In this study, we examine the possibility that audit managers' judgments may be affected by practice development objectives. Given the competitive nature of public accounting, the extent to which auditors are inclined to be aggressive in the domain of practice development may be a function of their superiors' preferences. This study builds on the exploratory work of Hooks, Cheramy, and Sinich 1994 and Asare, Hackenbrack, and Knechel 1994 by examining the delicate balance that exists between a public accounting firm's need to “grow its business” and its need to maintain its objectivity and professionalism. An experiment is conducted to determine whether the auditor's willingness to tender a bid on an engagement is affected by (1) the nature of the auditor‐auditee relationship (i.e., do existing clients receive the same treatment as potential clients?), or (2) the audit partner's aggressiveness with respect to practice development, which also includes elements of ethics and competence. Seventy‐four audit managers from two Big‐Six firms participated in the study. The results indicate that the type of client (current or potential) and the type of partner (more or less aggressive with respect to practice development) significantly affected the auditors' judgments. Specifically, subjects in the “current client” condition, as well as those who are accountable to a more aggressive partner, are more likely to recommend bidding for the client. The experimental results of this study are based on a case where the client was proposing a relatively aggressive position with respect to accounting for research and development (R&D) costs. Our findings also suggest that the judgements related to bidding on the client are not independent of the auditor's willingness to accept the client's accounting treatment. These results also provide further evidence that the influence of accountability is important in the professional audit environment.

We advance social identity theory in the context of corporate governance research by evaluating how experiences outside the audit committee (AC) relate to AC members’ (ACMs’) professional identities and how these identities then map into ACMs’ responsibilities, how ACMs perceive that they add value, and how ACMs aid in the resolution of difficult judgments and decisions. We identify and evaluate four non-exclusive ACM social identities: executive management, financial management, investment management, and audit partner. We find that prior experiences relate to the social identities with which ACMs identify, yet identities also develop without role-relevant experiences. Interpreting the interviews leads us to propose a novel theory – mediational activism – a hybrid perspective whereby the ACM acts in multiple seemingly incongruent modes as a monitor, collaborator, and/or advocate with the intent to organize collective understanding, action, and mutually equitable outcomes. We find that ACMs’ perceptions of their primary role-relevant responsibilities are consistent with agency theory and extensive mediational activism, while perceptions of value-add are more consistent with the theory of resource dependence and reflect the desire to leverage prior experiences. Finally, we provide evidence on a host of difficult judgments and decisions that ACMs oversee, and find that they sometimes use typical negotiation strategies such as contending and compromising, but rarely resort to offering concessions. Employing these strategies differs based on social identities, but regardless of their identities ACMs most commonly approach their oversight role in resolving difficult judgments and decisions by adopting a mediational activism perspective.

Despite regulations mandating audit committee economic independence, the CEO may still influence audit committee members’ objectivity through social ties (e.g., belonging to the same country club) or professional ties (e.g., having served on boards together). Additionally, prior archival research finds that audit committee industry expertise enhances financial reporting quality. Nonetheless, information about ties and industry expertise are not currently publicly disclosed in regulatory filings. In an experiment with 342 reasonably informed investors, we find, as hypothesized, that ties (professional or social) and industry expertise affect assessments of audit committee independence and competence. Using planned contrast tests, we also find that investors assess audit committees with no ties and industry expertise (social ties and no industry expertise) as the most (least) effective and also result in the highest (lowest) likelihood of investing. Further, the potential negative effects of social ties on investor’s judgments are muted when there is industry expertise present, while the presence of no ties appears to decrease negative effects on investor judgments due to a lack of industry expertise. This study provides important baseline evidence supporting the relevance of audit committee ties and industry expertise information to investors and thus suggests the value of increased disclosures to investors of such information to enhance their ability to make more informed investment decisions.

Calls from practice suggest that audit committee members with industry expertise can improve audit committee effectiveness. Nevertheless, regulators and the extant literature have focused on the financial expertise of the audit committee. We posit that audit committee industry knowledge is valuable because accounting guidance, estimates, and oversight of the external auditor are often linked to a company's operations within a particular industry. Taking a holistic view, we examine two measures of financial reporting quality (financial restatements and discretionary accruals) and two measures of external auditor oversight (audit and nonaudit fees). As predicted, we find that audit committee members who are both accounting and industry experts perform better than those with only accounting expertise. We also find that in certain instances, supervisory experts who are also industry experts perform better than supervisory experts alone. Overall, these results suggest that industry expertise, when combined with accounting expertise, can improve the effectiveness of the audit committee in monitoring the financial reporting process. Data Availability: All data are gathered from publicly available sources.

While current audit standards explicitly state engagement partner tenure requirements, firms have flexibility in managing the rotation process. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 20 U.S. audit firm partners who share their experiences on topics including how they identify appropriate candidate partners and what efforts they undertake to manage relationships with clients post-rotation. We investigate firms' motivation to manage the auditor-client relationship through the lens of Social Exchange Theory (SET), and we consider how likely outcomes of this rotation process map onto regulators' intent that a newly rotated partner provides a fresh perspective to the audit. Our study informs regulators and investors about the process by which engagement partners are selected for rotation, documenting that partner assignment is typically not random. Further, our finding that partner rotation is an extended process (rather than a single discrete event) has implications for audit researchers investigating the effects of partner rotation.