This article proposes that key CEO demographic factors reflect alternative modes of rationalizing the choice to engage in and/or facilitate accounting fraud. Specifically the authors theorize that younger, less functionally experienced CEOs and CEOs without business degrees will be more likely to rationalize accounting fraud as an acceptable decision. Based on a sample of 312 fraud-committing and control firms, the study finds support for the authors’ predictions. It also finds that CEO stock options (a form of executive equity incentive) also predict fraud, and that this relationship is not moderated by CEO demographics. The study thus extends upper echelon theory by demonstrating how key demographic variables influence CEO decisions to rationalize accounting fraud.

The rash of high-profile accounting frauds involving internal corporate accountants calls into question the individual accountant's perceptions of the ethical climate within their organization and the limits to which these professionals will tolerate unethical behavior and/or accept it as the norm. This study uses social cognitive theory to examine the antecedents of individual corporate accountant's perceived personal fit with their organization's ethical climate and empirically tests how these factors impact organizational attitudes. A survey was completed by 203 corporate accountants to assess their perception of relevant variables. The results of the structural equation model indicate three significant antecedents relating to ethical climate fit: higher internal levels of locus of control; greater numbers of prior job changes; and higher perceptions of an increasingly better fit with the firm's ethical climate (e.g., fit trend). Our results also indicate that higher levels of perceived fit to the ethical climate of a firm are associated with higher levels of perceived job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We also theorize that perceptions of an organization's ethical climate may be reflections of client narcissism and serve a potential indicator of fraud risk. This is an important topic of study, since current auditing standards call for auditors to examine organizational attitudes toward fraud, but offer minimal guidance in doing so.

Pair Programming is an innovative collaborative software development methodology. Anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that this agile development method produces better quality software in reduced time with higher levels of developer satisfaction. To date, little explanation has been offered as to why these improved performance outcomes occur. In this qualitative study, we focus on how individual differences, and specifically task conflict, impact results of the collaborative software development process and related outcomes. We illustrate that low to moderate levels of task conflict actually enhance performance, while high levels mitigate otherwise anticipated positive results.

The use of agile methods is growing in industrial practice due to the documented benefits of increased software quality, shared programmer expertise, and user satisfaction. These methods include pair programming (two programmers working side-by-side producing the code) and test-driven approaches (test cases written first to prepare for coding). In practice, software development organizations adapt agile methods to their environment. The purpose of this research is to understand better the impacts of adapting these methods. We perform a set of controlled experiments to investigate how adaptations, or variations, to the pair programming method impact programming performance and user satisfaction. We find that method variations do influence programming results. In particular, better performance and satisfaction outcomes are achieved when the pair programming is performed in face-to-face versus virtual settings, in combination with the test-driven approach, and with more experienced programmers. We also find that limiting the extent of collaboration can be effective, especially when programmers are more experienced. These experimental results provide a rigorous foundation for deciding how to adapt pair programming methods into specific project contexts.Agile software development processes are becoming increasingly viable alternatives to more disciplined, plan-driven development processes. The interest is driven by the promise of higher quality code produced in shorter periods of time, with high levels of developer satisfaction. A great deal of uncertainty remains however, on how best to structure an effective, contextspecific process that remains faithful to the principles of agility [2,5]. Few research studies report empirical results that can be used to guide project managers in these critical decisions [9,11].A key premise of agility in software development is the freedom to adapt processes and methods to the needs of a specific project. Previous research has referred to such adaptation as 'method engineering' [26,27] or 'method tailoring' [10]. Turk, France and Rumpe [30, p. 73] identify one of the central underlying assumptions of agility as ''developers have the experience needed to define and adapt their processes appropriately.'' Thus, the need for research on how to effectively adapt agile methods is clear.In this research we study the adaptation of pair programming concepts in agile development projects. We conducted a series of studies that investigate pair programming variations that are currently being employed in practice: in the work setting, preparation for coding, and extent of collaboration. Section 1 describes the pair programming method and the potential variations of the method. Existing research on pair programming is surveyed. Our research study is presented in Section 2. We perform a set of controlled

The Q-methodology was employed to address the managerial problem of deciding which of the firm's personnel development resources should be aimed at which personnel, or groups of personnel, through the various venues of development that are available to the firm for the development of its IT workforce. The procedure identified six interpretable groups of IT professionals that seem to be associated with the development priorities of the IT management, analytical, development & programming, and operations functions. Opportunities are identified for both future research and the practical application of the Q-methodology, its associated instrumentation, and analytical procedure as a managerial decision tool in the context of the internal development of the firm's IT personnel to meet the firm's goals.