Feeling well by being together: Study of Swedish auditors

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As guardians of the public interest, auditors represent a unique occupational group. The group that has shown to experience high level of stress and overload is often being associated with environmentally imposed responsibility as well as organizationally imposed performance demands. It is the latter aspects, represented by the concept of organizational culture, that is being highlighted in this paper and its relationship to auditor’s well-being

OBJECTIVES: The paper aims to explore organizational culture as an antecedent of auditors’ well-being, which is assumed to have important consequences for the quality of auditors’ work.

METHODS: This study is based on a survey of 207 Swedish auditors. Using established and validated instruments measuring aspects of organizational culture and personal well-being, the study employed correlations and multiple regression analysis in testing the relationship between the two.

RESULTS: The results of the study suggest that an increasing degree of collectivistic organizational culture has a positive relationship with three aspects of well-being: Job satisfaction, life balance and life satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first attempt to explore well-being of auditors and its antecedents represented by organizational culture. Contrary to the expectation that auditors take an individualistic approach to their work, this study establishes that auditors feel best in a work environment characterized by a collectivist organizational culture.

Keywords

Organizational culture well-being occupational health profession

1 Introduction

The auditing profession is characterized by its complexity, embedded not only in the broad variety of tasks the auditors have to perform [1] but also in the special role auditors take in society, as guardians of markets [2] and protectors of public interest [3]. Recent developments in the auditors’ environment have only increased the pressure on the profession. For instance, auditors’ independence has been brought into question following business scandals such as the Enron scandal (e.g. [4]), resulting in revised regulations and stricter controls as well as increased public scrutiny and greater pressure from clients and stakeholders [5, 6]. Also, globalization and the demand for harmonization have required auditors to adhere to international accounting and auditing standards [7]. Furthermore, an increased client focus, market orientation [1, 8] and changed conditions, such as the abolishment of statutory auditing throughout Europe, have pushed auditors to compete on the free market, forcing them to leave the security associated with a previously oligopolistic market structure. This has recently been observed in Sweden (November 2010), where statutory audits for all public companies have been abolished. Such changing conditions have pushed auditors not only to add marketing activities to their portfolio of tasks [9] but also to adopt a market-oriented approach focusing on clients’ satisfaction, audit costs and added value [1]. This has not just been observed in Sweden, but seems to be a general trend in the auditing industry as well as in other professional service industries and is a consequence of ongoing industry-specific developments (see also [10]). This new orientation and tasks associated with it are positioned in stark contrast to the traditional view of the auditors’ role as public watchdogs serving the public interest [8, 11]. This orientation is not completely new; it has been claimed that auditing has been and still is about “working for people who [can] pay”, (8:1169). However, it continues to be an important issue as auditing firms and auditors seem to be putting more emphasis on market and customer orientation, especially in their everyday auditing work [1]. This issue goes to the very heart of the auditing profession due to its traditional lack of association with marketing [12] and due to tensions between being professional and being commercial [7]. This development gives rise to strong criticism towards the auditing profession and calls the traditional role of serving the public interest into question [8, 11], creating tensions experienced by individual auditors and the industry as a whole [13]. Thus it can be observed that the auditors are being presented with a number of roles –roles that may often compete with or be in conflict with each other.

