Prof. dr. Olof Bik, RA

Professor

Olof Bik is Professor of Auditing & Assurance at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen. His research focuses on organizational culture, leadership, and governance within the auditing profession, exploring how these factors influence audit quality and professional behavior. He has extensive experience in practice-oriented research and collaborates closely with audit firms to strengthen evidence-based approaches to culture and leadership measurement.Before joining Groningen in 2022, Olof was Professor of Behavioral Research in Auditing at Nyenrode Business University, where he also directed the Accountancy programs and served as Managing Director of the Foundation for Auditing Research (FAR). He worked for 18 years in PwC’s assurance practice, combining professional work with academic research. Olof is a member of the Dutch Accountancy Education Standards Board and has published widely on audit firm culture, professional skepticism, and behavioral drivers in auditing.

This article sets out to demystify the three most important myths of behavioral and cultural governance by asking the (sometimes obvious) questions that you might expect a well-informed executive to readily be able to answer: What is culture – and what is it not? What does it do – and not do – and why? Can it be managed at all? Rather than blindly following the obviously well intended, but fairly ineffective, instrumental approach of contemporary governance frameworks in managing a “quality oriented culture”, this article calls for and provides concrete recommendations for a more realistic and sustainable organization ecological approach to governance of culture and behavior.
Beteren accountants nu wel of niet hun leven? De buitenwereld moet er naar raden, want bestuurders van accountantskantoren beperken zich doorgaans tot het cliché: cultuurverandering kost tijd. Zolang die onduidelijkheid aanhoudt hoeft er maar één affaire op te duiken en de discussie over de ethiek van accountants barst weer los.  
Root cause analysis (RCA) is increasingly used in auditing as part of quality assurance systems to improve audit quality. This practice note outlines ten key considerations for applying RCA effectively in audit firms.
RCA is not about assigning blame but fostering organizational learning and continuous improvement. It emphasizes understanding human behavior, recognizing that errors and successes often share similar causes, and acknowledging the complexity of organizational contexts where multiple factors contribute to outcomes.
Effective RCA requires rigorous, evidence-based approaches, practical and measurable recommendations, and collaborative processes involving skilled professionals. Challenges include interviewing staff in high-accountability environments, managing interpersonal dynamics, and ensuring recommendations go beyond superficial fixes like training.
The note also highlights the value of analyzing near misses and positive quality events, and advocates for thematic and firm-level analyses for deeper insights. Ultimately, RCA can help audit firms align practices with societal expectations of audit quality when implemented thoughtfully and systematically.
Abridged version given in acceptance of the Professorship of Behavioral Research in Auditing at Nyenrode Business Universiteit This inaugural address explores three key “crossings” shaping the future of auditing:
  1. From auditing to culture and behavior: Audit quality is not only about technical compliance but also about auditors’ professional judgment, decision-making, and the cultural context within audit firms. A quality-oriented culture and behavioral governance are essential to restoring trust and improving audit outcomes.
  2. From practice to science: The profession needs stronger collaboration between academia and practice. The Foundation for Auditing Research (FAR) exemplifies this by enabling empirical research through unique access to audit firm data, aiming to evidence-inform public policy and professional development.
  3. Behavioral research in auditing: This field studies how auditors’ behavior, shaped by personal, task, and environmental factors, affects audit quality. Research focuses on cultural antecedents, leadership, team dynamics, and root cause analysis, using multi-method approaches to develop practical interventions that fit audit firm identity and mitigate judgmental risks.
The address concludes with a call for multidisciplinary research, tested improvement measures, and better knowledge transfer to policymakers and practitioners. It emphasizes that behavioral insights are crucial for safeguarding audit quality in a profession where human judgment remains central.
This study examines how Dutch audit firms changed their policies for audit partner performance measurement, career development, and compensation during a period of heightened public scrutiny (2007–2017), and whether those changes translated into day‑to‑day practices. Using proprietary policy documents and partner‑level performance and compensation data from the eight largest audit firms in the Netherlands, the authors find that audit quality became more consequential for promotions, demotions, and job retention, while profit sharing shifted toward longer‑term performance and was complemented by penalties (and claw‑backs) for low quality. Overall, firms appear responsive to public scrutiny, aligning partner incentives more closely with societal expectations of audit quality.
De Foundation for Auditing Research (FAR) reageert op de Green Paper van de NBA over de definitie van auditkwaliteit. FAR benadrukt dat er geen volledig nieuwe definitie nodig is, maar dat moet worden aangesloten bij bestaande wetenschappelijke inzichten. Auditkwaliteit draait volgens FAR primair om het vergroten van de zekerheid dat financiële verslaggeving de economische realiteit getrouw weergeeft. Dit sluit aan bij definities uit de literatuur, waarbij auditkwaliteit wordt gezien als een continu begrip dat onderdeel vormt van de bredere financiële rapportagekwaliteit. FAR wijst op de sterke verwevenheid tussen auditkwaliteit en de kwaliteit van de financiële verslaggeving van de gecontroleerde entiteit. Goede verslaggeving vooraf kan het effect van de audit onzichtbaar maken, terwijl preventieve werking eveneens kwaliteit vertegenwoordigt. De rol en verwachtingen van stakeholders beïnvloeden dit proces, maar vormen niet de definitie van kwaliteit zelf; zij zijn “drivers” van auditkwaliteit. Deze drivers omvatten o.a. regelgeving, kantoororganisatie, auditorvaardigheden, cliëntkenmerken en het auditproces. Ze zijn belangrijk om te meten en te managen, maar definiëren auditkwaliteit niet. FAR pleit ervoor auditkwaliteit te definiëren vanuit de maatschappelijke functie: het bieden van assurance aan gebruikers van financiële informatie. De drivers vullen deze definitie vervolgens in en bepalen hoe kwaliteit tot stand komt.

