Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A comparison of auditor and non‐auditor performance evaluations Are accountants harsh critics?

A comparison of auditor and non‐auditor performance evaluations Are accountants harsh critics? Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether audit professionals exhibit greater performance evaluation bias compared to non‐accounting professionals. Design/methodology/approach – Both audit and non‐accounting professional subjects read a case study and evaluated the performance of a hypothetical subordinate. Two factors were manipulated the subordinate's work performance history and the subordinate's current performance relative to a budget. Findings – It was found that reputation bias and hindsight bias are prevalent in both professional groups. The groups exhibit no difference with respect to reputation bias; however, it was found that public accountants exhibit significantly greater hindsight bias relative to non‐accounting professionals. Practical implications – The paper provides evidence that accountants are relatively harsh critics of subordinate performance. Importantly, the paper investigates accountant vs non‐accountant comparisons where subordinates' ex ante decisions are consistent with superiors' ex ante guidance (i.e. ex post performance being either favorable vs unfavorable is purely outcome‐effect driven). If the findings are robust, this study provides a fundamental reason why employee retention in public accounting is relatively low. Originality/value – This paper is the first to make direct comparisons of performance evaluation bias effects between auditors and similarly experienced working professions. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Managerial Auditing Journal Emerald Publishing

A comparison of auditor and non‐auditor performance evaluations Are accountants harsh critics?

Download PDF
17 pages
Read Article

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/a-comparison-of-auditor-and-non-auditor-performance-evaluations-are-mDhmWYcwva
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0268-6902
DOI
10.1108/02686900910919884
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether audit professionals exhibit greater performance evaluation bias compared to non‐accounting professionals. Design/methodology/approach – Both audit and non‐accounting professional subjects read a case study and evaluated the performance of a hypothetical subordinate. Two factors were manipulated the subordinate's work performance history and the subordinate's current performance relative to a budget. Findings – It was found that reputation bias and hindsight bias are prevalent in both professional groups. The groups exhibit no difference with respect to reputation bias; however, it was found that public accountants exhibit significantly greater hindsight bias relative to non‐accounting professionals. Practical implications – The paper provides evidence that accountants are relatively harsh critics of subordinate performance. Importantly, the paper investigates accountant vs non‐accountant comparisons where subordinates' ex ante decisions are consistent with superiors' ex ante guidance (i.e. ex post performance being either favorable vs unfavorable is purely outcome‐effect driven). If the findings are robust, this study provides a fundamental reason why employee retention in public accounting is relatively low. Originality/value – This paper is the first to make direct comparisons of performance evaluation bias effects between auditors and similarly experienced working professions.

Journal

Managerial Auditing Journal – Emerald Publishing

Published: Nov 28, 2008

Keywords: Bias; Performance appraisal; Auditors; Accountants

References

  • Auditors' perceptions of time budget pressures and premature signoffs: a replication and extension
    Alderman, C.; Dietrick, J.
  • The mitigation of hindsight bias in judges' evaluation of auditor decisions
    Anderson, J.C.; Jennings, M.M.; Lowe, D.J.; Reckers, P.M.J.
  • Outcome bias in decision evaluation
    Baron, J.; Hershey, J.
  • Effects of outcome information on evaluations of managerial decisions
    Brown, C.; Solomon, I.
  • The course of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis
    Camerer, C.; Loewenstein, G.; Weber, M.
  • The hindsight bias: a meta‐analysis
    Christensen‐Szalanski, J.J.J.; Willham, C.F.
  • Debiasing the outcome effect: the role of instructions in an audit litigation setting
    Clarkson, P.; Emby, C.; Watt, V.
  • The effect of risk of misstatement on the propensity to commit reduced audit quality acts under time budget pressure
    Coram, P.; Ng, J.; Woodliff, D.R.
  • A research note on the influence of outcome knowledge on audit partners' judgments
    Emby, C.; Gelardi, A.; Lowe, D.
  • Hindsight ≠ Foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty
    Fischhoff, B.
  • Performance evaluation judgments: effects of prior experience under different performance evaluation schemes and feedback frequencies
    Frederickson, J.; Peffer, S.; Pratt, J.
  • Why do auditors over‐rely on weak analytical procedures? The role of outcome and precision
    Glover, S.; Prawitt, D.; Wilks, T.
  • Empirical evidence on the validity and reliability of behaviorally anchored rating scales for auditors
    Harrell, A.; Wright, A.
  • Causal attribution and hindsight bias for economic developments
    Holz, E.; Kirchler, E.
  • The effects of fee pressure and client risk on audit seniors' time budget decisions
    Houston, R.W.
  • Causality as an influence on hindsight bias: an empirical evaluation of professional audit judgment
    Jennings, M.M.; Lowe, D.J.; Reckers, P.M.J.
  • An examination of potential gender‐based differences in audit managers' performance evaluation judgments
    Johnson, E.N.; Kaplan, S.E.; Reckers, P.M.J.
  • An examination of auditor performance evaluation
    Kaplan, S.E.; Reckers, P.M.J.
  • An examination of the effects of accountability tactics on performance evaluation judgments in public accounting
    Kaplan, S.E.; Reckers, P.M.J.
  • The effect of audit billing arrangement on underreporting of time and audit quality reduction acts
    Kelley, T.; Margheim, L.
  • Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment
    Kennedy, J.
  • Underreporting chargeable time: its effects on client billing, future budget preparation, and scheduling
    Lightner, S.; Leisenring, J.; Winters, A.
  • Analyzing the variance investigation decision: the effects of outcomes, mental accounting, and framing
    Lipe, M.
  • Decision makers' hindsight bias after receiving favorable and unfavorable feedback
    Louie, T.A.
  • The effects of hindsight bias on jurors' evaluations of auditor decisions
    Lowe, D.J.; Reckers, P.M.J.
  • The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance
    McDaniel, L.S.
  • Proper compromises: the management control dilemma in public accounting and its impact on auditor behavior
    McNair, C.J.
  • Quality control, premature signoff, and underreporting of time: Some empirical findings
    Margheim, L.; Pany, K.
  • A behavioral investigation of time budget preparation in a competitive audit environment
    Marxen, D.E.
  • Effects of outcome knowledge and valence on supervisors' evaluations
    Mitchell, T.; Kalb, L.
  • Does a surprising outcome reinforce or reverse the hindsight bias?
    Ofir, C.; Mazursky, D.
  • No reduction in hindsight bias after complete information and repeated testing
    Pohl, R.F.; Hell, W.
  • Auditor underreporting of time and moral reasoning: an experimental lab study
    Ponemon, L.
  • The Panel on Audit Effectiveness Report and Recommendations
    POB
  • Premature signing‐off of audit procedures: An analysis
    Raghunathan, B.
  • The Independent Auditor's Work Environment: A Survey
    Rhode, J.
  • Reversibility of the hindsight bias: manipulation of experimental demands
    Sharpe, D.; Adair, J.G.
  • Performance appraisal of staff auditors
    Wright, A.