HOW AND WHY AUDITORS PERCEIVE THEIR DAILY
WORK IN MULTICULTURAL AND MULTILINGUAL
TEAMS IN GERMANY
Master Thesis
MSc Business Administration: Organizational & Management Control Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen June 24, 2019
Lena Krieger
Student number: S3445682 E-mail: l.krieger@student.rug.nl
Abstract
Drawing upon the challenges that audit firms are facing, evolving through cultural and language diversity in audit teams, this study extends the existing literature by researching how and why auditors perceive their daily work in multicultural and multilingual teams in Germany. The findings confirm the study of Detzen & Loehlein (2018), who found barriers and distances between German and other entities within audit firms. Furthermore, the findings of the semi-structured interviews provide the following reasons for barriers and distances: Perceptions of a lack of critical thinking, a lack of language skills as well as insecurities, misunderstandings and communication issues. This, in some cases, even lead to project delays, decreases in profit or to the exclusion of a foreign auditor to receive promotions.
Key words
Table of Content
1. Introduction ... 4 2. Theoretical framework ... 7 2.1. CULTURAL DIVERSITY ... 7 2.2. LANGUAGE DIVERSITY ... 11 3. Research methodology ... 14 3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 14 3.2. DATA COLLECTION ... 14 3.3. DATA ANALYSIS ... 16 3.4. RESEARCH SETTING ... 17 4. Results ... 20 4.1. CULTURAL DIVERSITY ... 20 4.2. LANGUAGE DIVERSITY ... 285. Discussion and conclusion ... 32
References ... 36
List of figures and tables
Figure 1: Hofstede Insights: Specialities about the Chinese, German and Syrian culture ... 10
Figure 2: Chronological order of the research procedure ... 19
Table 1: Information about the interviewees ... 16
Table 2: Auditor's perceptions about teams beyond work ... 26
Table 3: Contrasting perceptions of auditors about teamwork ... 27
Table 4: Auditor's perceptions about the use of a foreign language ... 28
1. Introduction
The audit industry is influenced by the globalization, which causes audit firms to face new challenges in terms of an evolving cultural and language diversity (Barrett, Cooper, & Jamal, 2005; Detzen & Loehlein, 2018; Sim, 2009). Internal problems such as communication and team work issues could have problematic consequences, caused by this diversity (Harzing & Feely, 2008; van den Born & Peltokorpi, 2010). Avoiding these consequences is highly relevant, since it influences the overall effectiveness of auditing (Barrett et al., 2005). However, how exactly auditors perceive the cultural and language diversity in a firm structure, in which auditors work in international project teams within the same office, has not been investigated yet. The influences of cultural and language diversity on team work and communication are of particular relevance for the audit firms, due to special conditions that the industry faces. More specifically, the tasks of the auditors within the team are building up on each other’s (Barrett et al., 2005), because the information gathered by individual auditors need to be connected and put together into a unified audit opinion (Rudolph & Welker, 1998). Therefore, interdependencies consists among the tasks of the auditors, which make communication within the audit team essential (Rudolph & Welker, 1998). Moreover, the communication within the team directly influences the success of the “[…] end product, the audit opinion” (Rudolph & Welker, 1998). Hence, the collective approach of auditing makes communication and team-work highly necessary. However, multinational employees team-working together in one team can lead to different standpoints and conflicts amongst team members (Lloyd & Härtel, 2010). In addition, the personal judgement and interpretation bases as well as expressing scepticism is important in the audit industry, which can be subjective and dependent on the cultural background of the individual (Sim, 2009; Sunderland et al., 2017). Accordingly, a diversity in cultures indeed influences the communication and team-work setting in audit firms. This is highly relevant to consider, since dysfunctional teamwork in the multinational audit work could decrease the overall effectiveness of auditing, because the auditors are dependent on the work of their team members (Barrett et al., 2005; Rudolph & Welker, 1998).
The effective communication and with it the seamless functioning of linguistic practices would avoid barriers, that could otherwise harm the necessary team-work spirit (Barrett et al., 2005; Detzen & Loehlein, 2018). Due to the special conditions in the audit industry regarding the need for communication as well as team work it is to be expected, that employees in audit firms perceive the cultural and language diversities differently than in other industries and perhaps even more intensively.
By bringing together the existing literature on globalization’s influences on audit firms with the existing literature on cultural and language diversities in international companies, a research gap is apparent and evolving. Namely, how exactly the auditors perceive their daily work in multicultural and multilingual teams. Previous studies have for instance analysed the effectiveness of cross-cultural audit groups, (Sim, 2009) but did not contribute to an actual understanding of the auditor’s perceptions. In researching the auditor’s perceptions within semi-structured interviews, this study supports the management to understand the multinational setting in audit teams better. Thereby, this research will expand the knowledge of the auditor’s perceptions in the multinational audit setting and hence, build upon the research of Detzen & Loehlein (2018). Their study analysed the cultural and language diversities in the Big 4 accounting firms solely in Luxembourg, where the firm model led to entities structured by languages. Therefore, subcultures, stereotypes and prejudices about the other groups evolved (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018). Moreover, Detzen & Loehlein’s (2018) study found that amongst others, the German entity had difficulties to fully adapt and thus, distances between German and other entities were recognized. It is not quite clear yet why these distances evolve between German auditors and other international auditors and neither to what extent those distances are perceived in the daily work of auditors in Germany. By investigating the perceptions of German and international auditors within one office, this study is enabled to draw conclusions from both perspectives and thus, analyse the whole picture. Therefore, by building upon Detzen & Loehlein (2018), the following research question is to be introduced:
How and why do auditors perceive their daily work in multicultural and multilingual teams in Germany?
2017). This is in line with the statement of Brannen (2000), who claimed that it is of strong importance for the management to understand cultural interactions and negotiations in order to enable effective monitoring as well as generally manage a culturally diverse setting. This would enable the management to address concerns more systematically, allowing the diversity of knowledge and perspectives to be used effectively (Iles, 1995). This is confirmed by Detzen & Loehlein (2018), who argue for the necessity of future researches in order to uncover the poorly explored language diversity phenomena in the audit industry.
2. Theoretical framework
In order to answer the introduced research question properly, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of the existing literature.
