Budget and organizational performance in the hotel sector

Organizations operating in competitive markets inevitably face periods of adversity (Orth & Schuldis, 2021). This premise implies the need to consider organizations as a set of resources subordinated to managers' decisions, whose strategic reallocation determines organizational continuity (Penrose, 1959). Thus, resources are sources of competitive advantage and directly impact organizational performance, as discussed by Barney (1991) in resource-based theory; cases of organizational success and failure are the result of resource planning and use.

In this context, the budget is a management tool that helps ensure preventive planning and enables responses, recovery, and organizational learning in the face of environmental uncertainties (Boin & McConnell, 2007). When implementing a budget, organizations seek to align it with economic goals and define priorities (Ekholm & Wallin, 2011; Frezatti, Nascimento, Junqueira, & Relvas, 2011; Silva & Lavarda, 2020, 2022). Therefore, budget functions such as planning and dialogue are responsible for allocating resources according to sectoral needs, disseminating values, and motivating employees (Silva & Lavarda, 2020, 2022). Budget formalization aligns the strategy for the absorption and development of organizational capacities, and establishes guiding elements for relationships and values within organizations (Mucci, Frezatti, & Dieng, 2016). In this way, the instrument allows the absorption of characteristics beneficial to the organization's survival, such as organizational resilience (Orth & Schuldis, 2021).

Organizational resilience involves achieving stability in activities responsible for directing adaptive and evolutionary responses to organizational survival (Lew, 2014). In the theoretical field, organizational resilience is made possible by recursive abundance, which precedes crises and allows recovery, and second, by the dynamic capacity of organizational learning, which influences the speed of recovery, called the rebound effect (Williams, Gruber, Sutcliffe, Shepherd, & Zhao, 2017). Organizational resilience occurs in two ways. The first is planned, previously established, and facilitates the reconstruction of infrastructure, especially concerning industries in the tourism sector. The second is adaptive, occurring after adversity and helping to restore activities using capacities such as leadership and learning (Lee, Vargo, & Seville, 2013). Thus, adjustments resulting from organizational resilience are not dislocated from other organizational processes, and it is common for managers to look for capabilities that ensure their propagation in the organization (Orth & Schuldis, 2021). The literature suggests that organizational learning supports an organization's survival by ensuring the retention of informational inputs derived from resilience processes (Duchek, 2020).

Organizational learning is a dynamic capacity composed of the acquisition, transfer, and integration of information processes into behaviours and actions aimed at improving internal posture (Jerez-Gomez, Céspedes-Lorente, & Valle-Cabrera, 2005; Foroughi, Coraiola, Rintamäki, Mena, & Foster, 2020). Furthermore, organizational learning enables internal agents to become collectively aware of emerging situations by systematically guiding internal changes and treating errors as opportunities for improvement, growth, and activity restoration (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).

Capacities, such as resilience and organizational learning, when aligned with the budget, tend to maximize both financial and non-financial performance. Financial performance refers to indicators that are measurable in monetary terms (such as profit, revenue, and return on investment), whereas non-financial performance encompasses non-monetary qualitative or quantitative metrics (such as customer satisfaction, process quality, and employee engagement) that influence future economic results. Therefore, hotel entities must meet customers' expectations to achieve their satisfaction and reach optimal results, as they are based on subjective elements that hotels maintain their profitability; it is necessary to evaluate the activity from perspectives far beyond the quantitative ones (Kim, Lim, & Brymer, 2015; Bortoluzzi, Lunkes, Santos, & Mendes, 2020). This requires dynamic management capabilities and practices because, although instruments such as budgets are useful, their rigidity may compromise the workforce and generate adverse effects (Yuksel & Yuksel, 2001; Subramaniam, McManus, & Mia, 2002; Monteiro, Malagueño, Lunkes, & Santos, 2022).

