Search results

Independence is the cornerstone of the auditing profession. Even so, it is often assumed that acquiescing to the audit client when a disagreement occurs is more beneficial to the auditor-client relationship than asserting one’s independence (e.g., see Wang & Tuttle, 2009). We look more closely at the issue in the context of auditor-client management disagreements as recalled by experienced auditors.

We find that for most disagreements in which the auditor did not make any concession at all, the auditor-client relationship was either unaffected or strengthened. We find that a client’s use of pressure tactics did not appear to influence whether or not the auditor made a concession, but that a client’s use of pressure tactics, was associated with damage to the auditor-client relationship. The importance of the issue causing a disagreement was positively associated with the likelihood of the auditor staying with his/her initial position.

During team meetings, expressing negativity about other team members’ ideas and contributions – that is, negative disagreements – can derail team processes and harm team productivity. If team members want to improve their meetings and reduce negativity, which aspects are relevant starting points? This chapter discusses the complexity of this question by considering the interplay of team attributes, individual characteristics, and verbal interaction dynamics that may evoke negative disagreements in meetings. To this end, this chapter relies on existing behavioral and survey data of 259 employees nested in 43 team meetings that were analyzed using statistical discourse analysis. The results of this analysis highlight several potential starting points for reducing negativity in workplace meetings. First, we discovered that team attributes matter, as teams with a lower overall level of job satisfaction were more likely to experience negative disagreements during their meetings. Second, at the individual level, we found a significant gender effect such that women were more likely than men to start negative disagreements. Third, individual team members reporting lower organizational trust were more likely to start negative disagreements. Finally, counter to previous work on interaction dynamics during meetings, we could not identify specific verbal behaviors that triggered negative disagreements. In terms of practical implications, we discuss how managers can increase organizational trust and job satisfaction (e.g., through ensuring justice and improving job design) in order to encourage more positive meeting interactions.

Business confidence is crucial to firm decisions, but it is deeply related to professional forecasters' expectations. Since Brazil is an important inflation targeting country, this paper investigates whether monetary policy credibility and disagreements in inflation and interest rate expectations relate to business confidence in Brazil. The study considers the aggregate business confidence index and the business confidence indexes for 11 industrial sectors in Brazil.

The authors run ordinary least squares and generalized method of moments regressions to assess the direct effects of disagreements in expectation and monetary policy credibility on business confidence. The authors also make use of Wald test of parameter equality to observe whether there are “offsetting effects” of monetary credibility in mitigating the effects of both disagreements in expectations on business confidence. Besides, the authors run quantile regressions to analyze the effect of the main explanatory variables of interest on business confidence in contexts where business confidence is low (pessimistic) or high (optimistic).

Disagreements in inflation expectations reduce business confidence, monetary policy credibility improves business confidence and credibility mitigates the adverse effects of disagreements in expectations on business confidence. The sectors most sensitive to monetary policy credibility are Rubber, Motor Vehicles, Metallurgy, Metal Products and Cellulose. The findings also suggest the effect of disagreement in inflation expectations on business confidence decreases as confidence increases, and the effect of monetary policy credibility on business confidence increases as entrepreneurs are more optimistic.

While there is evidence that monetary policy credibility is beneficial to the economy, there are no studies on the effects of disagreements in inflation and interest rate expectations on business confidence (at the aggregate and sectoral levels). Besides, there are no studies that have investigated whether monetary policy credibility can mitigate the effects of disagreements in inflation and interest rate expectations on business confidence (at the aggregate and sectoral levels). Therefore, there are gaps to be filled in the literature addressing business confidence, monetary policy credibility and disagreements in expectations. These issues are particularly important to inflation targeting developing countries.

This paper investigates the role of economic disagreement in the cross-sectional pricing of individual stocks. Economic disagreement is quantified with ex ante measures of cross-sectional dispersion in economic forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF), determining the degree of disagreement among professional forecasters over changes in economic fundamentals.

The authors introduce a broad index of economic disagreement based on the innovations in the cross-sectional dispersion of economic forecasts for output, inflation and unemployment so that the index is a shock measure that captures different aspects of disagreement over economic fundamentals and also reflects unexpected news or surprise about the state of the aggregate economy. After building the broad index of economic disagreement, the authors test out-of-sample performance of the index in predicting the cross-sectional variation in future stock returns.

