ACCOUNTING HORIZONS American Accounting Association
Vol. 30, No. 1 DOI: 10.2308/acch-51262
March 2016
pp. 41–62
A Contemporary Analysis of Accounting Professionals’
Work-Life Balance
Steve Buchheit
The University of Alabama
Derek W. Dalton
Nancy L. Harp
Carl W. Hollingsworth
Clemson University
SYNOPSIS: In recent years, work-life balance surpassed compensation as the most important job satisfaction factor
among AICPA members (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants [AICPA] 2004). Despite the continued
importance of this issue in the accounting profession (AICPA 2011), prior research has not examined work-life
balance perceptions across different segments of the profession. We survey 1,063 practicing CPAs in order to
assess the comparative work-life balance perceptions across (1) Big 4 versus smaller public accounting firms, (2)
audit versus tax functions, and (3) public accounting versus industry work contexts. Consistent with predictions
based on institutional logics theory, we find that work-family conflict and job burnout perceptions (our proxies for
work-life balance) are highest in the Big 4. We are the first study to measure both support-for and viability-of
traditional alternative work arrangements (AWAs), and we report an important distinction between these two
constructs. Specifically, while CPAs across all public accounting firms (i.e., Big 4, national, regional, and local firms)
report similar levels of organizational support-for AWAs, Big 4 professionals report significantly lower perceived
viability-of AWAs (i.e., the ability to use AWAs and remain effective at one’s job) compared to accounting
professionals at smaller public accounting firms. Further, we find no differences between audit and tax professionals’
perceptions across any of our work-life balance measures. We also document nuanced differences regarding work-
life balance perceptions in public accounting versus industry. For example, contrary to conventional wisdom, work-
life balance is not uniformly ‘‘ better’’ in industry (e.g., burnout is actually lower in smaller public accounting firms
compared to industry). Finally, we use open-ended responses from a follow-up survey to provide several
recommendations for firms to improve their work-life balance efforts.
Keywords: work-life balance; work-family conflict; burnout; alternative work arrangements.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, leaders of the accounting profession have expressed repeated concerns about the workload pressures faced
by accounting professionals (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board [PCAOB] 2013,17;International
Organization of Securities Commissions [IOSCO] 2009, 15). For example, PCAOB board member Jay Hanson notes
that an ‘‘ exceptionally troubling issue … is the sheer number of hours audit teams are expected to work,’’ indicating that public
accounting firms ‘‘ may not be managing [their] people effectively’’ (Cohn 2013). Intense workload pressure in the accounting
profession is of concern given its potentially negative effect on audit quality (IOSCO 2009,15;Lopez and Peters 2012;Bills,
Swanquist, and Whited 2015). Additionally, a more long-term concern associated with intense workload pressure relates to the
type of talent attracted to the accounting profession and its primary employment outlets (e.g., audit versus tax, Big 4 versus
small firms). Specifically, if certain employment outlets are relatively unattractive from a work-life balance perspective, then
incoming professionals might select alternative accounting career paths (e.g., Dalton, Buchheit, and McMillan 2014a) or they
may self-select out of the accounting profession.
The authors acknowledge financial support provided by Clemson University.
Editor’s note: Accepted by Arnold M. Wright.
Submitted: February 2015
Accepted: August 2015
Published Online: August 2015
41
Although prior accounting research has examined various work-life balance issues in public accounting (e.g., Cohen and
Single 2001;Almer and Kaplan 2002;Almer, Cohen, and Single 2003,2004;Almer and Single 2004;Pasewark and Viator
2006;Kornberger, Carter, and Ross-Smith 2010), to our knowledge, no prior study has compared work-life balance perceptions
within the accounting profession. Using survey evidence from 1,063 practicing CPAs, we present a descriptive view of work-
life balance perceptions across multiple accounting work contexts. Specifically, we compare the work-life balance perceptions
of (1) Big 4 CPAs versus CPAs at smaller firms, (2) audit versus tax public accounting professionals, and (3) public versus
industry accounting professionals. In addition to capturing open-ended views on work-life balance issues, we systematically
capture practicing professionals’ self-assessments of work-family conflict and employee burnout. Furthermore, we capture
practicing professionals’ perceptions of alternative work arrangements (AWAs), which are designed to improve work-life
balance and reduce burnout.
