Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Personal and Group Level Factors on the Outcomes of Simulated Auditor and Client Teams

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The way that auditor and client teams develop team resources that they can later use in negotiating with their counterparts is a critical but unexplored issue in auditing research. This study examines several important issues that may affect the development of these team resources. Specifically, it uses interacting groups to evaluate the dynamic interplay between personal and perceived group level factors in determining individual team members' satisfaction with the team's solution, and the development of perceptions of team atmosphere.

First, a model of the intra-person and intra-team decision processes is introduced. This model posits that individuals' personalities and hierarchical levels influence their choice of conflict style, the development of their perceptions of the team's atmosphere, and ultimately their satisfaction with the solution reached by the team. Conflict style also is posited to affect perceptions of the team's atmosphere and solution satisfaction. We then test the model using structural equation modeling. We also examine the development of consensus within the teams. Students working on their MBA and MS in Business and Accounting at two AACSB-accredited universities participated in this study. The results provide dramatic evidence of the influence of the factors of interest on the resources that each team brings to the ultimate negotiation with its counterpart team.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and RecommendedTwo-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin 103, 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, Arthur, and Elaine N. Aron. 1997. Statistics for The Behavioral and Social Sciences: A Brief Course. NewJersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedard, J. C., S. F. Biggs, and J. J. Maroney. 1997. “Sources of Process Gain and Loss From Group Interactionin Performance of Analytical Procedures,” unpublished Working Paper.

  • Blake, R., and J. S. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  • Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit,” in Bollen, Kenneth A., and S. Long (eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage Publication, Inc., 136–162.

  • Christie, R., and F. Geis. 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., L. Pant, and D. Sharp. 1994. “Behavioral Determinants of Auditor Aggressiveness in Client Relations,”Behavioral Research in Accounting 6, 121–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika September, 297–334.

  • Dalton, D. R., J. W. Hill, and R. J. Ramsay. 1997. “Women as Managers and Partners: Context Specific Predictorsof Turnover in International Public Accounting Firms,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 16 (Spring), 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, L., and N. Monaco. 1986. “In-group/Out-group Bias as a Function of Differential Contact and AuthoritarianPersonality,” The Journal of Social Psychology 126 (4), 445–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. 1967. “Dogmatism, Prenegotiation Experience and Simulated Group Representation as Determinants of Dyadic Behavior in a Bargaining Situation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 (3), 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. A., L. E. Rittenberg, and G. M. Trompeter. 1987. “An Investigation of the Impact of Economic and Organizational Factors on Auditor Independence,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 7 (1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J. G., J. R. Frederickson, and S. A. Peffer. 2000. “Budgeting: An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Negotiation,” The Accounting Review 75 (1), 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florin, P., G. A. Giamartino, D. A. Kenny, and A. Wandersman. 1990. “Levels of Analysis and Effects: Clarifying Group Influence and Climate by Separating Individual and Group Effects,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20 (11), 991–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbins, M., and C. Emby. 1984. “Evidence on the Nature of Professional Judgment in Public Accounting,” in Abdel-Khalik, A.R., and I. Solomon (eds.), Auditing Research Symposium. Champaign: University of Illinois, 181–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, E. F. 1995. The Managerial Decision-Making Process. Princeton, NJ: Houghton-Mifflin Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayduk, L. A. 1987. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D. A., D. A. Walsh, S. J. Read, and A. S. Chulef. 1990. “The Effects of Expertise on Financial Problem Solving: Evidence for Goal-Directed, Problem-Solving Scripts,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 46 (1), 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R. 1979. The Group Problem-Solving Process: Studies of a Valence Model. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R., and G. Kleinman. 1994. “The Individual and Group in Group Problem Solving: The Valence Model Redressed,” Human Communication Research 21 (1), 36–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, Christopher D., David F. Larcker, and Madhav V. Rajan. 1997. “The Choice of Performance Measures in Annual Bonus Contracts,” Accounting Review 72 (April), 231–255.

  • Janis, I. L. 1983. Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R., and C. White. 1983. “Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Task Orientation, and Team Effectiveness,” Psychological Reports 65, 859–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kachelmeier, S. J., and M. Shehata. 1997. “Internal Auditing and Voluntary Cooperation in Firms: A Cross-Cultural Experiment,” The Accounting Review 72 (3), 407–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalbers, L. P., and T. J. Fogarty. 1993. “Audit Committee Effectiveness: An Empirical Investigation of the Contribution of Power,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (Spring), 24–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. 1996. Level II: A Fortran Computer Program for the Hierarchically Nested Design. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., and J. W. Stigler. 1983. “Level: A Fortran IV Program for Correlational Analysis of Group-Individual Data Structures,” Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation 15 (6), 606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., and L. La Voie. 1985. “Separating Individual and Group Effects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 (2), 339–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, G., and D. Palmon. 2001. Understanding Auditor-Client Relationships: A Multi-Faceted Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Markus Weiner Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, G., and D. Palmon. 2000a. “A Negotiation-Oriented Model of Auditor-Client Relationships,” Group Decision and Negotiations Winter, 17–45.