As outlined in the introduction, globalization does indeed influence audit firms and can be defined as “[…] the integration of goods and capital markets among countries” (Akisik & Pfeiffer, 2009). Due to the integration of capital markets among countries, one of the most significant consequences that globalization leads to in the audit industry are changes in the accounting and financial reporting standards (Akisik & Pfeiffer, 2009). A movement from national format standards to international format standards can be observed (Alon & Dwyer, 2012; Detzen & Loehlein, 2018). A “[…] uniform audit approach with details on issues such as audit planning, risk evaluation and substantive testing” (Abdullatif & Al-Khadash, 2010) is claimed to be more effective (Abdullatif & Al-Khadash, 2010). As a result of the uniform approach, the international audit firms can standardize their work processes across national borders (Manson, Sherer, & Wallace, 1998). Due to the standardization of processes, audit firms are enabled to react with the centralization of their firm processes (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018). Through centralization developments, employees are increasingly communicating with international colleagues (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018). Therefore, a conflict of the firms’ culture and language is to be observed, since communicating internationally on a corporate level is just as important as maintaining the local culture and language (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018). This might lead to certain challenges perceived by auditors, that have not yet been researched. In line with the necessity to use the corporate international language, Sunderland et al. (2017) states that the auditors have to communicate with multinational people during their work routines. Consequently, it is to be expected that the auditors will have to interact with colleagues from different cultural backgrounds as well as in languages that are not their mother tongue. This could lead to several consequences and perceptions on the employee level, which are highly relevant to consider and to be aware of, in order to assure for effective communication and teamwork in the audit industry. Therefore, the possible perceptions and consequences are outlined and discussed in the following section.
2.1. Cultural diversity
can be defined as “[…] an evolved capacity for adaption at group level” (Hofstede, 2015) which “regulates the social life of groups” (Hofstede, 2015). Based upon this definition, it can be concluded that culture plays an important role, especially in groups, which makes it relevant to research the perceptions of auditors in multicultural teams.
the strong bond between the group members of collectivists, where the single individuals of the group are aiming for the same goals (Zoogah, Boghossian, & Sawyer, 2010). The two different attitudes against risk lead to different decisions “[…] regarding when to stop collecting evidence” (Nolder & Riley, 2014), which is an important decision in auditing. It can be inferred that disagreements in the multicultural audit teams could arise. In addition, differences in the decision-making approaches are to be observed as well, since the collectivists aim for a general consensus which is rather incremental as opposed to efficient and fast (Hurn, 2007). This can be explained through the importance of conformity across group members in collectivist cultures, where positive relationships are more important than the achievement of personal goals (Nolder & Riley, 2014). In multicultural teams, where individualists work together with collectivists, decision-making can lead to conflicts because the decision-making approach of the collectivists takes more time, which can be detrimental to the western, more individualist cultures (Hurn, 2007). However, the individualistic employees are not used to waiting a prolonged time for a final decision, since their decisions are made rather quickly, by empowered individuals and not with an overall consensus (Hurn, 2007). The fast and efficient decision-making approach in the individualistic culture is in line with the trait of directness, which is not seen as common in the collectivistic culture (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). In the collectivistic culture, morality is highly important and therefore, being too direct by becoming offensive could even lead to shame of the offending person (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). Hence, the outlined dimension of collectivism and individualism shows that cultural differences can lead to different attitudes, perceptions and objectives regarding group and teamwork. Due to the importance of the collective task fulfilment and teamwork in the audit industry (Rudolph & Welker, 1998), the specific perceptions of auditors in multicultural teams should be further investigated.
(Hofstede, 2015) is considered in this study as well, since it is expected to influence the overall atmosphere in international audit teams.
The following figure 1 shows that the German culture scores high on the individualism scale, whereas the Chinese and Syrian scores are low and thus tend to the opposite, the collectivism. In addition, it demonstrates that the German culture scores low in power distances, whereas the Chinese and Syrian culture score high in the power distances.
Figure 1: Hofstede Insights: Specialities about the Chinese, German and Syrian culture
In addition, differences in self-critical thinking exist amongst cultures, which lead to the fact that individuals differ regarding the confidence and believe in their judgements (Nolder & Riley, 2014). Therefore, the judgement and interpretation bases, which are highly relevant to use in auditing, can strongly differ across cultures (Sim, 2009). This could create a whole new challenge regarding the internationalization of audit teams, since individual’s viewpoints, that were not questioned before, face new and different approaches. In this context it has to be considered that being overconfident and not thinking self-critically can be ineffective in international audit teams (Nolder & Riley, 2014).
fully effective, it is to be expected that the audit projects take a larger amount of time to be fully accomplished. However, by referring to the fact that the hours needed for an audit project is a common cost driver, it becomes clear that ineffectiveness in audit teams can lead to an increase of costs (B. Pierce & Sweeney, 2004).
In the end, the cultural differences of auditors regarding group commitment, interpretations and judgements can not only lead to issues regarding communication but also to exclusion of minorities. In the study of Sunderland (2017) auditors from other cultures are labelled as “out-group component auditors”, since they tend to have different work routines than other auditors in their well-known and familiar environment (Sunderland et al., 2017). Another study of Nolder et. al. (2014) found that regardless of whether employees tend more to the individualist or collectivist culture, they are more likely to get into a conflict with the out-group individual than with employees that are culturally similar. Moreover, the study claims that it is most likely that bias exists against the work of the out-group auditor and that therefore, their information is not always trusted (Nolder & Riley, 2014). How auditors perceive group work with out-group auditors or as out-group auditors needs to be researched more extensively, since exclusion and mistrust most likely harms the audit quality and effectivity (Sunderland et al., 2017). Thereby, this study focuses on multinational audit teams located in the same office, since direct communication is a more personal way that would enable the positive development of relationships between employees (Karjaluoto, 2014). Hence, perceptions about other group members are presumably stronger in the same office.
