Amsterdam Business School
Organizational Socialization Tactics and Proactive
Behaviour of Non-Accountants in a Big Four Firm
Name: Floris Vreman
Student number: 10871012
Thesis supervisor: prof. dr. B.G. D O’Dwyer
Date: 20 June 2016
Word count: 21273
MSc Accountancy & Control, specialization Accountancy Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam
1
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Floris Vreman who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 2
Abstract
This study analyses organizational socialization tactics influencing the socialization outcome of non-accountants (practitioners who are not trained in financial audit) who provide assurance on sustainability reports. Thereby taking into consideration the proactive behaviour intention of the socializee engaged in a Big Four audit firm in a Dutch setting. Socialization is defined as “the process through which individuals acquire knowledge about and adjust to their work context” (Ashforth, Sluss, and Spencer, 2007, p.448). The operationalized relation, organizational socialization tactics versus proactive behaviour intention, is also referred to as an individual-organizational interaction. To date, there has not been a study into how this interaction jointly affects the socialization content in the context of assurance provision, and responses to the call for extended research in socialization processes of non-accountants have gone unanswered. Having conducted a sequence of semi-structured interviews, it was identified that the non-accountants socialization foremost pertains to their own proactive behaviour, which allows them to reduce uncertainty and obtain control. The non-accountants are not socialized into performing (possibly for the first-time) assurance. In this context it has been identified that the sustainability department is to some extent underdeveloped in regard to their organizational socialization tactics as the department is only recently established. Furthermore some interviewees argued that corporate management lacks the will to invest, which is surprising as sustainability is a corporate core objective. However, more research is required into the validity of this statement. In conclusion, it could be argued that, in the current state, a non-accountant’s real learning pertains to on-the-job learning.
3 Table of contents 1 Introduction ... 5 1.1 Background information ... 5 1.2 Research question ... 8 1.3 Paper structure ... 9 2 Literature review ... 10 2.1 Sustainability reporting ... 10 2.2 Sustainability assurance ... 10 2.3 Socialization ... 11 2.3.1 Organizational socialization ... 12 2.3.2 Professional socialization ... 15
3 Theoretical framework of the paper ... 16
3.1 Institutionalization theory ... 16
3.2 Socialization theory ... 17
3.2.1 The organizational-driven approach ... 17
3.2.2 The newcomer-initiated approach [proactive behaviour] ... 21
3.3 Socialization content ... 23 4 Methodology ... 24 4.1 Research method ... 24 4.2 Research design ... 25 4.2.1 Data collection ... 25 4.2.2 Data analyses ... 27 5 Descriptive analysis ... 30 5.1 Newcomers socialization ... 30 5.2 First-time assurance ... 33
5.3 Proactive behaviour intention ... 36
5.4 Socialization content ... 39
5.5 Summary ... 42
6 Discussion ... 43
6.1 Organizational socialization tactics ... 44
6.2 Newcomer proactive behaviour intention ... 47
6.3 Summary ... 49
7 Conclusion ... 50
7.1 Conclusions ... 50
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 4
Appendix 1 – Interview guide ... 53
Appendix 2 – Primary themes ... 55
5
1 Introduction
1.1 Background information
Reporting on sustainability issues has increased considerably (Kolk, 2003; ICAEW, 2008; KPMG, 2013) and is now the standard practice for the world’s 250 largest companies [G250 companies] (KPMG, 2015). A survey of KPMG (2015) shows that 92% of the G250 companies produce sustainability reports to inform the public of the firm’s corporate values. The relatively new area of reporting was popularized in ‘Our Common Future’, also known as the Brundtland report, published in 1987. Building on this report, the classic definition for more sustainable, conservative economic growth is defined as: “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p.43). This popularized report provides insight into the organization’s carbon footprint and thereby increases transparency for the public. However, to enhance credibility and provide stakeholders with an objective and trustworthy overview of the organization, some form of assurance is required.
Big Four firms are the world’s largest and most widespread audit firms, particularly known for their financial statement assurance. Besides traditional financial statements assurance, Big Four firms also provide other assurance (e.g. sustainability assurance) and consultancy services. Experience in the financial audit field is highly valued when carrying out sustainability assurance, assuming that the skills of assessing materiality and obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence necessary for financial information can be used for non-financial information engagements also (ICAEW, 2008). However, not all assurance engagements are performed by consultants with experience in financial audit. These consultants are known as non-accountants. Non-accountants are employees working within audit firms who are not trained and certified in the field of audit. The expertise of these non-accountants is to provide the firms’ specialized services (Gendron, Suddaby, and Lam., 2006), such as risk analyses, IT and sustainability advisors. Non-accounting and accounting practices are fundamentally different and from which the co-presence in a firm might generate internal problems that could endanger the continuity of the firm, the long-term viability (Goodridge, 1991). As, “consulting work is characterized by a high degree of collaboration with the customer and the proclivity to take risks and be innovate” (Gendron et al., 2006, p.174). In contrast, the auditing practice is more conservative and pertains to verification (Gendron et al., 2006). In summary, this indicates a potential for tension or even conflict between the practices performed by non-accountants and accountants.
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 6
Taking into consideration that the non-accountant practices can negatively impact auditor professionalism – i.e. Beets and Souther (1999) argue that non-accountants can essentially create all sorts of assurance reports and perform whatever procedures they think are necessary, whereas auditors need to acquire the necessary expertise to provide an opinion on the reasonableness and “perform environmental [sustainability reporting] verification within the parameters of the attestation standards that provide no specific guidance with regard to environmental assurance” (Beets and Souther, 1999, p. 139). This thesis is inter alia contributing to the existing literature on the relationship between accountants and non-accountants. Specifically, this thesis aims to shed light on how socialization practices have been embedded in a Big Four organization by providing insight into the way accountants performing non-financial assurance differ in their assurance routines and working habits from the more rigid habits and routines of financial auditors. This difference is heightened by the fact that financial auditors are, in most situations, the engagement leader, and therefore usurp authority (O’Dwyer, 2011).
