Audit Review : Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review

This paper presents a comprehensive field based analysis of how working paper review is conducted. It supplements the mostly experimental research on working paper review by reporting the results of a retrospective field questionnaire which asked audit managers to report on their behavior and their relationships with preparers and partners on actual audit engagements. The extent of review was sensitive to specific features of the client and the file, including risk factors, to features of the preparer and particularly to the style of the reviewer, which was quite stable across cases. While the evidence of manager awareness of preparer stylization was weak, the evidence of stylization for the partners was pervasive, affecting both work done and documentation. Other new descriptive evidence on the nature of the review process is provided including the purpose of the review process, how frequently surprises are found in the review process and what are the qualities of good reviewers as compared to poor reviewers