the turnover intentions of information systems auditors

8/13/2019 The Turnover Intentions of Information Systems Auditors

1/20

The turnover intentions of information systems auditorsAgung D. Muliawan 1, Peter F. Green 2 , David A. RobbUQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4072

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 21 December 2008Received in revised form 13 February 2009Accepted 9 March 2009

The turnover rate of Information Systems auditors is an emergingproblem for the profession. In his study of factors affecting resourceallocations to Information Systems Audit departments, Lucy [Lucy, R.F.Factors affecting information systems audit resource allocationdecisions. Thesis, The University of Texas, Arlington, 1998.] foundthat the average Information Systems (IS) auditor has four years of ISAudit experience. Dunmore [Dunmore D.B. Farewell to the informationsystems audit profession. Internal Auditor 1989; February:42 48.]

argues that this high turnover of IS auditors will limit systems auditknowledge. Unlike prior research investigating turnover intentions of IS auditors, this study speci cally includes factors that re ect thehigherlevel needs of IS audit professionals. Theneed to satisfypersonaland professional growth exerts a particularly strong in uence on ISauditors' turnover intentions. Further, our study con rms that ISauditors' share similar characteristics to other IS professionals ratherthan with general accountants and auditors. Organizations wanting toretain their IS auditors should provide regularopportunities for their ISauditors to satisfy their personal growth needs.Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:IS auditorsTurnover intentionsGrowth needs

Satisfaction

1. Introduction

The turnover rate of Information Systems auditors is an emerging problem for the profession. In hisstudy of factors affecting resource allocations to Information Systems Audit departments, Lucy (1998)found that the average Information Systems(IS) auditor has four years of IS Audit experience. He found also

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10 (2009) 117 136

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 33811219; fax: +61 7 33811227.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.F. Green), [email protected] (D.A. Robb).1 Tel.: +617 3365 6976; fax: +61 7 3365 7285.2 Tel.: +61 7 3381 1029; fax: +61 7 33811227.

1467-0895/$ see front matter. Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1016/j.accinf.2009.03.001

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Accounting

Information Systems
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2009.03.001http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14670895http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14670895http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2009.03.001mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/20

that when Information Systems auditors move to a new position, 47% leave their current organizations. Thepercentage is even greater for Information Systems auditors at the supervisory and management level, with55% and 64% respectively, moving to other organizations to advance their careers.

As early as 1989, Dunmore argued that high levels of turnover of IS auditors would limit systems auditknowledge. Dunmore believed IS auditors with limited professional experiencewould lack high-level systemsknowledge and pro ciency. Furthermore, such turnover causes organizations to incur higher turnover costs.Roth and Roth (1995) report that trainingandrecruiting costsfor a single employee in public accounting rmsreached between US$4000 and US$8000. Alarmingly, these items often account for only 20% of total turnovercosts, the remaining 80% comes from hidden costs, e.g., inef ciencies and waning productivity ( Dunn,1995 ).Thiscurrentstudy's primaryobjective is to enhanceunderstandingandknowledge of thefactors thatin uencethe turnover intentions of Information Systems auditors. The overarching research question for this study is:what factors signi cantly in uence the turnover intention of IS auditors? Second, what factors signi cantlyin uence IS auditor job satisfaction and organizational commitment?

Our investigation is motivated by three principal factors. First, although ample research has been doneon turnover, few studies have addressed the issue of IS auditor turnover. Given the importance placed on ISaudit and the problems associated with managing relatively high IS auditor turnover, such lack of researchis unexpected ( Lucy, 1999 ).

Second, while a prior study of IS auditor turnover ( Quarles, 1994b ) found some factors associated withgeneral auditors and accountants explained IS auditor turnover intentions, studies of other professionalgroups (e.g., Benke and Rhode, 1980; Harrel and Stahl, 1984 ; and Watson, 1975 ) indicate different factorsmay be implicated. Quarles's (1994b) study reported R2 of 0.53 for turnover intention, 0.54 for jobsatisfaction, and 0.55 for organizational commitment.

Unlike the historical focus of general auditors work, IS audit is future-oriented and more dif cult toquantify ( Dunmore,1989 ). Such differences likely affect the antecedent factors and their levels relating to ISauditor turnover intentions. For example, the need to be up to date with new technical developments beingused in business processes differentiates some of these factors from those affecting turnover intentions of traditional accountants.

Third, IS audit has taken on a new importance since Quarles' (1994b) IS auditor turnover study. ISauditors' working environment has become more complicated and technologies are more advanced. Forexample, the scope and focus of IS audit, the relationship with nancial audit, skill requirements forauditors, and technologies differ markedly from the time of Quarles's study ( Bagranoff and Vendrzyk,2000 ). More recently, and particularly in light of legislation such as the Sarbanes Oxley Act, IS audit hasbecome a key component of good governance. Contemporary nancial reporting processes are driven byinformation systems. Such systems are deeply integrated in initiating, authorizing, recording, processingand reporting nancial transactions (ITGI, 2006).

No research, however, appears to have investigated the problem of IS auditor turnover in the post-SOXlandscape. Consequently, the turnover intention model of Quarles's study likely requires revision.

In the following section of this paper motivation theories are presented to provide background for this

study. Next, based on prior relevant studies and theoretical considerations we develop our model andhypotheses, followed by a description of the research method this study employed. Lastly, we discuss theresults of the data analyses and draw conclusions and implications from this study.

2. Background

In this sectionwe present three different, but related motivation theories. These theories help guide ourselection of salient factors likely affecting personnel turnover.

2.1. Motivation theories

Needs-based theories of motivation such as those proposed by Maslow (1943) , Herzberg (1959) , andAlderfer (1969) have long been mainstays of management theory. Their focus on the individual's quest tosatisfy his/her levels of needs, particularly with regard to ones' working lives, have helped us to betterunderstand employees' needs and motivations. Indeed, Maslow's (1943) and Alderfer's (1969) needshierarchies are based on the assertion that humans are motivated by unsatis ed needs, and that certain

118 A.D. Muliawan et al. / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10 (2009) 117 136


3/20

lower level needs have to be largely satis ed before higher level needs can be ful lled ( Hitt et al., 2005 ).O'Connor and Yballe's (2007) reassessment of Maslow's work, in particular, con rmed that satisfaction of lower level needs, such as safety, social, and esteem needs, leaves employees to pursue higher level needssuch as self-actualization.

Herzberg's (1959) motivational theory contends that there are two types of motivation factors: hygienefactors and motivation factors. Hygiene factors de-motivate if not present, for example, physical workingconditions, salary, or interpersonal relations. Conversely, motivation factors can motivate when present, forexample, achievement, advancement, and responsibility. Like Maslow's and Alderfer's higher level needs,Herzberg's motivation factors centre largely on the need for personal development. As O'Connor and Yballe(2007) point out, however, the need for personal development is not, in itself, an endpoint, but an ongoingprocess.

If those personal development needs are not being satis ed by a person's current employmentcircumstances, then Maslow's, Alderfer's, and Herzberg's theories predict that people will be stronglymotivated to satisfy those unful lled needs. Indeed, such motivation will likely be suf cient to precipitatepursuit of alternative employment.

Within the overarching scope of these general motivation theories we intend to investigate the factorsthat lead IS auditors to change their jobs. As professionals, IS auditors are highly educated and trained in thetechnical aspects of auditing and IS, hence their professional needs will likely centre on those higher levelpersonal development and growth needs advocated by motivation theorists. As Business Week (2008)notes, one of the Big Four auditing rm's key strategies to recruit and retain staff relies heavily on personaldevelopment and learning. Accordingly, one might reasonably expect that IS auditors would seekorganizational settings that provide a clear role fostering both their personal and professional growth.

