Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Auditors Gone Wild The 'Other' Problem in Public Accounting 2008 Business Horizons
Auditors Gone Wild The 'Other' Problem in Public Accounting 2008 Business Horizons
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
School of Business, Providence College, 549 River Avenue, Providence, RI 02918-0001, USA
College of Business, University of Rhode Island, Ballentine Hall, 7 Lippitt Road, Kingston, RI 02881, USA
KEYWORDS
Deviant workplace
behavior;
Workplace deviance;
Sarbanes-Oxley;
Auditor behavior
Abstract
Following the scandals involving Enron, WorldCom, and Qwest Communications, the
accounting profession has spent the past several years trying to get back on track.
While Sarbanes-Oxley may improve the decision-making of audit professionals, and
help prevent future large-scale catastrophes that hurt stockholders and bring down
firms, there is another problem in public accounting that few consider and nobody has
proposed to solve: deviant workplace behavior. Previous research describes deviant
workplace behavior as the voluntary behavior of organizational members that
violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well being of
the organization and/or its members. Building from recent work in various business
literatures, this is the first research since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley to examine
workplace deviance at Big 4 accounting firms. Taking a cross-disciplinary, collaborative approach, the authors endeavor to explain why workplace deviance has
infiltrated accounting firms and how it is undermining their effectiveness and
derailing their long-term prospects for success. After describing its genesis and
effects, the authors prescribe several managerial strategies for preventing deviance
and minimizing its effects on a firm.
2008 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
0007-6813/$ - see front matter 2008 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2008.01.011
224
business researchers in the areas of management and
organizational science (Bennett & Robinson, 2000;
Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Dunlop
& Lee, 2004), consumer services marketing (Harris &
Ogbonna, 2002), and, most recently, in business-tobusiness selling (Jelinek & Ahearne, 2006a, b) have
examined the causes and effects of deviance. These
researchers have determined that workplace deviance can take three forms: it can be interpersonal,
meaning that it occurs between co-workers, and
includes things like spreading rumors about colleagues or finger-pointing blame; it can be organizational, such as when employees lash out against their
organization or an organizational figurehead like a
manager by doing things such as intentionally working
slowly or attending to personal matters on company
time (Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Robinson & Bennett,
1995); or, it can be front-line, such as when employees vent to customers about problems they are having
with their organization (Jelinek & Ahearne, 2006b).
Though some have previously examined workplace
deviance in public accounting (see, for example,
Schilit, 1984), overall research in this context is relatively limited. This shortage is surprising given the
unique boundary-spanning nature of the public
accountant's job. Unlike jobs with little client interaction, audit professionals spend a great deal of time
on the frontlines, providing direct services for clients
at client locations. As service providers, auditors
are the face of their firm; they are responsible for
building relationships with clients and are inseparable from the services they provide, meaning that
when clients evaluate their satisfaction with their
audit services, they evaluate their satisfaction with
the auditor who provides them. This is an important
distinction: while deviant behavior in other contexts
may not have significant consequences, deviance in
this service context likely does. Auditors who behave
deviantly impair the ability of their firm to provide
services and lessen the likelihood that the client will
be satisfied with the services provided.
In addition to being limited, research on auditor
deviance is also rather dated. This is because what
little research there is about deviant behavior by
auditors pre-dates many of the significant changes to
the accounting profession in recent years. As we will
explain, since 2001 a series of developments have had
an impact on the accounting profession, on the audit
professional and, we argue, on the corresponding
extent of deviant behavior occurring at large firms.
Before continuing it is important to realize that
workplace deviance has been haunting Big 4 firms
for some time. While it may not have been widely
discussed in public, in 1991 The Wall Street Journal
detailed how shouting matches and public displays of
aggression between accountants at big firms two
R. Jelinek, K. Jelinek
examples of interpersonal deviance had gotten so
bad that many large firms had begun consulting with
outside behavioral psychologists (Berton, 1991). More
recently, a 1998 survey asking CPAs to assess the
seriousness of various problems facing the field revealed that 35% of respondents reported that abuse
of expense accounts, a form of organizational deviance, was a moderate to major problem (Yetmar,
Cooper, & Frank, 1998). This survey, taken before the
Enron scandal, ranked this behavior as a greater
problem than conflicts of interest involving business
or financial relationships with clients or competitors
that influence, or appear to influence, one's ability to
carry out his or her responsibilities (Yetmar et al.,
1998). In other words, these CPAs considered deviant
workplace behavior more of a problem than what
many believe caused Enron.
