This study considers the ability of the audit team to configurally process information, that is, to piece together information cues held by individual team members and recognize the underlying pattern in the information. It also examines how the hierarchical structure of the audit team impacts the team's ability to process information and affects the quality of decisions made by the team. The study also considers the ability of a specific audit procedure, the fraud brainstorming session required by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99, to overcome barriers to communication and improve team judgments in subsequent tasks. I recruited 57 dyads (114 professional auditors) from public accounting firms to complete an experimental instrument, and employed a 2x2 between-groups ANOVA, manipulating team structure (peer versus hierarchical teams) and the level of the counterfactual prime (team brainstorming session versus individual strategic prompting). I find evidence of a relationship between team structure and judgment quality, but interestingly it is in the opposite direction predicted. Research from other domains suggests differences in status within the hierarchical team may hinder communication and lead to process losses. However, I find the opposite to be true in the accounting domain. When auditors are paired in hierarchical dyads, the senior auditor assumes a leadership role, taking greater interest in the content of his/her teammate's workpapers, asking more questions, and motivating the staff auditor to volunteer a greater amount of information, which results in a higher quality judgment. Thus, this study provides initial evidence that the hierarchical nature of the audit team does not lead to the process losses documented in other domains as the assumption of a leadership role by the senior auditor allows the team to overcome any challenges inherent in the hierarchical structure. This study also considers the ability of the SAS 99 fraud brainstorming session, serving as a counterfactual prime, to lead to improved decisions later in the audit process. As predicted, the brainstorming session conducted during the planning stage of the audit increases the amount and quality of communication during the testing phase and leads to better judgments. These results are of importance for accounting firms as they determine which audit team members are required to participate in the brainstorming session. While a novice auditor may not make significant contributions to the planning decisions made during the brainstorming session, my study finds there are benefits from staff auditors participating in the brainstorming session, over and above what they are able to contribute to the session itself. Participation of staff auditors in the brainstorming session strengthens communication and enhances team-level cognition in subsequent tasks, improving the ability of the audit team to detect fraud throughout the course of the audit. These findings may be relevant for other forms of teamwork, including management teams, audit committees, and interdepartmental taskforces. / Ph. D.

ProblemformuleringTidigare forskning visar att revisionsteam överträffar prestationen av en enskild revisor. Forskningen fokuserar dock i huvudsak på rollstruktur i form av egenskaper och kompetenser på individnivå och sätter detta i relation till vilken påverkan det har på revisionskvalitet. Studier som istället utgår från sammansättning av revisionsteam och revisorsmedarbetares upplevelser av teamsammansättning är mer ovanliga. För att bidra till forskningen avser vi, med utgångspunkt i perspektiven sammansättning av medlemmar som redan finns tillgängliga på revisionsbyrån och rekrytering av nya medlemmar som ska ingå i framtida revisionsteam, öka förståelsen för hur sammansättning av revisionsteam upplevs av revisorsmedarbetare på olika revisionsbyråer. Syfte Syftet med studien är att öka förståelsen för revisionsmedarbetares upplevelser av sammansättning av revisionsteam på olika revisionsbyråer. Metod Studien är kvalitativ och antar en deduktiv ansats med induktiva inslag. Semistrukturerade intervjuer används som metod för datainsamling. Som ett komplement till semistrukturerade intervjuer har även en dokumentinsamling i form av annonser tillämpats. Slutsats Studien visar att det finns vissa skillnader mellan olika byråer dels vad gäller rekrytering av nya medlemmar som ska ingå i framtida revisionsteam men även sammansättning av medlemmar som redan finns tillgängliga på byrån. Den tydligaste skillnaden mellan byråerna är upplevelsen av hur diversifierad byrån är sett till rekrytering till byrån men även när det gäller sammansättning av olika revisionsteamen. Studien visar även på tydliga likheter mellan olika revisionsbyråer framförallt förmågan att etablera och utveckla kundrelationer samt samarbetsförmåga. Byråernas interna metodik om vinstintresse har en starkare påverkan jämfört med professionens metodik som främst syftar till att leverera en hög kvalitet på de tjänster som omfattas av professionen. Slutsats    Studien visar att det finns vissa skillnader mellan olika byråer dels vad gäller rekrytering av nya medlemmar som ska ingå i framtida revisionsteam men även sammansättning av medlemmar som redan finns tillgängliga på byrån. Den tydligaste skillnaden mellan byråerna är upplevelsen av hur diversifierad byrån är sett till rekrytering till byrån men även när det gäller sammansättning av olika revisionsteamen. Studien visar även på tydliga likheter mellan olika revisionsbyråer framförallt förmågan att etablera och utveckla kundrelationer samt samarbetsförmåga. Byråernas interna metodik om vinstintresse har en starkare påverkan jämfört med professionens metodik som främst syftar till att leverera en hög kvalitet på de tjänster som omfattas av professionen. / Problem Previous research shows that