The hotel segment plays a substantial role in the national economy and significantly affects the communities in which it operates (Gorini and Mendes, 2005). The Covid-19 pandemic caused immediate repercussions to the sector on a global scale, directly affecting the generation of income, jobs, and revenue. This crisis has been overcome directly by the strategic management of companies in this segment, which have adopted significant changes in service provision or resorted to cost cutting to remain operational (Yacoub & ElHajjar, 2021). The effects of these strategies are noteworthy in the global environment, culminating in the creation of the Global Day for Resilience in Tourism, assigned to February 17, 2023.

Based on the above, this study aims to answer the following question: What are the influences of budget functions (planning and dialogue) on organizational performance, resilience, and learning capabilities? To this end, the research was conducted in the context of hotel organizations in Brazil, surveying data from 127 managers of hotels with 100 or more housing units. Among the main results, it was found that budget functions significantly influence resilience and learning capacity; however, the hypotheses that these capabilities would mediate the relationship between budget functions and organizational performance were not confirmed. Thus, the findings reveal new perspectives on the use of the budget, which, beyond serving as a control instrument, begins to foster a more structured reflection on the strategic development of organizational capabilities in the hotel sector.

This study is justified both theoretically and practically. From a theoretical perspective, supported by Resource-Based Theory (Penrose, 1959; Barney, 1991), it contributes to narrowing the gap in discussions of organizational resilience, specifically in terms of resources and potential configurations, making it possible to analyze organizational actions and reactions in the hotel sector (Teece, 2018). From a practical point of view, it is justified by emphasizing that the hotel sector is immersed in environmental uncertainties, making organizational management a decisive element for survival (Ubeda-Garcia, Rienda, Zaragoza-Saez, & Andreu-Guerrero, 2021). Thus, understanding the links between budgets, organizational resilience, learning, and performance can guide the effective application of organizational capabilities in the management process.

Budgets are considered an aggregate of information flows and administrative processes integrated into management control systems, which enable the coordination and communication of organizational objectives (Van der Stede, 2001). Its application is geared towards meeting the economic goals that outline organizational strategies and is delimited according to the functions that best adapt to it (Ekholm & Wallin, 2011). This study emphasizes the planning functions that allow prior allocation and distribution of organizational resources and dialogue functions, which refer to the absorption of values and motivation of individuals (Ekholm & Wallin, 2011; Silva & Lavarda, 2020, 2022).

Planning and dialogue functions provide quick organizational responses and ensure the development of organizational capacities (Sponem & Lambert, 2016; Silva & Lavarda, 2020, 2022). One of these capacities is organizational resilience, which helps with planning and adaptation, fostering positive results in the face of adversity (McManus, Seville, Vargo, & Brunsdon, 2008; Melián-Alzola, Fernández-Monroy, & Hidalgo-Peñate, 2020; Mithani, Gopalakrishnan, & Santoro, 2021; Silva & Lavarda, 2022). Organizational resilience is the ability to reconfigure resources, reshape relationships, and optimize processes during crises and recovery (Chen, Xie, & Liu, 2021). It can be analyzed from five dimensions: (1) capital resilience, the ability to operate and recapitalize risks; (2) strategic resilience, ensuring the consistency of action plans and identifying and eliminating disadvantages; (3) cultural resilience, maintaining and shaping employee morale and commitment; (4) relational resilience, maintaining relationships with customers and investors; and (5) learning resilience, the ability to deal with challenges in the learning process (Chen et al., 2021).

Thus, it is proposed that the budgetary functions of planning and dialogue increase organizational resilience by enabling better anticipation of risks, adaptation to changes, and alignment between the different levels of the organization. The planning function guides the definition of priorities, efficient allocation of resources, and construction of safety margins to face contingencies (Chen et al., 2021; Silva & Lavarda, 2022). The dialogue function, which promotes communication between managers, areas, and stakeholders, favours the sharing of critical information, construction of joint solutions, and strengthening of the capacity for a timely response to crises (Chen et al., 2021; Silva & Lavarda, 2022). Together, these functions create a more flexible, transparent, and a decision-making basis that is more flexible, transparent, and oriented towards addressing challenges, increasing the organization's ability to adapt and recover from adverse events. Thus, the following research hypothesis is proposed.

