Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT: This study investigates the effects of relative performance feedback and incentive compensation method on performance. We examine whether the presence and the content of relative performance feedback have different effects on performance when participants are compensated via a tournament or an individual incentive scheme. Our experimental results show a disordinal interaction between incentive scheme and feedback. Specifically, providing relative performance feedback improves the mean performance of participants compensated under an individual incentive scheme regardless of the precision or specific content of the feedback. In contrast, providing relative performance feedback deteriorates the mean performance of participants compensated under a tournament incentive scheme, but only if the feedback is sufficiently precise. Supplementary analysis suggests that this deterioration in performance is due to ineffective task strategies rather than reduced effort. We also find that in the absence of relative performance feedback, participants compensated under a tournament incentive scheme perform better, and their performance improves to a greater extent over time, compared to participants compensated under an individual incentive scheme. These results have implications for the design of accounting, control, and reporting systems in firms.

ABSTRACT: We use the IPO setting to examine the relation between auditor exposure to legal liability and audit quality and audit fees. With regard to audit quality, we report robust evidence that pre-IPO audited accruals are negative and less than post-IPO audited accruals. In contrast to extant literature, our findings provide scant support for the inference that auditors acquiesce to opportunistic earnings management by issuers in an attempt to increase the offering price. With regard to audit fees, we find auditors earn higher fees for IPO engagements than post-IPO engagements. While inherent differences in auditor responsibilities between IPO audits and post-IPO audits should lead to higher fees for IPOs, a substantial portion of IPO audit fees (in levels and changes) is associated with our proxy for the auditor’s 1933 Act exposure. Overall, our results suggest that both audit quality and audit fees are higher in a higher-litigation regime, consistent with the effects an increase in litigation exposure should have on auditor incentives.

ABSTRACT: Research in budgeting suggests that subordinates may exhibit economically significant degrees of honesty, in spite of pecuniary incentives to do otherwise. This study continues the exploration of honesty in budgeting along two dimensions. First, unlike prior experiments, we measure the incremental effect of honesty by manipulating whether budget requests are made in the form of a factual assertion. Second, prior designs may have emphasized the ethical dimension of budgeting by granting the subordinate wide discretion over setting the budget, whereas we manipulate whether the subordinate or the superior has final authority over setting the budget. We find that less slack is created when budget communication requires a factual assertion in the subordinate authority treatment, but not when the superior has final authority. Hence, we find an incremental effect of honesty only when the subordinate has final authority. We conjecture, and provide some evidence, that this is due to subordinates framing the superior authority situation as one of negotiation where each party acts in his or her self-interest, rather than as an ethical dilemma. This view, that budgeting is essentially devoid of ethical considerations, is consistent with some recent characterizations of budget practices.