Search results

Independence is the cornerstone of the auditing profession. Even so, it is often assumed that acquiescing to the audit client when a disagreement occurs is more beneficial to the auditor-client relationship than asserting one’s independence (e.g., see Wang & Tuttle, 2009). We look more closely at the issue in the context of auditor-client management disagreements as recalled by experienced auditors.

We find that for most disagreements in which the auditor did not make any concession at all, the auditor-client relationship was either unaffected or strengthened. We find that a client’s use of pressure tactics did not appear to influence whether or not the auditor made a concession, but that a client’s use of pressure tactics, was associated with damage to the auditor-client relationship. The importance of the issue causing a disagreement was positively associated with the likelihood of the auditor staying with his/her initial position.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how disagreement between supervisors and their subordinates on leadership style (transformational and transactional) is related to employees’ outcomes, considering both work team characteristics (social support and conflict), and employees’ well-being (burnout, work engagement and poor health). The role played by the size of the work team is also analysed.

The sample is composed of 24 supervisors and 468 employees working in grocery stores of a large retail chain; 369 employees worked in 14 medium-size work teams and 99 employees worked in small-size work teams. Disagreement on leadership style between supervisors and their subordinates has been computed as the difference between the score reported by the supervisor and the score reported by the worker on the same items. Linear regression analyses, ANOVA and multilevel analyses have been computed.

Multilevel analyses results showed that, considering the disagreement on transformational and transactional leadership style and the work team size, only disagreement on the transformational leadership style is related to employees’ outcomes. Higher clustering effects, meaning that the between-groups variability was bigger than the variability within groups, have been found in conflict between members and burnout. Furthermore, results showed that work team size moderated the relationship between disagreement on transformational leadership style and burnout.

In order to enhance workers’ well-being and produce a better working climate it could be useful to focus on reducing the disagreement on leadership style between leaders and theirs subordinates.

Disagreement between supervisors and their subordinates, in order to understand the role played by leadership on work team characteristics and workers’ well-being, has rarely been studied before.

The lack of a clear conceptualization and operationalization of the construct of interpersonal conflict makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies and hinders the accumulation of knowledge in the conflict domain. Defining interpersonal conflict as a dynamic process that occurs between interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the attainment of their goals, the present paper presents a two‐dimensional framework and a typology of interpersonal conflict that incorporates previous conceptualizations of the construct. The first dimension of the framework identifies three properties generally associated with conflict situations: disagreement, negative emotion, and interference. The framework's second dimension identifies two targets of interpersonal conflict encountered in organizational settings: task and interpersonal relationship. Based on this framework, the paper highlights several shortcomings of current conceptualizations and operationalizations of interpersonal conflict in the organizational literature, and provides suggestions for their remedy.

Disagreements related to processes, priorities, and purpose surface within organizations. Disagreements may be between colleagues, or between internal and external protagonists, or between managers and their direct reports. Rather than avoiding or ignoring or even trying to eradicate disagreement, this paper highlights the potential value to be extracted from disagreement and offers some ideas on how best to be in a position to do so.

This paper is the result of the insights offered by one of the world’s leading ethicists and the reflective thought based on hundreds of discussions by all three authors with practicing managers combining for over 60 years of such engagement.

Practical considerations, examples, and suggestions for extracting the benefit resident in disagreement are presented and discussed.

The ideas and outcomes posed are immediately and broadly applicable.

Readers are provided with an array of field-observed benefits that are potential outcomes from a conscientious engagement with disagreement. Within an organizational “climate of possibilities”, ten potential benefits from constructive engagement with disagreement are presented and discussed. In addition, ten means for enhancing the likelihood of capturing those benefits are presented.

The authors propose that “root cause analysis,” coupled with critical thinking, is applicable to understanding and resolving contentious disagreements that arise from time to time within management teams. By subjecting the disagreement to a step-by-step analytical process, a rich array of considerations often surfaces, a more expansive discussion ensues, and the decided course of action is likely to be more wholeheartedly embraced.

The authors demonstrate how leaders can resolve conflicts productively by creating a culture of candor and methodically exploring the root cause underlying critical management team disagreements. They have organized the process into three parts.

