CC BY
84
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2018-09.16
THE EFFECT OF BUDGETING PARTICIPATION ON MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH JOB SATISFACTION, JOB RELEVANT INFORMATION, AND BUDGET GOAL
COMMITMENT AS MEDIATING VARIABLES
Putri Wayan Tari Indra*, Suartana I Wayan
Master's Program of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Udayana, Indonesia *E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Managerial performance is one of factor that can be used to improve organizational effectiveness. Performance is effective if budget goals are achieved and subordinates have the opportunity to engage or participate in the budgeting process. Previous research on the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance finds inconsistent results. The inconsistency of this result is due to other variables that influence the relationship of budgeting participation and managerial performance. The purpose of this study is to obtain empirical evidence of budgeting participation affecting managerial performance as well as job satisfaction variables, job relevant information, and budget goal commitment are able to mediate the relationship between budgeting participation and managerial performance. Data collection method uses questionnaire. The sample in this study was selected by using purposive sampling method with a total of 89 respondents as managers in government hospitals in Bali Province. The results of this study indicate that the higher level of budgeting participation, the higher level of managerial performance will be achieved. The results of this study indicate that the higher level of budgetary participation, higher level of managerial performance will achieved. The results of this study also shows that the higher level of manager participation in the budgeting process will result in increased job relevant information obtained and increased goal budget commitment, which in turn will lead to an increase in managerial performance. This study is unable to prove that job satisfaction is able to mediate the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance.
KEY WORDS
Budgeting participation, job satisfaction, job relevant information, budget goal commitment, managerial performance.
The hospital as a non-profit organization has a role in providing professional and quality health services and is affordable for all levels of society. The existence of a hospital is important in the development of public health. Nowadays, people are increasingly aware of choosing a good health services. As the example, nowadays people do not hesitate to ask the treatment they will receive according to their current financial conditions. If there any service that they feels unsatisfactory with, the people is not afraid anymore to reprimand the medical staff. The point is the society wants the best for themselves according to their current conditions. To deal with the dynamics of society in such a way that the government through the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia requires the implementation of hospital accreditation with the aim of improving the quality of hospital services in Indonesia (Rahma, 2012). Hospital accreditation is a process whereby an independent institution both from within and outside the country, usually non-governmental, conducts an assessment of the hospital based on the applicable accreditation standards. The Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia, especially the Directorate General of Health Efforts chooses and establishes a hospital accreditation system that refers to JCI or Joint Commission International. Hospitals that have been accredited will get recognition from the government because they have fulfilled the established service and management standards.
Based on regulation (UU Kesehatan No. 44 Tahun 2009 pasal 40 ayat 1) stated that in an effort to improve the quality of hospital services, accreditation is required to be carried out
periodically at least once every 3 years. Further explained in the Regulation of the Minister of Health No. 147 /MENKES/ PER/I/ 2010 Article 10 concerning hospital licensing which confirms that accreditation is one of the conditions for granting operational permits for hospitals. This indicates the importance of a hospital to maintain or improve the accreditation status that has been received previously. Success in obtaining and maintaining accreditation can be obtained if all elements from leaders to hospital staff are equally committed to realizing a better clinical and managerial governance system. Accreditation has various benefits for many parties, ranging from recipients of health services to the managers of the hospital itself. For the hospital,, accreditation will help their work process because it is in accordance with applicable standards. In addition, after the implementation of accreditation, the accreditation that has been obtained by the hospital can be used as a tool to measure the performance of the hospital manager. Accredited hospitals will be declared to have fulfilled four groups of service standards namely patient-focused service standards groups, hospital management standards groups, hospital patient safety goals and goals of the millennium development goals. In the implementation of hospital accreditation, the surveyor will look for evidence of an improvement in the quality of services at the hospital. If no evidence is found, the assessment process will not proceed to other components. All officers in the hospital must be included in the implementation of the standards in the accreditation (Rahma, 2012). Hospital accreditation requires managers to fully carry out their managerial functions such as better budget planning and resource use, coordinating with all staff in the hospital, evaluating and monitoring, and selecting appropriate and dedicated staff to do jobs related to community service. Thus, improving managerial performance is one way that can be done to maintain accreditation that has been obtained previously by the hospital.