For this research paper an individual-organizational interaction is assumed through which a relation between non-accountants and socialization is identified. Socialization is often described as “the process through which individuals acquire knowledge about and adjust to their work context” (Ashforth et al., 2007, p.448), and is an important part of the broader institutionalization literature (Powell, 1988). Also, socialization influences and structures the adjustment of individuals (typically organizational newcomers) to their role, job or organization (see for example: Anderson-Gough, Grey, and Robson, 2001). The socialization process emphasises two prime approaches in operationalizing socialization research, either an organizational socialization approach, or the individual approach. The organizational socialization approach, which according to Jones (1986) can be characterised as being either individualized (absence of socialization structure for newcomers) or institutionalized (structured and formalized socialization process). The individual socialization approach, also referred to as a newcomer-initiated approach, pertains to proactive behaviour and a ‘belonging’ attitude towards performing assurance. The newcomers navigate themselves through the uncertainty (Ashforth et al., 2007; Gruman and Saks, 2011) inherent to the provision of assurance. For example, the study of Gruman and Saks (2011) finds, based on the individual and organizational approach, that the personality variable matters most when it comes to individuals’ preference for socialization tactics. They also indicate that there is a general preference for institutionalized socialization tactics [organizational approach].
7
However, only a few studies (e.g. Ashforth et al. 2007; Gruman, Saks, and Zweig, 2006) have combined both approaches (individual and organizational) in relation to socialization content. Ashforth et al. (2007) find that the aggregate of approaches substantially affects newcomers learning and adjustment (e.g. performance, organizational identification). Gruman et al. (2006) find in their study in which they integrate the “individual and organizational perspectives in accordance with the interactionist perspective” (p.91), that organizational perspectives predict some of the individual perspectives. Taking the examples into consideration, prior research has proven the applicability of the socialization theory to the training and socialization of accountants (Fogarty, 1992; Saks and Ashforth, 1997; Anderson-Gough et al., 2001).
To date there has not been a study into how an organizational and individual approach jointly affects the socialization content in the context of assurance provision. Therefore, this thesis responds to this call with an extended examination of socialization processes of non-accountants in Big Four audit firms (O’Dwyer, 2011; Andon, Free, and O’Dwyer, 2015). Firstly, the socialization content is the substance an employee should learn to become familiar with organizational processes. The individual-organization interaction is the theoretical lens for this research, in which the individual-organization interaction theory is used to help understand and explain the socialization content. The role of the theoretical framing can be attributed to an ‘interpretive sense-making’ role, contributing to better understanding of non-accountants’ subjective experiences of socialization (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2011).
This thesis’ research will draw upon the two socialization content domains, identified by Comer (1991) as ‘technical information’ and ‘social information’. Whereas technical information contributes to the learning of assurance routines, social information pertains to the learning of working habits in providing assurance. Furthermore, this research will provide answer to the continuous call for more examination. As the research of O’Dwyer (2011) argues, a lot is unknown in the field of socialization processes of accountants. It is unknown how non-accountants learn the social knowledge and skills, necessary in order to perform the assurance work in the sustainability space. Also it is unknown how Big Four firms train non-accountants who perform assurance work and how the formation of their attitudes is towards assessing sustainability data. According to Andon et al. (2015), these training processes, and the creation of attitudes and values, have implications for the evolution of sustainability assurance. This thesis, therefore adds to the limited in-depth literature on the training and general organizational socialization of non-accountants. The sustainability department is a focus of this research as the
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 8
department is a good case example of how non-accountants (practitioners not trained in financial audit) learn the skills necessary to perform assurance work.
This thesis will make use of a qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews. The identified gap in the literature will be addressed by providing interview evidence on socialization processes all related to the provision of sustainability assurance, conducted in a Dutch research setting. The evidence will enable the researcher to gain understanding of the organizational and individual socialization tactics and thereby provide answers to the descriptive research question. Finally, the content of sustainability is not up for research but only provides the case in which non-accountants provide assurance. For further in-depth research in sustainability assurance reference can be made to the O’Dwyer (2011) paper.
1.2 Research question
In this thesis, the lack of in-depth research is addressed, into how Big Four audit firms tend to socialise non-accounting practitioners while the practitioners simultaneously inculcate a specific way of thinking and performing sustainability assurance. Consequently, the main aim of this paper is to unveil the socialization content. The socialization content refers to the content that non-accountants need to learn in order to provide assurance on the sustainability report. Various typologies of content have been suggested (e.g., Comer, 1991; Miller and Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1995), in which all the typologies agree that “knowledge acquisition spans the job and role, interpersonal and group relationships, and the nature of the organization as a whole” (Ashforth et al., 2007). In this regard, we will focus on Comer’s (1991) defined typologies: (1) requirement of technical information, and, (2) social information required of a working team. The typologies are then related to the findings of the work of O’Dwyer (2011), in which he provides an understanding of how, and to what extent, assurance practitioners have constructed sustainability assurance practices. O’Dwyer finds that ‘assurance routines’, and ‘working habits’ differ for non-accountants when compared to the financial auditors. This research argues that the first of Comer’s defined typologies of socialization content, technical information, belongs to assurance routines, the what question: What do non-accountants have to learn? The second typology, social information content, belongs to the working habits, the how question: How do non-accountants operate within the new assurance practices?
For this research paper an individual-organizational interaction is assumed through which the relation between non-accountants and socialization is identified. The organization shapes the process of socialization, while the proactive individual modifies and integrates their own
9
experience when entering a new field. The organizational-driven approach is the dynamic flow of the socialization process executed by the organization to structure newcomers socialization experiences, with its roots in the model of Van Maanen and Schein (1979) (Gruman and Saks, 2011). A traditional approach [organizational-driven approach] in which newcomers are passive and reactive of socialization practices (Saks and Ashforth, 1997). The individual socialization approach, referred to as a newcomer-driven approach, pertains to proactive behaviour and a ‘belonging’ attitude towards performing assurance. Proactive behaviour portrays newcomers as an active member “who actively work to reduce uncertainty in their work environment through their own initiative” (Saks and Ashforth, 1997, p. 246).
To this end, the organisational socialization processes are addressed as well as the non-accountants’ socialization into sustainability assurance. As such, this research intend to collect non-accountant views on how they have experienced the socialization process and will analyse the interview responses through the theoretical lens of the individual-organizational socialization approach, which will be extensively discussed in the theoretical framing of the next section. The research questions addressed in this thesis are:
“How have Big Four audit organizations inculcated organizational-driven socialization tactics for non-accountants performing sustainability assurance?”