We use institutional logics theory to guide our predictions.
1
We expect that Big 4 firms’ relatively commercialized nature
with an intense focus on revenue generation, profitability, and the need to oversee and exert control over professionals (Hanlon
1994;Wyatt 2004) will be associated with higher burnout, more intense work-family conflict, and lower support for AWAs
compared to smaller public accounting firms.
2
Based on the unique work environment within public accounting, we also expect
that public accounting professionals will report higher work-family conflict and burnout compared to accounting professionals
within industry. We also pose two research questions: (1) Do auditors differ from tax professionals (and other public
accounting professionals) with regard to work-family conflict, burnout, and perceptions regarding AWAs? (2) Do public
accounting professionals differ from CPAs in industry with regard to perceptions regarding AWAs? Finally, we use
respondents’ open-ended survey responses to construct recommendations designed to improve work-life balance efforts.
As expected based on institutional logics theory, we find that Big 4 professionals experience higher levels of work-family
conflict and burnout compared to professionals in smaller public accounting firms. However, contrary to expectations, we find
similar levels of organizational support for AWAs regardless of public accounting firm size. Regarding perceptions of AWA
viability, we find that Big 4 employees are least likely to perceive that they could actually use AWAs and remain effective in
their careers. Thus, the professionals with the highest work-family conflict and burnout (i.e., Big 4 employees) are least likely
to believe that AWAs, which are designed to improve work-life balance, are viable options. We find no significant differences
between auditors and tax professionals for any of our measures, suggesting that work-life balance perceptions are similar within
the two primary career tracks within public accounting. When comparing public accounting to industry, we find that work-
family conflict is uniformly higher in public accounting (regardless of firm size).
In sum, our study contributes to prior work-life balance research in accounting primarily by providing a descriptive view of
professionals’ perceptions across a wide range of accounting work contexts using comparable metrics. While experimental
work can cleanly examine potential problems associated with AWAs (e.g., Cohen and Single 2001) and qualitative field
research can capture richness in a specific setting (e.g., Kornberger et al. 2010), our large-scale survey results place work-life
balance issues within the accounting profession into a relative setting (e.g., ‘‘ Are Big 4 accounting firms better or worse than
local accounting firms?’’ ), and allow for future comparisons (e.g., benchmarking current perceptions against future
perceptions). The importance of longitudinal benchmarks will likely increase given that newer generations of accounting
professionals (e.g., GenX and GenY) place more emphasis on work-life balance compared to prior generations (e.g., Lindquist
2008;Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, and Lance 2010;Gerson 2010).
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The following section discusses related literature, presents our formal
hypotheses, and describes our research questions. The third section presents our research methodology, and the fourth presents
the results. The final section concludes with a discussion of research implications.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Work-Family Conflict and Burnout
The unique nature of the public accounting ‘‘ busy season’’ creates a work environment that fosters both workload pressure
(Lopez and Peters 2012) and heightened levels of work-family conflict and employee burnout (Sweeney and Summers 2002).
In addition to seasonal workload pressures, accounting professionals experience higher levels of burnout than employees in
many other professions (e.g., Sweeney and Summers 2002). Relative to other professions, accounting professionals experience
1
In addition to institutional logics theory, our predictions about the Big 4 are also supported by the unique work environment in the Big 4 (e.g., a higher
percentage of publicly traded clients with strict reporting deadlines).
