The purpose of this study is based on two analytical objectives. First, it aims to identify the areas in which hegemonic power dynamics are embedded within audit institutions in order to provide a paradigmatic theoretical framework. Second, it seeks to evaluate the results of the hegemonic power within the structure of audit institutions, with the goal of determining the most central factor that reduces the quality of auditors' working life. The methodology of this qualitative study is grounded in inductive philosophy. The qualitative phase employed grounded theory using the approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998), while the quantitative phase utilized interpretive ranking analysis. The findings from the qualitative phase, based on 13 interviews, resulted in the identification of 426 open codes, 46 themes, 14 components (axis), and 8 main categories through the grounded theory process. The results of the quantitative phase also indicated that the most central outcome arising from the spread of hegemonic authoritarianism in audit institutions is the emergence of work-family conflicts among auditors.
Introduction
Audit firms, like any organizational structure, are shaped by frameworks governed by the administrative approaches of audit partners to achieve formal, standardized, and specialized objectives. These frameworks result in the firm's strategic orientations within the audit market. Part of these strategic orientations pertains to operational areas, while another part relates to behavioral management methods. Depending on each partner’s cognitive and learning approach, these methods significantly influence auditors’ behavioral dynamics. Moreover, the type of managerial interaction, whether rooted in collaboration or authoritarianism, can lead either to synergies in audit quality or, conversely, to professional dissatisfaction and frustration among auditors.

2. Literature Review

In every area of ​​organizational communication, power is considered a determining factor in the interactions and responses of individuals within a structure. In this context, paying attention to different levels of power structures, while considering organizational complexities, seems necessary, as the process of power within organizations can have varying consequences in advancing organizational goals and strategies, depending on how it is formed. Each perspective defines the functions of power differently. For example, from a behavioral perspective, power is shaped through interactions with others based on initial trust. Depending on the ambition of the individual in power, this trust can be either strengthened or undermined.

Methodology

Given the three distinct mechanisms in the methodology of humanities research, namely purpose, result, and data type, this study should be considered exploratory in terms of purpose. This is because the emerging aspects of the central phenomenon of the study, namely the dominant hegemonic power orientation in auditing institutions, can be explained through interviews that provide a theoretical framework within the auditing profession. In terms of results, this study is developmental, as it aims to expand the understanding and capacity of this phenomenon within auditing knowledge through a set of analytical processes that lead to deeper insights into the nature of the subject. Regarding data type, this study falls into the category of mixed-method research. It addresses the research questions in the qualitative phase using grounded theory and the Delphi method, and in the quantitative phase through sequential matrix processes. The philosophical foundation of the study supports the integration of both inductive and deductive approaches. In the inductive process, the study first seeks to design a theoretical framework for the central phenomenon through grounded theory analysis using three stages of coding to develop a paradigmatic model. Then, following a deductive approach and based on the richness of the qualitative data, this study aims to examine the most central negative consequence of the emergence of hegemonic powerism in audit institutions by evaluating paired comparisons in row "i" and column "j".

Result

This study, which was conducted in two phases, qualitative and quantitative, used a combined analytical implementation approach. It aimed to present a paradigmatic framework for the spread of dominant hegemonic power in auditing institutions through grounded theory following the approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998) and to evaluate the outcomes of the framework developed in the qualitative phase using an interpretive ranking matrix within the context of the auditing profession. The results of the study showed that the most central outcome resulting from the spread of dominant hegemonic power in auditing institutions is the emergence of work-family conflict among auditors (M4).

Discussion

In analyzing the results, it must be acknowledged that the spread of hegemonic power within auditing institutions contributes to professional conflict, leading auditors to experience disorders that arise from the tension between work and personal life. Over time, this issue can not only lead to professional frustrations but also negatively affect auditors’ other social roles, as spouses, children, and parents, ultimately challenging the quality of their professional lives. Given that the most significant outcome identified in this study is the emergence of work-family conflict among auditors, it is important to highlight the overlap of roles in professional careers. This overlap disrupts the mental and cognitive clarity required for effective auditing and results in the erosion of professional and technical capabilities. As a result, the desired balance promoted by the code of professional conduct, aimed at reducing audit risk, may no longer be maintained. With the loss of personal self-confidence, auditors may experience a decline in professional effectiveness in audit reporting functions. Moreover, the psychological burden imposed on auditors will likely extend to their family life as well.

Conclusion

Given the significance of this study, it is recommended that policymakers in the auditing field, beyond focusing solely on auditing standards, also strengthen or revise codes of professional conduct to regulate the management and leadership styles of audit partners. Doing so could enhance the effectiveness of mechanisms for implementing the audit profession and contribute ​​to the creation of more reliable social value for the profession. Additionally, it is suggested that a guild or association be established to protect the rights of auditors. Such a body could play a critical role in reducing the authoritarian behavior of dominant audit partners and mitigating instances of gender discrimination within audit firms.