The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers

We examine factors affecting the auditor’s willingness to report their own or their peers’ self-discovered errors in working papers subsequent to detailed working paper review. Prior research has shown that errors in working papers are detected in the review process; however, such detection rates only rarely exceed 50% of the seeded errors. Hence, measures that encourage auditors to be alert to their own (or their peers’) potential errors any time they revisit the audit working papers may be valuable in detecting such residual errors and potentially correcting them before damage occurs to the audit firm or its client. We hypothesize that three factors affect the auditor’s willingness to report post detailed review discovered errors: the local office error-management climate (open versus blame), the type of error (mechanical versus conceptual) and who committed the error (the individual who committed the error (self) or a peer). Local office error-management climate is said to be open and supportive where errors and mistakes are accepted as part of everyday life as long as they are learned from and not repeated. In alternative, a blame error-management climate focuses on a “get it right the first time” culture where mistakes are not tolerated and blame gets attached to those admitting to or found committing such errors. We find that error-management climate has a significant overall effect on auditor willingness to report errors, as does who committed the error originally. We find both predicted and unpredicted significant interactions among the three factors that qualify these observed significant main effects. We discuss implications for audit practice and further research

Error orientation questionnaire (EOQ): reliability, validity, and different language equivalence

An Error Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ) was developed, consisting of eight scales on attitudes to and on coping with errors at work. In Study I (representative sample of a German city, N=478) six scales were developed with the help of a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL techniques. They comprise error competence, learning from errors, error risk taking, error strain, error anticipation, covering up errors. All constructs were validated. In a second study, items were added to the scales and two additional scales, ‘error communication’ and ‘thinking about errors’, were included. The scales were translated into English and Dutch and 160 students in the Netherlands filled out both language versions (Study II). The 8-factor solutions in English and Dutch were replicated. The issue of language equivalence of these two language versions were taken up (equivalence across correlations exists). Potentially biasing variables did not influence the solutions. Practical uses of the EOQ are pointed out

Error climate and individuals dealing with errors in the workplace

This cross-sectional field study investigates the effect of contextual influences (error climate) on reactions to errors (how individuals deal with errors). We surveyed n = 830 apprentices in various trainee positions in the hotel and restaurant industry. The responses show that perceived error climate in the training company, as well as the self-concept of professional competence, predict the way in which apprentices deal individually with errors. Moreover, the findings indicate that both – socio-demographic group and the characteristics of the organization – also influence affective responses to errors