Exploratory Research into the Personality of Internal Auditors
by Violaine Paresi and Bob van Kuijck
ABSTRACT
Several studies (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Costa and McCrae, 1992) have been performed on the identification and interpretation of a person's personality traits along the Five-Factor Model (containing the traits of openness to experience, neuroticism/emotional stability, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness) as well as on underlying personality traits. However, a comparison has not yet been made to see whether the personality of an internal auditor is significantly different from the general population along these five personality traits. In this study, the results on the Personality for Professional Inventory (PfPI) test of De Fruyt and Rolland (2013) from a pre-defined norm group (N= 311, TalentLens) with a high education were compared to the results on the PfPI test (containing 183 statements to be rated) for a test group. For this test group, 2,518 members of the IIA in The Netherlands were approached and responses were received from 313 out of this group. The results show that the internal auditors score significantly higher than the norm group on emotional stability, openness to experience and conscientiousness. The differences noted can be interpreted in the light of several important abilities which support internal auditors in their work, such as an organized way of working (related to conscientiousness; De Fruyt and Rolland, 2013), higher confidence levels and being less prone to stress (related to emotional stability; De Fruyt and Rolland, 2013). From these results we can conclude that on elements essential to internal auditor performance, the internal auditor’s personality in the test group is indeed significantly different from the norm group. Limitations lie in the exploratory nature of this study.
Recommendations for further research focus on different research methods such as interviews and additional analyses to further explore the reasons behind the results.
Key words: internal auditor, personality, big-5 traits, five-factor model
Violaine Paresi is senior auditor at ABN AMRO Bank and Bob van Kuijck is programme director at the Executive Internal Auditing Programme of the University of Amsterdam. We thank Erwin Cubuk, Martine Hendriks, Robin Holtel, Ester Jansen, Bert van Mourik, Erwin Mol, Onno Rommen and Thalia Weidema for sharing their thoughts and input.
INTRODUCTION
The traditional assumption about auditing is that the auditor processes information in an objective and independent manner (Global Standards CIIA; McGrath et al, 2001; Sutton, 1997). However, Smith (1999) suggests that this is not very realistic because each individual adopts his or her own approach to tasks such as information search, judgment and reporting. Despite the auditor´s intentions to operate objectively and independently in accordance with professional standards, the influence of personal characteristics is undeniably present and affects the auditor’s judgment (see also Gul et.al, 2013). It is generally accepted that judgment performance is influenced by the personality and cognitive capacities of the
information processor (Rusting, 1999; McGee et al., 1978). Therefore, a focus in research on the personality of internal auditors is not surprising. This study aims to explore the differences between internal auditors and a general highly educated population. As this research is exploratory, it is important to provide a background on research results from external auditors and other (related) professions.
Hirschberg (1978) defines personality traits as stable characteristics of individual differences that may be used to describe and explain behaviour. In the literature, a substantial amount of evidence supports that the personalities of people in various types of professions differ and each profession shares psychological characteristics (Shanteau, 1988;
Rubinstein, 2005; Fritsch and Rusakova, 2010).
In auditing research, findings indicate certain common personality traits for external auditors. For example, Bealing et al. (2006) performed research among external auditing students using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Their research findings confirmed results from Landry (1996) which indicated that the personality type of external auditors is generally common as “ESTJ” . This implies that the subjects were more Extrovert rather than Introvert, Sensing rather than Intuitive, Thinking rather than Feeling, and Judging rather than Perceiving. Moreover, within the external audit profession there can be different common personality types.
Kreiser et.al, 1990, and Jacoby (1981) found evidence that accounting students and accountants have another profile (ISTJ) as compared to Certified Public Accountants.
Although extensive research has been done in the area of external auditors, limited research has been carried out on the personality of internal auditors. We suggest that there could be differences between internal and external auditors because of differences in work content. As compared to external auditors, internal auditors are more involved in advisory activities and are more focussed on operational processes; but tend to be less involved in financial auditing.
Furthermore, as internal auditors often work for the company which they audit, independence and objectivity could possibly be more precarious. This circumstance leads to the conclusion that results from personality research in an external audit environment cannot be generalized to internal auditors in a straightforward manner.
Research background and hypotheses Five-Factor Model and PfPI
The Five-Factor Model (also known as the Big Five) is a well-accepted taxonomy for classifying personality (Barrack and Mount, 1991; Costa and McCrae, 1992; John and Srivastava, 1999). The trait definitions which would ultimately lead to the Five-Factor Model commenced with Allport and Odbert’s (1936) extensive listing of words related to personality traits. Parts of this list were clustered by Cattell and Allport (1943) into
thirty-five personality traits and reduced to five factors (different from those eventually incorporated in the Five-Factor Model) by Fiske (1949). Following extensive research, McCrae and Costa (1985) defined the five factors or personality traits as they are now used in the generally accepted Five-Factor Model.
Due to its status as a well-accepted taxonomy for personality, the Five-Factor Model will be used in this study to discuss the internal auditor’s personality. In the review of the dimensions, we use the twenty-one traits as described in the Personality for Professional Inventory (PfPI), though only nineteen are used to analyze the scores on the five main traits (in accordance with the methods used by DeFruyt and Rolland, 2013). This instrument has been statistically validated and has strong correlations with the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) of McCrae et al. (2005). Moreover, the PfPI is especially developed to measure personality in a work- related context (Rolland and De Fruyt, 2009).
Many studies show that measurement scales with context related items do have a high predictive value (e.g. Schmit et al., 1995;
Mlinaric and Podlesek, 2013).
Audit tasks
In general, an audit can be described as an iterative process of audit activities comprising different interrelated phases (e.g.
planning, fieldwork, evaluating audit evidence, reporting). For the purpose of analysis, we focus on the work which an internal auditor performs on three major audit activities indicated by Biggs et al. (1988), namely:
information search, judgment (i.e. decision making, evaluation) and reporting. On each of these activities the auditor has to perform well and contribute certain personality traits to superior performance.