The relationship of multiple roles and professional well-being is by no means a new topic in occupational health. Attention in that field of research has traditionally been directed towards professions such as medical doctors (e.g. [14, 15]), teachers (e.g. [16]), nurses (e.g. [17, 18]) and lawyers (e.g. [19]), where the authors have usually investigated different environmental and individual aspects of the profession in relation to well-being. When it comes to environmental/contextual aspects in studies of health sciences professions, researchers have often investigated isolated, narrowly defined dimensions such as time scheduling pressures [14, 20] and social support from colleagues in the working environment [21], among others, in relation to well-being. When it comes to an individual level of analysis, demography has often been used to understand differences in well-being of professionals [22] as well as their families and social relationships outside and inside the workplace. Moreover, recent research has paid particular attention to the multiple roles many professionals play, and how the tensions between these roles are related to well-being. While there is an abundance of studies on well-being within the aforementioned professions, research focusing on auditors is very limited, even though this profession is on par with the others in terms of being invested with responsibility for the welfare of the society [23]. Moreover, auditors, similar to other professionals (especially those in medicine and law), are ascribed high status, must complete a lengthy professional education, and are faced with variable and complex work tasks and time pressure [8, 24]. The limited studies investigating auditors and (very indirectly) some aspects of their well-being, look at internal and external pressures in relation to the quality of their work. Yet in the fields of both health sciences and business administration (where auditing is often positioned), research usually emphasizes individual professional characteristics or specific aspects of the work environment. Moreover, while health-related research has been successful in developing the concept of well-being (e.g. [25-27]), environmental aspects affecting it are often fragmented and isolated from each other. The shortcoming of business administration research has been that it has often emphasized the environmental aspects, such as changes in the regulatory environment, work climate and organizational climate, while splitting the health aspects, of which well-being is an integral part, into separate aspects such as time budget pressure and job satisfaction. We suggest that in order to understand the complex nature of the interaction between professionals’ environment and their well-being, one has to combine both fields of study to allow the multidisciplinarity to enrich our understanding of this relationship. Inspired by business administration research we propose that, by exploring organizational culture as a holistic aspect of the work environment and by using concepts of well-being developed in health research, we might provide a better understanding of issues arising in professions in general and in the auditing profession in particular. The organizational culture in any profession shapes the work environment; in auditing firms, the culture is characterized by rigid hierarchical structures and competitiveness [28] which have often been related to a variety of organizational and individual outcomes (e.g. [29]).

Research has long demonstrated that organizational culture could represent one of the most important drivers of organizational effectiveness, by creating an internal environment for individuals within the organization where they can be most productive [30, 31]. We can also observe that concepts of effectiveness and productivity have often been associated with a healthy workforce [32], which allows us to assume that a specific type of organizational culture will be reflected in auditors’ well-being [33]. Apart from making a theoretical contribution and establishing the link between organizational culture and auditors’ well-being, this paper addresses a very important practical aspect. Recently, Swedish media and professional organizations have been raising concerns about the high turnover of personnel in Swedish auditing firms, resulting not only in issues related to recruitment and retention of auditors, but also to the fact that those auditors that remain in the firm face increasing pressure due to overflow of work tasks left behind by their departing colleagues. Reasons as to why auditors quit are rather ambiguous, but regardless, their departure is problematic since the workload is increasing while the number of people left to deal with it is decreasing. This paper attempts to identify possible indirect causes of the high turnaround as well as what might make some people remain in the profession. Thus the research question guiding this paper is how organizational culture affects the well-being of auditors. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: We first present the method of our study, followed by empirical results and analysis. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings and suggestions for future research.

2 Method

Ethical approval was not sought for the study, since data collected was of non-biomedical nature [34, 35]. The study has adhered to the basic principles for research given in the Helsinki Declaration [36]. The initial sample consisted of all authorized and approved auditor members of FAR, the professional institute for accountants and auditors in Sweden. The total number of registered member e-mail addresses in spring 2014 was 2738 (FAR search result, 2014). These addresses were collected and an electronic survey was distributed to all of the 2738 auditors in the initial sample [37]. An electronic questionnaire was chosen for this study, as it is deemed the most efficient method of collecting data from large samples [9, 12]. Prior to sending the questionnaire to the auditors we conducted two exploratory interviews with authorized auditors in order to check whether our questions were understood in the way we intended. As a result of those interviews, we rephrased some of the questions from the original questionnaire.

From the initial sample, a total of 311 respondents submitted their answers. While the response rate (11%) might be considered low, other studies on auditors in Sweden have reported similar or even lower response rates (e.g. [13]). Further we aim not to generalize for the population but instead to generalize for the relationship between the concepts, reflecting the explorative nature of the paper. When considering the non-response rate, it appears that our respondents represent the total population both in terms of age and gender as well as audit firm affiliation [38]. The final sample of this study has been reduced from 311 to 207 observations, so that only fully complete questionnaires were included in the final analysis. The final sample also does not significantly differ from the total population on the aforementioned dimensions. The average age of our respondents was 45.15 years; 31% were women and 69% men; 50% of the respondents represented Big 4 auditing firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, PriceWaterhouseCoopers) while the remaining 50% represented other bureaus. Distribution in our sample does not differ from that in the recent study on Swedish auditors by Broberget al. [9].

