1. Home
  2. Vol 8, No 2 (2024)
  3. Tuan

The Effect of Felt Accountability on User Satisfaction with Accounting Information

Dang Anh Tuan

Abstract


Felt accountability affects an account-givers’ behavior, decisions, and organizational performance. Accounting information (AI) is provided for decision-making and accountability in the public sector. This study investigated the effects of felt accountability on expertise, legitimacy, and AI disclosure level for accountability on users’ satisfaction. Survey data included 401 responses across public institutions in Vietnam, and SEM linear structure analysis was used to examine the results. The research findings indicate that felt accountability directly affects users’ satisfaction and their expertise and legitimacy, and the level of AI disclosure. The expertise and legitimacy of the account-holder and the level of AI disclosure partially mediate the relationship between felt accountability and users’ satisfaction. This implies that AI's needs, purposes, and importance are determined based on hypothetical users that are not useful in reality. In practice, AI must meet accountability requirements to bring satisfaction to users. The satisfaction level of actual users of AI is influenced by the account-givers’ perceived accountability regarding the needs, expertise, and legitimacy of the account-holder. Therefore, it is essential to identify the type of information needed, the timing of AI disclosure, and the actual AI users to reduce the gap between the supply and demand of AI. The research results provide evidence supporting agency and social contingency theories in accountability relationships.

 

Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2024-08-02-023

Full Text: PDF


Keywords


Felt Accountability; Transparency; Accounting; Agency Theory; Information; Legitimacy.

References


Lourenço, R. P., Jorge, S., & Pattaro, A. F. (2013). Online transparency for accountability: One assessing model and two applications. Electronic Journal of E-government, 11, 280-292.

Jorge, S. (2021). Scope of general purpose financial reporting: an accountability perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, 40, 1-30. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51595-9_4.

Jones, R., & Pendlebury, M. (2000). Public sector accounting. Pearson Education, London, United Kingdom.

Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 62, 16-38. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2018.10.003.

Ouda, H., & Klischewski, R. (2019). Accounting and Politicians: A Theory of Accounting Information Usefulness. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 31(4), 496–517. doi:10.1108/JPBAFM-10-2018-0113.

Reichard, C., & van Helden, J. (2016). Why Cash-Based Budgeting Still Prevails in an Era of Accrual-Based Reporting in the Public Sector. Accounting, Finance & Governance Review, 23(1–2), 43–65. doi:10.52399/001c.25483.

Van Dooren, W. (2005). What Makes Organisations Measure? Hypotheses on the Causes and Conditions for Performance Measurement. Financial Accountability & Management, 21 (3): 363-383. doi:10.1111/j.0267-4424.2005.00225.x.

Overman, S., Schillemans, T., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021). A validated measurement for felt relational accountability in the public sector: gauging the account holder’s legitimacy and expertise. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1748-1767. doi:10.1080/14719037.2020.1751254.

Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The moderating effects of accountability on the conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 515-524. doi:10.1023/A:1022918904256.

Green, M. C., Visser, P. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Coping with accountability cross-pressures: Low-effort evasive tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1380–1391. doi:10.1177/0146167200263006.

Dang, T. A., & Nguyen, D. K. N. (2021). Components Constituting the Audit Expectation Gap: The Vietnamese Case. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(1), 363–373. doi:10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.363.

van Helden, J., & Reichard, C. (2019). Making sense of the users of public sector accounting information and their needs. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 31(4), 478–495. doi:10.1108/JPBAFM-10-2018-0124.

Ouda, H. (2017). Towards an information fit theory based on accounting information matching between producers and users. 16th CIGAR Conference June, XIX(1), 1–31.

van Helden, J. (2016). Literature review and challenging research agenda on politicians’ use of accounting information. Public Money and Management, 36(7), 531–538. doi:10.1080/09540962.2016.1237162.

Coy, D., Fischer, M., & Gordon, T. (2001). Public accountability: A new paradigm for college and university annual reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(1), 1–31. doi:10.1006/cpac.2000.0416.

Ouda, H. (2021). Scope of General Purpose Financial Reporting: An Accountability Perspective. In Practice-Relevant Accrual Accounting for the Public Sector, 123–162. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51595-9_4.

