Knowledge that Transforms

Agents often inflate measured performance by distorting operating decisions (e.g., real earnings management) and/or reporting decisions (e.g., accruals management). Across four studies, we find that public judgments of distortion’s acceptability largely reflect assessments of how harmful and norm-violating the distortion is. Judgments of operating distortion primarily reflect assessments of harm, whereas judgments of reporting distortion primarily reflect assessments of norm violation. These results are consistent with the Theory of Dyadic Morality (Gray, Waytz, and Young 2012; Schein and Gray 2018). We also find that those who perceive an accounting system as more unfairly withholding an agent’s bonus assess distortion (especially reporting distortion) to be less norm-violating. Those who perceive the performance measure as less appropriate for capturing the value of performance to stakeholders assess distortion (especially operating distortion) to be more harmful. Assessments of distortions’ harm and norm violation explain a substantial portion of the variation in acceptability judgments.

The Big 4 auditors are inspected annually by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), with the summarized findings (labeled “audit deficiencies”) being publicly available on its website. Although the PCAOB claims that its inspection findings and process are designed to increase audit quality, there is limited empirical evidence to support this claim. We examine whether changes in revenue-deficient audit engagements are associated with subsequent year changes in client revenue quality. A revenue-deficient audit engagement is an inspected engagement that has at least one revenue-related audit deficiency. To infer audit quality, we link year-over-year changes in revenue-deficient audit engagements to the subsequent year’s change in engagement-level revenue quality—a common financial reporting quality proxy. We predict that audit firms will react asymmetrically to changes in revenue-deficient audit engagements: increases will prompt audit quality improving actions, but decreases will not. Our results support our prediction.

Performance-contingent cash and tangible rewards are commonly used to motivate employees, and the taxation of such rewards is unavoidable. We use two experiments to examine how the effect of reward taxation on employee effort varies by reward type. In Experiment 1, we find reward taxation decreases positive affect, increases negative affect, and decreases reward attractiveness for employees when rewards are tangible, but not when rewards are cash. In Experiment 2, we find reward taxation reduces employee effort when rewards are tangible, but not when rewards are cash. Collectively, this evidence advances knowledge at the intersection of tax and management accounting by explaining why reward type alters the effect of reward taxation on employee effort. Moreover, our experimental results inform managers of a potential downside to using tangible rewards to motivate employees. Data Availability: Authors will make data available on request.

We conceptualize equity incentive contracting as a dynamic process in which contracting frictions limit the speed at which equity incentives adjust to target levels. Slower adjustment speeds imply more prolonged deviations from value-maximizing targets and thus more severe negative effects on future performance. We find that contracting frictions significantly slow the speed of adjustment to target incentives (SOA). Consistent with frictions prolonging the persistence of deviations from target, we find that contracting frictions magnify the negative influence of deviations on future firm performance. Further, we find that the influence of contracting frictions on SOA operates through boards’ equity grant decisions. Our dynamic contracting perspective offers new insight into the relation between CEO incentives and firm performance by providing novel evidence that the speed of convergence to target incentives is a defining feature of the dynamic contracting process that translates inefficiency effects of contracting frictions into lower future performance. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources indicated in the text.

We examine the relationship between competition and reward practices in the public education sector. We hypothesize and find that school principals who face more intense competition make greater use of performance-based financial rewards and apply greater differentiation in its distribution between higher versus lower performing teachers. However, we do not find similar evidence for nonfinancial rewards. Further analyses suggest that financial rewards help attract and retain teachers in the face of competition. We also hypothesize and find that, as competition intensifies, principals direct incentives toward student outcomes that are easier to measure and communicate (student achievement) as well as their key determinant (teacher competence), relative to outcomes that are harder to measure and communicate (student well-being and engagement). Our findings suggest that school principals view financial incentives as effective for gaining a competitive edge and that competition can influence the relative importance they place on different student outcomes.

To better understand supervisors’ outcome bias, I use a regression discontinuity design that compares coaches’ performance assessments of professional football players involved in narrow wins and losses. I document that supervisors over-react to negative outcomes, sharply lowering performance ratings and tripling subordinate turnover. I find that supervisors’ evaluations that subjectively incorporate information from more incomplete objective performance measures are more prone to outcome bias than those that draw on less incomplete objective measures. I also document that supervisors’ evaluations of high-performing team members are more prone to outcome bias than supervisors’ evaluations of low performers. Finally, I find that outcomes affect supervisors’ ex post information collection. My findings, consistent with predictions that I derive from the theory of cognitive reconstruction, shed light on supervisors’ outcome bias in team settings and how effectively firms’ use of objective performance measures, direct monitoring, and information gathering can mitigate this bias.

We examine the role of investor relations (IR) in private debt markets. We find that firms with dedicated IR officers (IROs) receive significantly lower loan spreads, particularly when lenders require a better understanding of the borrower’s risk profile. Among firms with IROs, those with longer tenured officers experience lower spreads, especially when IROs also manage financial responsibilities. To address endogeneity concerns, we demonstrate that loan spreads decline when a firm establishes an IR program and rise when the program is discontinued. Furthermore, when a different individual assumes the IRO role, loan spreads increase, even though there are no reductions in firm disclosure. Loans issued to firms with IROs also have shorter syndication duration, attract more nonrelationship, foreign, and nonbank participant lenders, feature more customized covenants, and are less likely to undergo renegotiation. Overall, our study provides robust evidence of the relevance of IR in private debt markets.

We develop and estimate a two-sided matching model of auditors and clients. We find evidence that auditors and clients engage in matching based on their preferences on both observable and unobservable characteristics. This matching appears to partly explain the “Big 4 effect” on audit outcomes: after controlling for the effects of matching, we find that the positive influence of having a Big 4 auditor on serious restatements and serious comment letter conversations with the SEC either weakens or disappears. Collectively, our results highlight the importance of accounting for two-sided matching between auditors and clients in understanding the influence of auditors on clients’ financial reporting practices.

This study examines whether and how voluntary news disclosure made by private firms affects investment sensitivities of public peer firms. Analyzing data from U.S. public firms from 1996 to 2018, we discover that public firms’ investment sensitivities intensify in industries with active private firm disclosures; a one standard deviation increase in private firm news disclosure raises public firms’ investment sensitivities by 14.5–17.6 percent. To mitigate endogeneity, we employ instrumental-variable methods, leveraging the staggered implementation of prudent investor rules and enforceability of noncompete agreements. Our results show that these effects are magnified in industries marked by the higher expected industry return volatility and less local newspaper coverage. We find that news from private firms significantly enhances public firms’ investment sensitivities, regardless of its sentiment. This research highlights the crucial role of private firm disclosures in influencing public firms’ investment decisions, enhancing our understanding of information spillovers in corporate disclosure.

This paper examines the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure on firm investment. The analysis characterizes the optimal precision of ESG disclosure that channels investors’ tastes for ESG into firm investment. Although it is tempting to think that the optimal ESG disclosure becomes more precise when investors care more about ESG, I show this intuition is incomplete because it overlooks the fact that stronger tastes for ESG change how investors use information. Applying the analysis to a large economy, I show that mandating more precise climate disclosure than would be voluntarily provided motivates self-interested firms to act on common interests in reducing emissions. That is, a regulator can leverage market forces and a disclosure mandate to achieve a similar result as a Pigovian tax in motivating firms to internalize the externalities created by their climate-related investments.