2
Work-family conflict is defined as ‘‘ a form of role conflict characterized by the incongruence between responsibilities of the home and work-place’’
(Pasewark and Viator 2006, 147). In contrast, job burnout is defined as ‘‘ a specific condition in which people suffer emotional exhaustion, experience a
lack of personal accomplishment, and tend to depersonalize others’’ (Fogarty, Singh, Rhoads, and Moore 2000, 33).
42 Buchheit, Dalton, Harp, and Hollingsworth
Accounting Horizons
Volume 30, Number 1, 2016
frequent time and budget pressure, deadlines, and work overload that act as job stressors (Haskins, Baglioni, and Cooper 1990).
Accounting research has examined various aspects of accounting professionals’ work-life balance. For example, prior research
finds that both increased work-family conflict (Pasewark and Viator 2006) and burnout (Jones, Norman, and Wier 2010) are
associated with lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions in the accounting profession.
As explained below, we expect that accounting professionals’ perceptions of work-family conflict and employee burnout
(our proxies for work-life balance) will differ based on broad accounting work contexts. Both measures have been used as
work-life balance proxies, with work-family conflict reflecting stress from conflicting personal and professional obligations and
burnout reflecting stress from intense working conditions and excessive work demands.
To guide our predictions regarding work-family conflict and burnout, we rely upon the theoretical framework of
institutional logics. Over the past few decades, there is evidence that the largest public accounting firms (i.e., the Big 4) have
shifted away from the institutional logic of professionalism toward commercialism (e.g., Hanlon 1994,1996,1997;Zeff 2003;
Wyatt 2004;Suddaby, Gendron, and Lam 2009;Kornberger, Justesen, and Mouritsen 2011;Sweeney and McGarry 2011).
Professionalism embodies a strong sense of protecting the public interest and values technically competent, high-quality work;
in contrast, commercialism emphasizes the importance of revenue generation, profit maximization, and budget control (Hanlon
1994,1996). Prior research documents a relatively intense focus within the Big 4 on profitability, cross-selling advisory
services, and entrepreneurial skills over technical expertise and protecting the public interest (e.g., Zeff 2003;Wyatt 2004).
Given the emphasis on commercialism suggested by prior research, some contend that revenue generation has replaced
technical expertise as the primary factor influencing promotions within Big 4 firms (Wyatt 2004). Identification with
commercialistic values also appears prominent at higher ranks within Big 4 firms (Suddaby et al. 2009). In the Big 4, Carter and
Spence (2014) find that technical partners are treated like second-class citizens because practice partners primarily define
success by commercialistic measures such as bringing in new work, collecting fees, and maintaining or enhancing existing
client relationships. However, unlike the Big 4, smaller public accounting firms have more strongly resisted commercial
pressures and held onto professional norms (Lander, Koene, and Linssen 2013).
Given the highly commercialized nature of Big 4 accounting firms, it is not surprising to find that Big 4 accounting
professionals across all organizational ranks work more hours per week than accounting professionals in small and mid-sized
accounting firms (e.g., Anderson-Gough, Grey, and Robson 2001;Hardies, Breesch, and Branson 2013). The work
environment within Big 4 accounting firms is often characterized by long hours and demanding work conditions, especially
during the busy season in which work is oftentimes completed on nights and weekends (Lopez and Peters 2012;Dalton, Hill,
and Ramsay 1997;Anderson-Gough et al. 2001). In addition, Big 4 firms’ relatively high percentage of public clients is more
likely to expose Big 4 professionals to stressors such as strict deadline pressures, litigation risk (e.g., Badertscher, Jorgensen,
Katz, and Kinney 2014;Khurana and Raman 2004;Palmrose 1988), and regulatory scrutiny (e.g., PCAOB inspections) than
non-Big 4 professionals. Despite popular press articles that frequently highlight the family-friendly benefits and flexible
cultures within Big 4 accounting firms (e.g., Shellenbarger 1998;WorkingMother.com 2013), we expect that Big 4 accounting
professionals will experience higher levels of work-family conflict and burnout than accounting professionals at smaller firms.