Oprisor, T., Tiron-Tudor, A., & Nistor, C. S. (2016). The integrated reporting system: a new accountability enhancement tool for public sector entities. Audit Financiar, 14(139), 747. doi:10.20869/auditf/2016/14/747.

Marcuccio, M., & Steccolini, I. (2009). Patterns of voluntary extended performance reporting in Italian local authorities. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(2), 146–167. doi:10.1108/09513550910934547.

Biondi, L., & Bracci, E. (2018). Sustainability, popular and integrated reporting in the public sector: A fad and fashion perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(9), 1–16. doi:10.3390/su10093112.

Cohen, S., Mamakou, X. J., & Karatzimas, S. (2017). IT-enhanced popular reports: Analyzing citizen preferences. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 283–295. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.04.003.

Manes-Rossi, F., Aversano, N., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2020). Popular reporting: learning from the US experience. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 32(1), 92–113. doi:10.1108/JPBAFM-01-2019-0013.

Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255.

Parry, M. & Hughes, J. (2019). Accounting for Governments: from Budget to Audit, 1-805.

Lüder, K. (2013, September). Accrual Accounting and Budgeting in Government–A History of the Hessian “New Administrative Management (NVS)” Project. In 14th Biennial CIGAR Conference, Birmigham, England.

Johnson, C., & Talbot, C. (2007). The UK Parliament and performance: Challenging or challenged? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 113–131. doi:10.1177/0020852307075693.

Bourdeaux, C. (2008). Integrating Performance Information into Legislative Budget Processes. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 547–569. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576310403.

Stalebrink, O. J., & Frisco, V. (2011). PART in Retrospect: An Examination of Legislators’ Attitudes toward PART. Public Budgeting and Finance, 31(2), 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5850.2011.00977.x.

Raudla, R. (2012). The use of performance information in budgetary decision-making by legislators: Is Estonia any different? Public Administration, 90(4), 1000–1015. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02041.x.

Grossi, G., Hansen, M. B., Johanson, J. E., Vakkuri, J., & Moon, M. J. (2016). Introduction: Comparative performance management and accountability in the age of austerity. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(3), 499–505. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1147906.

Monks, R. A., & Minow, N. (1991). Power and accountability. Robert Monks at Stephanie P. Harper Business, New York, United States.

Barberis, P. (1998). The new public management and a new accountability. Public Administration, 76(3), 451–470. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00111.

Naciri, A., & Hoarau, C. (2001). A comparative analysis of American and French financial reporting philosophies: The case for international accounting standards. Advances in International Accounting, 14, 229–247. doi:10.1016/s0897-3660(01)14012-2.

Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Accountability at work: An examination of antecedents and consequences. Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Orlando, Florida, United States.

Klimoski, R. J., & Frink, D. D. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources management. In I. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 1–51.

Ter Bogt, H. J. (2004). Politicians in Search of Performance Information? Survey Research on Dutch Aldermen’s Use of Performance Information. Financial Accountability and Management, 20(3), 221–252. doi:10.1111/j.0267-4424.2004.00387.x.

Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability—job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 226–239. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.003.

Mack, J., & Ryan, C. (2006). Reflections on the theoretical underpinnings of the general-purpose financial reports of Australian government departments. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(4), 592–612. doi:10.1108/09513570610679146.

Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458. doi:10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130.

Hundleby, J. D. (1968). Reviews: Nunnally, Jum. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. American Educational Research Journal, 5(3), 431-433. doi:10.2307/1161962.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382. doi:10.2307/3150980.

Garson, G.D. (2016). Partial Least Squares: Regression and Structural Equation Models. Statistical Associates Publishers, Asheboro, North Carolina, United States.

Höck, C., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). Management of multi-purpose stadiums: Importance and performance measurement of service interfaces. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, 14(2–3), 188–207. doi:10.1504/IJSTM.2010.034327.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. In Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing, Routledge, New York, United States. doi:10.4324/9780203771587.


Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.28991/ESJ-2024-08-02-023

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Tuan Anh Dang