8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

1/16

Audit Structure and Its Relation to Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity: An Empirical

InvestigationAuthor(s): E. Michael Bamber, Doug Snowball, Richard M. TubbsReviewed work(s):Source: The Accounting Review, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 285-299Published by: American Accounting AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/248003.

Accessed: 10/04/2012 03:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Accounting Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Accounting Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaasochttp://www.jstor.org/stable/248003?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/248003?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaasoc

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

2/16

THE ACCOUNTING REVIEWVol. LXIV, No. 2April 1989

u d i t Structure a n d t s Relat ion to l e onflict a n d o l e Ambiguity

n Empirica l InvestigationE. MichaelBamber, Doug Snowball,and RichardM. Tubbs

ABSTRACT: The trend towards more structure in some of the largest accounting firms' auditmethodologies has generated considerable interest, but little empirical evidence. This studyprovides evidence on the role conflict and role ambiguity perceived by audit seniors in struc-tured versus unstructured accounting firms. Role theory provides a basis for analyzing theeffects of audit structure on the organizational characteristics which are potential sources ofrole conflict and ambiguity. The results are based on a sample of 67 seniors from structuredand 54 seniors from unstructured firms. The seniors' perceptions of their firms' organizationalcharacteristics and their perceived role stress differed systematically across structured versusunstructured firms. No evidence is found of the concerns (such as inflexibility n atypical auditenvironments) that have been raised regarding the trend towards increasing audit structure.

IN an attemptto simultaneouslym-prove audit quality and audit effi-ciency, several of the largest ac-counting firms have adopted a morestructuredapproachto their audit pro-cess. Cushingand Loebbecke(1986, p.50] have describedthis trend as anintriguing development that deservesadditionalconsiderationby auditingre-searchersandpractitioners, ndperhapsby theAuditingStandardsBoard. Thisstudyexaminesauditstructure rom theperspective f the field auditorswho areresponsible or applying heirfirm'spar-ticularauditapproach.The study'spri-maryobjective s to determine he asso-ciation betweenthe degreeof structureof theauditapproach asdocumentedbyCushingand Loebbecke[1986])and therole conflict and ambiguityexperiencedby audit seniors.Organizational ehaviorresearch forreviews,see Cummings[1982]and Dal-

ton et al. [1980]) often finds that struc-ture has important effects, at both theindividualand organizational evels. Con-sistent with this, auditing researchershave identified potential advantages andpotential disadvantages of increased au-dit structure (e.g., Dirsmithand McAllis-ter [1982a; 1982b], Ashton [19831, andCushing and Loebbecke [1986]). Poten-tial advantages include better qualitycontrol of audit work, staff training,communicationamong auditors, and costeffectiveness. Possible disadvantages of

E. Michael Bamberis anAssistant Pro-fessor and Doug Snowball is a Professor,both at the Universityof Florida. RichardM. Tubbsis an Assistant Professor at theUniversityof Iowa.Manuscript received May 1987.Revision received July 1988.Accepted September 1988.

285

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

3/16

286 The Accounting Review, April 1989too much structure include inflexibilityin atypical audit environments, over-auditing of small or low-risk clients,shifting too much control away from thefield auditor, and increased demands onengagement management.These potential effects of audit struc-ture are likely to influence the ambiguityand conflict that auditors, especially fieldauditors, associate with their organiza-tional roles. Indeed, Senatra [1980] foundthat measures of audit seniors' role con-flict and role ambiguitywere significantlyrelated to (1) the seniors' perceptions oftheir firm's organizational climate (inwhich structuralvariablesplay an impor-tant role), and (2) the seniors' job satis-faction and job-related tension. Auditingresearch has recognized both the poten-tial for conflict and ambiguity in auditroles, and their potential consequencesin the form of stress, turnover, and re-duced levels of performance [Montagna,1968; Schultz, 1974; Sorensen and Soren-sen, 1974; Baker, 1977; Senatra, 1980;and Choo, 1986]. The current study as-sumes that role conflict and ambiguitycan adversely affect auditors and auditperformance,' and focuses upon auditstructure as an antecedent condition torole conflict and ambiguity.The paper is organized into four sec-tions. The first section discusses the pri-mary variables (audit structure, role am-biguity, and role conflict) examined inthe study, and presents the frameworkon which our hypotheses are based. Thesecond section describesthe method usedin the empirical investigation. The thirdsection reports the results, and the finalsection presents the conclusions and im-plications of the study.

