pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit
pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit pdf - Nyenrode Business Universiteit
4.4. ANALYSES 105 RPE use ✻ Positive Information Asymmetry - Goal Ambiguity - Measurability of Outputs - Decentralization Size & Sector 4.4.2 Multivariate Analyses Figure 4.3: Statistical Model Negative (H1) Positive Room for Managerial Opportunism In order to test RPE’s opportunism-mitigating effect, I analyse the model that is presented in figure 4.3. Two analyses are run: first, the model is tested with the RPE-Use measure. This model is referred to as the base model. Second, an alternative measure for RPE use is used as a robustness check. Both models fit the data, but do not support the research hypothesis; in my models, RPE use does not reduce the room for managerial opportunism. The results of these analyses and several robustness checks are discussed in the remainder of this section. 4.4.2.1 Analyses with RPE-Use Measure This subsection presents the base model results of the multivariate analysis of the mitigating effect of RPE on the room for managerial opportunism, using the primary RPE- ✻ ❄ ✻ ✻
106 CHAPTER 4. OPPORTUNISM MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS measure. The multivariate analyses are conducted through structural equation modelling 11 (SEM). The SEM analysis shows overall support for the model. The model explains 14% of the variance in the room for opportunism. The model is presented in table 4.12 - panel A. The model does not support the research hypothesis. Instead, RPE-Use has a positive effect on the room for managerial opportunism; more RPE use is associated with increased room for opportunism. In the conclusions and discussion section of this chapter, this unexpected finding will be discussed and confronted with prior literature. The RPE-inducing effect of information asymmetry is also unsupported by the model. This finding is consistent with the results of chapter 2, where information asymmetry (interacting with the level of comparability of the business unit) does not increase RPE use. Table 4.12: Results of SEM Analysis (RPE-Use) Panel A - base model results Coefficient Std. Error Critical Ratio Prob. RPE use > RFMO 0.100 0.058 1.883 0.06 ‘a’ Inf. Asymmetry > RFMO 0.080 0.070 1.372 0.09 ‘a’ Inf. Asymmetry > RPE use 0.051 0.062 0.901 0.18 ‘a’ Goal Ambiguity > RFMO 0.198 0.127 3.137 0.00 ‘a’ Meas. of Outputs > RFMO -0.216 0.110 -3.265 0.00 ‘a’ Decentralization > RFMO 0.084 0.056 1.446 0.07 ‘a’ BU size > RFMO -0.021 0.030 -0.339 0.73 Firm size > RFMO -0.017 0.028 -0.266 0.79 Dummy prod. > RFMO 0.076 0.162 1.376 0.17 Dummy fin. serv. > RFMO -0.033 0.164 -0.597 0.55 Dummy N.F.P. > RFMO -0.052 0.170 -0.887 0.38 ‘a’ : variable based on directional expectation; significance calculated as onetailed p-value Panel B - base model fit statistics Chi 2 = 5.656 goodness-of-fit statistics Degrees of freedom = 8 GFI = 0.997 Probability level = .686 AGFI = 0.973 CFI = 1.000 Multivariate normality RMR = 0.021 Kurtosis 13.524 (c.r. 7.017) RMSEA = 0.000 Panel C - bootstrap results Bootstrap samples = 500 Bollen-Stine bootstrap p = 0.701 11 The SEM analyses are run in AMOS 18.
- Page 64 and 65: 2.6. CONTRACTIBILITY MIMIC MODEL (A
- Page 66 and 67: 2.7. ANALYSES FOR FOR-PROFIT BUS (A
- Page 68 and 69: Chapter 3 Does Relative Performance
- Page 70 and 71: 3.1. INTRODUCTION 61 Holmstrom’s
- Page 72 and 73: 3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 63 3.
- Page 74 and 75: 3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 65 RP
- Page 76 and 77: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 67 3.3
- Page 78 and 79: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 69 3.3.
