IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eufman/v9y2003i3p379-406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paying People to Lie: the Truth about the Budgeting Process

Author

Listed:
  • Michael C. Jensen

Abstract

This paper analyzes the counterproductive effects associated with using budgets or targets in an organisation's performance measurement and compensation systems. Paying people on the basis of how their performance relates to a budget or target causes people to game the system and in doing so to destroy value in two main ways: (a) both superiors and subordinates lie in the formulation of budgets and, therefore, gut the budgeting process of the critical unbiased information that is required to coordinate the activities of disparate parts of an organisation, and (b) they game the realisation of the budgets or targets and in doing so destroy value for their organisations. Although most managers and analysts understand that budget gaming is widespread, few understand the huge costs it imposes on organisations and how to lower them. My purpose in this paper is to explain exactly how this happens and how managers and firms can stop this counter‐productive cycle. The key lies not in destroying the budgeting systems, but in changing the way organisations pay people. In particular to stop this highly counter‐productive behaviour we must stop using budgets or targets in the compensation formulas and promotion systems for employees and managers. This means taking all kinks, discontinuities and non‐linearities out of the pay‐for‐performance profile of each employee and manager. Such purely linear compensation formulas provide no incentives to lie, or to withhold and distort information, or to game the system. While the evidence on the costs of these systems is not extensive, I believe that solving the problems could easily result in large productivity and value increases – sometimes as much as 50–100% improvements in productivity. I believe the less intensive reliance on such budget/target systems is an important cause of the increased productivity of entrepreneurial and LBO firms. Moreover, eliminating budget/target‐induced gaming from the management system will eliminate one of the major forces leading to the general loss of integrity in organisations. People are taught to lie in these pervasive budgeting systems because if they tell the truth they often get punished and if they lie they get rewarded. Once taught to lie in this system people generally cannot help but extend that behaviour to all sorts of other relationships in the organisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael C. Jensen, 2003. "Paying People to Lie: the Truth about the Budgeting Process," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 9(3), pages 379-406, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eufman:v:9:y:2003:i:3:p:379-406
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-036X.00226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00226
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-036X.00226?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Healy, Paul M., 1985. "The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1-3), pages 85-107, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sang Cheol Lee & Mooweon Rhee & Jongchul Yoon, 2018. "Foreign Monitoring and Audit Quality: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    2. DEGEORGE, François & DING, Yuan & JEANJEAN, Thomas & STOLOWY, Hervé, 2005. "Does Analyst Following Curb Earnings Management?," HEC Research Papers Series 810, HEC Paris.
    3. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.
    4. Kuang, Yu Flora & Qin, Bo, 2009. "Performance-vested stock options and interest alignment," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 46-61.
    5. Richardson, Grant & Taylor, Grantley & Lanis, Roman, 2015. "The impact of financial distress on corporate tax avoidance spanning the global financial crisis: Evidence from Australia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 44-53.
    6. Xin Qu & Majella Percy & Fang Hu & Jenny Stewart, 2022. "Can CEO equity‐based compensation limit investment‐related agency problems?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2579-2614, June.
    7. Ronelle Burger & Canh Thien Dang & Trudy Owens, 2017. "Better performing NGOs do report more accurately: Evidence from investigating Ugandan NGO financial accounts," Discussion Papers 2017-10, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    8. Craig J. Chapman & Thomas J. Steenburgh, 2008. "An Investigation of Earnings Management Through Marketing Actions," Harvard Business School Working Papers 08-073, Harvard Business School, revised Feb 2009.
    9. Hu, Juncheng, 2021. "Do facilitation payments affect earnings management? Evidence from China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    10. Li, Shaomin & Selover, David D. & Stein, Michael, 2011. ""Keep silent and make money": Institutional patterns of earnings management in China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 369-382, October.
    11. Lauren Cohen & Andrea Frazzini & Christopher J. Malloy, 2012. "Hiring Cheerleaders: Board Appointments of "Independent" Directors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1039-1058, June.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3278 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Thomas W. Scott, 1991. "Pension disclosures under SFAS No. 87: Theory and evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 62-81, September.
    14. Hand, John R. M. & Skantz, Terrance R., 1997. "The economic determinants of accounting choices: The unique case of equity carve-outs under SAB 51," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 175-203, December.
    15. Holthausen, Robert W. & Larcker, David F. & Sloan, Richard G., 1995. "Annual bonus schemes and the manipulation of earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 29-74, February.
    16. Rajashri Chatterjee & Debdas Rakshit, 2023. "Association Between Earnings Management and Corporate Governance Mechanisms: A Study Based on Select Firms in India," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 24(1), pages 152-170, February.
    17. Edward P. Lazear, 1995. "Personnel Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121883, December.
    18. N. Eriotis & T. Kounadeas & K. Liapis & E. Poutos, 2019. "The Impact of IFRS Adoption by Greek Listed Companies on the Earnings Quality: An Empirical Investigation," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 9(3-4), pages 90-100.
    19. Alain Gilles FOKA TAGNE & Prince Dubois KENFACK HIKOUATCHA & Joséphine Florentine MBADUET & Joseph NDASSI YEPGNOU, 2018. "Qualité d’audit, concentration de l’actionnariat et reporting financier," Journal of Academic Finance, RED research unit, university of Gabes, Tunisia, vol. 9(1), pages 27-54, June.
    20. Gropp, Reint E. & Köhler, Matthias, 2010. "Bank owners or bank managers: who is keen on risk? Evidence from the financial crisis," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-013, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    21. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, 2019. "The Effect of Financial Constraints on Audit Fees," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 59-87.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eufman:v:9:y:2003:i:3:p:379-406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/efmaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.