[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Editorial Board ::
Articles archive::
Publication Ethics::
For Authors::
Peer Review Process::
Registration::
Site Facilities::
Contact us::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 4, Issue 8 (2-2020) ::
aapc 2020, 4(8): 163-213 Back to browse issues page
Identification and Ranking of Influencing Factors on The Adoption of A Concession Strategy in The Negotiations Between The Auditor and The Client
Mahdi Kazemi Oloum1 , Javad Rezazadeh 2, Gholaamreza Kordestani3
1- Ph. D. Student in Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Islamic Azad University, Qaznin, Iran.(Mkolum1361@gmail.com)
2- Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Social Science, Imam Khomeini international University, Qazvin, Iran.(Corresponding Author) , j.rezazadeh@modares.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Social Science, Imam Khomeini international University, Qazvin, Iran(kordestani@soc.ikiu.ac.ir)
Abstract:   (6710 Views)
In recent years, two opposition theories, reciprocity theory and the level-of-aspiration theory (LOA) have been developed in the negotiation process, which considers the negotiation parties to be influenced by the complex nature of human behavior. The role of talks between auditors and clients is crucial in improving financial statements quality and resolving disputes. Accordingly, they negotiate conflicts management, and adopt different strategies in order to resolve conflicts and reach an agreement. One of these important strategies is the concession strategy, which influences the various factors on its adoption by the auditor. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to identification and ranking the factors influencing the adoption of the concession strategy by the auditor in negotiations with the client. For this purpose, in the first step, 11 factors (4 dimensions) were investigated by studying the theoretical and experimental litrature of the research. Using the delphi methodology and during the year 2018, the 21 experts (CPA) were screened and validated by effective factors. In addition, three other factors were determined by experts suggestion. In the second step, 14 sieve and confirmation factors in the previous step were ranked by using paired t-test and fuzzy hierarchical analysis method. The findings of the study showed that the behavioral characteristics (experience and techniques of negotiation, previous negotiations and past relationships with the client, the style of communication, method and negotiation, flexibility and pressure of the client and time behavior), corporate governance (audit committee and audit fees), rules and regulations and professional conduct (audit opinion, independence of auditors, power and bargaining, competition in the audit and compulsory audit market of auditors) and auditors' gender are influenced by the auditor's adoption of the rating strategy. Research findings are in line with The level-of-Aspiration Theory (LOA).
 
Keywords: Auditor, Client, Concession, Negotiation, Strategy
Full-Text [PDF 410 kb]   (821 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2019/02/3 | Accepted: 2019/04/21 | Published: 2020/02/8
References
1. Abbott, L., S. Parker, and T. Presley . 2012. Female Board Presence and the Likelihood of Financial Restatement. Accounting Horizons 26 (4): 607–629.
2. Antle, R., and B. Nalebuff. 1991. Conservatism and auditor-client negotiations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29: 31–54.
3. Azmi, A. A. C., and V. Y. Hoong. 2014. Tax aggressiveness and negotiations: A conceptual paper. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164: 338-344.
4. Bamber, M. and V. Iyer. 2007. Auditors’ identification with their clients and its effect on auditors’ objectivity. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 26(2): 188-221.
5. Bame-Aldred, C. W., and T. Kida. 2007. A comparison of auditor and client initial negotiation positions and tactics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(6): 497-511.
6. Baron, R. A. 1990. Environmentally induced positive affect: Its impact on self-efficacy, task performance, negotiation, and conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20:368–384
7. Bartos, O. J. 1977. Simple model of negotiation: A sociological point of view. The Journal of Conflict Resolution (4): 565–579.
8. Beattie, V., S. Fearnley, and R. Brandt. 2001. Behind closed doors: What company audit is really about. Houndmill, UK: Palgrave.
9. Beckmann, D., and L Menkhoff. 2008. Willwomen bewomen? Analyzing the gender difference among financial experts. Kyklos 61(3): 364–384.
10. Bennett, G. B., R. C. Hatfield and C. Stefaniak. 2015. The Effect of Deadline Pressure on Pre-Negotiation Positions: A Comparison of Auditors and Client Management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(4): 1507-1528.
11. Bergner, J. M., S. A. Peffer. and R. J Ramsay. 2015. Concession, Contention, and Accountability in Auditor-Client Negotiations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(1): 15-25.
12. Bhattacharjee, S., K. Moreno, and J. S. Pyzoha. 2014. The Influence of Audit Committee Intervention Approach on Auditor and Client Judgments during Accounting Disputes. Working paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Northeastern University, and Case Western Reserve University.
13. Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC). 1999. Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees. Stamford, CT: BRC.
14. Bohnet, I. and H.R. Bowles. 2008. Special section: Gender in negotiation. Negotiation Journal.
15. Bowles, H., L. Babcock, and K. McGinn. 2005. Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6): 951-965.
16. Brown, H. L., and K. M. Johnstone. 2009. Resolving disputed financial reporting issues: Effects of auditor negotiation experience and engagement risk on negotiation process and outcome. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 28(2): 65-92.
