Political Party Interaction Strategies in Auditing Election Campaign Funding Reports in Indonesia
Abstract
This research aims to explore the interaction strategies used by political parties as auditees when accepting auditors from public accounting firms in the process of auditing political party campaign funds. In the context of political party audits, the interaction model of the political parties being audited has never been studied before. This research employs a qualitative method with an interpretive paradigm. This study identifies three dimensions of political parties that influence their interaction strategies when facing auditors of Campaign Fund Reports, namely: 1. attention of the political party’s central leadership board, 2. constituents of political parties at the district/city level, and 3. achievement status from the head of a political party at the district/city level. The research findings conclude five interaction strategies undertaken by the auditee teams of political parties in facing electoral campaign fund auditors: Accommodating, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, and Encountering. These five interaction strategies are influenced by three dimensions of political parties, as follows: 1. Political parties with high attention, high constituency, and low achievement employ the Collaborating strategy. 2. Political parties with high attention, high constituency, and high achievement employ the Compromising strategy. 3. Political parties with low attention, high constituency, and High Achievement Status employ the Collaborating strategy. 4. Political parties with low attention, high constituency, and low achievement employ the Encountering strategy. 5. Political parties with high attention, low constituency, and Low Achievement Status employ the Accommodating strategy. 6. Political parties with high attention, low constituency, and high achievement status employ the Collaborating strategy. 7. Political parties with low attention, low constituency, and high achievement status employ the Accommodating strategy. 8. Political parties with low attention, low constituent, and low achievement status employ the Avoidance strategy.
Keywords: political party audits, interaction strategies, campaign fund accountability
Full Text:
PDFReferences
BEATTIE V., FEARNLEY S., & BRANDT R. Behind the Audit Report: A Descriptive Study of Discussions and Negotiations Between Auditors and Directors. International Journal of Auditing, 2000, 4(2): 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1099-1123.00312
GIBBINS M., & SALTERIO S. Modeling the Auditor’s Intended Strategy in Auditor-Client Negotiation. 2001.
ANTLE R., & NALEBUFF B. Conservatism and Auditor-Client Negotiation. Journal of Accounting Research, 1991, 29: 31–54.
KLEINMAN G., & PALMON D. A Negotiation-Oriented Model of Auditor-Client Relationships. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, 9: 17–45.
BEATTIE, V. A., FEARNLEY, S., & BRANDT, R. A grounded theory model of auditor-client negotiations. International Journal of Auditing, 2004, 8(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2004.00225.x
MCCRACKEN S., SALTERIO S. E., & SCHMIDT R. N. Do Managers Intend to Use the Same Negotiation Strategies as Partners ? Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2011, 23(1): 131-160. http://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2011.23.1.131
SAHNOUN M. H., & ALI-ZARAI M. Effect Of Auditor Quality On Auditor Auditee Negotiation Outcomes. Corporate Ownership & Control, 2008, 5(4): 373–383.
AWADALLAH E. Explicating the Interactions between the Auditor and Client Management during the Audit Process : Implications for Corporate Governance. International Review of Business Research Paper, 2007, 3(4): 23–30.
BAME-ALDRED C. W., & KIDA T. A comparison of auditor and client initial negotiation positions and tactics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2007, 32(6): 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.07.001
SANCHEZ M. H., AGOGLIA C. P., & HATFIELD R. C. The Effect of Auditors ‘ Use of a Reciprocity-Based Strategy on Auditor-Client Negotiations. The Accounting Review, 2007, 82(1): 241–263.
HATFIELD R. C., AGOGLIA C. P., & SANCHEZ M. H. Client characteristics and the negotiation tactics of auditors: Implications for financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 2008, 46(5): 1183–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00302.x
BROWN H. L., & WRIGHT A. M. Negotiation research in auditing. Accounting Horizons, 2008, 22(1): 91-109, https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2008.22.1.91
WANG K. J., & TUTTLE B. M. The impact of auditor rotation on auditor – client negotiation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2009, 34(2): 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.06.003
AWADALLAH E. Auditor-client negotiations : applying the dual concerns model in an emerging economy. International Journal Managerial and Financial Accounting, 2018, 10(3): 250–272.
