Salary perception and career prospects in audit firms
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
Purpose This paper aims to examine the role that auditor’s salary perception has on audit quality and delay. The findings contribute to a greater understanding of the audit employee-level factors that influence audit work outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The authors use Big 6 employee reviews, salary data and audit and financial data from 2007 to 2017 to measure how to audit employees’ pay satisfaction affects audit quality (small profits and going concern opinions) and audit delay. The authors use a regression approach to analyze this relationship. In subsequent tests, the authors split the sample on high career opportunities to investigate how this moderates the relationship between salary perception and audit quality. Findings The authors document a discrepancy between pay perception and reality. It is explained, though not completely, by salary level, comparisons to peers and superiors, firm-wide attitudes, cost of living and human capital in the area, work–life balance and perceived career prospects. Surprisingly, the unexplained pay dissatisfaction relates positively to audit quality and audit efficiency (audit delay), after controlling for salary level. Further tests show that an audit employee’s expectation of career opportunities moderates this result. Originality/value This is the first paper that empirically tests the relationship between pay satisfaction and job performance in the context of audit employees in public accounting. The authors contribute to an emerging literature that investigates audit employee-level characteristics and attitudes in relation to audit quality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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