And:
“How do organizational-driven socialization tactics and non-accountant’s proactive behaviour jointly affect the outcome of the socialization content (learning of assurance routines and working habits)?”
1.3 Paper structure
The next section provides a theoretical background of the relevant themes in this research, resulting in a better understanding of the paper’s subject. Subsequently, a theoretical framing is described through which the results can be justified and categorized, which also may be referred to as the theoretical lens. Thirdly, the methodology of this paper will be outlined. Fourthly, the results of the interviews will be discussed. Then, the themes will be examined through the theoretical framework. Finally, my conclusion is presented, and its limitations and suggestions are highlighted.
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 10
2 Literature review
2.1 Sustainability reporting
Sustainability reports provide non-financial information on economic development, environmental protection, and social activities (WCED, 1987; O’Dwyer, 2011). The reports provide stakeholders with information on how they impact society and the environment. Organizations can design the reports as stand-alone reports or embedded in the annual report. However, considering the popularity of the reports, no standardized framework is yet available. The absence of a mandatory, standardized reporting framework forcing organizations to determine what information they deem to find necessary, risks the production of too much immaterial information and missing out on the important issues (ICAEW, 2008). Voluntarily adopted standards tend to vary, although the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 2008 G3 reporting guidelines is an increasingly used standard (O’Dwyer, 2011). Besides the sustainability reports, a rise of integrated reports (IR) can be noted. The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) created a framework “which integrated financial, environmental, social and governance information in a clear, concise, consistent and comparable format” (Thomson, 2015, p.15). One major but challenging improvement is that the IIRC report is more future-orientated rather than the more historic focus of financial reports. It created a link between an organization’s strategy and financial performance, and the sustainable areas (social, environmental, and economic) of reporting. This, according to Thomson (2015), results in better decision-making information for investors and provides a better understanding of the real, sustainable performance of the organization. The IR should be prepared in accordance with the IIRC guidelines.
2.2 Sustainability assurance
The credibility of sustainability reports might be questioned. When the credibility is questioned, third party verification could resolve these credibility issues. Verification of sustainability reports provides a comprehensive way of holding an organization to account, provides oversight on how the organization determined key sustainability issues, and how well the organization understands and responds to sustainability issues. Provided assurance can also be used to evaluate the reliability of the performance (AccountAbility, 2008). Or as O’Dwyer (2011) argues, that a fundamental characteristic of providing assurance is to improve the credibility. Providing assurance delivers accountability, subdivides as an assessment of the reliability, relevance,
11
completeness, and comparability of data to the stakeholders (O’Dwyer, 2011). In 2015, up to 63% of the G250 companies have their sustainability reports independently assured by, as the market is dominated by major accountancy organizations, Big Four audit firms (KPMG, 2015). All sorts of research papers provide a better understanding of sustainability assurance and the way assurance practises are legitimatized (O’Dwyer, 2011; Cooper and Owen, 2007; Andon et al., 2015), however not much research is conducted into the process of sustainability assurance provided by third parties. Assurance on financial statements is typically provided by certified accountants, while, for sustainability report assurance, the auditor is not obliged to be certified as an accountant. Since the certified necessity is not obligatory, all sorts of organizations can enter the market of sustainability assurance but as the results of the KPMG survey have shown, most assurance work is conducted by Big Four Firms.
2.3 Socialization
The concept of socialization, as well as the research field of socialization became a popular topic in management literature and is now continuously researched as is apparent in published literature reviews (see for example: Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2006; Ashforth et al., 2007). Literature in which all sorts of outcomes are used, for example, Cooper-Thomas, Vianen and Anderson (2004) uses the change in person-organization fit as the indicator of usefulness of socialization tactics. Whereas Anderson-Gough et al. (2001) used a test of time [time-consciousness, and temporal visioning] as key aspect of professional socialization in accounting firms. Anderson-Gough, Grey, and Robson (2000) argue that the process is affected by expectations held by employees as well as by the experiences of trainees to matters of presentation and commitment. The experiences shape the notion of professionalism. Better-socialized employees are more committed to the organization and display appropriate behaviour that is of importance considering that public accounting firms depend on the ‘know-how’ of their employees (Fogarty, 2000). Willingness of being part of a team is, according to Anderson-Gough et al. (2000), part of the ‘presentation of self’. Being a team-player supports the notion of commitment.
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 12
2.3.1 Organizational socialization
Prior research of Saks and Ashforth (1997) present a neat overview of organizational socialization research, in which several theoretical perspectives are presented that have been used in previous socialization research. Firstly, the socialization tactics of van Maanen and Schein (see the theoretical framework). Second is the uncertainty reduction theory, wherein organizational newcomers experience uncertainty in the application and introductions phase. In case of uncertainty, organizational members are intended to reduce the uncertainty so that they can better predict work related situations. The reduction of uncertainty is mostly related to organizational socialization processes. Information is provided through organizational channels such as interaction with supervisors or formal training processes. Thirdly, the social cognitive theory pertains to the perspective in which the learning process is considered as the interaction between cognitive and personal factors, behaviour, and environmental events. Lastly, the cognitive and sense-making theory, where newcomers try to make sense of their new environment including the surprises they may encounter in the socialization process (Saks and Ashforth, 1997).
Organizational socialization is an important underlying process for individual change over time. As Fogarty highlighted: “audit organizations can have no greater concern than the adequate performance of their members” (Fogarty, 1992, p. 129). The service provided by the audit firm relies on the ‘know-how’ of the audit professionals. High quality performance is not only of importance for clients but also for regulators and educators, who rely on the performance of the audit professionals. Organizations use socialization processes in order to construct their members towards desired performance. Fogarty describes this constructing process as “the development of individuals […] systematically shaped along lines defined by their service to the larger social unit” (Fogarty, 1992, p. 130). The defined lines of the service is the objective of the audit practice providing assurance. Several academic papers provide a theoretical framework of the socialization process and the assurance service, in which they make use the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) on isomorphism as the theoretical basis (Albu, Albu, and Alexander, 2014; Fogarty and Dirsmith, 2001). Take Fogarty (1992) for example, he created a theoretical framework for organizational socialization in accounting firms based on isomorphic forces on socialization developed by DiMaggio & Powell (1983). Isomorphic is when organizations, who emerge as a field, try to make their organization somehow more similar when they try to make changes to the organization. DiMaggio and Powell tried to make sense of this paradox which occurs in organizations and argued that the isomorphic forces, which compel
13
more homogeneity, can be grouped in three independent and non-mutually exclusive forces, which they then label as: coercive, normative, and mimetic.