2.2. Language diversity
In order to analyse the cultural differences more effectively, language as one key aspect of culture (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018) is to be introduced. Language is highly relevant to analyse in this context, since it enables multinational communication across different cultures (Baldauf & West, 1986).
by management is paid to changes and developments regarding to the language used within the firm (Charles, 2007). One reason for this necessity is that language creates the basis for communication (Piekkari & Zander, 2005). The communication and adequate usage of language is especially important in the audit industry, since a very specific terminology is needed as well as the ability to express scepticism sufficiently (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018). However, meeting the expectations regarding language skills can be already challenging for employees in general (Charles, 2007). Due to the special conditions in the audit industry, it is to be expected that this challenge is even more obvious and present in this industry. This is in line with the study of Evans (2004), who states that different languages are never fully alike and that specific accounting terminologies could have distinctive meanings in other languages, which could lead to misunderstandings (Evans, 2004). Thereupon, resulting language barriers could harm the knowledge transfer among employees and thus also the productivity of the organization (Kulkarni, 2015). However, to be strongly effective is especially relevant for auditors due to the fact that external competition leads to budget and time pressures (Bernard Pierce & Sweeney, 2006). These pressures can be detrimentally to the audit quality, to the extent that the audit firm could be harmed in the long-term (Bernard Pierce & Sweeney, 2006). Therefore, the importance of awareness on language diversity and corresponding consequences should not be disregarded.
In addition, language diversity can even lead to exclusion of employees in the minority. The study of Harzing & Feely (2008) argues that individuals tend to cognitively assign people to different categories (Harzing & Feely, 2008). The resulting groups create a feeling of oneness regarding their common characteristics (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Furthermore, it is underlined that a possible indicator for grouping people into categories is language (Harzing & Feely, 2008). Therefore, language diversity could lead to discrimination of minorities as well as the avoidance of the communication with people that have a different native language (Harzing & Feely, 2008). This would cause strong difficulties in working effectively together in a team, which is however of high importance for the audit industry, since auditors have to rely on each other’s tasks (Rudolph & Welker, 1998). This is strongly in line with the paper of Charles (2007), which states that language disparities could harm the effectiveness of teamwork in an international organization.
Lauring, 2013). The usage of English for non-native speakers can also be referred to as the “lingua franca” (Charles, 2007; Cordeiro, 2018). Even though English as the lingua franca may have positive effects on multinational teams, different issues can arise due to language diversities. In fact, different language skills between natives and non-natives result in a different usage of English (Hurn, 2007). Moreover, inadequate English skills and a resulting lack of confidence as well as different accents could impair the communication with other firm members (Cordeiro, 2018; Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013). This is however highly important for the audit work (Rudolph & Welker, 1998). Employees with a lack of English skills may find it difficult to engage in small-talk with their multinational colleges which is in line with a difficulty to build up strong teamwork (Charles, 2007). Furthermore, the lack of adequate English could lead to arising misunderstandings (Charles, 2007), harming the highly necessary effective communication in audit firms.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research design
The literature gap outlined above is studied as followed: First of all, this research focuses on primary data. Since this study aims to find out more about auditor’s perceptions in multicultural and multilingual teams with “how” and “why” questions, the collected data is qualitative and gathered through interviews with auditors. The qualitative interview approach is seen as appropriate when a researcher wants to gain new insights (Edmondson & Mcmanus, 2007), which is aimed for in this study. The researcher focuses on semi-structured interviews. In that way, the pre-set of questions ensure that the interview topics do not digress (Gugiu & Rodríguez-Campos, 2007). At the same time, the semi-structured interviews allow the space to have a flexible conversation, which enables the interviewee to open up (Gugiu & Rodríguez-Campos, 2007). By using this interview approach, the interviewed auditor is allowed to be open and to express his or her perceptions. This meets the aim of this study, to gain new insights and a deeper understanding. Since this study answers the research question based upon a small amount of interview cases and afterwards conclude the findings to the theory, the study will be inductive.
3.2. Data collection
In order to conduct interviews with employees that are advantageous and matching with the research question of this study, communication with the auditors in advance was very important. In that way, respondents were selected that are either auditors with a foreign background working in Germany or that underlie the influence of international colleagues in the same team and office in Germany. This guaranteed that multicultural and multilingual face-to-face interactions occur during their daily work. Due to the written contact and gathered information in advance of each interview meeting, the questions varied to some extent from the original interview guideline, depending on their national background and experiences. In that way, the questions could be adjusted towards a stronger focus on the individual auditor and his or her specific working conditions.
and the third covers the general perceptions of the special conditions in the audit industry. All in all, 18 questions were posed and discussed.
The following table will give an overview of the interviewee’s firms, positions, experiences and national backgrounds:
Interviewee Audit firm Position Experience Background
1 Rinke Treuhand GmbH,
Wuppertal
Audit assistant 0,5 years Syrian
2 Ernst & Young,
Hamburg
Audit assistant 2 years Chinese
3 Ernst & Young,
Hamburg
Audit assistant 1,5 years German
4 Ernst & Young,
Ravensburg/Stuttgart
Senior auditor 3 years German
5 Ernst & Young,
Ravensburg/Stuttgart
Senior auditor 3,5 years German
6 Ernst & Young,
Frankfurt
Trainee auditor 0,5 years German
7 PwC, Munich Auditor
Manager
6 years German
8 BDO AG, Hamburg Audit manager 6 years German
Table 1: Information about the interviewees
3.3. Data analysis
3.4. Research setting
As mentioned above, the research and interview collection will focus on audit firms in Germany, since Germany as a research setting is highly relevant regarding the cultural diversity. A previous study found that the German individualistic culture combined with a contrasting, more collectivistic culture led to inner-group tensions (Lincoln, Kerbo, & Enhagen, 1995). It is thus necessary to find out whether the German employees, which are said to tend more to an individualist culture (Nolder & Riley, 2014), have difficulties to commit to international audit project teams in Germany. Due to the special need for the audit firms to have functioning teamwork, it is highly relevant to contribute to the literature by examining the perceptions of German and international auditors in practice. This is also in line with the future research suggestion from Sunderland (2017), to examine the multinational audit group work in diverse contexts and to link it closer to the practice.
Moreover, Germany as a research setting is highly relevant because the language disparities and resulting issues can be assumed to be quite high. One reason for this is presented through the paper of Cordeiro (2018), which states that English as a common communication basis plays an overarching role in globalized business relationships. However, the German firms and employees seem to be deeply connected with their native language and therefore more comfortable with speaking German than English to the extent that the majority would not be ready to correspond in English (Dhir, 2005).
