Cultural Challenges in Implementing the Budget in a Family-Owned Technology Company

Jéssica Picchi Simionato; Samia M. Alvarenga

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603035

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The implementation of the budgeting process in a medium-sized family business in the technology sector, transitioning from an informal management model to more structured planning and control practices, was addressed. The objective was to analyze the cultural challenges faced in this process, with an emphasis on perceptions, adaptations, and organizational transformations. A qualitative and descriptive research was conducted through a single case study in a company in Santa Catarina with approximately 600 employees. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with 12 participants (directors, heads, managers, and analysts) and document analysis. The results showed that the budget was recognized as a relevant tool to increase financial clarity, guide decisions, and strengthen strategic planning, promoting greater predictability and internal organization. However, significant cultural challenges were identified, such as limited financial knowledge among managers, resistance to loss of autonomy, and the need to adapt to new routines. The process drove the formalization of information, accountability of leadership, and the gradual replacement of intuitive decisions with data, also acting as a pedagogical tool for organizational learning and the development of financial skills. It was concluded that the effectiveness of the budgeting process is directly related to the organization’s ability to promote cultural changes, leadership engagement, and continuous evolution of management practices, contributing to the professionalization of management in family businesses.

Keywords: Control; Decision; Governance; Planning; Professionalization.

1. Introduction

The business budget is a fundamental instrument for management, acting as a link between what an organization aspires to and what it actually achieves. In technology sector companies, characterized by a rapid pace of innovation, scalability, and constant investments, the budget becomes crucial for harmonizing growth ambitions with economic-financial sustainability. For family organizations seeking to transition from a more informal and centralized management model to professionalized structures, the adoption of budgeting gains even more relevance, as it formalizes goals and limits, increasing business predictability (Hillen and Lavarda, 2020).

Conceptually, the budget organizes premises, goals, and responsibilities, establishing a clear connection between planning and monitoring activities. It contributes to the reduction of ad-hoc decisions by providing explicit criteria for spending, investments, and resource prioritization (Padoveze, 2018). Its effectiveness, however, is intrinsically linked to organizational culture.

Organizational culture, composed of values, assumptions, and interaction patterns, shapes how individuals perceive and respond to management rules. Classic authors emphasize that culture can both facilitate and hinder the incorporation of new routines, influencing the degree of adherence, participation, and learning (Hofstede et al., 2010). In family businesses, elements such as organizational identity, the centrality of founders, and trust ties exert significant influence on the dynamics of change and the professionalization process of management (Leone, 2004).

The implementation of the budget in family businesses, although it promotes gains in predictability and discipline, often generates cultural tensions that transcend the technical dimension (Lugoboni et al., 2020). The traditional logic, often centralized in the figure of the founder and based on trust relationships and personal narratives, can collide with the rationality of the budget, which demands impersonal criteria, accountability, and systematic use of indicators. This dissonance can generate resistance, such as the defense of expenses by tradition, reluctance to justify deviations, and fragmentation of information, compromising the integrated view of performance (Almeida and Gasparetto, 2022). Such cultural challenges are crucial in determining whether the budget will be effectively incorporated as a coordination and learning tool or if it will remain a bureaucratic reporting ritual.

Given this scenario, it becomes essential to understand how organizational culture influences the adoption of the budget in medium-sized family businesses and its effectiveness as a management tool. The practical relevance of this study lies in offering subsidies so that family businesses in the process of professionalization can structure rituals, roles, and criteria that support the budgetary cycle, balancing growth ambition and execution discipline. From an academic point of view, the research contributes to deepening the understanding of the interface between organizational culture and budget as a management tool in the Brazilian context, filling gaps about the mechanisms by which financial artifacts are associated with cultural change (Arita, Pessoa e Leitão, 2022; Padoveze, 2018; Hofstede et al., 2010).

Thus, this work is justified by the need to investigate the complex interaction between culture and budgetary management in family technology organizations. The objective of this work is to analyze the cultural challenges faced in the implementation of the budgetary process in a medium-sized family company in the technology sector, with an emphasis on the perceptions, adaptations, and organizational transformations arising from this process.