Formally, we make the following predictions:
H1a: Accounting professionals employed at Big 4 firms will report higher levels of work-family conflict than accounting
professionals employed at smaller firms.
H1b: Accounting professionals employed at Big 4 firms will report higher levels of employee burnout than accounting
professionals employed at smaller firms.
Organizational Support Regarding the Use of Alternative Work Arrangements
Prior research indicates that accounting firms can reduce work-family conflict and employee burnout by offering
alternative work arrangements (AWAs) (e.g., Almer and Kaplan 2002;Pasewark and Viator 2006). Traditional forms of AWAs
include: (1) flextime schedules (i.e., employees choose start and end times but generally must work certain ‘‘ core’’ hours), (2)
part-time work (i.e., employees work a reduced work schedule), (3) telecommuting (i.e., employees work from offsite
locations, such as a home office), and (4) compressed workweeks (i.e., employees work longer hours in fewer days, such as a
four-day workweek). Prior research documents that participation in traditional forms of AWAs is associated with greater work-
life balance, increased job satisfaction, fewer unplanned absences, lower burnout, improved physical and mental health, and
lower turnover intentions (e.g., Almer and Kaplan 2002;Hammer, Bauer, and Grandey 2003;Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and
Neuman 1999;Moen, Kelly, and Hill 2011;Matos and Galinsky 2011). Given the widespread benefits of AWA programs,
accounting firms have invested significant resources into AWAs and currently all of the Big 4 firms and most national/regional
accounting firms offer AWA programs (e.g., Almer et al. 2003;Levitt and Nicolaisen 2008).
A Contemporary Analysis of Accounting Professionals’ Work-Life Balance 43
Accounting Horizons
Volume 30, Number 1, 2016
In order for AWA programs to be successfully implemented, however, organizational support for AWAs is imperative
(e.g., Almer et al. 2003;Johnson, Lowe, and Reckers 2008).
3
In essence, to substantively support AWAs, firms must avoid
organizational rhetoric regarding work-life balance programs and truly embrace these programs as a means of promoting
employee health, well-being, and retention. While most of the Big 4 accounting firms publicly promote the widespread benefits
and availability of their AWA programs on their websites and in popular press articles (e.g., Shellenbarger 1998;Lewison
2006;Greenhouse 2011;WorkingMother.com 2013), prior research suggests that the public perception displayed by Big 4
firms may not match the reality of support actually given to AWA programs (Johnson et al. 2008;Kornberger et al. 2010). In
other words, in spite of award-winning AWA programs,
4
there is some evidence that Big 4 firms do not offer sufficient
organizational support for AWAs in practice (Kornberger et al. 2010).
Because AWA adopters provide less revenue for their firms than traditional full-time employees (e.g., Kornberger et al.
2010), we expect that the commercialized culture of Big 4 firms will conflict with the inherent purpose of AWAs. Furthermore,
given that most large firms still view the ‘‘ ideal’’ worker as an individual who has few family responsibilities and who can
devote complete commitment to the organization (Blair-Loy 2003;Johnson et al. 2008), AWAs are likely to be at odds with the
dominant organizational culture in Big 4 accounting firms. Therefore, we expect that Big 4 accounting professionals will report
less organizational support for the use of AWAs than accounting professionals at smaller firms.
Kornberger et al.’s (2010) study provides further evidence suggesting that Big 4 firms may not truly embrace AWAs. Their
study quotes a Big 4 CEO claiming he was ‘‘ forced’’ to create and implement a flexibility program, suggesting that the firm did
not provide sufficient organizational support for AWAs (as noted by Kornberger et al. 2010). In fact, the authors suggest that
the firm in their study did not judge the program’s success by its ability to enhance the well-being and retention of employees;
rather, the firm judged the flexibility program based on the positive publicity achieved. As noted by Johnson et al. (2008, 51),
‘‘ a discontinuity’’ may exist between the ‘‘ public face’’ of Big 4 firms that promote work-life balance initiatives and the
dominant organizational culture of Big 4 firms. Additionally, the ‘‘ client-is-king’’ ethos that is pervasive within Big 4 firms
(Carter and Spence 2014) coupled with a large percentage of publicly traded clients with strict reporting deadlines may make it
relatively difficult for Big 4 firms to fully support AWAs. The preceding discussion supports our formal prediction:
H2a: Accounting professionals employed at Big 4 firms will report lower levels of organizational support regarding the
use of AWAs than accounting professionals employed at smaller firms.