2.1 Operationalization

All the questions in the questionnaire were in Swedish to avoid any misinterpretation, which would have decreased the measurement validity of the results. The original English scales were first translated into Swedish by one of the authors, and later another researcher (not an author) was asked to translate the Swedish version into English. The authors then compared the two English versions and found no significant differences, although they made minor clarification to the Swedish version as required.

2.2 Dependent variables

Subjective well-being represents the dependent variable. According to Danna and Griffin [39] it is important to take into account context-free measures of life experiences and generalized job-related experiences as well as more facet-specific dimensions when exploring well-being in organizational settings. In line with Danna and Griffin [39] we have chosen three such dimensions, measures which have established and validated scales from health sciences, namely: Andrews and Withey’s Job Satisfaction Scale, Bradburn’s Affect Balance Scale, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Below we provide further details on the measurement constructs.

Andrews and Withey’s Job Satisfaction Scale [40] is intended to measure a facet-specific dimension of well-being as well as work-related structures; we label this dimension Job Satisfaction. The original scale consists of five questions asking respondents to assess different facets of their well-being, namely fellow workers, work demands, environment, supervision, and the work itself, using a Likert-type scale where 1 was “Terrible” and 7 was “Delightful.” On examining the scales more closely, however, we made an adjustment to fit the auditing firm context in one of the questions, namely “What is it like where you work – the physical surroundings, the hours, the amount of work you are asked to do?” Rather than using a single question for all three aspects of work, we broke it into three separate questions, each asking respondents to assess one of the aspects. Two of the items –the working hours and the amount of work respondents are asked to do –were assessed by providing different extremes on the Likert scale, where 1 = unsustainable and 7 = sustainable. This modification was made based on the results received from the interviews conducted with the auditors, who indicated that these particular dimensions represent specific aspects of their working environment. Thus the instrument used in this study contained seven questions. The overall measure of the Andrews and Withey Job Satisfaction Scale had a reliability of α= 0.83, which is comparable to other recent studies using original and modified instruments (e.g. 41), thus the summative scores of the responses have been used to represent the concept of Job Satisfaction.

Bradburn’s Affect Balance Scale [42] has been used to capture the life-experience dimension of well-being; we label this dimension Life Balance. The original scale consists of five negative and five positive affects. The respondents were asked to tick Yes and No boxes if they had experienced any of the mentioned emotions in the past few weeks. After the interviews with the auditors we modified the scales somewhat by removing one negative and one positive affect question, namely “Bored” and “On top of the world”. We assessed that these particular questions represented a certain degree of tautology/repetitiveness in relation to other questions and also represented extremes which Swedish respondents usually try to avoid. We assumed that including those two questions would run the risk of decreasing the validity of the survey, thus we excluded them. We do acknowledge that reducing the number of affects might have decreased the reliability of the instrument; however, faced with the choice between validity and reliability, we chose to risk the possibility of reducing reliability while preserving validity of the instrument since it is important to capture the truthful account of respondents’ reality. The final scale was calculated in line with the original instrument where the sum of Yes questions (Yes = 1, No = 0) of the four negative items was subtracted from the sum of the Yes questions of the four positive items.

To further enrich the exploration of the context-free life satisfaction dimension, the Satisfaction with Life Scale [43] has been used, which aims at exploring overall life satisfaction; we label this dimension Life Satisfaction. The original instrument consisting of five questions has been used in this study; it asks respondents to assess on the Likert scale different dimensions of their life satisfaction, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree. The overall measure of the Life Satisfaction Scale had a reliability of α= 0.94, which is comparable to other recent studies using the original instrument (e.g. [44]).

2.3 Independent variables

To measure Organizational Culture, the independent variable in this study, we used a scale developed by Chatman and Spataro [45]. The scale consists of seven adjectives that describe organizational culture. Five of these adjectives are associated with collectivistic organizational culture (i.e. team-oriented, collaborative, people-oriented, supportive, and fair) and two of the adjectives are associated with individualistic organizational culture (i.e. individually demanding and competitive). The respondents were provided with a Likert scale where 1 = least characteristic of my organization and 7 = most characteristic of my organization. After the answers were collected, the two reverse-coded items (representing individualistic culture) were recoded so that a rising number on the scale represents an increasing degree of collectivistic organizational culture. The overall measure of organizational culture had a reliability of α= 0.60, which is compatible with results in the other studies using the instrument (e.g. [46]); this allowed us to use summative scores of the responses to represent the concept.

