你的审计团队能有效地多任务处理吗?这可能取决于他们如何沟通

IF 0.8 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Joseph F. Brazel, Veena L. Brown, Juergen Sidgman
{"title":"你的审计团队能有效地多任务处理吗?这可能取决于他们如何沟通","authors":"Joseph F. Brazel, Veena L. Brown, Juergen Sidgman","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2021-032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article summarizes Sidgman, Brown, and Brazel (2021) which demonstrates that, when multitasking, the performance of audit teams communicating in-person is greater than the performance of teams using computer-mediated communication (discussion boards and chatrooms). In the audit setting, multitasking is unavoidable and pervasive and in-person communication is not always an option. To facilitate multitasking, engagement team communications have extended beyond in-person interactions to computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies. However, little is known about the performance of multitasking teams under these alternative modes of communication (in-person, discussion boards, and chatrooms). Contrary to expectations, the authors find that experimental participants’ familiarity with, and preference for, chatroom features (which are like text messaging) may have offset the benefits previously attributed to discussion boards (which are similar to email). This finding is timely, given the pandemic-induced environment of remote and hybrid work, as it informs practitioners on audit teams’ multitasking effectiveness while using CMC.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Your Audit Team Effectively Multitask? It Might Depend on How they Communicate\",\"authors\":\"Joseph F. Brazel, Veena L. Brown, Juergen Sidgman\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/ciia-2021-032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article summarizes Sidgman, Brown, and Brazel (2021) which demonstrates that, when multitasking, the performance of audit teams communicating in-person is greater than the performance of teams using computer-mediated communication (discussion boards and chatrooms). In the audit setting, multitasking is unavoidable and pervasive and in-person communication is not always an option. To facilitate multitasking, engagement team communications have extended beyond in-person interactions to computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies. However, little is known about the performance of multitasking teams under these alternative modes of communication (in-person, discussion boards, and chatrooms). Contrary to expectations, the authors find that experimental participants’ familiarity with, and preference for, chatroom features (which are like text messaging) may have offset the benefits previously attributed to discussion boards (which are similar to email). This finding is timely, given the pandemic-induced environment of remote and hybrid work, as it informs practitioners on audit teams’ multitasking effectiveness while using CMC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Issues in Auditing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Issues in Auditing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2021-032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Issues in Auditing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2021-032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文总结了Sidgman、Brown和Brazel(2021),该研究表明,在多任务处理时,审计团队亲自沟通的表现大于使用计算机媒介沟通的团队(讨论板和聊天室)的表现。在审计环境中,多任务处理是不可避免的,而且普遍存在,面对面交流并不总是一种选择。为了促进多任务处理,参与团队的沟通已经从面对面的互动扩展到计算机媒介沟通(CMC)技术。然而,人们对多任务团队在这些替代沟通模式(面对面、讨论板和聊天室)下的表现知之甚少。与预期相反,作者发现,实验参与者对聊天室功能(类似于短信)的熟悉和偏好可能抵消了之前归因于讨论板(类似于电子邮件)的好处。考虑到疫情引发的远程和混合工作环境,这一发现是及时的,因为它向从业者介绍了审计团队在使用CMC时的多任务有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can Your Audit Team Effectively Multitask? It Might Depend on How they Communicate
This article summarizes Sidgman, Brown, and Brazel (2021) which demonstrates that, when multitasking, the performance of audit teams communicating in-person is greater than the performance of teams using computer-mediated communication (discussion boards and chatrooms). In the audit setting, multitasking is unavoidable and pervasive and in-person communication is not always an option. To facilitate multitasking, engagement team communications have extended beyond in-person interactions to computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies. However, little is known about the performance of multitasking teams under these alternative modes of communication (in-person, discussion boards, and chatrooms). Contrary to expectations, the authors find that experimental participants’ familiarity with, and preference for, chatroom features (which are like text messaging) may have offset the benefits previously attributed to discussion boards (which are similar to email). This finding is timely, given the pandemic-induced environment of remote and hybrid work, as it informs practitioners on audit teams’ multitasking effectiveness while using CMC.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Issues in Auditing
Current Issues in Auditing BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信