THEORETICALFRAMEWORKAudit Structure

The meaning of audit structure and

the location of particular firms alongthat dimension have been topics of recentdebate (e.g., Sullivan [1984] and Mullar-key [1984]). Underlying this discussionmay be the fact that Cushing andLoebbecke's definition of structure 2encompasses elements of both structureand technology, which more traditionalorganizational research treat as distinctconstructs. Structurehas been defined asthe arrangement of people, tasks, andauthority to achieve more calculable andpredictable control over organizationalperformance [Ranson et al., 1980], andit is often described in terms of a mech-anistic-organismiccontinuum [Burns andStalker, 1961]. Cushing and Loebbecke[1986, p. 32] acknowledge that theirdefinition of audit structure is notinconsistent with that continuum.3 Incontrast, technology refers to the meansby which inputs are transformed intooutputs [Fry, 1982]. The prominent rolesascribed to audit tools and decision aidsby Cushing and Loebbecke [1986] andKinney [1986], suggest technology alsoplays a part in audit structure. Accord-ingly, the framework and hypotheses de-

' Numerous studies in the organizational literature(and the meta-analysis by Jackson and Schuler [1985])find that role ambiguity and role conflict are associatedwith unfavorable outcomes for both the individual andthe organization.2 Cushing and Loebbecke [1986, p. 32] define a struc-tured audit methodology as . .. a systematic approachto auditing characterized by a prescribed, logical se-quence of procedures, decisions, and documentationsteps, and by a comprehensive and integratedset of auditpolicies and tools to assist the auditor in conducting theaudit.I Mechanistic organizations generally have specificgoals, explicit policies and procedures, a high level offormalization, centralized decision making, and top-down communication. Organismicorganizations, on theother hand, tend to have implicit goals and directions,intergroup cooperation, decentralized decision making,a low level of formalization, and open communications.Dirsmith and McAllister [1982a; 1982b] have described

mechanistic audits and organic audits in terms ofthis continuum.

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

4/16

Bamber, Snowball, and Tubbs 287velopedsubsequentlyncludeboth orga-nizational structure and technologicalaspectsof auditstructure.Role Conflictand Role Ambiguity

Role conflictrefersto the presenceofincompatiblerole pressures.Wolfe andSnoek [1962,p. 103]succinctly efineroleconflict as: . .. the simultaneous oc-currenceof two (or more) sets of pres-sures such that compliance with onewouldmakedifficultor impossiblecom-pliancewith theother. Various ypesofrole conflict(betweenhetime,resources,capabilities,or values of the individualand definedrole behavior;betweentwoor more roles for the same individual;and through ncompatiblepolicies,stan-dardsof evaluation,requests,and expec-tations of others) have been identified[Rizzoet al., 1970].Thoughoftenexamined imultaneouslywith role conflict, role ambiguityis atheoreticallydistinctconstruct[Jacksonand Schuler, 1985]. Rizzo et al. [1970,pp. 155-156] define role ambiguity . . . interms of (1) the predictability f the out-come or responses o one's behavior...and (2) the existenceor clarityof behav-ioral requirements, ften in termsof in-putsfromtheenvironment,whichwouldserve to guide behavior and provideknowledge hat thebehavior s appropri-ate....9 Thus, nonexistentor uncleardirectivesandpolicies,uncertainty boutauthority, duties and relations withothers, and uncertaintyas to the effectof behaviorson sanctions and rewardsshouldincreaserole ambiguity.Framework

The study'sprimaryhypothesis s thatless role conflict and ambiguitywill beexperienced y auditors romfirmsusingstructuredaudit methodologies(as de-finedby CushingandLoebbecke 1986])than by auditors from unstructured

firms. The underlying propositions arethat: (1) auditors' perceptions of organi-zational practices and task-technologywill differ betweenthe two types of firms,and (2) the role conflict and role ambi-guity that auditors experience are relatedto their perceptions of these organiza-tional characteristics.The Relation Between Audit Structureand Organizational Characteristics. Fig-ure 1 explains each organizational char-acteristic included in the study and pre-dicts how audit structurewill affect eachone. The expectations are based on theorganizational behavior and audit struc-ture literature discussed earlier. To theextent that audit structure involves astructuring of audit tasks, seniors fromhighly structured firms should perceivethat their roles are more subject to for-malizedrules and procedures(i.e., greaterformalization). Work flow coordinationis often associated with formalization[Rousseau, 1978] and, accordingly, weposit that seniors in highly structuredfirms will perceive greater work flowcoordination. Consistent with findingsrelating to more mechanistic structures[Rizzo et al., 1970], audit seniors frommore structured firms are more likely toperceive their authority as adequate, andexperience fewer violations in the chainof command, than will their counter-parts from less-structured firms. Cush-ing and Loebbecke [1986]have suggestedthat audit structure may facilitate com-munication, hence we posit that auditseniors from highly structured firms willperceive greater adequacy of communi-cation. Finally, the concern about auditstructure's possible inflexibility in atyp-ical audit environments suggests thatsubjects in highly structured firms mayperceive their adaptability to be less thanthat of auditors in less structured firms.