The first isomorphic identified by DiMaggio & Powell are the Coercive forces. These forces are the result of formal and informal pressures exerted by organization on employees to serve organizational ends. Thus, it is the manner that audit firms compel individuals towards desired performance by making use of power, authority and legitimization. Reward structures motivate appropriate behaviour and a firm’s legitimization processes contribute to appropriate individual behaviour. Fogarty (1992) defined the coercive isomorphic theory into three sub-mechanisms, which he specifies as economic-, structural-, and legitimation coercions. In economic coercion the role of the employee is defined in terms of exchange. Role autonomy, extrinsic remuneration and favourable organizational experience are exchanged for commitment and service of the employee. The employer can make use of power to direct the change of employees. In terms of socialization, it is not only the current economic rewards which informs an individual’s state, also future rewards are elements of the relationship as argued by Fogarty & Dirsmith (2001). In structural coercion, the employee’s role is influenced by the division of labour. Organizational structures facilitate learning opportunities or have a contradictory effect, in limiting learning by means of the definition of roles and in particular the role content. However, the organization’s structure shapes individual experience in the way that the organization either develops or dominates the amount that individuals may use their skills (Fogarty & Dirsmith, 2001). In doing so, individuals must navigate their own careers through the organizational structures (Fogarty, 1992). The last coercion identified by Fogarty is legitimacy coercion. Legitimacy coercion influences the employee to believe in the organization’s mission and meritocracy. When organizations are seen as legitimate by organizational members and outsiders, the individuals are coerced into increased commitment. The involvement results in increased psychic rewards since they are associated with a legitimised organization. This is also a contributing manner to organizational socialization, where individuals will sooner accept organizational socialization processes when the organization is “prized by the society” (Fogarty & Dirsmith, 2001, p. 254).
The second isomorphic force, which has been identified by DiMaggio & Powell, is the mimetic force. The mimetic force includes voluntary pattern features according to externally observed instances. The organization is focussed on similarity, and internally initiated change rather than change imposed by coercive forces. The focus lays on the individual’s values and beliefs with ‘role models’ as examples, and not on processes which are entirely conscious. “Individuals alter themselves as means to achieve the results they observe and aspire towards” (Fogarty, 1992, p. 137). Fogarty (1992) defined the mimetic isomorphic into sub-mechanisms
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 14
which he specifies as role modelling, mentorship, and diffusion processes. The first memetic isomorphic force is Role Modelling. Role modelling is the informal process where the employee is influenced in their behaviour through the observation of the incumbent’s performance, even when the incumbent is unaware that they serve as the ideal type. The second type of memetic isomorphic is Mentoring. Mentoring is defined in terms of specific role knowledge transmission. Mentoring is considered to be the knowledge transmission of organizational, social and technical knowledge between mentor and apprentice. For that reason, mentoring is mimetic in nature (Fogarty & Dirsmith, 2001), and distinguishes an existing and conscious relationship between the mentor and apprentice. The manner of mentoring is based on the “mentor’s formulae for organizational prominence” (Fogarty, 1992, p. 138). Furthermore, the mentoring relationship goes beyond the formal socialization processes usually offered by organisations. The last mimetic isomorphic is defined as Diffusion. Diffusion processes are defined by Fogarty as the “dependency of current events and occurrences upon previous ones” (Fogarty, 1992, p.138). It defines the way in which experiences gained by previous work influences the perception of new experiences.
The third isomorphic force identified by DiMaggio & Powell is the normative force. The normative force refers to all sorts of normative influence, in which professionalization is common to all of them. The normative influence is an influence to conform to certain expectations set by others, as well as the mutual adherence to professional norms. A ‘profession’ is a complex composition of a set of work experiences, with a systematic body of knowledge, used to solve complex problems. Becoming a professional is an individual process which is needed to “solve complex and dynamic problems that cannot be adresses by routinized actions” (Fogarty and Dirsmith, 2001, p.249). In order to work in organizations, the professionals create interactions between the ‘culture’ of the profession and that of the organization (Fogarty, 1992). These interactions stimulate new employees to become similar to their accounting profession. Normative forces predict that the socialization of accountants and non-accountants pertains mostly to training. Fogarty (1992) defined the normative isomorphic theory into four sub-mechanisms, which he specified as professional work, professional self-image, professional attitudes values, and structural conditions. Yet, the normative forces are not further defined in his research work. He, however, does argue that the normative influence in accountant socialization is subject to a greater scrutiny as they (accountants) lack “a lengthy period of exclusive professional education in [...] total institutions” (Fogarty, 1992, p. 141).
15
2.3.2 Professional socialization
Professional socialization refers to the process through which professionals learn to behave appropriately in conjunction with the substance (norms, values and culture) of what professionals should learn to become a proficient member of the organisation (Yu, Kim, and Restubog, 2015). Although the norms, values and culture will be inculcated when the individual is being transformed into a member of the organisation, “abundant research on professional socialization has shown that organizational practice and cultures deeply influence what professional’s come to understand as appropriate standards of conduct and practice” (Yu et al., 2015, p. 1578). The process of professional socialization is closely related to the organizational socialization processes and the pre-existing culture of the firm. However, how professional socialization pertains to the behaviour and the learning of the individual member must also be considered.
Previous researchers (Epstein, 1978; Ibarra, 1999; Anderson-Gough et al., 2001) recognized the presentation of the “self” as one key aspect of professional socialization. The presentation of who you like to become and how you present yourself to clients (Anderson-Gough et al., 2001). Hence, it contributes to the learning of “being professional to acquire appropriate ‘frontstage’ behaviour towards clients” (Anderson Gough et al., 2001, p. 100). A few studies have examined the association of professional socialization and professional identity. Anderson-Gough et al. (2001) seek to explore key aspects of professional socialization by exploring the key aspect of ‘time practices’ in accounting firms. They argue that time-consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the development of a professional identity; “do I leave work early, how long is my lunch break” (Gough et al., 2001, p.102). Anderson-Gough et al. (2000) argue in their research that professional socialization is the process of sense making, learning how the business environment works, and how to behave.