Performance is effective if budget objectives are achieved and subordinates get the opportunity to be involved or participate in the budget preparation process (Indriantoro and Supomo, 1998). Participation from subordinates in budgeting can provide an opportunity to enter local information. Subordinates can communicate or disclose some personal information that can be included in the budget that is used as a basis for performance appraisal if subordinates participate in the budgeting process. Budgeting participation is a process that describes individuals involved in preparing the budget and having an influence on budget targets. Budgeting participation is an approach that can generally improve performance which in turn can increase organizational effectiveness (Nor, 2007). Participatory budgeting is expected to improve the manager's performance, ie when a goal is designed and participation is agreed upon, employees will internalize the stated goals and have a sense of personal responsibility to achieve them, because they are involved in preparing the budget (Milani, 1975).
Research on the effect of budgeting participation and managerial performance has conducted by many researchers. But the results of these studies have a different results. Research conducted by Brownell and Mcc Innes (1986), Frucot and Shearon (1991), Yusfaningrum and Ghozali (2005) found that budgetary participation and performance have a positive relationship. Different results were found in the study conducted by Milani (1975) and Kenis (1979). Their study concludes that budgetary participation has an insignificant influence on managerial performance. The existence of inconsistencies in the results of these studies should be suspected due to the existence of other factors that are contingency (Govindarajan, 1986). Contingency approach confirms that there are possible other variables that can act as moderating or mediating factors that influence the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable (Nor, 2007).Therefore, in this study the variables of job satisfaction, job relevant information and budget goal commitment will be used as mediating variables. The use of these variables is influenced by opinions in research in the field of budgeting.
Based on the theory of goal setting, it is stated that objectives are specific and difficult, with feedback will result in high performance (Robbins and Judge, 2008). Budgeting participation allows managers (as subordinates) to negotiate with their leaders about possible budget targets that can be achieved (Brownell and McInnes, 1986). Leaders who allow their subordinates to be involved in making decisions regarding their work will generally
increase the job satisfaction of their subordinates. Job satisfaction is a person's attitude towards his work. When someone has felt job satisfaction, it will affect their performance.
Kren (1992) in his research on job relevant information (JRI) define JRI as information that facilitates decision-making related to tasks. JRI is information that helps managers to improve the selection of actions through better informed efforts. This condition provides a better understanding of subordinates regarding alternative decisions and actions that need to be done in achieving the goals. Theory of goal setting emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the goals set and the performance produced. The budget that is set by participation uses the information function so that subordinates can collect, exchange and disseminate relevant information. Furthermore, JRI can improve performance because it provides a more accurate prediction of environmental conditions that allows the selection of a series of more effective actions (Campbell and Gingrich, 1986).
The budget goal commitment variable is chosen in the budget preparation process with the assumption that the leader will try to achieve the existing budget target. Budget goal commitment is a number of commitments to achieve a goal, which means managers who have a high level of commitment to achieve the budget targets will have a positive outlook and will try to do their best to achieve these budget goals (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2000). The theory of goal setting implies that an individual is committed to the goal (Robbins and Judge, 2008). So, that if an individual is given the opportunity to participate in the process of determining goals then the individual will have a commitment to achieve his goals. Furthermore, these commitments will influence their actions and influence the consequences of their work.
This research was conducted at government hospitals in Bali province. The high awareness of the society to choose good health services is the basis for the selection of hospitals as the object of research. It is very important for the government hospital to maintain the trust that has been given by the society, one of them is by maintaining and improving the quality of service. High commitment from government hospitals in Bali Province to improve their services can be seen from the accreditation they have received. As previously explained, accreditation of the hospital will be carried out again in a minimum period of 3 years. During this period, there will be dynamics within the organization that cause changes in government hospitals in the Bali province. Failure to maintain the accreditation that is owned can result in the extension of hospital operational permits, as well as weak institutional legitimacy in the term of law. To maintain the accreditation that has been owned, the management of government hospitals in the Bali province must improve managerial performance in order to overcome all the dynamics that occur in hospitals. In addition, it can be maintained that the accreditation status obtained by the hospital can be used as evidence to the public that the services they receive are the best services that are in accordance with applicable standards.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
The population in this study is all government hospitals in Bali Province. The sample was chosen based on purposive sampling method. So that the sample in this study amounted to 4 government hospitals in Bali Province with a total of 89 managers as respondents. The independent variable in this study is budgeting participation. Meditation variables in this study are job satisfaction, job relevant information, and budget goal commitment. The dependent variable in this study is managerial performance. Data collection in this study uses questionnaires adopted by Milani (1975), Spector (1997), Kren (1992), Wentzel (2002), and Mahoney, et al (1963). Data analysis on data that has been collected includes descriptive statistics and inferential statistical analysis using partial least square (PLS). Testing steps using PLS starting from the measurement model (outer model), structural model (inner model) and hypothesis testing (Ghozali, 2014).The hypothesis in this study is formulated as follows:
H1: Budgeting participation affects managerial performance;
H2: Job satisfaction mediates the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance;
H3: Job relevant information mediates the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance;
H4: Budget goal commitment mediates the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the result of instrument test, consisting of validity and reliability test, it is obtained that all statements have coefficient more than 0.3 so that all instruments are valid. As for reliability test, all research instruments are declared reliable because each statement item has a reliability coefficient greater than the value of Cronbach alpha 0.6. This suggests that such measurements can provide consistent results when re-measurement of the same subject matter. The distributed questionnaires are 89 questionnaires. The return questionnaires are 85 questionnaires, and questionnaires that can be used in data analysis as many as 84 questionnaires or 94.4%.
