Examining the Effect of Cohesive Team Identity Function on Brand Equity of Audit Institutions: Testing the Violation of Abilene's Paradox Theory

Rahimi, Mojtaba; Borhani, Seyed Abbas; Rezazadeh, Javad; Faraji, Omid

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Registration

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

year 15, Issue 60 (2023)

fa 2023, 15(60): 17-36

Back to browse issues page

Examining the Effect of Cohesive Team Identity Function on Brand Equity of Audit Institutions: Testing the Violation of Abilene's Paradox Theory

Mojtaba Rahimi¹

, Seyed Abbas Borhani ^*

¹, Javad Rezazadeh²

, Omid Faraji³

1- Department of Accounting, Qom branch, Islamic Azad University. Qom, Iran.
2- Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Department of Financial Management and Accounting, School of Management and Accounting, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.

Abstract: (201 Views)

Today, an important part of the competitive functions of the audit market depends on the issue of branding and commercialization of audit institutions that under these conditions, many of them should develop their internal capabilities to use the created capacities, along with marketing strategies. The purpose of this research is examining the effect of cohesive team identity function on brand equity of audit institutions: testing the violation of Abilene's paradox theory. To measure the cohesive team identity of auditors, the questionnaire of Van Dick et al. (2008) was used, and the data related to the brand value of auditing institutions was collected using the questionnaire of Lipnická & Ďaďo (2013). The period of questioning the subjects was 6 months from November 2023 to April 2024. The statistical population of the research is audit partners and senior auditors working in audit institutions in Teharan; Using Cochran's sample size determination method under unlimited communities, the sample size was determined to be 179. In order to increase the validity of the research, 245 questionnaires were randomly distributed among the auditors, 195 questionnaires were received and became the basis of statistical analysis. To test the research hypothesis, partial least squares analysis was used in Smart PLS software. The findings of the research showed that the function of cohesive team identity has a positive and significant effect on the brand equity of auditing institutions. In fact, the obtained results indicate that the auditors' cohesive team identity is considered as one of the basic internal capabilities for stimulating brand equity that this process can reduce the frustration caused by the pressure of experienced auditors on less experienced or even newcomer auditors due to the validation caused by collective participation while promoting competitive functions in the audit market and in this way resolve the conflict caused by the Abilene paradox.

Article number: 2

Keywords: Cohesive Team Identity, Brand Equity, Abilene's Paradox.

Full-Text [PDF 777 kb] (54 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References

1. Agbejule, A., J. Rapo & L. Saarikoski. (2021). Vertical and horizontal trust and team learning: the role of organizational climate. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 14(7): 1425-1443.

2. Annelin, A. (2023). Audit team equality and audit quality threatening behavior. Managerial Auditing Journal 38(2): 158-185.

3. Appiah-Nimo, K., A. Muthambi & R. Devey. (2023). Consumer-based brand equity of South African luxury fashion brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 2(1): 111-132

4. Aslam, M. (2020). Introducing Kolmogorov–Smirnov Tests under Uncertainty: An Application to Radioactive Data. ACS Omega 5(1): 914-917.

5. Bamber, E.M. (1983). Expert judgment in the audit team: A source reliability approach. Journal of Accounting Research 21(2): 396–412.

6. Barrainkua, I., & M. Espinosa-Pike. (2017). The influence of auditors’ professionalism on ethical judgement: Differences among practitioners and postgraduate students. Revista de Contabilidad Spanish Accounting Review 2(3): 76-91.

7. Bateman, B., F. Colin Wilson & D. Bingham. (2002). Team effectiveness: development of an audit questionnaire. Journal of Management Development 21(3): 215-226.

8. Bauer, T.D., & C. Estep. (2019). One Team or Two? Investigating Relationship Quality between Auditors and IT Specialists: Implications for Audit Team Identity and the Audit Process. Contemporary Accounting Research 36(4): 2142-2177.

9. Broberg, P., T. Umans & C. Gerlofstig. (2013). Balance between auditing and marketing: an explorative study. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 22(1): 57-70.

10. Broberg, P., T. Umans, P. Skog & E. Theodorsson. (2018). Auditors’ professional and organizational identities and commercialization in audit firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31(2): 374-399,

11. Cahan, S., D. Hay & L.Z. Li. (2021). Audit firm merger and the strategic response by large audit firms. The British Accounting Review 53(3):34-51.

12. Ciconte, W., J. Leiby & M. Willekens. (2010). Literature review: How is auditor commercialism related to audit quality and efficiency. Foundation for Auditing Research 4(2): 111-140.

13. Dermarkar, S., & M. Hazgui. (2022). How auditors legitimize commercialism: A micro-discursive analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 83(2): 109-128.

14. Dowling, C. (2014). Appropriate Audit Support System Use: The Influence of Auditor, Audit Team, and Firm Factors. The Accounting Review 84(3): 771-810

15. Elbardan, H., A. Kotb & M. Ishaque. (2023). A Review of the Empirical Literature on Audit Market Concentration. The International Journal of Accounting 58(2): 37-66

16. Fornell C.R., & D.F. Larcker. (1981). Two structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

17. Hambrick, D.C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label. Research in organizational behavior 16(2): 171-214.