2. Material and Methods

The research conducted was characterized by its applied nature, aiming at the understanding and improvement of budgetary planning and monitoring within the organizational context. A qualitative approach, with a descriptive character, was adopted to analyze the participants’ perceptions and adaptations regarding the company’s first budgetary cycle. The study was conducted in the form of a single case study, focused on a medium-sized family business in the technology sector, located in Santa Catarina, which had approximately 600 employees.

The choice of a single case study was justified by the possibility of following the budget implementation process and observing how organizational culture impacted routines. The analysis period focused on the elaboration of the organization’s first formal budget document, referring to the fiscal year 2026, which took place between October and December 2025. Previously, between January and September 2025, the foundations for the process were structured, including adjustments to the management system and review of the chart of accounts.

Although the company’s pool of collaborators was broad, the sample of participants was intentional, composed of 12 individuals directly involved in or influencing the budgetary cycle. Participants included one director, four heads, five managers, and two controllership analysts. This selection was established to ensure that the respondents possessed specific knowledge about the budgetary process steps, guaranteeing that the collected information was directly related to the object of study.

Data collection combined complementary techniques to ensure triangulation of evidence. Semi-structured interviews, conducted with the sample participants, and documentary analysis were used. The interview script, composed of open-ended questions, sought to explore perceptions, adaptations, resistances, learnings, and practices related to the budgetary process. The documents examined included internal policies, budgetary documents, financial statements, and meeting minutes, with the objective of contrasting regulations and practices.

The interviews lasted an average of 30 to 40 minutes and were recorded through notes and audio recordings, with the participants’ consent. Subsequently, the audios were fully transcribed and stored in a secure digital repository with restricted access. At all stages of the research, ethical considerations were observed, obtaining institutional approval from the company and the Free and Informed Consent Term (TCLE) from all participants. The anonymity of the respondents and the confidentiality of the information were ensured, with exclusive academic use of the collected data.

Additionally, the study was exempted from submission to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP/CONEP), according to Resolutions nº 466/2012 and nº 510/2016, as it did not involve vulnerable populations or clinical or biomedical data, being restricted to the analysis of organizational processes and interviews of a professional nature. Data analysis followed the content analysis technique, with the adoption of a standardized protocol. *A priori* categories were employed, such as culture, adherence, communication, authority, professionalization, and accountability, complemented by emergent categories identified during the interpretation of the material. Thematic saturation was used to conclude the interviews, strengthening the study’s validity, and documents were integrated to identify cultural obstacles and coping factors.

For the support in the elaboration and monitoring of the budget, the company predominantly used spreadsheets, management systems, and Business Intelligence (BI) tools. However, these tools were employed in the organization’s budgetary process and not as specific software for the analysis of the data collected in the research. The organization of the data collected in the research was carried out through transcriptions and textual categorization, without the use of dedicated qualitative analysis software.

3. Results and Discussion

The implementation of the budgeting process in the analyzed family technology company occurred in a context of organizational transition, marked by the pursuit of greater management professionalization. Historically, financial management was conducted by family members of the founding partners, reflecting a common structure in family businesses. However, the organization’s growth and the increasing complexity of operations drove the need for more robust and structured financial management. This demand was amplified by the adoption of a structure based on business units, each with its own profitability goals, requiring more formal planning and control instruments.

Starting in January 2025, the new financial management, led by a professional with a background and interest in the area, established the implementation of the business budget as a central objective. Before the elaboration of the first formal budgetary cycle, the organization dedicated the period between January and September 2025 to structuring the foundations of the process. This stage included the organization and governance of financial data, adjustments to the management system, review of the chart of accounts, adaptation of transaction classification, definition of deadlines for information recording, structuring of controls, establishment of allocation criteria, and implementation of cost centers. Such actions aimed to ensure the quality, standardization, and reliability of financial information.