2.4 Control variables

In line with other studies done in auditing firms, and studies on well-being in the workplace, we have used gender (female/male) and age (full year) as control variables as well as whether the auditors belonged to the Big 4 auditing firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers) or to other bureaus.

3 Results and analysis

The analysis of the data was conducted via Pearson correlation tests and linear regressions. A number of highly significant correlations are evident in the correlation matrix (Table 1). An increasing degree of collectivistic organizational culture appears to have a significant positive correlation with all dimensions of subjective well-being. The three dimensions of subjective well-being are also shown to highly correlate with each other. Only one dimension of subjective well-being, Life Satisfaction, has a weak positive correlation with one of the control variables, age. There appear to be two highly significant correlations between control variables, namely between gender and age, indicating that the men are older than the women in our sample. Moreover, we can also observe a negative correlation between age and Big 4 affiliation, indicating that in our sample other bureaus have younger auditors.

Further tests were performed through multiple linear regression analysis (Table 2). All the regression models are shown to be significant at p < 0.001. The model exploring how organizational culture relates to the job satisfaction dimension of subjective well-being shows the best explanatory power with R2 = 0.301; in this model collectivistic organizational culture is shown to have a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction. The next models, Life Balance and Life Satisfaction, are also significant with R2 = 0.121 and 0.122 respectively. In both models one can observe that an increasing degree of collectivistic organizational culture has a positive relationship with subjective well-being in its Life Balance and Life Satisfaction dimensions. None of the control variables appear to have a significant relationship with all three dimensions of subjective well-being. All models pass the test of multicollinearity judging by the VIF values of 1.126 in all models.

4 Discussion

Our study presents a number of interesting models in exploring how organizational culture relates to different dimensions of auditors’ well-being. The main finding is that the higher the degree of collectivistic organizational culture, the greater the positive effect on three distinct dimensions of well-being, namely job satisfaction, life balance and life satisfaction. The findings of this study are surprising since previous research on auditors has shown that auditors interchangeably perform their assignments in both groups and individually [1], leading to the assumption that neither an increase nor decrease in collectivism/individualism would be reflected in well-being. On the other hand, researchers have also suggested that while individualism represents an important aspect of auditing work, group work and building a “community of experts” at the workplace represent the more substantial part of an auditor’s working day [1, 47]. Moreover, auditing and professions in general are characterized by a strong emphasis on in-socialization, where more experienced auditors in-socialize less experienced auditors into the profession by means of work on joint projects [28]. Thus, while auditing and the regulations it follows stress the importance of independence from colleagues and even more so from clients, the importance of being in-socialized into the profession, and through this, the formation of a collectivist organizational culture, becomes dominant. Thus with increasingly complex assignments auditors feel a need to belong to an organization that is characterized by team orientation and team spirit, which improves their subjective well-being, especially in terms of job satisfaction. One can further assume that individuals who become auditors are consciously seeking to become part of the profession that some have characterized as similar to a clan or sect (e.g. 1,on audit firmalization). Thus one cannot discount the possibility that some individuals knowingly seek employment in the auditing firms, aware that they feel best in collective types of environments.

While organizational culture and job satisfaction find themselves on the same level of analysis (e.g. organizations), and correlation between those two is theoretically unproblematic, our findings on the other two dimensions of well-being representing an individual level of analysis and capturing Life Balance and Life Satisfaction are worth elaborating on. Research has now established that work represents an integral part of individuals’ lives, especially taking into account that a majority of individuals spend significant amount of time in the workplace in relation to other activities. This study confirms these findings in showing that the work environment, represented here by organizational culture, has a relationship with related aspects of well-being. Yet these findings represent new knowledge for the auditing profession in that they show that auditors’ organizational identity, represented here by organizational culture, is closely related to overall individual identity, represented by life-related aspects of subjective well-being. This becomes particularly significant when discussing an important outcome of auditors’ work–audit quality. As the quality of auditors’ work increases, the probability of organizations doing wrong decreases. Feeling good, both as an individual and as a part of an organization, might be an important aspect of high quality in one’s professional work, as indicated in some studies (e.g. [48]). Thus, apart from establishing the link between organizational culture and different aspects of subjective well-being, this study has a number of implications for policy and practice.

