Ethical climate, goal interdependence, and commitment among Asian auditors

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study is to examine the relations among organizational ethical climate, goal interdependence (cooperative vs competitive goals), and organizational and professional commitment among auditors in Asia.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a field survey of 293 auditors employed in two offices of an international accounting firm: one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore.FindingsStructural equation analyses indicate that instrumental ethical climates that focus on the pursuit of self‐interest and firm profitability promote more competitive and less cooperative goals among auditors. Benevolent/cosmopolitan (public interest) climates appear to enhance cooperative goals among employees. Cooperative goals in turn were associated with increased affective and normative organizational and professional commitments. Competitive environments significantly reduced affective and normative organizational commitment as well as affective professional commitment. Compared with their Hong Kong counterparts, Singaporean auditors perceived the ethical climate in their firm to be more positive or supportive of ethical values, and also felt the work environment in the firm was more cooperative and less competitive. In addition, the Singaporean auditors exhibited somewhat higher levels of emotional attachment to both their firm and the public accounting profession.Originality/valueNo prior accounting study has examined the influence of cooperative/competitive goals on work outcomes in a public accounting setting, or the role of ethical climates as potential antecedents of such goals. The results of the current study indicate that the development of cooperative and competitive goals is significantly related to the perceived ethical climate in public accounting firms, and that such goals may have significant effects on employee commitment not only to their organization but also to their profession. The significant differences between auditors in Hong Kong and Singapore have not previously been documented, and raise questions for future research.