The organization’s first formal budget, referring to the fiscal year 2026, was prepared between October and December 2025, with the support of specialized consulting and training for directors, heads, and the controlling team. Each director was responsible for the budget of their respective areas, detailing accounts, expenses, and revenues with managers and heads. Revenues were projected by business unit, with challenging targets for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). Final approval was given by the finance department and the CEO, in a flexible and collaborative process, given the initial nature of the cycle. The first months of 2026 were designated for adaptation and maturation of routines, with a budget review scheduled for July 2026.

The research participants, distributed across strategic, tactical, and operational levels, including directors, heads, managers, and analysts, demonstrated direct or indirect involvement with financial management and the budgeting process. The majority of respondents reported no prior experience with formal budgeting processes, indicating that the current budget represented their first structured contact with this tool within the company. This lack of prior technical repertoire contributed to initial difficulties in understanding the role of the budget, insecurity in developing forecasts, and resistance to adopting new routines, as pointed out by Padoveze (2018) and Arita, Pessoa, and Leitão (2022).

The centralization of the budgetary process in the controlling area, with the support of the board of directors, favored the standardization of information and the initial consolidation of the budget. Although this configuration is compatible with the initial stages of professionalization in family businesses, where centralization helps reduce inconsistencies, it can also limit deeper engagement from operational areas. Managers, in this model, acted more as information providers than as decision-making protagonists, which Hillen and Lavarda (2020) and Almeida and Gasparetto (2022) suggest is a challenge for the evolution of the budget as a management tool.

The transversal involvement of the areas was identified, but predominantly formal, focused on the provision and validation of information, with limited autonomy in defining premises and budgetary decisions. This aspect reinforces the perception that the budget, in the studied context, is in transition between being an instrument of financial control and a management support mechanism, evidencing the influence of the organizational maturity stage on its effectiveness. The general perception of the collaborators is that the budgetary process is in an initial and experimental phase, characterized by data collection and intensive use of spreadsheets and manual validations.

This initial and experimental phase, using simple instruments and direct communication, can be interpreted as a culturally less disruptive strategy, suitable for the context of a family business. This approach aims to reduce implicit resistance and preserve relationships based on trust, a hybridity between old and new practices that is typical of initial stages of professionalization, where control and flexibility coexist (Padoveze, 2018; Hillen and Lavarda, 2020). The budget, in this scenario, began to act as a new symbolic reference for limits and possibilities, signaling an ongoing cultural transition.

The main objectives of the budgetary process were perceived as broadening the financial and strategic vision, guiding decisions, ensuring greater financial control and predictability, and enabling the analysis of indicators. The budget came to be understood as an instrument for defining financial limits, increasing predictability and support for decision-making. These elements represent more than technical benefits, configuring a cultural transition from a logic based on immediate and informal decisions to an orientation towards planning and anticipation.

The budget, therefore, acts as a new institutional benchmark on “what can and cannot be done”, redefining the legitimacy criteria for organizational decisions. Although the interviewees’ perception regarding limits and control is positive, this movement involves relevant cultural challenges, especially in a family business historically marked by flexibility, trust, and centralized or intuitive decisions. The internalization of budgetary limits implies straining managers’ autonomy and balancing it with greater financial control, which may generate silent resistance, even if not explicitly manifested.

In this sense, the budget assumes a symbolic role in redefining roles, responsibilities, and expectations, contributing to greater formalization of decisions on investments, hiring, and expenses, as well as to the strengthening of monitoring and accountability routines. These findings dialogue with Padoveze (2018), by highlighting the budget as a mechanism for institutionalizing planning and translating strategy into financial goals. The alignment of the budget with the company’s overall strategy was perceived as a means of making the strategy more explicit and understandable, unfolding it into financial and operational goals.

This result highlights a pre-existing cultural challenge, in which the strategy was poorly formalized or concentrated in senior management, being implicitly understood by the areas. The budget thus assumes the role of a cultural translation mechanism of the strategy into daily organizational life, increasing the clarity of priorities and favoring greater coherence between planning and execution. This alignment implies a transformation in the way of deciding, marked by the gradual replacement of decisions based on intuition or urgency by decisions oriented by goals, data, and indicators.

