Researchers have studied the entry of professionals into the public accounting field, their careers at an organization, and their exit from the field. However, they have largely overlooked the mobility of these professionals, whose careers involve firm transfers. Drawing on Bourdieu's sociology and interviews with 31 transferees and 7 non–Big 4 legacy partners, we examine the move of Big 4 professionals to non–Big 4 firms. Our findings show that transferees have an ingrained belief that a Big 4 career is the ideal professional trajectory. But they experience points of disjuncture at these firms, prompting them to reevaluate this organizational illusio and their career aspirations and ultimately reinforcing their transfer decision. After moving, transferees learn by trial and error how to valorize and layer their habitus and different forms of capital in order to adjust to the non–Big 4 firms. Our findings challenge prior assumptions about the superiority of Big 4 professionals and the distinctive forms of their capital by showing that the capital needed to obtain powerful positions at Big 4 and non–Big 4 firms are similar, but that its nature and relative value varies. Our findings reveal a paradoxical dynamic in which transferees' Big 4 habitus and capital undergo a complex, iterative process of valorization and layering when these professionals move within the public accounting field. This contrasts with a materialization of professional domination that occurs when former Big 4 employees move outside the public accounting field. For most of our transferees, dissonance also develops between the Big 4 and non–Big 4 layers of their habitus, and they never completely deconstruct their organizational illusio. These findings reveal that the reflexivity of transferees is both shaped and limited by their Big 4 habitus and illusio. Overall, our results contribute to the understanding of professional mobility within the public accounting field.

Using Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection data from 2006 to 2018, we examine the use of auditor‐employed specialists in audit engagements. First, we find that the use of specialists is increasingly prevalent and related to clients’ size and complex accounting estimates. Second, the use of specialists is positively associated with the incidence of audit process deficiencies (identified by PCAOB inspections) but is not associated with output‐based audit‐quality proxies (restatements or absolute discretionary accruals). Hence, although process deficiencies are more likely to occur in engagements with higher use of specialists, financial reporting quality is not negatively impacted. Third, the use of specialists is positively associated with the likelihood of goodwill impairments and negatively associated with engagement profitability. Finally, cross‐sectional tests suggest that board accounting expertise is a salient condition for more effective use of specialists. Collectively, our findings align with concerns noted by the PCAOB and prior experimental and survey studies. Although specialists assist auditors with the audit of complex estimates, engagements with comparatively high specialist use entail an incremental risk of audit process deficiencies.

Motivated by prior literature on organizational identification and 23 semistructured interviews with a variety of US audit partners and directors, we examine whether the gender and ethnic diversity of an office's audit partners influences the retention of the office's audit professionals and the quality of the audits conducted by the office. Using hand‐collected data on US audit partners, we find that greater levels of (or changes in) diversity in office audit partners' gender and ethnicity are associated with lower (reduced) turnover among office audit professionals and higher (increased) office‐level audit quality. We conduct a path analysis based on the most common mechanisms highlighted in our interviews to provide further insight into the audit quality results. The results indicate partial mediation through increased retention, greater gender and ethnic diversity among office audit personnel, client continuity, and increased efficiency. Further tests reveal that the association with audit quality is incremental to, and distinct from, the effect of individual engagement partner characteristics and does not reflect client screening. The findings underscore the importance of gender and ethnic diversity among office audit partners to organizational outcomes and provide important practical implications for audit firms.