discussion of is the objectivity of internal audit compromised when the internal audit function is a management training ground精选.pdfVIP

Accounting and Finance 53 (2013) 1021–1028 2013 AF Conference Article Discussion of ‘Is the objectivity of internal audit compromised when the internal audit function is a management training ground?’ Lisa Koonce Department of Accounting, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Abstract This article provides a critique of the Rose, Rose, and Norman (2013) article. It focuses on four issues: (i) whether institutional details have been appropriately captured; (ii) whether experiments are an appropriate method to answer the authors’ research question; (iii) whether the authors’ hypotheses should predict an interaction; and (iv) whether the authors have relied on the appropriate theory. Key words: Internal auditing; Objectivity; Management doi: 10.1111/acfi.12028 1. Introduction Rose, Rose and Norman (hereafter RRN) (2013) experimentally test whether internal auditors’ willingness to confront top management about an aggressive financial reporting position is a joint function of two factors: (i) whether the internal auditors are in a situation where they expect to move (eventually) into senior management positions in the future and (ii) whether the Board of Directors or senior management has the greatest power over selecting who moves into senior management positions in the future. At the most fundamental level, this article addresses a long-standing and important issue, about the independence of internal auditors (IIA, 2011). Because of their professional standards and code of ethics, internal auditors are important assurance providers within firms. Not only is some of their work relied upon by external auditors, but their work is also used by the Board, regulators, customers and suppliers. Thus, their independence is critica