In a family business, historically guided by relationships of trust, proximity, and flexibility, this movement tends to generate tensions between the practical autonomy of managers and the need for greater strategic formalization. The budget therefore serves to legitimize priorities and projects based on financial criteria, contributing to the redefinition of what is considered strategic and to the gradual internalization of a logic of efficiency and profitability as an organizational value. This process signals an advance in the alignment between strategy and execution, but the results indicate that this is a cultural transformation still in progress, more associated with a cognitive and symbolic change than with the full institutionalization of strategic practices.

The observed alignment represents evidence of a professionalization process of management mediated by the budget, which dialogues with the literature by highlighting its function as an interactive system of learning and strategic coordination (Padoveze, 2018; Arita, Pessoa e Leitão, 2022; Simons, 1995). The tools and resources used in the preparation and monitoring of the budget were predominantly spreadsheets, management systems, and Business Intelligence (BI) tools, with a high dependence on manual controls and validations. This preference for simple instruments is not restricted to an initial technical stage, but reflects cultural characteristics of a family organization marked by direct control and proximity between areas.

The conservative use of technology can be interpreted as a deliberate strategy to reduce cultural and operational risks, prioritizing reliability and close supervision over full automation. The frequent validations and the high administrative effort demanded from the areas indicate a relevant change in organizational behavior, by requiring greater discipline, responsibility, and organization in the delivery of information. This movement impacts managers’ autonomy, by reinforcing closer and more recurrent control mechanisms, potentially generating silent resistance associated with increased workload and the need to adapt to new routines.

The gradual acceptance of these controls suggests an organizational learning process compatible with the initial stages of management professionalization. The choice to prioritize data organization and consolidation before full automation can be understood as an incremental cultural adaptation, aimed at avoiding abrupt ruptures in an environment historically oriented by trust and flexibility. At the same time, mentions of the future need for greater automation signal the emergence of a mindset more oriented towards integration and efficiency, evidencing the coexistence between traditional practices and modernization aspirations, characteristic of an ongoing cultural hybridism (Padoveze, 2018; Arita, Pessoa e Leitão, 2022).

The perception of the importance of the budgetary process for the company was widely positive, associated with decision-making guidance, internal organization, and management maturation. The statements characterizing the budget as a “guide,” a “turning point,” and a source of “security” reveal a relevant cultural transformation in how managers and collaborators interpret the role of financial control, signaling the transition from a logic marked by intuitive and reactive decisions to an orientation towards planning and economic rationality. This positive perception indicates a shift in how financial control has come to be associated with responsible autonomy and support for managerial decisions.

Such a change is fundamental for the budget’s legitimation, as it contributes to reducing cultural resistances historically associated with the introduction of formal controls in environments marked by flexibility, trust-based relationships, and centralized decisions. Despite the appreciation of the budget as an instrument of governance and organizational maturity, the results indicate that its incorporation into routine still requires continuous adaptation, development of new skills, and greater managerial discipline, configuring a process of organizational learning in consolidation. These findings dialogue with Padoveze (2018) and Hillen and Lavarda (2020), by evidencing that the perception of the budget’s usefulness is an essential condition for its incorporation.

The benefits of the budgetary process were perceived as cross-cutting, reaching the organization as a whole, but with emphasis on the financial areas, controlling, management, and other strategic areas. Greater clarity of boundaries, priorities, and financial impacts favored the planning of the areas, increasing the predictability and rationality of managerial decisions. The perception of cross-cutting benefits suggests an advance in overcoming a departmentalized logic, indicating that the budget has come to be recognized as an integrated organizational mechanism, and not restricted to the financial sector.