The study of turnover has received much attention since the 1900s, with estimates of publication of qualitative and quantitative investigations of turnover exceeding 1500 ( Muchinsky and Morrow, 1980 ).Given the breadth of prior research, some researchers (e.g., Locke, 1976; Mobley, 1982 ) argue thatpersonnel turnover is largely explained by job satisfaction and organizational commitment. While Quarles(1994a) argues that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are products of complex interactions

among multiple factors, he suggests there are other, antecedent controllable factors, that should rst beidenti ed when seeking to explain the motivations for IS auditor turnover.

Gallegos (1991) hypothesizes that several work-related factors may explain IS auditors' high turnoverrate. First, IS auditors' unique position allows intimate knowledge of organizational operations. For thisreason, many organizations use the IS audit position as a training ground for their future managers. Second,when IS auditors become highly pro cient they may feel their job lacks challenge, particularly if engaged inrepetitive tasks. Such lack of challenge may lead to boredom and increase their desire for careerprogression. Third, the IS auditing profession lacks upward mobility with few directors and senior ISauditors. Dunmore (1989) and Tongren (1994) suggest that limited career prospects contribute to ISauditors' pursuit of higher levels of responsibility and remuneration in other organizations. Again, thesefactors all emphasize the importance of ful lling personal growth needs for IS auditors.

Quarles (1994a) applied a model used to investigate turnover intentions of general auditors andaccountants, surveying members of the EDP Auditors Association (now Information Systems Audit andControl Association ISACA) employed in public accounting, industry, and government. He reported thatboth organizational commitment and job satisfaction have inverse effects on turnover intentions.Together organizational commitment and job satisfaction explained 53% of the variance in thoseintentions. Job satisfaction had a positive and direct relationship with organizational commitment. Roleambiguity, role con ict, and external job opportunities had a negative and direct relationship withorganizational commitment. Together these latter three variables explained 55% of the variance in theorganizational commitment. Quarles (1994a) further reports that role ambiguity had an inverse effect on job satisfaction, and that both participation in decision making and supervisory status positively affectedrespondents' job satisfaction. These three variables together explained 54% of the variance in job

satisfaction for Quarles.In contrast to the predictions of motivation theorists, (e.g., Maslow, Alderfer, and Herzberg) Quarles'sndings do not expressly address the matter of individuals seeking to satisfy theirhigher level needs. Given

the professional status of IS auditors, and prior research (e.g., Dunmore, 1989; Gallegos, 1991; Tongren,1994 ), satisfying higher level needs appears to be a priority of IS auditors. Accordingly, to investigate the



4/20

extent to which the issue of personal growth needs affect IS auditors' turnover intention, our turnoverintention model speci cally includes and measures that variable.

3. Model and hypotheses development

This section introduces our IS auditor turnover intention model and the dependent variable. We nextturn to the independent variables and develop our hypotheses relative to the factors likely to affect ISauditors' turnover intentions. Consistent with Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) , to understand intentions, wemust rst specify the factors that lead to intent. In turn, therefore, we deal with organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction, the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment,role con ict and ambiguity, promotion opportunities, pay satisfaction, and personal growth. Furthermore,Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) reinforce the direct relationship between behavioral intention and action.

3.1. Turnover intention model

Fig. 1 shows this study's research model. Our research model has its basis in the Quarles (1994a) andERG models and is informed by a review of prior studies on turnover of IS auditors, and the theories of motivation. The research model comprises seven independent variables: role con ict, role ambiguity,promotion opportunities, pay satisfaction, growth needs, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.Couger et al.'s (1992) study found that satisfying higher level needs was important to hi-tech professionals.Accordingly, because our model includes the higher-level needs factor, personal growth, it offers greaterinsights into IS auditors' turnover intentions than Quarles's (1994b) model.

3.2. The dependent variable

The dependent variable is the IS auditors' turnover intentions. Consistent with Ajzen and Fishbein's(1980) assertion that behavioral intention is the most immediate determinant of actual behavior, we usethe dependent variable, turnover intention, as a proxy for actual turnover.

Other studies (see e.g., Mobley et al., 1979; Steel and Ovalle, 1984; Miller et al., 1979; Arnold andFeldman, 1982; Cotton and Tuttle, 1986; Rasch and Harrell, 1990 ) also report consistent positiverelationships exist between turnover intention and actual turnover behavior. Moreover, Bluedorn's (1982)

Fig. 1. Turnover intention of information systems auditors.



5/20

research of 23 prior studies found that individuals' turnover intentions matched their actual turnoverbehavior.

3.3. The independent variables

The independent variables were chosen for two reasons. First, the variables are work-related, i.e., theydescribe the interface between individual workers and organizations ( Muchinsky and Morrow, 1980 ).Second, while Quarles (1994b) notes that management does not have direct control of job satisfaction andorganizational commitment, there are antecedent factors, however, the management of an organizationcan directly control that signi cantly and positively affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment(Quarles, 1994b ).

3.4. Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment refers to the degree an individual is involved in, and identi es with, aparticular organization ( Steers, 1977 ). Porter et al. (1974) identify three facets of organizationalcommitment: (1) strong belief in, and acceptance of, organizational goals and values; (2) willingness toexert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (3) a de nite desire to maintain organizationalmembership. An individual who is committed to an organization will, therefore, be less likely to express adesire to leave an organization.

A number of studies have con rmed that organizational commitment has a signi cant inverse impacton turnover (actual or intended) for employees in different types of organization ( Abelsen, 1987; Michaelsand Spector, 1982; Williams and Hazer, 1986 ). Several studies focussing on general accountants ( Arnoldand Feldman,1982 ), accountants in both public accounting and industrial organizations ( Aranya and Ferris,1984 ), and governmental accountants ( Meixner and Bline, 1989 ) have reported similar results. Likegeneralist accountants, Quarles (1994b) notes IS auditors' turnover intentions are also affected byorganizational commitment. Based on the prior argument

H1. Organizational commitment has a direct, negative effect on turnover intention.

3.5. Job satisfaction

Locke (1976) contends that job satisfaction represents a pleasurable or positive emotional stateresulting from one's job or job experiences. Job satisfaction re ects the degree to which the workenvironment meets or reinforces the needs of the individual ( Weiss et al., 1967 ). Supervision, co-workers,and career satisfaction are some of the many facets of job satisfaction ( Ironson et al., 1989 ). Scarpello andCampbell (1983) argue that additive measures of job satisfaction, however, may be no better atcommunicating actual job satisfaction than overall ratings of job satisfaction. Consequently, in this study

we regard job satisfaction as an overall measure, rather than the aggregate of individual facets of jobsatisfaction.

Industrial psychology research validates an inverse relationship between job satisfaction and turnover(Sorensen, 1990 ). For accountants and auditors, several studies indicate similar results (e.g., Arnold andFeldman, 1982; Gregson, 1990; Harrel and Stahl, 1984; Rasch and Harrell, 1990 ). Harrell et al. (1986) reporta signi cant direct inverse relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intent for internal auditors.Further, Couger et al. (1979) report that personnel in IS related professions place particular stock in jobsatisfaction. For that reason, job satisfaction is likely a key component of the turnover intentions of ISauditors. Based on the prior argument we present the following hypothesis for IS auditors:

H2a. Job satisfaction has a direct, negative effect on turnover intention.

3.6. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment

Porter et al. (1974) argue that satisfaction is less stable, but formed more quickly, than organizationalcommitment. Porter et al. considered commitment as a global link between an individual and an



6/20

organization, with satisfaction being a component of commitment. Stevens et al. (1978) described that,through an exchange process, individuals assess the bene ts and costs of staying with an organization.When the bene ts outweigh the costs commitment results, suggesting that job satisfaction may be apredictor of commitment. Moreover, after analyzing studies on organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction, Locke and Latham (1990, p.250) , concluded that it seems logical that satisfaction would affectorganizational commitment, although satisfaction is certainly not its only determinant.