Viability of AWAs
As discussed in the previous section, AWA participation is associated with many benefits; however, prior research
suggests that the benefits of AWA programs do not come without professional costs. For example, AWAs are associated with
reduced promotions and raises (Nord, Fox, Phoenix, and Viano 2002;Butler, Gasser, and Smart 2004;Rogier and Padgett
2004), fewer networking opportunities (Almer et al. 2003), and lower quality work assignments (Hall 1990;Kossek, Noe, and
DeMarr 1999). Experimental studies also indicate that accounting professionals perceive that participation in AWAs leads to
less long-term career success. For example, Cohen and Single (2001) provided Big 5 respondents with a vignette of a
hypothetical employee’s prior work quality and manipulated whether the fictitious employee participated in a flexible work
arrangement. They find that employees on a flexible work arrangement are perceived to have a lower likelihood of advancing to
the partner level and a higher likelihood of leaving the firm. Similarly, Johnson et al.’s (2008) experiment finds that Big 4
supervisors’ informal performance evaluations are significantly lower for AWA adopters, relative to employees with traditional
work arrangements.
5
In a nonaudit context, Frank and Lowe (2003) find that management accountants perceive that AWA
adopters have less long-term career potential, relative to employees with traditional work arrangements.
Given that the highly commercialized work environments of Big 4 accounting firms tend to emphasize revenue generation
and high billable hours, we expect that Big 4 accounting professionals will struggle with maintaining their work obligations
3
Organizational support for AWAs relates to the extent to which an organization’s culture supports an individual’s decision to adopt an AWA (Almer et
al. 2003). Organizational support for AWAs also includes the extent to which one’s peers and superiors support one’s decision to adopt an AWA.
Because employees tend to view supervisory support as representative of organizational support (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch 1997),
support for AWAs from partners and firm leaders is especially important. Almer et al. (2003, 87) suggest that partners and managers should be
supportive of AWAs by ‘‘ encouraging adoption through their words and actions.’’ For example, partners and managers can improve organizational
support for AWAs by including AWA adopters on their high-profile clients (Almer et al. 2003).
4
Each of the Big 4 public accounting firms is listed in the top 10 of WorkingMother.com’s 2013 ‘‘ Best Companies for Working Mothers’’ list.
5
As opposed to formal performance evaluations (which may subject a supervisor to legal challenges of overt discrimination), informal performance
evaluations are not formally documented (Kaplan and Reckers 1993). As indicated by Johnson et al. (2008, 53), ‘‘[I]nformal evaluations may more
accurately mirror a supervisor’s true assessment of the subordinate’s performance evaluation.’’ Johnson et al. (2008) consider supervisor judgments
regarding whether to schedule an AWA employee on a future engagement as a form of informal evaluation.
44 Buchheit, Dalton, Harp, and Hollingsworth
Accounting Horizons
Volume 30, Number 1, 2016
while using AWAs. Therefore, the intense work demands present in most Big 4 firms will likely challenge the perceived
viability of AWAs.
Client demands might also impair accounting professionals’ ability to use AWAs. To explain, accounting professionals
oftentimes have multiple client engagements with multiple deadlines (Bagley 2010). These multiple client deadlines, in turn, create
numerous and often erratic work demands that can make it difficult for accounting professionals to utilize AWAs (Almer et al. 2003).
