ABSTRACT This study examines audit partners' predictions of the ability of managers and seniors to detect financial statement errors. If partners are unable to predict the ability of their subordinates to detect errors, audit effectiveness may be affected. Audit partners are asked to predict which members of the audit team (managers or seniors) are able to detect specific types of errors. These predictions are then compared to errors detected by managers and seniors that are seeded in working papers. The results show that partners (1) exhibit significant overconfidence in the ability of subordinates to detect errors, (2) are more accurate in predicting managers' performance than seniors, (3) are more accurate at predicting subordinates' ability to detect mechanical (simple) errors than conceptual (complex) errors, and (4) are not better at predicting subordinates' ability to detect more frequent and more important errors than less frequent and less important errors.

To improve audit effectiveness, public accounting firms have organized their practices to include hierarchical review by teams organized along industry lines. We examine how industry specialized auditor teams detect errors, using a sophisticated experimental design. Our analysis of nominal teams created from seniors and managers working individually shows that seniors add value to the team by detecting more mechanical errors while managers detect more conceptual errors. Working within specialization, managers and seniors both contribute in a nonredundant way to the team’s overall effectiveness. We also find that the nominal teams outperform real teams in the detection of mechanical but not conceptual errors. These results only hold when the auditors work within in their industry specialization. Out of specialization the auditors are not effective at detecting errors, and real teams perform below the nominal team benchmark in the detection of both mechanical and conceptual errors.