Subordinates as the First Line of Defense against Biased Financial Reporting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Managers who generate financial reports often rely on subordinates who possess private information to provide inputs. When managers have incentives to manipulate reports, they may request biased inputs from subordinates. However, subordinates can act as informal controls and constrain managers' opportunism. We experimentally examine two potential determinants of subordinates' willingness to serve as informal controls: their perception of the subordinate-manager relationship quality and their beliefs about the ethical nature of the task. Subordinates who perceive a high-quality relationship with their manager provide more bias, despite a compensation scheme that makes compliance costly. This result suggests that managers who cultivate close working relationships with subordinates may undermine the control system. Subordinates' beliefs about the ethical nature of the task also reduce compliance, but more so when the manager requests income-increasing estimates. Our findings contribute to the management accounting literature by providing insights into the role of subordinate employees as informal controls.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it