KLEINMAN G., PALMON D., & YOON K. The Relationship of Cognitive Effort, Information Acquisition Preferences and Risk to Simulated Auditor–Client Negotiation Outcomes. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9371-5
SVANBERG J., ÖHMAN P., & NEIDERMEYER P. E. Client-identified auditor’s initial negotiation tactics: a social-identity perspective. Managerial Auditing Journal, 2018, 33(6/7): 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-10-2016-1467
KULSET E., & STUART I. Auditor-client negotiations over disputed accounting issues: Evidence from one of the Norwegian Big 4 firms. International Journal of Auditing, 2018, 22(3): 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12129
DODGSON M. K., AGOGLIA C. P., & BENNETT G. B. The Influence of “Relationship” Partners on Client Managers’ Negotiation Positions. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2983280
AGHAZADEH S., COLLINS A., & STEFANIAK C. The Effects of Reporting Options and Client Accounting Competence on Auditor-Client Negotiations. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3184358
SAHNOUN M. H., & ZARAI M. A. Auditor-auditee negotiation : effects of auditor independence and expertise in Tunisian context. International Journal Critical Accounting, 2011, 3(1): 91–106.
FU H., TAN H. T., & ZHANG J. Effect of auditor negotiation experience and client negotiating style on auditors’ judgments in an auditor-client negotiation context. Auditing, 2011, 30(3): 225–237. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-10114
HATFIELD R. C., & MULLIS C. Negotiations between auditors and their clients regarding adjustments to the financial statements. Business Horizons, 2014, 1195: 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.11.008
BLAKENEY R. N., HOLLAND W. E., & MATTESON M. T. The Auditor-Auditee Relationship: Some Behavioral Considerations and Implications for Auditing Education. Accounting Review, 1976, 51(4): 899–906.
HANSEN S. C., & WATTS J. S. Two models of the auditor - client interaction: Tests with United Kingdom data. Contemporary Accounting Research, 1997, 14(2): 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00525.x
ZIMBELMAN M. F., & WALLER W. S. An Experimental Investigation of Auditor-Auditee Interaction Under Ambiguity. Journal of Accounting Research, 1999. 37(1999): 135. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491350
BLOOMFIED R. Discussion of an Experimentai Investigation of Auditor Auditee Interaction under Ambiguity. Journal of Accounting Research, 1999, 37: 157–166.
RICHARD C. Why an auditor can’t be competent and independent : A french case study. European Accounting Review, 2006, 15(2): 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180500104832
HELLMAN N. Auditor – Client Interaction and Client Usefulness – A Swedish Case Study. International Journal of Auditing, 2006, 124: 99–124.
KITINDI E. G., & GUNDA M. Custom er Service In An Auditor-Auditee Relationship. The International Journal o f Accounting and Business Society, 2004, 12(1): 1–19.
GOODWIN J. Auditors’ conflict management styles: An exploratory study. Abacus, 2002, 38(3): 378–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6281.00114
BENNETT G. B., & HATFIELD R. C. The effect of the social mismatch between staff auditors and client management on the collection of audit evidence. Accounting Review, 2013, 88(1): 31–50. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50286
BENNETT G. B., & HATFIELD R. C. Staff auditors’ proclivity for computer-mediated communication with clients and its effect on skeptical behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2018. 68–69: 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.003
SAIEWITZ A., & KIDA T. The effects of an auditor’s communication mode and professional tone on client responses to audit inquiries. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2017, 65: 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.10.002
SAIEWITZ A. E-Mail versus In-Person Audit Inquiry: Recent Research and Additional Survey Data. Current Issues in Auditing, 2018, 12(2): A36-A44. https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-52267
KACHELMEIER S. J. Testing auditor-client interactions without letting auditors and clients fully interact: Comments on Bennett and Hatfield (2018). Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2018, 68–69: 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.007
RENNIE M. D., KOPP L. S., & LEMON W. M. Auditor-Client Disagreements and Independence: An Exploratory Field Study. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 2014, 18: 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
ETTREDGE M., FUERHERM E. E., GUO F., & LI C. Client pressure and auditor independence: Evidence from the “Great Recession” of 2007–2009. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2017, 36(4): 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2017.05.004
FANDEL G., & TROCKEL J. A game theoretical analysis of an extended manager-auditor-conflict. Zeitschrift Für Betriebswirtschaft, 2011, 81(S4): 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-011-0469-4
BEATTIE V., FEARNLEY S., & HINES T. A Real-life Case Study of Audit Interactions-Resolving Messy, Complex Problems. Accounting Education, 2012, 21(2): 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.603468
BEATTIE V., FEARNLEY S., & HINES T. Auditor-client interactions in the changed UK regulatory environment - A revised grounded theory model. International Journal of Auditing, 2015, 19(1): 15-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12031
CHURCH B. K., PEYTCHEVA M., YU W., & SINGTOKUL O. A. Perspective taking in auditor-manager interactions: An experimental investigation of auditor behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2015, 45: 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.07.001
MANDE V., & SON M. Do audit delays affect client retention? Managerial Auditing Journal, 2011, 26(1): 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901111090826
SU X., & WU X. Public Disclosure of Audit Fees and Bargaining Power between the Client and Auditor: Evidence from China. International Journal of Accounting, 2017, 52(1): 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2017.01.001
LEVITT, A. The Numbers Game. The CPA Journal, 1998, 68(12): 14–19. http://journal.unair.ac.id/download-fullpapers-ln522cc87c61full.pdf
ANTLE R., & NALEBUFF B. Conservatism and Auditor-Client Negotiation. Journal of Accounting Research, 1991, 29: 31–54.