This is in line with the paper of Detzen & Loehlein (2018), who found that the German audit teams were having difficulties with adapting to a foreign language as well as to connect with other international, non-German teams. Thus, by taking together the relevance of complex language and terminology in Germany with the usage of very specific terminology in the audit industry, it becomes clear that the consequences of culture and language diversity can be regarded as highly relevant and perhaps even more intense in this setting. Hence, this study aims to investigate how and why auditors perceive their daily work in Germany. By including the perceptions of both, German and international auditors, the researcher is enabled to analyse Germany as an audit setting from both perspectives.
The following figure will contribute to an understanding of the methodology of this research in chronological order:
4. Results
4.1. Cultural diversity
The cultural differences of multinational auditors working together in one office are visible in different statements of the interviewees. Interviewee 7 claims that different work approaches are to be observed in different nationalities and cultures. The auditor names examples, which are shown in the following quote:
“For example, a colleague from Russia, you give him something to do and he does it, but he also does not look left and right. In addition, there are other nations that look more to the left and right and may also be a bit more creative, perhaps to find new solutions, but then sometimes, they are much slower in fulfilling the tasks.” (Interviewee 7)
Thus, Interviewee 7 claims within an example that one of his foreign team colleagues fulfils his task but does not show any initiative to go beyond it. In the next sentence, Interviewee 7 argues that even if other foreign team colleagues are showing more initiative, they may tend to work slower and thus less efficient. Although the Russian culture is not the primary target of this research, this statement is to be considered since it shows the perception of distinctive work approaches by different nationalities and cultures in audit teams, which is in line with the claim from the study of Sunderland et al. (2017). However, especially the perceived inefficiency regarding the slow work behaviour could lead to increasing costs in an audit project, since hours is a typical cost driver (B. Pierce & Sweeney, 2004). In addition, the mentioned inefficiencies can lead to time pressure in the end of the project, which is likely to harm the audit quality (Bernard Pierce & Sweeney, 2006).
Moreover, Interviewee 8 explains in the following quote that his Chinese colleagues, which are working in the German office, are simply fulfilling their task without critically questioning it. He states that this is not consistent with the critical attitude existing in the German office.
This quote from Interviewee 8 shows that the German auditor perceives the different work approach in the audit industry as not always effective. He describes that it would be better, if the foreign auditors would think more critically and show some initiative in coming back to him to double check the tasks. This phenomenon is confirmed by the Interviewee 7. When he was asked for consequences of the lack of initiative by his foreign colleague, he answered the following:
“(…) but the result was not what I had exactly stated or what my expectation would have been. Then he failed in his task, we could not continue and he did not look for solutions by himself, so I had to sit down again in the next step and find a new approach. So that was quite annoying, because we as auditors are responsible for several and different projects and we have to rely on the other colleagues and if that did not work then it just did not go on. This, of course, has caused a delay, and by having fixed budgets in the audit industry, the longer we work on a project, the less is left from the budget at the end.” (Interviewee 7)
Thus, Interviewee 7 perceives that the different cultural approach in the way of not thinking critically has negative consequences on the audit work. More specifically, the German auditor cannot rely on his foreign colleague, so that the project could have a delay and could fail which in the end influences the budget negatively. This perception is in line with the study of Nolder (2014), who states that not being critical can be ineffective in international audit teams. This furthermore confirms the fact that abilities to express criticism and scepticism is highly necessary in the audit work (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018) and directly influences the audit quality (Sunderland et al., 2017).
The negative consequences of not being critical are also observable in a statement by Interviewee 6, who claims that the participation of Chinese colleagues that are neither being critical nor direct can lead to less efficient meetings:
(Christensen et al., 2014). Hence, in order to analyse this phenomenon from the collectivist perspective, a quote from an interviewed Chinese audit assistant is to be demonstrated:
“(…) in the Chinese culture, we are relatively reserved and modest, we never express our opinions as directly as a German would. Therefore, if I have an idea, I would also think again and think about whether the idea really works and is a good idea, and then I would like to share my idea. But then the other colleagues would talk about other issues already.” (Interviewee 2)
Thus, the culturally different behaviour is confirmed by the interviewed Chinese audit assistant (Interviewee 2). She argues that sometimes, she hesitates too long whether or not to express an idea in meetings. This situation could indeed lead to less effective meetings as already mentioned by the German Interviewee 6, because the possibly good idea is simply lost and cannot be discussed in the meeting.
When the Chinese audit assistant was asked about how she feels in these kinds of situations in meetings, she answered that it was not pleasant for her, making her feel insecure, especially in the beginning, when she was not used to the German directness.
“I find that not so pleasant that the other colleagues represent everything relatively direct and simply say what they want, so there are no barriers. (…) But now, after a few years in Germany, I’m used to phrase everything more directly (…). But in the beginning, I felt really insecure. (Interviewee 2)
The interviewed Syrian audit assistant (Interviewee 1) confirms the perception of the German directness. He states that he perceives the German culture as more direct than the Syrian culture. He explains that besides the direct, negative feedback, he would need positive feedback as well. This would tell him whether the tasks are fulfilled correctly or not and it would avoid feelings of insecurity. In addition, positive feedback would motivate him.
“I need motivation, and not only bad feedback. I would have liked to always get feedback because I was insecure. For me, feedback and directness should be positive as well as negative and my German colleagues did not convey good feedback the way I would have liked it. It would also help me to know if I did my tasks right or not.” (Interviewee 1)
only receiving negative feedback could lead to the demotivation of the Syrian auditor and to tension within the group, which could ultimately impact the audit effectiveness, since a collective approach is highly relevant (Rudolph & Welker, 1998).
