Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 655–686 | Cite as

Allowance for failure: reducing dysfunctional behavior by innovating accountability practices



A common theme in current corporate governance is to increase managers’ accountability. In contrast, this paper emphasizes the need for less accountability in certain situations and consequently introduces the concept of “allowance for failure”. This concept refers to the style in which the decision maker’s environment—such as capital market, corporate governance, and management control system—deals with potential failures (e.g., project or investment failures). The argument that allowance for failure is important is illustrated by the example of failing projects, drawing on the escalation of commitment literature. It is hypothesized that allowance for failure indirectly reduces project escalation, i.e., the continuation of a failing project. The relationship is mediated by managers’ perceived threat in case of project failure. In addition, the paper suggests that capital market orientation increases managers’ perceived threat in the case of project failure and thus indirectly increases project escalation. Cross-sectional survey data were collected to test these hypotheses. The results from 320 failed projects under the responsibility of top-level managers support the hypothesized effects. Cross-validation with 109 projects terminated by lower-level managers and 133 projects terminated by company owners shows consistent results. The study’s findings highlight the importance of carefully analyzing potential consequences of promoting capital market orientation. More important, the study indicates a need for innovative accountability practices that expand allowance for failure to avoid dysfunctional consequences for decision-making, especially if strong capital market orientation is prevalent.


Allowance for failure Capital market Decision-making Project escalation 

JEL Classification

G30 M10 


  1. Aerts, W. (2005). Picking up the pieces: Impression management in the retrospective attributional framing of accounting outcomes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(6), 493–517.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.Google Scholar
  3. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS Version 17.0. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.Google Scholar
  6. Armstrong, R. W., Williams, R. J., & Barrett, J. D. (2004). The impact of banality, risky shift and escalating commitment on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 365–370.Google Scholar
  7. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 16(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
  8. Barretta, A., Busco, C., & Ruggiero, P. (2008). Trust in project financing: An Italian health care example. Public Money & Management, 28(3), 179–184. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2008.00641.x.Google Scholar
  9. Barton, S. L., Duchon, D., & Dunegan, K. J. (1989). An empirical test of Staw and Ross’s prescriptions for the management of escalation of commitment behavior in organizations. Decision Sciences, 20(3), 532–544.Google Scholar
  10. Bazerman, M. H. (1986). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (2002). Small business credit availability and relationship lending: The importance of bank organisational structure. Economic Journal, 112(477), F32–F53.Google Scholar
  12. Bernardi, R. A. (2006). Associations between Hofstede’s cultural constructs and social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(1), 43–53.Google Scholar
  13. Bhojraj, S., & Libby, R. (2005). Capital market pressure, disclosure frequency-induced earnings/cash flow conflict, and managerial myopia. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  14. Bispe, J., Batista-Foguet, J.-M., & Chenhall, R. (2007). Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 789–820.Google Scholar
  15. Biyalogorsky, E., William, B., & Staelin, R. (2006). Stuck in the past: Why managers persist with new product failures. Journal of Marketing, 70, 108–121.Google Scholar
  16. Black, B. S., & Gilson, R. J. (1998). Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: Banks versus stock markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 47(3), 243–277. doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(97)00045-7.Google Scholar
  17. Bolton, R. N. (1993). Pretesting questionnaires: Content analyses of respondents’ concurrent verbal protocols. Marketing Science, 12(3), 280–303.Google Scholar
  18. Boulding, W., Morgan, R., & Staelin, R. (1997). Pulling the plug to stop the new product drain. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 164–176.Google Scholar
  19. Brav, A., Jiang, W., Partnoy, F., & Thomas, R. (2008). Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1729–1775.Google Scholar
  20. Brockner, J., & Rubin, J. Z. (1985). Entrapment in escalating conflicts. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Brockner, J., Rubin, J. Z., & Lang, E. (1981). Face saving and entrapment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 68–79.Google Scholar
  22. Brockner, J., Shaw, M. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1979). Factors affecting withdrawal from an escalating conflict: Quitting before it’s too late. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 492–503.Google Scholar
  23. Brownell, P., & Hirst, M. (1986). Reliance on accounting information, budgetary participation, and task uncertainty: Tests of a three-way interaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 24(2), 241–249.Google Scholar