Descriptive Statistic. Budgeting participation (X1) is represented by 5 statements and each statement is measured from a scale of 1-5. The results of descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the value of the respondents' assessment of budgeting participation (X1) is high which can be seen from the total average score of the budgeting participation indicator of 3.8.
Table 1 - Statistic Descriptive
Variable Indicator Score
Budgeting Participation (X1) a. Participation in budget preparation (X1.1) 4.14
b. Request about the budget to the leader (X1.2) 3.79
c. Opinions when the budget is being drafted (X1.3) 3.55
d. Making plans in the final budget (X1.4) 3.68
e. Contribution to the budget (X1.5) 3.85
Mean Budgeting participation (X1) 3.8
Job Satisfaction (X2) a. Salary (X2.1) 4.19
b. Communication (X2.2) 3.98
c. Co-workers (X2.3) 3.90
d. Nature of work (X2.4) 3.73
e. Supervision (X2.5) 3.68
f. Contingent reward (X2.6) 3.57
g. Operating Procedure (X2.7) 3.29
h. Benefit (X2.8) 3.08
i. Promotion (X2.9) 2.90
Mean Job Satisfaction (X2) 3.59
Job relevant information (X3) a. Get clear information (X3.1 ) 4.32
b. Have adequate information (X3.2) 4.05
c. Get a strategic information (X3.3) 3.79
d. Find the right information (X3.4) 3.57
Mean Job Relevant Information (X3) 4.03
Budget Goal Commitment X4) a. Commitment to achieving the budget (X4.1) 4.26
b. The importance of achieving the budget (X4.2) 4.32
c. Effort to achieve the budget (X4.3) 4.49
Mean Budget Goal Commitment (X4) 4.31
Managerial Performance (Y) a. Planning (Y1) 4.49
b. Investigation (Y2) 4.4
c. Coordinating (Y3) 4.25
d. Controlling (Y4) 4.18
e. Staff Arrangement (Y5) 4.05
f. Negotiation (Y6) 3.69
g. Delegation (Y7) 3.522
h. Overall Performance (Y8) 3.19
i. Evaluation (Y9) 3.27
Mean Managerial performance (Y) 3.82
Job satisfaction (X2) is represented by 9 statements and each statement is measured from a scale of 1-5. The results of descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the value of respondents' assessment of job satisfaction (X2) is high which can be seen from the total average score of the budgeting participation indicator of 3.59
Job relevant information (X3) is represented by 10 statements and each statement is measured from a scale of 1-5. The results of descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the value of the respondents' assessment of job relevant information (X3) is high which can be seen from the total average score of the budgeting participation indicator of 4.03.
Budget goal commitment (X4) is represented by 3 statements and each statement is measured on a scale of 1-5. The results of descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the value of the respondents' assessment of the budget goal commitment (X4) is high which can be seen from the total average score of the budgeting participation indicator of 4.31.
Managerial performance (Y) is represented by 10 statements and each statement is measured from a scale of 1-5. The results of descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the value of respondents' assessment of managerial performance (Y) is high which can be seen from the total average score of the budgeting participation indicator of 3.82.
Inferential Statistical Analysis using PLS. Convergent validity test results can be seen in Table 2 which shows that all indicators of latent variables used in this study have a value of loading factor more than 0.6. This result indicates that all indicators in this study are valid.
