Budgetary Systems in Organisations: An Anatomy of Management Views, Employees’ Behaviour and Productivity Trend of 21st Century Firms in a Tropical Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success or failure of any budgetary system depends to a large extent on the management assumptions of human nature (views), employees’ behavior and level of commitment towards productivity. The budgetary system may be non-humanistic (autocratic) or humanistic (participatory). Autocratic budgetary system is synonymous with employees’ negative reactions including counter productive work behaviours while participatory budgetary system is identified with employees’ positive reactions embedded in productive work behaviours. While admitting the proposition that certain settings may require the operation of autocratic budgetary system, this paper holds that available accounting literature on management theories and empirical researches support the assertion: Participatory budgetary system is a panacea; that is, a cure for all the many ills which have been associated with autocratic budgetary system. The unconcerned attitude of enterprise management towards modern theories and researches in budgetary systems and practices, the level of counterproductive work behaviours and some illicit acts in businesses and the environment, the corruption trend in a tropical Nation like Nigeria, productivity downturn and economic depression have posed serious concern. Participatory budgetary system relative to modern management views and motivated work behaviours will boost productivity upturn in Nigerian firms.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".