IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v14y1997i4p669-691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting Consultation Units: An Organizational Memory Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • STEVEN SALTERIO
  • ROSS DENHAM

Abstract

. Regulators have recently cited concerns about the extent and quality of accounting consultation within accounting firms on difficult client accounting policy issues. In this paper we report the results of research that examines the role of accounting consultation units in public accounting firms. We describe the five largest accounting consultation units in Canada. The accounting consultation units are then examined through the lens of organizational memory theory. We find differences among the accounting consultation units in their ability to act as a source of organizational memory for their firms. These differences include the following: the amount of resources devoted to the consultation function, the structure of the units, the mandate received by the unit from the firm, and the availability and amount of documentation about previous consultations. These differences suggest that firms' accounting consultation units differ in their ability to provide technical accounting advice. This variability may affect the actual or perceived quality of such advice to both clients and external regulators. In addition, this paper introduces organizational memory theory to the accounting literature. This theoretical approach may be useful in expanding the bounds of behavioral auditing research beyond the current emphasis on the individual auditor.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Salterio & Ross Denham, 1997. "Accounting Consultation Units: An Organizational Memory Analysis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 669-691, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:14:y:1997:i:4:p:669-691
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00546.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00546.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00546.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shah, Atul K., 1996. "Creative compliance in financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 23-39, January.
    2. Paul Danos & John W. Eichenseher & Doris L. Holt, 1989. "Specialized knowledge and its communication in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 91-109, September.
    3. George P. Huber, 1991. "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 88-115, February.
    4. Steven Salterio, 1994. "Researching for Accounting Precedents: Learning, Efficiency, and Effectiveness," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 515-542, June.
    5. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    6. Schultz, Jj & Reckers, Pmj, 1981. "The Impact Of Group Processing On Selected Audit Disclosure Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 482-501.
    7. Salterio, S. & Koonce, L., 1997. "The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 573-587, August.
    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. El’fred Boo & Terence Ng & Premila Gowri Shankar, 2021. "Effects of Advice on Auditor Whistleblowing Propensity: Do Advice Source and Advisor Reassurance Matter?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 387-402, November.
    2. Koreff, Jared & Weisner, Martin & Sutton, Steve G., 2021. "Data analytics (ab) use in healthcare fraud audits," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    3. W. Robert Knechel & Justin Leiby, 2016. "If You Want My Advice: Status Motives and Audit Consultations About Accounting Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1331-1364, December.
    4. Kohler, Hervé & Pochet, Christine & Gendron, Yves, 2021. "Networks of interpretation: An ethnography of the quest for IFRS consistency in a global accounting firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Knechel, W.R. & Wallage, P., 2008. "The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 11687, 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.
    6. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.

    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. Salterio, S. & Koonce, L., 1997. "The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 573-587, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    4. Steven E. Salterio, 2008. "A Strategy for Dealing with Financial Reporting Fraud: Fewer Mandates, More Auditing," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 111-122, May.
    5. Jennifer R. Joe & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2007. "Do Auditor†Provided Nonaudit Services Improve Audit Effectiveness?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 467-487, June.
    6. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    7. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.
    8. Terence Bu†Peow NG & Hun†Tong Tan, 2007. "Effects of Qualitative Factor Salience, Expressed Client Concern, and Qualitative Materiality Thresholds on Auditors' Audit Adjustment Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1171-1192, December.
    9. Matthew Reidenbach & Katrina Wu, 2018. "Audit Firm Industry Sector Leader Geographic Location And Its Association With Audit Fees," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 12(2), pages 117-130.
    10. Roger Simnett & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Research Methods for Examining Independence Issues: Experimental and Economics-of-Auditing Approaches," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 12(28), pages 23-31, November.
    11. Steven Salterio, 1994. "Researching for Accounting Precedents: Learning, Efficiency, and Effectiveness," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 515-542, June.
    12. Kohler, Hervé & Pochet, Christine & Gendron, Yves, 2021. "Networks of interpretation: An ethnography of the quest for IFRS consistency in a global accounting firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Kimberly K. Moreno & Sudip Bhattacharjee & Duane M. Brandon, 2007. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Training Techniques on Analytical Procedures Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 983-1014, September.
    14. Shana Clor‐Proell & Mark W. Nelson, 2007. "Accounting Standards, Implementation Guidance, and Example‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 699-730, September.
    15. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Knechel, W.R. & Wallage, P., 2008. "The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 11687, 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.
    16. Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2018. "Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-21.
    17. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    18. Sanders, Christina Butler & Steward, Michelle D. & Bridges, Sheri, 2009. "Facilitating knowledge transfer during SOX-mandated audit partner rotation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 573-582, November.
    19. Perreault, Stephen & Kida, Thomas, 2011. "The relative effectiveness of persuasion tactics in auditor–client negotiations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 534-547.
    20. Joseph Aharony & Amihud Dotan, 2004. "A Comparative Analysis of Auditor, Manager and Financial Analyst Interpretations of SFAS 5 Disclosure Guidelines," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3‐4), pages 475-504, April.

    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:wly:coacre:v:14:y:1997:i:4:p:669-691. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.