Who do you think you are?
Making sense of partner identity
A.L. Ahlers June 20th 2017
Abstract: The critical reports of the AFM concerning the accounting profession has led to a pressure for Dutch Big Four accounting firms to focus on quality. This research focusses on the partner self-identity, because the AFM reports and the inherent recommendations of the WTA provide changes in social context and thereby creating an opportunity to investigate the identity of partners. Through nine semi-structured interviews with partners from different Dutch Big Four accounting firms, the partners’ self-identity has been studied. Sense-making theory, social identity theory and self-categorization theory were used to determine the partner identity. Based on the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory, the partner-group can be seen as a social partner-group. By using a thematic analysis and a coding plan, the partners’ self-identity can be determined. The results show that commerciality is important for the survival of the firm, but without focusing on quality, an individual cannot become a partner in a Dutch Big Four accounting firm. So, the AFM reports and the inherent recommendations of the WTA have an influence on the partners’ self-identity. Therefore this research concludes that both commercial and quality are important components of the partners' self-identity.
Keywords: Partner identity, identity, Social identity theory, Sense-making theory, Self-categorization theory, Dutch Big Four accounting firms
Who do you think you are?
Making sense of partner identity
A.L. Ahlers June 20th 2017
Master Thesis Accountancy (EBM869B20) Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,
Faculty Economics & Business Economics
Anouk Ahlers (S2800098) Aweg 11A-11
9718CT Groningen a.l.ahlers@student.rug.nl 06 28 244 240
Sakshi Girdhar (Supervisor) Dennis Veltrop (Co-assessor)
Table of content
1. Introduction ... 6
2. Making sense of the partner identity ... 10
3. Research methods ... 14
4. Results ... 17
4.1 Individual stereotyping ... 17
4.2 In-group homogeneity ... 24
4.3 Distinctiveness partner-group ... 25
5. Discussion and conclusion ... 27
Literature ... 30
6
1. Introduction
The market in which accounting services are offered, has significantly changed over the last 30 years (Carter & Spence, 2014). The traditional audit services were the core business of the accounting firms, but accounting firms expanded, their market of traditional audit services became saturated and therefore accounting firms needed to focus on non-audit services to generate revenues (Suddaby, Cooper & Greenwood, 2007). “These shifts are characterized by globalization and an increasing salience of commercial logics that emphasized pursuit of profit” (Carter & Spence, 2014, p. 949). The role of the accountant is to act on behalf of society, but through the commercial cross-sell of non-audit services next to the audit services, a conflict of interest arises due to the ‘age-old’ question concerning independence (Sikka, 2009). A ‘client is king’ ethos emerged and causes tensions with professionalism in its purest form, which underscores technical competence and professional ethics (Anderson-Gough, Grey & Robson, 2000). Also the identity of partners in Big Four accounting firms has changed, namely from “disciplined professionals” to “entrepreneurially minded agents” because of the focus on commerce (Gendron & Spira, 2010; Kornberger, Justesen, & Mouritsen, 2011). Partners have an “entrepreneurial mindset”, because “commercialism was a significant part of the organizational environment in which individual identities evolved” (Gendron & Spira 2010, p. 285) and especially partners have to act entrepreneurially to pursuit new business opportunities (Kornberger et al., 2011). Because of this phenomenon, the commercial aspect became so important that partners were promoted purely based on this aspect (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006).