  24. Busco, C., Riccaboni, A., & Scapens, R. W. (2006). Trust for accounting and accounting for trust. Management Accounting Research, 17(1), 11–41. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2005.08.001.Google Scholar
  25. Bushee, B. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors in myopic R&D investment behavior. The Accounting Review, 73(3), 305–333.Google Scholar
  26. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127–140. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001.Google Scholar
  28. Camerer, C. F. (1999). The econometrics and behavioral economics of escalation of commitment: A re-examination of Staw and Hoang’s NBA data. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39, 59–82.Google Scholar
  29. Carr, C., & Tomkins, C. (1998). Context, culture and the role of the finance function in strategic decisions. A comparative analysis of Britain, Germany, the U.S.A and Japan. Management Accounting Research, 9(2), 213–239.Google Scholar
  30. Cassar, G., & Gibson, B. (2008). Budgets, internal reports, and manager forecast accuracy. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(3), 707–737.Google Scholar
  31. Cheng, M. M., Schulz, A. K.-D., Luckett, P. F., & Booth, P. (2003). The effects of hurdle rates on the level of escalation of commitment in capital budgeting. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 15, 63–85.Google Scholar
  32. Chow, C. W., Harrison, P., Lindquist, T., & Wu, A. (1997). Escalating commitment to unprofitable projects: Replication and cross-cultural extension. Management Accounting Research, 8, 347–361.Google Scholar
  33. Churchill, G. A. J. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.Google Scholar
  34. Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: A study of CEO effects in three countries. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 767–789.Google Scholar
  35. Danneels, E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 519–543. doi:10.1002/smj.684.Google Scholar
  36. Davila, A. (2005). An exploratory study on the emergence of management control systems: Formalizing human resources in small growing firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 222–248. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.05.006.Google Scholar
  37. Davila, A., & Foster, G. (2007). Management control systems in early-stage startup companies. The Accounting Review, 82(4), 907–937.Google Scholar
  38. Davis, S., DeZoort, F. T., & Kopp, L. S. (2006). The effect of obedience pressure and perceived responsibility on management accountants’ creation of budgetary slack. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18, 19–35.Google Scholar
  39. Del Guercio, D., Seery, L., & Woidtke, T. (2008). Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists ‘‘just vote no’’? Journal of Financial Economics, 90, 84–103.Google Scholar
  40. DeVellis, R. F. (2002). Scale development: Theory and applications, 2nd. ed., Vol. 26. Applied Social Research Methods Series). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. DeZoort, F. T., & Lord, A. T. (1997). A review and synthesis of pressure effects research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 16, 28–85.Google Scholar
  42. Diamantopoulos, A. (2005). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: A comment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 1–9.Google Scholar
  43. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Dilts, D. M., & Pence, K. R. (2006). Impact of role in the decision to fail: An exploratory study of terminated projects. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 378–396.Google Scholar
  45. Dunk, A. S. (1993). The effects of job-related tension on managerial performance in participative budgetary settings. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(7–8), 575–585. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(93)90043-6.Google Scholar
  46. Dzuranin, A. C. (2010). Mitigating escalation of commitment: An investigation of the effects of priming in team decision-making settings. In AAA 2011 management accounting section (MAS) meeting paper: Available at SSRN:
  47. Edwards, J., & Fischer, K. (1996). Banks, finance and investment in Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2008). Manufacturing shareholder value: The role of accounting in organizational transformation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2–3), 107–140. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.03.001.Google Scholar
  49. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adaption of shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4), 501–534.Google Scholar
  50. Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.Google Scholar
  52. Gedajlovic, E. R., & Shapiro, D. M. (1998). Management and ownership effects: Evidence from five countries. Strategic Management Journal, 19(6), 533–553.Google Scholar
  53. Geraldi, J. G., Kutsch, E., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2010). The Titanic sunk, so what? Project manager response to unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 28(6), 547–558.Google Scholar
  54. Ghosh, D. (1997). De-escalation strategies: Some experimental evidence. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 9, 88–112.Google Scholar
  55. Goergen, M., Manjon, M. C., & Renneboog, L. (2008). Recent developments in German corporate governance. International Review of Law and Economics, 28(3), 175–193. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2008.06.003.Google Scholar