Gregson (1992) examined the causal ordering and importance of organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction on the relationship between various independent variables and turnover among accountingprofessionals. Based on the results of his analysis of two data sets using Structural Equation Modeling(SEM), he concluded that both job satisfaction and organizational commitment should be included inmodels that predict turnover. Gregson (1992) concluded that while numerous prior studies have debatedcausal ordering between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, those studies have agreed that asigni cant, positive relationship exists between the variables. Quarles (1994a) study of internal auditors,similarly, noted a positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Wepropose the following relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment:

H2b. Job satisfaction has a direct, positive effect on organizational commitment.

3.7. Role con ict and role ambiguity

A role is a set of expectations about the behavior of a person holding a particular position within anorganization ( Lee, 1996 ). Role con ict occurs when there is incompatibility between the expected set of behaviors perceived by the focal person and those perceived by role senders . Role ambiguity occurs whenthe set of behaviors expected for a role is unclear ( Katz and Kahn, 1978 ).

Mowday et al. (1982) argue that the psychological processes explaining the correlation between rolecon ict, role ambiguity, and organizational commitment are not yet well understood. While the correlationbetween the aforementioned factors may not be precisely understood, Jackson and Schuler's (1985) meta

analysis of 96 studies on role con ict and role ambiguity concluded that organizational commitment isnegatively correlated with both role ambiguity and role con ict. Moreover, prior studies indicate that rolecon ict and role ambiguity are associated with lower organizational commitment (see e.g., Baird, 1969;Organ and Green,1981; Podsakoff et al., 1986 ). Couger et al. (1979) observe IS professionals' generally lowsatisfaction with supervisors. Given the in uence supervisors can wield over factors like role con ict androle ambiguity, such low satisfaction may be re ected in reduced organizational commitment. We proposethe following relationships between role con ict, role ambiguity and organizational commitment.

H3a. Role con ict has a direct, negative effect on organizational commitment.

H3b. Role ambiguity has a direct, negative effect on organizational commitment.

Role theory ( Kahn et al., 1964 ) suggests that role ambiguity will increase the probability that a personwill be dissatis ed with their role. Schaubroeck et al. (1989) argues that role ambiguity hindersperformance improvements, and hence limits individuals' ability to obtain rewards, potentially reducing job satisfaction. In a study of senior auditors of a (then) big-eight accounting rm, Senatr a (1980) foundthat role ambiguity was negatively related to job satisfaction. We propose the following relationshipbetween role ambiguity and job satisfaction.

H3c. Role ambiguity has a direct, negative effect on job satisfaction.

3.8. Promotion opportunities

Promotion opportunities refer to the presence of a career path leading to a series of promotions andnewpositions within the current organization ( London, 1983; Rhodes and Doering, 1983 ). Mowday et al. (1982)note promotion opportunity as one of the characteristics in uencing affective responses such as jobsatisfaction. Lawler (1973) indicated that problems or concerns with promotion are factors that provide amajor source of dissatisfaction for employees. Super and Minor (1987) reported that career development



7/20

and satisfaction with career path signi cantly affect an individual's commitment and job satisfaction.Quarles (1994a) also found that satisfaction with promotion opportunities directly affects job satisfactionfor internal auditors at both staff and supervisory level. We extend the relationship between promotionopportunities and job satisfaction to IS auditors.

H4. Satisfaction with promotion opportunities has a direct, positive effect on job satisfaction.

3.9. Pay satisfaction

Pay, in general, can be viewed as reward or outcome received by employees ( Lum et al., 1998 ). Fororganizations, pay is a part of sanction systems used to motivate compliance with rules and regulations(Mueller and Price, 1990 ). According to equity theory ( Adams, 1965 ), pay satisfaction/dissatisfaction isthe result of perceptual and comparative processes of one's outcome/input ratio to some source of references. In a different way, Lawler (1971) de ned pay satisfaction/dissatisfaction as the congruence/incongruence between what individuals perceive they are paid and their perception of the amount theyshould be paid.

Lawler (1971) argued that dissatisfaction with pay is likely to affect job dissatisfaction. Investigating theturnover intention of nurses, Lum et al. (1998) found that the effect of pay satisfaction on turnoverintention is mediated by job satisfaction, and that pay satisfaction and job satisfaction are positivelycorrelated. Couger et al. (1979) noted the importance of pay satisfaction to IS professionals. Their studyobserved little difference in the importance of pay satisfaction between IS and other technical professionalsin their study. Accordingly, pay satisfaction would appear to provide a signi cant in uence on IS auditorprofessionals. Hence,

H5. Satisfaction with pay has a direct, positive effect on job satisfaction.

3.10. Personal growth needs

The concept of growth needs originated from Maslow's (1943) need hierarchy theory. Need hierarchymaintains that as basic needs such as physiological needs are satis ed, we need to ful ll increasinglyhigher-order needs such as growth needs. Growth needs are concerned with the need for personaldevelopment and realization of one's potential.

Professionals involved with the information technology industry have high growth needs ( Couger et al.,1979, 1992 ). In the same way, IS auditors, whose jobs are a unique amalgam of information technologiesand auditing ( Sia, 1999 ), are almost certain to have high growth needs. Consequently, IS auditors wouldlikely insist that their job ful ls their personal development needs. Hence,

H6. Satisfaction with the ful lment of personal growth needs has a direct, positive effect on job satisfaction.

4. Research method

In this section we describe the method used to collect our data. We then discuss the instrumentationused to measure our independent variables.

4.1. Data collection

Our study used a self-administered survey to collect data. We selected this method for four reasons. First,to validate the proposed model with a reasonable level of con dence, this study required a relatively largeamount of data. Second, given the subject matter of this study, a number of sensitive questions were asked

of the participants. Generally, people tend to avoid answering sensitive questions unless they believe theircon dentiality and anonymity can be guaranteed. Without guarantees of anonymity, people are less likelyto respond, or if they do, they likely give false information ( Warner, 1965 ). Third, the sample population of this study is relatively homogenous, i.e., involving participants within one profession only. Wallace (1954)argued that in a homogenous population, results obtained from a survey might not much differ from those



8/20

obtained through other methods of inquiry. Fourth, this study is a quantitative investigation of turnoverintention of IS auditors. A survey, therefore, is an acceptable approach for a quantitative study ( Hunt, 1991;Malhotra, 1993; Cooper and Schindler, 2003 ).

To help ensure this study accurately re ected the turnover intentions of IS auditors, the participants of this study were members of the Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) in Australia.ISACA is the organization representing IT Governance professionals.

5. Instrumentation

5.1. Turnover intention

To measure turnover intention , we used four items adapted from Mobley et al. (1978) and Lee (1996)(see Appendix A ). The response options for these items were based on a seven-point rating scale rangingfrom not at all to all the time (one item) and extremely unlikely to extremely likely (three items).

Regarding their turnover intentions, the respondents were asked to consider their likely actions in thesix months from the date of the survey. Past studies on turnover have used different time periods tomeasure turnover intention varying from six months ( Quarles, 1994a ) to 1 year ( Aranya and Ferris, 1984;Shore et al., 1990 ). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) suggest that measuring the intention antecedent to behavioris more reliable if measured within a reasonable time frame. Considering Ajzen and Fishbein's contention,this study used a six-month period. Furthermore, using a six month period allows more direct comparisonswith Quarles' (1994a) study.

5.2. Organizational commitment

We measured Organizational commitment using the four-item short version of the Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire developed by Porter et al. (1974) (see Appendix A ). This questionnaire iscommonly regarded as the preeminent instrument of its type ( Reichers, 1985 ) and has been widely used tostudy organizational commitment ( Aranya and Ferris, 1984 ). The four items selected for this study wereitems that describe the three facets of organizational commitment as suggested by Porter et al. (1974) , vis--vis, (1) a strong belief in, and acceptance of, the organization's goals and values; (2) a willingness to exertconsiderable effort on behalf of the organization; and (3) a de nite desire to maintain organizationalmembership. The responses were measured using a seven-point rating scale ranging from stronglydisagree to strongly agree.