Over the last years there has been a change in the accounting sector, namely a decrease of trust in particularly Big Four accounting firms through scandals like Imtech and Vestia (Business Insider Nederland, 2014). In the Netherlands, the AFM reports published in 2010 and 2014 influenced the trust of the public in the accounting sector and these events were the trigger for the report ‘in the public interest’, which is written by ‘workgroup future accounting-profession’ (Werkgroep Toekomst Accountantsberoep (WTA), 2014). In their report the WTA state; “the trust of the public has been harmed over the past years and the accounting firms need to take measures to make clear where the accountant stands for and what the public may expect from him or her” (WTA, 2014). This workgroups’ report contain 53 measures on 7 different areas which ensure legitimate trust in the quality and independence of accountants. The WTA (2014) underlines that the quality for both the services they provide as the professional quality of the accountants are important and recommend “the reward of partners based on roles,
7 responsibilities and quality (above commerce) and a promotion policy which is based on proven technical qualities” (WTA, 2014). The measures will be implemented under the supervision of the Monitoring Committee Accountancy (MCA) (Accountant.nl, 2016). But what does this mean for the partner identity? “Professional identity develops within a social context” (Hamilton, 2013, p. 40). The change in social context through the increase of commercialism (Gendron, Suddaby & Lam, 2006) , the AFM reports and the recommendations of the WTA (2014) to focus more on quality and technical skills, give an opening “to reflect on the formation and transformation” of the partners’ professional identity (Brouard, Bujaki, Durocher & Neilson 2017, p. 225). “There is a general agreement that public accountants develop a shared understanding of what it means to be a professional, and that this professional identity directly influences their behaviors and self-concepts” (Empson 2004, p. 759), but how the professional identity is shaped and changed preciously is not sufficiently explained (Pratt, Rockmann & Haufmann, 2006). In times of uncertainty – like the decrease of trust in the accountant – the impact of how the accountant acts is even larger, so therefore it is a significative area to investigate (Brouard et al., 2017). Also Albert, Ashforth & Dutton (2000, p. 14) state that “the dynamics of identity need to be better understood”.
“Partners were described as entrepreneurs who run their microbusiness within the larger firm” (Kornberger et al., 2011, p. 516). This is in accordance with the claim Gendron & Spira’s (2009, p. 296) make in their study, which states that partners in Big Four accounting firms can be seen as “managers that are in charge of individual profit centers”. Due to the relatively little research that has been done concerning the identity of the partner, there is not much known about the partner identity (Kornberger et al., 2011). There are two exceptions that are notable, namely the studies of Covaleski, Dirsmith, Heian, & Samuel (1998) and Carter & Spence (2014). Covaleski et al. (1998) study the key techniques that are used to shape the identity of partners. They identify the techniques management by objectives (MBO) and mentoring and state that these techniques ensure the transformation of employees into business entrepreneurs by making the individual an extension of the organization, which they also refer to as “transforming into corporate clones” (Covaleski et al., 1998, p. 323). So these techniques shape the partners’ self-identity into being an organizational entrepreneur.
Carter & Spence (2014) state that the study of Covaleski et al. (1998) not explicitly explain what makes a partner a successful entrepreneur or ‘corporate clone’. To be able to explain this they investigate what the distinction is between partners and non-partners based on origin, status in society, skills, competences, characteristics and behavior and if these attributes are teachable or not. They find that an individual needs to embody commercialism
8 when the individual is at the top level of the firm, but the focus on revenue tends to affect the ethics and independence and which came forward in the study of Gendron & Spira (2010), could lead to the collapse of the organization. They also find that in the past the types of partners were diverse (technical, commercial or both), but nowadays the partners embody the commercial logics more (Carter & Spence, 2014). Carter & Spence (2014, p. 978) even state that partners are “the embodiment of commercial logics par excellence”. Therefore a paradox arises, where there is homogenizations of partners, but at the same time the partners become more multifarious (Carter & Spence, 2014).
This research adds to the limited body of research on partner identity (Carter & Spence, 2014; Covasleski et al., 1998) by looking at the inclusion of how partners make sense of the collision between the traditional role as steward of the public interest and the increase of commercialism (Carter & Spence, 2014). The traditional role as steward of the public interest will be researched due to the influence of the AFM reports and the recommendations of the WTA (2014) on the partners’ self-identity in Dutch Big Four accounting firms. In line with the research of Carter & Spence (2014), the partner-identity will be researched by determining the skills, competences, characteristics, behavior of the partner, if these attributes are teachable or not and the distinction between partners and non-partners in relation to the before mentioned attributes. Another difference between the Carter & Spence (2014) research and this research is the perspective. This research looks at the partner-identity from the self-perspective, so the partners are reflecting on their self-identity instead of including non-partners who reflect on the partner identity. Therefore the aim of this research is to understand how Dutch Big Four partners make sense of their identity.