  56. Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Rajgopal, S. (2005). The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 40(1–3), 3–73.Google Scholar
  57. Granlund, M., & Taipaleenmäki, J. (2005). Management control and controllership in new economy firms: A life cycle perspective. Management Accounting Research, 16, 21–51.Google Scholar
  58. Grieshop, H. (2008). Kooperation von Controllerbereich und externem Rechnungswesen: Messung, Wirkung, Determinanten [Cooperation between management accounting departments and financial accounting departments: Measurement, effects, determinants]. Vallendar: Dissertation.Google Scholar
  59. Hague, P. (1993). Questionnaire design. London: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
  60. Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57, 98–107.Google Scholar
  61. Harrell, A., & Harrison, P. D. (1994). An incentive to shirk, privately held information, and managers’ project evaluation decision. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(7), 569–577.Google Scholar
  62. Harrison, P. D., & Harrell, A. (1995). Initial responsibility, prospective information, and managers’ project evaluation decisions. Advances in Management Accounting, 4, 127–146.Google Scholar
  63. Healy, P. M., & Wahlen, J. M. (1999). A review of the earnings management literature and its implications for standard setting. Accounting Horizons, 13(4), 365–383.Google Scholar
  64. Heng, C.-S., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2003). De-escalation of commitment in software projects: Who matters? What matters? Information & Management, 41, 99–110.Google Scholar
  65. Hilb, M. (2010). Redesigning corporate governance: Lessons learnt from the global financial crisis. Journal of Management and Governance. doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9131-8.
  66. Hirst, M. K. (1983). Reliance on accounting performance measures, task uncertainty, and dysfunctional behavior: Some extensions. Journal of Accounting Research, 21(2), 596–605.Google Scholar
  67. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Hopwood, A. G. (1972). An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research, 10(Suppl. 3), 156–182.Google Scholar
  69. Hopwood, A. G. (2008). Management accounting research in a changing world. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 20, 3–13.Google Scholar
  70. Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
  71. Hughes, A., & Burchell, B. (2007). The stigma of failure: An international comparison of failure tolerance and second chancing. Cambridge, UK: ITEC Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  72. Hunton, J. E., Mauldin, E. G., & Wheeler, P. R. (2008). Potential functional and dysfunctional effects of continuous monitoring. The Accounting Review, 83(6), 1551–1569.Google Scholar
  73. Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 140–154.Google Scholar
  74. Ingley, C., Mueller, J., & Cocks, G. (2010). The financial crisis, investor activists and corporate strategy: Will this mean shareholders in the boardroom? Journal of Management and Governance. doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9130-9.
  75. Jeffrey, C. (1992). The relation of judgment, personal involvement, and experience in the audit of bank loans. The Accounting Review, 67(4), 802–819.Google Scholar
  76. Kadous, K., & Sedor, L. M. (2004). The efficacy of third-party consultation in preventing managerial escalation of commitment: The role of mental representations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
  77. Kanodia, C., Bushman, R., & Dickhaut, J. (1989). Escalation errors and the sunk cost effect: An explanation based on reputation and information asymmetries. Journal of Accounting Research, 27(1), 59–77.Google Scholar
  78. Keil, M., Rai, A., Mann, J. E. C., & Zhang, G. P. (2003). Why software projects escalate: The importance of project management constructs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(3), 251–261.Google Scholar
  79. Keil, M., & Robey, D. (1999). Turning around troubled software projects: An exploratory study of the deescalation of commitment to failing courses of action. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 63–87.Google Scholar
  80. Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 24(2), 299–325.Google Scholar
  81. Kester, W. C. (1994). Banks in the board room: The American versus Japanese and German experiences. Global Finance Journal, 5(2), 181–204. doi:10.1016/1044-0283(94)90003-5.Google Scholar
  82. Kirby, S. L., & Davis, M. A. (1998). A study of escalating commitment in principal-agent relationships: Effects of monitoring and personal responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 206–217.Google Scholar
  83. Kisfalvi, V. (2000). The threat of failure, the perils of success and CEO character: Sources of strategic persistence. Organization Studies, 21(3), 611–639.Google Scholar
  84. Kline, T. J. B., Sulsky, L. M., & Rever-Moriyama, S. D. (2000). Common method variance and specification errors: A practical approach to detection. Journal of Psychology, 134(4), 401–421.Google Scholar
  85. Koh, K., Matsumoto, D. A., & Rajgopal, S. (2008). Meeting or beating analyst expectations in the post-scandals world: Changes in stock market rewards and managerial actions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 1067–1098.Google Scholar
