Personalities of accounting students and public accountants: Implications for accounting educators and the profession

Pergamon

Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 425 444, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0748-5751/95 $9.50 + .00

0748-5751(95)00025-9

PERSONALITIES OF ACCOUNTING STUDENTS AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCOUNTING EDUCATORS AND THE PROFESSION Ronald A. Davidson Lois D. Etherington

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Abstract." This study compares personalities of senior accounting students with public accountants using a rigorous personality instrument, the 16PF. Comparisons are made between accountants and students, between accountants and students by gender, between male and female students, and between students and junior accountants. For all comparisons made, the findings indicate significant differences exist, both overall and for individual personality factors. Implications of these findings for accounting educators concerning curriculum emphasis, content, and counseling of students are discussed, together with possible implications for the profession.

INTRODUCTION Accounting educators are currently facing a number of pressures that are likely to affect the future of accounting education. At a time when traditional accounting education is found wanting by the "Big Six" firms (Arthur Andersen et al., 1989) and by the Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC, 1990), there is a concomitant concern that the "best and the brightest" students are increasingly being attracted not by accounting but by other disciplines, particularly others within business adminstration such as marketing and finance (Inman et al., 1989; Luscombe, 1988, 1989). As a result of such concerns, the AECC has implemented comprehensive inquiries into the curriculum of accounting education and methods of accounting instruction, with large well-funded projects currently under way at a number of universities (AAA, 1993). Almost all publicly funded institutions of higher learning in North America are also facing budget cutbacks (Lewington, 1993; Yaffe, 1993) as governments attempt to reduce deficits. It is becoming increasingly likely that the pressure on educators to "do more with less" may result in decreased student offerings and possibly in a decreased ability to provide the full spectrum of accounting offerings that are staffed at the current time. At the same time, public accounting firms are cutting back on the hiring of traditional accounting majors as these firms address themselves 425

426

R.A. Davidsonand L. D. Etherington

increasingly to management advisory services. This has resulted in a shift in emphasis from the traditional areas of auditing, accounting, and taxation (Hillison & Kennelly, 1988). Hiring patterns in general also appear to be changing, as many of today's university graduates find employment more difficult to obtain than did their predecessors (Blythe, 1993). These shifts suggest that the number of accounting graduates who will not obtain employment in public practice is likely to approach a higher level than in the past. It is generally acknowledged that the "accounting profession" consists of more than public practice. The AECC, for example, has defined the accounting profession broadly, including "career paths in public accounting as practiced in large, medium and small firms, corporate accounting (including financial management, controllership, treasury, financial analysis, planning and budgeting, cost accounting, internal audit, systems, tax, and general accounting), and government and nonprofit accounting" (1990, p. 1). Public practice, however, continues to be seen as the main career option for accounting graduates, as the resources and high profile of public accounting have caused it to be viewed as a very desirable career path. The resources devoted by the public accounting profession to higher education, the availability of public accountants as research subjects, and the presence in academe of a considerable cohort of former practicing accountants also contribute to a faculty emphasis on public accounting in preference to other accounting fields. The question is raised, however, of whether accounting educators should be doing "business as usual" in the face of resourceconstrained educational environments and shifts in traditional hiring patterns. Accounting educators may wish to consider whether defining the field of accounting as being much broader than just public accounting may broaden its general usefulness beyond areas traditionally viewed as its domain, may serve to maintain numbers of accounting faculty, and may attract a wider range of students. Concerns about the capabilities of current accounting graduates have prompted a renewed focus on the subject matter of accounting education--the "what"--while funding cutbacks, sometimes accompanied by freezes in university hiring, have prompted questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of accounting pedagogy--the "how" (AECC, 1990). These same pressures will also, as colleges and universities face funding limitations, motivate addressing the "who" of the educational mix, in order to target scarce educational resources more effectively, and in order to counsel and serve accounting students better. In order to address the question of how better to attract those best suited to accountancy and to target increasingly limited resources, it is important to understand the personalities of practicing accountants and what accounting students really are like in terms of their abilities and personal characteristics. There has been little systematic inquiry to date

Personalities of AccountingStudents and Public Accountants

427

that has investigated current accounting students' characteristics and attempted to match those with practitioners. Personality traits are considered to be among the key variables that influence general conduct and decisions, including work selection and behavior (Dillard & Ferris, 1989). Personality types have been used for some time by researchers to explain various aspects of work performance and organizational behavior (e.g. Shapiro & Alexander, 1969; McGhee et al., 1978; Keenan & Bain, 1979; Pratt, 1980; Choo, 1983, 1986). There is also evidence that performance is affected by gender differences, both in accounting students (Mutchler et al., 1987; Lipe, 1989) and in accountants (Pillsbury et al., 1989; Rasch & Harrell, 1990; Collins, 1993; Davidson & Dalby, 1993a). Knowledge of personality should also assist with career selection. Lowman (1991) states that effective career counseling should use a sequential model. First a person's interests and abilities should be assessed. If those interests and abilities are suitable for the preferred occupational group, then a person's personality profile would be determined. If a personality profile has been developed for the occupation, including profiles for more and less successful members of the occupation, the counselor should be able to determine if the candidate's personality will tend to make the person more or less successful in that profession. Cohen and Hanno (1993) and Inman et al. (1989) find that among aspects responsible for declining student interest in accounting is the image of public accounting. If the "wrong" students are choosing accounting, wider knowledge of the personality characteristics of both students and accountants would be beneficial. In the past, accountants have been seen as being responsible for many organizational problems because of the personality characteristics attributed to them (Clements, 1958; Maslow, 1965; Perrow, 1970; Schieck, 1971; Argyris, 1977). These studies concentrated primarily on accountants within organizations rather than on those in public practice. Researchers have examined the personalities of accountants in public practice at intervals (DeCoster & Rhode, 1971; Amernic et al., 1979; Shackleton, 1980; Aranya et al., 1981; Otte, 1984; Aranya & Wheeler, 1986). The traditional stereotype of accountants is that they are "impersonal, quantitative, inflexible, orderly,' introverted" (DeCoster, 1971, p. 40). The validity of this stereotype was noted by DeCoster (1971) as he stated "The results of most of the studies support this view." (p. 40). Upon reconsidering the evidence noted by DeCoster, he may have overstated the support for the stereotype as several of the studies he cited do not support the stereotype. For example, he cites Cattell and Eber (1962) who found "Accountants were found to be slightly more warm and sociable ... than the norm." (p. 43). DeCoster also states that his own study (DeCoster, 1970) found "The partners more closely resembled the