Next to the contribution based on the recommendations of the WTA (2014) and the AFM reports, it is also relevant to look at the Netherlands for another reason. The title an accountant have to earn to become ‘certified’ could be according to Kornberger et al. (2011) a central part of their career. During the partners’ career, they develop their professional identity. So there could be a link between the professional identity and the title to become a certified accountant. The development of their professional identity includes the “continuous improvement of technical expertise” (Kornberger et al. 2011, p. 515). So, during the career of partners there could be a focus on the technical aspect of the professional identity. Only in the Netherlands it is possible to participate in a ‘post-master’1. But what does this mean for the
professional identity and the ‘improvement of technical expertise’? Therefore it is interesting
9 to look at the partners in Dutch accounting firms, to see how the partners professional identity is shaped and if it differs from other studies (Covaleski et al., 1998; Carter & Spence, 2014).
How the self-identity is constructed is a very important characteristic of today’s society (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). Therefore this study will be interesting for society. Because of societies’ critical attitude towards Dutch Big Four accounting firms and the accounting profession, it will be interesting for them to see what the impact is on the partners’ self-identity. The criticism could affect the partners’ self-identity through the organizational identity and the professional identity. The identity of the organization is related to the partners’ self-identity, because the individual identity evolves in the organizational environment (Gendron & Spira, 2010). It is known by public accountants “what it means to be a professional, and that this professional identity directly influences their behaviours and self-concepts” (Empson, 2004, p. 759). Important to mention is that an individual [partner] prefers a positive over a negative self-image, so there is a form of self-interest (Tajfel, 1982). Therefore a partner will try to change the attitude of the society towards their accounting firm and their accounting profession, so the partners’ self-image will become more positive. Dutch Big Four accounting firms wield a partner-associate form (Lee & Pennings, 2002) in which the partners are dealing with strategic decisions (Sherer, 1995), so this could be a manner how partners want to influence societies’ critical attitude. This is relevant for society to know, because based on this reasoning and the findings of this research, they can determine whether something has been done with their criticism towards the partner concerning quality above commerce and promotion based on technical skills.
Finally, this study will be interesting for accountants who have the ambition to be promoted to partner. By becoming familiar with the identity of partners, it is possible to make a comparison between the partner identity and the identity of the ambitioned accountant to find out if the identity is aligned and if so, on which areas development is needed.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section includes the sense-making theory, social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In section three are the research methods explained. Section four presents the results and is followed by section five, the conclusion, the discussion and the future research implications.
10
2. Making sense of the partner identity
There are different studies concerning the identity of the chartered accountant student (Hamilton, 2013), junior staff members (e.g. Anderson-Gough, Grey, & Robson, 2001; Coffey, 1994; Grey, 1998), professional accountants (e.g. Brouard et al., 2017) and the managers (e.g. Dirsmith & Covaleski, 1985; Kornberger et al., 2011), but according to Kornberger et al. (2011) there is relatively less known about the identity of partners in accounting (e.g. Covaleski, Dirsmith, Heian, & Samuel, 1998; Carter & Spence, 2013). The identity (of the partner) is important, because it has a large connection with sensemaking (Weick, 1995). “Viewed as a significant process of organizing, sensemaking unfolds as a sequence in which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make plausible sense retrospectively, while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances” (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld 2005, p. 409). There are different parts in social science concerning the construction of identity (e.g. Giddens 1991; Roberts, 1991), but there are certain concepts of identity formation that are often discussed, like the self-concepts (Gendron & Spira, 2010).
