Aim: Auditor objectivity in the auditing process is an important part of the IASB and FASB framework as well as in the SOX act. It is unclear whether auditor’s self-efficacy through selection of negotiation strategy affect the auditor’s objectivity. The purpose of the study is to improve the understanding of what impacts auditor objectivity and as a result show new strategies on how to increase it. Method: Deductive approach with a literature review as secondary data and a web-based questionnaire carried out among 3,264 Swedish auditors as primary data. Analysis was done with partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and reported in the SmartPLS and SPSS software. Result & Conclusions: Prior negative negotiation experiences have a detrimental effect on both distributive and integrative negotiation self-efficacy. Distributive negotiation self-efficacy and auditing self-efficacy increase objectivity mainly through the mediation of contending strategy. No relationship between integrative negotiation self-efficacy and negotiation strategy or auditor objectivity was found, possibly due to weak theoretical constructs. No causal claims are posed on these relations. Bandura’s four main sources of influence on self-efficacy can be considered as guides on how to shield the auditor from the detrimental effect of failures and build up self-efficacy to perform better in negotiation. Suggestions for future research: Develop stronger constructs for PNE, ISE and expanding-the-agenda-of-issues strategy. Using multiple imputation instead of mean replacement for missing data is highly recommended. Gather at least 400 responses in order to gain stronger statistical power. Introduce a prior auditing experiences construct for ASE to raise awareness of potential differences in how prior experiences affect DSE, ISE and ASE. Contribution of the thesis: This paper uniquely contributes to the literature on factors influencing auditor objectivity. Its main use to auditors, accounting legislators, researchers etc. at the moment is to add to the discussion about objectivity.

In emergent high technology industries, entrepreneurs and their new ventures play a critical role in enhancing economic growth. In these industries, we can easily see some new ventures grow more rapidly to outperform their competitors. However, looking beyond the surface, new ventures’ growth path is idiosyncratic. More specifically, when growing, new ventures pursue different paths in terms of 1) which technologies they develop, 2) which products they make, and 3) what markets they enter. The question that has struck me is why high-tech new ventures differ on these key strategic choices. Building on literature on entrepreneurship, strategy, industry evolution, and network, this dissertation tries to answer this important question by focusing on intra-firm factors, more specifically, the individual and structural attributes of new ventures. Types of founder experience and new ventures’ knowledge structure are examined in depth. My three studies, each presented as a separate essay herein, investigate how individual (i.e. founder experience) and structural attributes (i.e. knowledge structure) affect key strategic choices regarding i) product market scope (Wernerfelt and Montgomery, 1988), ii) technological search scope (Katila and Ahuja, 2002), and iii) the types of new products (Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996; Henderson and Clark, 1990), respectively. In each, I discuss the relevant theories, methodology, data sources, results and implications. By investigating intra-firm factors that trigger different entrepreneurial strategies, my dissertation responds to an important call – micro-foundation of strategy formation – thus filling a key gap in the entrepreneurship literature. / Business Administration/Strategic Management