5.3. Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured using the Job Satisfaction Measure developed by Hoppock (1935) (seeAppendix A ). This instrument was used as it measures job satisfaction as an overall concept, the de nitionused in this study. Although Hoppock's (1935) instrument was developed some 70 years ago, it has beenvalidated for contemporary use ( Lee,1996 ). The response options for the three items used were based on aseven-point verbally anchored response ranging from I hate it to I love it , Never to All of the time ,and No one dislikes his/her job more than I dislike mine to No one likes his/her job better than I likemine.

5.4. Role con ict and role ambiguity

We measured Role con ict and role ambiguity , respectively, using four items adapted from Rizzo et al.(1970) (see Appendix A ). These items have been subject to extensive validation ( Lee,1996 ) and are widelyused for measuring role related stress ( Tubre and Collins, 2000 ). The responses to the items used weremeasured using a seven-point rating scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.



9/20

5.5. Promotional opportunities

Promotional opportunities was measured using four items developed by Curry et al. (1986) (seeAppendix A ). These four items required respondents to indicate their agreement/disagreement to severalaspects of promotion policy in their respective organizations. The response options were based on a seven-point rating scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

5.6. Pay satisfaction

We measured Pay satisfaction using four items (see Appendix A ). The rst three items askedrespondents to evaluate their satisfaction with both the amount of pay and fringe bene ts they receivedfrom their organization and with the frequencyand amount of pay rises. These items are commonly used tomeasure pay satisfaction ( Smith et al., 1969; Hackman and Oldham, 1975 ). The fourth item was adaptedfrom Lee (1996) . It asked respondents to evaluate their satisfaction relative to being paid fairly for the workthey contributed to their organization. The responses for all items were measured using a seven-point scale

ranging from

extremely dissatis ed

to

extremely satis ed.

5.7. Growth needs

The variable growth needs was measured using ve items from the Job Diagnostic Survey ( Hackman andOldham, 1975 ) (see Appendix A ). This measure is commonly used in organizational behavior literature(Lee,1996 ). Taber and Taylor (1990) reported that the Job Diagnostic Survey has satisfactory psychometricqualities. The response options were based on a seven-point scale ranging from extremely dissatis ed to extremely satis ed.

5.8. Survey instrument

Our web-based questionnaire was structured in two parts with 40 questions in total. The rst partcomprised seven sections with 32 questions measuring the independent variables in the proposed model.The second part contained eight questions soliciting respondents' demographic and other backgroundinformation. All questions were closed in nature. To record their responses, participants clicked on radio-buttons, entered a number, or entered other work-related information that best described their responses.

5.9. Data analysis

We used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to evaluate the proposed model and then test thehypotheses. SEM is a second generation data analysis technique ( Bagozzi and Fornell, 1982 ) that allows theresearcher to analyze a set of interrelated hypotheses in a single, systematic, and comprehensive way(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988 ).

SEM is also a con rmatory technique, and is most often used when theory testing ( Ullman, 2001 ). Inthis study, we sought to understand the factors that affect the turnover intention of IS auditors. Aprerequisite of SEM is that users should have a prior knowledge, or hypotheses about the relationshipsamong variables ( Ullman, 2001 ). Given this study was informedby Quarl es' (1994a,b) prior studies, we had

rm beliefs about the relationship between the variables of interest. The following sections presentcon rmation of our model and our ndings.

6. Results

We now present the results of the analyses used to test our model and the hypotheses we developedpreviously. The participant demographics are presented rst, followed by a con rmatory factor analysis,item reliability testing, and model evaluation. The results of our analyses relative to our hypothesesconclude the section.



10/20

6.1. Participant demographics

We sent invitation-to-participate emails to 800 members of the participating ISACA Chapters. Onehundred and forty responses were recorded in the database by the closing date. Of the 140 recordedresponses, nine responses were deleted because they were incomplete. The total number of usableresponses was 131 which represented an overall response rate of 16%. Table 1, Panel A, presents thecharacteristics of the 131 respondents included in the study, while Panel B presents the characteristics of

their organizations.Table 1 shows that 71% of the respondents are internal auditors and 29% are external auditors. The

majority of the respondents (78%) have middle to top-level positions in their organizations. More than half of the respondents (56%) work in organizations other than public accounting/management consulting andgovernmental agencies. They work in such areas as banking, nance, manufacturing, telecommunications,software development, and transportation. Also, more than half of the respondents (61%) work in largeorganizations (staff more than 1000).

6.2. Data checks: responses and distributions

An independent group T -test was used to identify any signi cant differences between early and late

participants' responses. At 0.10 level of con dence, there were no statistically signi cant differencesbetween early and late participants' responses. Among the 32 items surveyed, four items indicated non-normal distributions. Data transformation was not used to remedy these items' non-normal distributionsfor two reasons. First, transformation is not universally recommended and should be considered andundertaken only when absolutely necessary ( Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001 ). Second, Busemeyer and Jones

Table 1Participant and organization characteristics.

Panel A: Participants Number Proportion

Male 105 (80.2%)

Female 26 (19.8%)Audit backgroundInternal auditor 93 (71.0%)External auditor 38 (29.0%)

PositionAuditor/IS auditor 21 (16.0%)Senior auditor/Senior IS auditor 41 (31.3%)Audit manager/IS audit manager 58 (44.3%)Partner 5 (3.8%)Missing data 6 (4.6%)

CISA quali ed 86 (65.6%)

Mean Std. Dev.

Audit experience (years) 11.19 8.05IS Audit experience (years) 9.05 6.42

Panel B: Organizations Number Proportion

Public accounting/management consulting 23 (17.6%)Government agencies 33 (25.2%)Others 74 (56.5%)Missing data 1 (0.8%)

Organization size (number of staff)Less than 50 17 (13.0%)50 100 5 (3.8%)101 500 13 (9.9%)501 1000 15 (11.5%)More than 1000 80 (61.1%)

Missing data 1 (0.8%)



11/20

(1993) argue that transformation may produce spurious effects in hierarchical regression analysis, makingthe results from the transformed data dif cult to interpret ( Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001 ).

6.3. Con rmatory analysis

To examine whether the data met the hypothesized structure, a con rmatory analysis was performed.Table 2 presents the results of the con rmatory analysis. Using a 0.05 level of signi cance with degrees of

Table 2Measurement model.

Construct Item Estimate t -value Standardized Estimate Standardized estimate squared

Turnover intentions TURNINT01 1.51 14.34 0.86 0.73

TURNINT02 1.96 21.78 0.92 0.85TURNINT03 1.96 19.34 0.87 0.76TURNINT04 1.44 10.70 0.79 0.63

Organizational commitment COMMIT01 0.50 3.97 0.40 0.16COMMIT02 0.82 4.92 0.45 0.20COMMIT03 1.51 13.33 0.87 0.76COMMIT04 1.49 12.54 0.81 0.66

Job satisfaction JOBSAT01 1.78 11.26 0.90 0.80 JOBSAT02 1.12 12.78 0.87 0.75 JOBSAT03 0.82 8.06 0.73 0.54

Role con ict RC01 0.99 6.76 0.59 0.35RC02 1.26 8.54 0.69 0.48RC03 1.18 7.32 0.62 0.39RC04 1.09 6.16 0.56 0.31

Role ambiguity RA01 1.07 7.99 0.82 0.68RA02 0.92 6.73 0.85 0.73RA03 1.14 10.23 0.91 0.83RA04 1.25 11.11 0.82 0.68

Promotion opportunities PROM01 1.15 7.79 0.60 0.36PROM02 1.36 8.41 0.66 0.44PROM03 1.65 13.41 0.89 0.79PROM04 1.84 21.10 0.95 0.91

Pay satisfaction PAY01 1.35 12.92 0.82 0.67PAY02 1.41 14.53 0.85 0.72PAY03 1.49 19.41 0.92 0.84PAY04 1.55 20.24 0.91 0.83

Growth needs GROWTH01 0.99 7.52 0.64 0.42GROWTH02 1.06 8.24 0.72 0.52GROWTH03 1.28 10.14 0.87 0.75GROWTH04 1.49 15.31 0.92 0.84GROWTH05 1.06 8.32 0.77 0.59

Table 3Construct reliability.