Audit seniors from both structuredand unstructured firms are likely to per-

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

5/16

288 The Accounting Review, April 1989

0-)

0 u-l ul0 N 00~~~~~00

O 0; 0 e |Cl~~~~~~~~~''0 0 0 U a

$~~~~~~~~. 0 40 C=9rev

- 00E 10 0 U 0 .Q S0 _ 0

a;~~~~~_ N ^ t

P4 0- 0= 8~ 0.00-) C's'2 - ,-Cs >0 .0.~~~~~~~~~0~z M ' 0 0. '0 .0

~~ ~aK~~~~~U -10~~~~~~~~~~~.0 0'0oS

U o..o .~~~~~~S C1U- ~C'0 >..cz I~~~~~~~~~~~

0~~~~~~~~~.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

6/16

Bamber, Snowball, and Tubbs 289ceive their tasks as relatively routine(particularly since managers and part-ners generally assume greater responsi-bility when atypical situations arise).4However, the greater centralization ofdecision making associated with highlystructured firms [Cushing and Loeb-becke, 1986] should heighten perceptionsof task routineness. Moreover, structuredfirms' integration of specific forms oftechnology (such as preprinted forms,checklists, decision matrices, and otherguidelines) into the audit approach re-flects the philosophy that audit tasks aregenerally programmable. Since this tech-nology is largelyfocused on audit seniors'task responsibilities, seniors in thesefirms should perceive their tasks as moreanalyzable and less variable.The Relation Between OrganizationalCharacteristics and Role Conflict andAmbiguity. Figure I also summarizesthe expected relations between (1) per-ceptions of organizational practices andtask-technology, and (2) perceptions ofrole conflict and ambiguity. The direc-tional relations are consistent withHouse and Rizzo [1972a] and Senatra[1980]. House and Rizzo [1972a] foundthat the six organizational practicevariables shown in Figure 1 were relatedto role stress (i.e., role conflict andambiguity). While their examination waslimited to one firm, subsequent studieshave replicated and extended their find-ings (for a review, see Jackson andSchuler [1985]). Senatra's (1980] studyexamined nine organizational practicevariables as predictors of audit seniors'role stress in a single Big Eight firm.5While the directions of the relationsshould be the same as Senatra [1980] re-ports, this does not preclude differencesin the significance of the relations. Forexample, violations in the chain ofcommand might occur less frequentlywithin structured firms, but may lead to

greater role stress when they do occur.On the other hand, if reduced adaptabil-ity is a particularly significant disadvan-tage of the structured audit approach,then the relation between adaptabilityand role stress may be more significantfor those firms. Figure I does not in-clude specific hypotheses of this kind be-cause of the preliminary state of researchon audit structure and its effects.This study is also exploratory with re-spect to relations between the routine-ness of the task-technology and role per-ceptions. Though a negative relationbetween task routineness and role ambi-guity is intuitively appealing, the litera-ture yields neither a theoretical nor astrong empirical basis for expecting par-ticular relations.6

METHODSample and Procedure

Audit seniors were chosen as subjectsin this study since structuredaudit meth-odologies are primarily aimed at direct-ing efforts in the field. Offices of fourBig Eight accounting firms participatedin the study. According to Kinney's

4 Ballew [1982] points to participation in determiningprofessional standards, constraints imposed by auditingand accounting standards, and retention of audit clients,as factors underlying his expectation that technologicalroutineness would be higher for audit teams than otherteams functioning within public accounting firms. How-ever, Ballew's findings were not fully consistent with hisexpectations.I Less formalization, violations in the chain of com-mand, and inadequate communications were signifi-cantly associated with increased role conflict; violationsin the chain of command and inadequacy of authoritywere associated with increased role ambiguity.6 Schuler [1977] and Rogers and Molnar [1976](among others) have suggested that role perceptions maydepend on interactions between task-technology andother organizational characteristics.We believethat suchinteraction effects are unlikely in the audit settingbecause (I) it is unlikely that firms will differ sufficientlyin structureand technology to cause an interaction, and(2) increased audit structure is argued to be associated

with greater organizational structure and greatertechnological routineness.