GOLDMAN A., & BARLEV B. The Auditor-Firm Conflict of Interests: Its Implications for Independence. The Accounting Review, 1974, 49(4): 707–718.
MURNIGHAN J. K., & BAZERMAN M. H. A Perspective on negotiation Research in Accounting and auditing. The Accounting Review, 1990, 65(3): 742–657.
HUMPHREY C., BOWERMAN M., OWEN D., & STRIDE C. The Contemporary Nature and Significance of The External Audit Function: An Empirical Survey of The Views of ICAEW Member. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wakes. 2002
WATTS R. L., & ZIMMERMAN J. L. Agency Problems, Auditing, and the Theory of the Firm: Some Evidence. The Journal of Law and Economics, 1983, 26(3): 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1086/467051
PRUIT D., & CARNEVALE P. (). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 1993
THOMPSON, L. Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues. Psychological Bulletin, 1990, 108(3: 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.515
ROJOT J. Negotiation: From theory to Practice. In Persepsi Masyarakat Terhadap Perawatan Ortodontik Yang Dilakukan Oleh Pihak Non Profesional (1991, 53(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11445-0
THOMAS K. W., & KILLMANN R. H. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Group Sand Organization Studies, 1976, 1(June), 249–251.
BLAKE R. R., & MOUTON J. S. The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1964
GODDARD A., & MALAGILA J. Public Sector External Auditing in Tanzania: A Theory of Managing Colonising Tendencies. The Public Sector Accounting, Accountability and Auditing in Emerging Economie, 2015, 15: 179–222.
AKBAR R., PILCHER R., & PERRIN B. Performance measurement in Indonesia: the case of local government. Pacific Accounting Review, 2012, 24(3): 262-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140581211283878
NOVECK S. M. Campaign finance disclosure and the legislative process. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 2010, 47(1): 75–114.
DAHM M., & PORTEIRO N. Side Effects of Campaign Finance Reform. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2008, 6(5): 1057–1077.
PRIMO D. M. Information at the Margin: Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws, Ballot Issues, and Voter Knowledge. Election Law Journal, 2013, 12(2): 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2012.0161
KHOLMI M., TRIYUWONO I., PURNOMOSIDHI B., & SUKOHARSONO E. G. Phenomenology Study: Accountability of a Political Party in the Context of Local Election. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, 211: 731–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.094
SETIONO B., & HAPSORO D. Financial report and public accountability culture in Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi & Auditing Indonesia, 2016, 20(1): 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.20885/jaai.vol20.iss1.art6
ANTONY I. S. Analisa perilaku reduksi kualitas audit KAP X dalam melaksanakan audit berdasarkan prosedur yang disepakati. Repository of Airlangga University, 2014. http://repository.unair.ac.id/id/eprint/5460.
BLUMER H. Symbolic Interactionism. University of California Press, 1969
KIPNIS D., SCHMIDT S. M., & WILKINSON I. Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65(4): 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440
KIPNIS D., & SCHMIDT S. M. Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies. University Associates, 1982
DOBLE S.E., & MAGILL-EVANS J. A Model of Social Interaction to Guide Occupational Therapy Practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1992, 59(3): 141-150. doi:10.1177/000841749205900304
ENGLUND B., BERNSPÂNG B., & FISHER A. G. Development of an instrument for assessment of social interaction skills in occupational therapy. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1995, 2(1): 17–23. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038129509106794
MARCH J. G., & SIMON H. A. Organizations (Issue 1). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1958.
OCASIO W. Attention to Attention. Organization Science, 2011, 22(5): 1286–1296. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0602
PRANAWA S. Konstituen: Pilar Utama Partai Politik (modul pendidikan politik : manajemen konstituen). Jakarta: Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, 2011
CROSSMAN A. Sociology: Achieved Status Versus Ascribed Status. ThoughtCo. 2019. thoughtco.com/achieved-status-vs-ascribed-status-3966719.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