The budget is designed to drive action plans and foster capabilities such as organizational learning, which transforms lived experiences into future impacts on organizational strategies (Orth & Schuldis, 2021). Organizational learning is characterized as the resignification of information processing, supported by managerial decisions and collective awareness, resulting from the acquisition, transfer, and integration of prior information (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1996; Williams, 2001). This capacity enables growth opportunities, restoration activities, and decision making based on error interpretation (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005). It also encourages the construction of more robust internal processes, promoting an understanding of the reality surrounding management and its results (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). In the hotel sector, organizational learning helps develop competitive advantages (Liu, 2018; Ali, Peters, Khan, Ali, & Saif, 2020). However, empirical analyses of the relationship between organizational learning and other capabilities in the hotel sector are lacking (Ali et al., 2020).

In this context, organizational learning guarantees, based on organizational awareness, systematic methods to direct internal changes by considering previous mistakes as a source of opportunities, growth, and activity recovery and decision-making (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005). Thus, in the budgeting process, learning involves mobilizing previous experiences to evaluate resources under the most appropriate allocation scenarios and identify the most suitable employees for specific functions (Sponem & Lambert, 2016). In addition, learning, such as selecting and disseminating knowledge, is a key component of strategic management. This reveals the importance of collectivity in operationalizing action plans since its application is strongly linked to problem-solving, innovation, and market orientation (Koseoglu, Wong, Kim, & Song, 2022). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Budget is a management tool that quantifies action plans and promotes communication between managers at different levels (Libby & Lindsay, 2010). In the hotel sector, when applied, the budget mostly follows a normative approach, becoming the core of performance measurements, reinforced by the emphasis that the market places on it as a tactical instrument (Jones, 2008). In many hotels, the budget is applied annually and linked to cost control and performance evaluation, comparing what has been planned and what has been achieved. Therefore, understanding the influence of budgeting on the performance of hotel organizations is especially relevant given that the vulnerability of the sector to crises demands robust adaptive and strategic capabilities to ensure its continuity and competitiveness (Prayag, Chowdhury, Spector, & Orchiston, 2018). Thus, we argue that the budget, understood in its planning and dialogue functions, positively affects an organization's performance. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

The budget planning function stimulates the development of organizational capacities according to the previously established objectives. These capabilities are organizational responses to environmental changes and crises, and aim to maintain the continuity of the organization (Bhamra, Dani, & Burnard, 2011). They can be included in routine activities and can improve organizational functionality by impacting strategic interests (Orth & Schuldis, 2021). Following a hierarchy, these capabilities influence performance when they start from a structured intention based on knowledge operationalized through organizational learning (Ali et al., 2020).

In the hotel sector, adapting to environmental uncertainties, hotels adjust to the dynamism of the market using resource reconfigurations for competitive advantage and better performance (Ali et al., 2020). From this perspective, Hussain and Malik (2022) explored dynamic capabilities as drivers of resilience in hotels. The authors observed that organizational resilience and learning capabilities contribute to hotel companies having a greater chance of surviving in the markets in which they operate. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:

The dialogue function coincides with the planning function, enabling managers to prioritize necessary adjustments that surpass predefined goals and influence organizational capabilities, and consequently, performance (Silva & Lavarda, 2020, 2022). In this way, the dialogue function enables the dissemination of priorities established by managers, allowing a contrast between expectations and the reality experienced by the company and facilitating the reuse of informational content generated by experiences, thus developing organizational learning (Orth & Schuldis, 2021; Silva & Lavarda, 2022).

