請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72736完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 林嬋娟(Chan-Jane Lin) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tan-Li Huang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 黃丹莉 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:04:51Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-05 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-08-05 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-07-28 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 社團法人中華民國會計師公會全國聯合會職業道德委員會.(2017).職業道德規範公報 第十號
周玲臺、張謙恆. (2017).安侯建業(KPMG Taiwan):全球化下之管理變革(A).台灣管理個案中心 金融監督管理委員會. (2017).一〇六年會計師事務所服務業調查報告. Arnaya, N., J. Pollock, and J. Amernic. (1981). An examination of professional commitment in public accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society, 6, 271-280. Bamber, E. M. and V. M. Iyer. (2002). Big 5 auditors’ professional and organizational identification: consistency or conflict? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(2), 21-38. Burrows, G. and C. Black. (1998). Profit Sharing in Australian Big 6 Accounting Firms: An Exploratory Study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(5), 517-530. Bushman, R. M., R. J. Indjejikian, and A. Smith. (1996). CEO compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21, 161-193 Carcello, J. V., D. R. Hermanson, and H. F. Huss. (2000). Going-concern opinions: The effects of partner compensation plans and client size. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), 67–78. Carrington, T., T. Johansson, G. Johed, and P. Ohman. (2013). An empirical test of the hierarchical construct of professionalism and managerialism in the accounting profession. Behavior Research in Accounting, 25(2), 1-20 Chow, C.W. (1983). The effects of job standard tightness and compensation scheme on performance. The Accounting Review,58(4),667-685 Coram, P. J. and M. J. Robinson. (2017). Professionalism and performance incentives in accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 31, 103-123 DeZoort, F. T., R. W. Houston, and M. F. Peters (2001). The impact of internal auditor compensation and role on external auditors’ planning judgments and decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 182(2), 257–81. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57–74. Fu, Y., E. Carson, and R. Simnett. (2015). Transparency report disclosure by Australian audit firms and opportunities for research. Managerial Auditing Journal, 30(8/9), 870-910 Gendron, Y. (2002). On the role of the organization in auditors’ client-acceptance decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7), 659-684. Hanafi, M. H. and J. Stewart (2015). The effect of incentive-based compensation on internal auditors’ perceptions of objectivity. International Journal of Auditing, 19, 37-52 Hay, D. C., R. F. Baskerville, and T. H. Qiu. (2007). The association between partnership financial integration and risky audit client portfolios. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26(2), 57-68 Holmes, S. and I. Zimmer. (1998). The structure of profit sharing schemes in accounting partnerships. Accounting and Finance, 38, 51-70 Hoppe, F. and F. Moers. (2011). The choice of different types of subjectivity in CEO annual bonus contracts. The Accounting Review, 86(6), 2023-2046 International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). (2009). Transparency of firms that audit public companies: consultation report. Ittner, C. D., D. F. Larcker, and M. W. Meyer. (2003). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 725-758 Kandel, E. and E. P. Lazear. (1992). Peer pressure and partnerships. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 801-817 Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Nortan. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87-104 Knechel, W. R., L. Niemi, and M. Zerni. (2013). Empirical evidence on the implicit determinants of compensation in Big 4 audit partnerships. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(2), 349-387 Mael, F. A. and B. E. Ashforth. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organization Behavior, 13, 103-123. Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263–284. Suddaby, R., Y. Gendron, and H. Lam. (2009). The organization context of professionalism in accounting. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 409-427 Trompeter, G. (1994). The effect of partner compensation schemes and generally accepted accounting principles on audit partner judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 13(2), 56-68. Wyatt, A. (2004). Accounting Professionalism—They just don’t get it! Accounting Horizons, 18(1), 45-53 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72736 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本文為國內首篇深入探討我國四大會計師事務所合夥人薪酬制度及績效指標之研究，並透過問卷調查來進行薪酬制度滿意度之實證分析。訪談得知，受訪的兩家事務所皆以台灣地區整所為利潤庫中心(one profit pool)，採用點數制度(Partner Unit System)作為合夥人利潤分配之方式，並透過財務、品質與遵循相關項目作為績效考核的參考指標。受訪事務所皆有針對合夥人發生品質缺失、違反獨立性及不遵循法令等行為予以扣點處分，可見事務所在制度面是有訂定相關機制來避免合夥人僅重視業務表現，且合夥人對於品質缺失或損害事務所名聲方面的減點機制認同感高。此外，兩所的薪酬透明政策相近，皆會在每年向個別合夥人告知其點數及各薪酬層級之分布情形，不過是採取匿名之方式。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This is the first domestic study to investigate compensation schemes and performance incentives for Big 4 partners in Taiwan. Besides, we also used questionnaires survey about satisfaction at compensation schemes for partners of one of the interviewed firms to conduct an empirical analysis. Through the interview, we found that the two firms both use one profit pool and Partner Unit System as the profit-sharing method, and KPIs include financial, quality and compliance indicators. The two firms have also established related mechanisms about deducting the units of partners for the lack of quality, violation of independence and non-compliance with policies, to prevent partners from moving toward a more commercial business model. In addition, the two firms have similar transparency policies, with each individual partner informed about the units distribution and compensation levels each year. However, the partners remain anonymous with each other. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:04:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R06722034-1.pdf: 1241195 bytes, checksum: 88ff5a50299d9d418abf885d0e8756cf (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 i
Abstract ii 圖與表目錄 iv 第壹章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的與預期貢獻 4 第三節 研究架構 5 第貳章 文獻回顧與研究問題 6 第一節 事務所利潤分配之基礎 6 第二節 事務所合夥人薪酬制度之設計 8 第三節 專業導向與業務導向 12 第四節 事務所合夥人薪酬之透明度 15 第參章 研究方法與設計 18 第一節 訪談 18 第二節 問卷調查 19 第肆章 研究結果 20 第一節 訪談內容彙整 20 第二節 問卷結果統計 31 第伍章 研究結論、限制與建議 44 第一節 研究結論 44 第二節 研究限制與建議 46 參考文獻 47 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 薪酬制度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 利潤分配 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 點數制度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 績效指標 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 四大會計師事務所 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | performance incentives | en |
| dc.subject | profit-sharing | en |
| dc.subject | compensation schemes | en |
| dc.subject | Partner Unit System | en |
| dc.subject | Big 4 | en |
| dc.title | 會計師事務所合夥人薪酬制度之探討:以台灣大型事務所為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Investigating Compensation Schemes and Performance Incentives for Partners in Taiwanese Large Accounting Firms | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林孝倫(Hsiao-Lun Lin),謝喻婷(Yu-Ting Hsieh) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 四大會計師事務所,薪酬制度,績效指標,點數制度,利潤分配, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | compensation schemes,performance incentives,Big 4,Partner Unit System,profit-sharing, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 49 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201902080 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-07-29 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 會計學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.21 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。