This study is unique to the accountability literature in that the author examines how professionals’ affective states are impacted by the multiple sources of accountability auditors face from within their firm. The study also contributes to the auditing affect literature by examining how an aspect of the audit environment, accountability, influences negative affect. The study is important for audit practitioners as well. The author finds that the multiple accountabilities that are pervasive in auditing can cause negative affect and that the resulting negative affect can harm low-complexity audit task performance. These findings are important to practitioners in that they identify a source of harm to audit efficiency and audit effectiveness.
Bagley, P. L. 2010. Negative Affect: A Consequence of Multiple Accountabilities in Auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (2): 141-157.
Although the results in this study are only collected from a single group, audit partners, it provides valuable insights for both audit firms and their employees in respect to the development of technical knowledge in auditing. The results heighten the awareness that professional learning is a complex web of different factors. Audit firms might reconsider the fundamental model of learning in today´s professional environment.
Westermann, K. D., J. C. Bedard, and C. E. Earley, 2015. Learning the ‘Craft’ of auditing: a dynamic view of auditor’s on-the-job learning. Contemporary Accounting Research 32 (3): 864-896.
These findings have implications for both practice and future research. For example, the PCAOB has raised questions about (1) the thoroughness with which engagement managers and partners review audit documentation, and (2) the extent to which their attention to engagements reflects audit-related risks. Further, the IFAC has acknowledged that reviewers in today’s audit environment have alternative ways in which to conduct their reviews, and prior research suggests that the choice of review format has implications for audit. The results presented here advance the understanding of the factors that influence this choice. The findings provide insight to firms, regulators, and inspectors regarding the impact of workload pressure and misstatement risk on how audit managers and partners conduct their reviews. These issues are increasingly relevant given recent changes to the regulatory environment.
Agoglia, C. P., J. F. Brazel, R. C. Hatfield, and S. B. Jackson. 2010. How Do Audit Workpaper Reviewers Cope with the Conflicting Pressures of Detecting Misstatements and Balancing Client Workloads? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (2): 27-43.
In conjunction with the changes discussed in the paper, as listed below, the authors hoped that their initial research would encourage other scholars to look into auditor accountability and formulate proposals of their own through examining intended and possible unintended consequences of the research questions identified.
Peecher, M. E., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 2013. An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38 (8).
This study informs the debates on costs and benefits of audit partner rotation. The results support concerns of the audit profession that audit partner rotation may impair the quality of audited financial information in the initial years of a new partner’s engagement with a client. This impairment appears to be more pronounced for larger clients and clients of non-Big 4 audit firms. Furthermore, the persistence of these quality consequences for non-Big 4 audit firms raises questions about the resource capacity of such firms to cope with imposing regulations. Given that partner rotation has both monetary and social costs, perhaps the decision to shorten partner engagement with a client from seven to five years is not in the best interests of auditors and investors. Ultimately, the costs of an audit will be passed onto investors, and as the study suggests, more frequent rotation may mean more periods of lower financial statement quality in the initial years of a partner’s engagement with a client. Additionally, the study’s city-level industry specialist and office size results suggest industry specialists and larger audit firm offices may have more capacity to absorb and manage partner rotation effects than non-specialists and smaller offices. Such findings support the audit profession’s concern over resource challenges brought on by more stringent partner rotation requirements.
For more information on this study, please contact Paul Tanyi.
Litt, B., D. S. Sharma, T. Simpson and P. N. Tanyi. 2014. Audit Partner Rotation and Financial Reporting Quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 33 (3): 59-86
This study is important to audit practice as it provides an initial view into the effects of outsourcing and offshoring on juror perceptions of the due care exhibited in supervising audit work performance as embodied in assessed damage awards, while also providing perceptions on the expected quality and risk associated with these relationships. The results may be of particular interest to the profession given that this study examines audit work outsourced and/or offshored to India, the country cited as conducting the most outsourced audit work for North American CPA firms. Interestingly, the professional bodies (i.e., NASBA) have chosen not to grant reciprocity of practice for Indian charted accountants (i.e., Mutual Recognition Agreements). India has been denied multiple times while reciprocity has been granted to CPAs/CAs in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Mexico, and New Zealand (NASBA 2012). The juror perceptions of quality and risk of audit work outsourced offshore, as shown in this study, parallel the concerns expressed by professional bodies.
For more information on this study, please contact Alex Lyubimov.
Lyubimov, A., V. Arnold, and S.G. Sutton. 2013. An Examination of the Legal Liability Associated with Outsourcing and Offshoring Audit Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 32 (2): 97-118.
The findings of this article have implications important to both accounting firms and auditors. If pertinent behavioral skills can be learned, auditors could increase their level of performance by engaging in training to enhance those skills. CPA firms could benefit from identifying characteristics that lead to higher job performance by making those characteristics a focus in the process of hiring personnel. Existing firm employees could emphasize their understanding of the importance of taking a more comprehensive view of the auditing profession and CPA firms could emphasize hiring employees that exemplify a balance of task-oriented aspects, personality aspects, and a willingness to extend standardized tasks to ensure high auditor performance.
For more information on this study, please contact Constance A. McKnight.
McKnight, C.A., and W.F. Wright. 2011. Characteristics of relatively high-performance auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 30 (1): 191-206.
The findings of this study imply that firm level expertise impacts audit quality but has a greater impact in conjunction with office level or partner level expertise. Similarly, concurring auditors have a greater impact on audit quality when their abilities are paired with those of a lead or signing partner. This study implicitly emphasizes the importance in cooperation and the sharing of intellectual resources among partners in Big 4 firms considering that expertise is not homogeneous across a firm. Additionally, this study has implications on what could result if the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States decided to require an engagement partner’s signature on the audit report.
For more information on this study, please contact Hsin-Yi Chi.
Chi, H., and C. Chin. Firm versus partner measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on auditor quality. Accounting: A Journal of Practice and Theory 30 (2): 201-229.
This study suggest that supervisors can not only influence their subordinates’ judgment by intervening in subordinates’ judgment process(es), but can also increase their own biases by intervening. In doing so, their increased biases impact the final decisions regarding the audit testwork. Findings suggest that auditors are not aware of this increase in supervisors’ biases, and, thus are not consciously taking steps to mitigate this effect (e.g., avoiding early interventions). Authors suggest training or policy changes that could lower the risk of additional bias. This could be done by making auditors aware of consequences of intervening in subordinates’ judgments. Policies and/or planning could take additional steps to reduce the amount of superiors’ early interventions as much as possible.
Peecher, M. E., Piercey, M. D., Rich, J. S., and R. M. Tubbs. 2010. The Effects of a Supervisor’s Active Intervention in Subordinates’ Judgments, Directional Goals, and Perceived Technical Knowledge Advantage on Audit Team Judgments. The Accounting Review 85 (5): 1763-1786.
The results of this study are important for audit firms to consider when planning how workpaper reviews will be performed, when setting preparers’ review expectations and when reviewing electronic workpapers. Though the paper does not discuss these implications explicitly, the findings point to the following potential implications auditors may consider:
Agoglia, C.P., R. C. Hatfield, and J. F. Brazel. 2009. The Effects of Audit Review Format on Review Team Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 28(1):95-111.