Articles

Better together: using meta-analysis to explore complementarities between ecological and institutional theories of organization

M. LANDER, P. HEUGENS

Organization Studies

Forthcoming

Departments: Management & Human Resources, GREGHEC (CNRS)


Drift or alignment? A configurational analysis of law firms' ability to combine profitability with professionalism

M. LANDER

Journal of Professions and Organization

Forthcoming

Departments: Management & Human Resources, GREGHEC (CNRS)


Leadership and the Logic of Absurdity

D. NEWARK

Academy of Management Review

Forthcoming

Departments: Management & Human Resources

http://amr.aom.org/content/early/2017/02/02/amr.2015.0186.abstract


Leaders are often thought to be instrumental to the performance of the organizations they lead. However, considerable research suggests that their influence over organizational performance might actually be minimal. These claims of leader irrelevance pose a puzzle: If leaders are relatively insignificant, why would someone commit to leading? Applying decision-making theory, this paper first considers justifying the decision to lead according to the Logics of Consequence and Appropriateness—the two principal decision-making logics underlying previous work on the motivation to lead. The paper then presents the Logic of Absurdity, a decision-making logic in which decision-makers knowingly choose to dedicate themselves to an irrational course of action. In terms of the decision to lead, a decision-maker employing the Logic of Absurdity acknowledges the likely futility of leading but decides to commit to leading, nonetheless. The paper concludes by considering when leaders are most likely to decide to lead according to the Logic of Absurdity and why doing so may result in leadership of exceptional originality, foolishness, intelligence, and madness

Towards an Integrated Framework of Professional Partnership Performance: the Role of Formal Governance and Strategic Planning

M. LANDER

Human Relations

Forthcoming

Departments: Management & Human Resources, GREGHEC (CNRS)


Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism

F. HOOS, J. L. PRUIJSSERS, M. LANDER

Journal of Business Ethics

Forthcoming

Departments: Accounting & Management Control, GREGHEC (CNRS), Management & Human Resources

Keywords: Accountability Auditors Professional skepticism Joint audit Judgment Experiment Int

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10551-017-3603-6.pdf


The European Commission has suggested that the use of joint audits should lead to improved auditor skepticism and—by extension—audit quality, throughincreased accountability. However, archival research does not find support for improved audit quality in a joint audit setting. To better understand the relationship between accountability in different review regimes and auditors’judgments, we examine the behavioral effect of implementing a joint audit relative to other review regimes based on a 1 9 3 experimental design. Forty-seven senior auditors and partners from a Big Four firm performed a goingconcern evaluation task under one of three review regimes: the joint audit, the internal review, and the no review regime. Notwithstanding the difference in the audiences to which auditors are accountable, there is no difference in thejudgment process. In terms of their judgment outcome, however, auditors in the joint audit setting were the least skeptical in their judgment of the going concern assumption. Overall, we suggest that the joint audit may lead tounintended behavioral consequences


JavaScriptSettings