IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v112y2024ics0361368224000084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coaching Today's auditors: What causes reviewers to adopt a more developmental approach?

Author

Listed:
  • Andiola, Lindsay M.
  • Brazel, Joseph F.
  • Downey, Denise Hanes
  • Schaefer, Tammie J.

Abstract

Audit workpaper review is a quality control mechanism intended to detect preparer errors and professionally develop preparers. In this study, we experimentally investigate two factors that theory predicts affect the degree to which audit reviewers adopt a developmental approach: local versus international preparer office affiliation and likely versus unlikely preparer recurrence. We find that reviewers adopt a less developmental approach for international preparers but a more developmental approach for preparers likely to recur. The adoption of a more developmental approach not only results in more coaching via review comments but is associated with greater detection of seeded preparer errors. Taken together, our findings highlight the susceptibility of quality control efforts in the global audit environment and identify recurrence as a potential intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Andiola, Lindsay M. & Brazel, Joseph F. & Downey, Denise Hanes & Schaefer, Tammie J., 2024. "Coaching Today's auditors: What causes reviewers to adopt a more developmental approach?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000084
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2024.101548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368224000084
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101548?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:eme:maj000:maj-05-2018-1896 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Fogarty, Timothy J., 1992. "Organizational socialization in accounting firms: A theoretical framework and agenda for future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 129-149, February.
    3. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    4. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    5. Lindsay M. Andiola, 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects✩," Journal of Accounting Literature, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-36, July.
    6. Ramsay, Rj, 1994. "Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 127-135.
    7. Tim D. Bauer & Cassandra Estep & Bertrand Malsch, 2019. "One Team or Two? Investigating Relationship Quality between Auditors and IT Specialists: Implications for Audit Team Identity and the Audit Process†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 2142-2177, December.
    8. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    9. Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia & Skrondal, Anders & Pickles, Andrew, 2005. "Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 301-323, October.
    10. Luc Quadackers & Tom Groot & Arnold Wright, 2014. "Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 639-657, September.
    11. Jenna J. Burke & Rani Hoitash & Udi Hoitash, 2020. "The Use and Characteristics of Foreign Component Auditors in U.S. Multinational Audits: Insights from Form AP Disclosures," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2398-2437, December.
    12. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    13. Denise R. Hanes, 2013. "Geographically distributed audit work: Theoretical considerations and future directions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(1), pages 1-29, October.
    14. Christopher P. Agoglia & Thomas Kida & Dennis M. Hanno, 2003. "The Effects of Alternative Justification Memos on the Judgments of Audit Reviewees and Reviewers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 33-46, March.
    15. Kimberly D. Westermann & Jean C. Bedard & Christine E. Earley, 2015. "Learning the “Craft†of Auditing: A Dynamic View of Auditors' On†the†Job Learning," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 864-896, September.
    16. Lewis, Amy C. & Sherman, Steven J., 2003. "Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 262-276, March.
    17. Vincent E. Owhoso & William F. Messier, Jr. & John G. Lynch, Jr., 2002. "Error Detection by Industry‐Specialized Teams during Sequential Audit Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 883-900, June.
    18. Andiola, Lindsay M. & Bedard, Jean C., 2018. "Delivering the “tough message”: Moderators of subordinate auditors’ reactions to feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 52-68.
    19. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    20. Curtis E. Mullis & Richard C. Hatfield, 2018. "The Effects of Multitasking on Auditors’ Judgment Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 314-333, March.
    21. Brandon Ater & Christine Gimbar & J. Gregory Jenkins & Gabriel Saucedo & Nicole S. Wright, 2019. "Audit roles and the review process: workpaper preparers’ and reviewers’ differing perspectives," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 34(4), pages 438-461, May.
    22. Pamela J. Hinds & Mark Mortensen, 2005. "Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 290-307, June.
    23. Noel Harding & Ken T. Trotman, 1999. "Hierarchical Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 671-684, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2024. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    3. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    4. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683, September.
    6. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    7. Ulfert Gronewold & Anna Gold & Steven Salterio, 2013. "Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate and Error Type," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 189-208, September.
    8. Andiola, Lindsay M. & Bedard, Jean C., 2018. "Delivering the “tough message”: Moderators of subordinate auditors’ reactions to feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 52-68.
    9. Kuselias, Stephen & Agoglia, Christopher P. & Wang, Elaine Ying, 2023. "The effect of team member proximity and assignment length on audit staff reliance on a supervisor's preferences," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    10. Steven M. Glover & Mark H. Taylor & Yi‐Jing Wu & Ken T. Trotman, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Why Do Experts Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting Complex Fair Value Measurements?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1417-1460, September.
    11. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Gronewold, U. & Salterio, S., 2010. "The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 20551, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    13. William F. Messier, Jr. & Vincent Owhoso & Carter Rakovski, 2008. "Can Audit Partners Predict Subordinates' Ability to Detect Errors?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1241-1264, December.
    14. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    15. José-Joaquín del-Pozo-Antúnez & Horacio Molina-Sánchez & Francisco Fernández-Navarro & Antonio Ariza-Montes, 2021. "Accountancy as a Meaningful Work. Main Determinants from a Job Quality and Optimization Algorithm Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    16. Hun†Tong Tan & Karim Jamal, 2006. "Managing Perceptions of Technical Competence: How Well Do Auditors Know How Others View Them?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 761-787, September.
    17. Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021. "Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
    18. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    19. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. Maroun, Warren & Duboisée de Ricquebourg, Alan, 2024. "How auditors identify and report key audit matters - An organizational routines perspective," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000084. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.