Furthermore, by analysing feelings of insecurity, observable in the quotes by Interviewee 1 and 2, an interviewed German audit assistant (Interviewee 3) could give an idea about the possible consequences that could occur, as soon as foreign auditors feel insecure about their tasks:
“Other Asian colleagues, they sometimes stare for an hour on their laptop and do not understand the task. And even if the senior asks if they need help, they say no and after two hours it turns out that they did not do anything. In these situations, there is a lack of understanding from the side of us Germans, because that delays work that could have been done in the meantime.” (Interviewee 3)
The German audit assistant (Interviewee 3) describes that some Asian colleagues in his office are not showing enough initiative to ask for help. This causes delays in the audit work. By referring to the literature it becomes clear that due to hours as a cost driver, delays increase the overall costs for an audit project (B. Pierce & Sweeney, 2004). In addition, through the strong external competition, audit firms are pressured to meet budget and time constraints and in a bottleneck of time through delays, the audit quality is likely to suffer (Bernard Pierce & Sweeney, 2006). Moreover, Interviewee 3 expresses that from the perspective of the Germans, there is a lack of understanding for this behaviour. This is in line with the research of Hurn (2007), which states that learning and understanding each other cultures is important in order to reduce confusion and misunderstandings during the work progress. Only if this is given, adaption to the different cultural setting is possible (Molinsky, 2016). However, multicultural colleagues learning from each other and understanding each other’s cultures does not seem to be the case in the quoted situation. This is to be recognized in the fact that the Chinese colleague behaves differently to the German auditors, which provokes confusion in the German auditor’s perspective.
languages and the reserved behaviour of the Germans indeed inhibit the development of the relationship of trust:
“(…) it depends on where they come from, but they are usually more open than the Germans, because there is then just the barrier due to the reservednessof the Germans. (…) I think that it is more difficult to build the relationship of trust with international colleagues, due to the culture and the language of course.” (Interviewee 4)
In addition, Interviewee 4 explains that the interactions of the Germans with foreign colleagues tend to be restricted to necessary information. He names the following consequence on the audit work when trust is harmed:
“If I do not have faith in the work of the other, then I automatically always check. And if I do that, it costs me time and time always means money in the audit. So, for economic reasons, trust in the audit is important because otherwise I have to control and as I said, that costs money.” (Interviewee 4)
The German senior auditor first of all claims that the trust relationship is indeed different to auditors from other cultures and secondly, he claims that if trust does not fully exist, auditing takes more time and thus costs more money. This is strongly in line with the literature review of this study, which states that controlling other auditor’s tasks takes time, which increases the cost driver of hours required for an audit project (B. Pierce & Sweeney, 2004).
Another German senior auditor (Interviewee 5) was asked about the relationship of trust and possible differences of German and international colleagues. He mentions the following:
“I think that makes a difference again, but probably more subconsciously, I can well imagine that. Especially if you know each other better through the same language and the same culture, the relationship of trust will develop better.” (Interviewee 5)
The perceptions of Interviewee 4 & 5 are in common with the literature, where audit team members from a different culture with different work routines can be referred to as the “out-group” auditors (Nolder & Riley, 2014; Sunderland et al., 2017). According to previous studies, building a trust relationship to them can be impeded and hence, audit quality can be harmed (Nolder & Riley, 2014; Sunderland et al., 2017). However, the senior auditor mentions that the perception of the different trust relationship most likely occurs subconsciously.
(Interviewee 7) confirms that this is indeed the case. Some would only pay attention to their own tasks, whereas others, for instance the Chinese colleagues, even help each other on the weekends with tasks that are not necessarily relevant for their own success. Caring for team members and not putting the individual interests as the first priority is a main trait of the Chinese, collectivistic culture (Nolder & Riley, 2014) and clearly observable in the following statement:
“(…) some of the German colleagues only pay attention to their tasks, what counts for them is that they do not have any problems at the end of the day. (…) Others, for instance the Chinese colleagues help each other with their tasks even on Saturdays. I barely recognize that behaviour at German auditors.” (Interviewee 7)
This is also confirmed by the Chinese audit assistant. She reasons that the German colleagues differentiate more between their own person and the audit team and that the priority of the Germans lies on their own benefit. In contrast to that, she explains that the Chinese culture is different and that the benefit of the community is the highest priority.
“Here in Germany, the relationship between your own person and teams is very clear and is also clearly separated compared to China. We think of the benefit of the community or collective as first and as a priority, and then we take our own benefit into account. In Germany it is the other way around.” (Interviewee 2)
The Syrian audit assistant (Interviewee 1) perceives a different teamwork approach in the German and Syrian culture as well. He describes that teamwork was more intense in Syria because planning as a team was very common, which contrasts with his experiences in Germany. However, according to him, planning together in a team would be an advantage in the audit work, because it allows individuals to learn from each other.
“In our team in Germany, the topic of teamwork was not so important, the boss distributes the tasks so that everyone has something to do. But because we are not planning together as a team, I have learned more about teamwork in Syria. In addition, I never knew what the others do. But that’s important, because you can benefit from it, because you could learn from the others again.” (Interviewee 1)
& Riley, 2014). Therefore, audit teams with members of the individualist and collectivist cultures should be aware of the different approaches in order to judge and interpret other risk behaviours correctly, because risk plays an important role in auditing (Nolder & Riley, 2014). Since the different risk behaviours influence the strongly relevant decision about when the audit evidence is sufficient enough (Nolder & Riley, 2014), it can be expected that this will possibly lead to tensions within the group.
In addition to the consequence on risk behaviour, the different teamwork approaches should be considered because teamwork plays an important role in audit group work. Thus, it can be expected that the German auditors could gain a better understanding of a strong teamwork bond from the foreign auditors. On the other hand, the different approaches regarding teamwork could also lead to confusion and tension within the multinational audit group (Lincoln et al., 1995). This consequence is detrimental in audit teams, since constant and successful communication is essential for the audit quality (Rudolph & Welker, 1998).
Moreover, three of the interviewed auditors (Interviewees 2, 5, 8) also recognize that the German culture is different in regards to teams and relationships beyond work. The Chinese audit assistant explains the different cultural approaches deeper, arguing that the German auditors did not spent their private time with their colleagues, whereas this would be common in the Chinese culture:
Table 2: Auditor's perceptions about teams beyond work
in German audit teams as it would be in China and Syria. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is a possibility to improve the spirit of teamwork in Germany. This is of high importance, since successful communication and teamwork positively influence the audit costs and quality (B. Pierce & Sweeney, 2004; Bernard Pierce & Sweeney, 2006).
