Search results

The purpose of this study is to identify a psychological profile for public accounting firm partners who are likely to place the partnership and client shareholder at risk. Proprietary data from an executive counseling firm provided a unique opportunity to compare two groups of partners: those identified by their senior partners as placing the firm at risk (n=31) and those not so identified (n=64). The groups were compared using psychological measures, lifestyle measures, personal measures, and work history variables. Results found no significant measurable difference between the audit partners who were identified as posing a risk and those not so identified. This suggests that specific factors cannot lead a partner to engage in risky behaviors, but rather several, in combination, may be necessary. Implications for research include learning more about concepts such as resistance to temptation, motivation, and rationalization. Implications for practice are to focus on structuring business practices to provide early warning signs and minimize opportunities to engage in risky behavior. Continued and increased diligence in the client screening and client continuation and review process remain essential for best practices.

Organizational leadership in global corporations has always been a challenging task for several decades. It has become even more stressful and difficult in recent years. Global economy hallmarked by open trade, friendly tariff practice, and relatively easier flow of capital, intellectual property, and low-cost labor brought tremendous benefit to consumers while intensified global competition among global companies. Since 1985, there has been a sharp increase in the number of companies that Standard & Poor calls high risk. The forecast for most companies is continued chaos with a chance of disaster. The most common advice you heard over the years has been “to get comfortable with it.”

We use design thinking in the context of accounting pedagogy to exploit recent advances in cybernetics in the form of generative artificial intelligence technology. Relying on the intuition that supplementing or augmenting human argumentation (natural intelligence or NI) with parallel AI output can produce better student written assignments, we posit the “augmentation premise,” that is, ((NI + AI) > AI > NI). To test the augmentation premise, we compare student written submissions in an Accounting Information Systems (AIS) course with and without the benefit of parallel generative AI output. We then evaluate how the generative AI output enhances student-crafted revisions to their initial submissions. Using a summative quality improvement index (QII) consisting of quantitative and qualitative assessments, we present preliminary evidence supporting the augmentation premise. The augmentation premise likely extends to other accounting subdisciplines and merits generalization for enriching accounting pedagogy.