Preliminary insights : isomorphism and effectiveness of performance auditing issues follow-up

  • Authors

    • Sarimah Umor
    • Zarina Zakaria
    • Nor Adwa Sulaiman
    • Rasheed Mohamed Kutty
    2018-11-30
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.28.22564

  • Abstract

    Reality of current times of scarce public budgets drive the public administrations to achieve their goals in the most economical, efficient and effective manner as depicted in the key concepts of performance auditing. Performance auditing as one of the activity that the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) uses to assure economy, efficient and effective use of public funds. Equally importance is the follow-up in which according to ISSAI 3000 is a part of every performance auditing activity. Follow-up is necessary for ensuring that audit recommendations are well addressed by identifying the sources of inefficiency. Consequently, appropriate action can be taken to improve public organization performance.  Follow-up on performance auditing issues appear to be important to re-check on the responsiveness towards audit recommendation on various issues raised pertaining to improper use of public fund. In particular, the focus of this paper on follow-up brings about different type of institutional pressure which have not been well explored. Since audit recommendations are not fully implemented, repetitive issues are being disclosed to the public which at the end create public service performance dissatisfaction. Lack of follow-up may cause a problem to measure the real value and impact of performance audit. This paper highlights different types of pressure which can be explained by three forces of isomorphism namely coercive, mimetic and normative as a theoretical lens to explain its effect towards follow-up effectiveness.

  • References

    1. [1] Ahmad, H. N. (2015). Internal Audit (IA) Effectiveness: Resource-Based and Institutional Perspectives.

      [2] Aikins, S. K. (2012). Determinants of auditee adoption of audit recommendation: local government auditors’ perspectives. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 24(2), 195–220.

      [3] Akbar, R., Pilcher, R. A., & Perrin, B. (2015). Implementing performance measurement systems: Indonesian local government under pressure. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 12(1), 3-33.

      [4] Al-Twaijry, A.A.M., J.A. Brierley, D.R. Gwilliam, 2003. The development of internal auditing Saudi Arabia: An Institutional Theory perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14:507-531.

      [5] Ali, A.M., J.D. Gloeck, A. Ali, A. Ahmi, M.H. Sahdan, 2007. Internal audit in the state and local governments of Malaysia. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research, 7: 25-57.

      [6] Arena, M., G. Azzone, 2007. Internal audit departments: Adoption and characteristics in Italian companies International Journal of Auditing, 11(2): 91-114.

      [7] Arena, M., M. Arnaboldi, G. Azzone, 2006. Internal audit in Italian organizations: A multiple case study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(3): 275- 292.

      [8] Barrett, P. (2011). Commentary: Where You Sit Is What You See: The Seven Deadly Sins of Performance Auditing. Implications for Monitoring Public Audit Institutions. Australian Accounting Review, 21(4), 397–405.

      [9] Barrett, P. (2012). Performance auditing—addressing real or perceived expectation gaps in the public sector. Public Money & Management, 32(2), 129–136.

      [10] Barrett, P. (2012a). Debate: Focusing on programme implementation for improved accountability and results. Public Money & Management, 32(4), 240–242.

      [11] Bawole, J. N., & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Contesting Claims on Measuring Performance in the Public Sector Using Performance Audits : Evidence from the Literature. Public Organization Review.

      [12] Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification (pp. 131-131). New York: Academic Press.

      [13] Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here. The academy of management perspectives, 24(3), 37-57.

      [14] DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

      [15] Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited. Institutional Isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Advance in Strategic Management, 17, 143–166.

      [16] Donaldson. (1995). American anti-management theories of organisation: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press

      [17] Eckersley, P., Ferry, L., & Zakaria, Z. (2014). A “panoptical†or “synoptical†approach to monitoring performance? Local public services in England and the widening accountability gap. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(6), 529–538.

      [18] Egeberg, M. (2012). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (p. 157). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

      [19] Fernandes, H. (2013). Performance auditing by the Portuguese Court of Auditors. TÉKHNE - Review of Applied Management Studies, 11(1), 41–49.

      [20] Free, C., Radcliffe, V. S., & White, B. (2013). Crisis, committees and consultants: The rise of value-for-money auditing in the federal public sector in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 441-459.

      [21] Funnell, W., & Wade, M. (2012). Negotiating the credibility of performance auditing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(6), 434–450.

      [22] Freitas, C. A. S. D., & Guimarães, T. D. A. (2007). Isomorphism, institutionalization and legitimacy: operational auditing at the court of auditors. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 11(SPE1), 153-175.

      [23] Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of management review, 21(4), 1022-1054.

      [24] Hillebrand, B., Nijholt, J. J., & Nijssen, E. J. (2011). Exploring CRM effectiveness: an institutional theory perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 592-608.

      [25] Holm, C., & Zaman, M. (2012). Regulating audit quality: Restoring trust and legitimacy. Accounting Forum, 36(1), 51–61.

      [26] Hossain, S. (2010). From Project Audit to Performance Audit : Evolution of Performance Auditing in Australia, IX(3), 20–47.

      [27] Hui, F. (2012). Government performance auditing demand research based on the neoâ€institutional economics. China Finance Review International, 2(2), 100–120.

      [28] INTOSAI (2010), How to Increase the Use and Impact of Audit Reports – A Guide for Supreme Audit Institutions, INTOSAI, Vienna, p. 32.

      [29] Irawan, A. B., & McIntyreâ€Mills, J. (2014). Application of Critical Systems Thinking to Performance Auditing Practice at the Indonesian Supreme Audit Institution: Issues and Challenges. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.

      [30] ISSAI 3000, 2004. ‘Implementation guidelines for Performance Auditing’, XVIII Congress of the International Congress of Supreme Audit Institutions, INTOSAI, Budapest.