Information search
Internal auditors start their work after defining the objective and scope of the audit.
They have to formulate a problem statement and audit questions that have to be addressed while performing the audit task within a certain timeframe. The objective of the audit determines the need for certain information
that contributes to answering the formulated audit questions. Heinström (2005) defines information seeking as a dynamic and changing process despite its formal problem- solving attributes. It depends on the situation, but also to a large extent on the individual who performs the tasks. In this context, the complexity of the audit object and the quantity of information needed, affect the process of searching for information.
Decision making
According to Siriwardane et al. (2014), recent scandals have changed the role of auditors and changed the demands for skills, knowledge and attitude. They suggest that decision making is one of the most important skills that needs to be well developed in all auditors. In this respect, they state: ‘Even though most major decisions are made by audit seniors, managers and partners, there are enough important decisions that all auditors must make individually or collectively.’ Among other audit tasks, auditors need to make decisions in for example (1) risk assessments, (2) audit planning (3) analytical procedures and evidence evaluations, (4) auditors’ correction decisions regarding journal entries, and (5) going concern judgments (see also Nelson and Tan, 2005). In all these audit tasks, highly developed decision making skills are required.
Therefore, decision making is a crucial element in the overall work performance of auditors.
Reporting
In most cases, the audit process that precedes an opinion or advice is often not observed by the end user. The outcome comprises a report in written or oral form. An internal auditor who expresses an opinion or gives advice, tries to persuade his or her audience of the audit findings and conclusions drawn. In practice, the combination of both written and oral presentation of audit findings and results is frequently used to increase the persuasiveness. In order to persuade end users, there are many ways to convince people (see also Cialdini and Goldstein (2004);
Goldstein et al. (2011). Auditors should be aware of techniques of social influencing and
take them into account in day-to-day practice in an ethical manner.
The three areas identified above will be used in establishing the relationship between audit tasks and desirable personality traits that auditors preferably should have to achieve superior judgment performance.1 The general descriptions are based on Barrick and Mount (1991) and the items of the PfPI (De Fruyt and Rolland, 2013).
Openness to experience
This trait includes the sub-traits innovation-orientation, intellectual, self- reflection and openness to change. High scores reflect creative and innovative people who are prepared to perform out-of-the-box thinking. They prefer unstructured problems which stimulate them to come up with new solutions. Moreover, they have a broad area of interest and are open to new ideas, approaches and methods. They tend to make abstract and conceptual analyses in order to make future plans which they want to carry out. Often, they are open to suggestions and feedback on their own behavior which helps them in continuous improvement.
Usually, information received during an audit comes from different sources. This can make individuals feel threatened by ambiguity in decision making situations (Smith, 1999). Therefore, an auditor needs to seek more information to overcome their uncertainty. However, the auditor’s personality should induce that the auditor comes out of their comfort zone and looks for additional information; even if the information is not readily available and additional effort is needed. This means that openness to experience is a necessary personality characteristic of internal auditors.
Moreover, this is also favorable in case of advisory oriented work of internal auditors.
In addition, there is evidence that a high score on openness to experience is
1We abstract from other aspects that may be require specific personality traits (e.g. conflict handling, negotiation).
positively correlated with specific types of information-search behavior such as deep diving and broad scanning (Heinström, 2005).
Deep diving is a very profound and thorough manner of searching for information. This information-seeking strategy is especially relevant to (internal) auditors if they need to substantiate findings in detail or need to investigate the core of the matter.
Broad scanning is an information-seeking strategy in which the auditor looks for information from many different sources to find confirming and disproving evidence. This helps to prevent the auditor from encountering biases in their judgement such as tunnel vision.2 Moreover, a broad orientation on the audit object and associated risks is especially helpful in the planning stage of an audit to achieve an adequate problem representation (framing). In addition, openness to others and their positions, combined with readiness to compare several perspectives, expand the chances of altering the persuasiveness (Oreg and Sverdlik, 2014).
Finally, Cooperider et al. (2008) suggest that in order to let the audit be successful the auditor should have an open mind, formulate questions positively and have an equal dialogue with the auditee. In this respect, Conger (1998) suggests that effective persuaders not only listen very carefully to others but are also open-minded and never dogmatic. In this view, open-minded auditors also integrate their thoughts and ideas in a shared solution which increases the acceptance of the audit outcome.
Though there is no direct link between internal auditors and openness to experience from previous research, the abovementioned points do show several expectations in the relationship between openness to experience and auditors’ work and corresponding personality.
We therefore formulate the following hypothesis:
2McMillan and White (1993) showed that auditors are tend to look more for confirming evidence than disconfirming evidence.
H1: The internal auditor group on average obtains a higher score for openness to experience than the norm group.
Neuroticism
This dimension is also referred to as emotional stability. It reflects traits such as sensitivity, self-confidence, susceptibility to stress and tolerance of frustration. Individuals which score high – and are emotionally stable – can cope very well with stressful (e.g. time pressure, criticism) and emotional situations.
Moreover, they can cope with problems as they occur and calmly look for appropriate solutions. They are also good at processing setbacks and have good mental resilience.
They are easily able to relax after a busy day and regenerate very quickly.
In practice, an auditor is initially confronted with uncertainty about the audit object. The task complexity is determined by the amount and clarity of the data as modeled by Bonner (1994). The more complex the audit object and task, the higher the associated uncertainty. In research, the subject of intolerance of uncertainty is identified and is a characterteristic trait that arises from negative beliefs about uncertainty and its consequences. The intolerance of uncertainty3 heightens anxiety and stress which may affect work performance negatively (a.o. Rosen et al., 2014). For example, the ambiguous nature of information (e.g. cue inconsistency) may affect the information processor. People who are intolerant of ambiguity may seek out more information to overcome their uncertainty, but may still be less confident in their decisions than tolerant people (McGhee et al., 1978). It is important that the auditor´s personality should not be susceptible to stress in order to cope adequately with uncertainty.
The credibility of an auditor is crucial to the perceived quality of audits because it affects the decisions of others (see for
3For a better understanding of intolerance of uncertainty, Rosen et al. (2014) propose to identify three related constructs, i.e. intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty orientation and need for cognitive closure.
example Menon and Williams, 1991; Nichols and Smith, 1983). As Falcione (1974) indicates, emotional stability is one of the four significant and statistically autonomous dimensions4 for measuring source credibility.
Research in the communication area indicates that individuals that score high on neuroticism express themselves with lower degrees of self- confidence (McCroskey et al., 2001).
Therefore, individuals are likely to be less persuasive when they are less emotionally stable.
Based on this literature review and discussion, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H2: The internal auditor group on average obtains a higher score for emotional stability (and therefore a lower level of neuroticism) than the norm group.
Conscientiousness
The sub-traits systematic approach, self-discipline, control, motivation to perform and pro-activeness are related to conscientiousness, though in research by DeFruyt and Rolland (2013) it was shown that on the PfPI only the traits systematic approach, self-discipline and motivation to perform could be used to draw conclusions related to conscientiousness. People who score high on the conscientiousness dimension are orderly, disciplined and work systematically. Most of the time they are ambitious and demand the same efforts of the environment as they demand of themselves.
They are highly intrinsically motivated and have a sharp focus on the things which need to be done. Generally, they are well prepared and will be hardly surprised by suddenly emerging problems.
In the meta-study of Barrick et al. (2001), the researchers conclude that conscientiousness is a valid predictor across performance measures in all occupations studied. It is argued here that auditing is an occupation
4In the study of Falcione (1974), 55% of the source credibility was explained by extraversion,
emotional stability, competence and safety.
where conscientiousness plays a more important role as compared to many other professions. In terms of the Elaboration Likelihood Model 5, there is a high emphasis on the central route to persuasion. Therefore, this trait will be crucial in job performance of auditors.
The following hypothesis is stated:
H3: The internal auditor group on average obtains a higher score for conscientiousness than the norm group.
Extroversion
Characteristics relating to extroversion are enthusiasm, sociability, energy and assertiveness. Extrovert people are enthusiastic, outgoing and have fun. They thrive in the social arena, are approachable and approach others very easily. They look for publicity, are acquainted with many and constantly expand their network. Finally, they are assertive and like to put forward their ideas even when this leads to conflict.
The auditor performs a job that requires different personality traits in various phases of an audit.6For example, preparing an audit programme, reviewing documents, writing notes and preparing a report or presentation are desk work activities and are more characteristic of an introverted type of activity. In contrast, making appointments, carrying out interviews and presenting or defending a report are more extrovertly oriented. In practice, the work of an auditor consist of a mix of the mentioned activities.
In literature, evidence is present showing a positive correlation between extroversion and information seeking behaviour (Tidwell and Sias, 2005; Heinström, 2005; Halder et al., 2010). More specifically, Heinstöm (2005) revealed a positive correlation between broad scanning and extroversion. As earlier discussed in this
5See Petty and Cacioppo (1986).
6Abdolmohammadi et al. (2004) give an overview of attributes audit specialist should poses.
paper, this is an important strategy for auditors.
In addition, research of Oreg and Sverdlik (2014) shows that extroverted individuals are more capable of persuading others than introverted individuals. However, this does not mean that extroversion is the key to superior job performance. Barrick et al.
(2001) summarised the findings of fifteen prior meta-analytic studies on the relationship between the Five-Factor personality traits and job performance. The results show that extroversion did not predict overall work performance and performance in sales, but did predict success for managerial performance. This suggests that job performance depends on the specific job characteristics. However, if we put high emphasis on the persuasion of internal auditors a positive relationship with extroversion is expected.
This leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis:
H4: The internal auditor group on average obtains a higher score for extroversion than the norm group.
Agreeableness
The trait agreeableness (also described as altruism by De Fruyt and Rolland, 2013) is approximated by the sub-traits competiveness, being focussed on others, trusting of others and accommodating to others. Agreeable people are flexible and trusting of people in their environment. Often, their focus is on others’ feelings and adjust their behaviour to accommodate others.
Sometimes these people are judged by colleagues as socially naïve, they share success with others. Furthermore, they are tolerant and avoid conflicts, differences of opinion, and quarrels. They have difficulty addressing problems or putting forward their opinions, even when it is necessary to address them.
In the meta-study of Barrick et al.
(2001), which was mentioned previously, it was established that agreeableness is not an important predictor for job performance in any studied occupational group. The
agreeableness personality trait displays a weak relationship with work performance criteria. Moreover, the Oreg and Sverdlik (2004) indicate that no significant relationship is present between agreeableness and persuasion. Finally, also no relationship was found between information seeking behaviour and agreeableness.
As result of the above discussion, we formulate a hypothesis that does not explicitly identify a difference:
H5: The internal auditor group on average will not obtain a higher score or lower score for agreeableness than the norm group.
METHODS Design
The independent variable is the group which the subject is part of (norm group and the internal auditor group). Dependent variables are the scores which are given by the individuals in these groups on each of the statements presented and ultimately the combined scores on each of the personality traits and sub-traits.
The study is based on the PfPI standard survey, which is identical to the survey used in a norm group study conducted by TalentLens (De Fruyt and Rolland, 2013).
Conditions
Internal auditor Group: As part of a wider exploratory research performed in name of the IIA (“Instituut van Internal Auditors”) and University of Amsterdam, the PfPI survey was sent out to all members of the Dutch chapter of the IIA. It is therefore important to note that this study looked solely at internal auditors who are members of the Dutch IIA, but this does not mean that all subjects were necessarily Dutch or work in the Netherlands. Due to the group to which the survey was sent, the decision was made to conduct the survey in Dutch.
In order to protect the privacy of the participants, the survey was sent out by the company TalentLens.
The statements were presented to each subject in the same order. As this study aims to analyze the personality traits along the lines of the Five-Factor Model and the approximating sub-traits as described in the introduction (and appendix I), the statements were representative of only one of the twenty-one sub-trait categories, to enable the grouping of the scores together for these categories during analysis of the data.
The survey was conducted online by sending out a request with a link to the tool to each IIA member, accompanied by a letter of explanation signed by the chair of the IIA and the project leader. The explanation clearly stated the anonymous nature of the survey.
After the survey was sent out, three further reminders were sent out to the subjects.
The research design was strengthened by making the survey beneficial to the participating subjects. Each subject who had completed the PfPI received a personal report.
By doing this, it is expected that the accurate completion of the survey was stimulated and the response rate boosted.
Norm Group: The norm-group was tested under the same conditions as described above, using the Dutch version of the PfPI and Dutch subjects. The norm group study was conducted by TalentLens (2012), and this research solely uses the results provided by TalentLens from this norm group to analyze the differences between this norm group and the currently researched internal auditor group.
Survey and statements
Survey used: The survey used was the Personality for Professionals Inventory (PfPI).
The PfPI has been scientifically validated (De Fruyt and Wille, 2013). This survey has been developed and tested extensively by De Fruyt and Rolland (2013). The survey exists of 183 statements, divided among the twenty-one personality traits, which the subjects score on a scale of five (Likert scale) qualifications: “not at all characteristic”, “not characteristic”,
“more or less characteristic”, “characteristic”
and “completely characteristic”. The survey was sent out and performed by TalentLens on their (online) survey platform and takes
around thirty minutes to fill out. The same survey was used for both the norm group and the internal auditor group.
The PfPI survey and its 183 statements have been extensively analyzed for language differences (through a pilot study described by De Fruyt and Rolland, 2013), validity of items, social desirability in judging the statements and the extent to which the statements are in fact representative of the traits which they are aimed to belong to. As part of the extensive testing the validity of the twenty-one sub- traits and their approximation of the five main traits was studied. It was concluded that nineteen of the twenty-one sub-traits could be used in the approximation and subsequent analysis of the five main traits (this has also been taken into account in the current study).
Statements used: 183 statements were used in the PfPI, with each of the twenty-one personality traits, being represented by seven to ten statements. The nature of the statements is work-related, for example: “I am forward looking and can anticipate problems“. Answers to the statements are given in the form of a five- point Likert scale. It is important to note that the statements and testing method were not designed by the current researchers but were part of the standard PfPI and had been validated during the original analyses by TalentLens at the time of design of the survey.
As the subject group was the Dutch IIA chapter the survey was conducted in Dutch.
Pilot study: A pilot study was performed using 113 selected subjects to explore whether this type of survey could be used for wider research. The subjects in this pilot study were not chosen randomly, but were approached as they were in the personal network of various students at the University of Amsterdam. The execution of this pilot study was done by these students as part of their theses project. After the pilot was performed and went according to expectations, the questionnaire was sent out to the experimental group.
Subjects
Internal Auditor Group: For the internal auditor group, the PfPI survey was sent out to 2,518 subjects, who are members of the Dutch IIA chapter. The entire population of members was approached. Out of the 2,518 subjects 313 responded (12.4%) and filled out the complete survey. Of the 313 respondents 97.8% had the Dutch nationality and 86.2% indicated their education as HBO (college) or higher. Of the remaining respondents, most indicated having completed another form of higher education.
Norm Group: For this research, use was made of the results previously obtained by TalentLens through its research. Overall, the study conducted by TalentLens to establish this norm group was performed among 1,021 subjects. Of these subjects, 311 indicated their level of education as high. High education is defined by TalentLens as a subject having obtained a college degree;
university degree; PhD or higher. It was decided that this group of subjects would be most similar in education level to the subjects in the internal auditor group. Therefore, the results from these 311 subjects were used for analysis purposes.
Data entering and analysis
The data and values for the internal auditor group were entered into Excel through a data-dump by TalentLens. This data was entered manually into SPSS. For the analysis of the internal auditor group, and to perform descriptive statistics, SPSS was used. A box- plot was used to detect any outliers and analyze any abnormalities in the data. One abnormality was found for age (-943) and this person was removed from the dataset.
Therefore the further data-analyses were conducted on the 312 remaining subjects.
Several graphs were run to give insight into the spreads of scores in the internal auditor group.
For the comparison data from the norm group, TalentLens provided the
researchers with aggregated data in Excel (due to intellectual property rights on the detailed data set) containing averages (as well as
various other data such as standard
deviations) of scores for the norm group. As this aggregated data was to be compared with data on a subject level from the internal auditor group, the internal auditor group data was also aggregated to perform the
independent sample t-tests (in which the means were compared). However, the analyses of the comparison of the two (internal auditor and norm) groups had to be conducted in Excel (using independent sample t-tests to compare the means). Furthermore, the researchers had to calculate the
appropriate variances in Excel, based on the data provided.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
The descriptives per personality trait for the internal auditor group (table 1) should be compared to the norm group (table 2) for a meaningful comparison.
Internal auditor group (N=312)
Personality trait PfPI Average Sd Emotional stability 122.76 16.51
Extroversion 107.16 13.61
Openness to experience 127.61 12.58 Altruism/Agreeableness 122.33 11.96 Conscientiousness 106.44 11.81 Table 1. Averages and standard deviations per
personality trait for the internal auditor group. Averages are cumulative averages of scores on all statements (7- 10) per sub-trait, further accumulated to the level of personality trait.
Norm group (N=311)
Personality trait PfPI Average Sd Emotional stability 113.49 18.88
Extroversion 104.54 14.46
Openness to experience 121.66 13.46 Altruism/Agreeableness 122.56 13.18 Conscientiousness 101.09 14.55 Table 2. Averages and standard deviations per personality trait for the norm group. Averages are cumulative averages of scores on all statements (7-10) per sub-trait, further accumulated to the level of personality trait.
Averages on four out of the five personality traits are higher for the internal auditor group. Only for altruism (agreeableness) the average score was lower for the internal auditor group than for the norm group.
Demographics
The internal auditor group contained 72%
males and 28% females with an overall average age of 44 (ranging from 25 to 72). In total 86.2% has indicated to have obtained a degree of the level college or higher, with most of the remaining 13.8% (who indicated
“other”) having a another form of higher education.
The norm group contained 52% males and 49% females. All have obtained a degree of the level college or higher.
Testing for significance of differences
To test whether the differences indicated in the descriptives were significant and therefore lead to acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses and the null hypotheses, t- tests were performed for each of the nineteen personality sub-trait (which approximate the five traits) and each of the five personality traits.
Openness
The results on the t-test for openness to experience show that the internal auditor group scores significantly higher than the norm group (p<0.01). Furthermore, the sub- traits ‘openness to change’ (p<0.01),
‘innovation orientation’ (p<0.01) and
‘intellectual versus action orientation’
(p<0.01) are also significant. Solely the sub- trait ‘self-observation’ was not significant.
Overall, we can accept the hypothesis for openness to experience.
Neuroticism
For emotional stability (the opposite of neuroticism) the t-test showed that internal auditors do score significantly higher (p<0.01) on this trait than the norm group. All four underlying sub-traits also tested as significant (p<0.01), though it should be noted that for the sub-trait ‘susceptibility to stress’ the internal auditor group scored lower than the norm group. Therefore the hypothesis, as set in the introduction can be accepted.
Conscientiousness
For conscientiousness the internal auditor group scored significantly higher than
the norm group (p<0.01). This significance was also noted for two of the underlying sub-traits of conscientiousness which can be used for the analysis; namely self-discipline, and systematic approach. However, motivation to perform was not significant. The sub-traits control and pro-activeness are not part of the overall conscientiousness calculation, in accordance with the methods used by De Fruyt and Rolland (2013).
Extroversion
The t-test comparing the scores on the extroversion trait between the internal auditor group and the norm group showed no significance. Though the underlying sub-traits
‘energy’ (p<0.01) and ‘assertiveness’ (p<0.05) were significant, the sub-traits of ‘enthusiasm’
and ‘sociability’ were not. Due to these results the hypothesis has to be rejected.
Agreeableness
For the personality trait of agreeableness (in the PfPI described as altruism) no significant difference was shown.
The hypothesis can therefore be accepted.
Within the sub-traits of agreeableness, only
‘accommodating to others’ (p<0.05) was significant with a lower score for the internal auditor group than the norm group.
DISCUSSION
The central question in this study is whether internal auditors are different in their personality from a norm group of people with a high education in various professions.
Therefore, we need to look closely at the results on each personality trait and analyze the implications of significant differences.
Firstly, for openness (to experience) a significantly higher score was found for the auditor group than for the norm group, supporting the hypothesis. Of the sub-traits only self-reflection was not significantly higher. This means that internal auditors are not more aware of how they are viewed by others than the norm group. However, they are more likely open to solving problems which are not repetitive, open to change and able to maintain a good overview. They are able to make abstract and conceptual analyses
in order to make future plans that they want to carry out. A high score on openness to experience has been shown to be related to thorough and overview searching methods:
deep diving and broad scanning (Heinström, 2005). Both are important to an internal auditor’s work in ensuring that they look for enough evidence to support their findings.
Maintaining a good overview and a open mind are also essential to an auditor’s open conversations with the auditee and the avoidance of biases such as tunnel vision and framing (Heinström, 2005; Cooperider et al., 2008). The results therefore illustrate that in the conditions of the current study, the auditor is indeed more in possession of these traits than the general population.
Secondly, for emotional stability we see that the internal auditor group scores significantly higher than the norm group leading to the acceptance of the hypothesis.
However, the score was not exceptionally high in general (both scored in what could be called the medium range of the full score spectrum).
Looking at the significance of the scores on the sub-traits, we see that internal auditors scored significantly higher on sensitivity, tolerance of frustration and self confidence and significantly lower on susceptibility to stress. This means that internal auditors appear to be more confident, less easily stressed and less quickly frustrated, though also more negative in their thinking than the norm group.
In the introduction, several elements were identified which were of importance to internal auditors. For example, the auditor´s personality should be not be susceptible to stress in order to cope adequately with uncertainty; this leads to more source credibility (Falcione, 1974). The results indeed support that auditors are more self confident and emotionally stable, and therefore could be perceived as more credible. Being perceived as more credible is important to internal auditors in all stages of their work, but especially in the reporting stage when they have to convince and advise management.
Thirdly, for conscientiousness the internal auditor group had an overall significantly higher score than the norm group; with the sub-traits self-discipline and systematic approach being significant and the sub-trait motivation to perform not being significant. People who score high on conscientiousness tend to have more self- discipline and self-control and when reviewing the results this could lead to the conclusion that auditors would indeed be less surprised by sudden problems. It should be noted that though the internal auditor score is significantly higher than the norm group, both have a score in the medium range of the overall spectrum.
Fourthly, for extroversion internal auditors only scored significantly higher on the sub-traits energy and assertiveness, but not on the others and also not on the general trait of extroversion. The hypothesis had to be rejected. It appears that internal auditors are not more extrovert than the norm group as a whole, do not have greater enthusiasm and sociability but, relating back to the energy and assertiveness sub-traits, are not afraid to share their opinion and are more action oriented than the norm group. In the introduction it was illustrated that a positive correlation exists among extroversion, information seeking behaviour (Tidwell and Sias, 2005; Heinström, 2005; Halder et al., 2010) and broad scanning (Heinström, 2005).
This is an important information finding strategy for auditors. Extroverted people are also more capable of persuading others (Oreg and Sverdlik, 2014). Though the overall results are not in support of these positive information seeking behaviours being present, we do see through the significant difference in assertiveness that for the subjects in this study the capability of persuading others is more present in internal auditors than in others.
Fifthly, for agreeableness no significant differences were noted, meaning that the internal auditor group does not score higher but also not lower on this trait. It was assumed that no significant difference would be present on the trait and the hypothesis was
accepted. However, auditors should in general not be afraid of a possible conflict as conflict handling is part of their everyday work. We do see, when looking at the results on the sub- traits that internal auditors are not more or less trusting of others, egocentric and competitive than the norm group.
Importantly, there is one sub-trait on which the internal auditors scored significantly lower than the norm group, namely being accommodating to others; which also can be described as the avoidance of conflicts. In the conditions of this study, internal auditors are less likely to avoid conflict (and more likely to confront) than the general population.
In general we can conclude that internal auditors score differently on several personality traits than the norm group, while no significant difference is found for others.
Implications of these results can be related to for example the recruitment of internal auditors. From the results we can conclude that internal auditors score significantly different as opposed to the norm group on such personality traits as self- confidence and assertiveness which contain skills important for the internal auditors work.
From this exploratory research, it appears that there is a sort of general profile for auditors which is unlike the general norm group on some elements. If the personality of internal auditors can be adequately charted through a survey such as the PfPI, it could be useful in ensuring that new recruits in the internal auditing profession possess certain desirable traits. For example, the current research showed no differences between the norm group and auditor group in agreeableness, though it may be seen as desirable for an auditor to have a low score on this trait. Using a personality survey could help in predicting whether they will be able to perform their work adequately. Hogan et al. (1996) concluded that personality traits can be a useful predictor for organisational productivity.
However, the use of such personality surveys should only be one of the tools employed, due to the limitations of such surveys. Previous research warns against
solely relying on them (Morgeson et al., 2007).
In the current research, for example, we cannot estimate whether a person is actually effective in their daily work.
In addition to the use in recruitment, the results could be used in the training of internal auditors, knowing where to focus and which areas are still potential weaknesses for the internal auditor population. Also, through analysis of the personality traits on which internal auditors score high (for example more action orientated) it could be easier to set up trainings which will be effective for internal auditors; this has also been implied in a meta- analysis performed by Barrick and Mount (2006) for a general population.
Furthermore, though these results show that there are differences between the personality scores on the PfPI for internal auditors and a general norm group; an important question for further research is whether internal auditors are different in their personality traits due to the learning process and experiences in the auditing profession, or whether people who choose to become auditors tend to be people with certain personality traits. To analyze this, it would be interesting to look at differences between auditors with very little work experience and those with a wide experience. We can see from other research that there are differing results in trait development or the lack thereof. A study by Roberts et al. (2006) shows that people increase in extroversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability from ages twenty to forty; with subsequent decreases shown later on in life. However, Costa et al. (1984) shows a strong correlation between the personality of students and their vocational interests, leading to think that the personality of a person leads them to choose a certain profession.
Also, the element of gender is not specifically analyzed in this study and should be topic of further investigation. Preliminary analysis of the current internal auditor subject group also showed significant differences between men and women, most notably on emotional stability/neuroticism. Previous research supports differences between men and women and their scores on personality traits, especially in European and American
culture (Costa et al. 2001; Feingold, 1994).
Analyzing these differences is essential if a personality survey would be used as an essential part of recruitment.
Though the current study focused on the use of a personality survey as a tool to analyze differences in personalities, surveys do have limitations (Morgeson et al., 2007).
Therefore, we suggest in further research to use for instance interviews with both internal auditors and non-auditors to explore
differences noted in this study further.
REFERENCES
Abdolmohammadi, M.J., Searfoss, D.G., Shanteau, J. (2004). An investigation of the attributes of top industry audit specialist. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 16: 1-17
Allport, G. W., Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1): 171
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. (1991).The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26 Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., Judge, T.A. (2001).
Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2): 9-30
Barrick, M.R., Mount M.K., Bealing, W., Baker, R., Russo, C. (2006). Personality: What it takes to be an accountant. The Accounting Educators’ Journal, 14 : 119-128
Bealing, W.E., Baker, R.L., Russo, C.J. (2006).
Personality: What it takes to be an accountant.
The Accounting Educators’ Journal, 16: 119-128 Biggs, S.F., Mock T.J., Watkins, P.R. (1988).
Auditor’s use of analytical review in audit program design. The Accounting Review, 63 (January): 148- 161
Bonner, S.E. (1994). A model of the effects of task complexity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19: 213-234
Cattell, R.B., Allport, G.W. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4): 476-506
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 591-621
Conger, J. (1998). The necessary art of persuasion.
Harvard Business Review, 76(3): 84-95
Cooperider D. L., Whitney, D., Stavros, J.M. (2008).
Appreciative inquiry handbook (2nd ed.). Ohio:
Brunswick Crown Custom Publishing
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., Holland, J.L. (1984).
Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3): 390- 400
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1): 5-13
Costa, P., Terracciano, A., McCrae, R.R. (2001).
Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2): 322-331 De Fruyt, F., Wille, B. (2013). "Hey, This is not like me!" Convergent validity and personal validation of computerized personality reports. Revue europeenne de psychologie appliqué, 63(5): 287- 294
De Fruyt, F., Rolland, J.P. (2013). PfPI; beschrijving persoonlijkheid op het werk. Talentlens/Pearson Falcione, R.L. (1974). The factor structure of source credibility scales for immediate superiors in the organizational context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association (New Orleans, Louisiana). April
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3): 429-456
Fiske, D.W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3): 329-344
Fritsch, A., Rusakova, M. (2010). Personality Traits, Self-Employment, and Professions. SOEPpaper, 343
Goldstein, N.J, Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R.B. (2011).