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 16
3 Theoretical framework of the paper
3.1 Institutionalization theory
The institutionalization theory considers, according to Scott (2005), the processes by which structures (i.e. schemas, rules, norms, and routines) become established as authoritative guidelines for social behaviour, and according to Fogarty and Dirsmith (2001) to achieve organizational goals since the organization is not acting in isolation. Scott (2005) states that the institutionalization theory examines how these elements for social behaviour within organizations are created, adopted, disseminated, and changed over time. On the one hand, rules, norms and routines give structure to an organization, but on the other hand, they are often not consciously perceived but are seen as taken-for-granted, which makes it very difficult to change them (Scott, 2005).
Powell already argued in 1988 that organizational socialization is an important factor of the institutionalization theory. Socialization is also the “long-term internalization of the values, norms, and culture of an organization” (Fogarty and Dirsmith, 2001, p. 247). However, there are two important consequences that arise when organizations try to develop their practices in a legitimacy oriented way. The first consequence is that when an organization has developed a legitimate practice, this does not always mean that the practices will help organizations meet their other goals efficiently or effectively (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Moreover, institutional practices that are used to obtain an organizational goal can affect the practices of the organization elsewhere. This might occur because new practices are often viewed as less favourable because they diverge from already institutionalized practices (Zucker, 1987). The second consequence is that different organizations develop practices together, within an environment, with the intention of adopting similar practices in their pursuit of legitimated processes. The tendency of organizations to become more homogeneous has been labelled by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) as ‘isomorphic force’ (see organizational socialization in the literature review). After identifying this paradox, they labelled the force in three independent and non-mutually exclusive forces, known as mimetic, coercive, and normative isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Fogarty and Dirsmith (2001) used these forces to theorize that socialization became an institutionalized practice. However, this exceeds the content of this study (refer to: Fogarty and Dirsmith, 2001 for extended theorized institutionalization of socialization practices).
17
3.2 Socialization theory
Socialization is the way that individuals learn to understand a new organizational environment and make sense of it (Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992). Thus, it refers to the process where newcomers make a transition “from being organizational outsider to being insider” (Bauer, Bodnet, Erdogan, Truxillo, and Tucker, 2007, p.707). Consequently, socialization is often referred to as an interactionist perspective of organizational newcomers and the influences from the organization on the newcomer’s adjustment process (Bauer et al., 2007). In other words, the process in which someone is taught how to act in a role and how the organization influences the person’s attitude and behaviour.
Socialization deals with the identity change in organizations, the process in which groups and organizations shape their members and how they adopt social norms and rules. Anderson-Gough et al. (2000) note that professional socialization processes, which take place within the firm, are closely linked to the process of organizational socialization. Professional socialization is learning how to behave and to create understandings of the world [business environment] other than simply passing exams (Anderson-Gough et al., 2000). Thus, socialization can be regarded as twofold, an organizational-initiated approach and the newcomer-initiated approach [individual approach] (Gruman and Saks, 2011). The organizational-initiated approach focuses on the new adjustment of individuals-typically newcomers- to their jobs or organization. The newcomer-initiated approach focuses on ‘proactive’ behaviour of the socializee to reduce uncertainty when occupying a new role (Gruman and Saks, 2011).
3.2.1 The organizational-driven approach
The socialization tactics (later to be defined as: organizational-driven socialization tactics known as institutionalized and individualized) of Van Maanen and Schein (1979) suggested that organizations can be differentiated between based on socialization tactics that organizations use once newcomers enter the organization. The tactics influence the adjustment of the newcomers to the organization as well as the role orientation that they adopt after entering the organization. The theory depicts six dimensions, which are “a set of interrelated theoretical propositions about the structure and outcome of organizational socialization processes” (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979, p.214). The dimensions specify the linkages between socialization tactics and the resulting behavioural responses (Saks and Ashforth, 1997). New organizational members can experience socialization tactics that are: collective or individual, formal or informal, sequential or random, fixed or variable, serial or disjunctive, and investitive or divestitive. The first two bilateral socialization tactics are self-explanatory; the socialization tactics are not explicit and need to be
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 18
tailored to the individual (Fogarty, 2000). The first dimension, “collective socialization refers to the tactic of taking a group of recruits who are facing a given boundary passage and putting them through a common set of experience” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 38). Group training on matter of appearance and social skills is an example of collective socialization. The output of collective socialization processes are relatively uniform and often formal. Whereas “individual socialization refers to the tactic of processing recruits singly and in isolation from one another through a more or less unique set of experiences” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 38). Specific, tailor-made training programs are an example of individual socialization. Output of the individual socialization processes are relatively variable due to the difference in design of the programs. Views which are adopted by individual socialization are less homogeneous than views processed collectively (Maanen & Schein, 1979). Van Maanen and Schein’s second self-explanatory socialization tactic concerns formal or informal socialization. “Formal socialization refers to those processes in which a newcomer is more or less segregated from regular organizational members while being put through a set of experiences tailored explicitly for the newcomer” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 43). Formal socialization processes are found in organizations where newcomers need to learn the correct attitude, values, and protocol that comes with the new role. The newcomers are labelled as recruits and the time as recruit serves to provide others in the organization with a platform to judge the newcomer’s commitment, and also, that the newcomers are prepared to assume a particular status in the organizational world. “Informal socialization processes, in contrast, do not distinguish the newcomer’s role specifically nor is there an effort made in such programs to rigidly differentiate the recruit from other more experienced organizational members”. (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 44). On-the-job-training, and learning through experience are informal ways of socialization. Recruits are responsible to select their own socialization agent who teaches them. The third dimension of Van Maanen and Schein’s tactical dimensions refer to the predictability in the progression of the individual, known as sequential and random socialization (Fogarty, 2000). “Sequential socialization refers to the degree to which the organization or occupation specifies a given sequence of discrete and identifiable steps leading to the target role” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 51). An example of a sequential socialization event is the graduation of a junior staff member into a senior staff member. The steps leading to the rank levels must be negotiated in a specific order. “Random socialization occurs when the sequence of steps leading to the target role is unknown, ambiguous, or continually changing” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 51). For random socialization, it may be that there are some steps defined leading to the organizational role, but there is no necessary order of steps specified to achieve certain roles. The fourth tactical dimension of Van Maanen and Schein’s theory specifies the