It was observed, however, that the benefits were more strongly associated with financial areas, controlling, and top management, which reveals a cultural challenge that still exists: asymmetry in the appropriation of the process between strategic and operational areas. This finding indicates that, although the budget is in the process of consolidation, its incorporation as a shared management tool still demands greater cultural dissemination, managerial training, and strengthening of the participation of operational areas. Additionally, the perception of gains for leaders and managers signals a transformation in decision-making relationships within the organization, in which the budget begins to act as a mediator between autonomy and control.

This movement contributes to reducing the dependence on personalistic or centralized decisions, recurring characteristics in family businesses, and reinforces a gradual cultural transition towards more professionalized practices oriented by technical criteria. These findings corroborate Padoveze (2018) and Arita, Pessoa, and Leitão (2022), by evidencing that the perception of transversal benefits is directly associated with the degree of participation and cultural appropriation of the budget by managers. The implementation of the budgetary process was accompanied by internal resistances, associated with cultural change, fear of loss of autonomy, and insecurity regarding resource allocation.

The interviewees’ statements evidenced that these resistances manifested both explicitly, through the fear of budget cuts and restrictions, and indirectly, expressed in defensive behaviors, such as the overestimation of financial demands by the areas. In the analyzed context, such resistances were strongly linked to the previous organizational culture, characterized by greater flexibility, informality, and decision-making autonomy. The introduction of the budget represented a rupture with historically consolidated practices, generating insecurity regarding the new rules, prioritization criteria, and impacts of formal control on daily decisions, an aspect particularly relevant in family businesses.

It was also observed that resistance was associated with a limitation of financial knowledge on the part of managers and operational areas, which contributed to distorted perceptions of the process and reinforced the fear of resource scarcity. This finding highlights that cultural challenges are not limited to budget acceptance, but involve the need for organizational learning and the development of managerial skills. Despite the identified resistances, the results indicated that such reactions were perceived as natural in an initial change context and tend to decrease as the process matures and becomes better understood.

In this sense, the budget began to play not only a technical function but also a pedagogical role, contributing to the gradual internalization of a logic of planning, control, and accountability. These findings align with Hofstede et al. (2010) and Hillen and Lavarda (2020), indicating that resistance is an integral part of the cultural transformation processes in family businesses undergoing professionalization. The communication of the budgeting process occurred predominantly through leadership and management, with direct involvement from areas considered strategic for the initial implementation phase.

This more concentrated communication reflects cultural traits typical of family businesses, such as strong dependence on leadership, predominantly top-down information flow, and greater selectivity in information sharing. From a cultural standpoint, the initial centralization of communication helped reduce noise, preserve sensitive information, and ensure greater control over the process in an environment still in the learning phase. However, the limitation of involvement to leaders and managers also revealed restrictions, as part of the employees remained on the sidelines of the process, which can reinforce perceptions of the budget as a control mechanism rather than a management support tool.

It is also observed that leadership assumed a central role as an agent of cultural change, acting not only in the formal communication of the budget, but also in translating its objectives into the reality of the areas and in legitimizing the process. The results suggest that the organization is in a transition stage, in which communication is gradually evolving from a centralized model to a more disseminated and participatory approach. In this sense, although selective communication was adequate for the initial stage, its future expansion presents itself as a relevant condition for the internalization of the budget as a broad organizational practice.

These findings dialogue with Padoveze (2018) and Arita, Pessoa, and Leitão (2022), by evidencing the role of leadership and communication in the cultural assimilation of budgetary practices. The implementation of the budgetary process required relevant changes in the organization, especially related to the review of previous practices, reorganization of financial data, definition of rules, and greater formalization of processes. The interviewees reported that it was necessary to abandon more informal management practices, adopting routines of advance planning, greater financial discipline, and detailing of information provided by the areas.

The changes were not limited to operational adjustments, but involved a reconfiguration of how managers and areas began to plan and justify their demands. The budgeting process began to demand greater responsibility from leadership regarding the numbers presented, encouraging a more analytical and less reactive stance towards financial decisions. In terms of discussion, the results showed that the implementation of the budget represented a move towards professionalizing management, in which the organization began to replace practices based on individual experience with more structured and shared procedures.