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

7/16

290 The Accounting Review, April 1989[1986] classification, these four firms arecomprised of two firms from the struc-tured end of Cushing and Loebbecke's[1986] scale, and two firms from the un-structured end. To reduce any potentialoffice effects, four offices from eachfirm provided subjects.Each office's managing partner oranother liaison person arrangeddistribu-tion of the questionnaire to the office'saudit seniors. Each participant sealed thecompleted questionnaire in an accom-panying envelope before returning it tothe liaison person for mailing. A total of133 questionnaires were returned-a re-sponse rate of close to 100percent.Twelvequestionnaires with missing responseswere omitted from the analysis, leaving121 usable responses (67 from the twostructured firms and 54 from the two un-structured firms). The participants' aver-age years of experience was slightly morethan three years, with a range of one tosix years.Measures

Cushing and Loebbecke [1986] de-veloped their classification of audit ap-proaches inductively from their empiricalresults. Their approach may be describedas an institutional approach based onfirm materials and interviews with keypersonnel. In contrast, our study used anorganizational behavior-based question-naire to measure audit seniors' percep-tions.7Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity.The role conflict (eight-item scale) androle ambiguity (six-item scale) measureswere developed by Rizzo et al. [1970] tomeasure role stress in complex organi-zations. Their sample consisted ofmanagers and research and engineeringpersonnel. Schuler et al. [1977] analyzedthe scales' psychometric properties onsix samples from three different indus-tries. They reported a range of .56 to .83

for the scales' internal consistency reli-abilities. Based on this and additionaltests (including an analysis of factorstructure, test-retest reliabilities, andcorrelations with other attitudinal andbehavioral variables),they concluded thatthe scales are valid measures and recom-mended their continued use. Most subse-quent research on role theory, includingSenatra's [1980] study, has used thesemeasures [Jackson and Schuler, 1985].Structure and Organizational Prac-tices. Measures of organizational prac-tices were obtained from House andRizzo's revised Organizational PracticesQuestionnaire [Rizzo et al., 1970; Houseand Rizzo, 1972b]. As originally de-signed, the questionnaire provided mea-sures (or scales) for 19 variables. The sixorganization variables used in the cur-rent study (see Fig. 1) reflect our specificinterest in the structural aspects of ac-counting firms. House and Rizzo [1972b]verified their measures using Campbelland Fiske's [1959] validation techniques.The scales' convergent validity wastested in terms of the convergence be-tween their measures and other con-ceptually related measures: Campbelland Fiske's three tests of discriminantvalidity were used to test whether thescales captureddistinct constructs. Houseand Rizzo concluded that the question-naire satisfied convergent and discrimi-nant validity requirements, as well as thereliability criterion (the scales' averageinternal consistency was .71).Technology. This study uses Daft and

' The questionnaire included a scale, tolerance forambiguity [MacDonald, 1970], which is not discussed inthe section. This scale was included to provide one mea-sure of individual differences and, specifically, to testwhether personality moderated the organizational ef-fects examined in this study. It is excluded from the dis-cussion and the reported analyses because the seniors'tolerance for ambiguity was not significantly differentbetween firms, nor was it a significant covariate in any ofthe analyses undertaken.

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

8/16

Bamber, Snowball, and Tubbs 291Macintosh's [1981] technology scale.The scale is based on Perrow's [19671conceptualization of technology at theindividual task level in terms of routine-nonroutine work. They used 14 organi-zations in the scale development, in-cluding respondents from manufacturingand the education, legal, and account-ing professions. Following Perrow, thescale is composed of two subscales. Thefirst scale, task variety (six items), mea-sures the frequency of unexpected andnovel events. Low variety means there isconsiderable certainty about the occur-rence of future activities. The secondscale, task analyzability (five items), con-cerns the way in which individuals re-spond to problems that arise. An objec-tive computation procedure is availablefor analyzabletasks; for other tasks, timemust be spent thinking about what to do,and active search for solutions may berequired. Withey et al. [1983] evaluatedDaft and Macintosh's scales as well asfive other instrumentsused to assess Per-row's dimensions of technology. Daftand Macintosh's instrument performedbest on the reliability criterion (internalconsistency of .69 for analyzability and.73 for variety) and, based on convergentand discriminant validity criteria, wasidentified as one of the better instru-ments [p. 57].The measures used in this study werenot specifically developed for the audit-ing setting. However, the measures havebeen used in managerial settings wherethe respondents(like auditors)have somedegree of autonomy. Only minor modifi-cations (e.g., replacing the term workgroup with audit team ) were neededto accommodate the study's audit set-ting. Moreover, the several auditorsfrom each participating firm who pre-tested the research instrument indicatedno difficulty in understanding the ques-tions or using the response scales.8