Table 2 - Convergent Validity (Loading Factor)
X1 X2 X3 X4 Y
X1.1 0,912
X1.2 0,869
X1.3 0,856
X1.4 0,868
X1.5 0,837
X2.1 0,677
X2.2 0,767
X2.3 0,785
X2.4 0,885
X2.5 0,888
X2.6 0,850
X2.7 0,753
X2.8 0,790
X2.9 0,697
X3.1 0,751
X3.2 0,893
X3.3 0,910
X3.4 0,974
X4.1 0,913
X4.2 0,964
X4.3 0,801
Y. 1 0,786
Y.2 0,651
Y.3 0,806
Y.4 0,801
Y.5 0,797
Y.6 0,695
Y.7 0,779
Y.8 0,659
Y.9 0,648
AVE test results can be seen in table 3 which shows that all variables in this study have AVE values more than 0.5. This indicates that all variables in this study are valid.
The discriminant validity test results can be seen in Table 4 which shows that cross loading all indicators used in forming latent variables is greater than the correlation to other latent variables. So that all indicators used in this study are valid.
Table 3 - Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Variabel AVE Information
X1 0,755 Valid
X2 0,626 Valid
X3 0,738 Valid
X4 0,802 Valid
Y 0,546 Valid
Table 4 - Discriminat Validity (Cross Loading)
X1 X2 X3 X4 Y
X1.1 0.912 0.072 0.497 0.722 0.717
X1.2 0.869 0.046 0.414 0.441 0.650
X1.3 0.856 0.047 0.537 0.561 0.730
X1.4 0.868 0.098 0.424 0.499 0.664
X1.5 0.837 0.292 0.512 0.562 0.567
X2.1 0.178 0.677 0.119 0.205 -0.040
X2.2 -0.029 0.767 0.057 0.023 -0.166
X2.3 -0.036 0.785 0.056 0.052 -0.174
X2.4 0.195 0.885 0.183 0.121 -0.024
X2.5 0.166 0.888 0.105 0.164 -0.029
X2.6 0.017 0.850 0.037 0.019 -0.169
X2.7 0.008 0.753 0.126 0.082 -0.080
X2.8 0.041 0.790 0.114 0.130 -0.087
X2.9 0.107 0.697 0.114 0.132 -0.024
X3.1 0.375 -0.005 0.751 0.320 0.512
X3.2 0.502 0.152 0.893 0.452 0.616
X3.3 0.532 0.222 0.910 0.391 0.637
X3.4 0.491 0.074 0.874 0.463 0.691
X4.1 0.651 -0.001 0.468 0.913 0.708
X4.2 0.526 0.071 0.388 0.964 0.601
X4.3 0.555 0.384 0.419 0.801 0.437
Y1 0.659 -0.015 0.485 0.502 0.786
Y2 0.525 0.045 0.439 0.490 0.651
Y3 0.611 -0.154 0.513 0.474 0.806
Y4 0.629 -0.090 0.516 0.510 0.801
Y5 0.563 -0.165 0.615 0.493 0.797
Y6 0.494 -0.116 0.450 0.534 0.695
Y7 0.589 -0.089 0.562 0.536 0.779
Y8 0.464 -0.040 0.547 0.541 0.659
Y9 0.562 0.145 0.651 0.335 0.648
The reliability test results can be seen in Table 5 which shows that all variables have a composite reliability value greater than 0.6 and the composite reliability value is greater than Cronbach's alpha. This indicates that the data used in this study is reliable.
Table 5 - Reliability Test
Variable Cronbach Composite Information
's Alpha Reliability
Budget Participation (X1) 0.919 0.939 Reliabel
Job Satisfaction (X2) 0.927 0.937 Reliabel
Job Relevant Information (X3) 0.880 0.918 Reliabel
Budget Goal Commitment (X4) 0.875 0.924 Reliabel
Managerial Performance(Y) 0.894 0.915 Reliabel
In assessing the structural model or inner model with PLS structural can be seen from the value of R-Squares (R2) for each endogenous latent variable as the predictive power of the structural model. The R2 value can be seen in Table 6 which shows the value of R2 managerial performance (Y) is 0.792. This indicates that managerial performance is able to
be explained by the variables of budgeting participation, job satisfaction, job relevant information, and budget goal commitment of 79.2% while the remaining 20.8% is explained by other factors not examined in the model. Job satisfaction is able to be explained by budgeting participation of 1.6%, while the rest is explained by other factors not examined in the model. Job relevant information can be explained by budgeting participation of 31.1%, while the rest is explained by other factors not examined in the model. Budget goal commitment can be explained by budgeting participation of 42.2%, while the rest is explained by other factors not examined in this study.
Table 6 - Coefficient Determination (R2)
Variable R2
Job satisfaction (X2) 0.016
Job Relevant Information (X3) 0.311
Budget Goal Commitment (X4) 0.422
Managerial Performance (Y) 0.792
The results of the hypothesis testing can be seen in Table 6 and Table 7 which shows the results of the test of direct influence and the indirect effect of latent variables.