This process was aligned with the contributions of Padoveze (2018), who highlighted the budget as an instrument for rationalizing decisions, and of Hillen and Lavarda (2020), who pointed out that changes of this type in family businesses tend to occur gradually, requiring cultural adaptation and organizational learning. The implementation of the budgetary process did not immediately result in significant changes in the organization’s formal structure, but it promoted relevant changes in the distribution of responsibilities. The interviewees reported greater clarity regarding the roles of directors, managers, and leaders in providing, validating, and monitoring budgetary information.

In the interpretation of the results, it was observed that the budget contributed to strengthening the accountability of leaders for the presented numbers, increasing the demand for justifications and greater commitment to financial results. Although the organizational chart was preserved, the budgeting process redefined, in practice, the way responsibilities were exercised in the organizational daily life. In terms of discussion, the findings indicated that the change was more associated with a functional reorganization than a structural one, a common characteristic in initial stages of implementing management controls.

This result was aligned with the contributions of Padoveze (2018), pointing out that the budget tends to redefine responsibilities and decision-making flows even without formal changes in the structure, and of Simons (1995), highlighting that control systems can influence behaviors and managerial practices before provoking deeper organizational changes. The implementation of the budgetary process led to the incorporation of new practices related to structured planning, information formalization, periodic monitoring, and more careful review of costs and expenses.

The respondents reported that these practices were initially met with caution, but gradually became accepted as the objectives and benefits of the process became clearer. In interpreting the results, it was observed that the more conservative initial reception was associated with changes in routines and the demand for greater financial discipline from the areas. As the process advanced, the practices began to be perceived as tools to support work organization and decision-making, contributing to greater predictability and alignment between planning and execution.

In terms of discussion, the results indicated that the gradual incorporation of these practices favored cultural adaptation and the internalization of the budget as part of the managerial routine. This movement was in line with Padoveze (2018), who highlighted that the effectiveness of the budget depends on the progressive assimilation of its practices by managers, and with Hillen and Lavarda (2020), who pointed out that the acceptance of new control mechanisms in family businesses tends to occur incrementally, following the organizational learning process.

The implementation of the budgetary process was directly associated with the need for training and cultural change in the organization. The interviewees reported that the budget required a greater understanding of financial concepts, as well as the adaptation of areas to new rules, deadlines, and planning criteria, highlighting knowledge gaps and the need for continuous learning. In the interpretation of the results, it was observed that cultural change represented one of the main challenges of the process, as managers and teams needed to review previous habits and develop a more analytical and data-driven approach.

The need for training revealed that the budget implementation was not restricted to a technical adjustment, but involved the transformation of how financial decisions came to be understood and conducted. In terms of discussion, the findings evidenced that cultural change was a central element for the consolidation of the budgetary process, especially in an organizational context marked by informal practices and low prior standardization. This result was aligned with the contributions of Schein (2010), indicating that changes in control systems tend to impact values, beliefs, and behaviors, and of Hillen and Lavarda (2020), highlighting that training is a critical factor for the institutionalization of managerial practices in family businesses.

The main cultural challenges associated with the implementation of the budgeting process were related to the lack of financial knowledge, the pre-existing culture of autonomy in the areas, and the fear of losing flexibility in resource allocation. The interviewees indicated that the shift from informal practices to more structured routines generated initial insecurity and required greater adaptation from managers and teams. In the interpretation of the results, it was observed that such challenges reflected typical tensions in family organizations undergoing professionalization, where historically consolidated values coexist with the need for the introduction of formal controls.

The resistance was less associated with the rejection of the budget itself and more with the redefinition of roles, boundaries, and decision-making criteria, which required gradual learning and cultural adjustment. In terms of discussion, the findings dialogued with Almeida and Gasparetto (2022), by evidencing the presence of dynamic tensions in the budgetary system, arising from the coexistence of control and autonomy. Complementarily, the results were aligned with Hofstede et al. (2010), by indicating that changes in managerial practices impact cultural values and standards.

