IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acctbr/v41y2011i4p333-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit team defence mechanisms: auditee influence

Author

Listed:
  • Breda Sweeney
  • Bernard Pierce

Abstract

This study examines the perceived ability of auditees to influence external auditor controls and audit team behaviour (through, for example, delaying the availability of information and selecting samples in advance for auditors). Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 18 auditee staff from seven publicly-listed companies who interacted on an ongoing basis with the audit team. The findings provide an external perspective on weaknesses in auditors' control systems and suggest that game playing occurs between auditee and auditor staff in coping with conflicts that arise during audit fieldwork. These constitute a form of inter-organisational defence mechanism (coping mechanisms employed by individuals in organisations to avoid embarrassment and threat). Furthermore, the findings reveal previously unidentified auditee-related variables that can impact on the effectiveness of the auditor's control system. A number of implications of the findings for audit firms and society are identified, such as the level of trust placed by society in inexperienced time-pressured audit trainees, societal expectations of auditors and the need to reduce the predictability of audit testing.

Suggested Citation

  • Breda Sweeney & Bernard Pierce, 2011. "Audit team defence mechanisms: auditee influence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 333-356, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:41:y:2011:i:4:p:333-356
    DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2011.559575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00014788.2011.559575
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00014788.2011.559575?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. Power, Michael, 1999. "The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198296034.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svanberg, Jan & Öhman, Peter & Neidermeyer, Presha E., 2019. "Auditor objectivity as a function of auditor negotiation self-efficacy beliefs," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 121-131.
    2. Bustos-Contell, Elisabeth & Porcuna-Enguix, Luis & Serrano-Madrid, José & Labatut-Serer, Gregorio, 2022. "Female audit team leaders and audit effort," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 324-331.
    3. Luis Porcuna-Enguix & Elisabeth Bustos-Contell & José Serrano-Madrid & Gregorio Labatut-Serer, 2021. "Constructing the Audit Risk Assessment by the Audit Team Leader When Planning: Using Fuzzy Theory," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(23), pages 1-22, November.

    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. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    2. Federica De Santis, 2016. "Auditing Standard Change and Auditors' Everyday Practice: A Field Study," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(12), pages 41-54, December.
    3. Karim Jamal, 2008. "Mandatory Audit of Financial Reporting: A Failed Strategy for Dealing with Fraud," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 97-110, May.
    4. Habersam, Michael & Piber, Martin & Skoog, Matti, 2013. "Knowledge balance sheets in Austrian universities: The implementation, use, and re-shaping of measurement and management practices," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 319-337.
    5. Loke-Min Foo & Darinka Asenova & Stephen Bailey & John Hood, 2011. "Stakeholder Engagement and Compliance Culture," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 707-729, June.
    6. Shukla, Anuprita & Teedon, Paul & Cornish, Flora, 2016. "Empty rituals? A qualitative study of users’ experience of monitoring & evaluation systems in HIV interventions in western India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 7-15.
    7. Mennicken, Andrea, 2006. "Translation and standardisation: audit world building in Post-Soviet Russia," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3033, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3505 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Nolas, Sevasti-Melissa, 2011. "Reflections on the enactment of children's participation rights through research: Between transactional and relational spaces," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1196-1202, July.
    10. Komori, Naoko, 2015. "Beneath the globalization paradox: Towards the sustainability of cultural diversity in accounting research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 141-156.
    11. Mathias Ericson, 2018. "“Sweden Has Been Naïve”: Nationalism, Protectionism and Securitisation in Response to the Refugee Crisis of 2015," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 95-102.
    12. Nolde Nielsen, Kåre & Holm, Petter & Aschan, Michaela, 2015. "Results based management in fisheries: Delegating responsibility to resource users," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 442-451.
    13. Jennifer Jo Thompson & A. June Brawner & Usha Kaila, 2017. "“You can’t manage with your heart”: risk and responsibility in farm to school food safety," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 683-699, September.
    14. Marta Solórzano-García & Julio Navío-Marco & Luis Manuel Ruiz-Gómez, 2019. "Ambiguity in the Attribution of Social Impact: A Study of the Difficulties of Calculating Filter Coefficients in the SROI Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Jane Davison, 2007. "Business Elites and Corporate Governance in France and the UK – By Mairi Maclean, Charles Harvey and Jon Press," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 701-703, July.
    16. Power, Michael K., 2003. "Auditing and the production of legitimacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 379-394, May.
    17. Tom Willems & Wouter Van Dooren, 2012. "Coming to Terms with Accountability," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(7), pages 1011-1036, January.
    18. Rob Imrie & Emma Street, 2009. "Risk, Regulation and the Practices of Architects," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(12), pages 2555-2576, November.
    19. Mutti, Antonio, 2004. "The resiliency of systemic trust," economic sociology. perspectives and conversations, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, vol. 6(1), pages 13-19.
    20. Marlee Tichenor & Sally E Merry & Sotiria Grek & Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Global public policy in a quantified world: Sustainable Development Goals as epistemic infrastructures [The ethics of a formula: Calculating a financial-humanitarian price for water]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 431-444.
    21. Franck Aggeri & Morgane Le Breton, 2016. "The regulation of transparency in the field of CSR," Post-Print halshs-01368029, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:acctbr:v:41:y:2011:i:4:p:333-356. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RABR20 .

    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.