Reusing experiences facilitates the process of organizational resilience; they can be used to improve routines and behaviours, ensuring survival in the face of environmental uncertainties (Tsang & Zahra, 2008). Furthermore, learning is essential to the adaptation process, especially when it highlights the relevance of adopting new mindsets and recycling previous plans (Bhamra et al., 2011). In this way, the dialogue function of the budget enables interpersonal exchanges, highlights the importance of existing knowledge, and helps develop more robust organizational capacities (Barney, 2001). Thus, the resource distribution of companies can be made available and adjusted according to combined performance indicators, in addition to cushioning the impact of environmental uncertainties (Ekholm & Wallin, 2011). Therefore, we propose the following fifth hypothesis:

Next, we highlight the methodological procedures adopted for this research.

The research sample comprised Brazilian hotels registered on the Cadastur website (Ministério do Turismo, 2022), of which in June 2022 totalled 15,900 companies were registered as accommodation providers. To constitute the sample, we chose hotels with housing units greater than or equal to 100, following the choices of previous studies (Bortoluzzi et al., 2020; Monteiro et al., 2022) and because this size of organization typically reflects more structured managerial processes. After filtering, we identified 1,146 companies with 100 or more housing units, including head offices and branches, chosen to be part of the study's final population in an intentional sample.

The appropriate sample size was calculated using G-Power software, parameterized with 0.15 an effect size, a statistical power of 1−β = 0.8, and significance level α = 5% (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009), resulting in a minimum requirement of 109 responses to validate the study. The final sample comprised 127 valid and voluntary responses, the characteristics of which are presented in Table 1.

The data showed little difference between genders, with the majority being male, comprising 64 individuals (50.39%). Regarding age, the largest proportion (25.20%) of the respondents were between 36 and 40 years old. Regarding education, most respondents had an undergraduate degree (70.87%), predominantly in administration (49.61%).

The 127 respondents worked in several positions, with the most representative being general managers (24.41%), financial analysts (11.81%), financial managers (8.66%), financial coordinators (7.09%), and financial supervisors (5.51%). Regarding tenure in the position, we observed the following ranges: 1 5 years (72.44%), 6 10 years (20.47%), 11 15 years (3.94%), 16 20 years (2.36%), and 21 25 years (0.79%). These data suggest that most respondents had been in their roles for a relatively short time or had recently risen to their positions. In summary, the respondents in this sample, drawn from hotels with more than 100 housing units, adequately represented the segment analyzed and allowed us to assess whether budget functions influence resilience, organizational learning, and the performance of these establishments.

To operationalize the survey, we applied an instrument composed of two blocks. The first block contained four constructs: (1) budget construct, divided into planning dimension, with four questions, and dialogue, with seven questions, adapted from Ekholm and Wallin (2011) and Mucci et al. (2016), measured on a 7-point scale from 1 for unuseful to 7 for completely useful; (2) organizational resilience construct, comprised of the dimensions of capital, strategic, cultural, relational, and learning with 31 assertions, adapted from Chen et al. (2021) and measured on a 7-point agreement scale; (3) organizational learning, consisting of four items based on Martins (2019) and measured on a 7-point agreement scale; and (4) organizational performance, comprised of the dimensions of financial performance and non-financial performance, with 11 items based on Bortoluzzi (2017) and measured on a 7-point agreement scale. The second block consisted of nine items that surveyed the profile of the respondents (age, gender, education, position, tenure in the position, and role in the company) and hotels (number of employees and type of budgetary responsibility).

Before data collection, the instrument underwent two pretests to increase its reliability. The first was conducted with doctoral students and professors in the management field, and the second involved hotel managers who participated in the budget process. Both pretests were conducted in July 2022, and all suggested adjustments were incorporated. The research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the authors' university under CAAE number 63820422.3.0000.0214. Data were collected using the Microsoft Forms© platform to guarantee the anonymity of the respondents, and it took place from October 8, 2022, to December 7, 2022.

It should be noted that possible risks of common method variance (common method bias) were considered. To this end, we adopted the following measures recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003): anonymity of respondents, guidance that there are no right or wrong answers, use of varied semantic structures across construct items, and use of Harman's single-factor test. Applying Harman's single-factor test indicated that common method variance was not a concern for this study.