Those who study deviant behavior in the workplace do not find this surprising; stressed-out workers
tend to behave deviantly. Unfortunately, public
accounting has its share of highly stressed workers;
it is among the most stressful professions in America
(Fogarty, Singh, Rhoads, & Moore, 2000). This is
largely because a single Big 4 auditor serves a portfolio of clients, each of whom demand sage, expert
advice and attention, and who want reports filed
faster than the previous year and at a lower cost. In
response, audit firms increasingly lean on their auditors to get more done in less time. For audit professionals, this means increased travel, unwanted
overtime, and an overloaded schedule that demands
they bounce from client to client. It also means that
the busy season swallows up more and more of the
calendar every year, which, in effect, cuts into personal time and increases the burden felt by the
auditors' families, which in turn ratchets up feelings
of guilt and perpetuates even higher levels of stress.
It is no wonder why a 2001 US study conducted by the
makers of the pain reliever Excedrin found that
auditors suffer more headaches than any other
professionals (Satov, 2003). In the UK, the suicide
rate among male accountants is 10% higher than that
of the rest of the population (Nixon, 2004).
While suicide may be an extreme outcome,
increased tension, burnout, and dysfunctional behavior
are not. In fact, the American Psychological Association
(APA) and the Families and Work Institute are beginning
to take the effects of work stress very seriously: they
report that 34% of overworked employees feel resentment toward coworkers, and 39% feel anger toward
their employer (Overworked, 2006), and the APA
suggests work stress is fast becoming a major workplace problem (Nadel, 2006). While accountants at
large firms have been facing stress for years, the
troubling news is that three recent developments in the
profession, which we call aggravators, are making
Figure 1
Table 1
225
226
unethical practices, it may be indirectly encouraging
greater deviance among accounting firm members.
The second aggravator stems from a growing
imbalance between the ever-surging demand for
accounting professionals versus the lagging supply of
available talent. With more opportunity and more
bargaining power than ever before, accounting professionals are going to the highest bidder; often
leaving their firms for competitors and, in the process,
leaving their former co-workers and colleagues with
piles of additional work. The third aggravator emanates from the public disgust remaining from the
accounting scandals of the past five years. There is
still a dark cloud hanging over the profession, and
until it lifts completely, there seems to be a tendency
for some of those in the profession to point to that
dark cloud as a justification for deviant behavior.
Before discussing how deviance is impairing the
accounting firm's efficiency and effectiveness, and
explaining what firms might do to better prevent it,
we detail these aforementioned aggravator effects
more thoroughly. Figure 1 illustrates these effects
and Table 1 is a classification of deviant behaviors
in a public auditing context.
R. Jelinek, K. Jelinek
According to SOX, the PCAOB must do yearly
inspections of any firm that audits more than 100
public companies. This means the Big 4 and other
large firms now face annual inspections. The PCAOB
has been performing such inspections since 2003, and
has voiced strong concern for how firms have been
documenting their audit findings, which prompted
this governing body to issue PCAOB Auditing Standard
No. 3. The net effect of this is two-fold: (1) staff
auditors, who are responsible for the bulk of the audit
documentation, are feeling tremendous increased
pressure to dot all of their i's and cross all of their
t's, and (2) due to fear of having their firm's license
revoked or, worse, having their firm turn into the
next Andersen, managers and partners are micromanaging the work of audit staff like never before.
The effect, while certainly unintended, has been
to increase the stress level of an already stressed
audit team.