However, contrasting perceptions to the literature have been found in the statements by Interviewee 5, 6 and 8 (table 3). The Interviewees 5 & 8 agree on the fact that there is not much difference in the teamwork approach of divergent cultures. Moreover, Interviewee 5 explains that teamwork is a priority in Germany, even though it would not go beyond the workplace, as stated by him in the quote above. He further explains that colleagues are protected in cases of problems with clients. These statements are in contrast to the literature of Brannen & Salk (2000), since the self-focused characteristic of the German, individualistic culture cannot be recognized. In addition, Interviewee 6, who is currently working on a project in China, argues that he perceives the teamwork to be stronger in Germany. This clearly contradicts with the statement of Nolder & Riley (2014), which claims that teamwork would be more profound in the Chinese, collectivist culture.
Table 3: Contrasting perceptions of auditors about teamwork
4.2. Language diversity
The perceptions of language diversities of multinational auditors working together in one office are visible in different statements of the interviewees. Table 4 provides an overview of the general perceptions of the auditors in Germany, when speaking a language different to their mother tongue:
Table 4: Auditor's perceptions about the use of a foreign language
Based upon these quotes, it becomes clear that the auditors indeed perceive differences in communicating in foreign languages during their audit work. The foreign auditors working in Germany (Interviewee 1, 2) claim that using the German language increases misunderstandings and that therefore, it would be easier to use their own mother tongue in auditing. These perceptions are in line with the literature, since Evans (2004) reasons that languages are never fully alike and therefore, especially in the accounting industry, misunderstandings are likely to arise. In addition, the German auditor (Interviewee 4) explains that speaking in his mother tongue German during the audit work is indeed different to the use of English, which was more of a problem in the beginning of his audit experiences, when his English skills were not as developed. This made him feel insecure in conversations with international colleagues. The auditors perception aligns with the literature review, which presents the issue, that a lack of English skills could result in a lack of confidence in the usage of English (Cordeiro, 2018; Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013).
Moreover, the interviewees were asked about further explanations and consequences on the audit work. The Syrian audit assistant explains his perceptions of the usage of the German language in combination with the specific terminology in the audit industry:
He argues that the German audit terminology was problematic in the beginning. This again confirms the literature review of this study, because misunderstandings can arise due to language distinctions in accounting terminologies (Evans, 2004). It can be concluded, that multinational audit groups should give special attention to correct translations, especially in the beginning of teamwork in a multilingual setting, in order to avoid misunderstandings and possibly resulting ineffectiveness. Regarding the Syrian audit assistant, the issue remaining is that he has difficulties to express himself and to discuss a topic. This phenomenon is also observable in the following statement of the Chinese audit assistant:
“That’s easier in Chinese. In German, it is sometimes the case with me that I have an idea, but it takes time until I can present it correctly and clearly in German. I think it would be easier to do it directly in Chinese because I do not have to think much.” (Interviewee 2)
Hence, the Chinese audit assistant (Interviewee 2) perceives that it takes a longer time to present her ideas in German, whereas this would be easier in Chinese. The following statement by the German senior auditor (Interviewee 4) is in line with the statements of the two foreign auditors. He perceives it as difficult to discuss in English with native speakers, especially when they apply audit terms that are unknown to him.
“But if I have to discuss English intensively, I sometimes find it quite difficult with a native speaker, because you have to ask more often, especially when he mentions some audit terms that I have not heard before.” (Interviewee 4)
These three statements confirm the phenomena presented in the literature review, which state that face-to-face interactions such as discussions are causing issues due to the necessity of instant translations (Evans, 2004).
auditor (Interviewee 4) states that communicating with English native speakers takes him a longer time to understand the content correctly.
Table 5: Auditor's perceptions about multilingual team inefficiencies
Hence, in comparison to the communication in the auditor’s mother tongue, an inefficiency is perceived in regards to the communication in a foreign language. The communication process takes more time. By referring to the audit manager (Interviewee 7), this can influence the profitability of the audit projects. He argues that a longer project time leads to less profit, which confirms the pressures of time and budgets (Bernard Pierce & Sweeney, 2006), as shown in the literature review of this paper.
“(…) by having fixed budgets in the audit industry, the longer we work on a project, the less is left from the budget at the end.” (Interviewee 7)
Aside from the consequences regarding inefficiencies, auditing in a foreign language can also have other effects. The German audit assistant (Interviewee 3) explains that his colleagues from Eastern Europe can speak German but not fluently, especially in faster conversations. This would have even led to the the audit colleague not receiving promotions, because the language barrier was a present issue:
“That depends, the colleagues from Eastern Europe (e.g. Ukraine), they can all speak German, they also learn this in paid courses, but that is very bumpy. One who started, for example, shortly before me, could also speak German but especially in a faster conversation she could not follow and then she always lost track. This language barrier has already prevented her from receiving promotions. Of course, I do not know the details, but the language was definitely a problem.” (Interviewee 3)
problems can arise, especially in faster conversations. According to the German audit assistant, language barriers occur which in turn decrease the likelihood for the foreign auditor to receive promotions.
5. Discussion and conclusion
collectivistic approach and the German individualistic approach. However, contrasting statements of the German auditors indicate that the perceptions of teamwork are equally strong amongst cultures, to the extent that one auditor perceived teamwork in Germany as stronger than in China. This contradicts with the previous literature of Nolder & Riley (2014) and shows that teamwork issues are not present in every perception of multicultural audit teams in Germany.
By continuing with the auditor’s perceptions in relation to language diversity, the findings confirm the literature by showing that misunderstandings are indeed more likely to arise in multilingual settings (Evans, 2004), also in the German audit setting. In addition, aligning with the literature, German auditors as well as foreign auditors felt insecure, especially in the beginning, whilst communicating and discussing in a foreign language (Cordeiro, 2018; Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013). By referring to the importance of using the audit terms correctly and expressing scepticism (Detzen & Loehlein, 2018), it becomes clear that any kinds of misunderstandings and hesitations existing in the German audit setting should be decreased as much as possible. In that way, the audit effectiveness and quality, which can strongly be damaged through the occurring misunderstandings and lengthy audit projects, can be ensured and through this also the profit at the end of each project. In line with this, the results show that in the German audit setting, not speaking the German language perfectly can have serious consequences for foreign auditors such as not receiving promotions. This phenomenon has not been found in the literature before and may demonstrate the importance and necessity of the German language skills in the German audit setting.
