53211
Courtney Riebe
Examination of Partner Rotation Perceptions
March 30, 2013 I enjoyed reading this case study because it is always more interesting to hear first hand reasoning from actual interviews with audit partners, rather than hearing about someone else’s opinion about it. However, sometimes the auditors could be a little bit biased against any new legislation that changes the way they have to conduct an audit. Overall I agreed with their general consensus, that increased partner rotation means greater independence which would increase overall audit quality. However, forced rotation also means that once an audit partner gets to know a specific company very well and is able to perform the audit more efficiently, they are forced to leave which causes the new partner to come in and start from scratch. Another thing I had never really considered with regards to this rule was the fact that audit partners’ personal lives are affected by this new rule. If they are assigned to an engagement in a new city, which seems to be often from what I read in the article, their quality of life and family dynamics are negatively affected (which ultimately can come back and affect work performance, in any occupation.) The demographic data that was presented in this article really opened my eyes and was extremely interesting to see the actual effects of this new law. In the end, as tough as it is to have to relocate their families and their homes, there is no trade off for independence and quality audits. Even though it is sad that it has to affect the partners’ quality of life, it is a sacrifice that I feel they should have to make, as part of a professional work ethic and as part of their duty to the users of financial
Examination of Partner Rotation Perceptions
March 30, 2013 I enjoyed reading this case study because it is always more interesting to hear first hand reasoning from actual interviews with audit partners, rather than hearing about someone else’s opinion about it. However, sometimes the auditors could be a little bit biased against any new legislation that changes the way they have to conduct an audit. Overall I agreed with their general consensus, that increased partner rotation means greater independence which would increase overall audit quality. However, forced rotation also means that once an audit partner gets to know a specific company very well and is able to perform the audit more efficiently, they are forced to leave which causes the new partner to come in and start from scratch. Another thing I had never really considered with regards to this rule was the fact that audit partners’ personal lives are affected by this new rule. If they are assigned to an engagement in a new city, which seems to be often from what I read in the article, their quality of life and family dynamics are negatively affected (which ultimately can come back and affect work performance, in any occupation.) The demographic data that was presented in this article really opened my eyes and was extremely interesting to see the actual effects of this new law. In the end, as tough as it is to have to relocate their families and their homes, there is no trade off for independence and quality audits. Even though it is sad that it has to affect the partners’ quality of life, it is a sacrifice that I feel they should have to make, as part of a professional work ethic and as part of their duty to the users of financial