18. Harber, M., W. Maroun & A.D. de Ricquebourg. (2023). Audit firm executives under pressure: A discursive analysis of legitimization and resistance to reform. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 97(2): 82-104.

19. Hay, D., & W.R. Knechel. (2010). The effects of advertising and solicitation on audit fees, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 29(1): 60-81.

20. Hodges, S., & L. Young. (2009). Unconsciously competent: academia’s neglect of marketing success in the professions. Journal of Relationship Marketing 8(1): 36-49.

21. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies. Strategic Management Journal 20(1): 195-204.

22. Humphrey, C., & P. Moizer. (1990). From techniques to ideologies: an alternative perspective on the audit function. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 1(3): 217-238.

23. Jiang, J., W. Xie, Sh. Wang, Y. Zhang & J. Gao. (2023). Assessing team creativity with multi-attribute group decision-making in a knowledge building community: A design-based research. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48(1): 55-91.

24. Kumar, R., K. Sujit & M. Fernandez. (2021). Are Brand Value and Firm Value Related? An Empirical Examination. Golbal Business Review 10(4): 1-24.

25. Lipnická, D., & J. Ďaďo. (2013). Marketing Audit and Factors Influencing Its Use in Practice of Companies. Journal of Competitiveness 5(4): 26-42.

26. Lu, J., M. Falahat & P. Cheah. (2024). A systematic literature review on the relationship between servant leadership and its team and organizational level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management 37(2): 255-282

27. Maan, P., & D.K. Srivastava. (2023). Factors affecting team performance: An empirical study of Indian GenY and GenZ cohorts. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 42(8): 986-1006.

28. McAvoy, J., & T. Butler. (2007). The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop learning in an agile team. Information and Software Technology 49(6): 552-563.

29. Padela, S.M.F., B. Wooliscroft & A. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft. (2023). Brand systems: integrating branding research perspectives. European Journal of Marketing 57(2): 387-425.

30. Pan, Y., N. Shroff & P. Zhang. (2023). The dark side of audit market competition. Journal of Accounting and Economics 75(1): 63-89.

31. Ponomareva, Y., T. Uman, P. Broberg, E. Vinberg & K. Karlsson. (2023). Commercialization of audit firms and auditors’ subjective well-being. Meditari Accountancy Research 28(4): 565-585.

32. Proell, Ch.A., M.A. Ricci, K.T. Trotman & Y. Zhou. (2024). How workplace identities and team management practices affect distributed team auditors' willingness to speak up. Contemporary Accounting Research 41(1): 562-590.

33. Savela, N., M. Kaakinen, N. Ellonen & A. Oksanen. (2020). Sharing a work team with robots: The negative effect of robot co-workers on in-group identification with the work team. Computers in Human Behavior 115(2): 109-131.

34. Sharma, Sh., & E. Aparicio. (2022). Organizational and team culture as antecedents of protection motivation among IT employees. Computers & Security 120(1): 87-112.

35. Sirris, S. (2019). Coherent identities and roles? Hybrid professional managers’ prioritizing of coexisting institutional logics in differing contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Management 35(4): 104-123.

36. Sori, Z.M., Y. Karbhari & S. Mohamad. (2010). Commercialization of accounting profession: the case of non-audit services. International Journal of Economics and Management 4(2): 212-242.

38. Stevens, E., R. Moroney & J. Webster. (2019). Professional skepticism: The combined effect of partner style and team identity salience. International Journal Audit 23(2): 279-291.

39. Suhardi, D, A., S. Adhi, S. Priyanto & A. Abdi. (2022). Brand auditing and the development of the brand salience management model of the Statistics Study Program. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 11(1): 1-23.

40. Tache, M. (2022). How is the ethical behaviour of auditors quantified?. Independent Journal of Management & Production 13(5): 62-78.

41. Van Dick, R., D. van Knippenberg, R. Kerschreiter, G. Hertel & J. Wieseke. (2008). Interactive effects of work group and organizational identification on job satisfaction and extra-role behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior 72(1): 388- 399.

42. Vincent Amooti, B. (2010). Pretended Agreement in Decision Making: Exploring the Abilene Paradox in Uganda. Journal of Management Policy and Practice 11(5): 106-119.

43. Wells, J., & Tan, C.S.L. (2024). Examining the influence of functional value, social value and emotional value on purchase intention for tires in Japan. Journal of Asia Business Studies Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

44. Wen, W. (2020). The institutionalisation of commercialism in the audit profession: How auditors constitute the commercial self in a large Chinese audit firm. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 10(2): 191-205.

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Rahimi M, Borhani S A, Rezazadeh J, Faraji O. Examining the Effect of Cohesive Team Identity Function on Brand Equity of Audit Institutions: Testing the Violation of Abilene's Paradox Theory. fa 2023; 15 (60) : 2
URL: http://qfaj.mobarakeh.iau.ir/article-1-2763-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

year 15, Issue 60 (2023)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.04 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4679