audit teams outperform the performance of an individual auditor. Research, however, mainly focuses on role structure in terms of individual skills and competencies. Studies based on the composition of audit teams and the team members’ experience of team composition is more unusual. In order to contribute to the research we intend to increase the understanding, based on the two perspectives, composition of members already employed at the audit firm and the recruitment of new members to be included in future audit teams, of how composition of audit teams are experienced by audit coworkers at various audit agencies. Aim The aim of the study is to increase the understanding of audit coworkers’ experiences of audit team composition at various audit agencies. Method The study is qualitative and assumes a deductive approach with inductive elements. Semi-structured interviews are used as method for data collection. As a complement to semi-structured interviews, a document collection in the form of ads have been applied. Conclusion This study shows that there are some differences between different agencies, partly as regards the recruitment of members to be included in future audit teams, but also the composition of members already available at the agency. The clearest difference between the agencies is the experience of how diversified the agency is regarding recruitment but also the composition of audit team. The study also shows clear similarities between different audit agencies, in particular the ability to establish and develop customer relationships, as well as collaborative skills. The agencies' internal methodology of profitability has a stronger impact than the profession's methodology that mainly aims to deliver a high quality of the services covered by the profession.

The large accounting firms recently created U.S.-based audit support groups to advance efficiency and consistency by applying firm-wide methodologies and standard audit procedures in judgmental/routine accounting areas. These groups—hereafter called the centralized audit team (CAT)—service several engagements simultaneously and execute procedures independently without core teams' oversight. However, the core teams are required to review and finalize the CAT's completed assessments and audit conclusions. This authority can result in unintended consequences, such as the core team discounting the results of the CAT's testing, which can reduce consistency across engagements. I investigate this concern by conducting an experiment to examine if the core team's review of the procedures used by the CAT and the client's views about the CAT's evidence requests influence core team reviewers' evaluations of the CAT's work. I predict and find that dissimilarities between the nature and extent of audit procedures used by core teams in prior audits and those currently used by CATs create an association effect such that reviewers are more likely to disagree with the CAT's conclusions. Inconsistent with my prediction that core teams will feel the need to please their clients, I find marginal evidence that reviewers are more likely to agree with the CAT's conclusions when clients complain versus when clients do not complain about CATs' excessive evidence requests. I fail to find evidence of an interaction effect. This study contributes to existing research and practice by highlighting conditions that can affect firms' ability to obtain their anticipated consistency and efficiency goals because core teams may discount the CAT's audit approach. / Doctor of Philosophy / Audit clients hire external audit firms to evaluate their financial information and provide reasonable assurance to the public that the financial information is presented in accordance with U.S. accounting standards, the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Once a client hires a firm, the firm assigns a core team to the audit engagement. The core team performs interim and year-end audit procedures to assess the client's financial statements. To ensure that core teams conduct a sufficient assessment that meets U.S.-based auditing standards, firms employ firm-wide audit methodologies and standard tools that aid auditors in planning, performing, and documenting their procedures. However, inspections conducted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) indicate that some core teams do not adequately follow firms' methodologies, often leading to engagements that do not meet certain requirements in the auditing standards. These types of discrepancies identified during PCAOB inspections could lead to monetary fines and damage firms' reputations. To help combat these issues, audit firms have begun employing Centralized Audit Teams (CATs) whose objective is to assist core teams by using firm-wide methodologies to perform standard procedures on certain audit areas within engagements. By applying standard procedures to multiple audit engagements simultaneously, CATs have the potential to improve the firms' audit consistency and efficiency. While the CAT plans, performs, and documents its audit procedures in the assigned area, the core team remains ultimately responsible for the overall audit. Therefore, the core team must review the CAT's work to ensure they completed sufficient and appropriate procedures. Existing audit research documents that different conditions within an audit can affect reviewers' judgment. For instance, a reviewer is less likely to scrutinize and disagree with the preparer's audit conclusion when the reviewer is familiar with the preparer. In my dissertation, I examine if certain factors that occur during CAT audits impact core team reviewers' judgment, lowering the possibility that firms will achieve their audit efficiency and consistency goals across engagements. Extant research posits that some core teams choose to follow firm