Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Audit negotiations are impacted by many factors. This study aims to investigate how two such factors, communication of the National Office Accounting Consultation Unit (ACU) and the auditor’s approach, affect chief financial officers’ (CFOs’) willingness to adjust the financial statements and satisfaction with the auditor. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a 2 × 3 between-subjects experimental design. Participants are 169 highly experienced CFOs and financial officers. The experimental design crosses the two multi-dimensional auditor approaches found in the literature with two influence tactics used to communicate ACU involvement, as well as a control condition, with no communication of the ACU involvement. Findings Communicating the ACU’s involvement as a higher authority (similar to a boss) results in greater willingness to record an adjustment to the financial statements when auditors use a hands-off “compliance-officer” auditor approach, but lower willingness by CFOs to adjust the financial statements when auditors use an expert-advisor auditor approach as compared to when coalition tactics are used. Results also show that communicating the ACU as a higher authority negatively impacts a CFO’s satisfaction with the audit partner. Overall, these results highlight the importance of the auditor’s approach and communication of ACU involvement within the auditor–client relationship. The outcomes of this study are limited to situations where unexpected audit adjustments are found during the year-end process and thus cannot be discussed pre-emptively with clients. Research limitations/implications This paper advances the understanding of how the multi-dimensional auditor’s approach can shape and limit the effectiveness of influence tactics. These factors are important, as auditors are tasked with maintaining not only quality audits but also client relationships. However, although rich in detail, factors other than auditor approach may have inadvertently been manipulated and are driving results. Practical implications The approach taken by the auditor with a client throughout the audit sets the stage during the auditor–client negotiations. Therefore, audit partners must consider their own approach with the client before communicating the ACU’s involvement as the auditor approach shapes and limits the tactics available for use. Using ill-suited tactics may undermine the client’s willingness to record an adjustment to the financial statements and cause undue harm to the auditor–client relationship. Originality/value This paper uses highly experienced CFOs and financial officers to examine how two common elements in the audit negotiation context can significantly affect the outcome to the financial statements and the relationship between the client and audit partner.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.022 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".