Auditor Evaluation of Manager's Competence After a Failure in Internal Control

IF 2.7 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory Pub Date : 2021-02-19 DOI:10.2308/AJPT-18-036
Eldar M. Maksymov
{"title":"Auditor Evaluation of Manager's Competence After a Failure in Internal Control","authors":"Eldar M. Maksymov","doi":"10.2308/AJPT-18-036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Audit guidance requires auditors to assess management's competence with respect to internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) based on the recommendations of COSO's integrated framework. The omission bias theory suggests that after internal control failures, auditors may assess managers' competence in a manner inconsistent with these requirements. Results from four experiments using 313 experienced audit and accounting professionals support this concern and a means of mitigating it. I find that auditors view the manager to be most competent when prior to the failure in the key control the manager did nothing to prevent the failure versus reinforced the key control. I do not find this effect when auditors had shared their concerns about the key control with the manager prior to the control's failure. My results also show that auditors incorporate their competence judgments about management into evaluations of the ICFR, as required by the audit guidance.","PeriodicalId":48142,"journal":{"name":"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory","volume":"421 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-18-036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Audit guidance requires auditors to assess management's competence with respect to internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) based on the recommendations of COSO's integrated framework. The omission bias theory suggests that after internal control failures, auditors may assess managers' competence in a manner inconsistent with these requirements. Results from four experiments using 313 experienced audit and accounting professionals support this concern and a means of mitigating it. I find that auditors view the manager to be most competent when prior to the failure in the key control the manager did nothing to prevent the failure versus reinforced the key control. I do not find this effect when auditors had shared their concerns about the key control with the manager prior to the control's failure. My results also show that auditors incorporate their competence judgments about management into evaluations of the ICFR, as required by the audit guidance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内部控制失败后审计师对管理者胜任力的评价
审计指南要求审计员根据COSO综合框架的建议,评估管理层在财务报告内部控制方面的能力。遗漏偏差理论认为,在内部控制失效后,审计师可能会以与这些要求不一致的方式评估管理者的能力。使用313名经验丰富的审计和会计专业人员进行的四项实验的结果支持这种担忧,并提供了一种减轻这种担忧的方法。我发现,在关键控制失败之前,经理没有采取任何措施来防止失败,而不是加强关键控制,审核员认为经理是最有能力的。当审核员在关键控制失效之前与经理分享他们对关键控制的担忧时,我没有发现这种影响。我的研究结果还表明,审计师按照审计指南的要求,将他们对管理能力的判断纳入对ICFR的评价中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.70%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: AUDITING contains technical articles as well as news and reports on current activities of the association.
期刊最新文献
Attracting the Next Generation of Accountants: The Joint Impact of Sustainability Emphasis and Social Value Orientation on Accounting Career Perceptions Cataloging the Marketplace of Assurance Services Informativeness of Key Audit Matters: Evidence from China The Value of Auditor Verification Amid Economic Uncertainty: International Evidence from Small Businesses Covers and Front Matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1