Firstly, this study can serve as a guideline to the HR managers of auditing firms in terms of which individuals are best suited for auditing jobs, since this study indicates that the people that appreciate a collectivist environment would feel best in these positions. Secondly, it indicates the need for auditing firms to nurture the collectivistic nature of their organizational culture rather than emphasizing purely individual professional work. Finally, these findings suggest that individuals working in auditing firms are affected by their work environment beyond their professional identity, and there are apparent spillover effects on their overall well-being, which could thus further motivate auditing firms to nurture a collectivistic organizational culture not only to recruit suitable candidates but also to retain them.

Being an explorative study, and to our knowledge the first study exploring the relationship between organizational culture and well-being in auditing firms, this study raises more questions than it answers. Further studies, taking into consideration the special position auditors occupy in the society, could explore other factors affecting their well-being. Such factors could include other dimensions of organizational culture and organizational climate, which could be explored in combination with extended demographic attributes of the auditors. Another potential avenue for future research could be an exploration of how auditors’ different identities, for example, professional and organizational, and their strengths, affect auditors’ well-being. Finally, future studies might inquire into the link between auditors’ well-being and audit quality, where well-being might represent an important mechanism through which audit quality is achieved.

Conflict of interest

None to declare.

References

Broberg

. The auditor at work: A study of auditor practice in Big 4 audit firms [PhD dissertation]. Lund: Lunds University 2013.

Volcker

, editor Accounting, accountants and accountability in an integrated world economy. Remarks by Paul A. Volcker to theWorld Congress of Accountants Hong Kong, November 19, 2002; 2002.

Lee

. Corporate audit theory. London: Chapman & Hall London 1993.

Unerman

, O’Dwyer

. WorldCom, Andersen et al.: A challenge to modernity. Crit Persp Acc 2004;15(6):971–993.

Knechel

. The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities. Account Organ Soc 2007;32(4):383–408.

Robson

, Humphrey

, Khalifa

, Jones

. Transforming audit technologies: Business risk audit methodologies and the audit field. Account Organ Soc 2007;32(4):409–438.

Barrett

, Cooper

, Jamal

. Globalization and the coordinating of work in multinational audits. Account Organ Soc 2005;30(1):1–24.

Anderson-Gough

, Grey

, Robson

. In the name of the client: The service ethic in two professional services firms. Hum Relat 2000;53(9):1151–174.

Broberg

, Umans

, Gerlofstig

. Balance between auditing and marketing: An explorative study. J int account, audit tax 2013;22(1):57–70.

10.

Hackenbrack

, Hogan

. Client retention and engagement-level pricing. Aud J Pract Theory 2005;24(1):7–20.

11.

Humphrey

, Moizer

. From techniques to ideologies: An alternative perspective on the audit function. Crit Persp Acc 1990;1(3):217–238.

12.

Clow

, Stevens

, McConkey

, Loudon

. Accountants’ attitudes toward advertising: A longitudinal study. J Serv Mark 2009;23(2):124–131.

13.

Broberg

, Umans

, Skog

, Theodorsson

. Auditors’ professional and organisational identities and perceived commercialisation in audit firms. Presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of European Accounting Association; Tallinn, Estonia 2014.

14.

Tucker

, Brown

, Dahlgren

, Davies

, Ebden

, Folkard

, et al. The impact of junior doctors’ worktime arrangements on their fatigue and well-being. Scand J Work Environ Health 2010;458–65.

15.

Heijstra

, Rafnsdóttir

, Jónsdóttir

. Autonomy and well-being among Nordic male and female hospital physicians. Work 2011;40(4):437–443.

16.

Klusmann

, Kunter

, Trautwein

, Lüdtke

, Baumert

. Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. J Educ Psychol 2008;100(3):702.

17.

Ablett

, Jones

. Resilience and well-being in palliative care staff: A qualitative study of hospice nurses’ experience of work. Psycho-Oncology 2007;16(8):733–740.

18.

Leonardi

, Pagani

, Giovannetti

, Raggi

, Sattin

. Burnout in healthcare professionals working with patients with disorders of consciousness. Work 2012;45(3):349–356.

