Search results

In this paper, the authors examine auditor upward feedback, which provides a unique opportunity for staff auditors to exercise their voice within an audit firm. Upward feedback can improve employee perceptions of fairness and justice while mitigating feelings of burnout and turnover intentions, thus enhancing audit quality. However, it is unclear which circumstances improve the likelihood that auditors will use their voice and give feedback to superiors. The purpose of this study is to investigate contextual factors that impact the likelihood that auditors will provide upward feedback.

Using a 2 × 2 + 2 experiment with staff auditors, the authors test the likelihood of giving feedback when presented with different feedback systems (electronic anonymous, face-to-face or no opportunity) and experiences with managers (favorable or unfavorable).

The authors find that, while feedback type alone does not change the likelihood of auditors providing upward feedback, auditors are more likely to provide feedback after a favorable manager experience than an unfavorable one. The likelihood of providing feedback after an unfavorable experience is higher, however, when the feedback type is electronic and anonymous as opposed to face-to-face. Additional analyses illustrate strong relationships between manager experience, feedback type and procedural justice, which significantly influence the turnover intentions of staff auditors.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the authors are the first to examine the value of subordinates’ upward feedback on firm outcomes, including burnout and turnover intention.

This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments.

A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors.

Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages.

This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities.

Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns.

This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.