For data analysis, we applied descriptive statistics related to the respondents' demographic data, and to test the hypotheses, we used structural equation modelling through partial least squares (PLS-SEM) with the statistical software SmartPLS (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019). PLS-SEM identifies the relationships between latent variables while simultaneously examining multiple structural paths in a theoretical model (Hair, Matthews, Matthews, & Sarstedt, 2017). The constructs and indicators were then validated using Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). Factor analysis was also used to identify the groupings of the variables into the appropriate constructs, in accordance with the criteria established by Hair et al. (2017).

The application of the structural equation technique began by verifying the validity and adequacy of the research constructs. This involved assessing the internal consistency and reliability of the constructs, focussing on composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha. Next, we analyzed discriminant validity using the cross-loadings matrix and the Fornell-Larcker analysis and convergent validity to ensure the effective measurement of the constructs and that the data were robust for structural modelling. We applied the cross-loading test to verify whether the factor loadings of the assertions were greater in their latent variables than in others (Hair et al., 2017).

As a result, we excluded three assertions from the dialogue construct (1. Assignment of responsibility, for example, departmental, sector, or unit; 2. monitoring to facilitate quick direction corrections, and 7. use as a basis for compensation and bonus systems) within the budget construct; four capital resilience indicators (2. The company bases its cash reserves on its corporate strategy and competitive model. 4. The company has multiple financing sources: 5. The company has low capital leverage: 6. Profit maximization is the principal goal of our business): two strategic resilience items (1. The company can focus on its core business. 3. The company pursues a robust strategic growth model), and two capital resilience items (1. the company can create unique value for customers; 2. The company that had time to consider customer opinions) was also excluded.

Next, we analyzed the internal consistency of the research model using the Composite Reliability and Cronbach's alpha tests, as well as the convergent validity measured by the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (Table 2).

AVE values exceed the assigned value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2017). Thus, the latent variables have an explanatory power of more than half of the variance in the indicators. Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that the values of the other criteria aligned with the recommendations found in the literature (Hair et al., 2017). We then verified the adequacy of the structural model based on estimates using bootstrapping (Table 3) to test the significance of the relationships between the latent variables proposed by the study (Hair et al., 2017).

Based on the results, we found that the planning (H1a, β: 0.549, p-value > 0.000) and dialogue (H1b, β: 0.355, p-value > 0.000) budget dimensions have a significant influence on organizational resilience. This corroborates the first hypothesis, proving that the budget dimensions studied affect the absorption of organizational resilience capacity directly and positively.

Similar to the relationship between budget and organizational resilience, the results of organizational learning regarding H2 were significant for planning (H2a, β: 0.474, p-value > 0.000) and dialogue (H2b, β: 0.372, p-value > 0.000). However, in the third hypothesis, the relationships between planning and financial performance were negatively signalled (H3a, β: −0.133, p-value > 0.000) in the same way as dialogue (H3b, β: 0.055, p-value > 0.000), indicating interactions that were contrary to those expected. It can be stated that financial performance does not behave directly in the analyses. We subsequently tested the model's indirect relationships (mediation) (Table 4).

The results did not corroborate either mediation hypotheses (H4a and b, and H5a and b); that is, the hypotheses obtained statistically insignificant p-values.

The first hypothesis, which proposed that budget functions aggregated in planning and dialogue positively influence organizational resilience, is supported. When testing the dimensions of resilience individually with the planning function, we observed a significant result for capital resilience, which was stronger than the others. This behaviour relates to the formality and rigidity of hotels' capital structures, which strictly follow internal and external rules and regulations. This finding is in line with the arguments of Chen et al. (2021), who suggest that organizations should take a more active approach to capital control and that the function of capital resilience translates into the need to prepare for crises achieved by the reserves allocated to dealing with unforeseen events. It is also aligned with RBT (Barney, 1991), which elucidates how the correct application of resources can guarantee advantages for organizations.