19
time expectations of each role (Fogarty, 2000). “Fixed socialization processes provide a recruit with the precise knowledge of the time it will take to complete a given passage” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 55). Organizations specify for every recruit a specific timetable, which may differ with different career paths. A fast track for management trainees is an example of a fixed time path. In fixed socialization processes, deviating from the normal track could lead to that recruit being placed in a variable timetable. “Variable socialization processes give a recruit few clues as to when to expect a given boundary passage” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 55). Examples of variable socialization are limited. Patients in psychiatric hospitals who can leave when the psychiatrist labels them cured is a version of variable socialization. Variable socialization is a very powerful antidote for group solidarity. The fifth tactical dimension is about the extent that supervisors were previously supervised incumbents (Fogarty, 2000). “A serial socialization process is one in which experienced members of the organization groom newcomers who are about to assume similar kinds of positions in the organization” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 59). The immediate supervisors serve as role models for inexperienced recruits and inform them how they need to fulfil their duties. Whereas a disjunctive socialization process is “when newcomers are not following the footsteps of immediate or recent predecessors, and when no role models are available to recruits to inform them as to how they are to proceed in the new role” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 60). Disjunctive socialization processes are for instance, women who enter managerial ranks previously occupied by males. No role model is present. It may even occur that organizations turn the whole organization into a disjunctive mode of socialization what results in the organization creating a completely different look. The final dimension assesses the extent to which self-identities must be replaced by new ones (Fogarty, 2000). “Investiture processes ratify and document for recruits the viability and usefulness of those personal characteristics they bring with them to the organization” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 64). The organization wishes to take advantage of the recruits skills, attitude and values, which they possesses already. Organizations can use this tactic for bottom rungs of the organizational ladder. Recruitment is handled with a great deal of importance, and thus, it is best if recruits can remain as close to their initial state. “Divestiture socialization processes, in contrast, seek to deny and strip away certain personal characteristics of a recruit” (Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 64). Divestiture socialization tactics require from a recruit that they engage, for a period of time, in ‘doing the dirty work’. The work with low pay and low status. The recruit’s personal characteristics are removed, and old habits are forgotten in order to create a new self.
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 20
Table 1 – summary of Van Maanen and Schein (1979)
Organizational-driven approach Characteristics
Newcomers are grouped for the socialization process –
common learning experience Collective (vs. Individual)
Newcomers are isolated from other organizational members
while they learn their roles Formal (vs. Informal)
Newcomers receive clear guidelines regarding the sequence
of steps to be taken Sequential (vs. Random)
Newcomers receive a clear time-table for completing each step in the socialization process, and guidance on their line of succession.
Fixed (vs. Variable)
Experienced members act as role model for newcomers Serial (vs. Disjunctive) Newcomers' personal experiences are enhanced Investiture (vs. Divestiture)
The above-mentioned dimensions of Van Maanen and Schein play an important role in a newcomer’s adjustment and the way newcomers experience the socialization process. Jones (1986) argued that the dimensions can be used to classify the socialization process in two categories (institutional and individual). The organizational-driven approach contains the collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture poles and are associated with institutional socialization, while the individual approach contains the individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture poles and form a cluster termed individual socialization. Institutional socialization represents a more formalized development plan, whereas individual socialization has an “absence of structure” (Ashforth et al., 2007. p. 450). The research paper of Ashforth, Saks, and Lee (1997) described the six tactics as independent, however many researchers (Cable and Parsons, 2001; Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004) use the redefined categorization of Jones (1986). Jones found intercorrelations between several of Van Maanen and Schein’s dimensions. Jones’ (1986) subsequent framework grouped the six major tactical dimensions into three broader factors, context-, content-, and social socialization. Context socialization refers the approach organizations take in their information provision to newcomers (collective-individual; formal-informal). Content socialization concerns the order of information provision to newcomers (random-sequential; fixed-variable). And the social socialization
21
dimension refers to the training and learning from insiders (serial-disjunctive; investiture-divestiture). The three dimensions are conceptually richer and allow more differentiation between firms than a single continuum (see also Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004; Cable and Parsons, 2001). However, for this research, the Van Maanen and Schein tactics are considered to contribute the most to the organizational driven socialization tactic research question.
Newcomer adjustment (e.g. organizational commitment, or job satisfaction) is in prior socialization research often used in combination with institutionalized organizational-driven socialization tactics. For example, the institutionalized tactics play an important role in the retention rate of the new recruits, although most of the tactics do strongly depend on the structure of the company, it is hard to say which socialization tactics characterize the structural side of the organizational socialization best. Also organizational commitment is found higher when “individual’s values are substantially revised in their initial experiences with the firm” (Fogarty, 2000, p. 22). In doing so, Griffeth and Hom (2001) found that the institutional tactics: collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture, enhance the loyalty of newcomers and reduce the retention rate. Furthermore, based on institutionalized socialization, it seems likely that the assurance routine will be affected, considering that organizations will have some sort of formal socialization process.
3.2.2 The newcomer-initiated approach [proactive behaviour]
The newcomer-initiated approach focuses on the proactive behaviours exhibited by newcomers to the new organizational role. It deals with the newcomers’ uncertainty, what is associated with the occupied organizational role (Saks and Ashfort, 1997). “Newcomers actively work to reduce uncertainty in their work environments through their own initiative” (Saks and Ashforth, 1997, p.246). As such, the approach is in the socialization literature also referred to as the ‘newcomer proactive behaviour’ approach (Gruman and Saks, 2011). By enforcing into proactive behaviour, newcomers enable themselves to “learn about their abilities, better understand the work environment and specific tasks, and adjust their behaviour in order to improve socialization and career success” (Gruman and Saks, 2011, p.420). The newcomer-initiated approach, in turn, argues that increased information is gathered by own proactive socialization activities than gathered by the more formal, organizational socialization tactics (Ashforth et al., 2007).