In addition to inspections by the PCAOB, SOX (by
way of Section 404) requires auditors to conduct
much broader tests of internal control than typically
done previously. Internal controls are the mechanisms
put in place by clients to decrease misstatements
in their financial statement records. Such misstatements result from either simple human error or
outright fraud, or both. As an example of a type of
internal control commonly referred to as segregation
of duties, the employee responsible for physically
collecting cash from customers is not also responsible
for authorizing credits to customer accounts for
returned merchandise. Such segregation of duties
ensures the employee cannot pocket the cash
collected from the customer and cover it up by recording a sales return. Prior to SOX, auditors were only
required to test internal controls as they related to the
financial statements. If, during the audit, auditors
assessed control risk to be low, the auditors could
then rely on the client's internal controls and effectively do less work regarding financial statement
account balances and transactions. In contrast, SOX
mandates that auditors who provide an opinion on the
financial statements also provide assurance related
to internal controls. Specifically, Section 404 requires
that a client company's management assess and attest to the effectiveness of the internal control system. The auditor must then audit management's
assertions that internal controls are adequate to
prevent misstatement, and issue a separate opinion
on internal controls. As such, the auditor's test of
controls requires a great deal more work, and must
be extensive enough to give the auditor a high level
of assurance about the effectiveness of a client's
controls.
CPA firms are struggling to meet the requirements
of SOX Section 404, and the effect has been to further
227
228
from majoring in accounting and further constrains the
supply of qualified talent (Bierstaker, Howe, & Seol,
2004).
With supply low and demand surging, large firms
are swept up in the eye of a perfect storm. In an effort
to ride it out, Big 4 firms have declared a war for
talent (Lorinc, 2006); PricewaterhouseCoopers
aimed to hire 3100 new grads in 2005, a 19% jump
from 2004, while Ernst & Young set out to top that by
adding 4000 new employees, up 30% from 2004. Firms
like Deloitte & Touche have taken their search for new
talent to another level; eyeing Labor Department
projections that accounting firms will need to add
49,000 new jobs a year through 2014, they have begun
traveling to New York high schools to attract students
to the accounting major before they have even
stepped foot in a college classroom (Byrnes, 2006).
It does not stop there; these firms are also doing all
they can to attract experienced staff. In some
markets, the going rate for audit professionals with
just a few years' experience is in the $7075,000/year
range, and year-over-year wage hikes are as much
as $10,000 (Lorinc, 2006). A director of recruiting
at Ernst & Young reports that firms are providing
$2000$7000 referral bonuses to employees who help
bring in new talent (Lorinc, 2006).
Some firms are beginning to acknowledge that
market conditions may be spiraling out of control.
As one Big 4 manager put it, things have changed
so much in recent years, and the situation has
become almost unmanageable. He explains that
when a member of his audit team leaves the firm
for a competitor willing to pay more, the result is
that those who remain are left with more work to
do, and this increases stress and breeds deviance.
The manager adds that when staffers feel like work
has been dumped on them, they get stressed and
increasingly vocal. He has heard more than a couple
protest that this is not what I signed up for! When
auditors are stressed, it can spill over into their
interactions with others on the team; staffers get
worked up and curse at co-workers, which is another
act of interpersonal deviance. In the manager's
words, stressed staffers can easily get caught up in
the moment and become too aggressive in their
tone and language with others.
This manager reminded us that stressed auditors
can also take it out on the firm itself, I've seen staff
overcharge meals, mileage and other non-work
stuff. Again, sometimes it does not stop there;
deviant behavior can spill over into frontline interactions as well. Stressed auditors vent to clients about
staffing shortages and a lack of manpower to get the
work done. Whether the behavior is interpersonal,
organizational or frontline, it is a toxic combination of
factors that causes the deviance. The staffers and
R. Jelinek, K. Jelinek
senior auditors feel overworked but at the same time
know that their firms are at their mercy because they
are in both limited supply and great demand. When
stress pushes them to their limits, as the manager
suggested it sometimes could, the auditors feel
empowered to lash out and act in a deviant manner.
