Knowledge that Transforms

Accounting studies document that performance evaluations may cause evaluatees to experience job-related stress and suggest there is a positive relationship between the frequency of such evaluations and stress. In this paper we aim to modify this suggestion. Since performance evaluations also involve a periodic discharge of accountability for evaluatees, we expect that low evaluation frequency may cause stress as well. Drawing on the neurobiological literature on allostatic load, we argue that the prolonged anticipatory threat of being held accountable adds to stress buildup over time. Such buildup is often not consciously experienced but shows in hormonal patterns that are associated with delayed job-related dysfunctions such as burnout. We conducted a one-year field experiment, in which we observed enhanced stress-hormone levels (cortisol and thyrotropin) in participants assigned to a 12-week performance evaluation cycle compared to participants remaining in a 6-week cycle. We found no corresponding difference between conditions on self-reported mental fatigue. This confirms our expectation and suggests that adopting a neurobiological view of job-related stress provides a complementary account of the effect of performance evaluation on both immediately experienced and delayed manifestations of job-related stress.

The received narrative about accounting organisation largely originates from within the walls of the profession, assuming closure, and is not sufficiently informed by an understanding of the actions, experiences and perspectives of those who did not engage in the professional project. Our data offer another perspective, that of the majority of accountants in the field, who prospered for a prolonged period without pursuing strategies of closure or seeking a corporate identity. With a Bourdieusian framing, we explore a rich dataset of almost 3000 individual records from the 1901 and 1911 Irish censuses, supplemented by professional records and trade directories, to examine the diversity of the accounting field in Dublin. Our exploration of this cohort, largely hidden from history, reveals a majority of accountants acting independently in the field, with no strategies to act in concert or to erect occupational barriers to entry. The small minority of accountants pursuing professionalisation came from a background that was already elite. However, in a late colonial context with a weakened state, this broader group of accountants did not present as either excluded or subaltern. Instead, what emerges is evidence of a wider cadre of “Plain” accountants displaying a level of economic progress over a ten-year period that outstrips that of their professionalised peers. Conscious of the ‘imprecision of hierarchies’ in the field (Bourdieu 1988, p. 20), this allows us to consider the role of ‘accountant’ separate from the idea of professional accreditation and to question the seeming inevitability of their conflation.

Because of their complexity and principle-based nature, the creation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) engendered significant uncertainty that modified the order of things within large accounting firms. This motivated them to establish Professional Practice Function (PPF) units to try to ensure a credible degree of consistency in applying IFRS across a wide range of financial reports at the international level. We study backstage dynamics surrounding a PPF national unit in one of the Big Four firms. We focus on the rise of the PPF as an expert-based control device within the firm, and the role PPF members play as knowledge brokers to interpret IFRS. Our investigation is carried out through ethnographic fieldwork supplemented by interviews with PPF members and field auditors. The analysis brings forward some of the organizational dynamics surrounding PPF members' efforts to establish their credibility as intermediaries both hierarchically, between administrative partners and field auditors, and epistemically, between the unifying logic of IFRS and auditees' financial reporting specifics. Ultimately, our analysis points to the role of the PPF as a gatekeeping or internal control device that mediates between different pools of knowledge to monitor the firm's reputation risk against IFRS implementation challenges. From a legal perspective, our ethnography documents how accounting “law” is made at the firm level and how PPF members strive for consistency – in spite of significant epistemological and organizational challenges. Our ethnography also shows that complex IFRS interpretation issues are not resolved through one person's judgment; instead, the firm's structure surrounding the PPF allows for the constitution of inter-individual judgment that transcends national, sectoral, and (sometimes) organizational boundaries. Finally, we see one important contribution of our work as helping reveal the limits of large conceptual categories such as “auditors”, which tend to downplay the dynamics of convoluted practice relationships.

Audit academics and policymakers express ongoing concerns about limited knowledge transfer between audit research and policymaking. We use theory-based knowledge transfer norms to evaluate eight practices used by audit academics to transfer research knowledge to policymakers. The discontinued PCAOB-AAA Auditing Section “Research Synthesis Project” came closest to enacting these theory-based knowledge transfer norms. Hence, we examine why those involved in that project did not follow these norms. Interviews with project authors reveal that their review creation approach anchored on the traditional academic literature review, and insufficiently adjusted it to meet the goal of communicating audit research evidence to policymakers. However, interviews with PCAOB project liaisons indicate that policymakers were engaged with and found value in the review creation process. Thus, we analyze PCAOB rulemaking documents for evidence that policymakers valued and used the project’s reviews in their policymaking. Over the project’s duration, we find increasing citations of research to the reviews themselves and to a broader set of academic research. Our findings of knowledge transfer occurrence in this project warrant further research on the efficacy of mobilizing audit research via research syntheses. We also show how several current audit domain knowledge transfer practices can be combined with the research syntheses approach leading to systematic effective knowledge transfer to policymakers.

Accounting research on tax has primarily focused on documenting the income shifting strategies of multinational corporations. However, no studies, as far as we are aware, have hitherto explored how large accountancy firms manage their own tax affairs despite being huge economic entities in their own right. Using a unique private firm dataset of Big 4 affiliated firms from 30 European countries we examine whether the Big 4 shift income among their separate legal entities. Despite apparent disincentives to doing so, we find archival evidence consistent with tax-motivated income shifting. Difference-in-difference specifications around the incorporation of Deloitte EMEA in the U.K. and PwC Europe in Germany provide further evidence consistent with income shifting increasing among Deloitte and PwC affiliates subsequent to the incorporation of their respective regional coordinating entities. In cross-sectional analyses we find evidence consistent with incentives to engage in outbound income shifting being weaker for unprofitable affiliates. We also provide evidence consistent with the Big 4 engaging in income shifting only in countries with favourable tax conditions/weak tax enforcement. Finally, we find evidence in line with debt allocation and intangible asset placement being important channels through which the Big 4 achieve their income shifting objectives. Our study contributes to the literature by being the first to open the black box of the Big 4's own tax planning practices.

This study investigates the determinants and consequences of forming dyads at the top level of audit teams, i.e., dyads between concurring and lead auditor. We apply the sociological theory of homophily, i.e., the implicit preference for similar others, to hierarchically structured auditor dyads. Our regression analyses reveal that sharing the same gender and the same ethnicity, measured by dialect, increases the likelihood of dyad formation beyond what one would expect based on the characteristics of the pool of available auditors. Further, we observe that forming auditor dyads sharing the same age is avoided, suggesting that the need to establish a legitimate hierarchical relationship through social differentiation represents a boundary condition for homophily. Testing for the consequences of auditor dyad formation using an instrumental variable approach, we find that auditor dyads sharing the same dialect provide lower audit quality. We conclude that homophily matters in auditor dyad formation with potentially adverse consequences for audit quality.

We examine whether knowledge sharing can enhance the efficacy of implicit, trust-based incentives. Using a stark laboratory experiment, we find support for theory suggesting that individuals believe that their knowledge is an important part of their identity, making it costly to share, but facilitating greater trust that recipients of this knowledge will reciprocate with future rewards. Utilizing participants with substantial work experience, results from additional scenario-based experiments demonstrate practical implications of this theory. Collectively, the results from our experiments show that individuals help others less when the help conveys personal knowledge relative to when it does not absent the prospect of rewards, but more when they can expect future rewards (i.e., with implicit incentives). Importantly, knowledge sharing increases the efficacy of implicit incentives more when they are determined by the help recipient relative to someone else (e.g., a supervisor). Collectively, we contribute to a better understanding of incentive systems designed to promote knowledge sharing in practice.