ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS, AUDITING PERFORMANCE AND GENDER
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32400/ja.29481.9.2.2020.46-59Keywords:
accountability requirements, workload, work pressure, gender and performanceAbstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the different types of accountability requirements and to determine whether the workload and pressure of accountability requirements affect the auditing performance of the internal auditors' Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (or called APIP) the Regional Government Inspectorate in North Sulawesi, Indonesia both women and men, with Partial Least Squares (PLS) modeling as an analysis tool used in analyzing and interpreting the data. The results of the study using quantitative analysis showed that the auditing performance of the APIP in North Sulawesi was partly influenced by the negative perceptions of work context in the form of workload and work pressure. The auditing performance is not affected by the dimensions of accountability requirements, work pressure affects the auditing performance, and so does the gender that does not affect the auditing performance.
References
Akbar, R., Pilcher, R., & Perrin, B. (2012). Performance measurement in Indonesia: The case of local government. Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 262-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140581211283878
Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., & Delbridge, R. (2009). Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum038
Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations (Theories of institutional design). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/82f3/bd71f38a7b8d2269f1e471e2e8bc300fb880.pdf
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dubnick, M. J. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376-417. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpmr20/28/3?nav=tocList
East, R. (1997). Consumer behaviour: Advances and applications in marketing. New York: Prentice Hall.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Illinois: Row, Peterson & Company.
Fogarty, T. J., Singh, J., Rhoads, G. K., & Moore, G. K. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of burnout in accounting: Beyond the role stress model. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12, 31-67. https://maaw.info/BehavioralResearchInAccounting.htm
Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh028
Fry, R. E. (1995). Accountability in organizational life: Problem or opportunity for nonprofits? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130060207
Glaser, D. N., Tatum, B. C., Nebeker, D. M., Sorenson, R. C., & Aiello, J. R. (1999). Workload and social support: Effects on performance and stress. Human Performance, 12(2), 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1202_4
Ha, Y., & Hoch, S. J. (1989). Ambiguity, processing strategy, and advertising-evidence interactions, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 354-360. https://doi.org/10.1086/209221
Hair, J. F, Black, B. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, 7th Edition. New York: Prentice Hall International, Inc.
Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in Academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500283734
Jamilah, S., Fanani, Z., & Chandrarin, G. (2007) Pengaruh Gender, Tekanan Ketaatan, dan Kompleksitas Tugas Terhadap Audit Judgment. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi X, Makasar. https://smartaccounting.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/auep06.pdf
Johnston, J. M., & Romzek, B. S. (1999). Contracting and accountability in state medicaid reform: Rhetoric, theories, and reality. Public Administration Review, 59(5), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.2307/977422
Kim, S. E., & Lee, J. W. (2009). Impact of competing accountability requirements on perceived work performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(1), 100-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008329469
Light, P. C. (2000). Making nonprofits work: A report on the tides of nonprofit management reform: A report on the tides of nonprofit management reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Lusch, R. F., & Serpkenci, R. R. (1990). Personal differences, job tension, job outcomes, and store performance: A study of retail store managers. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252175
Mardiasmo. (2009). Akuntansi sektor publik. Yogyakarta: Andi.
Messier, W. F. Jr., & Quilliam, W. C. (1992). The effect of accountability on judgement: Development of hypothesis for auditing. Journal of Practice & Theory, 11, 123-138. https://search.proquest.com/openview/72cfaef9ba49ae5ec329338ecc72acde/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=31718
Manafe, M. W. N., & Akbar, R. (2014). Accountability and performance: Evidence from local government. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 29(1), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.6213
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 41 tahun 2007 tentang Organisasi Perangkat Daerah.
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 71 tahun 2010 tentang Standar Akuntansi Pemerintahan
Peraturan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (Permendagri) Nomor 64 tahun 2013 tentang Penerapan Standar Akuntansi Pemerintahan Berbasis Akrual Pada Pemerintah Daerah
Posner, E. A. (2000). Law and social norms: The case of tax compliance review. Journal of Law and Society, 30(4), 609-614. http://www.ericposner.com/Law%20and%20Social%20Norms.pdf
Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852300661004
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.2307/975901
Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown Plane Crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00084
Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (1992). Study of the effect of age and gender upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871965
Saerang, D. P. E. (2003). Accountability and accounting in a religious organisation: An interpretive ethnographic study of the Pentecostal Church of Indonesia. Doctor of Philosophy thesis. School of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong. https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1902
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The state of nonprofit America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9067-z
Schwartz, R. (1997). Legal regimes, audit quality and investment. The Accounting Review, 72(3), 385-406. http://www.jstor.org/stable/248477
Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research In Organizational Behavior, 7, 297-332. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/vita/Philip%20Tetlock/Phil%20Tetlock/1984-1987/1985%20Accountability_Neglected%20Social%20Context%20of%20Judegment.pdf
Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 700-709. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/vita/Philip%20Tetlock/Phil%20Tetlock/1984-1987/1987%20Accountability%20and%20Judgement%20Processes%20In%20a%20Personal.pdf
Tan, H., & Kao, A. (1999). Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(1), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491404
Villadsen, A. R. (2011). Structural embeddedness of political top executives as explanation of policy isomorphism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 573-599. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur007
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
The articles published in Jurnal Accountability are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International with authors as copyright holders.
Â
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Â
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
- You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
- No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