As described earlier, organizationalbehavior research has tested the validityand reliability of each of the chosenscales. We also examined the scales' in-ternal consistency reliabilities[Cronbach,1951]. Table 1 reports the results. Over-all, the values denote moderate reli-abilities, similar to those typically foundin the organizational literature, whichare acceptable for testing relations. Theone unacceptable result was a reliabilitycoefficient of .36 for task variety.RESULTS

The results are presented in four parts.First, results for differences in perceivedorganizational characteristics of struc-tured versus unstructured firms are pre-sented. This is a test of the left hand sideof the model in Figure 1. The second sec-tion concerns our primary hypothesisand reports on differences in role con-flict and ambiguity between the twotypes of firms. Third, as a test of theright hand side of the model, we exam-ine the relations between role conflictand ambiguity and their potentialsources (i.e., organizational character-istics). This analysis includes all fourfirms (without consideringthe structured-unstructured firm dichotomy) and pro-vides a basis for assessing the study'sconsistency with prior research. Finally,we explore whether these relations differsystematically between structured andunstructured firms.Differences in Organizational Charac-teristicsBetween Structuredand Unstruc-tured Firms. The model presented inFigure 1 hypothesizesthat the known dif-ferences in the structure of firms' audit

IAll items in the questionnaire wereansweredon five-point anchored response scales. The anchors were To aVery Little Extent -' To a Very Great Extent for thetechnology items and Strongly Disagree''- StronglyAgree for all other items.

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

9/16

292 The Accounting Review, April 1989TABLE1

INTERNALCONSISTENCY ELIABILITIESORMEASURES(n= 121)Reliability

Measure Coefficient-Roleconflict .71Roleambiguity .82Formalization f rulesandprocedures .73Work flow coordination .61Adequacyof authority .70Violations n chain of command .59Communication dequacy .73Adaptability .60Taskvariety .36Taskanalyzability .72

aThe (internal onsistency) eliability oefficientrepresentsheaveragentercorrelationf repeated andom ub-samplesof itemsfrom the scale[Kerlinger, 973,pp. 451-455].

methodologies will be associated withperceptual differences in firms' organi-zational characteristics. Table 2 showsthe mean scores and standard devia-tions obtained for these characteristics.The structured firm versus unstructuredfirm mean score vectors are significantlydifferent according to Hotelling's P-test(T2= 15.48, p= .08 assuming homogene-ous variances; T2= 13.54, p =.09 assum-ing nonhomogeneity-not included inTable 2).9Post hoc tests reveal which organiza-tional characteristics contribute most tothe multivariate difference. These one-tailed t-test results (see Table 2) showthat, as hypothesized, seniors from struc-tured firms had different perceptions re-garding both task-technology and orga-nizational practices than those of seniorsfrom unstructuredfirms. Structuredfirmseniors perceived their tasks as moreanalyzable than did seniors in unstruc-tured firms (p < .01). That is, consistentwith the notion of a structured auditmethodology, they viewed their tech-nology as involving greater use of avail-able objective computation procedures,

as opposed to active search for solutionsbeyond normal approaches.Structured firm seniors also perceivedtheir work to be characterized by greaterformalization of rules and procedures (p

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

10/16

Bamber,Snowball,and Tubbs 293TABLE2

DIFFERENCES ETWEENSTRUCTUREDAND UNSTRUCTURED IRMS'AUDIT SENIORS'PERCEPTIONS FORGANIZATIONALRACTICES,TASK-TECHNOLOGY,ND ROLECONFLICTAND AMBIGUITY

Mean Score Mean Score(Standard Deviation) (Standard Deviation)Measures For Structured Firms For Unstructured Firms t-statisticFormalization of rules and procedures 3.84 (.520) 3.67 (.533) 1.75**Work flow coordination 3.62 (.611) 3.52 (.615) .86Adequacy of authority 3.79 (.441) 3.59 (.610) 1.98**Violations in chain of command 2.73 (.541) 2.82 (.520) -.91Communication adequacy 3.66 (.484) 3.53 (.508) 1.35*Adaptability 3.45 (.536) 3.29 (.575) 1.56*Task variety 3.18 (.382) 3.25 (.508) -.87Task analyzabilityb 2.53 (.448) 2.81 (.534) -3.06*Role conflict 2.27 (.471) 2.48 (.609) -2.08**Role ambiguity 2.24 (.480) 2.36 (.652) -1.18

n,=67 n,=54Variable had unequal variances when tested by the folded form of the F-statistic [Winer, 1971, pp. 39-401. Inthese cases, the t-statistic was computed under the assumption of unequal variances, and Satterthwaite's [1946]approximation for the degrees of freedom was employed.

b Task analyzability has reverse scoring, so that a high score indicates less analyzability (and less routineness), justas a higher score for task variety indicates more variety (and less routineness). A five-point response scale was used forall measures.Significant at the .10 level (one-sided).* Significant at the .05 level (one-sided).

