nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

12.02.2016

Understanding Auditors’ Sense of Responsibility for Detecting Fraud Within Organizations

verfasst von: F. Todd DeZoort, Paul D. Harrison

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate auditors’ perceived responsibility for fraud detection. Auditors play a critical role in managing fraud risk within organizations. Although professional standards and guidance prescribe responsibility in the area, little is known about auditors’ sense of responsibility for fraud detection, the factors affecting perceived responsibility, and how responsibility affects auditor performance. We use the triangle model of responsibility as a theoretical basis for examining responsibility and the effects of accountability, fraud type, and auditor type on auditors’ perceived fraud detection responsibility. We also test how perceived responsibility affects auditor brainstorming performance given the importance of brainstorming in audits. A sample of 878 auditors (241 external auditors and 637 internal auditors) participated in an experiment with accountability pressure and fraud type manipulated randomly between subjects. As predicted, accountable auditors report higher detection responsibility than anonymous auditors. We also find a significant fraud type × auditor type interaction with external auditors perceiving the most detection responsibility for financial statement fraud, while internal auditors report similar detection responsibility for all fraud types. Analysis of the triangle model’s formative links reveals that professional obligation and personal control are significantly related to responsibility, while task clarity is not. Finally, the results indicate that perceived responsibility positively affects the number of detection procedures brainstormed and partially mediates the significant accountability–brainstorming relation.

Vorheriger Artikel Investor Reactions to Concurrent Positive and Negative Stakeholder News

Nächster Artikel Crossover of Work–Life Balance Perceptions: Does Authentic Leadership Matter?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The governance literature (e.g., Adamec et al. 2005; Lapides et al. 2007; Rossiter 2011) describes management, the board of directors, external auditors, and internal auditors as four “pillars” of governance and suggests that the occurrence of fraud provides evidence of failures among these primary governance mechanisms (CAQ 2010; IIA et al. 2008; Kochan 2002).

Balkaran (2008) distinguishes external auditing and internal auditing by noting that external auditors are not part of the organizations they audit, but are instead engaged by them, while internal auditors are “integral” parts of their organization serving management and the board of directors as clients.

The professional (e.g., ACFE 2014; AICPA 2009), research (Alleyne and Elson 2013; Hunt 2014), and education (e.g., Albrecht et al. 2016; Girgenti and Hedley 2011; Wells 2014) literature typically describe financial statement fraud, asset misappropriation, and corruption as the three primary types of fraud. The ACFE (2014) reports that misappropriation of assets is involved in 87 % of cases, corruption in 33 % of cases, and financial statement fraud 8 % of cases. However, the ACFE also finds that the median loss in financial statement fraud cases is $1 million, compared to $250,000 for corruption cases and $120,000 for asset misappropriation cases.

The literature provides a variety of definitions of accountability in a variety of contexts (e.g., Bovens 2007; Brandsma and Schillemans 2012; DeZoort et al. 2006; Tetlock 1985, 1992). The Schlenker definition of accountability as an antecedent social pressure construct is consistent with alternative definitions of accountability in individual judgment and decision-making studies.

For example, the extant literature provides evidence that auditor brainstorming quality is affected by the quality of brainstorming guidance used (Trotman et al. 2009), the use of face-to-face sessions (Carpenter 2007), and documentation specificity (Hammersley et al. 2010). Brazel et al. (2010) find that brainstorming quality is linked to a number of process variables, including use of an audit partner or forensic specialist to lead the brainstorming session, attendance by an information technology specialist, and early timing of brainstorming in the audit process.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) (2009) defines professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind and a critical assessment of audit evidence” (p. 13).

The study and all research materials also were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the researchers’ universities. The materials were developed in consultation with groups of accounting and psychology researchers to ensure case realism, understandability, and content validity for the framework’s measurement items. We also pretested the materials with 114 undergraduate and graduate accounting students. The development and pretest procedures led to minor modifications to the instrument.

Nelson et al. (2003) reviewed 515 earnings management efforts reported by auditors and found that 31 % of attempts reported were income-decreasing.

Beasley and Jenkins (2003) describe open brainstorming as a very unstructured approach where individuals can identify ideas freely with very few rules and procedures to impede the process.

The study’s primary results are not affected by including participants who missed at least one manipulation check question.

Adamec, B., Leinkicke, L., Ostrosky, J., & Rexroad, W. (2005). Getting a leg up. Internal Auditor, 62(3), 40–45.

Adamson, E., Hybnerova, K., Esmark, C., and Noble, S. (2014). A tangled web: Views of deception from the customer’s perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, doi: 10.1111/beer.12068.

AICPA. (2009). The guide to investigating business fraud. New York, NY: AICPA.