Another interesting result was the relationship between the budget planning function and cultural resilience, which allows organizational routines to be shaped and established by combining the collective behaviour of employees and the intention of well-being in organizations (Chen et al., 2021). The results revealed that hotels understand that valuing their employees guarantees organization, feedback in the form of more aligned behaviours, and attitudes in the execution of tasks, in addition to stimulating a collective mentality to ensure efforts to maintain objectives in times of crisis (Bonacci, Mazzitelli, & Morea, 2020).

Similarly, we tested the dialogue function individually with the dimensions of resilience. However, the results were lower than those for the planning function. Regarding the relationship between the dialogue function and capital resilience, it is argued that it facilitates financial sustainability when actively used. Consequently, this relationship supports the maintenance of capital structures, preparation of capital resources, development of management models, and establishment of action plans, ensuring that hotels absorb market uncertainties through robust cash control without affecting the financial aspects of the company (Prayag et al., 2018).

Regarding the interaction between strategic resilience and the dialogue function, we argue that this function plays a more active role in communication (Ekholm & Wallin, 2011; Mucci et al., 2016), which is necessary for organizational survival (Chen et al., 2021). In short, it promotes timely communication to deal with crises, identifying the faults and absences that adopted strategies fail to cover, and aligning the changes that must occur more coherently with initial planning.

Cultural resilience addresses and conveys the necessary improvements for employee commitment to direct employees towards reshaping the organizational spirit and strengthening the perception of the organization as a community (Chen et al., 2021). Prayag et al. (2018) and Unguren and Kacmaz (2022) reinforce this statement by confirming that when employees voluntarily assume various roles, the organizational culture is immersed in high levels of adaptive resilience, reflecting beneficially on their behaviours.

Positive findings between relational resilience and dialogue function allow us to infer that individual connections, reinforced by the organization's culture, influence employees' attitudes towards the organization. Chen et al. (2021) showed that this stance facilitates the absorption and reduction of possible crises. In this way, the adaptive profile in hotels enables decisions to build customer loyalty and maintain a balanced financial flow, providing investors with security to continue believing in the viability of their investments (Chen et al., 2021).

Finally, the positive relationships between resilience learning and the dialogue function allow for the improvement of organizational relationships, transmitting behavioural characteristics that are beneficial for overcoming uncertainty, and consequently, organizational performance (Ekholm & Wallin, 2011; Mucci et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2021). In uncertain environments where hotels operate, valuing flexibility can generate benefits in times of tension and result in resilient learning.

H2, which was statistically confirmed, proposed that the planning and dialogue functions of the budget positively influence organizational learning. We found that planning states the expectations of the period for managers and, on the other hand, the dialogue function shows that managers have freedom and autonomy in their work and, when added to motivation, encourages them to look for new ways to carry out their activities more efficiently. Therefore, organizational learning through budgeting takes advantage of information from the organization's experiences to better direct current objectives and lead management along the best path. It also allows new information to be introduced and disseminated by managers, enabling them to bring new ideas to reduce costs, improve the workforce, and inform customer perception and satisfaction for future decision-making, resulting in improved services and other organizational aspects (Silva & Lavarda, 2020, 2022).

In the hospitality sector, where circumventing situations are constant, generating and disseminating knowledge among employees can make it easier to resolve threats and increase the team spirit. Thus, budget functions provide a basis for hotels to build their informational corpus and select the information that best suits their context. Therefore, reorganizing organizational knowledge and applying it to the planning function or limiting dialogue to its beneficial aspect allows hotels to adapt and reestablish the best path for the service offered. As discussed by the RBT, knowing, categorizing, and effectively applying organizational resources increases the success of companies in the markets in which they operate.

H3 proposes that planning and dialogue budget functions positively influence organizational performance. However, this difference was not statistically significant. A possible justification for this finding is that organizational performance was observed in 2019, 2020, and 2021, with the last two years being strongly influenced by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, the respondents may have considered the environmental contingencies of that period more strongly than the significant influence of their management practices.

