International journal of Contemporary Business Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies Vol: 3, No: 6. June, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506 Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS For treatment of collected data, we used the statistical software SPSS 17.0 and E-Views 6 which have enabled us to perform all statistical tests necessary to validate research hypotheses. 4.1. Descriptive Statistics It is to identify the characteristics and criteria for evaluating the measuring instrument object variables of the study. The results of the descriptive analysis are summarized in the following table: Table 6. Descriptive statistics for all variables Variable Items Mean Min Max Range Variance Budgetary Participation 6 3,565 3,279 4,033 0,754 0,076 Intensity of market competition 6 3,511 3,361 3,689 0,328 0,020 Organizational Performance 5 3,889 3,672 4,164 0,492 0,032 These results may confirm the existence of the practice of budgetary participation in in our sample of Tunisian firms, since the average score per item exceeded the average score (3.565> 3) and given a low score reflects a low level of budgetary participation and a high score reflects a high level of budgetary participation. For the variable "organizational performance", we note that most of the means of item scores are well above the average; this can be interpreted by an acceptable performance of sample firms. The above table also shows that the intensity of the competitiveness of Tunisian companies, target of our search, is not as strong as the average score per item, it increased slightly above average. 4.2. Test assumptions and interpretation of results To achieve reliable tests, we conducted an audit of assumptions (conditions) before application of the regression technique: the linearity of the model, normality of the dependent variable, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity. The following model is used to test these hypotheses: Y i = α 0 + α 1 + X i1 + α 2 X i2 + α 3 X i1 *X i2 + ε Where, according to the hypothesis to test, Y: organizational performance Xi1: the budgetary participation (composite score), size, influence or involvement dimension, Xi2: intensity of competitiveness X i1 *X i2 : the interaction term, and ε: the error term. 4.2.1. The direct effect of budgetary participation on organizational performance Panel A from Table 7 present a regression analysis of the direct effect of the explanatory variable (PB) on organizational performance, the results confirm the first hypothesis. The effect of the budgetary participation is poor (p>=0.891), the solution is to find a moderate effect by a contingency variable. In our case this is the intensity of market competition. Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process 44
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies Vol: 3, No: 6. June, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506 Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com Table 7. Regression analysis results Panel : Direct relationship between Budgetary Participation and Organizational Performance Variables Coefficient Standard error t-Value P Constant 0.064 0.124 0.518 0.606 Budgetary participation (X1) 0.012 0.090 0.138 0.891 Adjusted R 2 = 0.23 Panel B: Moderate effect of Intensity of competitiveness in the relation Budgetary participation (composite score) and Organizational performance Constant 0.178 0.195 1.87 0.004 Budgetary 0.089 0.781 0.13 0.891 participation (X1) Intensity of market 0.961 1.233 1.02 0.446 competition (X2) X1*X2 0.345 1.089 1.764 0.063 Adjusted R 2 = 0.140 Panel C: Performance on the “involvement dimension” of budgetary participation and intensity of market competition Constant 0.085 0.028 0.71 0.481 Involvement dimension of Budgetary Participation (X1) 0.130 0.120 1.08 0.283 Intensity of market 0.256 0.107 1.28 0.297 competition (X2) X1*X2 0.351 0.189 3.29 0.002 Adjusted R 2 = 0.151 Panel D: performance on the “influence dimension” of budgetary participation and intensity of market competition Constant 0.063 0.042 0.98 0.561 Influence Dimension of Budgetary participation (X1) Intensity of market competition (X2) 0.076 0.945 1.23 0.117 1.056 1.129 1.56 0.109 X1*X2 1.349 1.267 1.08 0.179 Adjusted R 2 = 0.102 4.2.2. Effect of budgetary participation on organizational performance through the intensity of market competition: the moderate effect Panel B in Table 7 shows a regression coefficient α is 0.345; it is positive and significant (at 10% level). This result confirms the first hypothesis and show that organizational performance is influenced by the budgetary participation (composite score 2 ) in a context of high level of 2 In this regression, we use the composite score of the Budgetary Participation (only one factor) Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process 45
Page 1 and 2: International Journal of Contempora
Page 43: International Journal of Contempora

International journal of Contemporary Business Studies

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?