Personal and Environmental Antecedents of Budgetary Participation: A Literature Review within the Lens of Social Cognitive Theory

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.

Budget participation, Self-efficacy, Locus of control, Task uncertainty

1. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10. 123-167. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bandura, A. (1986). From Thought to Action: mechanisms of Personal Agency. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory of Personality. Handbook of Personality, 2. 1-81. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Brownell, P. (1981). Participation in budgeting, locus of control and organizational effectiveness. The Accounting Review, 56(4), 844–860. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chong, V. K. (1996). Management accounting systems, task uncertainty and managerial performance: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(5). 415–421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Domino, A. M., Wingreen, S. C., & Blanton, J. E. (2015). Social cognitive theory : 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 taking a complementarity approach. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100170 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hartmann, F. G. H., & Maas, V. S. (2011). The effects of uncertainty on the roles of controllers and budgets: An exploratory study. Accounting and Business Research, 41(5). 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2011.597656 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2). 212–247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: a mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1). 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Macinati, M. S., & Rizzo, M. G. (2014). Budget goal commitment, clinical managers’ use of budget information and performance. Health Policy, 117(2). 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.05.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Maiga, A. S. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of budget participation. Advances in Management Accounting, 14. 211–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Spector, P. E. (1988). Developmnent of the work locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(4), 335–340. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2). 240–261. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors