The purpose of this study is to explore the social and collective foundations of the auditor’s judgment and specifically highlights that the dialogical dimension of auditors’…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore the social and collective foundations of the auditor’s judgment and specifically highlights that the dialogical dimension of auditors’ judgment is founded on both their interactions with their auditees and their interactions with their colleagues.
Design/methodology/approach
This qualitative study is based on interviews with 22 audit partners, conducted between March 2013 and October 2016, in France.
Findings
The research points out the complexity of auditor judgment. Confronted with issues such as equivocal and ambiguous circumstances, auditors must question the relevance of the meanings elaborated to act according to the situation (self-criticism or doubt) and must be wise and not be overconfident toward the information provided by the manager (wisdom). Last but not least, the findings also suggest that contrary advice helps auditors to improve an alternative point of view and hence reach a consensus.
Originality/value
The research uses a K. Weick sensemaking approach and contributes theoretically to gaining deeper understanding of the social dimension in audit judgment, by showing that professional judgment is an interactive and social practice.