A significant strand of management accounting research focuses on the notion that national cultural variables could affect the relationship between management control systems and performance Awasthi et al., 1998, Birnberg & Snodgrass, 1988 and Chow et al., 1991. It is argued that people from different cultures have different attitudes to similar management control systems and management practices Chow et al., 1997 and Harrison, 1992. As a result, management control tools and management practices found to be effective in one environment could be ineffective or even dysfunctional in another environment (Chow, Kato, & Merchant, 1996). Thus, these differences as a result of culture have far reaching implications for the design and implementation of management control systems in different countries.
While there are a number of studies that have examined the relationships between culture and various aspects of marketing and organizational behavior, research on the relationship between culture and management control systems is by comparison still scarce Harrison & Mckinnon, 1999 and Kagitcibasi & Berry, 1989. In particular, there have only been a handful of studies that have examined managers' attitudes to management control systems across national boundaries Awasthi et al., 1998, Birnberg & Snodgrass, 1988, Chow et al., 1996, Chow et al., 1994, Dunk, 1989, Harrison, 1992, Harrison et al., 1994 and Merchant et al., 1995. For example, Birnberg and Snodgrass (1988) conducted a field study in US and Japan and found that culture affects the nature of formal control system. Another study conducted in Australia and Singapore found that culture influenced the relation between reliance on accounting performance measures in the evaluative style of superiors and work-related attitudes of subordinates (Harrison, 1992). Other aspects of management controls such as the link between budgetary participation and management accounting systems (MAS) still remain to be explored. Most studies Chow et al., 1991, Chow et al., 1996, Daley et al., 1985, Harrison, 1992 and Harrison et al., 1994 have focused on managers in Japan, US, Singapore, and Australia with little or no evidence on how Chinese managers would behave. The extension of these types of studies to Chinese managers is important given the recent surge of multinational business activities in China and the lack of empirical data on Chinese management accounting practices. Moreover, Chinese culture emphasizes values that are diametrically opposed to Western values Gul & Tsui, 1993, Gul & Tsui, 1995 and Hofstede, 1991. Thus, empirical evidence from China would provide important insights into the role of culture in the application of management accounting across national boundaries.
This study examines how MAS and budgetary participation affect the performance of Chinese subunit managers in the Chinese Mainland and expatriate Caucasian managers in Hong Kong. Both MAS (Chenhall & Morris, 1986) and budgetary participation Brownell, 1982a, Lau et al., 1995 and O'Connor, 1995 have been identified as key elements in a firm's management control system that is expected to affect managerial performance. However, according to Hofstede, 1980 and Hofstede, 1991, Chinese managers are expected to behave differently from Western managers in managerial decision-making situations such as budgetary participation because of cultural differences.1
In the case of budgetary participation, there are at least two further aspects to consider. The first issue relates to the motivational role of participation. The dominant Western theories on motivation such as the needs-based theories Alderfer, 1972, Herzberg et al., 1959, Maslow, 1954 and McClelland, 1975 all emphasize that recognition, influence, and achievement are primary motivators. Participation in the decision-making process caters to these needs of recognition and influence and is, therefore, likely to be a motivating factor. However, the application of these theories in a non-Western environment is questionable. Hofstede (1980) argued that these motivational theories are culture-bound and are relevant only to Western countries. Similarly, Kanungo (1983) suggested that while we may accept the needs to motivate employees, the nature of those needs may be influenced by cultural values. In a recent survey in China, it was found that Herzberg's model had to be modified for it to be applied to the Chinese environment (Yu, 1991). Thus, the motivational role and advantages of participation is not clear in a non-Western environment. Second, even though the participative decision-making style is used in non-Western culture, it, in itself, is not widely accepted in Asian cultures. Several studies have shown that a more directive style whereby the leader or top management makes a decision on his own and then persuades the subordinates to accept that decision is preferred in Asian cultures Deyo, 1978, Redding & Casey, 1976 and Redding & Richardson, 1986. Moreover, unlike Western cultures where direct objections and frank discussions are preferred, managers in Asian cultures prefer restraint, politeness, and indirect objections Kirkbride et al., 1991 and Thompson, 1989. Thus, the participative decision-making style is not expected to be consistent with Chinese culture which has, until recently, been insulated from Western ideology. As a result, the expected positive relationship between MAS and managerial performance for high levels of budgetary participation, as expected in Western society, may not exist for Chinese managers in the Mainland.
Section 2 of the paper provides a review of the relevant literature, which leads to the development of the hypothesis tested in this study. This is followed by Section 3, which is about the methodology of the study, and Section 4, which discusses the results and conclusions.