Construct Construct reliability Variance extracted Cronbach's

Turnover intentions 0.85 0.59 0.92Organisational commitment 0.67 0.36 0.72 Job satisfaction 0.68 0.42 0.87

Role con ict 0.64 0.30 0.70Role ambiguity 0.85 0.58 0.91Promotion opportunities 0.79 0.50 0.85Pay satisfaction 0.86 0.61 0.93Growth needs 0.89 0.62 0.89



12/20

freedom N 100, all items have t-values greater than 1.96 (two-tailed). All items appear, therefore, to beunique and distinct. All items, their scales, and sources are listed in Appendix A .

6.4. Item selection and reliability test

Rather than reduce the number of variables to improve the t of our model, we retained everyparameter of our model. Furthermore, the number of responses obtained exceeded the minimum (100)required for LISREL (Hair et al., 1998 ). The constructs and their reliability coef cients are presented inTable 3 . All constructs have reliability coef cients above the acceptable level of 0.60 ( Nunnally, 1978;Schumacker and Lomax, 1996 ).

To ensure our constructs re ected the phenomena we were seeking to investigate, the constructs'average variance extracted and Cronbach's alpha were also measured. For the average variance extracted

the v values of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and role con ict are below the suggestedvalue of 0.50 ( Hair et al., 1998 ). Although variance extracted for these constructs was lower than thesuggested threshold, assessment of the measurement model reveals good evidence of reliability for theoperationalization of the variables used in our study. The Cronbach alphas exceeded the 0.7 threshold ( Hairet al., 1998 ). The items used were based on well-used and previously validated scales. When judging thesuf ciency of a model, Bollen and Long, (1993) suggest drawing on prior studies of the same or similarmodels is advantageous. Our overall model was based on Quarles' (1994a,b) models, both of which havebeen previously con rmed.

To further ensure the constructs in our model were, indeed, distinct from one another we conducted adiscriminant/convergent validity test. A free model was compared to two xed models, one fordiscriminant validity, and one for convergent validity. Table 4 shows that the free model tted betterthan either xed models thus indicating distinction between each of our constructs ( Bagozzi et al., 1991 ).That is, for each combination of constructs in the matrix, the freely estimated model had a lower 2

indicating a better t than a model where correlations between each construct were xed to one (perfectcorrelation) or a model where correlations between each construct were xed to 0 (uncorrelated) ( Bagozziet al., 1991 ).

Table 4Discriminant/Convergent validity 2 estimates matrix.

Turnoverintentions

Organisationalcommitment

Jobsatisfaction

Rolecon ict

Roleambiguity

Promotionopportunities

Pay Growthneeds

Turnover intentionsOrganisationalcommitment

Free model 36.93Discriminant model 95.86Convergent model 57.87

Job satisfaction Free model 19.42 31.86Discriminant Model 132.57 64.73Convergent model 52.60 62.29

Role con ict Free model 8.19 17.14 28.08Discriminant model 57.50 101.66 60.05Convergent model 20.43 25.91 38.77

Role ambiguity Free model 18.02 21.81 27.26 18.46Discriminant model 292.24 105.30 147.28 106.90Convergent model 35.36 36.98 40.18 25.58

Promotion

opportunities

Free model 36.91 38.26 43.09 17.24 20.39

Discriminant model 204.21 116.43 177.12 104.09 251.37Convergent model 53.49 49.00 58.69 19.32 29.19

Pay Free model 27.09 39.62 26.50 33.22 41.56 43.07Discriminant model 322.30 111.32 154.90 127.37 432.92 237.38Convergent model 52.51 60.49 50.51 38.80 50.53 56.87

Growth needs Free model 78.70 65.99 55.90 73.36 57.83 68.68 71.38Discriminant model 348.92 113.97 81.78 169.46 307.48 255.79 336.14Convergent model 92.59 81.17 102.40 77.90 69.68 82.95 81.08



13/20

F i g

. 2

. T h e L I S R E L

o u t p u t o f t h e m o d e l

.



14/20

6.5. Model evaluation

There is a pervasive belief among MIS researchers that when sample size is small PLS is the mostappropriate means of analyzing data ( Goodhue et al., 2006, 2007 ). We have chosen not to use PLS for thisstudy, LISREL remains our analysis tool of choice. As reported by Goodhue et al. (2006, 2007) in theircomparison of LISREL, PLS and regression analyses, LISREL analyses, even at lower sample size, result inestimates that are closer to true values than the estimates obtained by using PLS or regression.

Furthermore, this study seeks to test whether the high-level need, personal growth, particularly affectsIS auditors' job satisfaction, and thus turnover intentions. As Anderson and Gerbing (1988) report, SEM isbest suited to theory testing and development hence, LISREL again ful lled our requirements.

Following Byrne's (1998) suggestions, our study applied different criteria to assess the model t. Thepath diagram of the combined measurement and structural model obtained from LISREL are presented inFig. 2.

There are a multitude of t indexes described in the SEM literature ( Kline,1998 ). To further con rm thegoodness of t of our model we present six of the more widely used indices ( Kline, 1998 ) provided byLISREL. The index, the model values, and the generally applied thresholds are presented in Table 5 . Thewidely accepted normed Chi-square (the ratio of the Chi-square to the degrees of freedom) ( Kline, 1998;Bollen and Long, 1993; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004 ) is 1.37. The normed Chi-square is well within thetypically accepted range of 1 to 2 ( Ullman, 2001 ).3 While not all of our goodness of t indices ful ll theirrespective thresholds, we believe that, overall, the goodness of t indices do indicate that our model tswell. 4

Moreover, there is broad support, particularly in the applied research eld, for the view that relying on asingle goodness of t index to support or, indeed, to discount a model is perilous ( Kline, 1998; Bollen andLong, 1993; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004 ). In particular, Ullman (2001) reports that the more popularly

reported model

t indices are comparative

t index (CFI) and standardized root mean squared residual(SRMR). Our model comfortably exceeds the threshold values for both of these indices.To evaluate the structural model, our study focused on the relationships between the variables. This

stage of the study tested whether the hypothesized relationships are supported by the data. Six of the ninehypotheses are supported by the data. The parameter estimates for each hypothesized relationship are

Table 5Model t indices.

Fit measure Index Model value Thresholds

Absolute Goodness-of- t index (GFI) 0.76 0.90

Standardized Root mean squared residual (SRMR) 0.008 below 0.05Incremental Adjusted goodness-of- t index (AGFI) 0.71 0.90Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.96 0.90Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.96 0.90

Parsimonious Normed Chi-square ( 2 / df ) 1.37 Between 1.0 and 2.0

Satorra and Bentler (1994) chi-square was used to mitigate possible effects of the non-normality associated with 4 of the 32 itemssurveyed.

3 The Chi-square ( 2) of the model was 2=595.87; df =436; p=0.00. Ullman (2001) notes, however, that assessment of goodness of t is not always as straightforward as assessment of Chi-square. In particular, with small samples the probability level of

the Chi-square may be inaccurate. Further, model complexity, i.e., the number of observed and latent variables, increases thelikelihood of a signi cant Chi-square.4 To mitigate doubts over model t and to af rm our results, we conducted a bootstrapped PLS analysis of the fully dimensioned

model. The results of that analysis con rmed, with the marginal exception of the effects of pay on job satisfaction, the signi canceand direction of the constructs, and variance explained, as reported in the LISREL results of Table 6 . The PLS results are presented inAppendix B.



15/20

presented in Table 6 . The three independent variables, RCONF, PAY and GROWTH, correlate signi cantlywith the intervening variables COMMIT and JSAT in the hypothesized directions and relationships. Positive JSAT and COMMIT values are shown to have negative impacts on TURINT as originally hypothesized.Together, these variables explain 48% of the variance in TURINT. Our model explains 74% of variance in JSATand 55% of variance in COMMIT. Indeed, our model explains a signi cantly higher amount of the variance in JSAT (74%) than Quarles (1994a) model did with 54%. This result supports strongly the central argument of this paper that personal growth needs are critical to the IS auditor being satis ed with his/her job and thusreducing the likelihood of turnover. For comparison, the parameter estimates for each hypothesizedrelationship using PLS are presented in Appendix B . While the results are largely similar in terms of signi cance and direction, the LISREL analysis yielded higher R2 values for the dependent variables.

Three of the hypotheses were not supported. Role ambiguity, hypothesized as having a negative effect

on organizational commitment had a marginally signi cant positive effect ( t -value=0.19). Role ambiguityalso had no signi cant impact on job satisfaction. We did not anticipate these results as prior studiesgenerally indicate role ambiguity negatively impacts both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.These unexpected results may be explained, however, by nearly half the respondents in our study (47%)holding middle to top-level positions (that is, IS audit managers and partners). Hamner and Tosi (1974) andIlgen and Hollenbeck (1991) argue that individuals in such positions are likely to be the role-makers, i.e.,although their jobs may be relatively more complex than other more clearly speci ed jobs, their roles arerelatively clear. For them, role ambiguity likely forms part of the general uncertainty with which theyroutinely deal. By contrast, for less experienced IS auditors, role ambiguity and promotional opportunitiesmay be more relevant to their views on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. To gain someinsight on this view, we performed a test of the model on a subset of the data including just IS auditors andsenior IS auditors. While role ambiguity and promotional opportunities were more important to this group,they remained insigni cant in their effect on organizational commitment and job satisfaction, respectively.However, these results must be treated with caution due to the limited sample size.

Table 6Parameter estimates for the hypothesized relationships.

Dependent variable Independent variable Standardized coef cient (Beta) Standard Error t -statistic R2

TURINT H1 COMMIT 0.37 0.174 2.15 0.48

H2a JSAT

0.38 0.126

3.05COMMIT H2b JSAT 0.55 0.172 3.20 0.55H3a RCONF 0.21 0.095 2.24H3b RAMB 0.19 0.094 2.00

JSAT H3c RAMB 0.04 0.096 0.37 0.74H4 PROMO 0.05 0.070 0.67H5 PAY 0.23 0.085 2.74H6 GROWTH 0.75 0.099 7.60

Signi cant at the 0.2 level, Signi cant at the 0.05 level, Signi cant at the 0.01 level.

Table 7Summary of results.

Hypothesis Relationships Results

1 Organizational commitment has a direct, negative effect on turnover intentions. Supported2a Job satisfaction has a direct, negative effect on turnover intentions. Supported2b Job satisfaction has a direct, positive effect on organizational commitment. Supported3a Role con ict has a direct, negative effect on organizational commitment. Supported3b Role ambiguity has a direct, negative effect on organizational commitment. Not supported3c Role ambiguity has a direct, negative effect on job satisfaction. Not supported4 Satisfaction with promotional opportunities has a direct, positive effect on job satisfaction. Not supported5 Satisfaction with pay has a direct, positive effect on job satisfaction. Supported6 Satisfaction with the ful lment of growth needs has a direct, positive effect on job satisfaction. Supported



16/20

The results also provide no support for the hypothesis that satisfaction with promotional opportunitieshas a positive effect on job satisfaction. The seniority of the majority of the respondents likely explains this,apparently, counterintuitive nding. Further examination of the effect of promotional opportunities onother dependent variables, TURINT and COMMIT, found no statistically signi cant relationship. Thecontention that lack of promotion opportunities is one of the factors explaining the high turnover rate of ISauditors was not supported (see e.g., Gallegos 1991; Dunmore, 1989; Tongren, 1994 ). Perhaps, unlikegeneral accountants and auditors, the high personal growth needs of the technically oriented IS auditorsoutweigh signi cantly the need for promotional opportunities to retain IS auditors.

7. Summary and future work

The results of our study, summarized in Table 7, indicate that the factors affecting IS auditors' turnoverintentions are role con ict, satisfaction with pay, and ful llment of growth needs. These factors aremoderated by organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Role con ict has negative relationshipswith organizational commitment, while satisfaction with payand ful llment of growth needs have positive

relationships with job satisfaction. The analyses also indicate that job satisfaction has positive relationshipswith organizational commitment. Both the intervening variables have direct negative effects on theturnover intentions.

Of the three independent variables affecting IS auditors' turnover intentions, both directly andindirectly, the ful llment of growth needs exerts the strongest in uence. This nding indicates that ISauditors' intentions to stay or leave their current organization are affected strongly by how well theorganization can satisfy the IS auditors' needs for growth and personal development. Furthermore, this

nding shows that IS auditors share a similar characteristic with other IS professionals. It may also indicatethe possibility that IS auditors' need for growth and personal development is more acute than that of general accountants or auditors. In this way our model provides an important contribution to practice.Organizations wanting to retain their IS auditors must provide for their personal growth needs by, for

example, presenting them with regular opportunities to learn about new technologies and their impact onIS audit.When considering the implications of our study, readers should be mindful of two points. First, the

number of data cases used to analyze the model and test the hypotheses was relatively small. The ndingsof our study, therefore, should be applied to all IS auditors with caution. Several data items indicated non-normal distributions; non-normal data were retained in the analyses, however, due to dif cultiesassociated with interpreting results based on transformed data. Jreskog and Srbom (1993) report thatdepartures from normality tend to increase Chi-square over and above what can be expected due tospeci cation error in the model. Accordingly, assuming the data are normal means that the degree of model

t may be overstated.Second, some demographic characteristics of interest are not evenly distributed. As noted, the typical

respondent included in this study was a male internal auditor, who held a middle to top-level position inthe organization. We argue that, on average, this description of IS auditors is representative of IS auditors inorganizations (c.f. demographics of Quarles's 1994a,b studies).

To help improve the external validity of our study, replication in other settings would be useful.Future research could include more extensive qualitative research to identify variables that help improveour model's explanatory power. Some of the factors that could usefully be pursued includeorganizational culture, demand from competing elds, need for change, dissatisfaction with manage-ment and one's assigned scope of work, and the reputation of other companies. Moreover, futureresearch could fruitfully consider the apparent con ict between the results in this study and Quarles'(1994b) study, in particular, the relationship between role ambiguity and the turnover intention of Information Systems auditors.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge comments on earlier versions of this paper by Iris Vessey, andparticipants at workshops at the University of Queensland.



17/20

Appendix A

Surveyed item Operationalization Number of items and source

TURNINT01 a How often have you thought of quitting your jobsometime in the next six months?

Four items: three items adapted from Quarles (1994b)and one item adapted from Lee (1996) . Originallyadapted from Mobley et al. (1978) , four items1= Not at all; to 7= All the time

TURNINT02 How do you feel about the following statement: I intend to quit my job in the next six months ?1= Extremely unlikely; to 7 =Extremely likely

TURNINT03 How do you feel about the following statement: I willactively look for a new job in the next six months ?1= Extremely unlikely; to 7 =Extremely likely

TURNINT04 b How would you rate your chances of still workingfor your current organization six months from now?1= Extremely unlikely; to 7 =Extremely likely

COMMIT01 I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyondthat normally expected in order to help my

organization be successful.

Four items: adapted from the OrganizationalCommitment Questionnaire developed by

Porter et al. (1974) . Items from a different sourcethan used by Quarles (1994b)1= Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly AgreeCOMMIT02 I would accept almost any type of job assignment in

order to keep working for my organization.1= Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly Agree

COMMIT03 I nd that my values and the organization's valuesare very similar.1= Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly Agree

COMMIT04 For me, my current organization is the bestpossible organization for which to work.1= Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly Agree

JSAT01 Considering every aspect of your job, choose one of theanswers that best tells us how well you like your job:

Three items: adapted from Quarles (1994b) .Originally adapted from Hoppock's (1935) Job Satisfaction Measures, four items1= I hate it; to 7= I love it

JSAT02 Considering every aspect of your job, choose one of theanswers that shows how much of the time youfeel satis ed with your job:1=Never; to 7=All of the time

JSAT03 Click ONE of the following to show how you thinkyou compare with other people:1= No one dislikes his/her job more than I dislike mine;to 7=No one likes his/her job better than I like mine

RCONF01 I have to ignore a rule or policy in order to carry outan assignment.

Four items: adapted from Quarles (1994b) ,eight items. Originally adapted fromRizzo et al. (1970) , fteen items.1= Strongly disagree; to 7= Strongly agree

RCONF02 I receive incompatible requests from two or more people.1= Strongly disagree; to 7= Strongly agree

RCONF03 I do things that are apt to be accepted by one personand not accepted by others.1= Strongly disagree; to 7= Strongly agree

RCONF04 I receive assignments without adequate resources,materials, and skills to execute them.1= Strongly disagree; to 7= Strongly agree

RAMB01 I have clear, planned goals and objectives for my job. Four items: adapted from Quarles (1994b) , six items.Originally adapted from Rizzo et al. (1970) , fteen items.1= Strongly disagree; to 7=Strongly agree

RAMB02 I know what my responsibilities are.1= Strongly disagree; to 7=Strongly agree

RAMB03 I know exactly what is expected of me.1= Strongly disagree; to 7=Strongly agree

RAMB04 I have clear explanations of what has to be done.1= Strongly disagree; to 7=Strongly agree

PROMO01 Promotions are regular. Four items: adapted from Curry et al. (1986) . Items notsurveyed by Quarles (1994b)1= Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly agree

PROMO02 b I am in a dead-end job.1= Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly agree

(continued on next page )



18/20

Appendix B. PLS parameter estimates for the hypothesized relationships

References

Abelsen MA. Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover. J Appl Psychol 1987;71(3):382 6.Adams JS. Injustice in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology.New York: AcademicPress;

1965.Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviors. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1980.Alderfer C. An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Org Behav Hum Perform 1969;4:142 75.Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull

1988;103(3):411 23.Aranya N, Ferris KR. A reexamination of accountants' organizational-professional con ict. Account Rev 1984;59:1-15.Arnold HJ, Feldman DC. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. J Appl Psychol 1982;67:350 60.

(continued )

Surveyed item Operationalization Number of items and source

PROMO03 There is opportunity for advancement.1=Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly agree

PROMO04 There is good opportunity for advancement.1=Strongly disagree; to 7 =Strongly agree

PAY01 How satis ed are you with the amount of pay andfringe bene ts you receive?

Four items; three items adapted from prior researchand one item adapted from Lee (1996) . Items from adifferent source than used by Quarles (1994b)1=Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

PAY02 How satis ed are you with the frequency of pay rises?1=Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

PAY03 How satis ed are you with the increase in pay thatyou receive from pay rises in your organization?1= Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

PAY04 How satis ed are you that you are paid fairly for thework you contribute to your organization?1= Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

GROWTH01 Opportunities for personal growth and development

on the job.

Five items; adapted from Hackman and Oldhams's

(1975) Job Diagnostic Survey. Items not surveyed byQuarles (1994b)1= Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis edGROWTH02 Chances to exercise independent thought and action

in my job.1= Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

GROWTH03 Stimulating and challenging work.1= Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

GROWTH04 A sense of worthwhile accomplishment in my work.1= Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

GROWTH05 Opportunities to learn new things from my work1= Extremely dissatis ed; to 7 =Extremely satis ed

a This item has a different scale from other items in the same measurement instrument.b Reverse-coded item.

Dependent variable Independent variable Path coef cient Standard Error t -statistic R2

TURINT H1 COMMIT 0.32 0.121 2.63 0.41H2a JSAT 0.39 0.124 3.17

COMMIT H2b JSAT 0.51 0.080 6.44 0.45H3a RCONF 0.15 0.071 2.06H3b RAMB 0.19 0.077 2.56

JSAT H3c RAMB 0.02 0.056 0.39 0.57H4 PROMO 0.12 0.072 1.66H5 PAY 0.15 0.085 1.80H6 GROWTH 0.63 0.083 7.56

Signi cant at the 0.05 level, Signi cant at the 0.01 level.

Appendix A (continued )



19/20

Bagozzi RP, Fornell C. In: Fornell C, editor. Theoretical concepts, measurement, and meaning. A Second generation of multivariateanalysis. Praeger: New York; 1982.

Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q 1991;36(3):421 58.Bagranoff NA, Vendrzyk VP. Thechanging role of IS auditamongthe big ve US-based accounting rms. Inf Syst Control J 2000;5:33 7.Baird LL. A study of the role relations of graduate students. J Educ Psychol 1969;60(1):15 21.Benke RL,Rhode JG.The jobsatisfaction of higherlevel employees in large certi ed public accounting rms. Account Organ Soc 1980;5

(2):187

201.Bluedorn AC. The theories of turnover: causes, effects, and meaning. Res Sociol Organ 1982;1:75-128.Bollen KA, Long JS. Introduction. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications; 1993.Busemeyer JR, Jones EL. Analysis of multiplicativecombinations rules when the causal variables are measured with error. Psychol Bull

1993;93(3):549 62.Business Week. Getting in at Ernst & Young. MBA insider: Recruiter Q&A July 15, 2008; 2008. URL: http://www.businessweek.com/

bschools/mbapremium/jul2008/bs20080715_587369.htm Accessed 24 November.Byrne BM. Structural equation modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.Cooper DR, Schindler PS. Business research methods. 8th Ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2003.Cotton JL, Tuttle JM. Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Acad Manag Rev 1986;11:55 70.Couger JD, Opperman EB, Amoroso DL. Motivating Information Systems managers in the 1990s. Inside DPMA 1992;vol. 5:6 9.Couger JD,ZawackiRA,OppermanEB.Motivationlevel of MISmanagersversus thoseof theiremployees. MISQ 1979;3(September):47 56.Curry JP, Wake eldDS, Price JL, Mueller CW. On the causal orderingof jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment. Acad Manage J

1986;29(4):847 58.Dunmore DB. Farewell to the information systems audit profession. Intern Audit 1989:42 8 February.Dunn PA. The cost of turnover. Pins Needles 1995;32(July):2 4.Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, andbehavior: an introduction to theoryand research.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.Gallegos F. Computer information systems audit career development. EDP Audit J 1991;I:23 31.Goodhue DL, Lewis W, Thompson RL. PLS, small sample size, and statistical power in MIS research. Proceedings of the 39th. Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences. Kauai, Hawaii, IEEE; 2006. p. 202b.Goodhue DL, Lewis W,Thompson RL. Statistical power in analyzing interaction effects: questioning the advantage of PLS withproduct

indicators. Inf Syst Res 2007;18(2):211 27.Gregson T. Communication satisfaction: a path analytic study of accountants af liated with CPA rms. Behav Res Account 1990;2:32 49.Gregson T. An investigation of the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover models in

accounting. Behav Res Account 1992;4:80 95.Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Development of the job diagnostic survey. J Appl Psychol 1975;60(2):159 70.Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 5th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998.Hamner WC, Tosi HL. Relationship of role con ict and role ambiguity to job involvement measures. J Appl Psychol 1974;59:497 9.Harrel AM, Stahl MJ. McClelland's trichotomy of needs theory and the job satisfaction and work performance of CPA rm

professionals. Account Organ Soc 1984;9(3/4):241 52.Harrell A, Chewning E, Taylor M. Organizational professional con ict and the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of Internal

Auditors. Audit: J Prac Theory 1986;5:109 21.Herzberg F. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley; 1959.Hitt MA, Black JS, Porter LW. Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2005.Hoppock R. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers, Arno Press; 1935.Hunt S. Modern marketing theory: critical issues in the philosophy of marketing science. Cincinnati, OH:: South-Western Pub; 1991.Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR. The structure of work: job design and roles. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM, editors. Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, vol. 2. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1991.Ironson GH,Smith PC,Brannick MT, GibsonWM, Paul KB.Constructionof a jobin general scale: a comparison of global, composite, and

speci c measures. J Appl Psychol 1989;74(2):193 200. Jackson SE, Schuler RS. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role con ict in work settings. Org

Behav Hum Decis Process 1985;36(1):16 78.

Jreskog KG, Srbom D. LISREL 8: user's reference guide. Hillsdale, NJ: Scienti c Software International; 1993.Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA. Organizational stress. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1964.Katz D, Kahn RL. The social psychology of organizations. (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1998.Lawler EE. Pay and organizational effectiveness: a psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1971.Lawler EE. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.; 1973.Lee P.C.B., 1996. An investigation of the turnover intentions of Information Systems Staff in Singapore. Thesis, The University of

Queensland, St Lucia, QLD.Locke E. The nature and consequences of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette M, editor. Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College; 1976.Locke EA, Latham GP. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1990.London M. Toward a theory of career motivation. Acad Manage Rev 1983;8(4):620 30.Lucy R.F., Factors affecting information systems audit resource allocation decisions. Thesis, The University of Texas, Arlington, 1998.Lucy RF. IS auditing: the state of the profession going to the 21st century. IS Audit Control J 1999;IV:44 50.Lum L, Kervin J, Clark K, Reid F, Sirola W. Explaining nursing turnover intent: job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organizational

commitment? J Organ Behav 1998;19:305 20.Malhotra N. Marketing research: an applied orientation. 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1993.Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 1943;50(4):370 96.Meixner WF, Bline DM. Professional and job-related attitudes and the behaviors they in uence among governmental accountants.

Account Audit Account J 1989;2(1):8-20.

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/mbapremium/jul2008/bs20080715_587369.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/bschools/mbapremium/jul2008/bs20080715_587369.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/bschools/mbapremium/jul2008/bs20080715_587369.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/bschools/mbapremium/jul2008/bs20080715_587369.htm


20/20

Michaels C, Spector P. Causes of employee turnover: a test of the Mobley, Grif th, Hand and Meglino model. J Appl Psychol1982;67:53 9.

Miller HE, Katerberg R, Hulin CL. Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth model of employee turnover. J Appl Psychol1979;64:509 17.

Mobley W. Employee turnover: causes, consequences, and control. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley; 1982.Mobley WH, Grif th RW, Hand HH, Meglino BM. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychol Bull

1979;86:493

522.Mobley WH, Horner SO, Hollingsworth AT. An evaluation of the precursors of hospital employee turnover. J Appl Psychol 1978;63(4):408 14.

Mowday RT, PorterLW, Steers RM. Employee organization linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. NewYork: Academic Press; 1982.

Muchinsky PM, Morrow PC. A multidisciplinary model of voluntary employee turnover. J Vocat Behav 1980;17:263 90.Mueller CW, Price JL. Economic, psychological and sociological determinants of voluntary turnover. J Behav Econ 1990;19(3):321 35.Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.O'Connor D, Yballe L. Maslow revisited: constructing a road map of human nature. J Manag Educ 2007;31(6):738 56.Organ DW, Green CN. The effects of formalization on professional involvement: a compensatory process approach. Adm Sci Q

1981;26:237 52.Podsakoff PM, Williams LJ, Todor WD. Effects of organizational formalization on alienation among professionals and non

professionals. Acad Manage J 1986;29(4):820 31.Porter LW, Steers RM, Mowday RT, Boulian PV. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric

technicians. J Appl Psychol 1974;59:603 9.Quarles R. An examination of promotion opportunities and evaluation criteria as mechanisms for affecting internal auditor

commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. J Manag Issue 1994a;6(2):176 94.Quarles R. An empirical examination of a model of turnover intentions of information systems auditors. J Appl Bus Res 1994b;10

(Winter):73 85.Rasch RH, Harrell AM. The impact of personal characteristics on the turnover behavior of accounting professionals. Audit J Pract

Theory 1990;9(Spring):201 15.Reichers AE. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Acad Manage Rev 1985;10(3):465 76.Rhodes SR, Doering M. An integrated model of career change. Acad Manage Rev 1983;8(4):631 9.Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI. Role con ict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adm Sci Q 1970;15(2):150 63.Roth PG, Roth PL. Reduce turnover with realistic job previews. CPA J 1995;65(9):68 9.Satorra A, Bentler PM. Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: von Eyeand A, Clogg CC,

editors. Latent variables analysis: applications for developmental research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications; 1994.Scarpello V, Campbell JP. Job satisfaction: are all the parts here? Pers Psychol 1983;36:577 600.Schaubroeck J, Cotton JL, Jennings KR. Antecedents and consequences of role stress: a covariance structure analysis. J Organ Behav

1989;10:35 58.Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner's guide to structural equation modelling. edn 1. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1996.Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner's guide to structural equation modelling. edn 2. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 2004.Senatra PT. Role con ict, role ambiguity, and organizational climate in a public accounting rm. Account Rev 1980;55(4):594 603.Shore LM, Newton LA, Thorton GC. Job and organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intentions. J Organ Behav

1990;11(1):57 67.SiaSK. Surfacing thecareer development issues of IS auditors: themyths andthe reality; 1999. Information Systems Auditand Control

Association InfoBytes ( http://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=Publications1&CONTENTID=7899&TEMPLATE=/Con-tentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm accessed on 2 April 2004).

Smith P, Kendall L, Hulin C. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand; 1969.Sorensen JE. The behavioral study of accountants: a new school of behavior research in accounting. Manage Decis Econ

1990;11:327 441.Steel RP, Ovalle NK. A review and meta-analysisof researchon the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover.

J Appl Psychol 1984;69(4):673 86.Steers RM. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Adm Sci Q 1977;22:46 56.

Stevens JM, Beyer JM, Trice HM. Assessing personal, role, and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Acad Manage J1978;21(3):380 96.Super D, Minor F. Career development and planning in organizations. In: Bass B, Drenth J, editors. Advances in organizational

psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1987.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th Ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.Taber TD, Taylor E. A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Pers Psychol 1990;43

(3):467 500.Tongren J. Career planning for IS auditors. IS Audit Control J 1994;I:8-11.Tubre TC, Collins JM. Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: a meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role con ict,

and job performance. J Manage 2000;26(1):155 69.Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. In: Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, editors. Structural equation modeling. 4th Ed. Needham Heights,

MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.Wallace D. A case for- and against-mail questionnaires. Public Opin Q 1954;18(1):40 52.Warner SL. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J Am Stat Assoc 1965;60(309):63 9.Watson DJH. The structure of project teams facing differentiated environments: an exploratory study in public accounting rms.

Account Rev 1975;50(April):259 73.Weiss DJ, Dawis RV, England GW, Lofquist LH. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Minnesota Studies in Vocational

Rehabilitation, XXII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relation Centre; 1967.Williams LJ, Hazer JT. Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: a reanalysis using latent

variable structural equation methods. J Appl Psychol 1986;71(2):219 31.

http://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=Publications1&CONTENTID=7899&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfmhttp://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=Publications1&CONTENTID=7899&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfmhttp://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=Publications1&CONTENTID=7899&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfmhttp://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=Publications1&CONTENTID=7899&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

the turnover intentions of information systems auditors

Documents