The art of compromise? The individual and organisational legitimacy of “irregular auditing”

Abstract

Purpose Irregular auditing practices, such as false sign‐off, are evidence that proper implementation of work programmes by audit fieldworkers is not always achieved. That such behaviours have been widely attested in the literature raises important questions about the impact they have on the audit engagement. In order to get further insight into the phenomenon, seeks to adopt a qualitative approach, deemed appropriate to complement the mostly quantitative studies available in the literature. Design/methodology/approach The research is based on 15 semi‐directive interviews performed with current and former French audit seniors. The interviews were meant to highlight the role of irregular auditing in view of the individual and organisational strive for legitimacy that characterises the audit profession. Findings The research showed that, far from being systematically dysfunctional, irregular auditing plays an important role in audit firms, and that it can only be understood in view of the nested personal (individual auditor), organisational (audit firm) and institutional (auditing as a profession) constraints of the audit environment. Research limitations/implications Owing to the limited number of interviews and their situated context, the study has an exploratory nature. Its findings are used to provide recommendations for future research into various aspects of auditor performance. Originality/value The study of irregular auditing has major consequences for understanding of the professional status of audit fieldworkers. It also provides insights into the recent evolution of auditing methods and of the profession's ideology.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.