Univariate portfolio analyses indicate that decile portfolios that are long in stocks with the lowest disagreement beta and short in stocks with the highest disagreement beta yield a risk-adjusted annual return of 7.2%. The results remain robust after controlling for well-known pricing effects. The results are consistent with a preference-based explanation that ambiguity-averse investors demand extra compensation to hold stocks with high disagreement risk and the investors are willing to pay high prices for stocks with large hedging benefits. The results also support the mispricing hypothesis that the high disagreement beta provides an indirect way to measure dispersed opinion and overpricing.

Most literature measures disagreement about individual stocks with the standard deviation of earnings forecasts made by financial analysts and examines the cross-sectional relation between this measure and individual stock returns. Unlike prior studies, the authors focus on disagreement about the economy instead of disagreement about earnings growth. The authors' argument is that disagreement about the economy is a major factor that would explain disagreement about stock fundamentals. The authors find that disagreement in economic forecasts does indeed have a significant impact on the cross-sectional pricing of individual stocks.

Credit rating agencies (CRAs) are perceived as highly influential in the financial system since their announcements can affect several players in the financial markets, from big private financial and non-financial companies and their financial markets experts to sovereign states. In this sense, this study investigates whether sovereign credit news issued by CRAs (measured by comprehensive credit rating (CCR) variables) affect the uncertainties about the exchange rate in the future (captured by the disagreement about exchange rate expectations). The study is relevant once there is evidence indicating that CRAs' assessments are responsible for affecting international capital flows and, thus, sovereign rating changes can affect the expectations formation process regarding the exchange rate. In addition, there is evidence indicating that the disagreement about exchange rate expectations affects the disagreement about inflation expectations, which brings consequences to policymakers.

The dependent variables are the disagreement in expectations about the Brazilian exchange rate for different forecast horizons, 12, 24 and 36 months ahead and the first principal component of theses series. On the other hand, the CCR variables are built upon the long-term foreign-currency Brazilian bonds ratings, outlooks and credit watches provided by the main CRAs. Estimates are obtained using ordinary least squares (OLS) and generalized method of moments (GMM); a dynamic analysis is performed using vector-autoregressive (VAR) through impulse-response functions.

Negative (positive) sovereign credit news, given by a rating downgrade (upgrade) and/or a negative (positive) outlook/watch status, increase (decrease) the disagreement about exchange rate expectations. This result holds for all disagreement and CCR variables.

The study brings practical implications to both private agents (mainly financial market experts) and policymakers. An important practical implication of the study concerns the ability of CRAs to affect the expectations formation process of financial market experts regarding the future behavior of the exchange rate. When a CRA issues a signal of improvement in a country's sovereign rating, this signal reflects the perception of improvement in macroeconomic fundamentals and reduction of uncertainties about the country's ability to honor its financial obligations, which therefore, facilitates the expectations formation process, causing a reduction in the disagreement about the exchange rate expectations. With respect to the consequences for policymakers, they will have more difficulty in guiding expectations in a country with a worse sovereign risk rating, where agents have difficulties in forming expectations and the disagreement in expectations is greater.

The study is the first to analyze the impact of CRAs' announcements on the disagreement about exchange rate expectations. Moreover, it connects the literature that investigates the effects of sovereign credit news on the economy with the literature that examines the main determinants of disagreement in expectations about macroeconomic variables.

The authors propose that “root cause analysis,” coupled with critical thinking, is applicable to understanding and resolving contentious disagreements that arise from time to time within management teams. By subjecting the disagreement to a step-by-step analytical process, a rich array of considerations often surfaces, a more expansive discussion ensues, and the decided course of action is likely to be more wholeheartedly embraced.

The authors demonstrate how leaders can resolve conflicts productively by creating a culture of candor and methodically exploring the root cause underlying critical management team disagreements. They have organized the process into three parts.

When a management team acknowledges and addresses “[…]the disagreement and they start to look for the real issue and separate the symptoms from the causes,” that is when the potential for positive outcomes arises and disagreement recedes.

The authors show that a guided, analytical root-cause process for resolving disagreements is a worthy addition to every strategic leader’s tool kit.

This step-by-step process is easy for a leaders at all levels to internalize and practice.

Disagreements related to processes, priorities, and purpose surface within organizations. Disagreements may be between colleagues, or between internal and external protagonists, or between managers and their direct reports. Rather than avoiding or ignoring or even trying to eradicate disagreement, this paper highlights the potential value to be extracted from disagreement and offers some ideas on how best to be in a position to do so.

