Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT Regulators and researchers provide evidence that auditors' judgment quality is problematic in complex audit tasks. We introduce a framework for improving auditor judgment in these tasks. The framework builds on dual‐process theory to recognize that high‐quality judgment in complex tasks requires that auditors (i) possess the knowledge needed for the task, (ii) recognize the need for analytical (versus heuristic) processing, and (iii) have sufficient cognitive capacity to complete the analytical processing. Based on the framework, we predict that auditors' need for cognition (NFC), a characteristic theoretically linked to recognizing the need for analytical processing, is associated with higher quality complex judgments. Analysis of 11 studies supports this assertion. We demonstrate the usefulness of the framework by predicting and finding that priming auditors with an accuracy goal improves judgments, particularly for lower NFC auditors, who are less likely to spontaneously engage in analytical processing. The framework facilitates systematic development of interventions to improve auditor judgment by highlighting that solutions should address the specific conditions causing judgment problems.

ABSTRACT Regulators are concerned about the quality of group audits because of poor inspection results, recent enforcement actions against component auditors, and the significance of these audits to the global economy. Yet research in this area is nascent. In response, we survey and interview US‐based global group audit leads to better understand the group audit process and their perceptions of challenges that arise on such engagements. Our findings indicate that group auditors organize their audits consistent with the client's structure, which drives component auditor selection, scoping, and fees. Group auditors routinely find fault with component auditors, perceiving that work performed and/or documentation provided is not sufficient, not appropriate and/or not communicated timely, to comply with US standards and reporting deadlines. In some cases, they perceive that the component auditor is unable and/or unwilling to comply and in others, that the component auditor misunderstands group instructions due to language proficiency or differing interpretation of the standards. Notably this perspective is ethnocentric, as group auditors almost exclusively attribute issues to component auditors. While ethnocentric tendencies appear myopic, they provide insight into unrecognized or overlooked aspects of the global firm model of cooperative arrangements. This study highlights the significance of the global firm's network structure to global group audits. Thus, we encourage intercommunity research, among (quantitative and qualitative) scholars and standard setters, to consider group audits in the broader context of firm networks.

ABSTRACT This study examines the association between internal information quality and state tax planning. Prior literature documents a positive association between internal information quality and summary measures of tax avoidance. However, we know little about specific forms of tax planning and internal information quality. State tax planning is difficult because of the number of jurisdictions, variety of tax rules, variation of enforcement, and apportionment requirements. We find that internal information quality facilitates state tax planning and is most important when firms face more restrictive state tax laws and when domestic firms relative to multinational firms have international income shifting opportunities. Our results provide a baseline of the economic effects of internal information quality on different forms of tax planning. Understanding internal information quality's role in state tax planning is especially relevant as countries propose to modify international tax rules to mirror the state taxation format of a single‐entity system with apportionment.

ABSTRACT Data analytics is transforming our global markets and significantly impacting the financial reporting environment. We investigate how auditors, company managers, and regulation interact with data analytics and one another to affect the diffusion (i.e., development and spread) of data analytics throughout the financial reporting environment. We interview company managers and their audit partners, as well as additional stakeholders, including regulators. We interpret findings from our interviews using theory that highlights the importance of dynamic interactions between people and their environments, which include the prevailing rules (e.g., regulatory guidance). Our findings contribute to the accounting literature and practice by revealing three areas of conflict emerging from stakeholders' disparate preferences for data analytics. First, we uncover growing tensions between managers and audit partners regarding audit fees. Second, we find that managers and auditors believe the lack of accounting regulation specific to data analytics causes confusion and frustration. Finally, auditors report that they strategically leverage data analytics to provide clients with business‐related insights. However, regulators voice concerns that this practice might impair auditor independence and reduce audit quality. These areas of conflict suggest a need to revisit key tensions surrounding the audit function in a contemporary context characterized with significant technological shift.

ABSTRACT The “coopetition” paradox exists when two or more organizations are simultaneously involved in cooperative and competitive interactions. In the accounting industry, small firms encounter coopetition when they align themselves with other independent firms to form accounting associations and networks (AANs). AANs are a type of interorganizational relationship (IOR) that provide opportunities for member firms to collaborate by sharing important resources such as expertise, best practices, and manpower. However, member firms also compete in the marketplace for clients and human capital, which incentivizes uncooperative and opportunistic behavior. If managed inadequately, coopetitive tensions can significantly hamper AAN benefits and may lead to IOR failure. Given the considerable longevity of AANs, we interview 42 high‐level accounting professionals to understand AANs' apparent successful management of these tensions. Leveraging coopetition and IOR theory, our analysis suggests that transactional mechanisms (contractual agreements, organizational structure, selection/monitoring processes) and relational mechanisms (trust, social ties, reciprocity) play key roles in encouraging healthy cooperation and competition among member firms. One of our main conclusions is that these mechanisms contribute to AAN success because they are leveraged comprehensively across each IOR life cycle phase, and they are mutually reinforcing, with transactional mechanisms providing the foundation to inspire confidence and encourage the development of relational mechanisms. Our research enriches existing accounting and coopetition literature, provides a new perspective for AANs, and responds to calls to understand key factors of IOR success.

ABSTRACT National office consultations (NOCs) are a mechanism intended to enhance audit quality, consistent with the logic of professionalism inherent in the audit profession. Yet research indicates that the competing logic of commercialism has become institutionalized in audit firms. We examine how the coexisting and conflicting logics of professionalism and commercialism manifest themselves in the current NOC dynamic. Specifically, we interview 22 highly experienced Big 4 audit firm partners to investigate how key actors engage in institutional work that creates, maintains, and disrupts the influence of professionalism and commercialism in NOC practices. We observe a swing of the pendulum: in the wake of SOX, audit firms adopted professionalism‐based practices which involved creating a more authoritative, “Oz”‐like national office identity, while in recent years key actors' institutional work reconfigured NOC practices and placed a renewed focus on commercialism. Our findings bring to light a number of implications that offer opportunities for future research. Although the new client‐inclusive culture aims to improve audit outcomes by encouraging consultations and fostering open dialogue with clients, it also exposes the national office to relationship‐management pressures and client‐service demands. Thus, practices developed to uphold professionalism also created a channel for commercialism‐focused practices, leading to unintended second‐order effects.

ABSTRACT We investigate whether audit fees and auditors' opinions on internal controls are associated with whistleblowing allegations externally filed to regulatory agencies. We find that firms subject to whistleblowing allegations have significantly higher audit fees, regardless of the substance of these allegations, whereas an auditor is more likely to issue an adverse opinion on internal controls when the allegation is substantiated, rather than frivolous. Further, our findings suggest that auditors are involved in the auditing of whistleblowing when the allegation is still in an internal stage. We also show that firms subject to external whistleblowing allegations have a lower likelihood of restating financial statements prepared in the allegation year when greater audit effort is made in that year. Our study is among the first to demonstrate the role of auditors in the context of whistleblowing.