Some of the existing literature could be confirmed to apply in the audit setting in Germany. In addition to that, new insights were gained. Thus, this research has made a number of significant contributions to the field of auditing:
Firstly, this study strongly contributes to the study of Detzen (2018), who proposed to research multinational audit teams in different firm structures and settings. This study shows the perceptions of auditors in Germany and explains certain behaviours and barriers between German and foreign auditors. Amongst others, the analysed perceptions of this study mainly show that existing barriers result from different cultural approaches. These are unknown and thus not comprehensible by the German auditors, which increases mistrust. Thereby, the findings of this research contribute to an understanding of the existing barriers between German and other international auditors, as discovered by Detzen (2018).
Secondly, this study contributes to the study of Sunderland (2017), who recommended to research, whether out-group auditors with cultural differences could possibly harm audit effectiveness. By providing the unique findings of this research, that German auditors indeed perceive lacks of initiative by foreign audit team members, which causes ineffectiveness in audit teams, this unknown field was discovered and regarding the German setting, a gap was filled.
Thirdly, this study contributes to the study of Harzing (2008), who proposes to research the phenomenon of exclusion based upon language criteria in different fields. By researching this in the field of auditing, this research contributed with the new finding that one non-German auditor is to some extent excluded and not treated the same as native German auditors. In the findings, this was explained through the fact that imperfect German language skills prevented a foreign auditor to receive promotions. This has not been found before and could thus point out to a problematic phenomenon of exclusion in multinational audit teams.
This study underlies some limitations that are to be highlighted. Throughout the interviews it became apparent that the perceptions about cultural and lingual differences occur partly on a subconscious level. This could lead to difficulties in the formulation of perceptions on the interviewee side as well as to measurement difficulties on the researcher side. Furthermore, the fact that the interviews were based upon phone calls, is likely to decrease the chances to gain subconscious insights. In addition, the small sample size of eight interviewees limits the chances to generalize the findings. In line with the problem of generalizability, it has to be considered that the foreign auditor perspective is only referring to one Chinese and one Syrian auditor. It can be expected, that the results would indicate different perceptions from foreign auditors with other national and cultural backgrounds.
References
Abdullatif, M., & Al-Khadash, H. A. (2010). Putting Audit Approaches in Context: The Case of Business Risk Audits in Jordan. Ssrn, 24, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2009.00400.x
Akisik, O., & Pfeiffer, R. (2009). Globalization, US foreign investments and accounting standards. Review of Accounting and Finance, 8(1), 5–37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14757700910934210
Alon, A., & Dwyer, P. D. (2012). Globalization and multinational auditing: The case of Gazprom and PWC in Russia. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 24(1), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-10175
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.ObO13e31812e5535
Baldauf, R. B., & West, B. H. J. E.-. (1986). Aspects of Language Use in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 381–392.
Barrett, M., Cooper, D. J., & Jamal, K. (2005). Globalization and the coordinating of work in multinational audits. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2004.02.002
Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational culture in a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487.
Charles, M. (2007). Language matters in global communication: Article based on ORA lecture, October 2006. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 260–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943607302477
Christensen, B. E., Glover, S. M., & Wolfe, C. J. (2014). Do Critical Audit Matter Paragraphs in the Audit Report Change Nonprofessional Investors’ Decision to Invest?, 33(4), 71– 93. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50793
Cordeiro, C. M. (2018). Language as heteroglot. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(4), 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-08-2017-0105
Detzen, D., & Loehlein, L. (2018). Language at work in the Big Four: global aspirations and local segmentation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(7), 2031–2054. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2017-2968
Dhir, K. S. (2005). The value of language: Concept, perspectives, and policies. Corporate Communications, 10(4), 358–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510630151 Edmondson, A. C., & Mcmanus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field
research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26586086
Evans, L. (2004). Language, translation and the problem of international accounting communication. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(2), 210–248. Gugiu, P. C., & Rodríguez-Campos, L. (2007). Semi-structured interview protocol for
constructing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.004
Harzing, A. W., & Feely, A. J. (2008). The language barrier and its implications for HQ-subsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600810848827
Hofstede, G. J. (2015). Culture’s causes: the next challenge. Cross Cultural Management, 22(4), 545–569.
Hurn, B. J. (2007). The influence of culture on international business negotiations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(7), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850710829058 Iles, P. (1995). Learning to work with difference. Personnel Review, 24(6), 44–60.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 194–217. Janicki, K. (2010). Lay people ’ s language problems, 20(1).
Karjaluoto, H. E. (2014). Digital channels in the internal communication of a multinational corporation. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-07-2012-0050
Klitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.023
Kulkarni, M. (2015). Language-based diversity and faultlines in organizations, 146(June 2014), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job
Lincoln, J. R., Kerbo, H. R., & Enhagen, E. W. (1995). Japanese Companies in Germany : A Case Study in Cross-Cultural Management. Industrial Relations, 34(3), 417–440. Lloyd, S., & Härtel, C. (2010). Intercultural competencies for culturally diverse work teams.
Gender in Management, 25(8), 845–875. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089125 Manson, S., Sherer, M. J., & Wallace, W. (1998). Audit Automation in the UK and the Us: A
Comparative Study. International Jounral of Auditing, 246, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/1099-1123.00042
Molinsky, A. (2016). Foreign Cultural Interactions Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CHALLENGES OF ADAPTING
BEHAVIOR IN FOREIGN CULTURAL INTERACTIONS, 32(2), 622–640. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000115947
Nolder, C., & Riley, T. J. (2014). Effects of Differences in National Culture on Auditor’s Judgements and Decisions: A Literature Review of Cross-Cultural Auditing Studies from a Judgement and Decision Making Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, 33(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50657
Obeidat, B. Y., Shannak, R. O., Masa’deh, R., & Al-Jarrah, I. M. (2012). Toward Better Understanding for Arabian Culture: Implications Based on Hofstede’s Cultural Model. European Journal of Social Sciences, 28(4), 512–522. Retrieved from
http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com
Piekkari, R., & Zander, L. (2005). Preface: Language and Communication in International Management, 35(1), 3–9.