17. Brown, H. L., and A. M. Wright. 2008. Negotiation Research in Auditing. Accounting Horizons, 22 (1): 91-109.
18. Brown-Liburd, H. L., and V. Zamora. 2013. Managers’ audit negotiation judgments around an initial public offering. Proceedings of the Group Decision and Negotiation International Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, June 17–21.
19. Cheng, M. M., Tan, H. D., Tortman, K. T., and A. Tse. 2017. The Impact of the Timing of a Prior Year’s Auditor Concessions on Financial Officers’ Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 36(1): 43-62.
20. Chi, W. 2011. An overlooked effect of mandatory audit-firm rotation on investigation strategies. OR Spectrum,33(2): 265-285.
21. Chow, C. W., and S. J. Rice. 1982. Qualified audit opinions and auditor switching.The Accounting Review, 57: 326–335.
22. Cialdini, R. B. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
23. Cohen, J., G. Krishnamoorthy, and A. Wright. 2010. Corporate governance and the audit process: Post Sarbanes-Oxley. Contemporary Accounting Research 27 (3): 751–786.
24. Croson, R., M. Marks, and J.Snyder. 2008. Groups work for women: Gender and group identity in social dilemmas. Negotiation Journal.
25. Dalkey, N. and O. Helmer. 1963. An experimental application of the
26. Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3): 458-467.
27. Dawson, L. 1997. Ethical Difference between Men and Women in sales profession. journal of business ethics 16(1): 1143-1152.
28. DeFond, M. L., R. N. Hann, and X. Hu. 2005. Does the market value financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors? Journal of Accounting Research 43: 153–193.
29. Dopuch, N., R. R., King. and R. Schwartz. 2001. An experimental investigation of retention and rotation requirements. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(1): 93-117.
30. Forgas, J. P. 1998. On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 565–577.
31. Fu, H., H. T. Tan, and J. Zhang. 2011. Effect of auditor negotiation experience and client negotiating style on auditors' judgments in an auditor-client negotiation context. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 30(3): 225-237.
32. Gibbins, M., S. A. McCracken. And S. E. Salterio. 2007. The chief financial officer's perspective on auditor‐client negotiations. Contemporary Accounting Research 24(2): 387-422.
33. Gibbins, M., S. Salterio. and A. Webb. 2001. Evidence about auditor–client management negotiation concerning client’s financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 39(3): 535-563.
34. Goodwin, J. 2002 Auditors’ Conflict Management Styles: An Exploratory Study. Abacus 38(3) : 378-405.
35. Hatfield, R. C., C. P. Agoglia. and M. H. Sanchez. 2008. Client characteristics and the negotiation tactics of auditors: Implications for financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 46(5): 1183-1207.
36. Hatfield, R. C., R. W. Houston. C. M. Stefaniak and S.Usrey. 2010. The effect of magnitude of audit difference and prior client concessions on negotiations of proposed adjustments. The Accounting Review 85(5): 1647-1668.
37. Kadous, K., S. J. Kennedy and M.E. Peecher. 2003. The effect of quality assessment and directional goal commitment on auditors' acceptance of client-preferred accounting methods. The Accounting Review 78(3): 759-778.
38. Kaplan, R. 2004. Mother all of conflicts: Auditor and Their Clients. Working paper.
39. Kilgour, D. M., and C. Eden. 2010. Handbook of group decision and negotiation (Vol. 4). Springer Science and Business Media.
40. Kramer, R. Pommerenke, and Newton. 1993. Effects of social identity and interpersonal accountability in negotiator decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 633- 654.
41. Larrick, R. P., C. Heath, and G. Wu. 2009. Goal-induced risk taking in negotiation and decision making. Social Cognition 27 (3): 342–364.
42. Levy, D. A., and P. R Nail. 1993. Contagion: A theoretical and empirical review and reconceptualization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 119, 235–285
43. Libby, R., and J. Luft. 1993. Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (5): 425–450.
44. Loudder, M. L., I. K., Khurana, R. B., Sawyers, C., Cordery, C., Johnson, and J., Lowe. 1992. The information content of audit qualifications. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 11:69–82.
45. McCracken, S., S. E., Salterio, and R. N. Schmidt. 2011. Do managers intend to use the same negotiation strategies as partners?. Behavioral Research in Accounting23(1): 131-160.
46. McCracken, S., S., Salterio, and R. Schmidt. 2008. Effects of differential experience on auditors' intended usage of negotiation strategies: Methodological and practice concerns. Working paper, McMaster University.
47. Michener, H. A., J. J. Vaske, S. L. Schleifer, J. G. Plazewski, and L. J. Chapman. 1975. Factors affecting concession rate and threat usage in bilateral conflict. Sociometry 38 (1): 62–80.
