We investigate how auditors learn the technical aspects of their professional role while performing client engagements, and how that learning process has been shaped by changes in societal, economic, and regulatory forces. Prior studies explicitly recognize that auditors need social skills and demeanor consistent with professional norms as well as requisite knowledge, but those studies generally focus on the processes through which new auditors are molded toward consistency with social norms. In contrast, we focus on forces affecting the transfer of technical knowledge from supervisor (guide) to subordinate (learner) in the everyday work setting. Our evidence derives from semi‐structured interviews with 30 relatively new and more experienced audit partners at one Big 4 firm, thus spanning multiple “generations” of experience. Results confirm that auditors primarily acquire technical knowledge on the job, through the interactions among individual engagement team members. However, partners express concern about changes in the practice environment that may limit effectiveness of on‐the‐job learning, including characteristics of personnel, the approach to formal training at induction, supervisors' reluctance to provide candid feedback, regulatory and economic pressures, and the increased distraction, and reduced interpersonal contact associated with the use of information technology. At the end of the day, our findings raise implications for practice regarding the difficulty of developing effective learning conditions for auditors in the face of these challenges.

Regulators are concerned about the quality of group audits because of poor inspection results, recent enforcement actions against component auditors, and the significance of these audits to the global economy. Yet research in this area is nascent. In response, we survey and interview US‐based global group audit leads to better understand the group audit process and their perceptions of challenges that arise on such engagements. Our findings indicate that group auditors organize their audits consistent with the client's structure, which drives component auditor selection, scoping, and fees. Group auditors routinely find fault with component auditors, perceiving that work performed and/or documentation provided is not sufficient, not appropriate and/or not communicated timely, to comply with US standards and reporting deadlines. In some cases, they perceive that the component auditor is unable and/or unwilling to comply and in others, that the component auditor misunderstands group instructions due to language proficiency or differing interpretation of the standards. Notably this perspective is ethnocentric, as group auditors almost exclusively attribute issues to component auditors. While ethnocentric tendencies appear myopic, they provide insight into unrecognized or overlooked aspects of the global firm model of cooperative arrangements. This study highlights the significance of the global firm's network structure to global group audits. Thus, we encourage intercommunity research, among (quantitative and qualitative) scholars and standard setters, to consider group audits in the broader context of firm networks.

SUMMARY This study utilizes attribution theory to guide an exploration of how subordinate auditors understand, rationalize, and internalize recollections of their actual experiences (both worst and best) with audit review. Respondents externally rationalize worst review experiences as the fault of an inattentive or incompetent supervisor, a flawed engagement review process, or familiar stressors of the audit environment. Worst reviews evoke frustration, invisibility, and powerlessness that can demotivate subordinates. We also find that respondents relationally attribute their best review experiences to reciprocal relationships and effective communication with their supervisor. Best reviews produce feelings of appreciation and a sense of control for subordinates that inspires comradery and a desire to work hard. Respondents' insights raise a number of concerns regarding the effectiveness of review as a quality control mechanism and for shaping auditors, but highlight that a positive role model and effective supervisor-subordinate interactions can help the subordinate grow as a reflexive professional.

SUMMARY This paper synthesizes research related to audit firm climate and culture. Organizational climate and culture are important to any organization but are particularly important in auditing because of the unique tension among being a regulated profession, a for-profit organization, and performing independent audits on behalf of the public interest. This paper's objectives include introducing the constructs of organizational climate and culture and their application to audit research, reviewing the audit literature to synthesize climate and culture findings, and suggesting future research opportunities. We find that the audit literature on firm climate and culture is vast but fragmented. We identify and discuss seven climate and culture themes (organizational control, leadership, ethical, regulatory, professionalism, commercialism, and socialization) rooted within audit firms and studied by audit academics. Beyond informing academics, our paper has implications for audit practitioners and regulators as they seek to manage auditors' behavior and audit quality through quality control initiatives.