- Page 80 and 81: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 71 Tabl
- Page 82 and 83: 3.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 73 Tabl
- Page 84 and 85: 3.4. ANALYSES 75 3.4 Analyses This
- Page 86 and 87: 3.4. ANALYSES 77 Table 3.9: Pearson
- Page 88 and 89: 3.4. ANALYSES 79 Table 3.10: Result
- Page 90 and 91: 3.4. ANALYSES 81 Table 3.11: Result
- Page 92 and 93: 3.4. ANALYSES 83 Larcker & Rusticus
- Page 94 and 95: 3.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 85
- Page 96 and 97: Chapter 4 Does Relative Performance
- Page 98 and 99: 4.1. INTRODUCTION 89 Moreover, chap
- Page 100 and 101: 4.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 91 is
- Page 102 and 103: 4.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 93 Sp
- Page 104 and 105: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 95 4.3
- Page 106 and 107: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 97 To i
- Page 108 and 109: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 99 of R
- Page 110 and 111: 4.3. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT 101 Tab
- Page 112 and 113: 4.4. ANALYSES 103 Table 4.8: Items
- Page 116 and 117: 4.4. ANALYSES 107 The model does sh
- Page 118 and 119: 4.4. ANALYSES 109 RPE and RFMO. Mor
- Page 120 and 121: 4.4. ANALYSES 111 room for manageri
- Page 122 and 123: 4.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 113
- Page 124 and 125: 4.5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 115
- Page 126 and 127: Chapter 5 Conclusion 5.1 Summary, C
- Page 128 and 129: 5.1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCU
- Page 130 and 131: 5.1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCU
- Page 132 and 133: 5.1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCU
- Page 134 and 135: 5.2. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE 125
- Page 136 and 137: 5.3. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FO
- Page 138 and 139: Appendix Overview of Questionnaire
- Page 140 and 141: Q5 How often do the following thing
- Page 142 and 143: Q14 When serving your clients, how
- Page 144 and 145: Q23 Please indicate whether you agr
- Page 146 and 147: Noise Q34 NOISE (primary measure) P
- Page 148 and 149: References 1. Abernethy, M.A., Bouw
- Page 150 and 151: 26. Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J.
- Page 152 and 153: 52. Himmelberg, C.P. & Hubbard R.G.
- Page 154: 83. Towry, K. 2003. ‘Control in a
- Page 157 and 158: 148 beïnvloeden, veroorzaken ruis
- Page 160 and 161: Biography Hilco van Elten (1979) ho
106 CHAPTER 4. OPPORTUNISM MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS<br />
measure. The multivariate analyses are conducted through structural equation modelling 11<br />
(SEM). The SEM analysis shows overall support for the model. The model explains 14% of<br />
the variance in the room for opportunism. The model is presented in table 4.12 - panel A.<br />
The model does not support the research hypothesis. Instead, RPE-Use has a positive<br />
effect on the room for managerial opportunism; more RPE use is associated with increased<br />
room for opportunism. In the conclusions and discussion section of this chapter, this<br />
unexpected finding will be discussed and confronted with prior literature.<br />
The RPE-inducing effect of information asymmetry is also unsupported by the model.<br />
This finding is consistent with the results of chapter 2, where information asymmetry<br />
(interacting with the level of comparability of the business unit) does not increase RPE<br />
use.<br />
Table 4.12: Results of SEM Analysis (RPE-Use)<br />
Panel A - base model results Coefficient Std. Error Critical Ratio Prob.<br />
RPE use > RFMO 0.100 0.058 1.883 0.06 ‘a’<br />
Inf. Asymmetry > RFMO 0.080 0.070 1.372 0.09 ‘a’<br />
Inf. Asymmetry > RPE use 0.051 0.062 0.901 0.18 ‘a’<br />
Goal Ambiguity > RFMO 0.198 0.127 3.137 0.00 ‘a’<br />
Meas. of Outputs > RFMO -0.216 0.110 -3.265 0.00 ‘a’<br />
Decentralization > RFMO 0.084 0.056 1.446 0.07 ‘a’<br />
BU size > RFMO -0.021 0.030 -0.339 0.73<br />
Firm size > RFMO -0.017 0.028 -0.266 0.79<br />
Dummy prod. > RFMO 0.076 0.162 1.376 0.17<br />
Dummy fin. serv. > RFMO -0.033 0.164 -0.597 0.55<br />
Dummy N.F.P. > RFMO -0.052 0.170 -0.887 0.38<br />
‘a’ : variable based on directional expectation; significance calculated as onetailed<br />
p-value<br />
Panel B - base model fit statistics<br />
Chi 2 = 5.656 goodness-of-fit statistics<br />
Degrees of freedom = 8 GFI = 0.997<br />
Probability level = .686 AGFI = 0.973<br />
CFI = 1.000<br />
Multivariate normality RMR = 0.021<br />
Kurtosis 13.524 (c.r. 7.017) RMSEA = 0.000<br />
Panel C - bootstrap results<br />
Bootstrap samples = 500 Bollen-Stine bootstrap p = 0.701<br />
11 The SEM analyses are run in AMOS 18.
Change language