Affiliation:
1. Virginia Commonwealth University
2. Bentley University
3. Portland State University
Abstract
SYNOPSIS
Audit subordinates typically work with multiple supervisors who are likely to vary in their level of coaching quality (CQ). While prior research suggests a low CQ supervisor could negatively affect a subordinate's work attitudes, theory indicates that the presence of other positive coaching experiences may buffer against the negative influence of a low CQ supervisor. We investigate by asking participants to provide information on their coaching experiences with three supervisors. We then examine how perceptions of supervisors' CQ interact to affect subordinates' work attitudes. We find that the effect of a perceived low CQ supervisor on organizational commitment and turnover intention is mitigated when the CQ of another supervisor is high or when a relatively high CQ supervisor is also a mentor. Investigating factors that inhibit CQ, we find that supervisors' lack of capability explains variation in lower CQ supervisors, whereas lack of presence explains variation for higher CQ supervisors.
Data Availability: Contact the authors.
JEL Classifications: L2; M40; M42; M51; M53.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Reference91 articles.
1. Ahern,
G.
2003.
Theory and practice: Designing and implementing coaching/mentoring competencies: A case study.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly16 (
4):
373–
383.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951507032000156871
2. Anderson-Gough,
F.,
Grey
C.,
and
RobsonK.
2001.
Tests of time: Organizational time-reckoning and the making of accountants in two multi-national accounting firms.
Accounting, Organizations and Society26 (
2):
99–
122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00019-2
3. Andiola,
L. M.,
and
BedardJ. C.
2018.
Delivering the “tough message”: Moderators of subordinate auditors' reactions to feedback.
Accounting, Organizations and Society70:
52–
68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.02.002
4. Andiola,
L. M.,
Bedard
J. C.,
and
WestermannK.
2019.
It's not my fault! Insights into subordinate auditors' attributions and emotions following audit review.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory38 (
1):
1–
27.
https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-52132
5. Andiola,
L. M.,
Brazel
J. F.,
Downey
D. H.,
and
SchaeferT. J.
2020.
Coaching today's auditors: What causes reviewers to adopt a more developmental approach? Working paper, Virginia Commonwealth University, North Carolina State University, Villanova University, University of Missouri–Kansas City. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3244759
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献