48. Moreno, K., T., Kida, and J. F. Smith.2002. The impact of affective reactions
49. on risky decision making in accounting contexts. Journal of Accounting Research 40: 1331–1349.
50. Murnighan, K., L. Babcock, L. Thompson, and M. Pillutla. 1999. The information dilemma in negotiations: Effects of experience, incentives, and integrative potential. The International Journal of Conflict Management 10 (4): 313–339.
51. Nelson, M. W., J. A., Elliott, and, R. L. Tarpley. 2002. Evidence from auditors about managers' and auditors' earnings management decisions. The accounting review 77(s-1): 175-202.
52. Nelson, M. W., S. D., Smith, and Z. V. Palmrose. 2005. The effect of quantitative materiality approach on auditors' adjustment decisions. The Accounting Review 80(3): 897-920.
53. Ng, T. B. P., and, H. T. Tan. 2003. Effects of authoritative guidance availability and audit committee effectiveness on auditors' judgments in an auditor-client negotiation context. The Accounting Review 78(3): 801-818.
54. O’Connor, K., J. A. Arnold, and E. R. Burris. 2005. Negotiators’ bargaining histories and their effects on future negotiation performance.Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (2): 350–362
55. Okoli, C., and S.D. Pawlowski. 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and Management 42 (1):15-29.
56. Perreault, S., and T. Kida. 2011. The relative effectiveness of persuasion tactics in auditor–client negotiations. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36(8): 534-547.
57. Pietroni, D., G. A., Van Kleef, E., Rubaltelli, and R. Rumiati. 2009. When happiness pays in negotiation: The interpersonal effects of ‘exit option’ directed emotions.Mind and Society 8: 77–92.
58. Powell,C. 2003. The Delphi Technique: MythsandRealities, Journal of Advanced Nursing41(4): 376-382.
59. Pruitt, D., and P. Carnevale. 1993. Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
60. Rayens, M. K., and E. J. Hahn. 2000. Building consensus using the
61. policy Delphi method. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice 1(4):308-315.
62. Rubin, J. Z., and, B. R. Brown. 1975. The Social Psy-chology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Aca.
63. Salterio, S. E. 2012. Fifteen years in the trenches: Auditor–client negotiations exposed and explored. Accounting and Finance, 52(s1): 233-286.
64. Sanchez, M. H., C. P., Agoglia, and , R. C. Hatfield. 2007. The effect of auditors' use of a reciprocity-based strategy on auditor-client negotiations. The Accounting Review, 82(1): 241-263.
65. Sinaceur, M., and, M. A. Neale. 2005. Not all threats are created equal: How implicitness and timing affect the effectiveness of threats in negotiation.Group Decision and Negotiation, 14: 63–85.
66. Sun, Y., H. T., Tan, and J. Zhang. 2015. Effect of Concession‐Timing Strategies in Auditor–Client Negotiations: It Matters Who Is Using Them. Contemporary Accounting Research 32(4): 1489-1506.
67. Sundén, A. E., and B.J. Surette.1998. Gender differences in the allocation of assets in retirement savings plans. The American Economic Review 88(2): 207–211.
68. Tajfel, H. and J. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austen and S. Worchel (eds). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Pp. 33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
69. TAN, H. T., and , K. T. Trotman. 2010. Effects of the timing of auditors’ income‐reducing adjustment concessions on financial officers’ negotiation judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research 27(4):1207-1239.
70. Thompson, L., and R. Hastie. 1990. Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47 (1):98–124.
71. Thompson, L., J. Wang, and B. C. Gunia. 2010. Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology 61: 491–515.
72. Tinsley, C. H., K. O’Connor, and B. A. Sullivan. 2002. Tough guys finish last: The perils of a distributive reputation.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes88: 621–642.
73. Trotman, K. T., A. M., Wrightand and S. Wright. 2005. Auditor negotiations: An examination of the efficacy of intervention methods. The Accounting Review, 80(1): 349-367.
74. Tse, A., K. Trotman. And M. Cheng. 2012. The impact of the existence and timing of concessions in multi-period auditor-client negotiations.
75. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Utility, probability, and human decision making: 141-162. Springer Netherlands.
76. Van Kleef, G. A., C. K. W., De Dreu, and A. S. R. Manstead. 2004. The interpersonal effect of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 57–76
77. Vetschera, R. 2013. Negotiation processes: an integrated perspective. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 1(1-2): 135-164.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Kazemi Oloum M, Rezazadeh J, Kordestani G. Identification and Ranking of Influencing Factors on The Adoption of A Concession Strategy in The Negotiations Between The Auditor and The Client. aapc 2020; 4 (8) :163-213
URL: http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-595-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 4, Issue 8 (2-2020) Back to browse issues page
دوفصلنامه علمی حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری journal of Value & Behavioral  Accounting
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 36 queries by YEKTAWEB 4642