Accountants’ Insecurity Relating to Work Diversity

Chartered Accountants (CAs) practice in a wide variety of fields. This requires different competencies and implies the application of professional judgment in a multitude of different contexts. However, academic research provides evidence that, shortly before the collapse of Enron, experienced CAs were appreciably insecure about their professional identity and the appropriateness of the basic principles of their system of expertise. According to the research findings: “Interviewees were uncomfortable with the realities of auditor independence, were doubtful of the future of the profession, and had difficulties in describing the key features of a typical professional accountant in a context where accounting firms and individual accountants become involved in domains conceptually far removed from accountancy’s core domains.”

The research paper reported that: “...expert accountants did not trust to a high degree their system of expertise. Furthermore, our interviews suggest that through their reflexive abilities, accountants interpreted a number of their daily working experiences as being inconsistent with the routine and procedural application of accounting/auditing knowledge, thereby generating doubts about several of the key premises that underlie accounting expertise. As a result, interviewees had inconsistencies in the biographies of their professional lives; they saw the role of the firms and that of the professional institutes to be antagonistic. However, although doubts about the profession’s system of expertise regularly emerged from interviewees’ daily experiences, interviewees were not affected by these doubts to the point of being incapable of continuing their working lives as CAs or of engaging in radical reform initiatives.”

The research paper concludes that: “...All of this leads us to suggest that professional institutes establish channels for rank and file members to communicate concerns emerging from reflexive interpretations of daily experiences, and adopt mechanisms to examine these concerns and formulate, if necessary, proposals for institutional change. Like most modern institutions, professions seek to exclude from their members’ lives fundamental issues that cast doubt on the premises of their systems of expertise.”

The paper further concludes that: “Although suspicious and dissenting voices may be costly to deal with in the short term, it seems to us that providing conduits for members’ concerns and adopting a process to examine them might translate into professions having standards that better respond to the needs of society. These changes might also result in practitioners being better equipped to deal with situations in which they feel insecure, and perhaps avoid the occurrence of corporate scandals where auditors are blamed for not having issued qualified reports. Unfortunately, it seems that it takes a crisis of legitimacy on the scale of Enron to enact change.”

To learn more about this research, refer to the research paper “Professional Insecurity and the Erosion of Accountancy’s Jurisdictional Boundaries” by Yves Gendron, Ph.D, CA, University of Alberta  and Roy Suddaby, Ph.D, University of Iowa, Canadian Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 3 No. 1 (2004) pp. 85–115.