Albrecht, S., Albrecht, C., Albrecht, C., & Zimbelman, M. (2016). Fraud examination (5e). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Albrecht, C., Holland, D., Malagueno, R., Dolan, S., & Tzafrir, S. (2014). The role of power in financial statement fraud schemes. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-2019-1.

Alleyne, B., & Elson, R. (2013). The impact of federal regulations on identifying, preventing, and eliminating corporate fraud. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 16, 91–106.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1988). Illegal acts by clients., Statement on Auditing Standards No. 54 New York, NY: AICPA.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1997). Responsibilities and Functions of the Independent Auditor., Statement on Auditing Standards No. 1 New York, NY: AICPA.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2002). Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit., Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99 New York, NY: AICPA.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2005). The AICPA Audit Committee Toolkit. New York, NY: AICPA.

Anand, V., Dacin, M., & Murphy, P. (2014). The continued need for diversity in fraud research. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2494-z.

Aranya, N., & Ferris, K. (1984). A reexamination of accountants’ organizational-professional conflict. The Accounting Review, 60, 1–15.

Asare, S., & Wright, A. (2004). The effectiveness of alternative risk assessment and program planning tools in a fraud setting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 325–352.CrossRef

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, (ACFE). (2010). ACFE report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse. Austin, TX: ACFE.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, (ACFE). (2014). ACFE report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse. Austin, TX: ACFE.

Balkaran, L. (2008). Two sides of auditing: Despite their obvious similarities, internal auditing and external auditing have an array of differences that make them distinctly valuable. Internal Auditor, 65(5), 21–23.

Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRef

Beasley, M., & Hermanson, D. (2004). Going beyond Sarbanes-Oxley compliance: Five keys to creating value. The CPA Journal, 74(6), 11–13.

Beasley, M., & Jenkins, G. (2003). A primer for brainstorming fraud risks. Journal of Accountancy, 196(6), 32–38.

Bobek, D., Hageman, A., & Radtke, R. (2010). The ethical environment of tax professionals: Partner, and non-partner perceptions and experiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 637–654.CrossRef

Bobek, D., Hageman, A., & Radtke, R. (2013). The influence of roles and organizational fit on accounting professionals’ perceptions of their firms’ ethical environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(1), 1–17.

Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.CrossRef

Boyle, D., DeZoort, T., & Hermanson, D. (2015). The effect of alternative fraud model use on auditors’ fraud risk judgments. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34, 578–596.CrossRef

Brandsma, G and Schillemans, T. (2012). The accountability cube: Measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1–23.

Braun, R. (2000). The effect of time pressure on auditor attention to qualitative aspects of misstatements indicative of potential fraudulent financial reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 243–259.CrossRef

Brazel, J. F., Carpenter, T. D., & Jenkins, J. G. (2010). Auditors’ use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud: Reports from the field. The Accounting Review, 85, 1273–1302.CrossRef

Buchman, T., Tetlock, P., & Reed, R. (1996). Accountability and auditors’ judgment about contingent events. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23, 379–398.CrossRef

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRef

Carpenter, T. D. (2007). Audit team brainstorming, fraud risk identification, and fraud risk assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99. The Accounting Review, 82, 1119–1140.CrossRef

Carpenter, T., Reimers, J., & Fretwell, P. (2011). Internal auditors’ fraud judgments: The benefits of brainstorming in groups. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(3), 211–224.CrossRef

Carver, C. (1979). A cybernetic model of self-attention processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1251–1281.CrossRef

Case, D. (2006). Looking for information: A survey of research on Information seeking, needs, and behavior. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Center for Audit Quality. (2010). Deterring and detecting financial reporting fraud: A platform for action. Washington, DC: Center for Audit Quality.

Center for Audit Quality, Financial Executives International, The Institute of Internal Auditors, and National Association of Corporate Directors. (2013). Closing the expectations gap in deterring and detecting financial statement fraud: A roundtable summary. Washington, DC: Center for Audit Quality.

Chang, C., Ho, J., & Liao, W. (1997). The effects of justification, task complexity and experience/training on problem-solving performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 9(Supplement), 98–116.

Christopher, A., & Schlenker, B. (2005). The protestant work ethic and attributions of responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(7), 1502–1518.CrossRef

Cloyd, C. (1997). Performance in tax research tasks: The joint effects of knowledge and accountability. The Accounting Review, 72, 111–132.

Cohen, J., Ding, Y., Lesage, C., & Stolowy, H. (2010). Corporate fraud and managers’ behavior: Evidence from the press. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(Supplement), 271–315.CrossRef

Cuccia, A., Hackenbrack, D., & Nelson, M. (1995). The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review, 70, 227–248.

Davis, B., Read, D., & Powell, S. (2014). Exploring employee misconduct in the workplace: Individual, organizational, and opportunity factors. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 8, 1–12.