standard methodologies while others choose to deviate from the methodologies and perform client-specific procedures. Once the core team chooses to perform standard or client-specific procedures, it does not often change procedure type. Thus, the standard procedures that CATs employ may be similar or dissimilar to the procedures that core teams performed in prior years. In this dissertation, I conduct an experiment using experienced external auditors to determine whether the similarity between core teams' prior audit procedures and CATs' standard procedures impact core team auditors' judgments when reviewing CATs' work. I predict that core team reviewers will form favoritism towards CATs when CATs perform procedures that are similar as opposed to dissimilar to the procedures that their team utilized in prior years. Therefore, the core team reviewers will be less likely to scrutinize and disagree with the CAT's audit conclusion. Audit research also indicates that clients complain when auditors inconvenience them in hopes that the complaint will cause the auditors to behave in a manner that pleases them. For example, clients may complain when auditors ask them to provide a significant amount of evidence to support the reporting of a certain account balance. Since CATs follow standard procedures, they make similar evidence requests to all clients; however, these requests may differ from the core team's prior requests (i.e., clients should be more accustomed to the core team's prior requests). This dissimilarity may cause clients to complain. I predict that core team reviewers are more likely to attempt to please their client by adjusting a CAT's audit conclusion in a manner that favors the client when the client complains about the CAT compared to when the client does not complain. However, prior research also implies that reviewers are more likely to react to a client's complaint if they believe it is authentic. Therefore, I predict that core team reviewers are more likely to adjust a CAT's audit conclusion when the client complains about a CAT that conducts dissimilar versus similar procedures relative to the core team's prior procedures. The results of my study imply that when the CAT's standard audit procedures are dissimilar to the core team's prior procedures, reviewers are more likely to overrule CAT's audit recommendations by making significant changes to the audit results. These results are driven by the reviewer's perception that the CAT is more competent to audit the client's financial information accurately when the CAT uses similar procedures. I also find marginal evidence that when a client complains about the CAT, core team reviewers are more likely to agree with the CAT's conclusions even though the conclusions do not favor the client. I fail to find evidence that reviewers are even more likely to disagree with the CAT when the client complains, and the CAT's procedures are dissimilar as opposed to similar. My study sheds light on how CAT audit engagement conditions can influence core team reviewers' judgment. Given that firms have made significant investments to create and employ CATs, this dissertation provides insight to audit practitioners by highlighting engagement factors that lower firms' ability to achieve their related efficiency and consistency goals.

Title: The Full-Range Leadership enacted by Swedish Audit team managers Background: The background of this study mainly relies on Leadership theories, more precisely theories about the Full-Range leadership model (FRL) and its features. However, key facts about the audit are also displayed in this part of the report to present it to readers. Purpose: The main purpose of this paper is to add to existing theory on the universalistic feature of the Full-Range Leadership model through the case of Swedish audit team managers. Such purpose entails the definition and the explanation on how the model of Full-Range Leadership is enacted by Swedish audit team managers in their day-to-day practice of leadership. Originality/Value: This research paper is one of the few researches at puzzling out existing researches to contribute clearly to the Full-Range Leadership model -as developed by Bass and Avolio- in the audit context. Furthermore, this is the first study aiming at defining and explaining Swedish audit team managers’ leadership practice and emphasizing the non-managing audit staff for so. Practical implication: After the destruction of a great amount of money resulting from corporate financial scandals and the discovery of high level of dysfunctional behaviors occurring in the audit/accounting profession worldwide, growing number of studies investigated further financial systems and particularly audit professionals since they are supposed to be the ‘public watchdog’/‘public guardian of trust’ of worldwide markets and Economies and so, display strong values and rigor. In parallel, considerable number of studies demonstrated that leadership was the key to those issues. This study while putting the light on leadership practice in Swedish audit firms, wide opens the door for further reflections and improvement of the existing systems. Method: The featured piece of research is based on a field survey of the non-managing audit staff working in Swedish audit firms, which were asked to assess their managers through the use of the Multi-factor questionnaire X5 (short version). Findings: The study unveiled that even if the transformational leadership was the most enacted leadership by Swedish audit team managers and that so before transactional and passive/avoidant leadership, a great misalignment existed between the found-out empirical FRL model and the FRL model as defined theoretically. Accordingly, this study unveiled that the FRL model was not as universal as claimed when investigated in the Swedish audit firm context.