Table 6 - Direct Effect of Latent Variables
Variable Relation Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation t-statistics P Values Information
X1^X2 0.126 0.074 0.243 0.519 0.604 Not Significant
X1^X3 0.557 0.564 0.080 6.957 0.000 Significant
X1^X4 0.649 0.665 0.072 8.933 0.000 Significant
X1^Y 0.423 0.413 0.111 3.819 0.000 Significant
X2^Y -0.237 -0.222 0.084 2.829 0.005 Significant
X3^Y 0.406 0.405 0.071 5.708 0.000 Significant
X4^Y 0.230 0.224 0.092 2.509 0.012 Significant
Table 6 shows that the relationship between budgeting participation (X1) on job satisfaction (X2) has a path coefficient value of positive 0.126, with a t-statistic value of 0.519 and p-value of 0.604. This shows that budgetary participation has no effect on job satisfaction.
The relationship between budgeting participation (X1) on job relevant information (X3) has a path coefficient value of positive 0.557, with a t-statistic value of 6.957 and p-values of 0.000. This indicates that budgetary participation affects job relevant information. The higher the level of budgeting participation, the higher the level of relevant information that will be obtained by the manager.
The relationship between budgeting participation (X1) on budget goal commitment (X4) has a path coefficient value of positive 0.649, with a t-statistic value of 8.993, and a p-value of 0.000. This means that budgeting participation affects the budget goal commitment. The higher the level of budgeting participation, the higher the level of commitment of the manager's to achieve budget goals.
The relationship between budgeting participation (X1) on managerial performance (Y) has a path coefficient value of positive 0.423, with a t-statistic value of 3.819 and a p-value of 0.000. This indicates that budgeting participation affects managerial performance. The higher the level of budgeting participation, the higher managerial performance achieved.
The relationship between job satisfactions (X2) on managerial performance (Y) has a path coefficient value of negative 0, 237, with a t-statistic value of 2.829, and a p-value of 0.005. This indicates that job satisfaction affects managerial performance. The higher the level of job satisfaction, the higher managerial performance achieved.
The relationship between job relevant information (X3) on managerial performance (Y) has a path coefficient of positive 0.406, with a t-statistic value of 5.708, and a p-value of 0.000. This indicates that job relevant information affects managerial performance.The higher the job relevant information obtained, the higher managerial performance achieved.
The relationship between budget goal commitments (X4) on managerial performance (Y) has a path coefficient value of positive 0.230, with a t-statistic value of 2.509, and a p-value of 0.012. This indicates that commitment to budget objectives influences managerial performance. The higher the commitment of manager to achieve budget goal, the higher managerial performance achieved.
Table 7 - Direct and Indirect effect of variable
Variable Relation Direct effect ( Before the mediator is added) Indirect effect (After mediator added)
Coefficient p-value Information Coefficien t p-value Information
0.423 0.000 Significant
-0.030 0.558 Not Significant
0.226 0.000 Significant
0.149 0.016 Significant
Table 7 is used to evaluate the direct and indirect effects in accordance with the mediation test procedure, as follows:
The direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be significant. In Table 7 it can be seen that budgeting participation (X1) has a direct effect on managerial performance (Y), this can be seen from the p-value of 0.000. Because the direct effect of the independent variable (budgeting participation) on the dependent variable (managerial performance) in this study is significant, then the next stage of the mediation effect test can be continued.
The second requirement of the mediation test is that the indirect effect must be significant, each path, namely the independent variable on the mediating variable and the mediating variable on the dependent variable must be significant to meet this condition. Based on Table 7 budgeting participation (X1) does not have an indirect effect on managerial performance (Y) through job satisfaction (X2), this can be seen from the p-value of 0.558 (not significant). Furthermore, budgeting participation (X1) indirectly influences managerial performance (Y) through job relevant information (X3) with significance of 0.000, as well as the path through the influence of budgetary participation (X1) on significant job relevant information (X3) of 0.000 and the influence of job relevant information (X3) on managerial performance (Y) is also significant at 0.000. The indirect effect of budgeting participation (X1) on managerial performance (Y) through the budget goal commitment (X4) is significant at 0.016, as well as the path through which the influence of budgetary participation on budget goal commitment (X4) is significant at 0.000 and the influence of budget goal commitment (X4) on managerial performance (Y) is also significant at 0.012. Therefore, the effect of budgetary participation (X1) on managerial performance (Y) through job satisfaction (X2) cannot be included in subsequent mediation tests.
