, locus of  
control, and professional commitment, enhance individuals' confidence and motivation to contribute to the  
budgeting process, ultimately strengthening organizational decision quality and performance.  
The literature further reveals that many scholars have predominantly explored how leadership styles,  
interpersonal dynamics, and organizational culture shape employees' budgeting behavior. However, empirical  
findings directly linking emerging contemporary factors, such as digitalization, remote collaboration, or  
technology-enabled monitoring, to budget participation remain limited. Although related studies have examined  
these elements in the context of broader management practices, their specific influence on budgeting engagement  
has yet to be clearly established. This gap presents a promising direction for future investigations, particularly  
within the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) framework, where technological and structural influences may interact  
with personal cognition and behavioral outcomes.  
Overall, findings across the reviewed literature suggest that when supervisors demonstrate supportive, ethical,  
and participative leadership behaviors, employees are more inclined to internalize budgeting responsibilities and  
engage proactively in the process. Strong leader–subordinate relationships promote trust, psychological safety,  
and shared understanding, factors that, according to SCT, strengthen reciprocal interactions between personal  
cognition, environmental cues, and behavioral decisions. Consequently, effective leadership not only enhances  
the technical quality of budgets but also fosters a collaborative environment that supports continuous  
performance improvement.  
Page 603  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
This review contributes meaningful theoretical and practical insights into the antecedents and consequences of  
budget participation. The identified personal and environmental drivers can inform organizational policies to  
enhance participation-based control systems across both public and private institutions. Understanding these  
determinants enables organizations to refine their managerial practices, strengthen participative mechanisms,  
and design interventions that promote sustained employee involvement, thereby supporting more robust and  
adaptive budgeting processes.  
REFERENCES  
1. Amabile, T. M. (1988). Amodel of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational  
Behavior, 10. 123-167.  
2. Bandura, A. (1986). From Thought to Action: mechanisms of Personal Agency. New Zealand Journal of  
Psychology, 15(1), 1–17.  
3. Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory of Personality. Handbook of Personality, 2. 1-81.  
4. Bartocci, L., Grossi, G., Mauro, S. G., & Ebdon, C. (2023). The journey of participatory budgeting: a  
systematic literature review and future research directions. International Review of Administrative  
Sciences, 89(3). 757-774. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221078938  
5. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. & Mol, M.J. (2008). Management Innovation. Academy of Management  
Review, 33. 825-845. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421969  
6. Brownell, P. (1981). Participation in budgeting, locus of control and organizational effectiveness. The  
Accounting Review, 56(4), 844–860.  
7. Brownell, P., & Dunk, A. S. (1991). Task uncertainty and its interaction with budgetary participation and  
budget emphasis: Some methodological issues and empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations  
and Society, 16(8). 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90020-F  
8. Chhabra, B. (2019). Locus of control as a moderator in the relationship between job satisfaction and  
organizational commitment: a study of Indian IT professionals. Organizations and Markets in Emerging  
Economies, 4(2), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2013.4.2.14248  
9. Chong, V. K. (1996). Management accounting systems, task uncertainty and managerial performance: A  
research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(5). 415–421.  
10. Chong, V. K., & Chong, K. M. (2002). Budget goal commitment and informational effects of budget  
participation on performance: a structural equation modeling approach. Behavioral Research in  
Accounting, 14(1). 65–86. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2002.14.1.65  
11. Chong, V. K., & Johnson, D. M. (2007). Testing a model of the antecedents and consequences of  
budgetary participation on job performance. Accounting and Business Research, 37(1). 3–19.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2007.9730055  
12. Covaleski, M., Evans III, J. H., Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2006). Budgeting research: three theoretical  
perspectives and criteria for selective integration. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 2.  
587-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)02006-2  
13. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a  
systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6). 1154–1191.  