In family businesses, as pointed out by Hillen and Lavarda (2020) and Lugoboni et al. (2020), these challenges tend to emerge with greater intensity in the initial phases of budget implementation, reinforcing the need for progressive adaptation and building the legitimacy of the process. The occurrence of isolated conflicts between areas and managers during the implementation of the budgetary process was observed, especially associated with the comparison of results, the perception of inequality in resource allocation, and the need for adjustments in forecasts. The interviewees reported that such conflicts were more frequent in the initial phases of the process and tended to manifest during moments of review and negotiation of the numbers.

In the interpretation of the results, it was observed that the conflicts were less related to personal disputes and more linked to the redefinition of financial criteria, priorities, and responsibilities. The introduction of the budget exposed differences between areas regarding planning maturity and understanding of financial impacts, which required greater mediation by leadership and the finance department. In terms of discussion, the findings evidenced tensions compatible with those described by Almeida and Gasparetto (2022), when discussing the dynamic tensions between control and autonomy in budgetary systems.

Complementarily, Hillen and Lavarda (2020) and Lugoboni et al. (2020) pointed out that, in family businesses, conflicts associated with the budget tend to emerge during the professionalization process, especially when informal practices are replaced by more objective and comparable criteria between areas. Budget divergences and adjustments were predominantly addressed through comparative analyses, technical justifications, and joint re-evaluation of numbers between areas, leadership, and the financial sector.

The respondents reported that adjustments generally occurred during the planning review stages, being conducted in a negotiated manner and based on the financial and strategic impacts for the organization. In the interpretation of the results, it was observed that the treatment of divergences indicated an effort by the company to balance control and flexibility. The budget was not perceived as a rigid and immutable instrument, but as a tool subject to adjustments, provided they were based on data and aligned with organizational objectives. This behavior suggested a process of managerial maturation, in which decisions became supported by more objective and shared criteria.

In terms of discussion, the findings were aligned with the contributions of Almeida and Gasparetto (2022), by evidencing the presence of dynamic tensions in the budgetary system, especially between the need for financial control and the autonomy of the areas. Complementarily, Padoveze (2018) pointed out that the periodic analysis and review of the budget are essential elements to guarantee its usefulness as a management tool, while Hillen and Lavarda (2020) highlighted that, in family businesses, the mediation of divergences tends to occur gradually, accompanying the process of professionalization and institutionalization of management practices.

The final reflections of the interviewees showed convergence regarding the need for continuous improvement, organizational learning, and future consolidation of the budget. It was interpreted that the process was perceived as a collective learning mechanism, in which the organization began to value advance planning and financial discipline, while recognizing initial limitations in communication and tools. In terms of convergences, the interviewees recognized the budget as relevant for increasing predictability, financial clarity, and planning capacity.

The divergences focused on the scope of benefits and the intensity of resistance: while some participants perceived gains for the entire organization, others associated the main benefits with the financial and controlling areas and the board. Similarly, some respondents considered the resistance limited, while others identified fear of cuts, loss of autonomy, and defensive behaviors. These differences indicate that the appropriation of the budget still occurs unequally across areas and levels of operation, reinforcing the need to expand participation, communication, and training throughout the next cycles.

In summary, the implementation of the budgetary process in the analyzed company proved to be a process of cultural transformation and professionalization of management. The findings indicate that the budget was recognized as a vital instrument for increasing financial clarity, guiding decisions, and strengthening strategic planning, promoting greater predictability and internal organization. However, significant cultural challenges, such as limited financial knowledge among managers, resistance to loss of autonomy, and the need to adapt to new routines, were identified. The process drove the formalization of information, accountability of leadership, and the gradual replacement of intuitive decisions with data, also acting as a pedagogical tool for organizational learning and the development of financial competencies, demonstrating that its effectiveness is intrinsically linked to the organization’s capacity to promote cultural changes and continuous engagement.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to analyze the cultural challenges faced in implementing the budgeting process in a medium-sized family business in the technology sector, focusing on the perceptions, adaptations, and organizational transformations resulting from this process. It was found that the budget was widely recognized as an essential tool for increasing financial clarity, guiding decisions, and strengthening strategic planning, promoting greater predictability and internal organization. However, significant cultural challenges were identified, such as limited financial knowledge among managers, resistance to loss of autonomy, and the need to adapt to new planning and control routines. It was observed that the process drove the formalization of information, accountability of leadership, and the gradual replacement of intuitive decisions with data, also acting as a pedagogical tool for organizational learning and the development of financial skills. The main practical contribution of this work lies in offering subsidies for family businesses undergoing professionalization to structure rituals, roles, and criteria that support the budget cycle, balancing growth ambition with execution discipline. Academically, the research deepens the understanding of the interface between organizational culture and budgeting as a management tool in the Brazilian context, filling gaps regarding the mechanisms by which financial artifacts are associated with cultural change and management professionalization.