While client demands influence the work locations and work hours for accounting professionals at all types of firms (e.g., Hooks and
Higgs 2002), the long hours and the perception that the client’s needs come first appear particularly acute within large public
accounting firms; as such, we argue that AWAs will be perceived as especially difficult to use in Big 4 firms. Therefore, drawing on
prior research documenting the intense focus on commercial goals and the work demands within the Big 4 (e.g., Hanlon 1994,1996,
1997;Zeff 2003;Wyatt 2004;Kornberger et al. 2011), we expect that Big 4 accounting professionals will be less likely to believe
that they can remain effective employees while using AWAs (i.e., lower AWA viability), leading to the following prediction:
6
H2b: Accounting professionals employed at Big 4 firms will be less likely to believe that they can remain effective
employees while using AWAs than accounting professionals employed at smaller firms.
A Comparison of Auditors versus Tax Professionals
Potential work-life balance differences exist between auditors and tax professionals. For example, auditors may experience
higher levels of work-family conflict and burnout than tax professionals (and other public accounting professionals) given the
additional work demands placed upon auditors following the implementation of SOX. Alternatively, tax professionals report a
more severe busy season workload relative to auditors (Dalton et al. 2014a), suggesting that they may experience similar (if not
greater) work-family conflict and burnout compared to auditors. Furthermore, the nature of audit work could also influence the
relative work-life balance of audit and tax professionals. For example, because auditors (1) travel more than tax professionals,
and (2) have a less stable daily routine than tax professionals (Dalton et al. 2014a), it is conceivable that auditors may report
less organizational support for AWAs and less viability regarding the usage of AWAs, relative to tax professionals. Given
limited theoretical support and conflicting expectations, we pose the following research question:
RQ1: Do auditors differ from tax professionals (and other public accounting professionals) with regard to work-family
conflict, burnout, and perceptions regarding AWAs?
A Comparison of Public Accountants versus Industry Accountants
Finally, we compare public accounting and industry professionals in order to explore the relative differences in work-life
balance and AWA perceptions across a broad spectrum of the accounting profession. Conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence
(e.g., Lilly 2011) suggest that public accountants tend to transition to industry in order to achieve better work-life balance. Further,
prior research discussed above suggests that public accounting is unique in its demands and pressures compared to industry due to
the nature of the ‘‘ busy season’’ in public accounting (e.g., Lopez and Peters 2012). We rely on prior research that examines the
unique job stressors in public accounting (e.g., Haskins et al. 1990;Sweeney and Summers 2002) to form the following hypotheses:
H3a: Public accounting professionals will report higher levels of work-family conflict than CPAs in industry.
H3b: Public accounting professionals will report higher levels of employee burnout than CPAs in industry.
Finally, while prior studies in both public accounting (e.g., Cohen and Single 2001) and industry (e.g., Frank and Lowe
2003) suggest that AWA use is associated with less long-term career success, prior research has not directly compared AWA
perceptions in industry versus public accounting. Based on limited evidence and theoretical support, we pose the following
research question:
RQ2: Do public accounting professionals differ from CPAs in industry with regard to perceptions regarding AWAs?
6
The preceding literature and our resulting hypotheses are largely based on a dichotomy of Big 4 firms versus ‘‘ smaller’’ public accounting firms;
however, smaller firms have enormous size variation. For example, national firms (e.g., McGladrey, Grant Thornton) and regional firms are
considerably larger than local firms. To illustrate, most firms historically considered ‘‘ national firms’’ (e.g., McGladrey, Grant Thornton, BDO) now
have international offices. In some cases, national firms complete more U.S. audit reports than Big 4 firms (e.g., Grant Thornton signed more 2014
audit reports than both PricewaterhouseCoopers [PwC] and KPMG [per PCAOB Form 2 data]). While one might expect attitudes toward work-life
balance to be a continuous inverse function of firm size, we make no formal prediction about the differences between mid-sized and local firms given
the lack of prior research in this area. However, in our ensuing analysis, we examine differences among all types of public accounting employees,
including Big 4, mid-sized (which includes national and regional firms), and local accounting professionals.