428

R.A. Davidson and L. D. Etherington

stereotype than did the managers, seniors, juniors and Beta Alpha Psi members." (p. 44). This is precisely the finding reported recently by Davidson and Dalby (1993b). Similarly, Shackleton (1980) states "Recent research shows that there is an element of truth in the description." (p. 122). However, his findings indicate that the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) description of ISTJ that basically conforms to the stereotype (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging) comprised only 25.3% of his samples and a total of 42% would be classed as extroverts. These results are quite similar to those reported by Otte (1984) who found that 26.7% of his sample were ISTJ and 48% were extroverts. Among the most recent studies are Davidson and Dalby (1993a,b). They found that practicing accountants have personalities that are significantly different from the general population and that the personalities of male and female accountants were significantly different, with female accountants being more "tough-minded" (as opposed to "tender-minded"), more suspicious, more imaginative, and more disciplined than male accountants. The overall results indicate, in contrast to many earlier results, that today's accountants in public practice are not the shy, retiring, number-bound, compulsive conformists the accounting stereotype has so long pictured (see Jackson et al., 1982; Paunonen et al., 1987), but are more dominant, more enthusiastic, more experimenting, and more independent than the general population. The evidence for gender differences found by Davidson and Dalby (1993a) is supported by Rasch and Harrell (1990), who suggest "it is possible that those females who are attracted to public accounting tend to have more aggressive, assertive personalities than the males who enter the profession" (p. 93). OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY AND HYPOTHESES As claims have been made that today's accounting students may be different from those of even a few years ago (Inman et al., 1989; Luscombe, 1988, 1989), this study tested a sample of university accounting majors to describe their personality profiles. We also examine whether accounting students have personality profiles that are similar to those of practicing accountants and how they differ from the general population. There has also been considerable interest in ascertaining whether there may be gender differences among both students and practitioners and if so, whether these are likely to affect success (Mutchler et al., 1987; Lipe, 1989; Rasch & Harrell, 1990; Collins, 1993; Davidson & Dalby, 1993a). This study examines whether there are gender differences in student personality characteristics. The paper concludes with implications for accounting educators and for the profession. The following hypotheses, stated in null form, were developed to

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

429

consider these questions. The results should illuminate whether the personality profiles of accounting majors are similar to those of accountants in public practice. Hi: Accounting students' personalities are not significantly different from those of practicing public accountants. H2: Male accounting students' personalities are not significantly different from those of male practicing accountants. H3: Female accounting students' personalities are not significantly different from those of female practicing accountants. H4: The personalities of male and female accounting students are not significantly different. There is evidence that public accountants' traits differ by rank in the firm, especially when partners are compared to all other staff members (Davidson & Dalby, 1993b; Ponemon, 1992). This has been attributed, at least in part, by supposing that people in higher ranks tend to select for promotion people like themselves (Davidson & Dalby, 1993b; Ponemon, 1992; Graves & Powell, 1988). As new recruits virtually always begin their careers as junior accounting staff members, it would follow that if accounting students have personalities suitable for public accounting, students will be most likely to be similar to entry-level accounting staff. Thus the following hypothesis was developed (also expressed in the null form): Hs: The personalities of accounting students are not significantly different from junior accountants who were recently hired by public accounting firms. RESEARCH METHOD Accounting majors from two universities in Canada and one in the United States completed the "Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire" (16PF) Form A and provided demographic data. 1 Data about the sample are in Table 1. Eighty-nine students participated. The subjects came from two sources. All of the students in one senior class (29) participated and the other 60 were volunteers obtained through announcements in other accounting classes. The sample is thus not a random sample. Only accounting majors were included and only seniors who would graduate during the academic year were approached. Those who were solicited by announcements in i A comparison of the U.S. and Canadian students indicates no significantdifferencesfor 15 of the 16 personality factors. They differed significantlyonly in Concrete/Abstract thinking, where U.S. students have a mean of 7.23 while Canadian students have a mean of 5.82.

430

R.A. Davidson and L. D. Etherington Table 1. D e s c r i p t i o n of s a m p l e s

(a) Numbers

Students

Accountants

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

Canadian U.S.

47 10

29 3

76 13

135 0

89 0

226 a 0

Totals

57

32

89

135

89

226

aNote that 2 subjects did not indicate their gender. (b) Demographics

Students

Age GPA Accounting experience (months) Other experience (months)

Accountants

Mean

Std. dev.

Range

Mean

Std. dev.

Range

24.8 3.15 6.8

3.8 0.37 11.6

20-48 2.48-4.00 0-78

30 N/A 445

7.9 N/A 101

24-62 N/A 24-492

42

51

N/A

N/A

N/A

0-388

accounting classes were each paid $10.00 as an inducement to participate as it required just over an hour of their time. The 29 students in the senior class were asked to volunteer by the course instructor and completed the research package in class. The research package consisted of the 16PF questionnaire plus one page that asked for students' demographics, background, and date of expected graduation. Students who were solicited were asked to come to a designated room after regular classes where they completed the same package and were paid the $10. Average age of the students was 24.8 (range 20-48, interquartile range 23-25). This average age is somewhat higher than might be expected and results from fairly large accounting and general business cooperative programs at one of the Canadian universities. The coop programs also account for the relatively high experience reported by students (mean of 6.8 months of accounting experience and 42 months of other experience). Students also reported part time work as "other experience." The students' personality scores were compared to the population norms and to the sample of 226 practicing public accountants who had previously completed the same instrument (Davidson & Dalby, 1993b). The 226 public accountants tested by Davidson & Dalby (1993b) were also not a random sample. They represented a response rate of 51% of the 444 research packages sent to seven offices of public accounting firms in a

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

431

major western Canadian city. These seven offices included firms of all sizes: Big Six, other national, and local firms. In this city, there was a population of 1,347 practicing public accountants, so the sample of 226 returned represents 16.3% of this population. Full details of this study and the sample can be found in Davidson and Dalby (1993b). Whether or not this sample is representative of the larger population of all practicing public accountants is not known, but the city in which the subjects were located is a typical modern city of reasonably large size with a very active business environment with many head offices and many connections with U.S. businesses. 2 The 16PF was selected for two reasons. First, it is one of the most rigorous and reliable personality questionnaires available (Cattell et al., 1970) and it is commonly used in personality studies by psychologists. It has been used in both clinical and field settings such as schools and industry. The instrument is designed for use by persons with at least a high school education. The instrument contains 188 questions and requires approximately one hour to complete. It measures 16 factors that are considered to be universal traits and central concepts in personality theory, 3 each of which is scaled to result in a population mean of 5.5 and population standard deviation of 2.0. It also provides scores for six "second order" factors which are broader traits, scored from the component primary factors. The second reason for choosing the 16PF for this study was to permit detailed comparisons with the data on the personalities of public accountants found by Davidson and Dalby (1993a, b). Table 2 presents the 16 primary factors and Table 3 describes the six second order factors, as described by Cattell et al. (1970). 4 The personality scores for the 32 female and 57 male students were compared to each other, to those of practicing female and male accountants included in Davidson and Dalby (1993a,b), and with the general population means. Finally, the student sample was compared to the sample of 84 junior accountants reported in Davidson and Dalby (1993b). These 84 junior accountants were university graduates who are working for public accounting firms but who had not yet qualified as

2In Canada, to be a Chartered Accountant (equivalent to CPA) a university degree is required. To become a CA, students must first be employed in approved offices of public accounting firms and gain an experience component and pass a number of courses before writing the Uniform Final Examination (the equivalent of the CPA exam). 3The measurement of 16 personality factors is an advantage that the 16PF has over other instruments such as the MBTI, which measures only two factors (plus their opposites). 4Validity and reliability of the factors have been established in a number of studies. For details see Cattell et al. (1970).

432

R . A . Davidson and L. D. Etherington

Table 2 . 1 6 P F : p r i m a r y f a c t o r s Factor

Low score direction

High score direction

A:

Coo/ Reserved, impersonal, detached, aloof Concrete thinking Less intelligent Affected by feelings Emotionally less stable, easily annoyed Submissive Humble, mild, easily led, accommodating Sober Restrained, prudent, taciturn, serious Expedient Disregards rules, self-indulgent

Warm Outgoing, kindly, easy-going, participating, likes people Abstract thinking More intelligent, bright Emotionally stable Faces reality, calm

B:

C:

E:

F:

G:

H:

I:

L:

M:

N:

O:

Q 1: Q2:

Q3: Q4:

Shy Threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated Tough-minded Self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough, realistic Trusting Accepting conditions, easy to get on with Practical Concerned with "Down to Earth" issues, steady Forthright Unpretentious, open, genuine, artless Self-assured Secure, feels free of guilt, untroubled, self-satisfied Conservative Respecting, traditional ideas Group-oriented A joiner and sound follower, listens to others Undisciplined, self-conflict Lax, careless of social rules Relaxed Tranquil, composed, has low drive, unfrustrated

Dominant Assertive, aggressive, stubborn, competitive, bossy Enthusiastic Spontaneous, heedless, expressive, cheerful Conscientious Conforming, moralistic staid, rule-bound Bold Venturesome, uninhibited, can take stress Tender-minded Sensitive, over-protected, intuitive, refined Suspicious Hard to fool, distrustful skeptical Imaginative Absent-minded, absorbed in thought, impractical Shrewd Polished, socially aware, diplomatic, calculating Apprehensive Self*blaming, guilt-prone, insecure worrying Experimenting Liberal, critical, open to change Self-sufficient Resourceful, prefers own decisions Following self-image Socially precise, compulsive Tense Frustrated, 9verwrought, has high drive

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

433

Table 3.16PF: second order factors Extroversion Low scores indicate a person tends to be shy and inhibited in social contacts. High scores indicate a socially outgoing, uninhibited person good at maintaining interpersonal contacts.

Anxiety l o w scores indicate individuals whose lives are generally satisfying and who are able to achieve those things that seem to them to be important. High scores indicate individuals who are dissatisfied with the degree to which they are able to meet the demands of life and to achieve what they desire.

Tough poise Low scores indicate people who are strongly influenced by their emotions. High scores indicate people who are influenced by facts more than feelings.

Independence l o w scores indicate people who are dependent and passive. High scores indicate people who are aggressive, independent, who show considerable initiative.

Superego~control Low scores indicate people who typically do not act according to others' values or out of a sense of duty, they tend to be nonconformists. High scores indicate people who have internalized the rules of the society in which they function.

Leadership Low scores indicate people who are not good at asserting themselves and who tend to shy a w a y from conflict. High scores indicate people who are sociable, relaxed, assertive, and selfassured.

Chartered Accountants. They had generally graduated within the past three years from a university. All had Bachelors degrees, very few had Masters degrees. RESULTS The 16PF test is designed for raw scores to be converted to standard scores with a range of 1 to 10 ("sten scores") (Cattell et al., 1970). The conversion process results in the sten scores being normally distributed with a known population mean of 5.5 and standard deviation of 2.0, assisting in interpretation. With a sample size of 89, sample means of less than 5 or greater than 6 have a probability of less than 5% of occurring. A low mean score (one below 5.0) indicates a predominance of the first listed characteristic and a high mean score (over 6.0) indicates a predominance of the second characteristic. Thus for factor B, for example, described as Concrete/Abstract thinking, a high mean score indicates abstract thinking, which is related to high intelligence (Cattell et al., 1970). Similarly for factor H, Shy/Bold, a low mean score would indicate that shyness would predominate and a high mean score would indicate boldness.

434

R . A . Davidson and L. D. Etherington

Comparison of Students with Practitioners

A MANOVA (using SAS G L M procedure for unbalanced designs) used to test for overall personality differences between the accounting students and the practicing accountants showed significant differences at p = .0001. Hypothesis 1, of no difference between students and accountants, is therefore rejected. To determine which specific factors contributed to this overall difference, Tukey's test for multiple comparisons (a very conservative test) was used. Results are summarized in Table 4. Results indicate that both accountants and students score significantly higher than the general population on the trait called abstract thinking (factor B). This trait is related to, but is not the same as general intelligence (Cattell et al., 1970). Higher factor B scores indicate higher general mental capacity, the ability to learn faster, and greater intellectual T a b l e 4. S u m m a r y of students' and a c c o u n t a n t s ' 16PF s c o r e s Students ( n = 89) Low/high scores

Accountants a ( . = 224)

Means

Std. dev.

Means Std. dev.

5.61 6.02~ 5.55

1.95 1.79t 1.92

5.38 7.69~ 5.32

1.84 1.54 1.79

5.60 5.66 6.16~: 5.79 5.01 5.56 4.79~ 5.81 5.22 5.62 5.92 6.65~

2.14T 2.34t 2.11t 2.24 1.90 1.96T 1.86t 1.97 1.84 2.05t 1.95T 2.00T

6.59~ 6.43:~ 5.13:[: 5.38 5.20 6.07:~ 5.49 5.38 5.39 6.67:[: 6.55:[: 5.21

2.15 2.33 2.11 2.28 1.84 1.94 1.81 1.85 1.73 1.99 1.89 1.86

5.07

2.111-

6.35~

2.03

5.53 5.08 6.14:~ 5.59 6.51:~ 6.32~

2.09 1.79T 1.84 2.23t 2.11? 1.40T

5.35 5.93~ 5.99~ 6.60~ 5.10:~ 5.85~:

2.05 1.70 1.86 2.18 2.05 1.33

Primary factors:

A: B: C: E: F: G: H: I: L: M: N: O: QI: Q2: Q3: Q4:

Cool/warm Concrete/abstract thinking Affected by feelings/emotionally stable Submissive/dominant Sober/enthusiastic Expedient/conscientious Shy/bold Tough/tender-minded Trusting/suspicious Practical/imaginative Forthright/shrewd Self-assured/apprehensive Conservative/experimenting Group-oriented/self-sufficient Undisciplined, self-conflict/following self-image Relaxed/tense

Second order factors:

Extroversion Anxiety Tough poise Independence Superego/control Leadership

Notes: (1) t Indicates the means of the students are significantly different from the means of the accountants at a significance level of .05 using Tukey's test for multiple comparisons. (2) ~ Indicates the means are significantly different from the population mean of 5.50 at the 5% significance level. aData from Davidson and Dalby (1993b).

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

435

interests. Although both are significantly above population means, the accountants were also significantly above the student sample. Since GPA is a very important criterion in hiring selection for public accounting (Krzystofik & Fein, 1988; Pasewark et al., 1988; Hassell & Hennessey, 1989), this finding probably results from the tendency for accounting firms to hire the brightest graduates. Accountants were significantly more dominant (factor E) than the general population, as well as more dominant than students, whose scores were in the normal range. The test results certainly provide no evidence that either group is submissive. Students differed from accountants in enthusiasm (factor F). Students were in the normal range, whereas accountants were significantly more enthusiastic than the students and the population in general. Students, who were more conseientious (factor G) than average, were also found to be significantly more conscientious than practicing accountants. Students were neither excessively trusting nor excessively suspicious (factor L). The accounting sample was significantly more suspicious than both the students and the general public. The student sample was found to be significantly more practical (factor M) than the norm. Students were average in being neither very conservative nor very experimental (factor Q1). Here they differed significantly from the accountants, who are significantly more experimental than the population average. Contrary to the historical stereotype, neither group was unusually conservative. The accountants were significantly more self-sufficient (factor Q2) than the student group, who were about average in this trait. The students were found to follow their own self-image (factor Q3) significantly more than the accounting group, who were average in this characteristic. The students were a more relaxed (factor Q4) group than the accountants, who showed tension in excess of general population means. For the second order factors, it is interesting that both groups have normal extroversion. There was no evidence of the stereotypically introverted accountant. Accountants show significantly more anxiety than the student group, but it is important to note that both are within the normal range. Practitioners are more independent than average, but not significantly more so than students. Students showed higher control scores than average and than the practitioners. This indicates that they have internalized the rules of the society in which they function. Interestingly, the student group exhibits high leadership scores, which are also significantly higher than those of practitioners.

Comparison of Students with Accountants by Gender A M A N O V A used to compare the male students' 16 factor scores with those of male practitioners found a significant difference at p = .0001.

436

R . A . Davidson and L. D. Etherington

Thus hypothesis 2 is rejected. A MANOVA similarly used to compare female students' scores with female practitioners' scores found a significant difference, with p = .0001. Hypothesis 3 is also rejected. Data are shown in Table 5. For Table 5, only those scores that showed significant differences between students and practitioners and significant differences from those of the average population are shown. The differences by gender parallel reasonably closely the overall differences shown in Table 4.

Comparison of Male Accounting Students with Male Practicing Accountants Male practitioners were significantly more intelligent (factor B) than the male students and than the general population. Male practitioners showed more dominance (factor E), with scores that are also higher than the overall average. Male students were significantly more tough-minded (factor I) than both male accountants and than the general population. They were significantly more practical (factor M) than average and than male accountants. The male practitioners were significantly more experi-

Table 5. Comparison of students and accountants, by gender (showing only factors with significant differences) Male Low/high scores

Female

Acct. a

Stud.

Acct. b

Stud.

7.82t 6.71t

5.77 5.53

7.49t

6.47

6.69t 5.33t

5.41 7.25 6.19 5.28 5.53 7.19

Primary factors." B: E: F: G: I: M: N: QI: Q2: Q3: Q4:

Concrete/abstract thinking Submissive/dominant Sober/enthusiastic Expedient/conscientious Tough/tender-minded Practical/imaginative Forthright/shrewd Conservative/experimenting Group-oriented/self-sufficient Undisciplined, self-conflict/following self-image Relaxed/tense

5.58t 5.781-

4.88 4.88

6.53t

5.81

4.91t

6.35

5.36t 6.88t 6.62t 5.65t

6.30t

5.05

6.43t

5.09

5.82t 5.33? 6.6214.87t 5.72t

5.01 6.11 5.83 5.94 6.18

6.09t 7.04t 6.58t 5.4616.04

5.20 6.20 5.18 7.51 6.57

Second order factors: Anxiety Tough poise Independence Superego/control Leadership

Notes: t Indicates the means are significantly different at a probability level of 0.05 using Tukey's test for multiple comparisons. "Data from Davidson and Dalby (1993b). bData from Davidson and Dalby (1993b).

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

437

mental (factor Q1) than the male students, who were average in being neither very conservative nor very experimental. Both groups of males were serf-sufficient (factor Q2) as opposed to group-oriented, with the accountants having significantly higher scores. The male accountants are surprisingly undisciplined (factor Q3), being significantly more so than average, while the male students were significantly more disciplined than average. Male accountants showed considerable tension, while students were normal for this trait. For second order traits, the male accountants exhibited significantly more anxiety and independence. The male students showed significantly more tough poise, superego/control, and leadership.

Comparison of Female Accounting Students with Female Practicing Accountants When female students were compared to female practitioners, the latter had higher scores on abstract thinking (factor B). The female students, however, unlike the male students, were more intelligent than the population average. Female accountants were significantly more enthusiastic (factor F) than the female student group. The female students were very conscientious (factor G), more so than the female accountants, and more so than the average in the population. The female students were more shrewd (factor N) while female practitioners were average in this trait. Female practitioners had significantly higher scores than female students for being experimental (factor Q1), self-sufficient (factor Q2), but also more tense (factor Q4). For second order factors, female accountants were more anxious (as were male accountants), scored higher in tough poise, and in independence. The female students were significantly higher in superego/control, and in leadership than the female accountants.

Comparison of Students by Gender A M A N O V A used to compare male and female students overall showed significant differences between the two at p = .0086. Hypothesis 4 is therefore rejected. Tukey's test for multiple comparisons identified only two personality factors as being significantly different between male and female students when all 16 individual factors were considered together. The results are shown in Table 6. The female students were significantly more conscientious (factor G) and showed significantly more superego/control than the male students, who were average for these traits. The latter indicates that the women had accepted society's norms significantly more than the male students, and were thus more conventional.

438

R.A. Davidson and L. D. Etherington Table 6. S u m m a r y of male and female student s c o r e s Male

(n=57) Low/high scores Primary factors: A: Cool/warm B: Concrete/abstract thinking C: Affected by feelings/emotionally stable E: Submissive~dominant F: Sober/enthusiastic G: Expedient/conscientious H: Shy/bold I: Tough/tender-minded L: Trusting/suspicious M: Practical/imaginative N: Forthright/shrewd O: Self-assured/apprehensive QI: Conservative/experimenting Q2: Group-oriented/self-sufficient Q3: Undisciplined, self-conflict/following self-image Q4: Relaxed/tense Second order factors: Extroversion Anxiety Tough poise Independence Superego/control Leadership

Means Std. dev.

Female (n=32) Means Std. dev.

5.75 5.77 5.44

2.14 1.96 2.24

5.34 6.47~ 5.75

2.29 1.50 2.17

5.53 5.81 5.54 5.88 4.88~ 5.35 4.88~ 5.60 4.95~ 5.81 6.14:~ 6.35~

1.96 2.24 1.901" 2.01 2.04 2.07 1.86 2.31 2.01 1.79 2.07 2.03

5.72 5.41 7.25:~ 5.63 5.25 5.94 4.633~ 6.193~ 5.72 5.28 5.53 7.19:~

1.94 2.39 1.52 2.31 2.03 1.68 2.03 2.04 2.20 2.08 2.36 1.93

5.05

2.12

5.09

1.73

5.58 5.01 6.11~ 5.83 5.94 6.18~

2.17 1.81 1.84 2.14 1.921" 1.50

5.46 5.20 6.20~ 5.18 7.51:~ 6.57:~

2.22 1.99 1.78 2.26 1.52 1.52

Notes: (1) 1 Indicates that when means of male respondents are compared to female, the means are significantly different at a probability level of .05 using Tukey's test for multiple comparisons. (2) ~ Indicates the means are significantly different from the population mean of 5.50 at the .05 level.

The I6PF questionnaire has a known population standard deviation of 2.0. Therefore, sample distributions can be determined. For the male sample of 57, mean scores less than 4.98 and greater than 6.02 have less than 5% chance of occurrence. For the smaller sample size of women (32), mean scores less than 4.81 and greater than 6.19 have less than a 5% chance of occurrence. Male students were significantly more tough-minded, practical, group-oriented, following self-image, showed greater tough poise, and greater leadership than average. Female students also showed significantly greater leadership, tough poise, following self-image, and practicality than the average in the population. In addition, female students were significantly more intelligent than average, whereas the male students were average in this trait.

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

439

Comparison of Students with Junior Practicing Accountants When students were compared to junior practicing accountants, a M A N O V A indicated that there were significant differences, with p = .0001. Thus, hypothesis 5 is rejected. Details are shown in Table 7. For first order factors, while both groups were significantly more abstract thinkers (factor B) than the general population, the junior accountants were significantly above the students. It appears that the widespread use of GPA in the selection process has had a significant effect on the average intelligence level of public accountants. This is consistent with findings of prior research (Krzystofik & Fein, 1988; Pasewark et al., 1988; Hassell & Hennessey, 1989). In dominance (factor E), junior accountants were significantly above students, who were average for this trait. As with the entire accountant sample, junior accountants were significantly more enthusiastic (factor F) than students and than the general population. This appears to be a trait public accounting firms are looking for in the hiring process, as junior accountants as well as other ranks are found to have high enthusiasm. The students are significantly more conscientious and conforming (factor G) than the junior accountants, who are average for this factor. The students were average in trusting with the junior accountants being more suspicious

Table 7. Comparison of students and junior accountants (showing only factors with significant differences) Juniors a (n=68) Low/high scores

Primary factors: B: Concrete/abstract thinking E: Submissive/dominant F: Sober/enthusiastic G: Expedient/conscientious L: Trusting/suspicious QI: Conservative/experimenting Q3: Undisciplined, self-conflict/following self-image Q4: Relaxed/tense Second order factors: Anxiety Independence Superego/control Leadership

Students (n=89)

Means

Std. dev.

Means

Std. dev.

7.54 6.37 6.75 5.04 6.49 7.09 5.07

1.5712.3212.1812.00"i" 1.6411.8711.61t

6.02 5.60 5.66 6.16 5.56 5.62 6.65

1.83 19 4 2.29 1.95 1.95 2.01 19 6

6.44

1.971-

5.07

2.03

6.13 6.62 4.98 5.80

1.7112.161" 1.8511.401-

5.08 5.59 6.51 6.32

1.87 2.19 1.93 1.51

Notes: When students are compared to junior accountants, the means are significantly different at a probability level of .05 (two-tailed). aData from Davidson and Dalby (1993b).

440

R.A. Davidson and L. D. Etherington

(factor L). Students were more practical (factor M) than average, but the two groups did not differ significantly in this trait. Junior accountants were significantly higher in being experimental (factor Q1), as well as in tension (factor Q4). Students were higher in following self-image (factor Q3). For second order factors, there were significant differences in anxiety, with the junior accountants exhibiting significantly more; in independence, with junior accountants showing significantly more; in su~rego/control, with junior accountants exhibiting significantly less; and in leadership, with the students showing significantly more. Both groups were similarly above population means in tough poise. Differences between students and junior practicing accountants provide evidence that students differ not only from the overall sample of accountants, but that the differences show up at the earliest level. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The findings of the present study indicate that the traditional stereotype does not match the accounting students or public accountants considered. If the traditional stereotype is valid, then either accountants are changing or the subjects included are not a representative sample. However, as identified earlier, it appears that the personality studies that appear to be commonly cited as proving the validity of the traditional stereotype did not provide great support for this idea. Thus our findings, especially the finding that both accounting students and public accountants are well within the normal range for extroversion scores, does not appear to be unusual when compared to past research. Previous research (Davidson & Dalby, 1993b) found that public accountants, as a group, have a personality profile that is significantly different from that of the general population. A possible explanation for this difference in personality profile is that individuals may self-select in choosing a field that both interests them and for which they feel they are suited (Holland, 1973). The present study finds that senior accounting students have personality profiles that are significantly different from public accountants as a group (including comparisons by gender), and even from entry-level accountants in accounting firms. As there will have been little time for either attrition or "weeding out" between being a graduating accounting senior and a newly hired junior in a firm, this study provides evidence that public accounting firms appear to use personality criteria as well as GPA in the hiring process. The process of interviews, return visits to firm offices, dinners, etc., is designed to enable firms to assess applicants and optimize matches between themselves and applicants. Students who are not perceived by interviewers as having the traits that appear to be sought (dominance, enthusiasm, suspicion, self-sufficiency,

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

441

tension, experimental) appear to be passed over by public accounting firms in the hiring process. There appear to be many accounting majors who have personalities that are not optimal matches for public accounting. Personality differences are the most frequently cited reasons for dismissal as well as for failure to advance (Case, 1988; Hecht, 1991). Within accounting firms, differences have been found between partners and other levels (Davidson & Dalby, 1993b; Ponemon, 1992), supporting the argument that those in upper levels tend to select others like themselves for promotion (Graves & Powell, 1988). One of the effects of such selection practices is that a significant number of accounting students who are qualified in terms of university training and GPA will not be hired into public accounting, or, if hired, are not likely to advance within the firms. Another implication is that universities devote considerable resources to preparing students for an occupation they may not enter. If both accounting educators and the accounting profession wish to continue to attract students to the study of accounting, it may be advisable that educators not define themselves too narrowly as preparing students to enter "the accounting profession," meaning public practice as auditors and tax specialists. If educators emphasize there are many accounting opportunities besides public accounting, students' views of their employment possibilities will be enhanced. This revised emphasis would require revised faculty counseling of students on the realities of their opportunities in accounting and may require modifications to the subject matter covered by accounting curricula. CONCLUSIONS The picture revealed of accounting students is not an unflattering one. They are better abstract thinkers than the general population, with women students even better abstract thinkers (a quality related to intelligence). Students were more conscientious than accountants, with female students showing a higher degree than male students. Students were more practical than the population, and significantly more so than accountants. Accountants were definitely more experimental, while students were within the average range for this trait. Male students were more self-assured than the general population, but less group-oriented. Students and accountants alike exhibited normal extroversion. Both male and female students were exceptionally high in leadership, and were significantly more so than practicing accountants. These findings should assist in refuting the traditional stereotype of accountants that may keep some students from considering the field. The findings of this study should be considered in view of its possible limitations. The sample was not randomly selected, it was drawn from

442

R.A. Davidson and L. D. Etherington

only three universities, the practitioners from one metropolitan area, and thus may not represent all graduating accounting majors. This study identified a number of significant differences in personality profiles between accounting students and accountants in public practice. Concern about the "wrong" students being attracted to major in accounting appears to be supported by these results, particularly concerning students being very conscientious and non-experimental. These findings suggest that many senior accounting students do not have the personality characteristics sought by accounting firms, and, if hired, will not be among those likely to succeed. Recruiters for public accounting will want to recruit very carefully, taking personality factors into consideration, as there appear to be many accounting students who do not fit the current personality profile of public accountants. Reduced needs for new hires present fewer opportunities for weeding out recruits who do not have the characteristics sought. Future research into the personality characteristics of management accountants would be fruitful, as it is not known at this time what personality profiles might be found in successful management accountants. 5 The majority of the students who are not found to have the personality characteristics suitable for public accounting will likely pursue some type of management accounting, but as it is not known at this time what qualities are needed to succeed there, it remains a possibility that accounting is failing to attract the type of students who are most suitable for all fields of accounting. 6 The findings of this study together with current changes in hiring practices by public accounting firms, suggest that educators may find it wise to contemplate a shift in emphasis in both formal accounting education and in career advice provided to accounting students.

REFERENCES Accounting Education Change Commission [AECC]. (1990, September). Position Statement No. One: Objectives of Education for Accountants.

American Accounting Association [AAA]. (1993, June). Accounting Education News (p. 2). Amernic, J. H., Aranya, N., & Pollock, J. (1979, October). Is there a generally accepted standard accountant? CA Magazine, 34-42. Aranya, N., Barak, A., & Amernic, J. (1981). A test of Holland's Theory in a population of accountants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15-24. Aranya, N., & Wheeler, J. T. (1986, Fall). Accountants' personality types and their commitment to organizationand profession. Contemporary Accounting Research, 184--199. 5Bamber (1993) identifies a paucity of research on non-audit accounting. 6Etherington and Schulting (1994) found no significant differences between management accountants and accountants in public practice.

Personalities of Accounting Students and Public Accountants

443

Argyris, C. (1977). Organizational learning and management information systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2, 113-123. Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young & Co., Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co., Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross (1989). Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession. Bamber, E. M. (1993). Opportunities in behavioral accounting research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 5, 1-30. Blythe, S. (1993, August). Generation Xed. Maclean's, 35. Case, R. (1988, November). Interview techniques for hiring the right graduates. Journal of Accountancy, 90-96. Cattell, R. B., & Eber, H. W. (1962). Manual for Forms A and B: Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability testing. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Choo, F. (1983, April). Type A behavior and coping with stress. Accountancy, 128-129. Choo, F. (1986, Spring). Job stress, job performance, and auditor personality characteristics. Auditing, A Journal of Practice and Theory, 17-34. Clements, R. V. (1958). Managers: A study of their careers in industry. London: Allen & Unwin. Cohen, J., & Hanno, D. (1993). An analysis of underlying constructs affecting the choice of accounting as a major. Issues in Accounting Education, 8, 219 238. Collins, K. M. (1993, March). Stress and departures from the public accounting profession: A study of gender differences. Accounting Horizons, 29-38. Davidson, R. A., & Dalby, J. T. (1993a). Personal profiles of female public accountants. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 6, 81-97. Davidson, R. A. & Dalby, J. T. (1993b, April). Personality profiles of Canadian public accountants. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 107-116. DeCoster, D. (1970). A comparison of interpersonal relationship variables of northwest public accountants with selected comparison groups. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon. DeCoster, D. (1971, August). 'Mirror, mirror on the wall....' The CPA in the world of psychology. Journal of Accountancy, 45. DeCoster, D., & Rhode, J. G. (1971, October). The accountant's stereotype: Real or imagined, deserved or unwarranted. The Accounting Review, 651 663. Dillard, J. F., & Ferris, K. R. (1989). Individual behavior in professional accounting firms: A review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 208-234. Etherington, L. D., & Schulting, L. (1995). Ethical development of accountants: The case of Canadian CMAs. Research on Accounting Ethics, 237 253. Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. (1988). An investigation of sex discrimination in recruiters evaluations of actual applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18, 20-29. Hassell, J. M., & Hennessey, Jr. (1989). An examination of factors important in the CPA recruiting process. Journal of Accounting Education, 7, 217 231. Hecht, R. M., (1991, June). Matching individual and organization styles. Management Accounting, 43-44. Hillison, W., & Kennelley, M. (1988, September). The economics of nonaudit services. Accounting Horizons, 32-40. Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices." A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Inman, B., Wenzler, A., & Wickert, P. (1989, Spring). Square pegs in round holes: Are accounting students well-suited to today's accounting profession? lssues in Accounting Education, 29-47.

444

R . A . Davidson and L. D. Etherington

Jackson, D. N., Peacock, A. C., & Holden, R. R. (1982). Professional interviewers' trait inferential structures for diverse occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 1-20. Keenan, A., & Bain, G. D. M. (1979). Effects of type A behavior, intolerance of ambiguity, and locus of control on the relationship between stress and work-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277-285. Krzystofik, A. T., & Fein, R. (1988, November). Does your firm use the right approach in hiring campus recruits? Journal of Accountancy, 83-88. Lewington, J. (1993, June 18). Applicants flood Ontario colleges and universities. The Globe and Mail, A 1. Lipe, M. G. (1989, Spring). Further evidence on the performance of female versus male accounting students. Issues in Accounting Education, 144-152. Lowman, R. I. (1991). The clinical practice of career assessment: Interests, abilities and personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Luscombe, N. (1988, December). Are we losing our good looks. Editorial in CA Magazine (p. 3). Luscombe, N. (1989, October). Restoring our good looks. Editorial in CA Magazine (p. 3). Maslow, A. H. (1965). Eupsychian management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. McGhee, W., Shields, M., & Birnberg, J. G. (1978, July). The effects of personality on a subject's information processing. The Accounting Review, 681-697. Mutchler, J. F., Turner, J. H., & Williams, D. D. (1987, Spring). The performance of female versus male accounting students. Issues in Accounting Education, 103-111. Otte, P. (1984). Do CPAs have a unique personality? The Michigan CPA, 29-36. Pasewark, W. R., Strawser, J. R., & Wilkerson, J. E. (1988, Fall). Empirical evidence on the association between characteristics of graduating accounting students and recruiting decisions of accounting employers. Issues in Accounting Education, 388-401. Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N. & Oberman, S. M. (1987). Personnel selection decisions: Effects of applicant personality and the letter of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 40, 96114. Perrow, C. (1970). Power in organizations (pp. 59-89). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Pillsbury, C. M., Capozzoli, L. & Ciampa, A. (1989, Spring). A synthesis of research studies regarding the upward mobility of women in public accounting. Accounting Horizons, 6370. Ponemon, L. A. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 239-258. Pratt, J. (1980, July). The effects of personality on a subject's information processing: A comment. The Accounting Review, 501-506. Rasch, R. H., & Harrell, A. (1990, Spring). The impact of personal characteristics on the turnover behavior of accounting professionals. Auditing, a Journal of Practice and Theory, 90-102. Schieck, A. (1971). Budget innovation in the States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Shackleton, V. (1980). The accountant stereotype: Myth or reality? Accountancy, 122-123. Shapiro, K. J., & Alexander, I. E. (1969). Extraversion-introversion, affiliation and anxiety. Journal of Personality, 37, 387~,06. Yaffe, B. (1993, June 18). University heads query salary stand taken by minister. Vancouver Sun (p. B2).