The third procedure is to calculate the VAF value. VAF values for the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance through job relevant information and budget goal commitment are as follows:
VAF Xi to Y (through X3) = 0,226/ (0.226 + 0.423) = 35% VAF Xi to Y (through X4) = 0,149/ (0.149 + 0.423) = 26%
Hypothesis 1. Based on Table 7 it can be seen that the direct effect of budgeting participation variable (X1) on managerial performance (Y) has a p-value of 0.000 less than 0.05. These results are consistent with the first hypothesis (H1) which states that budgeting participation affects managerial performance. This means that the higher level of participation of managers in the budgeting process, the higher level of managerial performance achieved. The results of this study are in line with research conducted by Farahmita (2016) which states that budgetary participation has a positive effect on managerial performance. The results of this study are also in line with the research
conducted by Djalil et al. (2017) which states that the higher level of budgetary participation, the better managerial performance will achieved.
The results of this study were able to provide support the theory of goal setting. The theory of goal setting emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the goals set and the performance produced. Organizational goals or objectives that have been formulated into the budget plan are easier to achieve their performance targets in accordance with the vision and mission of the organization itself. The goals set in a participatory manner produce superior performance, meaning that individuals will have the best performance when given the target task by their superiors (Robbins, 2003). A positive relationship between budgeting participation and managerial performance can also be seen from the average respondent's answer. The average score of respondents' answers to budgeting participation and managerial performance is high. So that the higher the level of budgeting participation, the better the managerial performance will occur.
Hypothesis 2. Based on the test of indirect effects, the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance through job satisfaction has a p-value 0.558 (not significant). This indicates that budgeting participation does not affect managerial performance through job satisfaction, hence job satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between budgeting participation and managerial performance. The results of this study are in line with the research conducted by Lina and Stella (2013) and Fitrianti and Marbawi (2014). The results of this study are not able to provide support to the theory of goal setting which states that specific goals with feedback will produce high performance. Thus, the second hypothesis in this study which reads job satisfaction mediates the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance is rejected.
The reason for the hypothesis was rejected because in this study budgetary participation was not able to directly affect job satisfaction (0.604 p-values were not significant). As'ad (2003) in Rahayu (2013) states that there are four factors that influence an individual's / employee's job satisfaction, namely physiological factors, psychological factors, social factors, and financial factors. Based on the average respondent's answers regarding job satisfaction, there are 3 indicators that are answered at moderate scores, including operating procedures (psychological factors) and benefits and promotions (financial factors). Based on this, there are two factors that which has not been maximally achieved, ie psychological factors and financial factors. This is indicated as the cause of the inability of job satisfaction to mediate the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance
Hypothesis 3. Based on the results of statistical tests, budgeting participation has an indirect effect on managerial performance through JRI. In addition, based on the results of the mediation effect test, JRI served as a mediating variable between budgeting participation and managerial performance with a VAF value of 35%. These results are in accordance with the third hypothesis (H3) which states that JRI mediates the effect of budgeting participation on managerial performance. This result means that the higher the level of participation of managers in budgeting, will result in increased job relevant information obtained, so that in the end it will lead to an increase in managerial performance. The results of this study are in accordance with research conducted by Indarto and Ayu (2011) which states that JRI is able to act as a mediator in the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial performance. The results of this study are also consistent with research conducted by Tarigan and Devi (2015) which states that job relevant information is able to mediate the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial performance.
The results of this study are in accordance with the theory of goal setting which emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the objectives set with the performance produced. Setting goals that are carried out in a participatory manner will have an impact on superior performance. Every organization that has set goals that are formulated into the budget plan is easier to achieve its performance targets in accordance with the vision and mission of the organization itself. When someone is involved in the budgeting process, there will be a sense of belonging to the organization, so that the person will provide relevant information and efforts for the success of the organization. Relevant information is very
important in relation to appropriate decision making. The right decision will ultimately affect managerial performance.
Hypothesis 4. Based on the results of statistical tests, budgeting participation has an indirect effect on managerial performance through budget goal commitment. In addition, based on the results of the mediation effect test, budget goal commitment acts as a mediating variable between budgeting participation and managerial performance with a VAF value of 26%. These results are consistent with the fourth hypothesis (H4) which states that the budget goal commitment mediates the effect of budgeting participation and managerial performance. This result means that the higher the level of participation of managers in budgeting, will lead to an increase in commitment to budget goals, so that in the end will lead to an increase in managerial performance. The results of this study are in accordance with the results of previous studies conducted by Baskara (2014), who stated that budget goal commitment was able to mediate the relationship between budgeting participation and managerial performance. The results of this study are also in line with the research conducted by Deliana (2015) and research conducted by Jannah and Rahayu (2015).