Different sorts of tactics contribute to newcomer’s proactive behaviour. A proactive behaviour typology, created by Ashford and Black (1996), is made up of 6 entry tactics. Tactics defined as: information seeking, feedback seeking, job-change negotiating, general socializing, boss-relationship building, and networking. Gruman and Saks (2011) use these proactive
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 22
behaviour intentions in their research paper named “does one size fit all” and redefine the tactics as (1) Information seeking: a newcomer seeks information about a variety of work-related topics and thereby reduce uncertainty about appropriate behaviour (Ashford and Black, 1996); (2) Feedback seeking: the participants seeks feedback and social critique after an assignment and provides information on how they are viewed by others and potentially, how to adjust their behaviour to increase performance (Ashford and Black, 1996); (3) Job-change negotiating: the newcomers wants to modify their job demand; (4) General socializing: the newcomers attend social events/gatherings; (5) Boss-relationship building: the newcomer builds a relationship with his boss; (6) Networking: the newcomer build a relationship with co-workers resulting in a heightened sense of control.
Prior research has shown the applicability of the newcomers-initiated approach to the concept of socialization (Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000; Gruman and Saks, 2011). As such, the organizational intention to socialize the non-accountants, and the experience of the socializee, might be based on the notion of uncertainty reduction in the newcomer-initiated approach. The proactivity typology (newcomers-initiated approach) is used as a factor to identify newcomer’s activity. In which, the newcomer’s proactive behaviour tactics are associated with a wide range of positive outcomes (Ashford and Black, 1996; Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). By way of example, the proactive behaviour of ‘feedback seeking’, is associated with an increase in job satisfaction and with a decrease of actual turnover (Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Also, Morrison (1993) found that ‘information seeking’ is positively related to task mastery, job satisfaction and job performance. Finally, Saks and Ashforth (1997) examined the relation between organizational socialization tactics and proactive behaviour. In which they argued that the formal organizational socialization tactics “sets the stage for information acquisition, which in turn explains the relation between socialization tactics and outcomes” (Saks and Ashforth, 1997, p.248). They found that organizational socialization tactics are positively related to the proactive behaviour (e.g. feedback seeking) (Saks and Ashforth, 1997).
23
3.3 Socialization content
The socialization content refers to the actual learning content and to the process that members of the organization adjust to the specific norms and values of the organization. Various researchers have suggested content areas/dimensions of organizational socialization (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner, 1994; Comer, 1991; Miller and Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1995). However, these various content dimensions contain a great deal of overlap and are almost exclusively focused on organizational newcomers according to Chao et al. (1994). Yet, Chao et al. (1994) argue that socialization is a lifelong process and pertains to a longer period than only organizational entrance. After a review of the socialization theory with view to elaborating the differed content dimensions, they developed an organizational content scale based on performance proficiency, language, people, politics, history and goals/values. Of which Simosi (2010) argued that performance proficiency and goals/values are organization-related dimensions. Of all the research performed on the socialization content, Ashforth et al. (2007) concluded that all researchers agreed that “knowledge acquisition spans the job and role, interpersonal and group relationships, and the nature of the organization as a whole” (p. 449). Comer (1991) provides two typologies with a prime focus on socialization by organizational colleagues (or referred to as: ‘peers’) with focus on “acquiring both job-related skills and group norms and values” (Comer, 1991, p. 66). She defines these job-skills and norms as the necessity of newcomers to gain knowledge on: (1) ‘technical’ information needed to execute the tasks and; (2) ‘social’ information needed to create a relationship with other people; as proposed in the introduction of this thesis. These typologies identified by Comer, are linked to ‘assurance routines’ and ‘working habits’ as defined by O’Dwyer (2011). Technical information belongs to assurance routines, the what question (what non-accountants have to learn). And the social information content belongs to the working habits, the how question (how to operate in the new assurance practice).
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 24
4 Methodology
The objective of this paper is to obtain an in-depth and sufficient understanding of how non-accountants perceive socialization in the sustainability assurance practice. This is a practice/field [sustainability reporting] which lacks in understanding and has rarely been studied (O’Dwyer, 2011). To obtain in-depth knowledge this research will draw upon a qualitative research method. Providing a definition of the qualitative research method should contribute to a better understanding of the diversity inherent to this term:
“Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the world visible. These practices [...] turn the world into a series of representations including fieldnotes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p.3).
By adopting a qualitative approach to this research, as stated in Anderson-Gough, Grey, and Robson (2002), it is necessary to analyse and interpret the social reality and informal process of socialization. Furthermore, to operationalize the naturalistic approach,interviews are conducting which result in an understanding of the non-accountant’s perception (non-accountants, as argued in O’Dwyer (2011) are practitioners who are not trained in financial audit) of the socialization practice. This [field study] method, often described as a form of conversation (Lofland and Lofland, 1995), was adopted because it best allowed non-accountants to reflect on the organizational socialization processes in the context of sustainability assurance, and their relationship they have with the organization and colleagues. The interview data-gathering technique sought to represent “empirical reality as experienced by organizational participants themselves” (Stablein, 2006, p. 515).
4.1 Research method
As mentioned before, this study uses an interpretive approach that requires the use of a qualitative method to provide insight in the perception of socialization. The interpretive approach allows the gathering of the subjective nature of socialization. Legard, Keegan and Ward (2003) describe two key types of generating data in qualitative research: (1) in-depth interviews; (2) focus groups. The two types serve different roles and are based on different key factors. Where in-depth interviews are more focused on the individual’s perspective and personal
25
context, focus groups offer less opportunities for individual information but focus more on interaction between participants. Also in-depth interviews contribute to a better understanding of complex processes, whereas focus groups tackle abstract and more conceptual subjects. Considering the differences, this research has chosen the ‘in-depth interview’ method. However, individual in-depth interviews also contain variation. As Patton (2002) describes four ways of conducting interviews: (1) informal conversational interview (which involves no predetermination of question topics); (2) interview guide approach (involves question topics that are predetermined); (3) standardized open-ended interview (which involves exact wording of every interview, open-ended format); (4) closed, fixed-response interview (interview question responses are fixed, interviewee chooses among fixed responses). Considering the informal, and subjective perception of the non-accountants, the interview guide approach was chosen. Characteristics of the ‘interview guide’ approach allow the interviewer to decide sequence and wording of questions during the interview. The interview guide contains a schedule of open-ended questions to ensure that relevant themes are covered (added in Appendix 1). It also provides guidance as topics and issues are specified in advance, which results in a somewhat systematic outline, leading to an increased comprehensiveness of data (Patton, 2002). Consistent with this view, the data gathered for this study were garnered from interviews in which the interviewees were free to provide their opinion and perspective on socialization processes. Thereby the role of theory in this thesis is based on interpretive sense-making to create an understanding of non-accountants’ subjective experiences and seeking understanding of human experience (Welch et al., 2011). An interpretive approach “emphasise the uniqueness of the social sciences, in which subjects ascribe meaning to their own behaviour and researchers are part of the world they study” (Welch et al., 2011, p. 747). The next section describes the data collection and analysis.
