The Effects of Superior Trust and Budget-Based Controls on Budgetary Gaming and Budget Value
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Control systems based on budget-based incentives have long been criticized as promoting budgetary gaming that taints the budgeting process. Yet, Libby and Lindsay (2010) find that, on average, North American managers are obtaining “good” value from their budgeting systems. The current study examines the antecedents of budget value through a partial replication and significant extension of Van der Stede (2000) using survey data collected from a sample of senior business unit managers with budget responsibility. Results indicate that the senior manager's trust in subordinate managers' abilities exhibits a positive direct and indirect (through increased subordinate involvement in decision making) relationship with budget value. While budget emphasis has a negative indirect association with budget value (through budgetary gaming), it has a much larger positive direct relationship, resulting in an overall positive effect. Further, budgetary gaming increases with the use of budget-based bonuses, particularly for capped relative to non-capped plans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it