Reciprocity by Proxy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3): 441-473
Gul, F.A., Donghui, W., Zhifeng, Y. (2013). Do individual auditors affect audit quality? Evidence form archival data. Accounting Review, 88(6):
1993-2023
Halder, S. Roy, A., Chakraborty, P.K. (2010). The influence of personality traits on information seeking behaviour of students. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 15: 41-53 Heinström, J. (2005). Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: The influence of personality and study approach on student’s information-seeking behavior. Journal of Documentation, 61(2): 228- 247
Hirschberg, N. (1978). A correct treatment of traits.
In: H. Londen (ed.) Metatheories of personality.
New York: Wiley: 45-67
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., Roberts, B.W. (1996).
Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5): 469-477
Jacoby, P.F. (1981). Psychological types and career success in the accounting profession. Research in Psychological Type, 4: 24-37
John, O. P., Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press
Kreiser, L., McKeon, J.M., Post, A. (1990). A personality profile of CPAs in public practice. Ohio CPA Journal (Winter): 29-34
Landry, Jr. R.M., Rogers, R.L., Harrell, H.W. (1996).
Computer usage and psychological type characteristics in accounting students. Journal of Accounting and Computers, 12(4)
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1): 81-90
McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Martin, T.A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3): 261–270
McCroskey, J.C., Heisel, A.D., Richmond, V.P.
(2001). Eysenck’s Big Three and communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs, 68: 360-366
McGhee, W., Shields, M., Birnberg, J. (1978). The effects of personality on a subject’s information processing. The Accounting Review, 53(3): 681-697 McGrath, S., Siegel, A., Dunfee, T.W., Glazer, A.S., Jaenicke, H.R. (2001). A framework for auditor independence. Journal of Accountancy, 191(1): 39- 42
McMillan, J.J., White, R.A. (1993). Auditors' belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation bias, and professional skepticism. The Accounting Review, 68(3): 443-465
Menon, K., Williams, D.D. (1991).
Auditor credibility and initial public offerings Accounting Review, 66(2): 313-332
Mlinaric, V., Podlesek, A. (2013). Item context effects on Big Five personality measures. Review of Psychology, 20(1-2): 23-28
Morgeson, F.P., Campion, M.A., Dipboye, R.L., Hollenbeck, J.R., Murphy, K., Schmitt, N. (2007).
Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60(3): 683-729
Nelson, M., Tan, H. (2005). Judgement and decision making research in auditing: a task, person and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24 (supplement):
41-47
Nichols, D.R., Smith, D.B. (1983).
Auditor Credibility and Auditor Changes. Journal of Accounting Research, 21(2): 534-544
Oreg, S., Sverdlik, N. (2014). Source personality and persuasiveness: Big Five predispositions to being persuasive and the role of message involvement.
Journal of Personality, 82(3): 250-264
Petty, R., & Ciaoppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.
New York, Academic Press: 123-205
Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E., Viechtbauer, W.
(2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-
analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1): 1-25
Roland, J.P., De Fruyt, F. (2009). PfPI: Inventaire de personnalité au travail [Personality for Professional Inventory]. Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée (ECPA). Paris, France
Rosen, N.O., Ivana, E., Knäuper, B. (2014).
Differentiating intolerance of uncertainty from three related but distinct constructs. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 27(1): 55-73
Rubinstein, G. (2005). The big five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7): 1495–1503
Rusting, C.L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood on emotion-congruent memory and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5): 1073-1086
Shanteau, J. (1988). Psychological characteristics and strategies of expert decision makers. Acta Psychologica, 68: 203-215
Siriwardane, H.P., Kin Hoi Hu, B., Low, K.Y. (2014).
Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes Important for Present-Day Auditors. International Journal of Auditing, 18: 193-205
Schmit, M.J., Ryan, A.M., Stierwalt, S.L., Powell, A.B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5): 607 Smith, M. (1999). Personality issues and their impact on accounting and auditing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 14(9): 453-460
Sutton, M.H. (1997). Auditor independence: The challenge of fact and appearance. Accounting Horizons, 11(1): 86-91
Tidwell, M., Sias, P. (2005). Personality and information seeking: understanding how traits influence information-seeking behaviors. The Journal of Business Communication, 42(1): 51-77 Van Kuijck, J.R. (1999). Control of judgement performance in auditing; an empirical study.
Thesis. Amsterdam.
APPENDICES
Appendix I
Description of the five traits and twenty-one personality sub-traits as described by DeFruyt and Rolland (2013) Openness
People with a high score on openness (to experience) are creative, innovative, can think out-of-the-box and maintain a good sense of overview. They are flexible and open to feedback. Those who score low on openness are more practically minded and less open to change.
Sub-traits approximating Openness:
- Creativity and innovation mindedness: People with a high score on this sub-trait are original and creative; whereas people with a low score are more likely to prefer solving problems which they are familiar with.
- Intellectual versus action orientation: People with a high score are thorough in their research but also able to maintain an overview; whereas people who score low are more practical in their approach.
- Self-reflection: People who score high on self observation, tend to welcome and ask for feedback from others; whereas people with a low score are less aware of how they are viewed by others.
- Openness to change: People who score high on this sub-trait are open to change and more flexible than those who have a low score.
Neuroticism/Emotional stability
People who score high on the trait emotional stability are better able to handle emotional or stressful situations. They are confident and can handle negative feedback. People who score low on emotional stability are sensitive and emotional. They cannot handle criticism as well without it affecting them as much. It is important to note that in the Five-factor model, emotional stability is actually called neuroticism (essentially the behaviour at the other end of the spectrum from emotional stability).