19.

Wallace

. Social Relationship, Well-Being, and Career Commitment: Exploring Cross- Domain Effects of Social Relations. Can Rev Sociol 2013;50(2):135–153.

20.

Yong

, Nasterlack

, Pluto

R-P

, Lang

, Oberlinner

. Occupational stress perception and its potential impact on work ability. Work 2013;46(3):347–354.

21.

Van Daalen

, Willemsen

, Sanders

. Reducing work–family conflict through different sources of social support. J Vocat Behav 2006;69(3):462–476.

22.

Brunetto

, Shriberg

, Farr-Wharton

, Shacklock

, Newman

, Dienger

. The importance of supervisor–nurse relationships, teamwork, wellbeing, affective commitment and retention of North American nurses. J Nurs Manag 2013;21(6):827–837.

23.

Zakaria

, Yahya

, Salleh

. Dysfunctional Behavior among Auditors: The Application of Occupational Theory. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2013;9(3):495–503.

24.

Freidson

. Theory of professionalism: Method and substance. Int Rev Soc 1999;9(1):117–129.

25.

Kaplan

, Bush

, Berry

. Health status: Types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976;11(4):478.

26.

Ryan

, Deci

. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 2000;55(1):68.

27.

Schmidt

, Umans

. Experiences of well-being among female doctoral students in Sweden. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being 2014;9.

28.

Kosmala

, Herrbach

. The ambivalence of professional identity: On cynicism and jouissance in audit firms. Hum Relat 2006;59(10):1393–1428.

29.

Svanberg

, Öhman

. Auditors’ time pressure: Does ethical culture support audit quality? Manag Audit J 2013;28(7):572–591.

30.

Schein

, Organizational culture and leadership: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.

31.

Kirsh

. Organizational culture, climate and person-environment fit: Relationships with employment outcomes for mental health consumers. Work 1999;14(2):109–122.

32.

Chen

, Evans

, Anand

, Boufford

, Brown

, Chowdhury

, et al. Human resources for health: Overcoming the crisis. Lancet 2004;364(9449):1984–1990.

33.

Shi

, Sears

, Coberley

, Pope

. Classification of individual well-being scores for the determination of adverse health and productivity outcomes in employee populations. Popul Health Manag 2013;16(2):90–98.

34.

The Act on Ethical Review of research involving humans Stockholm, Swedish Parliament: The Ministry of Education and Research 2003:460S.

35.

The Act amending the Act on Ethical Review of Research involving humans. Stockholm, Swedish Parliament: The Ministry of Education and Research 2008:192S.

36.

World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://wwwwmanet/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17cpdf.

37.

Nilsson

, Olsson

. Getting well by getting together: How organizational culture influence auditors’ well-being [Bachelor Thesis in Accounting and Auditing]: Kristianstad University; 2014.

38.

Supervisory Board of Public Accountants. Authorized and approved auditors and registered audit firms. Sweden 2014.

39.

Danna

, Griffin

. Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. J Manag 1999;25(3):357–384.

40.

Andrews

, Withey

. Developing measures of perceived life quality: Results from several national surveys. Soc Indic Res 1974;1(1):1–26.

41.

Hurt

, Grist

, Malesky

, McCord

. Personality Traits Associated with Occupational ‘Burnout’in ABA Therapists. J Appl Res Intell Disab 2013;26(4):299–308.

42.

Bradburn

. The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine 1969.

43.

Diener

, Emmons

, Larsen

, Griffin

. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 1985;49(1):71–75.

44.

Kaczmarek

, Bujacz

, Eid

. Comparative Latent State–Trait Analysis of Satisfaction with Life Measures: The Steen Happiness Index and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. J Happiness Stud 2014:1–11.

45.

Chatman

, Spataro

. Using self-categorization theory to understand relational demography–based variations in people’s responsiveness to organizational culture. Acad Manage J 2005;48(2):321–31.

46.

Umans

. The Bottom Line of Cultural Diversity at the ToThe Top Management Team’s Cultural Diversity and its Influence on Organisational Outcomes [PhD dissertation]: Lund University 2012.

47.

Pentland

. Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order. Account Organ Soc 1993;18(7):605–620.

48.

Nkomo

, Cox

. Diverse identities in organizations. Sage Publications, London 1996:338–356.