When a management team acknowledges and addresses “[…]the disagreement and they start to look for the real issue and separate the symptoms from the causes,” that is when the potential for positive outcomes arises and disagreement recedes.

The authors show that a guided, analytical root-cause process for resolving disagreements is a worthy addition to every strategic leader’s tool kit.

This step-by-step process is easy for a leaders at all levels to internalize and practice.

During team meetings, expressing negativity about other team members’ ideas and contributions – that is, negative disagreements – can derail team processes and harm team productivity. If team members want to improve their meetings and reduce negativity, which aspects are relevant starting points? This chapter discusses the complexity of this question by considering the interplay of team attributes, individual characteristics, and verbal interaction dynamics that may evoke negative disagreements in meetings. To this end, this chapter relies on existing behavioral and survey data of 259 employees nested in 43 team meetings that were analyzed using statistical discourse analysis. The results of this analysis highlight several potential starting points for reducing negativity in workplace meetings. First, we discovered that team attributes matter, as teams with a lower overall level of job satisfaction were more likely to experience negative disagreements during their meetings. Second, at the individual level, we found a significant gender effect such that women were more likely than men to start negative disagreements. Third, individual team members reporting lower organizational trust were more likely to start negative disagreements. Finally, counter to previous work on interaction dynamics during meetings, we could not identify specific verbal behaviors that triggered negative disagreements. In terms of practical implications, we discuss how managers can increase organizational trust and job satisfaction (e.g., through ensuring justice and improving job design) in order to encourage more positive meeting interactions.

While studies on service users’ participation and their perceptions on the quality of services exist, agreement between family members’ and practitioners’ assessments of the family’s situation has received less interest. The purpose of this paper is to investigate agreement and its effect on outcomes by comparing the viewpoints of three groups of informants (children, mothers and practitioners) in the context of statutory child protection in two study groups – one applying a systemic approach (SPM) and a service-as-usual control group (SAU).

A quasi-experimental repeated-measures study design was applied. Outcome data comprised 112 cases (SPM cases n = 56 and SAU cases n = 56) at three sites. Data was collected from all participants at baseline and six months later.

First, practitioners’ analyses of a child’s need for protection did not meet family members’ expressed need for help. Second, child–mother agreement on the need for service intervention at T1 predicted a decrease in practitioner-assessed abuse or neglect from T1 to T2. In this sample, no differences were found between the two groups.

This study highlights the importance of making explicit the viewpoints of children, parents and practitioners in casework and research to improve understanding of how their perspectives differ over the course of the process and how possible initial disagreements affect outcomes.

Past conflict research and theory has provided insight into the types of conflict and styles of conflict resolution in organizations and groups. A second generation of conflict research is now needed that recognizes that the type of conflict present in a group relative to the other types present (proportional conflict composition) and the amount of conflict perceived relative to the amount perceived by other members (perceptual conflict composition) may be critical to group functioning. Therefore, we propose two types of conflict composition in teams and investigate the links between proportional and perceptual conflict composition conflict, and team effectiveness (i.e., individual and team performance, commitment, cohesiveness, and member satisfaction) in two organizational samples. We find group conflict compositions consisting of high levels of task‐related conflict compared to relationship and process conflict (proportional task conflict) are high performing, satisfied teams. In addition, when team members disagree about amounts of conflict present (high perceptual conflict), we find evidence of negative group outcomes. Implications for managers and group members are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to examine external auditors' perceptions of the impact of audit committee financial expertise and industry expertise on the mediating role played by the committee in resolving auditor‐client disagreements.

The study is a 2×2 between subjects experimental design, using 61 Malaysian auditors as participants. The authors manipulate audit committee financial expertise and industry expertise at high and low levels.

It is found that external auditors perceive that audit committees play a greater mediating role and use mediating techniques to a greater extent when committee members' financial and industry expertise is high compared to when expertise is lower.

This is the first paper to examine the importance of audit committee expertise on the mediating role of the audit committee. The major contribution of the paper is the finding that auditors believe the audit committee's role as a mediator is strengthened not only by the committee members' accounting and auditing expertise but also by their industry expertise. The paper's findings have implications for practitioners and regulators who are concerned with the role of the audit committee in enhancing the integrity of the financial reporting and audit process.