Willing

The ‘willing’ accounts obtained from this research are all related to the interview

question: ‘if you are nominated to serve on the audit committee again, will you accept it?’ This subject is a real issue for every interviewee, except for interviewee 06 who was retiring from his entire directorship portfolio. Table 6-17 categorises the willing accounts captured and analysed in this research.

Table 6-17: Willing accounts Sub-nodes of ‘Valuing’ accounts No. of interviewees Examples Active 11 Interviewee 10:

“Yep! Because I almost think this is my obligation to do so because of the background I’ve got. And I quite enjoy it.”

Interviewee 12:

“It probably gives you a bit more insight into the company than you get just purely as a director. The insight comes from the audit side and the internal audit side as well… It’s probably interesting to… you know… this is my personal point of view… is to see another more developed audit committee functioning.”

Passive 9

Interviewee 08:

“I think… I guess I see it as a… if you like a responsibility… I don’t want to use the word “responsibility” in a high and mighty way, but I guess I see it as a responsibility, if it is the right mix to the board that I am on…alright…because of the background. So the answer is “yes”. But it is not necessarily that I would seek it.”

Interviewee 14:

“I did not want to be a member. No… It is not very exciting. (both laughing) So why did I agree? Hum… it is a very important role. And I think I can add value and a sense of responsibility that I should agree. You all sit on the board; there are a number of board committees. And you need to go on one or more.”

151

The willing accounts are comparatively straight forward. It is noteworthy that except for interviewee 06 who said that he would not serve on the audit committee again due to his

retirement, all of the other twenty interviewees said that they would accept nomination to serve on the audit committee again. It is almost a tie between actively and passively accepting the nomination.

6.3.4 Summary

The second round of coding and the reflective analysis investigated the intentive processes whereby audit committee members justify the effectiveness of audit committees. Based on a framework adapted from Embree’s (2007) reflective analysis, the research findings suggest that firstly, audit committee members refer to an authoritative doctrine or a set of well accepted principles or benchmarking with other organisations to justify what they believe an effective audit committee should have and should do. However, such beliefs were commonly supported by indirect experience rather than by personal encounters. Secondly, various values were placed by the interviewees on their personal encounters, ranging from strong opposition to satisfaction. These valuations were commonly supported by vivid and detailed descriptions of direct experiences, including anecdotes. Thirdly, although all except one interviewee will agree to serve on the audit committee again, their attitudes of such acceptance were equally divided between passive and active. A question can be asked: why is there such a diverse range of perceptions and justifications? The third round of coding, based on the researcher’s reflection is discussed in section 6.4, which attempts to address these problems.

6.4 The third round of coding - the researcher’s reflection

The first round of coding and data analysis documented the interviewees’ responses to the interview questions, i.e. it revealed ‘what they said’. The second round of coding and data analysis discussed the interviewees’ intentive justification of their responses, i.e. it explained ‘why they said what they said’. The third round of coding and data analysis focuses on the researcher’s reflection on the differences between interviewees, i.e. it discusses the intentionality of the interviewees from an outsider’s perspective.

The interviewees revealed that they performed their audit committee duties through two intentional orientations, which are summarised in Table 6-18; some interviewees performed their role according to their assessment of what good directorship comprises, classified as

152

expectations of audit committees, classified as ‘professional audit committee members’. In some cases, the two orientations were not mutually-exclusive, but overlapped.

Table 6-18 illustrates these two intentional orientations.

Table 6-18: The intentional orientations of the interviewees

Interviewee AC chairperson Chartered accountant Multi AC membership Long tenure with the company Orientation

1 No No No Yes Conventional director

2 Yes

Yes (not

practising) No Yes Conventional director

3 Yes Yes Yes (3) No Professional AC member

4 Yes Yes Yes (6) No Professional AC member

5 Yes

Yes (not

practising) Yes (3) No Professional AC member

6 Yes Yes No Yes Conventional director

7 No No No Yes Conventional director

8 Yes Yes Yes No Professional AC member

9 Yes Yes Yes (4 or 5) No Professional AC member

10 No No No Not sure Conventional director

11 Yes No No Yes Conventional director

12 Yes Yes No No Professional AC member

13 No No No Yes Conventional director

14 Yes No Yes Yes Conventional director

15 Yes Yes Yes (3) Yes Professional AC member

16 Yes Yes Yes No Professional AC member

17 Yes Yes No Yes Professional AC member

18 No No No Yes Conventional director

19 No No Yes Yes Conventional director

20 Yes No No Yes Conventional director

21 Yes

Yes (not

practising) No Yes Conventional director