Pierce, B., & Sweeney, B. (2004). Cost–quality conflict in audit firms: an empirical investigation. European Accounting Review, 13(3), 415–441.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000216794
Pierce, Bernard, & Sweeney, B. (2006). Perceived Adverse Consequences of Quality Threatening Behaviour in Audit Firms. International Jounral of Auditing, 39, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2006.00289.x
Rudolph, H. R., & Welker, R. B. (1998). The Effects of Organizational Structure on
Communication Within Audit Teams. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 17(2), 1–14.
Sim, M. (2009). National culture effects on groups evaluating internal control. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901011007306
Sunderland, D., Trompeter, G. M., Davis, L., Downey, D., Eutsler, J., Holt, M., … Altiero, E. (2017). Multinational Group Audits: Problems Faced in Practice and Opportunities for Research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(3), 159–183.
https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51667
van den Born, F., & Peltokorpi, V. (2010). Language policies and communication in multinational companies: Alignment with strategic orientation and human resource management practices. Journal of Business Communication, 47(2), 97–118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610364515
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228911003608579
Additional references from online sources:
Audit image. Digital image. Partners, Intelligence Simplified. Retrieved from:
https://www.ispartnersllc.com/blog/how-do-internal-audits-work/
Clyne, M. (1993). “Pragmatik, Textstruktur und kulturelle Werte” – Eine interkulturelle
Perspektive. Out of the book: Forum für Fachsprachen Forschung, Hartmut Schröder (Hrsg.),
Fachtextpragmatik, gnv Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen
Gründerszende (2018). Umsatzsprung bei Xing dank einer Million neuer Mitglieder.
Retrieved from: https://www.gruenderszene.de/business/xing-zahlen-mehr-umsatz?interstitial Hoffmann, M. (2019). Kontrollverlust ist für Firmen ein wichtiges Thema. Retrieved from:
https://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/karriere/linkedin-dach-chef-jochen-doppelhammer-im-interview-a-1257970.html
Hootsuite (2019). Leading active social media platforms in Germany in 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/867539/top-active-social-media-platforms-in-germany/ Hofstede Insights (n.d.). Specialties about the Chinese, German and Syrian culture. Retrieved from: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/china,germany,syria/
Statistisches Bundesamt (2017). Zuwanderung aus außereuropäischen Ländern fast verdoppelt. Retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20170419101811/http://www.bib- demografie.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Download/Grafik_des_Monats/2017-03-01-
Appendix
Appendix 1: Interview guideline
1. How much are you communicating in English or other languages, during your work with colleagues?
Wie viel kommunizieren Sie auf Englisch oder anderen Fremdsprachen, während Ihrer Arbeit mit anderen Kollegen?
2. Which foreign languages are you mainly using?
Welche Fremdsprachen gebrauchen Sie hauptsächlich?
3. Do you have international colleagues in your audit team?
Haben Sie internationale Kollegen in Ihrem Audit Team?
4. How do you perceive the communication with international colleagues in your office?
Wie empfinden Sie die Kommunikation mit internationalen Kollegen in Ihrem Büro?
5. What kind of differences are you perceiving regarding the communication in for instance the business language English and your mother tongue German?
Was für Unterschiede nehmen Sie wahr bezogen auf die Kommunikation in der Business Sprache Englisch zum Beispiel und Ihrer Muttersprache Deutsch?
6. How do you feel about communicating in English?
(Why do you feel restricted? / Why do you think it does not make a difference?)
Wie fühlen Sie sich auf Englisch zu kommunizieren?
(Warum fühlen Sie sich eventuell eingeschränkt? Warum macht es keinen Unterschied?)
7. To what extent could this this perception influence your work as an auditor?
Zu welchem Maße könnnte diese Wahrnehmung Ihre Arbeit als Wirtschaftsprüfer beeinflussen?
8. How do you think about the translation of the specific terminology required in the audit industry?
Wie denken Sie über die Übersetzung von speziellen Fachausdrücken in der Wirtschaftsprüfungsbranche?
9. And does that also count for special interpretation or discussion intensive projects?
Und wie sieht es in Bezug auf spezielle Interpretations- und Diskussionsintensiven Themen aus?
10. How do you perceive the atmosphere in international project teams? (Also, regarding team work)
Wie empfinden Sie die Atmosphäre in internationalen Projektteams? (Auch in Bezug auf team work)
11. Do you perceive difference to a German project-team? Which kind of differences? (e.g. different working styles, habits, teamwork)
Empfinden Sie Unterschiede zu Deutschen Projektteams? Welche Unterschiede? (z.B. unterschiedliche Arbeitsweisen, Gewohnheiten, Einflüsse auf Teamgeist)
12. Do you think that distinct nationalities have different perceptions of team work? Why, and how are they to be recognized?
Denken Sie, dass bei verschiedenen Nationalitäten Ihrer Projekte unterschiedliche
13. How do you think about the importance of team work and team spirit in international project in your industry? (Are the special standards?)
Wie denken Sie über die Wichtigkeit von Teamgeist und Teamwork in internationalen Projekten Ihrer Firma? (Gibt es diesbezügliche Besonderheiten in Ihrer Branche?)
14. Are you recognizing different working procedures or working behaviours during your projects? Which kind of?
Nehmen Sie während der Projekte andere Arbeitsweisen oder Arbeitsverhalten wahr? Wenn ja, welche?
15. How do you perceive those in regards of you audit work? (Enriching or harming? Why?)
Wie empfinden Sie diese in Bezug auf Ihre Wirtschaftsprüfungsarbeit? (Bereichernd oder hindernd? Warum?)
16. How does the eventually different working/business culture influence the spirit for teamwork in your audit projects?
Wie beeinflusst die eventuell andere Arbeitskultur den Geist für Teamwork in Ihren Wirtschaftsprüfungsprojekten?
17. How would you describe the relationship of trust with your German colleagues and with your international colleagues? Why are possible differences to be recognized?
Wie würden Sie das Vertrauensverhältnis zu Ihren Deutschen Kollegen und zu den ausländischen Kollegen? Warum sind eventuelle Unterschiede zu verzeichnen?
18. Which steps are already or should be realized in order to help reducing the disparities?