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x  
14. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and  
moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3). 555-590. https://doi.org/10.2307/256406  
15. Domino, A. M., Wingreen, S. C., & Blanton, J. E. (2015). Social cognitive theoryꢀ: the antecedents and  
effects of ethical climate fit on organizational attitudes of corporate accounting professionals: a reflection  
of client narcissism and fraud attitude risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 131. 453–467.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2210-z  
16. Etehadi, B., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). The impact of job insecurity on critical hotel employee outcomes:  
The mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 28(6). 665–689.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1556768  
17. Frucot, V., & Shearon, W. T. (1991). Budgetary participation, locus of control, and Mexican managerial  
performance and job satisfaction. The Accounting Review, 66(1). 80–99.  
18. Guisado-Gonzalez, M., Rodriguez-Dominguez, M., Vila-Alonso, M., & Gonzalez-Vazquez, E. (2021).  
The relationship between R&D subsidy and R&D cooperation in eco-innovative companies: an analysis  
Page 604  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
taking a complementarity approach. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27.  
1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100170  
19. Harris, J., & Durden, C. (2012). Management accounting research: an analysis of recent themes and  
directions for the future. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(2). 21-42.  
20. Hartmann, F. G. H., & Maas, V. S. (2011). The effects of uncertainty on the roles of controllers and  
budgets:  
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2011.597656  
21. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and  
research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1). 11–17.  
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/147059580111002  
An  
exploratory  
study.  
Accounting  
and  
Business  
Research,  
41(5).  
439–458.  
22. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and  
Human Decision Processes, 50(2). 212–247.  
23. Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation:  
a
mediator  
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150106  
24. Liu, J., Siu, O. L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: the mediating  
role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 59(3). 454–479.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x  
study.  
Journal  
of  
Organizational  
Behavior,  
15(1).  
49–63.  
25. Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy: implications for  
managerial effectiveness and development. Journal of Management Development, 21(5). 376–387.  
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210426862  
26. Macinati, M. S., & Rizzo, M. G. (2014). Budget goal commitment, clinical managers’ use of budget  
information  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.05.003  
27. Mahlendorf, M. D., Schäffer, U., & Skiba, O. (2015). Antecedents of participative budgeting - a review  
of empirical evidence. Advances in Management Accounting, 25(July 2015), 1–27.  
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-787120150000025001  
and  
performance.  
Health  
Policy,  
117(2).  
228-238.  
28. Maiga, A. S. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of budget participation. Advances in Management  
Accounting, 14. 211–231.  
29. Maiga, A. S., Nilsson, A., & Jacobs, F. A. (2014). Assessing the impact of budgetary participation on  
budgetary outcomes: the role of information technology for enhanced communication and activity-based  
costing. Journal of Management Control, 25(1). 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-014-0191-9  
30. Paramaswary, A., Al, M., Arief, F., & Namira, A. G. (2024). From beliefs to budgeting: how locus of  
control and financial literacy influence financial planning?ꢀJurnal Ilmu Manajemen, 14(1), 1–12.  
https://doi.org/10.32502/jimn.v14i1.8774  
31. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.  
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976  
32. Shields, J.F., & Shields, M. D. (1998). Antecedents of participative budgeting. Accounting, Organizations  
and Society, 23(1). 49-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00014-7  
33. Spector, P. E. (1988). Developmnent of the work locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology,  
61(4), 335–340.  
34. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis.  
Psychological Bulletin, 124(2). 240–261.  
35. Williams, J. J., & Seaman, A. E. (2002). Management accounting systems change and departmental  
performance: the influence of managerial information and task uncertainty. Management Accounting  
Research, 13. 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.2002.0199  
36. Winata, L., & Mia, L. (2005). Information technology and the performance effect of managers’  
participation in budgeting: Evidence from the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality  
Management, 24(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.04.006  
37. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy  
of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.  
38. Zhang, Y., Khan, U., Lee, S., & Salik, M. (2019). The influence of management innovation and  
technological innovation on organization performance: a mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability,  
11(2). 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020495  
Page 605  
www.rsisinternational.org