Search results

This study aims to investigate the effects of COVID-19 working arrangements on role stress, burnout and turnover intentions in public accounting professionals. Additionally, while all professionals have had to adapt to this rapid change in working environment, this paper explores whether the impact of this transition differs depending on demographic factors, namely, rank, gender, firm size and service line.

The authors survey 159 public accountants working in audit and tax on their perceptions of role stress, burnout and turnover intentions before COVID-19 and since. The survey used validated instruments from prior literature to capture these measures.

Results show that role stress, burnout and turnover intentions increased significantly since remote work began. Specifically, the rank of accountants significantly affects this association, with staff experiencing the most significant increases in role stress and burnout and seniors reporting significantly higher intentions to leave their current firms. Females experience a significant increase in feelings of emotional exhaustion and turnover intention, while males experience a significant increase in feelings of depersonalization and role overload. Finally, there is a positive association between firm size and burnout, with employees from national/midsize firms experiencing the largest increase in feelings of emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment and depersonalization.

Given that all prior research on role stressors, burnout tendencies and turnover intentions in the context of public accounting was conducted in the pre-COVID-19 work environment, this paper examines a timely and significant event that is likely to have a long-lasting impact on the way in which people work. As accounting firms seek to develop new working models and promote well-being among their employees, they should take note of the findings of this study that gender, rank and firm size result in differential impacts on role stress, burnout and turnover intentions.

This chapter examines the influence of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy on some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the past three decades. Mobilizing the epistemic community framework, it demonstrates how network members, acting as amici curiae, litigators, academics, and judges worked to transmit intellectual capital to Supreme Court decision makers in 12 federalism and separation of powers cases decided between 1983 and 2001. It finds that Federalist Society members were most successful in diffusing ideas into Supreme Court opinions in cases where doctrinal distance was greatest; that is, cases where the Supreme Court moved the farthest from its established constitutional framework.