Deloitte. (2012). The changing role of internal audit. New York, NY: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

DeZoort, F. T., Harrison, P. D., & Schnee, E. J. (2012). Tax professionals’ responsibility for fraud detection: The effects of engagement type and audit status. Accounting Horizons, 26, 289–306.CrossRef

DeZoort, T., & Lord, A. (1994). An investigation of obedience pressure effects on auditors’ judgments. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6, 1–30.

DeZoort, F. T., Harrison, P., & Taylor, M. H. (2006). Accountability and auditors materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 373–390.CrossRef

Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Eining, M., Jones, D., & Loebbecke, J. (1997). Reliance on decision aids: An examination of auditors’ assessment of management fraud. Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 16, 1–19.

Enyon, G., Hills, N., & Stevens, K. (1997). Factors that influence the moral reasoning abilities of accountants: Implications for universities and the profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12/13), 1297–1309.CrossRef

Firth, M., Mo, P., & Wong, R. (2005). Financial statement fraud and auditor sanctions: An analysis of enforcement actions in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 367–381.CrossRef

Girgenti, R., & Hedley, T. (2011). Managing the risk of fraud and misconduct. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Co.

Glover, S., Prawitt, D., & Zimbelman, M. (2003). A test of changes in auditors’ fraud-related planning judgments since the issuance of SAS No. 82. Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 22, 237–251.CrossRef

Greer, L., & Tonge, A. (2006). Ethical foundations: A new framework for reliable financial reporting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(3), 259–270.CrossRef

Hackenbrack, K., & Nelson, M. (1996). Auditors’ incentives and their applications of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 71, 43–59.

Hagenbaugh, R. (2005). Fraud risk assessments’ place in ERM. CSA Sentinel, 9(3), 3–6.

Hammersley, J. S., Bamber, E. M., & Carpenter, T. D. (2010). The influence of documentation specificity and priming on auditors’ fraud risk assessments and evidence evaluation decisions. The Accounting Review, 85(2), 547–571.CrossRef

Haynes, C., Jenkins, G., & Nutt, S. (1998). The relationship between client advocacy and audit experience: An exploratory analysis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 17, 88–104.

Hedley, T., Porco, B., & Littley, J. (2011). Detection: Auditing and monitoring. In R. Girgenti & T. Hedley (Eds.), Managing the risk of fraud and misconduct (pp. 211–224). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hoffman, V., & Patton, J. (1997). Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors’ fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, 227–238.CrossRef

Hoffman, V. B., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2009). Do strategic reasoning and brainstorming help auditors change their standard audit procedures in response to fraud risk? The Accounting Review., 84, 811–838.CrossRef

Hunt, G. (2014). A descriptive comparison of two sources of occupational fraud data. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 12, 171–176.

IIA, Aicpa, & ACFE. (2008). Managing the business risk of fraud: A practical guide. Altamonte Springs, FL: The IIA.

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). (2009). Internal auditing and fraud. IPPF practice guide. Altamonte Springs, FL: The IIA.

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). (2011). The international standards for the professional practice of internal auditing. Altamonte Springs, FL: The IIA.

International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2009a): The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements. International Standards on Auditing No. 240. New York: NY: IFAC.

International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2009b). Consideration of Laws and Regulations in an Audit of Financial Statements. International Standards on Auditing No. 250. New York: NY: IFAC.

Jamnik, A. (2011). Ethical code in the public accounting profession. Journal of International Business Ethics, 4, 17–29.

Joe, J. (2003). Why press coverage of a client influences the audit opinion. Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 109–133.CrossRef

Joe, J., & Vandervelde, S. (2007). Do auditor-provided nonaudit services improve audit effectiveness? Contemporary Accounting Research, 24, 467–487.CrossRef

Kennedy, J. (1993). Debiasing audit judgments with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 231–245.CrossRef

Kerler, W., & Killough, L. (2009). The effects of satisfaction with a client’s management during a prior audit engagement, trust, and moral reasoning on auditors’ perceived risk of management fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 109–136.CrossRef

Knapp, C., & Knapp, M. (2001). The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 25–37.CrossRef

Kochan, T. A. (2002). Addressing the crisis in confidence in corporations: Root causes, victims, and strategies for reform. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 139–141.

Kohns, J. W., & Ponton, M. K. (2006). Understanding responsibility: A self-directed learning application of the triangle model of responsibility. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 20(4), 16–27.CrossRef

KPMG. (2003). KPMG fraud survey 2003. Montvale, NJ: KPMG.

Lapides, P., Beasley, M., Carcello, J., DeZoort, T., Hermanson, D., Neal, T., and Tompkins, J. (2007). 21 ^st Century Governance and Audit Committee Principles. Corporate Governance Center, Kennesaw State University.