Sub-traits approaching Neuroticism/Emotional stability - Sensitivity: People who score high on
sensitivity are more prone to negative emotions and feelings. They fluctuate more in their emotions and are more easily panicked than those who have a low score on sensitivity.
- Self-confidence: People with a high score on self confidence are more confident in their decisions and are more comfortable with themselves.
- Susceptibility to stress: People who score high on this sub-trait are more likely to experience tension or stress. Furthermore, they cannot relax as easily as people with a low score on this sub-trait.
- Tolerance of frustration: People who score high on tolerance of frustration are able to
handle negative feedback and their emotions relating to frustration better than people with a low score on this trait.
Conscientiousness
Those with a high score on conscientiousness are very systematic in their way of working, as well as ambitious and orderly. They tend not to be caught by surprise.
People with a low score on conscientiousness tend to be less ambitious and often tend to procrastinate.
Sub-traits approximating Conscientiousness
- Systematic approach: High scoring people are well organized and more predictable than others who score low on this sub-trait.
- Self-discipline: People who score high on self discipline tend to be good at motivating themselves to meet deadlines; whereas those with a low score are more easily distracted and procrastinate.
- Control: People with a high score on control are better able to concentrate and think about why they are doing something. People with a low score on control are more influenced by emotions and their mood. However, DeFruyt and Rolland (2013) found that this trait did not sufficiently approximate Conscientiousness to include it in the analysis.
- Motivation to perform: People with a high score on this sub-trait want to achieve perfection and will enjoy acknowledgement more than those with a low score.
- Pro-activeness: People with a high score on this sub-trait tend to be forward thinking and strategic, making them more able to think of long term results; whereas people with a low score are less forward looking and tend to be more surprised by things happening to them.
DeFruyt and Rolland (2013) found that this trait did not sufficiently approximate Conscientiousness to include it in the analysis.
Extroversion
People with a high score on extroversion are enthusiastic and socially comfortable being in a surrounding with new people. They tend to be very energetic and assume leadership roles naturally. Those with a low score on Extroversion prefer working alone and are more pensive and outgoing.
Sub-traits approximating Extroversion:
- Enthusiasm: People with a high score on enthusiasm are more optimistic and able to maintain and create a positive atmosphere.
- Sociability: People with a high score on sociability are able to approach others with ease and usually have a large social network;
whereas people who have a low score tend to have difficulty approaching others.
- Energy: People who score high on energy tend to be very action orientated and need speed in those (physical) actions.
- Assertiveness: People who score high on assertiveness are likely to be the leader in groups and are dominant; whereas people low on assertiveness tend to have a low tendency to share their opinion.
Agreeableness
Those who score high on agreeableness (also called altruism) are very trusting of others and will not voice their own opinions as much as people with a low score on this trait. Those with a low score also tend to be more egocentric and competitive. They do not feel a need to conform to a certain opinion or group, even if this leads to conflict.
Sub-traits approximating Agreeableness:
- Competitiveness: People with a high score on competitiveness are more orientated towards winning and comparing their accomplishments to others; whereas those who score low on competitiveness have a tendency to work together.
- Focus on others: People who score high on this sub-trait tend to care about others and listen to other people’s viewpoints; whereas people who score low tend to have a more egocentric point of view.
- Trust in others: People who score high on trust in others, are more likely to perceive others as reliable and as a result are more open to them than those with a low score.
- Accommodating others: People with a high score on accommodation others tend to avoid conflicts; whereas those with a low score find it easy to confront others.
Appendix II
Full table of t-test results for the five traits and nineteen sub-traits used in the analysis
Personality trait Mean NG sd NG Mean AG sd AG T Significance
Openness (to experience) 121.66 13.46 127.61 12.58 4.02 p<0.01
Innovation-orientation 25.79 4.07 27.41 3.62 3.70 p<0.01
Intellectual vs action orientation 35.05 5.51 36.83 5.23 2.93 p<0.01
Self-reflection 25.73 3.57 26.24 3.09 1.35 Ns
Openness to change 35.10 5.52 37.13 4.82 3.46 p<0.01
Emotional Stability 113.49 18.88 122.76 16.51 4.60 p<0.01
Sensitivity 27.41 6.70 24.19 5.99 -6.33 p<0.01
Self- confidence 26.03 3.80 27.78 2.93 6.45 p<0.01
Susceptibility to stress 25.86 5.94 23.39 5.60 -3.78 p<0.01
Tolerance of frustration 20.74 5.65 22.56 5.01 2.99 p<0.01
Conscientiousness 101.09 14.55 106.44 11.81 3.56 p<0.01
Systematic approach 33.36 6.28 35.70 5.48 3.49 p<0.01
Self-discipline 34.95 6.04 37.13 5.03 3.45 p<0.01
Motivation to perform 32.77 5.88 33.61 5.08 1.34 Ns
Extroversion 104.54 14.46 107.16 13.61 1.64 Ns
Enthusiasm 25.81 4.23 25.42 4.37 -0.80 Ns
Sociability 23.32 5.45 23.93 5.11 1.02 Ns
Energy 33.09 4.92 34.44 4.31 2.56 p<0.01
Assertiveness 22.32 4.62 23.38 4.00 2.14 p<0.05
Agreeableness 122.56 13.18 122.33 11.96 -0.16 Ns
Competitiveness 30.63 5.69 30.17 5.17 -0.76 Ns
Focus on others 32.02 3.67 32.29 2.95 0.74 Ns
Trusting of others 37.01 5.44 37.49 5.00 0.81 Ns
Accommodating others 24.16 5.75 22.71 5.26 -2.32 p<0.05
Table 3. This table contains the mean score, standard deviation (sd), t-values (T) and significance levels for the Norm Group (NG) and Auditor Group (AG) on both the five personality traits and the 19 sub-traits used in the analysis and results.