229
230
But if they share job-related frustrations with the
client or complain to the client about work-related
matters, which are two examples of front-line
deviance (Jelinek & Ahearne, 2006b), they will likely
weaken the firm's effectiveness. One manager
explained it this way: Our staffers and seniors are
the public face of the firm. When they are disgruntled
and they complain to the client, it is bad for the
relationship. I've seen clients want to fire our firm for
stuff like that.
This manager reminded us that clients are always
evaluating their auditors, and judgments are being
formed based on how auditors behave and present
themselves. One day a (staff) senior showed up at
a client of mine with his shirt unbuttoned and untucked. He was just a complete slob just no regard
for how he looked or what the client thought. And
before I could say anything, in walked the CFO. He
didn't say anything, but it was clear he was taken
abackit was inappropriate. A Big 4 client told us
that the audit team on her account took exceptionally long lunches. It happened so much that the
client's personnel asked her, Are those auditors
taking another three hour lunch?
At a minimum, these sorts of frontline deviant
behaviors send a bad message to the client. At
worst, they prompt clients to reassess the value of
the audit service provided. This is a risk audit firms
cannot afford. New SOX regulations now prohibit
firms from cross-selling business consulting services
to their audit clients as they once were allowed,
which makes firms more reliant on audit services
(as compared to supplemental, add-on services) to
bring in revenues. If current audit clients are dissatisfied with their audit services, the audit firm has
a real problem with effectiveness.
R. Jelinek, K. Jelinek
4.1. Sarbanes-Oxley
Since its passage in 2002, SOX has been widely discussed and debated. While informed observers
question the law's practical implications (Dalton
& Dalton, 2007; Hill et al., 2005; Pollock, 2006;
Wolkoff, 2005), legislators have been reluctant to
back off of any of its major provisions. In 2005,
Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) backed HR 1641, a
bill that would make Section 404 voluntary as opposed to mandatory, but lawmakers were reluctant
to seriously consider it (Pollock, 2006). In fact, aside
from some interest in a recommendation by the SEC's
Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies to
immunize smaller publics from the onerous requirements of 404, Capitol Hill has signaled that it is
unlikely to change much about SOX (Dunham, 2006;
Wolkoff, 2005). With that in mind, audit firms may
be smart to take what they can. If firms can lobby
Congress to at least amend the scope of the law so
that small publics can opt out of 404 if they choose,
this may lessen auditors' workloads somewhat, and
allow them to manage assurance work better on
larger public companies that still require a 404 audit.
On this point, we spoke to a financial officer at a
smaller-sized public company and he offered, 404
work for my company is insaneand we aren't big. I
can't imagine what the audit work is like for larger
companies.
4.4. Stress
Large firms need to devise a multi-pronged strategy
for dealing with auditor stress. First, they need to
amend the techniques used to screen and interview
prospective hires. Since many recruits, especially
recent college grads, often have no idea how stressful their new positions will be, this requires doing
two things: (1) employing a greater use of stressinterview techniques to better gauge and assess
the ability of prospective employees to deal with
audit-related stress, and (2) making better use of
the firm's college networks to educate accounting
majors of the stresses inherent in the profession.
The fact that a recent survey reveals that one out
of every four auditors regrets their decision to en-
231
232
rating system would enable staffers and mentors
to collaboratively ensure that no auditors would be
assigned an unbalanced, and overwhelmingly stressful, work schedule (e.g., a high percentage of A
level clients).
While these steps should help, even the best
processes are not going to end auditor stress entirely.
As such, we also recommend that firms consider
instituting procedures for assisting auditors when
they do experience stress. Management should implement and support the use of a confidential,
company-sponsored 24-hour call center through
which stressed auditors could speak to professionals
trained in stress-management. In addition, firms
should consider scheduling evening stress-reduction
workshops that staffers can elect to attend, and also
consider employing trained mental health professionals to visit individual audit teams in the field to
discuss job-related stresses and stress management
techniques. Because physical exercise tends to be a
healthy outlet for stressed workers, firms might also
want to consider providing discounted gym memberships to their staff and/or making on-site yoga classes
part of a basic benefit package. While admittedly less
traditional than other measures, many companies
outside the field of accounting have started offering
such things. Canadian-based companies like Certicom
Corporation offer yoga and massage therapy to employees, and have started lunchtime workshops
focusing on heath and wellness, while OPSEU Pension
Trust responded to suggestions from their employees
to adopt several similar stress-reduction initiatives
(Smith, Rennie, Griffin, Wood, & Therrien, 2004).
