Should I Stay or Should I Go?: The Joint Effects of Valuation Specialists’ Knowledge Domain and Employer Type on Perceptions of Organizational-Professional Conflict

Dereck Barr‐Pulliam, S. Mason, Kerri-Ann Sanderson
{"title":"Should I Stay or Should I Go?: The Joint Effects of Valuation Specialists’ Knowledge Domain and Employer Type on Perceptions of Organizational-Professional Conflict","authors":"Dereck Barr‐Pulliam, S. Mason, Kerri-Ann Sanderson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3576993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite specialists’ role in producing fair value measurements, they often encounter tensions that give rise to conflict between the specialists and both their organizational and professional demands. This study surveyed 222 highly qualified specialists to examine how differences in specialists’ domain knowledge and their employer type influence perceptions of a particular type of conflict—organizational-professional conflict (OPC). First, we find that specialists who primarily value financial instruments and are employed by non-professional services firms (e.g., banks) report significantly higher OPC levels, lower job satisfaction, and higher turnover intentions. Next, we find that prior experience in an organization like one’s current employer mitigates your perceived OPC level. Lastly, we find that specialists who have a dual role in working with auditors and management report higher OPC levels when they spend more of their time assisting auditors in evaluating fair value measurements’ reasonableness.","PeriodicalId":8737,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3576993","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Despite specialists’ role in producing fair value measurements, they often encounter tensions that give rise to conflict between the specialists and both their organizational and professional demands. This study surveyed 222 highly qualified specialists to examine how differences in specialists’ domain knowledge and their employer type influence perceptions of a particular type of conflict—organizational-professional conflict (OPC). First, we find that specialists who primarily value financial instruments and are employed by non-professional services firms (e.g., banks) report significantly higher OPC levels, lower job satisfaction, and higher turnover intentions. Next, we find that prior experience in an organization like one’s current employer mitigates your perceived OPC level. Lastly, we find that specialists who have a dual role in working with auditors and management report higher OPC levels when they spend more of their time assisting auditors in evaluating fair value measurements’ reasonableness.
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
我该走还是该留?评估专家的知识领域和雇主类型对组织-职业冲突感知的共同影响
尽管专家在产生公允价值测量方面发挥着作用,但他们经常遇到紧张局势,导致专家与他们的组织和专业需求之间发生冲突。本研究调查了222名高素质的专家,以研究专家的领域知识及其雇主类型的差异如何影响对特定类型冲突-组织-专业冲突(OPC)的看法。首先,我们发现,非专业服务公司(如银行)雇用的主要重视金融工具的专家报告的OPC水平显著较高,工作满意度较低,离职意向较高。其次,我们发现以前在一个组织(比如现在的雇主)的工作经历会降低你的OPC水平。最后,我们发现,在与审计师和管理层合作中扮演双重角色的专家,当他们花更多的时间帮助审计师评估公允价值计量的合理性时,他们的OPC水平更高。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Don’t shoot yourself in the foot! A (real-effort task) experiment on income redistribution and voting. Causal Attribution, Benefits Sharing, and Earnings Management Sleep Debt and Information Processing in Financial Markets Game Changer: Can Modifications to Audit Firm Communication Improve Auditors’ Actions in Response to Heightened Fraud Risk? Retail Bond Investors and Credit Ratings
×
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