*** Significant at the .01 level (one-sided).

ability. Rather, they may indicate theseniors perceived they had more ade-quate levels of these characteristics forthe demands placed on them.Differences in Role Stress BetweenStructured and Unstructured Firms.Mean scores for role conflict and roleambiguity also appear in Table 2.10 Ashypothesized, the mean level of role con-flict for unstructured firm seniors is sig-nificantly higher (p

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

11/16

294 The Accounting Review, April 1989TABLE 3

THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ROLE CONFLICT, ROLE AMBIGUITY,AND THEIR POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL SOURCES

(n= 121)

Role Conflict Role AmbiguityMeasures r /3 r

Intercept 5.07*** 3.94***Formalization of rules and procedures -.38 -.06 -.47 -.10Work flow coordination -.51 - .13* -.65 -.33***Adequacy of authority -.50 -.22** -.36 -.05Violations n chainof command .48 .13 .53 .26***Communication adequacy -.60 -.24** -.64 -.29***Adaptability -.53 -.20* ** -.35 .05Task variety -.18 - .05 -.09 .06Taskanalyzability .14 .05 .17 .03Role Conflict R2=.519 (R2k=.484);F= 15.09***RoleAmbiguity R2=.574 (R2=.544); F= 18.87***

* Significant t the .10 level.** Significant t the .05 level.*** Significant at the .01 level.

organizational characteristics accountfor a statistically significant (p < .01)amount of the variance in seniors roleconflict and role ambiguity.In order to examine the relations be-tween the dependent and independentvariables, Table 3 also includes the zero-order correlation coefficients (r) and thepartial regression coefficients (f).1 TheTable 3 results suggest that there is a dif-ferent relation between the independentvariables and role conflict versus roleambiguity. This is consistent with Sena-tra's [1980] finding that role conflict androle ambiguity are distinct constructswhich both requireattention in the auditsetting. Work flow coordination, ade-quacy of authority, communication ade-quacy, and adaptability all contributedsignificantly to role conflict in the direc-tions hypothesized in Figure 1. Workflow coordination, violations in the chainof command, and communication ade-quacy contributed significantly to role

ambiguity in the hypothesized direc-tions. The remaining relations (exceptfor that between adaptability and roleambiguity) were in the hypothesizeddirection, but not statistically signifi-cant.Potential Sources of Role Conflict andAmbiguity in Structured VersusUnstruc-tured Firms. The analysis presented inTable 4 is used to explore the relationsbetween organizational characteristicsand role conflict and ambiguity in struc-tured versus unstructured firms. As dis-cussed earlier, since so little is knownabout the effects of audit structure, nospecific hypotheses were establishedcon-cerning differences in these relations be-tween the two types of firms. Table 4presents results analogous to those re-

The zero-order (simple) correlations indicate thedirection and strength of the unconditional relation be-tween each independent and dependent variable. The re-gression coefficients are used to test incrementalexplana-tory power of each independent variable.

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

12/16

Bamber,Snowball,andTubbs 295TABLE4

MEASURESOF THE RELATIONS ETWEENROLECONFLICT,ROLEAMBIGUITY,ANDTHEIRPOTENTIAL OURCES N STRUCTUREDAND UNSTRUCTURED IRMS

Structured Unstructuredt-statisticorRole Conflict r ( r (3Ho1=02

Intercept 3.41*** 6.98*** 2.42**Formalization of rules and procedures -.33 -.12 -.38 -.02 .52Work flow coordination -.35 -.03 -.67 -.19 -.86Adequacy of authority -.29 -.05 -.61 -.26** -1.23Violations n chain of command .57 .32*** .40 -.15 -2.69***Communication adequacy -.51 -.14 -.68 -.42** -1.24Adaptability -.45 -.12 -.59 -.36*** -1.54Task variety -.27 -.09 -.15 .02 .69Task analyzability .00 .00 .18 .06 .34Structured R2=.433 (R2=.355); n=67; F=5.54***Unstructured R2= .685(R2= .628); n= 54;F= 12.20***