A Contemporary Analysis of Accounting Professionals’ Work-Life Balance 45
Accounting Horizons
Volume 30, Number 1, 2016
RESEARCH METHOD
Respondents
We obtained mailing lists from the Boards of Accountancy in Oregon and Washington.
7
Email requests for voluntary
participation were sent to a random sample of 17,000 CPAs licensed in Oregon and Washington. The requests included a
description of our study along with a link to the online survey hosted by Qualtrics. Potential respondents also received two-
week and four-week reminder messages. We received 1,222 completed surveys, representing a 7.2 percent response rate.
8
We
tested for potential non-response bias (e.g., Armstrong and Overton 1977) by comparing early responses (the first 25 percent) to
late responses (the last 25 percent) and did not detect any significant differences for any of the variables used in this study (i.e.,
work-family conflict, burnout, perceived organizational support for AWAs, and perceived viability of AWAs).
Given that our study examines the perceptions of accounting professionals in public accounting and industry, we removed
159 accounting professionals employed in other positions,
9
resulting in a final sample of 1,063 accounting professionals. The
full sample (n ¼1,063) includes 635 public accountants and 428 industry accountants. The percentage of male CPAs in public
accounting is higher (67.40 percent) than the percentage of male CPAs in industry (59.35 percent), which is consistent with
female accounting professionals being more likely to leave the public accounting profession for careers in industry (e.g.,
Dalton, Cohen, Harp, and McMillan 2014b). In total, 16.38 percent of the public accounting respondents work in Big 4 public
accounting firms, 14.96 percent work in mid-sized public accounting firms (represented by national non-Big 4 and regional
firms),
10
44.72 percent work in local accounting firms, and 23.94 percent work as sole practitioners.
We determine respondent rank as follows. The higher rank position consists of partners and directors (in public accounting) and
top managers (in non-public accounting settings); the middle rank position consists of supervisors, managers, and senior managers
(in public accounting) and middle managers (in non-public accounting settings); and the lower rank position consists of associates
and senior associates (in public accounting)
11
and junior managers (in non-public accounting settings). Finally, the other rank
position consists of all other respondents.
12
The percentage of high-ranking CPAs in public accounting (57.17 percent) is higher than
the percentage of CPAs in industry (46.96 percent); however, this difference is largely attributable to the sole proprietors in public
accounting (e.g., sole proprietors are classified as high-ranking employees). When sole proprietors are excluded, the percentage of
high-ranking CPAs in public accounting (46.2 percent) is similar to the percentage of high-ranking CPAs in industry (46.96 percent).
Our sample demographics are similar to recent AICPA data. For example, the AICPA reports the following 2014
membership demographics: 46 percent Public, 36 percent Management Accounting, and 18 percent ‘‘ other’’ (retired,
government, education, and miscellaneous). If we include the 159 respondents that are employed in ‘‘ other’’ areas (e.g.,
education, government, and miscellaneous), then our corresponding percentages are 52 percent Public, 35 percent Industry, and
13 percent ‘‘ other’’ (government and education). Similarly, the gender breakdown of our sample (i.e., 64 percent male and 36
percent female) approximates 2014 AICPA membership data (i.e., 65 percent male and 35 percent female).
13
Our demographic
statistics also roughly mirror the demographic statistics reported by Suddaby et al. (2009) in a large-scale survey of Canadian
chartered accountants.
14
7
Prior to administering our survey, we pilot-tested our survey on 114 CPAs licensed in Oregon and Washington. We made several changes to our survey
based on these responses.
