Abstract:In this study, we examine the possibility that audit managers' judgments may be affected by practice development objectives. Given the competitive nature of public accounting, the extent to which auditors are inclined to be aggressive in the domain of practice development may be a function of their superiors' preferences. This study builds on the exploratory work of Hooks, Cheramy, and Sinich 1994 and Asare, Hackenbrack, and Knechel 1994 by examining the delicate balance that exists between a public accounting firm's need to “grow its business” and its need to maintain its objectivity and professionalism. An experiment is conducted to determine whether the auditor's willingness to tender a bid on an engagement is affected by (1) the nature of the auditor‐auditee relationship (i.e., do existing clients receive the same treatment as potential clients?), or (2) the audit partner's aggressiveness with respect to practice development, which also includes elements of ethics and competence. Seventy‐four audit managers from two Big‐Six firms participated in the study. The results indicate that the type of client (current or potential) and the type of partner (more or less aggressive with respect to practice development) significantly affected the auditors' judgments. Specifically, subjects in the “current client” condition, as well as those who are accountable to a more aggressive partner, are more likely to recommend bidding for the client. The experimental results of this study are based on a case where the client was proposing a relatively aggressive position with respect to accounting for research and development (R&D) costs. Our findings also suggest that the judgements related to bidding on the client are not independent of the auditor's willingness to accept the client's accounting treatment. These results also provide further evidence that the influence of accountability is important in the professional audit environment.

The Revival of Large Consulting Practices at the Big 4 and Audit Quality

How Big-4 Firms Improve Audit Quality

Audit Market Consolidation and Client Innovation

On the Benefits of Audit Market Consolidation: Evidence from Merged Audit Firms

Auditor Competencies, Organizational Learning, and Audit Quality: Spillover Effects of Auditing Cross-Listed Clients

How Can Small International Accounting Firms Improve Audit Quality? The Role of Accounting Associations and Networks

Exogenous Loss of Analyst Coverage and Choice of Audit Quality

Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Quality, The Impact of Business Context on Auditors' Priorities

Do Client Characteristics Really Drive the Big N Audit Quality Effect? New Evidence from Propensity Score Matching

Common Auditors in Mergers and Acquisitions: The Impact on Post-Acquisition Financial Reporting Quality

Do Office Practice of Audit Firms Influence Audit Quality and Fees?

Auditor size and audit quality

An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development

Auditor Distraction and Audit Quality

Employee Satisfaction and Work-Life Balance in Accounting Firms and Audit Quality

Do Auditors Consider Predecessor Auditors' Credit?——Predecessor Auditors' Audit Quality and Discretionary Accrual

Till Death Do Us Part: An Examination of the Impact of Unbroken Auditor-Client Relationships on Audit Efficiency and Audit Quality

The Effect of Engagement Auditors on Financial Statement Comparability

The Economics of Audit Production: What Matters for Audit Quality? An Empirical Analysis of the Role of Midlevel Managers within the Audit Firm

Does office size matter in client acceptance decisions? Evidence from big 4 accounting firms

The effect of individual auditor quality on audit outcomes: opening the black box of audit quality