We tested H4 to verify the influence of the budget planning function on organizational performance, mediated by both (a) organizational resilience and (b) organizational learning. It was not corroborated; we expected organizational resilience to influence this relationship, but this was not confirmed. However, additional tests highlighted that the budget planning function has a positive effect on non-financial performance when mediated by organizational resilience, which suggests that the planning function is more aligned with the quality of the service delivered in the long term than with financial results because the relationship is not significant. This evidence reinforces that organizational capacity in the hotel industry is much more concerned with the robustness of processes and activities, reflecting customer satisfaction, than financial returns.

Similarly, when observing the breakdown of H4b, the mediation of organizational learning was not confirmed. We expected to verify that, through organizational learning, hotels adopt strategies and actions based on previous successful plans so that routines and behaviours are directed towards a positive return, both in terms of money and in terms of improving their products and services. It is worth noting that Ali et al. (2020) have already pointed out that hotel managers should prioritize a learning orientation and should exploit internal and external information to enable a concrete application of their knowledge.

H5 proposed that the dialogue function of the budget is positively related to organizational performance when mediated by (1) organizational resilience and (2) organizational learning, but it was not statistically accepted. It was not confirmed whether organizational resilience is perceived in the financial results or the delivery of any product to the organization's customers based on the influence of the dialogue function of the budget. Therefore, it can be inferred that the hotel management process using the dialogue function cannot effectively ascertain organizational resilience, which is intrinsic to its activity. It was not possible to prove the effects of organizational learning on the relationship between dialogue functioning and organizational performance. This finding indicates that, unlike the planning function, the dialogue function was not significantly related to any of the analyzed relationships.

In summary, the results showed positive and significant relationships between planning and dialogue budget functions with organizational resilience and learning. However, the interactions between budgetary functions (planning and dialogue) are not significant when related to organizational performance. Furthermore, resilience and organizational learning variables are not solid mediators in the relationship between budget functions and organizational performance. These findings indicate the urgency for further research to investigate the relationships explored here in different hotel samples or organizations from various economic sectors.

This study investigated the influences of budget planning and dialogue, resilience, and learning functions on organizational performance. The findings revealed that although the investigated functions were significant when associated with resilience and organizational learning, they did not show direct statistical significance for organizational performance, either in direct analyses or mediations.

We highlight the theoretical contributions of the direct discussion on the applications of Resource-Based Theory with the investigated constructs. The analysis shows how budget functions can improve resource distribution and results. Organizational resilience, in turn, has relevance, complemented by theory, by highlighting how adjustments and preparations can result in a competitive edge. Organizational learning also stands out for its cyclical role in signalling advantageous resource configurations and its capacity to enable new opportunities to use resources.

In terms of practical contributions, the study found that to achieve high levels of resilience, organizations must have a resilient capital structure, be less dependent on external capital, and align their strategies with increased autonomy. One way to achieve this autonomy is to endorse human resources because it is through their agency that other resources are efficiently distributed and applied in emerging contexts. In addition, good customer relations combined with high performance in the market denote security and reliable positioning, which increases the perceived external value of the organization and helps bring in new customers and investors.

Organizational learning creates a competitive advantage for organizations, facilitating their self-knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. Both budget functions (planning and dialogue) reinforce the relevance of structures aimed at learning, allowing inferences about the informational record present in the management process, which is responsible for mitigating future risk. This corroborates Resource-Based Theory, which reveals that when hotels recognize and classify organizational resources, they increase the efficient distribution of resources to the requesting sectors. Organizational and dynamic capabilities work by reinforcing resource distribution, influencing the creation of business strength, and the absorption of knowledge.

The study's limitations primarily involved the exclusive use of large hotels, so future analysis is recommended to consider different organizational sizes. In addition, we recommend verifying resilience as a result of these organizations, contributing to further study of the subject. Moreover, the instrument used for resilience still requires further refinement, and is recommended for use in other economic segments and/or countries. Finally, we recommend expanding the application of organizational learning to other areas already known in the management accounting literature, such as entrepreneurship, market orientation, and innovation, to verify its interaction with the dimensions of resilience.