It's Not my Fault! Insights into Subordinate Auditors' Attributions and Emotions Following Audit Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay M. Andiola ◽  
Jean C. Bedard ◽  
Kimberly D. Westermann
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Attribution Theory ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Sense Of Control ◽  
Positive Role ◽  
Reciprocal Relationships ◽  
Audit Review ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

SUMMARY This study utilizes attribution theory to guide an exploration of how subordinate auditors understand, rationalize, and internalize recollections of their actual experiences (both worst and best) with audit review. Respondents externally rationalize worst review experiences as the fault of an inattentive or incompetent supervisor, a flawed engagement review process, or familiar stressors of the audit environment. Worst reviews evoke frustration, invisibility, and powerlessness that can demotivate subordinates. We also find that respondents relationally attribute their best review experiences to reciprocal relationships and effective communication with their supervisor. Best reviews produce feelings of appreciation and a sense of control for subordinates that inspires comradery and a desire to work hard. Respondents' insights raise a number of concerns regarding the effectiveness of review as a quality control mechanism and for shaping auditors, but highlight that a positive role model and effective supervisor-subordinate interactions can help the subordinate grow as a reflexive professional.

Audit Reviewers’ Evaluation of Subordinates’ Work Quality

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 251-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hun-Tong Tan ◽  
Premila Gowri Shankar
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Performance Ratings ◽  
Work Quality ◽  
Audit Review ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

SUMMARY: Reviewers routinely assess the quality of preparers’ work as part of the quality control mechanism in the audit review process. We investigate whether reviewers’ assessment of preparers’ work quality is jointly influenced by their initial opinions on the audit task, the strength of the justification underlying the preparers’ conclusions, and the importance reviewers ascribe to whether subordinates’ work is aligned with the superiors’ preferences. We find that audit reviewers accord better (poorer) performance ratings to preparers’ justification memos with conclusions that are congruent (incongruent) with their initial opinions, with the opinion congruence effects being greater for memos with stronger justifications. These results are moderated by the extent to which reviewers believe that it is important for subordinates to align their work with the superior’s preferences. Opinion congruence effects for low alignment-importance reviewers are moderated by justification strength, but not for high alignment-importance reviewers.

scholarly journals Open Peer Reviews and Blind Peer Reviews: Merits and Demerits

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 426-427
Author(s):  
Saira Afzal
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Quality Assurance Mechanism ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

The peer review process is essentially the quality control mechanism. Scientific discoveries and advancements have far reaching implications especially in health and medical publications. The quality assurance mechanism in medical journals has to be stringent and flawless. The peer review systems are continuously being criticized, debated and updated. It may be open peer review or blind peer review, both have advantages and disadvantages. Open peer review is performed for scientific quality after publication. It is also known as transparent peer review and public peer review.

scholarly journals Quality-Control Mechanism for Telomerase RNA Folding in the Cell

Cell Reports ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (13) ◽  
pp. 108568
Author(s):  
Xichan Hu ◽  
Jin-Kwang Kim ◽  
Clinton Yu ◽  
Hyun-Ik Jun ◽  
Jinqiang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Rna Folding ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Telomerase Rna ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Overexpression of Buffy enhances the loss of parkin and suppresses the loss of Pink1 phenotypes in Drosophila

Genome ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-247
Author(s):  
P. Githure M’Angale ◽  
Brian E. Staveley
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Quality Control ◽  
Early Onset ◽  
Autosomal Recessive ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Nigrostriatal Neurons ◽  
Climbing Ability ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism ◽  
Locomotor Ability ◽  
Early Onset Parkinson’S Disease

Mutations in parkin (PARK2) and Pink1 (PARK6) are responsible for autosomal recessive forms of early onset Parkinson’s disease (PD). Attributed to the failure of neurons to clear dysfunctional mitochondria, loss of gene expression leads to loss of nigrostriatal neurons. The Pink1/parkin pathway plays a role in the quality control mechanism aimed at eliminating defective mitochondria, and the failure of this mechanism results in a reduced lifespan and impaired locomotor ability, among other phenotypes. Inhibition of parkin or Pink1 through the induction of stable RNAi transgene in the Ddc-Gal4-expressing neurons results in such phenotypes to model PD. To further evaluate the effects of the overexpression of the Bcl-2 homologue Buffy, we analysed lifespan and climbing ability in both parkin-RNAi- and Pink1-RNAi-expressing flies. In addition, the effect of Buffy overexpression upon parkin-induced developmental eye defects was examined through GMR-Gal4-dependent expression. Curiously, Buffy overexpression produced very different effects: the parkin-induced phenotypes were enhanced, whereas the Pink1-enhanced phenotypes were suppressed. Interestingly, the overexpression of Buffy along with the inhibition of parkin in the neuron-rich eye results in the suppression of the developmental eye defects.

Where Parkin Parks

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (273) ◽  
pp. ec96-ec96
Author(s):  
L. Bryan Ray
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Quality Control ◽  
Protein Kinase ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Membrane Depolarization ◽  
Mitofusin 2 ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Damaged mitochondria are removed from cells in a process known as mitophagy. Failure of this quality-control mechanism contributes to Parkinson’s disease. When damaged mitochondria lose membrane depolarization, the protein kinase, PINK1, accumulates on the mitochondrial surface, recruits Parkin, and promotes mitophagy. Chen and Dorn describe another component of this process, mitofusin 2, which appears to function as the receptor for Parkin on the surface of damaged mitochondria.Y. Chen, G. W. Dorn II, PINK1-phosphorylated mitofusin 2 is a Parkin receptor for culling damaged mitochondria. Science340, 471–475 (2013). [Abstract] [Full Text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document