The results of this study are in line with the theory of goal setting. The theory of goal setting implies that an individual is committed to the goal (Robbins and Judge, 2008). If an individual is committed to achieving his goals, then that commitment will influence his actions and affect the consequences of his performance. Manager participation in the budgeting process will increase their trust, control, and involvement with the organization, so that they can accept and have a commitment to the budget prepared (Shield and Shield, 1998). The high commitment to this budget goal will facilitate the acceptance of the budget even though it is difficult to achieve, thus the level of performance will increase (Indarto and Ayu, 2011).
CONCLUSION
Based on the results and discussion of data analysis, the conclusions are budgeting participation affects managerial performance. This result means that the higher level of participation of managers in the budgeting process, the higher level of managerial performance achieved. Job satisfaction does not mediate the effect between budgeting participation and managerial performance. This result means that budgeting participation does not have an indirect effect on managerial performance through job satisfaction. Job relevant information mediates the effect between budgeting participation and managerial performance. This result means that the higher the level of participation of managers in budgeting will result in increased job relevant information obtained, so that in the end it will lead to an increase in managerial performance. Budget goal commitment mediates the effect of budgeting participation and managerial performance. This result means that the higher level of participation of managers in budgeting will lead to an increase in commitment to achieve the budget goals, so in the end will lead to an increase in managerial performance.
In order to maintain the accreditation that has been owned by the hospital and improve the quality of service and improve managerial performance as a whole, managers should always be given the opportunity to participate in each budgeting process, because based on the results of this study, budgetary participation is proven to increase job relevant information and budget goal commitment. So that it will ultimately affect managerial performance.
REFERENCES
1. Baskara, Dwi. 2014. "Pengaruh Partisipasi Penganggaran Pada Kinerja Manajerial Dengan Keadilan Distributif, Keadilan Prosedural, Dan Komitmen Tujuan Anggaran Sebagai Variabel Pemediasi" (tesis). Denpasar: Universitas Udayana.
2. Brownell, P. and McInnes, M. 1986. Budgetary Participation, Motivation, and Managerial Performance. The Accounting Review. Vol: LX1(4). p.587-600.
3. Champbell, D.J., and K. F. Gingrich. 1986. Interactive Effects of Task Complexity and Participation on Task Performance: A Field Experiment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 38 (October). p. 168-80.
4. Deliana. 2015. Managerial in Indonesia Local Government: Impact of Budget Participation and Budget Goal Commitment. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting. Vol: 6, No.4, p. 99-103.
5. Djalil, Muslim A. Indriani, Mirna. and Muttaqin. The Influence of Organizational Commitment and Motivation in the Relationship between Budget Participation and Managerial Performance ( Empirical Study on Provincial Government Agencies Of Aceh Province, Indonesia). Broad Research in Accounting, Negotiation, And Distribution. Volume, 8, Issue 1, 2017, ISSN 2067-8177. p 12-24.
6. Farahmita, Aria. 2016. Job Satisfaction, Cost Management Knowledge, Budgetary Participation, and Their Impact on Performance. International Research Journal of Business Studies. Vol: 9, No. 1. p. 15-29.
7. Fitrianti, Mastura and Marbawi. 2013. "Pengaruh Partisipasi Penyusunan Anggaran Terhadap Kinerja Manajerial Dengan Variabel Intervening Motivasi dan Kepuasan Kerja Pada SETDAKAB Aceh Utara" (tesis). Aceh Utara: Universitas Malikussaleh.
8. Frucot,V. and Winston, T, Shearon. 1991. Budgetary Participation Locus Of Control & Mexican Managerial Performance And Job Satisfaction. The Accounting Review. Vol: 66 (1), January 1991. p. 80-99.
9. Ghozhali, Imam. 2014. Structural Equation Modeling, Metode Alternati Dengan Partial Least Square (PLS), edisi IV. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro Semarang.
10. Govindarajan V,1986. Impact of Participation in The Budgetary Process on Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Universalistic and Contigency Perspective. Decision Sciences, Vol:17. p. 496-516.