  86. Kwok, W. C. C., & Sharp, D. J. (1998). A review of construct measurement issues in behavioral accounting research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 17, 137–174.Google Scholar
  87. Lant, T. K., & Hurley, A. E. (1999). A contingency model of response to performance feedback: Escalation of commitment and incremental adaption in resource investment decisions. Group & Organization Management, 24(4), 421–437.Google Scholar
  88. Laverty, K. J. (2004). Managerial myopia or systemic short-termism? The importance of managerial systems in valuing the long term. Management Decision, 42(8), 949–962. doi:10.1108/00251740410555443.Google Scholar
  89. Lev, B., Sarath, B., & Sougiannis, T. (2005). R&D reporting biases and their consequences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(4), 977–1026.Google Scholar
  90. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.Google Scholar
  91. Lord, A. T., & DeZoort, F. T. (2001). The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors’ responses to social influence pressure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(3), 215–235. doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(00)00022-2.Google Scholar
  92. Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2007). Mapping management accounting: Graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (Vol. 1, pp. 27–95). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  93. Mahlendorf, M. D., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2013). Public justification and investment in failing projects—The moderating effect of optimistic outcome expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  94. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.Google Scholar
  95. Mansfield, E., Rapoport, J., Schnee, J., Wagner, S., & Hamburger, M. (1971). Research and innovation in the modern corporation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  96. Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2007). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 273–292.Google Scholar
  97. Merchant, K. A. (1990). The effects of financial controls on data manipulation and management myopia. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(4), 297–313.Google Scholar
  98. Meredith, J. (1988). Project monitoring for early termination. Project Management Journal, 19(5), 31–38.Google Scholar
  99. Mian, S. (2001). On the choice and replacement of chief financial officers. Journal of Financial Economics, 60(1), 143–175. doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(01)00042-3.Google Scholar
  100. Nathanson, S., Brockner, J., Brenner, D., Samuelson, C., Countryman, M., Lloyd, M., et al. (1982). Toward the reduction of entrapment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 193–208.Google Scholar
  101. Nazari, J., Kline, T., & Herremans, I. (2006). Conducting survey research in management accounting. In Z. Hoque (Ed.), Methodological issues in accounting research: Theories, methods and issues (pp. 427–459). London: Spiramus.Google Scholar
  102. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  103. Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  104. O’Sullivan, A., & Sheffrin, S. M. (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  105. Otley, D. T., & Pierce, B. J. (1995). The control problem in public accounting firms: An empirical study of the impact of leadership style. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(5), 405–420. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(95)00003-r.Google Scholar
  106. Ovid Technologies (2007). Health and psychosocial instruments (HaPI).; download: April 3, 2007.
  107. Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaire (pp. 142–165). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  108. Paulhus, D. L. (1992). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding (Reference Manual, Version 6). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  109. Ping, R. A., Jr. (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 336–347.Google Scholar
  110. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  111. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.Google Scholar
  112. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.Google Scholar
  113. Radcliffe, V. S., Campbell, D. R., & Fogarty, T. J. (2001). Exploring downsizing: A case study on the use of accounting information. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13, 131–157.Google Scholar
  114. Ramseyer, J. M. (Ed.). (1994). Explicit reasons for implicit contracts: The legal logic to the Japanese main bank system (The Japanese main bank system: Its relevance for developing and transforming economies). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Rapoport, A. (1995). Individual strategies in a market entry game. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(2), 117–133.Google Scholar
  116. Rapoport, A., Seale, D. A., Erev, I., & Sundali, J. A. (1998). Equilibrium play in large group market entry games. Management Science, 44(1), 119–141.Google Scholar
  117. Rebele, J. E., & Michaels, R. E. (1990). Independent auditors’ role stress: Antecedent, outcome, and moderating variables. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2, 124–153.Google Scholar
  118. Rose, C. (2010). The new European shareholder rights directive: removing barriers and creating opportunities for more shareholder activism and democracy. Journal of Management and Governance. doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9140-7.