Structured Unstructured t-statistic orRoleAmbiguity r r Hot3 =32Intercept 2.56*** 6.20*** 2.43**Formalization of rules and procedures -.37 - .02 -.54 -.31* -1.47Work flow coordination -.59 -.28*** -.71 -.29 -.01Adequacy of authority -.28 -.11 -.39 -.04 .40Violations n chain of command .58 .36*** .49 .10 -1.48Communication adequacy -.56 -.20* -.71 -.43** -.98Adaptability - .33 .11 -.35 -.07 -1.11Taskvariety -.21 .02 -.03 .11 .54Task analyzability .19 .21** .12 -.17 -2.17**Structured R2=.592 (R2=.535); n=67; F=10.51***Unstructured R2=.619 (R2= .551); n=54; F=9.12***

Significant t the .10 level(two-sided).* Significantat the .05 level (two-sided).** Significantat the .01 level (two-sided).

ported in Table 3, but calculatedsepa-rately for the structuredand unstruc-tured firms. Again, each regressionmodelis statisticallyignificantp

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

13/16

296 The Accounting Review, April 1989These results suggest both similaritiesand differences between the structuredand unstructured firms. Perceived defi-ciencies in communication (i.e., the pro-vision of accurate and timely informa-

tion as needed) is related to role stress inboth types of firms. In addition, struc-tured firm seniors appear sensitive tosuperiors bypassing the chain of com-mand, inadequate work flow coordina-tion, and lower task analyzability. Forseniors from unstructuredfirms, the lackof perceived authority to make necessarydecisions, including handling problemsthat arise, and the inability to adapt on atimely basis to changed circumstancesappear to be particularlyassociated withrole stress.Table 4 also provides the results oftesting the magnitude of the relations be-tween organizational characteristics androle conflict and ambiguity. The statis-tically significant differences betweenstructuredand unstructuredfirms' inter-cepts are consistent with the higher roleconflict and ambiguity indicated by sub-jects in the unstructured firm. The sig-nificantly higher regression coefficientsfor violations in the chain of commandand task analyzability (reverse scoring)for structured firm seniors suggests thatthey are more sensitive (in terms of roleconflict) to violations in the chain ofcommand and more sensitive (in termsof role ambiguity) to lack of task analyz-ability. These findings provide limitedevidence that the magnitudes of the rela-tions between organizational character-istics and role stress also differ acrossstructured and unstructured firms. 13

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, ANDIMPLICATIONS

This study modeled and examined re-lations between role conflict and ambi-guity and perceived organizational char-acteristics in four Big Eight accounting

firm that differed in the structure oftheir audit approach. The perceptions ofthe audit seniors who participated in thestudy generally were consistent withCushing and Loebbecke's institutionallybased distinctions between structuredand unstructured firms. Compared totheir counterparts in unstructured firms,structured firm seniors perceived theirtasks as more analyzable and perceived agreater degree of explicit formalizationof standard practices, policies, and posi-tion responsibilities. No significant dif-ferences were found with respect to theextent to which interrelated work activi-ties are coordinated or the extent whichaudit seniors are kept informed.In concluding that role conflict androle ambiguity are distinct constructs inthe audit setting, the study provides sup-port for prior research by Senatra[1980]. Moreover, relations between per-ceived organizational characteristicsandrole stress generally were in directionsconsistent with prior research and ex-pectations. Work flow coordination,adequacy of authority, communicationadequacy, and adaptability were relatedsignificantly to role conflict; work flowcoordination, violations in the chain ofcommand, and communication adequacywere related significantly to role ambi-guity.

13 Given these differences, we explored whether Sena-tra's [1980] results (based on one firm) matched our re-sults for a particular firm type (i.e., structured or un-structured). The Fisher Z-test [Cohen and Cohen, 1983,pp. 53-55] can be usedto test zero-ordercorrelationcoef-ficients across studies. Five of the organizational charac-teristics are included in both Senatra's and our study.Correlating each of these five characteristics with bothrole conflict and ambiguity enables ten comparisons.Only two of Senatra's correlations are significantly dif-ferent from our structured sample (adequacy of author-ity and violations in chain of command with role am-biguity), while six are significantly different from ourunstructured sample. This suggests that Senatra's sub-jects' perceptions weremore similarto the perceptionsofour structured firm subjects.

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

14/16

Bamber,Snowball,and Tubbs 297As specified in the study's primaryhypothesis, the role stress perceived byour participants from unstructuredfirmsappeared greater than that perceived bystructured firm participants. The differ-

ence was especially marked (statisticallysignificant at p

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

15/16

298 The Accounting Review, April 1989Cohen, J., and P. Cohen, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysisfor the Behavioral Sciences,Second Edition (LawrenceErlbaum, 1983).Cronbach, L. J., Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika (September1951), pp. 297-334.Cummings, L. L.. Organizational Behavior, Annual Review of Psychology (1982), pp. 541-579.Cushing, B. E., and J. K. Loebbecke, Comparison of Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms:Accounting Research Study No. 26 (AAA, 1986).Daft, R. L., and N. B. Macintosh, A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Infor-mation Processing in Organizational Work Units, Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1981), pp.207-224.Dalton, D. R., W. D. Tudor, M. J. Spendolini, G. J. Fielding, and L. W. Porter, Organization Structureand Performance: A Critical Review, Academy of Management Review (January 1980), pp. 49-64.Dirsmith, M. W., and J. P. McAllister, The Organic vs. the MechanisticAudit, Journal ofAccounting,Auditing, and Finance (Spring 1982a), pp. 214-228.