Lee, G., & Fargher, G. (2013). Companies’ use of whistle-blowing to detect fraud: An examination of corporate whistle-blowing policies. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 283–295.CrossRef

Lynch, A. (2006). Think like the fraudster: Brainstorming how fraudulent activities may occur can open the auditor’s mind to a host of new possibilities. Internal Auditor, 63(1), 66–71.

Marks, N. (2013). Should internal audit be responsible for detecting fraud. Internal Auditor, July 20, www.theiia.org.

Nelson, M., Elliott, J., & Tarpley, R. (2003). How are earnings managed? Examples from auditors. Accounting Horizons, 17(Supplement), 17–35.CrossRef

Norman, C., Rose, A., & Rose, J. (2010). Internal audit reporting lines, fraud risk decomposition, and assessments of fraud risk. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 546–557.CrossRef

Palmrose, Z.V. (2007). Statement by SEC Staff: SEC’s Proposed Interpretive Guidance to Management for Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Deputy Chief Accountant U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC Open Meeting Washington, D.C. May 23, 2007.

Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ponemon, L. (1990). Ethical judgments in accounting: A cognitive-developmental perspective. Critical Perspectives in Accounting, 1, 191–215.CrossRef

Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.CrossRef

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2004). The emerging role of internal audit in mitigating fraud and reputation risks. New York, NY: PwC, LLP.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2010). A future rich in opportunity: Internal audit must seize opportunities to enhance its relevancy. New York, NY: PwC, LLP.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2014). Global economic crime survey 2014. New York, NY: PwC, LLP.

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2012). Maintaining and Applying Professional Skepticism in Audits. Staff Audit Practice Alert No. 10. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.

Ramos, M. (2004). Fraud detection in a GAAS audit. New York, NY: AICPA.

Robinson, S., Robertson, J., & Curtis, M. (2012). The effects of contextual and wrongdoing attributes on organizational employees' whistleblowing intentions following fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 213–227.CrossRef

Rossiter, C. (2011). How internal audit adds value to the governance process, KnowledgeLeader. Menlo Park, CA: Protiviti Inc.

Schlenker, B. (1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 241–301.

Schlenker, B., Britt, T., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652.CrossRef

Schlenker, B., & Leary, M. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: a conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669.CrossRef

Shaub, M. (1994). An analysis of factors affecting the cognitive moral development of accountants and auditing students. Journal of Accounting Education, 12(1), 1–26.CrossRef

Shelton, S., Whittington, R., & Landsittel, D. (2001). Auditing firms’ fraud risk assessment practices. Accounting Horizons, 15, 19–33.CrossRef

Soltani, B. (2014). The anatomy of corporate fraud: A comparative analysis of high profile American and European corporate scandals. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 251–274.CrossRef

Spector, P. (1988). Development of work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335–340.CrossRef

Tabuena, J. (2013). Auditor regulators: Embrace your inner skepticism. Compliance Week, 36–37.

Taylor, S., & Fiske, S. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Tetlock, P. (1985). Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tetlock, P. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376.CrossRef

Thorne, L., Massey, D., & Magnan, M. (2003). Institutional context and auditors’ moral reasoning: A Canada-USA comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 305–321.CrossRef

Tie, R. (2011). The GRC toolbox: The use of integrated methods to fight fraud. Fraud Magazine, 38–43.

Trompeter, G., Carpenter, T., Desai, N., Jones, K., & Riley, R, Jr. (2013). A synthesis of fraud-related research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 32(Supplement), 287–321.CrossRef

Trotman, K., Simnett, R., & Khalfia, A. (2009). Impact of the type of audit team discussions on auditors’ generation of material frauds. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(4), 1115–1142.CrossRef

Wells, J. (2014). Principles of fraud examination. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Wohl, M., Pritchard, E., & Kelly, B. (2002). How responsible are people for their employment situation? An application of the triangle model of responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34(3), 201–209.CrossRef

Titel: Understanding Auditors’ Sense of Responsibility for Detecting Fraud Within Organizations
verfasst von: F. Todd DeZoort
Paul D. Harrison
Publikationsdatum: 12.02.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3064-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

The Impact of Religion on the Going Concern Reporting Decisions of Local Audit Offices

Tax Talk: An Exploration of Online Discussions Among Taxpayers

Are there Language Markers of Hubris in CEO Letters to Shareholders?

Does it Take More Than Ideals? How Counter-Ideal Value Congruence Shapes Employees’ Trust in the Organization

Mutual Trust Between Leader and Subordinate and Employee Outcomes

Identity Bias in Negative Word of Mouth Following Irresponsible Corporate Behavior: A Research Model and Moderating Effects

Premium Partner