This paper is the result of the insights offered by one of the world’s leading ethicists and the reflective thought based on hundreds of discussions by all three authors with practicing managers combining for over 60 years of such engagement.

Practical considerations, examples, and suggestions for extracting the benefit resident in disagreement are presented and discussed.

The ideas and outcomes posed are immediately and broadly applicable.

Readers are provided with an array of field-observed benefits that are potential outcomes from a conscientious engagement with disagreement. Within an organizational “climate of possibilities”, ten potential benefits from constructive engagement with disagreement are presented and discussed. In addition, ten means for enhancing the likelihood of capturing those benefits are presented.

The purpose of this paper is to examine relationships between a priori‐chosen personality traits and the tendency for a manager to rate his/her job performance more favourably than well‐acquainted superiors, peers, and subordinates do.

The job performance of 204 managers was evaluated using multi‐source (i.e. 360E) ratings (self, subordinates, peers, and superiors). Managers also completed personality measures. Relationships between managers' personality and the tendency for managers to rate their own job performance higher than subordinates, peers, and superiors did were analyzed using advanced regression techniques.

The paper finds that self‐superior and self‐peer disagreement in performance ratings (i.e. self‐rating inflation) was associated with high Achievement and high Self‐Esteem. Additionally, self‐superior disagreement (i.e. self‐rating deflation) was associated with high Anxiety. Self‐subordinate disagreement was not associated with self‐rater personality.

The paper studied a single sample of financial services managers. Generalization requires cross‐validation with other occupational groups and organizations.

Human resources professionals should be informed that self‐superior and self‐peer disagreement (i.e. self‐rating inflation) in multi‐source job performance ratings is potentially beneficial because it is associated with personality traits that can facilitate positive responses to feedback. Peers and superiors should therefore not inflate their ratings of managers in an effort to reduce self‐superior and self‐peer disagreement in ratings.

This study improved upon most previous investigations of this topic by using a field setting, considering a wider range of personality variables, using 360( job performance ratings (self‐, supervisor‐, peer‐, and subordinate‐ratings) rather than just a subset of these rating sources, and employing superior statistical procedures.

The lack of a clear conceptualization and operationalization of the construct of interpersonal conflict makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies and hinders the accumulation of knowledge in the conflict domain. Defining interpersonal conflict as a dynamic process that occurs between interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the attainment of their goals, the present paper presents a two‐dimensional framework and a typology of interpersonal conflict that incorporates previous conceptualizations of the construct. The first dimension of the framework identifies three properties generally associated with conflict situations: disagreement, negative emotion, and interference. The framework's second dimension identifies two targets of interpersonal conflict encountered in organizational settings: task and interpersonal relationship. Based on this framework, the paper highlights several shortcomings of current conceptualizations and operationalizations of interpersonal conflict in the organizational literature, and provides suggestions for their remedy.

This paper investigates the effect of the short sale ban by the Korean government on the relationship between the disagreement among investors and the future stock returns. Short selling in Korean stock market was banned twice in 2008 and 2011. The short sale ban provides a natural experiment environment to study the effect of the short sale constraints on the relationship between the disagreement among investors and the future stock returns. Furthermore, it is an exogenous shock in the point of individual stocks. Thus, this paper focus on short sale ban periods to analyzes the stock return predictability of the disagreement among investors’ opinions about analysts’ earnings forecasts. Main results of this paper are as follows: First, the portfolio within the top 30% of the disagreement among investors experiences the significantly higher returns than that within the bottom 30% of the disagreement only during short sale ban periods. However, the two portfolio returns are not significantly different during the other periods excluding the short sale ban periods. These results are robust even after controlling for firm sizes, boot to market ratios, and the momentum effects. Second, a portfolio with higher the disagreement among investors presents significantly positive abnormal returns estimated by Fama-French’s three factor model during short sale ban periods. On the other hand, the abnormal returns of the portfolio with lower the disagreement among investors are not significantly different from zero. Furthermore, those returns of the portfolio with lower disagreement are not affected by the short sale ban. Finally, our findings show that individual stock returns are positively related to disagreement after controlling for the characteristics of individual stocks. Consequentially, the stocks with higher disagreement are overvalued during the short sale ban periods according to our robust empirical analyses with various control variables. According to our findings, we conclude that the short sale constraints are important factors to determine the predictability of disagreement on future stock returns. These are consistent with the results of short sale ban on the U.S. stock market from Autore, Billingsley, and Kovacs (2011).