4.2 Research design
In this thesis, only one single stage of research is used, namely semi-structured interviews with non-accountants (assurance practitioners not trained in financial audit) to answer the descriptive research questions stated in the first chapter. The interviews were structured based on prior literature on the matter and some evidence obtained in an informal setting.
4.2.1 Data collection
The study was performed in the Netherlands at one of the Big Four audit firms (Code-Name REC used for anonymity). Wherein Big Four audit firms refer to the four largest worldwide
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 26
financial audit organisations, being KPMG, PwC, Deloitte, and EY. Access to REC was ensured by an internship in the period from February till June 2016. At REC, employees who are engaged in sustainability report assurance were interviewed. The decision for a Big Four firm was made since these firms are most enrolled in sustainability assurance (see also: KPMG, 2015).
The first step in designing the semi-structured interview study was to contact potential interviewees for this thesis. From a REC internal database, potential candidates were identified. The contacted group of potential respondents were sustainability assurance practitioners who have consultancy backgrounds. The respondents can be regarded as credible, in relation to the topic under investigation, for all the respondents were validated as to whether they have conducted assurance practises and possess consulting backgrounds.
In total, 18 potential interviewees were contacted by email in March 2016. After initial contact 10 individuals agreed to participate in the study. Three respondents were not qualified as they have not performed any assurance engagement. As a result, this study involved 7 semi-structured interviews with 6 non-accountants (without any financial assurance experience) and 1 accountant (with financial assurance experience) in order to gain in-depth understanding of the research topic. Table 2 shows a summary of the interviewee details.
Table 2: Interviewee details
# Interviewee Position Background
Date of interview
Duration (minutes)
1. IA Senior Advisor Advisory April 19th 59:48
2. IB Advisor Advisory April 19th 61:57
3. IC Senior Advisor Advisory April 26th 48:09
4 ID Advisor Accountant April 26th 44:47
5 IE Advisor Advisory April 26th 52:15
6 IF Senior Advisor Advisory May 13th 65:28
7 IG Advisor Advisory May 23th 55:17
The interviews were held at a place of convenience for the interviewees, resulting in interview sites in Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The interviews were held at the office of REC. The majority of the interviews took between 45 minutes and 1 hour (see table 1). To improve reliability of the data, an interview guide was used in which topics were predetermined. Resulting in a consistent framework of topics in the interviews. The interviewees were ensured of their anonymity to
27
encourage honest response to the discussed topics. Notes were taken during the interviews and for transcription and validation purposes all interviews were recorded.
As stated before, Appendix 1 contains the interview guide, in which the following themes were discussed: background and various sustainability assurance processes, organizational socialization and individual socialization. Making use of an interview guide, containing the construction and order of questions, ensured that all relevant themes were covered and provided a conversational structure. The guide was based on organizational socialization theories to gain an in-depth understanding of the non-accountants’ attitude and perception of their socialization experiences. The themes all contained separate goals. The first background theme was intended as an introduction and warm-up section, which included asking the participants general questions regarding their educational path. The second theme focused on the organisational socialization questions and overall socialization into assurance practices. Questions included: the process of learning their role, introduction experiences unique to their first assurance work and the role of the socializing agent. The third theme contained questions that focused on individual socialization activities. With questions pertaining to reduction in uncertainty, desired feedback and possible modifications in their specific job demand.
4.2.2 Data analyses
For this study, content analysis was the primary data analysis tool used to measure the socialization experiences of non-accountants. The open-ended questions provided the interviewees with the opportunity to explore and discuss their experiences openly. All the interviews were transcribed based on the interview recordings. To improve the quality and comprehensive nature of the data, the full transcripts and notes were examined and reread to further the researcher’s understanding. Afterwards, the initial themes and experiences were derived from the interview guide.
The transcribed data was analysed based on the three sub-processes defined by Miles and Huberman (1994) and O’Dwyer (2004) being: data reduction (the process of reducing and focusing interview transcripts by coding the data and searching for recurring themes and patterns); data display (the continuing process of organizing and compressing information into graphical formats to support conclusion drawing); conclusion drawing (noting patterns and develop conclusions regarding the study).
The qualitative and transcribed data was analysed. Subsequently, an updated list of themes was formed to correspond with the established key categories: organizational and individual socialization. The detailed findings are reported in chapter 5 (descriptive analysis) and
University of Amsterdam Socialization of Non-Accountants 28
a theme overview table was prepared (appendix 2). A detailed mind map was prepared with the key category themes, belonging codes and the location of the code in the transcript. Accordingly, the analysis was framed based on the categories, with special attention to similarities and possible contradictions in the interview analysis. The mind maps are presented below in table 2 till 5. The codes in the column on the left are the interview codes (e.g. IA) which correspond to table 1. The numbers in the columns refer to the pages of the transcript where the code is mentioned. The Total row represents similarities mentioned in the individual transcripts. For the code-index with the identified sub-themes refer to appendix B.
Table 3
Primary theme: Organizational approach to socialize newcomers (OS)
interviewee OS/IE OS/RR OS/OP OS/SL OS/P OS/T
IA 7 5 5 8 IB 3/4 6 2 5 IC 5 4 8 4/7 ID 2 3 1 IE 5 4 7 5 5 IF 6 4 5/7 1/5 3 IG 3 6 2 Total 6 4 6 3 6 3 Table 4
Primary theme: Organizational socialization process for first-time assurance practitioners (OA)
Interviewee
OA/BL OA/LG OA/TT OA/LR OA/AM OA/WTI OA/RG
IA 3 9 2/12 6 8 IB 3 7 IC 4 5/6 2/4 3 6/7 6 ID 6 5 2 IE 5 4/5/9 3 5/8 IF 8 5/7 7 3/8 12 5/8 IG 1 3 3 Total 2 3 5 5 6 3 5