As a limitation, it should be noted that the study was conducted in a single organization, which restricts the generalization of the results. Additionally, the analysis was carried out at an early stage of budget implementation, not allowing for the evaluation of its long-term impacts. For future research, it is suggested to conduct comparative studies between companies from different contexts and maturity levels, as well as longitudinal investigations that allow monitoring the evolution of the budgeting process and its effects on organizational management and performance. The effectiveness of the budgeting process is directly related to the organization’s ability to promote cultural changes, leadership engagement, and continuous evolution of management practices, consolidating itself as a management support tool and not just a control mechanism.

Bibliographic References

Almeida, D. M.; Gasparetto, V. Tensões dinâmicas no sistema orçamentário de empresa familiar sob a perspectiva da dualidade da estrutura. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 33(89), 232-247, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057×202114110. Disponível em: https://revistas.usp.br/rcf/article/view/197382. Acesso em: 28 set. 2025.

Arita, I. S. D.; Pessoa, M. do S. da C. M.; Leitão, C. R. S. Cultura organizacional e práticas orçamentárias: um estudo em uma empresa do segmento de combustível. Anais do 22° USP International Conference in Accounting, 2022. Disponível em: https://congressousp.fipecafi.org/anais/22uspinternational/ArtigosDownload/3909.pdf. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.

Hillen, C.; Lavarda, C. E. F. Orçamento e ciclo de vida em empresas familiares em processo de sucessão. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 31(83), 212–227, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057×201909600. Disponível em: https://revistas.usp.br/rcf/article/view/169641. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.

Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G. J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Disponível para consulta em: https://e-edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/900222/mod_resource/content/1/G.Hofstede_G.J.Hofstede_M.Minkov%20-%20Cultures%20and%20Organizations%20-%20Software%20of%20the%20Mind%203rd_edition%202010.pdf. Acesso em: 25 set. 2025.

Leone, N. M. de C. P. G. O processo sucessório em empresas familiares: o exemplo dos comerciantes e o processo no Saara. Organizações & Sociedade, 11(29), 149–172, 2004. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/osoc/a/xZd33MHgkQGQW8tmnVSvS7z/. Acesso em: 25 set. 2025.

Lugoboni, L. F.; Miguel, A. C. S.; Da Silva, B. A.; De Morais Oliveira, G.; Santos Junior, V. de S. Gestão orçamentária em empresas familiares. REMIPE – Revista de Micro e Pequenas Empresas e Empreendedorismo da Fatec Osasco, 6(2), jul.–dez. 2020. Disponível em: https://remipe.fatecosasco.edu.br/index.php/remipe/article/view/292 (HTML) e https://remipe.fatecosasco.edu.br/index.php/remipe/article/view/292/209 (PDF). Acesso em: 28 set. 2025.

Padoveze, C. L. Orçamento empresarial. 2. ed. São Paulo: Pearson, 2018. ISBN 9788543025728. Disponível em: https://www.bvirtual.com.br/NossoAcervo/Publicacao/183214. Acesso em: 20 set. 2025.

Schein, 2010 [Full reference not found in the original document]

Simons, 1995 [Full reference not found in the original document]

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Business Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform