Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT This study uses a resilience perspective to examine the opportunities and challenges that management accountants may experience when they are given a role as a business partner in risk management. Drawing on insights from an in‐depth case study in a large European bank, our study sheds light on management accountants' responses to a change from a compliance‐oriented role to a business partner role. In the bank studied, part of the management accountants' new role was to balance various performance objectives and thereby to incorporate risk considerations in managerial decision‐making. Our findings suggest that this role challenged the management accountants due to the ambiguity inherent in the role and also due to unfavorable conditions that surrounded the role change. We find that these circumstances culminated in a move backward, with the management accountants falling back on practices that were consistent with the values and beliefs they had developed in their previous role. In doing so, they emphasized what the resilience literature labels “well‐learned responses.” These responses contributed to an emphasis on a narrow risk management approach and had implications for the management accountants' long‐term position within the organization. We discuss these findings against the background of previous research that suggests that management accountants move forward to the business partner role by engaging in job crafting (i.e., adapting their work) or identity work (i.e., redefining their role identity). By utilizing the concepts of lingering identities and identity asymmetries to explain the management accountants' move backward, we also shed light on new facets related to role identity.

ABSTRACT Prior research suggests that even for the same decision task there will be variation in decision outcomes across decision makers due to idiosyncrasies in their styles. This variation brings up a fundamental challenge in the realm of regulations, where consistency of application is of great importance. This study examines whether the idiosyncrasies of individual employees of the SEC contribute to inconsistent regulatory outcomes. Using a sample of SEC comment letters, we show that SEC reviewers' idiosyncratic style plays a significant role in explaining the cross‐sectional variation in filing review outcomes, even after holding firm and disclosure attributes constant. In addition, the likelihood of restatement during the review process varies systemically with the reviewers' review style. These findings suggest that reviewer style influences shareholders and other stakeholders via its impact on the costs in resolving comment letter issues and the quality of corporate disclosure. They also have public policy implications for the way financial reporting rules and regulations are applied.

ABSTRACT We investigate whether individual securities regulators exhibit personal styles in their work, a question of importance to corporate executives and capital market participants. Using the SEC's comment letters as our setting, we find that SEC staff members exhibit unique personal “styles.” We manually collect information on SEC staff members and provide evidence that staff members' personal characteristics influence the SEC's review process. Further analyses reveal that SEC staff members with a CPA qualification are associated with a lower likelihood of future accounting restatements; moreover, similarity between the SEC staff member and the firm's correspondent is associated with lower scrutiny intensity. Overall, our study offers evidence that SEC staff members exhibit individual differences and that their styles shape the SEC's enforcement actions. Our results offer implications for the working of securities regulators.

ABSTRACT We examine how the threat of exit by non‐blockholders (investors with ownership <5%) relates to firms' income smoothing. Unlike informed blockholders, non‐blockholders lack private information and therefore rely more on reported accounting numbers to evaluate firm performance. To isolate the exit threat, we use the unique setting in Japan where strong firm‐centric social norms and lack of insider access lead non‐blockholding foreign institutions to influence management primarily through the threat of exit. We predict and find that foreign non‐blockholders' exit threat is positively associated with the extent of income smoothing. This effect is more pronounced for firms less embedded in Japan's stakeholder‐based system, firms with greater stock liquidity, and firms with higher US institutional ownership. In addition, smoothing associated with such an exit threat, on average, is informative. Our findings suggest that Japanese firms under non‐blockholders' exit threat increase income smoothing to reduce perceived uncertainty and that such smoothing generally meets non‐blockholders' information needs.

ABSTRACT This study develops a process model of how accounting may come to an end. Grounded in a longitudinal study of a risk culture survey, this model focuses on the dynamics that underpin the repetition of accounting practices, and sheds light on two boundary conditions of successful repetition and continuation, which are in tension with each other. On the one hand, there are pressures for repetition that preserves continuity and comparability. On the other hand, there is the ongoing organizational need to adjust accounting practices. Iterating between the case study findings, social studies of accounting, and the sociology of replication in scientific practice, the model shows how moving too close to either boundary increases the risk that repetition undermines the accounting practice being repeated: “perfect repetition” may be perceived as uninteresting and decision‐irrelevant; very “imperfect repetition” may be perceived as something too different and idiosyncratic, and hence also decision‐irrelevant. As a result, the analysis extends a rich literature that has examined empirical instances of failure of the conditions that sustain the repeatability of accounting practices. Via the theory of “self‐undermining repetition,” this study shows how the possibilities for accounting's ending are paradoxically inherent in the very act of repetition. This notion of “self‐undermining repetition” is deepened by a discussion of how it may be affected by four contingencies: task ambiguity, organizational politics, organizational actors' reflexivity, and external networks of support. Overall, the analysis of the self‐undermining dynamics of repetition and related contingencies contrasts with research that foregrounds the constitutive nature of repeated uses of accountings. It shows how repetition may also undermine, rather than cumulatively consolidate, accounting practices.

ABSTRACT Audit regulators and commentators propose prompting auditors to more fully take an investor's perspective as a remedy to their concern that auditors underreact to material misstatements. By contrast, we predict that prompting auditors in this manner will backfire, making them less (more) heavily weight indicia that misstatements are (not) material. We further predict auditors will apply this asymmetric weighting instrumentally —to a greater degree as needed—to justify management‐preferred conclusions. We test these predictions in two experiments in which in‐charge audit seniors judge the likelihood that identified audit differences are material and choose required adjustment amounts. Between‐participants, we manipulate whether or not auditors are prompted to take an investor's perspective and, within‐participants, whether these audit differences would or would not violate a qualitative criterion—by breaking or not breaking a favorable profitability trend. Study 1 uses a context in which a relatively low degree of motivated perspective taking is needed, as the audit difference is just below tolerable misstatement (TM). Investor‐prompted auditors assess audit differences as less likely to be material than do unprompted auditors, but only when the qualitative criterion is not violated. Study 2 adds a between‐participant manipulation of misstatement tolerability—that is, whether the audit difference is just below or well above TM. Consistent with an instrumental increase in motivated perspective taking, investor‐prompted auditors assess audit differences that simultaneously are less tolerable and violate a qualitative criterion as significantly less likely to be material. Overall, our theory and experimental evidence suggest prompting auditors to take the investor perspective may have unintended consequences.

ABSTRACT Although recent evidence suggests that individual audit partners explain a substantial portion of the variation in audit quality proxies, much less is known about what determines an audit partner's quality. Psychology and behavioral economics theories hold that an individual's experiences can have enduring impacts on subsequent behavior. We examine whether auditors' direct exposure to Arthur Andersen's collapse has a long‐term impact on the quality of their audits. Our evidence implies that audit partners who directly experienced Andersen's demise impose stricter monitoring evident in their clients exhibiting a lower propensity for misstatements and small profits, and paying higher audit fees. Importantly, these findings reconcile with research in finance and economics implying that firsthand experiences matter more to subsequent behavior than general economic conditions or secondhand or thirdhand experiences. Collectively, the results shed light on one facet of how partners' audit quality evolves over time. Our findings suggest that major failures associated with the audit firm in which an auditor works can ultimately result in these affected individuals later delivering higher audit quality, which should benefit audit committees in partner selection decisions and audit firms in designing partner assignment policies.

ABSTRACT As part of its goal to monitor and enhance the quality of information available to investors, the SEC reviews companies' filings to ensure compliance with applicable financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Increased public interest and the substantial costs for both the SEC in reviewing and the companies in responding have led to a rapidly growing body of accounting literature that examines the filing review process. We survey and comment on 80 published and unpublished academic research papers in this literature and identify significant gaps that future research should address. We also summarize the institutional features of the filing review process, aiming to inform future academic studies. Our survey should be of interest to both academics and market participants evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the filing review process.

ABSTRACT This article explores how valuers construct value opinions. Although some implications of outsourcing valuation to valuers for accounting purposes have been highlighted in the literature, we add a valuer perspective complementing the accountant's standpoint in order to obtain a fuller picture of these ramifications. Drawing on 62 interviews, we study the role of judgment in valuation and find that judgment is largely tied with the sensemaking of valuers. By examining the valuation activities of art and real estate valuers, we show that these specialized valuers follow a similar valuation process which allows them to grasp how to go on with valuation . This four‐phase process starts and ends by situating the opinion in its specific valuation context and is centered on iterations between researching, analyzing, and relativizing comparable data that may be adjusted to connect with a sense of what the value should be. Overall, judgment is shown to be enacted based on a practical sense of conducting valuation that includes a “gut feeling” of what represents a plausible value. This study suggests that the valuer's input should be recognized as situated, sense‐contingent, and vulnerable to the underlying politics and risks tied to providing an opinion. Our results also point to stark differences between how valuers approach the use of judgment compared to how judgment is typically exercised by accounting specialists.

ABSTRACT Focusing on mandatory partner rotations, we examine the importance of within‐firm network connections to the selection of successor partners and the impact of those connections on post‐rotation audit performance. Using data from China, we track partners' history and identify incumbent‐successor connections stemming from jointly conducted prior engagements. Although these connections can enhance incumbent‐successor information transfers and thus post‐rotation audit performance, they may also pose a threat to quality by compromising the successor's independence. Among the pool of replacement candidates, we find that individuals with stronger connections with the incumbent are more likely to be appointed as successors. This finding is more pronounced when the audit engagement is more complex, client‐specific knowledge is not readily available to the succeeding partner, and the engagement is more valuable to the audit firm. We also document that successor‐incumbent connections are associated with equal or better post‐rotation audit quality and fewer client defections. These results suggest that the benefits of network‐based successor selection may outweigh its costs. By enriching our understanding of the partner transition process, this study contributes to the public policy discourse on partner rotation.