IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v23y2006i3p761-787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing Perceptions of Technical Competence: How Well Do Auditors Know How Others View Them?

Author

Listed:
  • Hun†Tong Tan
  • Karim Jamal

Abstract

We investigate factors that influence an auditor's accuracy in knowing how subordinates, peers, and superiors view his or her own technical competence (metaperception). Extant literature on reputation management in auditing contexts depicts preparers of audit workpapers as strategic agents (subordinates) who stylize workpapers and engage in behaviors that enhance their reputations with reviewers (superiors). These superiors, in turn, are represented as strategically engaging in coping behaviors in response to such stylization attempts. One of the necessary conditions for auditors to enhance their reputations on a sustainable basis is accurate metaperception. We report the results of an experiment that investigates determinants of auditors' metaperception accuracy. Our participants comprise teams of audit partners, managers, and seniors who work together in the field. Each auditor performs two tasks of varying complexity and then predicts whether other team members can accurately perform the task and how other team members assess his or her performance on the tasks. Results show that accuracy in knowing what others think of one's technical proficiency (metaperception) is generally high, particularly when the predictor auditors are partners and managers; however, metaperception accuracy is asymmetric and varies depending on the predictor auditor, the target auditor being predicted, and task complexity. Implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:23:y:2006:i:3:p:761-787
    DOI: 10.1506/EH3A-XDFU-VNKD-DJYG
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/EH3A-XDFU-VNKD-DJYG
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/EH3A-XDFU-VNKD-DJYG?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. 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.
    2. R. Guesnerie, 2002. "Anchoring Economic Predictions in Common Knowledge," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 439-480, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Balachandran, Bv & Ramakrishnan, Rts, 1987. "A Theory Of Audit Partnerships - Audit Firm Size And Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 111-126.
    5. Kennedy, J & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Judging auditors' technical knowledge," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 279-293.
    6. Shibano, T, 1990. "Assessing Audit Risk From Errors And Irregularities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 110-140.
    7. 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.
    8. Shyam Sunder, 2001. "Knowing What Others Know: Common Knowledge, Accounting, and Capital Markets," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm326, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Feb 2002.
    9. Kennedy, J & Kleinmuntz, DN & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Determinants of the justifiability of performance in ill-structured audit tasks," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 105-123.
    10. 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.
    11. Tan, HT & Kao, A, 1999. "Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 209-223.
    12. Zimbelman, MF & Waller, WS, 1999. "An experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37, pages 135-155.
    13. Dirsmith, Mark W. & Covaleski, Mark A., 1985. "Informal communications, nonformal communications and mentoring in public accounting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 149-169, April.
    14. Brian W. Mayhew, 2001. "Auditor Reputation Building," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 599-617, December.
    15. Bonner, Sarah E., 1994. "A model of the effects of audit task complexity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-234, April.
    16. Karim Jamal & Hun‐Tong Tan, 2001. "Can Auditors Predict the Choices Made by Other Auditors?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 583-597, December.
    17. Hamilton, Re & Wright, Wf, 1982. "Internal Control Judgments And Effects Of Experience - Replications And Extensions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 756-765.
    18. Wood, Robert E., 1986. "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-82, February.
    19. John Geanakoplos, 1992. "Common Knowledge," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 53-82, Fall.
    20. Antle, R & Nalebuff, B, 1991. "Conservatism And Auditor-Client Negotiations," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29, pages 31-54.
    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. 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.
    2. Adam Esplin & Karim Jamal & Shyam Sunder, 2018. "Demand for and Assessment of Audit Quality in Private Companies," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 319-352, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Jan Svanberg & Peter Öhman, 2016. "Does Ethical Culture in Audit Firms Support Auditor Objectivity?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 65-79, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Li, Zhaochu & Lytvynenko, Iryna P. & Philippoff, Karl S., 2021. "Stock market reactions to R&D cuts used to manage earnings," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 77(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. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    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. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Patrick Ifergan, 2011. "Interprétativisme et complexité des normes d'audit françaises," Post-Print hal-00650464, HAL.
    11. 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.
    12. Yip-Ow, Jackson & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2000. "Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 203-215, February.
    13. Cardinaels, Eddy, 2008. "The interplay between cost accounting knowledge and presentation formats in cost-based decision-making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 582-602, August.
    14. Simnett, Roger, 1996. "The effect of information selection, information processing and task complexity on predictive accuracy of auditors," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(7-8), pages 699-719.
    15. 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.
    16. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    17. 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.
    18. Patrick Ifergan & Pierre-Laurent Bescos, 2010. "Les Facteurs Objectifs De La Complexité De La Tâche En Audit Légal," Post-Print hal-00477398, HAL.
    19. Causholli, Monika & Floyd, Theresa & Jenkins, Nicole Thorne & Soltis, Scott M., 2021. "The ties that bind: Knowledge-seeking networks and auditor job performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. O'Donnell, Ed. & Koch, Bruce & Boone, Jeff, 2005. "The influence of domain knowledge and task complexity on tax professionals' compliance recommendations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 145-165, February.

    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:23:y:2006:i:3:p:761-787. 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.