5 and , The Organicvs. the Mechanistic Audit: Problems and Pitfalls (Part II), Journal ofAccounting, Auditing, and Finance (Fall 1982b), pp. 60-74.Fry, L. W., Technology-Structure Research:Three Critical Issues, Academy of Management Journal(September 1982), pp. 532-552.House, R. J., and J. R. Rizzo, Role Conflict and Ambiguityas Critical Variables ina Model of Organiza-tional Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (June 1972a), pp. 467-505.,and , Toward the Measurementof OrganizationalPractices: Scale Development and Vali-dation, Journal of Applied Psychology (October 1972b), pp 388-396.Jackson, S. E., and R. S. Schuler, A Meta-Analysis and Conceptual Critique of Researchon Role Ambi-guity and Role Conflict in Work Settings, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes(August 1985), pp. 16-78.Kerlinger,F. N., Foundations of BehavioralResearch, Second Edition (Holt, Rinehartand Winston, Inc.,1973).Kinney, W. R., Jr., Audit Technology and Preferencesfor Auditing Standards, Journal ofAccountingand Economics (March 1986), pp. 73-89.MacDonald, A. P., Jr., Revised Scale for Ambiguity Tolerance: Reliabilityand Validity, PsychologicalReports (June 1970), pp. 791-798.Montagna, P., Professionalization and Bureaucratizationin LargeProfessional Organizations, Ameri-can Journal of Sociology (September 1968), pp. 138-145.Mullarkey, J., The Case for the Structured Audit, in H. F. Stettler and N. A. Ford, Eds., AuditingSymposium VII(University of Kansas Press, 1984), pp. 73-84.Perrow, C., A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations, American SociologicalReview (April 1967), pp. 194-208.Ranson, S., B. Hinings, and R. Greenwood, The Structuringof OrganizationalStructures, Administra-tive Science Quarterly(March 1980), pp. 1-17.Rizzo, J. R., R. J. House, and S. I. Lirtzman, Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations,Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1970), pp. 150-163.Rogers, D. L., and J. Molnar, OrganizationalAntecedents of Role Conflict andAmbiguity in Top-LevelAdministrators, Administrative Science Quarterly(December 1976), pp. 598-610.Rousseau, D. M., Characteristicsof Departments, Positions, and Individuals:Contexts for Attitudes andBehavior, Administrative Science Quarterly(December 1978), pp. 521-540.Satterthwaite, F. E., An Approximate Distribution of Estimates of VarianceComponents, BiometricsBulletin, 2 (1946), pp. 110-1 14.Schuler, R. S., Role Conflict and Ambiguity as a Function of the Task-Structure-Technology Inter-action, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance (October 1977), pp. 66-74., R. J. Aldag, and A. P. Brief, Role Conflict and Ambiguity: A Scale Analysis, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance (October 1977), pp. 111-128.Schultz, J. J., The Independent Auditor and Role Conflict Resolution, Ph.D. dissertation (The Uni-versity of Texas, 1974).Senatra, P. T., Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Organizational Climate in a Public AccountingFirm, THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW (October 1980), pp. 594-603.

8/14/2019 Bamber Et Al. 1989

16/16

Bamber,Snowball,andTubbs 299Sorensen, J. E., and T. L. Sorensen, The Conflict of Professionals in BureaucraticOrganizations,Administrative Science Quarterly(March 1974), pp. 98-106.Sullivan, J. D., The Case for the UnstructuredAudit Approach, in H. F. Stettler and N. A. Ford, Eds.,Auditing Symposium VII(University of Kansas Press, 1984), pp. 61-68.Winer, B. J., Statistical Principles in ExperimentalDesign, Second Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1971).Withey, M., R. L. Daft, and W. H. Cooper, Measures of Perrow's WorkUnit Technology: An EmpiricalAssessment and a New Scale, Academy of Management Journal (March 1983), pp. 45-63.Wolfe, D. M., and J. D. Snoek, A Study of Tensions and Adjustment Under Role Conflict, Journal ofSocial Issues (July 1962), pp. 102-121.