IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v66y2018icp14-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis, Sean A.
  • Johnstone, Karla M.

Abstract

Research shows that audit partner leadership is critical to achieving fraud brainstorming objectives. We examine how partner leadership and subordinate knowledge jointly influence brainstorming processes and outcomes. We conduct a natural field experiment that manipulates partner leadership during actual brainstorming sessions to leverage naturally-occurring differences in the knowledge levels of managers versus seniors. Our design allows us to examine how knowledge differences within the organization influence judgments on actual engagements, thereby facilitating uniquely realistic inferences about partner leadership in interactive brainstorming. We predict and find that quality-differentiated leadership improves the mental representations of fraud risk for seniors, but not managers. Consistent with theory around shared mental models, these changes are, in turn, associated with the engagement team's planned fraud risk responses. Further analyses reveal that our leadership prompts are relatively more novel for seniors than managers, supporting the notion that seniors have more room for improvement in their mental representations than managers.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:66:y:2018:i:c:p:14-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2018.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368218300333
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2018.02.001?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Bonner, Se & Lewis, Bl, 1990. "Determinants Of Auditor Expertise," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 1-20.
    4. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    5. Hammersley, Jacqueline S. & Kadous, Kathryn & Magro, Anne M., 1997. "Cognitive and Strategic Components of the Explanation Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 149-158, May.
    6. Gibbins, M & Newton, Jd, 1994. "An Empirical Exploration Of Complex Accountability In Public Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 165-186.
    7. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    8. Stephen K. Asare & Arnold M. Wright, 2004. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Risk Assessment and Program Planning Tools in a Fraud Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 325-352, June.
    9. Durocher, Sylvain & Bujaki, Merridee & Brouard, François, 2016. "Attracting Millennials: Legitimacy management and bottom-up socialization processes within accounting firms," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-24.
    10. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    11. Knechel, W. Robert & Salterio, Steven E. & Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia, 2010. "The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 316-333, April.
    12. Zimbelman, MF, 1997. "The effects of SAS no. 82 on auditors' attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 75-97.
    13. Michael Gibbins & Steven Salterio & Alan Webb, 2001. "Evidence About Auditor–Client Management Negotiation Concerning Client’s Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 535-563, December.
    14. Eric Floyd & John A. List, 2016. "Using Field Experiments in Accounting and Finance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 437-475, May.
    15. Paulus, Paul B. & Yang, Huei-Chuan, 2000. "Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 76-87, May.
    16. Tan, HT & Libby, R, 1997. "Tacit managerial versus technical knowledge as determinants of audit expertise in the field," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 97-113.
    17. Hoffman, VB & Patton, JM, 1997. "Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 227-237.
    18. Jessen L. Hobson & William J. Mayew & Mohan Venkatachalam, 2012. "Analyzing Speech to Detect Financial Misreporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 349-392, May.
    19. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    20. Libby, Robert & Tan, Hun-Tong, 1994. "Modeling the determinants of audit expertise," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(8), pages 701-716, November.
    21. Knapp, Carol A. & Knapp, Michael C., 2001. "The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 25-37, January.
    22. Libby, R & Frederick, Dm, 1990. "Experience And The Ability To Explain Audit Findings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 348-367.
    23. Swieringa, Rj & Weick, Ke, 1982. "An Assessment Of Laboratory Experiments In Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20, pages 56-101.
    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. Tim D. Bauer & Sean M. Hillison & Mark E. Peecher & Bradley Pomeroy, 2020. "Revising Audit Plans to Address Fraud Risk: A Case of “Do as I Advise, Not as I Do”?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2558-2589, December.
    2. Thiéry, Stéphanie & Lhuillery, Stephane & Tellechea, Marion, 2023. "How can governance, human capital, and communication practices enhance internal audit quality?," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    3. Jonathan Farrar & Tisha King, 2023. "To Punish or Not to Punish? The Impact of Tax Fraud Punishment on Observers’ Tax Compliance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 289-311, February.
    4. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    4. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    5. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    7. William Kerler & Larry Killough, 2009. "The Effects of Satisfaction with a Client’s Management During a Prior Audit Engagement, Trust, and Moral Reasoning on Auditors’ Perceived Risk of Management Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 109-136, March.
    8. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    9. Hunton, James E. & Wier, Benson & Stone, Dan N., 2000. "Succeeding in managerial accounting. Part 2: a structural equations analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 751-762, November.
    10. Stone, Dan N. & Hunton, James E. & Wier, Benson, 2000. "Succeeding in managerial accounting. Part 1: knowledge, ability, and rank," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 697-715, October.
    11. Tim D. Bauer & Sean M. Hillison & Mark E. Peecher & Bradley Pomeroy, 2020. "Revising Audit Plans to Address Fraud Risk: A Case of “Do as I Advise, Not as I Do”?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2558-2589, December.
    12. Bills, Kenneth L. & Cobabe, Matthew & Pittman, Jeffrey & Stein, Sarah E., 2020. "To share or not to share: The importance of peer firm similarity to auditor choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. 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).
    14. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    15. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    16. Glover, Steven M. & Prawitt, Douglas F. & Spilker, Brian C., 1997. "The Influence of Decision Aids on User Behavior: Implications for Knowledge Acquisition and Inappropriate Reliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 232-255, November.
    17. Herron, Eddward T. & Cornell, Robert M., 2021. "Creativity amidst standardization: Is creativity related to auditors’ recognition of and responses to fraud risk cues?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 314-326.
    18. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    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. Ye, Kangtao & Cheng, Yingli & Gao, Jingyu, 2014. "How individual auditor characteristics impact the likelihood of audit failure: Evidence from China," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 394-401.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Audit planning; Field experiment; Fraud brainstorming; Professional skepticism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:eee:aosoci:v:66:y:2018:i:c:p:14-28. 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.