Even Wall Street hedge fund gurus have turned to
things like yoga to reduce job stress and improve
workplace decision-making (Chaffin & Silverman,
2000). Human resource experts point out that innovative approaches like these are useful in helping
to manage work stress and its consequences (Ornelas
& Kleiner, 2003).
R. Jelinek, K. Jelinek
well. In fact, the firm now expressly tells new staffers that their futures at the firm hinge on behaving
professionally. Given the current environment and the
seriousness of deviance, these are welcome changes.
In addition to re-tooling training sessions to warn
staffers about the perils of behaving deviantly, firms
should also adapt their control system strategy. The
sales force management literature speaks to the issues
of control management, and suggests that supervisors
have two choices when managing boundary-spanning
employees: they can either take a behavior-based
approach where managers focus on overseeing more
directly and almost micro-managing the behaviors of
these employees, or they can opt for an outcomebased approach where they focus only on the results
or ends achieved, and do not consider the means
boundary-spanning employees use to get there (Oliver
& Anderson, 1994). With respect to deviant behavior,
there is an obvious danger in taking a purely
outcome-based approach. If audit firm managers
and partners look only at outcomes for example,
that the annual audit was completed they may be
missing that the audit client is dissatisfied with the
conduct and behavior of the respective audit team.
One might infer from this that taking a behaviorbased approach is therefore the way to go. This, too,
would be wrong. Not only is a behavior-based
approach very costly and inefficient, it also adds
bureaucracy to the process that we know tends to
lead to higher levels of workplace deviance (Jelinek &
Ahearne, 2006b). As the sales management literature
suggests, often the answer lies somewhere in the
middle of these two extremes. With respect to
curbing deviant behavior among the audit staff,
while we suggest that managers do not move too far
from the center of the continuum, we recommend
they lean a bit more toward a behavior-based
control strategy. For example, if management conducts a more judicious review of expense reports and
suggests a more codified approach for handling
various work situations, they will leave less wiggle
room for auditors to determine for themselves what
they think is acceptable behavior and, in effect,
make the environment less ripe for deviance.
5. Final observations
Misbehavior in the workplace is not a new phenomenon. In recent years, however, it has received
much more scholarly attention. Today it has a name:
workplace deviance. It also has symptoms and causes
as well as consequences and implications. Unfortunately for the accounting profession, recent developments in the field have ramped up a known driver of
deviance workplace stress and audit managers
and partners must now respond. The challenge to the
References
Accountants' public image improves. (2003). Journal of Accountancy,
196(4), 8.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2002). Social
psychology (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure
of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),
349360.
Berton, L. (1991, July 21). The CPA jungle: Accounting profession, once a staid field, is torn by incivility lawsuits and
yelling matches erupt as revenues fall and stresses intensify
battle royal at Pennell Kerr. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
Bierstaker, J. L., Howe, M., & Seol, I. (2004). Accounting majors'
perceptions regarding the 150-hour rule. Issues in Accounting
Education, 19(2), 211227.
Billiot, M. J., Glandon, S., & McFerrin, R. (2004). Factors
affecting the supply of accounting graduates. Issues in
Accounting Education, 19(4), 332367.
Boone, J. P., & Coe, T. L. (2002). The 150-hour requirement and
changes in the supply of accounting undergraduates: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Issues in Accounting Education, 17(3), 253268.
Byrnes, N. (2005). Cleaning up by cleaning up. Business Week,
3915, 121122.
Byrnes, N. (2006). Get 'em while they're young. Business Week,
3985, 8689.
Can money and ethics mix? (2003). Strategic Direction, 19(6),
1821.
