Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 31;101:101346. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2022.101346

Table 7.

Alternative models.

Base Model Paths Alternative Model 1 Alternative Model 2 Alternative Model 3
H1 CRISIS → ΔTIGHT −0.371∗∗∗ −0.371∗∗∗ −0.371∗∗∗
H2a ΔTIGHT → RC 0.205∗ 0.297∗∗∗ 0.233∗∗
RC → EMOEX 0.368∗∗∗ 0.397∗∗∗ 0.422∗∗∗
H2b ΔTIGHT → RA 0.164∗ 0.261∗∗∗ 0.259∗∗∗
RA → EMOEX 0.408∗∗∗ 0.375∗∗∗ 0.353∗∗∗
H3a ΔTIGHT∗ENBUD → RC 0.030 0.001 0.049
H3b ΔTIGHT∗ENBUD → RA −0.259∗∗∗ −0.286∗∗ −0.241∗∗∗
H4a ΔTIGHT∗TRUST → RC −0.107 −0.068 −0.141
H4b ΔTIGHT∗TRUST → RA 0.276∗∗ 0.292∗∗ 0.228∗∗
CRISIS → RC 0.113 0.108 0.100
CRISIS → RA −0.179∗ −0.111 −0.086
CRISIS → EMOEX 0.040 0.032 0.051
ΔTIGHT → EMOEX −0.064 0.077 0.060
ENBUD → RC −0.121 −0.080 −0.114
ENBUD → RA −0.280∗∗∗ −0.281∗∗∗ −0.283∗∗∗
TRUST → RC −0.170 −0.209 −0.181
TRUST → RA −0.315∗∗∗ −0.303∗∗∗ −0.284∗∗∗
TENURE → RC 0.059
TENURE → RA −0.246∗∗∗
TENURE → EMOEX 0.112
Model-specific paths TIGHT → RC 0.136 CRISIS → ΔTARGET 0.321∗∗∗ CRISIS → ΔCENTR 0.069
TIGHT → RA 0.043 ΔTARGET → RC 0.067 CRISIS → ΔR&P −0.095
TIGHT → EMOEX 0.257∗∗∗ ΔTARGET → RA 0.029 ΔCENTR → RA −0.101
ΔTARGET → EMOEX 0.107 ΔCENTR → RC 0.174
ΔTARGET∗ENBUD → RC −0.005 ΔCENTR → EMOEX −0.077
ΔTARGET∗ENBUD → RA −0.023 ΔR&P → RA −0.026
ΔTARGET∗TRUST → RC 0.093 ΔR&P → RC −0.050
ΔTARGET∗TRUST → RA 0.110 ΔR&P → EMOEX −0.076
Variance explained ΔTIGHT 13.8% ΔTIGHT 13.8% ΔTIGHT 13.8%
RC 11.7% RC 11.2% RC 13.1%
RA 44.9% RA 40.0% RA 40.2%
EMOEX 44.9% EMOEX 40.2% EMOEX 40.6%
ΔTARGET 10.3% ΔCENTR 0.50%
ΔR&P 0.90%

p < 0.10, ∗∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.01 (1-tailed for hypothesized associations, 2-tailed otherwise).

CRISIS = Crisis impact, ΔTIGHT = Change in budget tightness, TRUST = Trust in senior management, RA = Role ambiguity, RC = Role conflict, EMOEX = Emotional exhaustion; ENBUD = enabling budget design; TENURE = job tenure; TIGHT = Current level of budget tightness, ΔTARGET = Change in capital expenditure and operational cost budgets, ΔCENTR = Change in centralization, ΔR&P = Change in importance of rules and procedures.