  119. Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 701–732.Google Scholar
  120. Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.Google Scholar
  121. Ruchala, L. V. (1999). The influence of budget goal attainment on risk attitudes and escalation. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 11, 161–191.Google Scholar
  122. Schäffer, U. (2008). Management accounting & control scales handbook. Wiesbaden: DUV.Google Scholar
  123. Schmidt, J. B., & Calantone, R. J. (2002). Escalation of commitment during new product development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 103–118.Google Scholar
  124. Schriesheim, C. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Schriesheim, J. F. (1979). The effect of leniency on leader behavior descriptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 1–29.Google Scholar
  125. Schulz, A. K.-D., & Cheng, M. M. (2002). Persistence in capital budgeting reinvestment decisions: Personal responsibility antecedent and information asymmetry moderator: A note. Accounting and Finance, 42, 73–86.Google Scholar
  126. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.Google Scholar
  127. Senatra, P. T. (1980). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and organizational climate in a public accounting firm. The Accounting Review, 55(4), 594–603.Google Scholar
  128. Shields, M. D., Deng, F. J., & Kato, Y. (2000). The design and effects of control systems: Tests of direct- and indirect-effects models. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(2), 185–202.Google Scholar
  129. Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 419–426.Google Scholar
  130. Six, F. (2007). Building interpersonal trust within organizations: A relational signalling perspective. Journal of Management and Governance, 11(3), 285–309. doi:10.1007/s10997-007-9030-9.Google Scholar
  131. SPSS (2008). SPSS statistics 17.0. Chicago, Il: SPSS Inc., an IBM Company.Google Scholar
  132. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44.Google Scholar
  133. Steinkühler, D., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Brettel, M. (2013). How self-justification indirectly drives escalation of commitment: A motivational perspective. Schmalenbach Business Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  134. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.Google Scholar
  135. Sudarsanam, S., & Broadhurst, T. (2010). Corporate governance convergence in Germany through shareholder activism: Impact of the Deutsche Boerse bid for London Stock Exchange. Journal of Management and Governance. doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9141-6.
  136. Sullivan, J., & Snodgrass, C. (1991). Tolerance of executive failure in American and Japanese organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
  137. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  138. Tan, H.-T., & Lipe, M. G. (1997). Outcome effects: The impact of decision process and outcome controllability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(4), 315–325.Google Scholar
  139. Tan, H.-T., & Yates, J. F. (1995). Sunk cost effects: The influences of instruction and future return estimates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3), 311–319.Google Scholar
  140. Tan, H.-T., & Yates, J. F. (2002). Financial budgets and escalation effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 300–322. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2967.Google Scholar
  141. Teoh, S. H., Wong, T. J., & Rao, G. R. (1998). Are accruals during initial public offerings opportunistic? Review of Accounting Studies, 3(1/2), 175–208.Google Scholar
  142. Thompson, E. R., & Phua, F. T. T. (2005). Reliability among senior managers of the Marlow-Crowne short-form social desirability scale. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(4), 541–554.Google Scholar
  143. Tiwana, A., Keil, M., & Fichman, R. G. (2006). Information systems project continuation in escalation situations: A real options model. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 357–391.Google Scholar
  144. Van der Stede, W. A., Young, S. M., & Chen, C. X. (2005). Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: The case of survey studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 655–684.Google Scholar
  145. Vollmer, H. (2003). Bookkeeping, accounting, calculative practice: The sociological suspense of calculation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(3), 353–381. doi:10.1006/cpac.2002.0528.Google Scholar
  146. Weick, K. E. (1983). Stress in accounting systems. The Accounting Review, 58(2), 350–369.Google Scholar
  147. Zhang, G. P., Keil, M., Rai, A., & Mann, J. (2003). Predicting information technology project escalation: A neural network approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 146, 115–129.Google Scholar
  148. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr, & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.Google Scholar
  149. Zorn, D., Dobbin, F., Dierkes, J., & Kwok, M.-S. (2006). Managing investors: How financial markets shaped the American firm. In K. K. Cetina & A. Preda (Eds.), The sociology of financial markets (pp. 269–289). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VallendarGermany

Personalised recommendations