KEY TAKE-AWAYS

Audit firm culture is viewed by regulators and inspectors as the means to enhance audit quality. This study uses the Competing Values Framework (CVF) to explore the culture of
large audit firms, and their attempts to change their cultures. We find that these firms predominantly emphasize a culture characterized by collaboration and control, which is consistent with an inward focus. We also find that audit firms struggle to implement a consistent understanding of culture across their offices and function levels, and there is a gap in how partners perceive culture compared to that of non-partner staff. This “culture gap” has negative consequences on auditors, as larger culture gaps are associated with lower psychological safety and poorer person organization fit. Embedding mechanisms can lower the culture gap, but having adequate resources is far more important of an embedding mechanism than “tone at the top.” The findings underscore the importance of actively communicating and reinforcing stated cultural values, and provide audit firms with a practical tool to diagnose problems in achieving culture change.

AFM’s culture initiative aims to improve audit quality by changing internal cultures of audit firms. This initiative is based on the belief that internal culture influences audit quality and can be measured and changed. But there are important challenges, including the ability to measure culture, the link to audit quality, and the assessment of the costs and benefits of cultural changes. It also is unclear whether clients are willing to pay for increased audit costs resulting from cultural changes. To gain insights about audit firm culture, Francis’ research team interviewed senior leaders of the Big Four audit firms in the Netherlands to provide perspectives on their culture initiatives. These initiatives primarily focus on changing partner behaviors, emphasizing (audit) quality, and using feedback mechanisms. “A common concern among all four firms is that the focus on a zero-error culture comes at the expense of innovation and a neglect of the business side of the audit firms’ practices. A singular focus on a zero-error culture is probably not sustainable, given the commercial and business needs of the firms to be profitable.” The paper also outlines challenges specific to instilling culture in audit firms, such as their decentralized nature and reliance on small partner-led engagement teams. Francis proposes to use a survey based on the widely applied Competing Values Framework to measure perception of audit firm culture and assess the success of culture change initiatives.  
The study examines how audit firms changed their policies regarding audit partner performance measurement, career development, and compensation during a period of heightened public scrutiny of audit quality (2007–2017).
Implementing such policy changes requires a delicate transition in organizational design and internal processes and may not always translate effectively into day-to-day practices. Using proprietary performance management policies and individual partner performance and compensation data from the eight largest Dutch audit firms provides an in-depth understanding of the evolution of performance management for audit partners.
Findings indicate that most policy changes have real consequences. For example, audit quality becomes more influential in career development, while profit sharing is increasingly linked to quality and long-term performance.
Overall, audit firms appear responsive to public scrutiny, aligning partner incentives more closely with societal expectations of audit quality.
the means to enhance audit quality. This study uses the Competing Values Framework (CVF) to explore the culture of large audit firms, and their attempts to change their cultures. We find that these firms predominantly emphasize a culture characterized by collaboration and control, which is consistent with an inward focus. We also find that audit firms struggle to implement a consistent understanding of culture across their offices and function levels, and there is a gap in how partners perceive culture compared to that of non-partner staff. This “culture gap” has negative consequences on auditors, as larger culture gaps are associated with lower psychological safety and poorer person-organization fit. Embedding mechanisms can lower the culture gap, but having adequate resources is far more important of an embedding mechanism than “tone at the top.” The findings underscore the importance of actively communicating and reinforcing stated cultural values, and provide audit firms with a practical tool to diagnose problems in achieving culture change.
This paper synthesizes research on audit firm culture (AFC) over the past decade, reviewing recent developments in research on factors instilling culture in audit firms, and how culture influences audit quality and auditors’ work attitudes. We develop and apply a three-phase model based on prior research and  professional  guidance  (IAASB,  2014),  which  maps  cultural  embedding  mechanisms  (EMs,  visible manifestations and organizational conditions to establish culture), perceptions of existing culture, and consequences of culture. Our synthesis shows that the culture of an audit firm is most oriented toward quality if leadership emphasizes professionalism over commercialism, promotes ethical judgments, and facilitates learning  through  systems,  integration  of  specialists,  and  interpersonal  interactions  among  auditors. The research cited shows strong influence on AFC of tone at the top set by leadership, as well as incentives in performance/reward systems. Studies we review generally imply continued concern for the influence of commercialism on AFC, but future research should investigate whether recent forces (i.e. pressure from regulators and efforts by the firms) have caused a cultural shift toward professionalism. We close by suggesting opportunities for future research that can strengthen understanding how AFC can be better managed by firms.
← PreviousPage 1 of 3Next →

Filter projects: 

Project Lead
Theme Filter
University Filter
1 - 10 of 52 projects