8
Our response rate (7.2 percent) is similar to other recent accounting studies that have used email requests. For example, Dichev, Graham, Harvey, and
Rajgopal (2013) report a 5.4 percent response rate using an online survey of CFOs; Anderson and Lillis (2011) report a 5 percent response rate using an
online survey of CPAs; Dalton et al. (2014b) report an 8.1 percent response rate using email survey requests of female CPAs; and Chen, Kelly, and
Salterio (2012) report a 12 percent response rate using an online survey of M.B.A.s.
9
Of the 159 excluded respondents, 108 were employed in government/non-profit jobs and 51 selected our ‘‘ other’’ category (we did not ask for further
clarification to this selection).
10
Given the limited sample of respondents from national (n ¼30) and regional public accounting firms (n ¼65), we combine them into a single ‘‘ mid-
sized’’ firm category.
11
Although important differences exist between associates (i.e., staff accountants) and senior associates, only 19 respondents were associates. As such,
we combined associates and senior associates in the ‘‘ lower rank’’ category in public accounting (n ¼96). Eliminating associates from the analysis does
not alter results.
12
For respondents who selected ‘‘ other’’ for their rank, we asked for additional information regarding their specific job titles. Responses vary substantially
(e.g., deputy director, assistant finance director, chief investigator, chief labor negotiator, executive director, credit analyst, applications consultant,
consultant).
13
In private correspondence, we learned that the AICPA does not maintain more specific demographics (such as Pacific Northwest membership
demographics) that would allow more refined comparison.
14
Consistent with our gender breakdown (64 percent male and 36 percent female), Suddaby et al.’s (2009) sample was male dominated (68 percent male
and 32 percent female). Regarding rank, the percentage of high-ranking employees in our sample is similar to the 48 percent in Suddaby et al. (2009),
who acknowledge a disproportionate number of high-ranking respondents compared to their underlying population (29–35 percent high rank). Suddaby
et al. (2009) speculate that some of their respondents inflated their ranks because of egocentrism and/or social desirability. While rank inflation is also
possible in our results, professional membership (e.g., AICPA members) seems to also skew the sampling pool to more experienced respondents.
46 Buchheit, Dalton, Harp, and Hollingsworth
Accounting Horizons
Volume 30, Number 1, 2016
Survey Instrument
We employed the following best-practices for surveys (e.g., P. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and N. Podsakoff 2003): (1)
respondents were instructed that there were no right or wrong answers; (2) respondents were assured that responses would be
kept anonymous and confidential; and (3) we adhered to recommended guidelines for online surveys (Dillman 2000). Given
that each respondent completed all of the predictor and criterion scales at one time, we employed Harman’s single-factor test to
assess whether common method bias (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 2003) was problematic. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in five
factors with eigenvalues .1.0 and the first factor explained only 30.39 percent of the total variance.
15
We next discuss the
individual measures.
Dependent Variables
Work-Family Conflict
Consistent with Pasewark and Viator (2006), we use the Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996) scale to measure work-
family conflict (see Table 1, Panel A). All scale items are measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 ¼strongly disagree and
5¼strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha equals 0.92, indicating acceptable reliability.
Job Burnout
Maslach and Jackson (1981) developed the Maslach burnout inventory to measure employee burnout. An abbreviated
nine-item subset drawn from the Maslach Burnout Inventory has been used in several accounting studies (e.g., Almer and
Kaplan 2002;Jones et al. 2010). We also use the nine-item burnout scale (see Table 1, Panel B). Three items are used to
measure each of the three dimensions of burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment, and
depersonalization). The scale items are measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 ¼strongly disagree and 5 ¼strongly
agree. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is 0.83, indicating acceptable reliability.
Perceived Organizational Support for AWAs
To measure accounting professionals’ perceptions regarding organizational support for the use of AWAs, we used the four-
item scale developed by Dalton et al. (2014b).
16
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their respective
organizations would support their use of the following four traditional AWAs on a five-point Likert scale where 1 ¼not
A Contemporary Analysis of Accounting Professionals’ Work-Life Balance 47
