As a key attribute to audit quality, regulators specify that more experienced staff (i.e. managers, senior auditors) should provide less experienced staff with appropriate coaching and on-the-job training (IAASB 2014). It is fairly common for junior auditors to start their auditing career by mimicking a more senior person who performs similar tasks; as the saying goes, “Monkey see, monkey do” (Cannon, 2016). Yet, while imitation is an inherent human tendency, limited evidence exists on the impact of such imitative behavior on the quality of an individual auditor’s judgment. The objective of our research project is to examine the extent to which mimicking behavior occurs in junior–senior auditor relationships and its consequences for audit quality. In particular, we advance the argument that this imitation tendency may lead junior auditors to follow seniors’ auditing practices, even when those practices are not always ideal. We also examine whether promotion opportunities for the junior can be an important contributor in mimicking an audit style of a senior (which in turn would affect audit quality). The tendency to imitate their senior – even though his working practices might not be ideal – might be higher when the direct senior has a strong voice in the promotion decision of the junior.  

Context: Audit firms rely heavily on their intellectually skilled auditors, who manage and lead the engagement team (so-called ‘lead auditors’ in this project). To deliver high-quality audit services to their clients and to offer opportunity for auditors to learn, audit firms should try to achieve proper matching between their clients and the auditors based on compatibility between them. Appropriate matching can constitute a difficult exercise as both the lead auditors and clients may have an important stake that encourages them to intervene in the allocation process. Such interventions may affect the level of audit quality that the audit firm is able to deliver when clients and auditors are not appropriately matched. Objective and method: The objective of this research is to understand how audit firms determine the lead auditor-client pair in terms of appropriate matching. Given that such allocations take place in a work environment where lead auditors and clients have their own demands and as such can intervene in this process, this research further aims to identify the lead auditors’ motivations for intervening in this process. We will conduct semi-structured interviews with lead auditors and planning department staff of audit firms to address our research questions. Contribution: This research aims to open the ‘black box’ of audit firms’ human resources management strategies by zooming in on the process of lead auditor-client matching. Given the potential impact that proper matching between auditor and client has on audit quality, understanding the allocation process in terms of which auditor is assigned to which client is important to academic research and practice. Our research could give audit firms and audit regulators guidance for regulation and best practices when it comes to workload management.