Chaffin, J., & Silverman, G. (2000, August 21). Hedge fund guru
back in the game: Profile John Meriwether: The former LTCM
chief has lost none of his chutzpah. Financial Times, p. 9.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R.
(2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of
the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(4), 599609.
Coustan, H., Leinicke, L. M., Rexroad, W. M., & Ostrosky, J. A.
(2004). Sarbanes-Oxley: What it means to the marketplace.
Journal of Accountancy, 197(2), 4347.
Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2007). Sarbanes-Oxley and the
guidelines of the listing exchanges: What have we wrought?
Business Horizons, 50(2), 93100.
Dunham, R. S. (2006). Who's afraid of Charlie Rangel? Business
Week, 4009, 3738.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance:
The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 6780.
Fogarty, T. J., Singh, J., Rhoads, G. K., & Moore, R. (2000).
Antecedents and consequences of burnout in accounting:
Beyond the role stress model. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 12, 3141.
Gross, G. (2006, October 5). How do you spend time on your PC at
work? PC World, Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://
233
www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/127405/how_do_
you_spend_time_on_your_pc_at_work.html
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). Exploring service sabotage:
The antecedents, types, and consequences of front-line,
deviant, antiservice behaviors. Journal of Service Research,
4(2), 162183.
Hayward, G. (2005, November 1). Combustible matter. Financial
Management, p. 46.
Hill, N. T., McEnroe, J. E., & Stevens, K. T. (2005). Auditors'
reaction to Sarbanes-Oxley and the PCAOB. The CPA Journal,
75(11), 3234.
Jacobs, R., Hyman, M. R., & McQuitty, S. (2001). Exchange-specific
self-disclosure, social self-disclosure, and personal selling.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(1), 4863.
Jelinek, R., & Ahearne, M. (2006a). The ABC's of ACB: Unveiling a
clear and present danger in the sales force. Industrial
Marketing Management, 35(4), 457467.
Jelinek, R., & Ahearne, M. (2006b). The enemy within: Examining
salesperson deviance and its determinants. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 26(4), 327344.
Knapp, M. C. (2007). Contemporary auditing: Real issues and
cases (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Lorinc, J. (2006). The war for talent. CA Magazine, 139(6), 2529.
Miles, J. (2006). Local device monitors Internet activity at work.
Retrieved October 30, 2006, from www.wmcstations.com
MSNBC. (1996, May 19). Dishonesty in America: Lying, cheating,
and stealing. Retrieved May 20, 1996, from http://www.msnbc.
com/
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Nadel, B. (2006). The price of pressure: Recognizing the bottomline impact that stress is having on the workplace, companies
are finding ways to fight back. Fortune, 154(12), 144145.
Nixon, A. (2004). Special reports: Accountants on the edge.
Accountancy, 134(1335), 2934.
Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1994). An empirical test of the
consequences of behavior- and outcome-based sales control
systems. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 5367.
Ornelas, S., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). New developments in
managing job related stress. Equal Opportunities International, 22(5), 6471.
Overworked in America: A look at work-life trends and their impact
on the workforce. (2006). Beta Gamma Sigma International
Exchange, 5(4), 1011.
Pollock, A. J. (2006, April 3). Addressing the unintended burdens
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24156,filter.all/
pub_detail.asp
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555572.
Satov, T. (2003). Season is taxing on health. CA Magazine, 136(3),
12.
Schilit, H. M. (1984). Deviant behavior and misconduct of
professionals. The Woman CPA, 46(2), 2025.
Smith, C., Rennie, J., Griffin, P., Wood, L., & Therrien, P. (2004).
Has your organization taken steps to improve the mental
wellness of your workforce? Canadian HR Reporter, 17(20), 15.
Vigilante, B. (2004). Staffing woes: The 404 talent war. Journal
of Accountancy, 198(6), 6263.
Wolkoff, N. L. (2005, August 15). Sarbanes-Oxley is a curse for
small-cap companies. The Wall Street Journal, p. A13.
Yetmar, S. A., Cooper, R. W., & Frank, G. L. (1998). Ethical issues
facing CPA tax practitioners. The CPA Journal, 68(10), 2834.