  • Kleinman, G., and D. Palmon. 2000b. “The Auditor-Client Negotiation Game and Instructor's Notes,” Journal of Accounting Case Research 5, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, G., P. Siegel, and C. Eckstein. 2002. “Teams as a Learning Forum for Accounting Professionals,” Journal of Management Development 21, 2002 (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, G., P. Siegel, and C. Eckstein. 2001 “Mentoring and Learning: The Case of CPA Firms,” Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 22 (1), 22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, G., D. Palmon, and A. Anandarajan. 1998. “Auditor Independence: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature,” Research in Accounting Regulation 11, 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knouse, S. B., and R. A. Giacalone. 1992. “Ethical Decision-Making in Business: Behavioral Issues and Concerns,” Journal of Business Ethics 11 (5/6), 369–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanen, William N., and David F. Larcker. 1992. “Executive Compensation Contract Adoption in the Electric Utility Industry,” Journal of Accounting Research 30 (Spring), 70–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., S. E. Weiss, and D. Lewin. 1992. “Models of Conflict, Negotiation and Third Party Intervention: A Review and Synthesis,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 209–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlepage, G. E., G. W. Schmidt, E. W. Whisler, and A. G. Frost. 1995. “An Input-Process-Output Analysis of Influence and Performance in Problem-Solving Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (5), 877–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., J. R. Balla, and R. P. McDonald. 1988. “Goodness-Of-Fit Indexes in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Effect of Sample Size,” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3), 391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHoskey, J. 1995. “Narcissism and Machiavellianism,” Psychological Reports 77, 755–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorhead, and Griffin. 1994. Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnighan, J. K., and M. Bazerman. 1990. “A Perspective on Negotiation Research in Accounting and Auditing,” The Accounting Review 65 (3), 642–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, W. R., and E. M. Doherty. 1994. “Toward an Improved Framework for Conceptualizing the Conflict Process,” Research on Negotiations in Organizations 4, 173–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okanes, M., and J. Stinson. 1974. “Machiavellianism and Emergent Leadership in Management Simulations,” Psychological Reports 35, 255–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polzer, J. T. ??year??. “Intergroup Negotiations: The Effects of Negotiating Teams,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (4), 678–698.

  • Pondy, L. R. 1967. “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models,” Administrative Science Quarterly 12, 296–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pondy, L. R. 1992. “Reflections on Organizational Conflict,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 257–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, M. A. 1983. “A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict,” Academy of Management Journal 26: 368–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. 1960. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. 1966. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement,” Psychological Monographs 1 (609), 80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryckman, R. M. 1978. Theories of Personality. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H. 1992. “Conflict Research as Schizophrenia: The Many Faces of Organizational Conflict,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H. 1995. “Negotiating in Long-Term Mutually Interdependent Relationships Among Relative Equals,” Research on Negotiations in Organizations 5, 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, X. 1996. “From Interpersonal to Inter-organizational Conflict Management: Transferability and Implications,” presented at the International Association of Management Annual Conference, Toronto, CA, August.

  • Singhapakdi, A. 1993. “Ethical Perceptions of Marketers: The Interaction Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Ethical Cultures,” Journal of Business Ethics 12, 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, I. 1987. “Multi-Auditor Judgment/Decision-Making Research,” Journal of Accounting Literature 6, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D., M. Sivitanides, and A. Magro. 1994. “Formalized Dissent and Cognitive Complexity in Group Processes and Performance,” Decision Sciences 25 (2), 243–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, S. G., and S. C. Hayne. 1997. “Chapter 4: Judgment and Decision Making, Part III: Group Processes,” in Arnold, V., and S. G. Sutton (eds.), Behavioral Accounting Research: Foundations and Frontiers. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. W., and R. H. Kilmann. 1974. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. B., L. J. Shankster, and J. E. Mathieu. 1994. “Antecedents to Organizational Issue Interpretation: The Role of Single-Level, Cross-Level, and Context Cues,” Academy of Management Journal 37 (5), 1252– 1284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, J. S. L., and F. A. Gul. 1996. “Auditors' Behavior in an Audit Conflict Situation: A Research Note on the Role of Locus of Control and Ethical Reasoning,” Accounting, Organizations and Society 21 (1), 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R., and C. Lewis. 1973. “The Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis,” Psychometrika 38, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall J. A. Jr., and R. R. Callister. 1995. “Conflict and Its Management,” Journal of Management 21 (3),515–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters-York, L. M., and A. P. Curatola. 1998. “Recent Evidence on the Use of Students as Surrogate Subjects,” Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research 1, 123–143.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Silberman College of Business Administration, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, NJ, 07666, USA

    Gary Kleinman

  2. Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Dan Palmon

  3. Lubin School of Business, Pace University, New York, USA

    Picheng Lee

Authors
  1. Gary Kleinman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan Palmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Picheng Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kleinman, G., Palmon, D. & Lee, P. The Effects of Personal and Group Level Factors on the Outcomes of Simulated Auditor and Client Teams. Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 57–84 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022256730300

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022256730300

Search

Navigation