IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/isv/jouijm/v7y2018i2p165-158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Facts or Knowledge? A Review of Private Internal Reports of Investigations by Fraud Examiners

Author

Listed:
  • Petter Gottschalk

    (BI Norwegian Business School, Norway)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to reflect on the difference between facts and knowledge, as we suggest that knowledge is facts combined with interpretation, context, and reflection. The distinction is important when investigators search for causality. The reason for misconduct in organizations, and thus whom to blame, is dependent on a thorough interpretation and reflection on facts studied in the proper context. This article presents a sample of seventeen investigation reports by fraud examiners to illustrate the difference between facts and knowledge. When facts remain facts, then the blame game can easily occur. This article first presents the theory of convenience to explain financial misconduct in organizations, and the blame game hypothesis, before we introduce the sample. The purpose of this article is not to criticize generally the work that fraud examiners do in private internal investigations for their clients. Rather it intends to reflect upon the difference between facts and knowledge when it comes to reasons for deviance in organizations. Causality is difficult to establish, and it seems tempting to some fraud examiners to enter into the blame game to make sure that they draw conclusions from investigations that clients have paid for.

Suggested Citation

  • Petter Gottschalk, 2018. "Facts or Knowledge? A Review of Private Internal Reports of Investigations by Fraud Examiners," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 7(2), pages 165-185.
    • Handle: RePEc:isv:jouijm:v:7:y:2018:i:2:p:165-158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/7_165-185.pdf
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Soma Pillay, 2014. "An Institutional Theory Perspective on Corruption," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Development Corruption in South Africa, chapter 0, pages 77-104, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Froggio, Giacinto & Agnew, Robert, 2007. "The relationship between crime and "objective" versus "subjective" strains," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 81-87.
    3. Langton, Lynn & Piquero, Nicole Leeper, 2007. "Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? A preliminary investigation of the relationship between strain and select white-collar offenses," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-15.
    4. Schoepfer, Andrea & Piquero, Nicole Leeper, 2006. "Exploring white-collar crime and the American dream: A partial test of institutional anomie theory," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 227-235.
    5. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1985. "Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 134-149, February.
    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. Markus Mayer & Markus Voeth, 2022. "Improving negotiation success in B2B sales organizations: is structured negotiation management a success factor?," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 163-196, February.
    2. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    3. Mei, Maggie Qiuzhu & Wang, Le & Yan, Jie, 2023. "Maintaining product quality consistency when offshoring to emerging markets: The role of subsidiary control," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1).
    4. Manolis, Chris & Nygaard, Arne & Stillerud, Bård, 1997. "Uncertainty and vertical control: An international investigation," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 6(5), pages 501-518, October.
    5. Emil Inauen & Katja Rost & Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Back to the Future –A Monastic Perspective on Corporate Governance," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 21(1), pages 38-59.
    6. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    7. Mähring, Magnus, 2002. "IT Project Governance: A Process-Oriented Study of Organizational Control and Executive Involvement," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:15, Stockholm School of Economics.
    8. Jeffrey B. Arthur, 2011. "Do HR System Characteristics Affect the Frequency of Interpersonal Deviance in Organizations? The Role of Team Autonomy and Internal Labor Market Practices," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 30-56, January.
    9. Yadong Luo, 2007. "Private control and collective control in international joint ventures," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 531-566, October.
    10. Yasemin Kor & Joseph Mahoney & Sharon Watson, 2008. "The effects of demand, competitive, and technological uncertainty on board monitoring and institutional ownership of IPO firms," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 12(3), pages 239-259, August.
    11. Mahoney, Joseph T. & McNally, Regina C., 2004. "Explaining and Predicting the Choice of Organizational Form: Integrating Performance Ambiguity and Asset Specificity Effects," Working Papers 04-0109, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    12. Anja Schulze & Stefano Brusoni, 2022. "How dynamic capabilities change ordinary capabilities: Reconnecting attention control and problem‐solving," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2447-2477, December.
    13. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    14. Gatignon, Aline & Gatignon, Hubert, 2010. "Erin Anderson and the Path Breaking Work of TCE in New Areas of Business Research: Transaction Costs in Action," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 232-247.
    15. Williams, Christopher & van Triest, Sander, 2009. "The impact of corporate and national cultures on decentralization in multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 156-167, April.
    16. Andrei Markevich, 2011. "How Much Control is Enough? Monitoring and Enforcement under Stalin," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(8), pages 1449-1468.
    17. Ranjith Appuhami & Sujatha Perera & Hector Perera, 2011. "Management Controls in Public–Private Partnerships: An Analytical Framework," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(1), pages 64-79, March.
    18. Stephen K. Kim & Amrit Tiwana, 2016. "Chicken or egg? Sequential complementarity among salesforce control mechanisms," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 316-333, May.
    19. Sandeep Rustagi & William R. King & Laurie J. Kirsch, 2008. "Predictors of Formal Control Usage in IT Outsourcing Partnerships," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 126-143, June.
    20. Christian Jung-Gehling & Erik Strauss, 2018. "A Contemporary Concept of Organizational Control: Its Dependence on Shared Values and Impact on Motivation," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(4), pages 341-374, November.

    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:isv:jouijm:v:7:y:2018:i:2:p:165-158. 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: Alen Ježovnik (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.issbs.si .

    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.