11. Indarto, Stefani Lily and Ayu, Stephana Dyah. 2011. Pengaruh Partisipasi dalam Penyusunan Anggaran terhadap Kinerja Manajerial Perusahaan melalui Kecukupan Anggaran, Komitmen Organisasi, Komitmen Tujuan Anggaran, dan Job Relevant Information (JRI). Seri Kajian Ilmiah, Vol: 14 No.1. p 32-44.
12. Indriantoro, Nur and Supomo, B. 1998. Pengaruh Struktur dan Kultur Organisasional terhadap Keefektifan Anggaran Partisipatif dalam Peningkatan Kinerja Manajerial: Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan Manufaktur di Indonesia. ISSN: 0853-7046. p 61-84.
13. Jannah, Miftahul., and Rahayu, Sri. 2015. Pengaruh Partisipasi Penganggaran terhadap Kinerja Manajerial SKPD dengan Kejelasan Sasaran Anggaran, Keadilan Distributif, dan Pengawasan Internal sebagai Variabel Intervening. Jurnal Perspektif Pembiayaan dan Pembangunan Daerah. Vol:3, No.2, Oktober-Desember 2015. p. 70-90.
14. Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. 2010. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 147/MENKES/PER/I/2010 tentang Perizinan Rumah Sakit. Jakarta.
15. Kenis, I. 1979. Effect on Budgetary Goal Characteristic on Managerial Attitudes And Peformance. The accounting review, Vol.54, No.4. p.707-721.
16. Kren Leslie, 1992. Budgetary Participation and Managerial Performance: The Impact of Information and Environmental Volatility. The Accounting Review. Vol: 67, No. 3. (Jul., 1992), p. 511-526.
17. Kreitner, and Kinicki. 2000. Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
18. Lina and Stella. 2013. Pengaruh Partisipasi Penyusunan Anggaran Terhadap Kinerja Manajerial: Kepuasan Kerja dan Job Relevant Information Sebagai Variabel Intervening. Jurnal Bisnis dan Akuntansi. Vol: 15, No.1, Juni 2013. p. 37-56
19. Mahoney, T. A., T. H. Jerdee, and S. J. Carroll. 1963. Development of Managerial Performance: A Research Approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing, Co.
20. Milani, K. 1975. The Relationship of Participation in Budget-Setting on Industrial Supervisor Performance and Attitudes: A Field Study. The Accounting Review 50. April. p.104-123.
21. Nor, Wahyudin. 2007. Desentralisasi dan Gaya Kepemimpinan Sebagai Variabel Moderating Dalam Hubungan Antara Partisipasi Penyusunan Anggaran dan Kinerja Manajerial. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi X. Makasar 26-28 Juli 2007.
22. Rahayu, Puji. 2013. Kepuasan Kerja Karyawan, Minggu 15 September 2013, [cited May 1 2018]. Available from: URL: http://kepuasankerjakaryawan.blogspot.co.id/.
23. Rahma, Puti Aulia. 2012. Akreditasi Rumah Sakit, Pengakuan Atas Kualitas Layanan, 26 November 2012, [cited June 27 2018]. Available from: URL: https://www.mutupelayanankesehatan.net/19-headline/151-akreditasi-rumah-sakit-pengakuan-atas-kualitas-layanan
24. Republik Indonesia. 2009. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 44 Tahun 2009 tentang Rumah Sakit. Jakarta.
25. Robbins. 2003. Organization Behavior, Concept Controversi and Applications. Prentice Hall Inc. USA. Terjemahan. Jakarta: PT Indeks Kelompok Gramedia.
26. Robbins, Stephen P. and Judge, T.A. 2008. Perilaku Organisasi (Organizational Behavior). Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
27. Shields, J.F and M.D Shields, M. 1998. Antencedents of Participate Budgeting. Accounting Organitations and Society, p.49-76.
28. Spector, Paul E. 1997. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, Consequence. United Kingdom: Sage Publication, Inc., 1997.
29. Wentzel, K. 2002. The Influence of Fairness Perceptions and Goal Commitment on Manager's Performance in a Budget Setting. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Vol: 12, p.247-271.
30. Tarigan, Josua., and Devie. 2015. The Influence of Budgeting Participation on Managerial Performance in Service Companies: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Accounting and Finance. Vol: 15, No. 8, p. 95-105.
31. Yusfaningrum, Kusnariyanti and Ghozali, Imam. (2005). "Analisis Pengaruh Partisipasi Anggaran Terhadap Kinerja Manajerial Melalui Komitmen Tujuan Anggaran Dan Job Relevant Information (JRI) Sebagai Variabel Intervening. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi VIII. Solo 15-16 September 2005.
