To examine how Big Four auditors react to public scrutiny, we explore their evidence at a public inquiry on the Irish banking crisis. We use impression management theory to make sense of this evidence. By extending Goffman to a contemporary auditing context, we mobilize less-researched aspects of his dramaturgical framework. Drawing upon the prior literature, we develop a typology for examining how Big Four auditors impression-manage on a ‘frontstage’. Using meaning-oriented content analysis, we apply our typology to Big Four auditors’ public-inquiry evidence. Our findings indicate that Big Four auditors convey the following four impressions: (1) their hands are clean (i.e., they are not to blame for audit failure); (2) their hands were tied (i.e., they were powerless to prevent audit failure); (3) their work was good; and (4) their intentions are good. We conclude the paper by linking these four impressions to the professional beancounter character, and by considering whether the Big Four’s impression management succeeded in influencing their audience. Identifying impression management by Big Four auditors provides insights into their beliefs, ambitions and concerns, and on how they regard clients, regulators and the general public.

为了考察四大审计师对公众审查的反应，我们在对爱尔兰银行业危机的公开询问中探索了他们的证据。我们使用印象管理理论来理解这一证据。通过将Goffman扩展到当代审计环境，我们动员了他的戏剧框架中研究较少的方面。借鉴现有文献，我们开发出一种类型学，用于研究四大审计师如何在“前台”进行印象管理。使用面向含义的内容分析，我们将类型学应用于四大审计师的公开查询证据。我们的发现表明，四大审计师传达了以下四个印象：（1）他们的双手是干净的（即，不应为审计失败负责）；（2）他们的双手被绑住了（即，他们无能为力以防止审计失败）；（三）工作良好；（4）他们的意图是好的。通过将这四个印象与专业的柜台角色联系起来，并考虑四大唱片公司的印象管理是否成功地影响了他们的受众，我们得出了本文的结论。通过确定四大审计师的印象管理，可以洞悉他们的信念，抱负和关注点，以及他们如何看待客户，监管者和公众。