      [31] Kells, S. (2011). The Seven Deadly Sins of Performance Auditing: Implications for Monitoring Public Audit Institutions. Australian Accounting Review, 21(4), 383–396.

      [32] Kells, S., & Hodge, G. (2011). Performance Auditing and Public Sector Innovation: Friends with Benefts or Strange Bedfellows? Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 33(2), 163–184.

      [33] Masood, A., & Lodhi, R. N. (2015). Factors Affecting the Success of Government Audits: A Case Study of Pakistan. Universal Journal of Management, 3(2), 52-62.

      [34] March, J. och JP Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics.

      [35] McTaggart, D., & O'Flynn, J. (2015). Public sector reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(1), 13-22.

      [36] Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.

      [37] Mihret, D.G., K. James, J.M. Mula, 2010. Antecedents and organizational performance implications of internal audit effectiveness: Some prpositions and research agenda. Pacific Accounting Review, 22(3): 224-252.

      [38] Morin, D. (2014). Auditors General ’ s impact on administrations : a pan-Canadian study ( 2001-2011 ). Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(5), 395–426.

      [39] Morin, D. (2011). Serving as magistrate at the French Cour des comptes. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(6), 718–750.

      [40] National Audit Department of Malaysia. (2014). Malaysia Public Sector Auditing- At A glance.

      [41] Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., Kinder, T., & Vidal, I. (2015). The Service Framework: A Publicâ€serviceâ€dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services. British Journal of Management.

      [42] Pearson, D. (2014). Significant reforms in public sector audit–staying relevant in times of change and challenge. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(1), 150-161.

      [43] Pettas, N., & Giannikos, I. (2014). Evaluating the delivery performance of public spending programs from an efficiency perspective. Evaluation and program planning, 45, 140-150.

      [44] Pfeffer, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations (Vol. 33). Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

      [45] Radcliffe, V. S. (2011). Critical Perspectives on Accounting Public secrecy in government auditing revisited. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(7), 722–732.

      [46] Radcliffe, V. S. (2012). The Election of Auditors in Government: A Study of Politics and the Professional. Accounting and the Public Interest, 12(1), 38–61.

      [47] Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen, E., & Huniche, M. (2011). Determinants of lean success and failure in the Danish public sector: a negotiated order perspective. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(5), 403-420.

      [48] Raudla, R., Taro, K., Agu, C., & Douglas, J. W. (2015). The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organizations : The Case of Estonia. Public Organization Review.

      [49] Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., & Johnsen, A. (2011). Auditors’ understanding of evidence: A performance audit of an urban development programme. Evaluation, 17(3), 217–231.

      [50] Reichbornâ€Kjennerud, Kristin. (2013). Political accountability and performance audit: the case of the auditor general in Norway. Public Administration, 91(3), 680-695.

      [51] Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2014). Auditee Strategies: An Investigation of Auditees’ Reactions to the Norwegian State Audit Institution’s Performance Audits. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 685–694.

      [52] Reichborn-kjennerud, K. (2014). Performance Audit and the Importance of the Public Debate. Evaluation, 20(3), 368–385.

      [53] Reichborn-kjennerud, K. (2015). Resistance to Control — Norwegian Ministries ’ and Agencies ’ Reactions to Performance Audit. Public Organization Review, 15, 17–32

      [54] Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), 1-15.

      [55] Sami, A., Jusoh, A., Md. Nor,K., Irfan,I., & Liaquat, H. (2018). Identification of Public Value Dimensions in Pakistan’s Public Sector Organizations. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioral Sciences, XL, 766-779.

      [56] Scott, W. and Meyer, J. (1983). Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Sage Publishing: Beverly Hills, CA.

      [57] Scott, W. R. (2010). Reflections: The Past and Future of Research on Institutions and Institutional Change. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 5–21.

      [58] Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

      [59] Scott, W. R. (1987). The Adolescence of Theory Institutional. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.

      [60] Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2014). When CSR Is a Social Norm: How Socially Responsible Human Resource Management Affects Employee Work Behavior. Journal of Management.

      [61] Siddiquee, N. A. (2014). Programme in Malaysia : A Shining Example of Performance Management in the Public Sector ? The Government Transformation Programme in Malaysia : A Shining Example of erformance Management in the Public Sector ? Asian Journal of Political Science, (October), 37–41.

      [62] Stinchcombe, A. L. (1997). On the virtues of the old institutionalism. Annual review of sociology, 23(1), 1-18.

      [63] Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Lê, J. K. (2013). Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 329–344.

      [64] Tillema, S., & Bogt, H. J. (2010). Critical Perspectives on Accounting Performance auditing Improving the quality of political and democratic processes ? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(8), 754–769.

      [65] Vacca, A. (2014). Court of Auditors’ performance auditing as a tool to enhance economy, efficiency, effectiveness and transparency in the public administration, an Italian perspective: strengths and weaknesses. International Journal of Public Law and Policy, 4(2), 103-119.

      [66] Van der Knaap P (2011) Sense and complexity: initiatives in responsive performance audits. Evaluation 17(4): 351–63.

      [67] Van Loocke, E., & Put, V. (2011). The impact of performance audits: a review of the existing evidence. Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government, 175-208.

      [68] Lonsdale J, Wilkins P and Ling T (2011) Performance Auditing: Contributing to Accountability in Democratic Government, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

      [69] Yang, K. (2012). Further understanding accountability in public organizations actionable knowledge and the structure–agency duality. Administration & Society, 44(3), 255–284.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Umor, S., Zakaria, Z., Sulaiman, N. A., & Kutty, R. M. (2018). Preliminary insights : isomorphism and effectiveness of performance auditing issues follow-up. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.28), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.28.22564

    Received date: 2018-11-30

    Accepted date: 2018-11-30

    Published date: 2018-11-30