IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v86y2020ics0361368218301880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When the Boss is far away and there is shared pay: The effect of monitoring distance and compensation interdependence on performance misreporting

Author

Listed:
  • Lill, Jeremy B.

Abstract

This study examines the joint effect that probabilistic reviews and compensation interdependence have on misreporting. These two controls are often found in distributed work settings where employees have opportunity to misreport. In an experiment that holds the true detection rate equal, I find participants perceive a probabilistic review to be more effective (i.e., more likely to detect misreporting) when there is low versus high monitoring distance between a supervisor and employee. I also find low monitoring distance reduces misreporting when compensation interdependence is low. However, high compensation interdependence attenuates the effect of monitoring distance on misreporting. This suggests that, with respect to misreporting, probabilistic reviews and compensation interdependence are substitutes rather than complements within a control system. My study advances academics’ knowledge of this complex relationship and highlights the need for managers to consider this relationship when designing both control and compensation systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Lill, Jeremy B., 2020. "When the Boss is far away and there is shared pay: The effect of monitoring distance and compensation interdependence on performance misreporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:86:y:2020:i:c:s0361368218301880
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2020.101143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368218301880
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101143?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victor S. Maas & Marcel Van Rinsum, 2013. "How Control System Design Influences Performance Misreporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 1159-1186, December.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & James Liang & John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, 2015. "Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 165-218.
    3. Thomas W. Vance, 2010. "Subcertification and Relationship Quality: Effects on Subordinate Effort," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 959-981, September.
    4. Alan Felstead & Nick Jewson & Sally Walters, 2003. "Managerial Control of Employees Working at Home," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 41(2), pages 241-264, June.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1086 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Claire Dambrin, 2004. "How does telework influence the manager-employee relationship?," International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(4), pages 358-374.
    7. Chenhall, Robert H., 2003. "Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 127-168.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Johnson, Eric N. & Lowe, D. Jordan & Reckers, Philip M.J., 2008. "Alternative work arrangements and perceived career success: Current evidence from the big four firms in the US," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 48-72, January.
    10. Grabner, Isabella & Moers, Frank, 2013. "Management control as a system or a package? Conceptual and empirical issues," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 407-419.
    11. Rocio Bonet & Fabrizio Salvador, 2017. "When the Boss Is Away: Manager–Worker Separation and Worker Performance in a Multisite Software Maintenance Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 244-261, April.
    12. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1995. "Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-208, April.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:371-379 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Groen, Bianca A.C. & van Triest, Sander P. & Coers, Michael & Wtenweerde, Neeke, 2018. "Managing flexible work arrangements: Teleworking and output controls," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 727-735.
    15. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2002. "Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    16. Mark L. Defond & Jere R. Francis & Nicholas J. Hallman, 2018. "Awareness of SEC Enforcement and Auditor Reporting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 277-313, March.
    17. Church, Bryan K. & Hannan, R. Lynn & Kuang, Xi (Jason), 2012. "Shared interest and honesty in budget reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 155-167.
    18. Claire Dambrin, 2004. "How does telework influence the manager-employee relationship?," Post-Print hal-00480623, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Felix Bolduan & Ivo Schedlinsky & Friedrich Sommer, 2021. "The influence of compensation interdependence on risk-taking: the role of mutual monitoring," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(8), pages 1125-1148, October.
    2. Bedford, David S., 2020. "Conceptual and empirical issues in understanding management control combinations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    3. Konstantin Flassak & Julia Haag & Christian Hofmann & Christopher Lechner & Nina Schwaiger & Rafael Zacherl, 2023. "Working from home and management controls," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 193-228, January.
    4. Choi, Jongwoon (Willie), 2020. "Studying “and”: A perspective on studying the interdependence between management control practices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Joseph A. Johnson & Patrick R. Martin & Bryan Stikeleather & Donald Young, 2022. "Investigating the Interactive Effects of Prosocial Actions, Construal, and Moral Identity on the Extent of Employee Reporting Dishonesty," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 721-743, December.

    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. Konstantin Flassak & Julia Haag & Christian Hofmann & Christopher Lechner & Nina Schwaiger & Rafael Zacherl, 2023. "Working from home and management controls," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 193-228, January.
    2. Markus Brunner & Andreas Ostermaier, 2019. "Peer Influence on Managerial Honesty: The Role of Transparency and Expectations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 127-145, January.
    3. David Bedford & Mikko Sandelin, 2015. "Investigating management control configurations using qualitative comparative analysis: an overview and guidelines for application," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 5-26, April.
    4. Felix Bolduan & Ivo Schedlinsky & Friedrich Sommer, 2021. "The influence of compensation interdependence on risk-taking: the role of mutual monitoring," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(8), pages 1125-1148, October.
    5. Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, Aurélie, 2021. "“Seeing to be seen”: The manager’s political economy of visibility in new ways of working," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 605-616.
    6. Christian Daumoser & Bernhard Hirsch & Matthias Sohn, 2018. "Honesty in budgeting: a review of morality and control aspects in the budgetary slack literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 115-159, August.
    7. Johansson, Tobias, 2018. "Testing for control system interdependence with structural equation modeling: Conceptual developments and evidence on the levers of control framework," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 47-62.
    8. Manthei, Kathrin & Sliwka, Dirk & Vogelsang, Timo, 2021. "Information Provision, Incentives, and Attention: A Field Experiment on Facilitating and Influencing Managers' Decisions," IZA Discussion Papers 14199, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Masschelein, Stijn & Moers, Frank, 2020. "Testing for complementarities between accounting practices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    10. Irene Eleonora Lisi, 2018. "Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 225-251, September.
    11. Müller-Stewens, Benedikt & Widener, Sally K. & Möller, Klaus & Steinmann, Jan-Christoph, 2020. "The role of diagnostic and interactive control uses in innovation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. Posch, Arthur, 2020. "Integrating risk into control system design: The complementarity between risk-focused results controls and risk-focused information sharing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Bedford, David S. & Malmi, Teemu & Sandelin, Mikko, 2016. "Management control effectiveness and strategy: An empirical analysis of packages and systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 12-28.
    14. Katrin Schmelz & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2020. "Reactions to (the absence of) control and workplace arrangements: experimental evidence from the internet and the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 933-960, December.
    15. Lan Guo & Theresa Libby & Xiaotao (Kelvin) Liu & Yu Tian, 2020. "Vertical Pay Dispersion, Peer Observability, and Misreporting in a Participative Budgeting Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 575-602, March.
    16. Adam Maiga & Anders Nilsson & Fred Jacobs, 2014. "Assessing the impact of budgetary participation on budgetary outcomes: the role of information technology for enhanced communication and activity-based costing," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 5-32, September.
    17. Braumann, Evelyn C. & Grabner, Isabella & Posch, Arthur, 2020. "Tone from the top in risk management: A complementarity perspective on how control systems influence risk awareness," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Ashish Varma & Adnan Khan, 2023. "Simons levers of control disentangled: A quasi-experiment into the competitiveness of hybrid firms," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(2), pages 19-41.
    19. Gerdin, Jonas & Johansson, Tobias & Wennblom, Gabriella, 2019. "The contingent nature of complementarity between results and value-based controls for managing company-level profitability: A situational strength perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    20. Church, Bryan K. & Kuang, Xi (Jason) & Liu, Yuebing (Sarah), 2019. "The effects of measurement basis and slack benefits on honesty in budget reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 74-84.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:86:y:2020:i:c:s0361368218301880. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.