The notion of self-identity is particularly used to study the development of the self, where the self-identity can be defined as; the continuously reflection on the self, to understand the self and the presumption of an explicit narrative of their life – like a bibliography – by the person (Giddens, 1991). In his study, Giddens (1991) reasons because of the varying experiences that happen in their daily life, individuals are on a continuous basis included by the shaping of their identity, to make sure that their identity and corresponding life narratives match. So, in this research it is assumed that the partners’ reasoning and reflection are part of the ‘shaping’ of the self-identity. Roberts (1991) researches how accountants make sense of their ‘self’ and its’ (re)production by looking at the accountability and its’ hierarchical form in accounting. Accountability relies on how external parties make sense of the accountability of the accountant, so this will immediately impact the self by addressing and confirming the self-image (Roberts, 1991). Self-identity is a comprehensive understanding which consists of different but also more or less overlapping layers of identification, like being a father or mother, a wife or a husband or an accountant (Gendron & Spira, 2010). Being a partner in a Dutch Big Four accounting firm is also one of those layers and is constituted by the professional identity of the partner (Gendron & Spira, 2010). In addition, as mentioned in the introduction, does the self-definition assume that an individual prefers a positive over a negative self-image, so there is a form of self-interest (Tajfel, 1982).
11 Henri Tjafel, a social psychologist, originated the social identity theory by studying the intergroup conflict (Brouard et al., 2017). According to traditional social-psychology, a group consists of individuals acting in a way that have effect upon one another within a corresponding place and time (Hogg & Abrams, 1998). But according to Tajfel, they do not take into account the social categories and how membership in those groups might affect social behavior (Hogg & Abrams, 1998). Also according to Tajfel is the social-psychology approach too individualistic because they focus on the individual within the group, instead of explaining that an identity or a social identity is connected with social categories (Hogg & Abrams, 1998). This ensures that the social identity of a person is part of the self-concept, because the social identity consists of characteristics which are associated with the social group(s) (Tajfel, 1981). Therefore, in this study I will look at the individual [partner] as part of a social group [‘partner-group’]. An individual has a personal and a social identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The personal identity which is also referred to as identity, is “people’s concepts of who they are, of what sort of people they are, and how they relate to others” (Hogg and Abrams 1988, p. 3), but identity also refers “to the ways in which individuals and collectivities are distinguished in their social relations with other individuals and collectivities” (Jenkins 1996, p. 4). So, identity makes it possible to compare the extent to which we are similar to people, but also compare the extent to which we differ (Gendron & Spira, 2010). A social identity is according to Tajfel (1978, p. 63) “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership”. The social identity of the group is created through all of the social identities within the social group taken together (Turner, 1982). This implies for this research that the individual partners would have different personal identities, that the partners could have slightly different social identities, but through the assumption that the individual partners are part of the a social group (from here forward mentioned as ‘partner-group’), they should show certain similarities in – among other things – characteristics that are attached to the social group.
“A group is defined as a cognitive entity that is meaningful to the individual at a particular point of time” (Tajfel 1982, p. 254). According to Tajfel (1982, p. 229) what a group is may consists of one to three components, namely “a cognitive component, in the sense of the knowledge that one belongs to a group; an evaluative component, in the sense that the notion of the group and/or of one’s memberships of it may have a positive or negative value connotation; and an emotional component, in the sense that the cognitive and evaluative aspects of the group and one’s memberships of it may be accompanied by emotions (such as love or
12 hatred, like or dislike), directed towards one’s own group and towards other groups which stand in certain relations to it”. The first component, the cognitive component, is in this study the recognition of being a partner in a Dutch Big Four accounting firm. The second and third component will be investigated in this research by using the in-group and out-group, which is also part of social identity theory.
People find it pleasant if they are similar to others when they are comparing themselves, because the recognition of the similarity provides a stronger self-image (Tajfel, 1982). So the definition of in-group that will be used in this study is ‘similar others’ (Gómez, Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000). People “tend to discriminate in favour of in-group and against out-group members” (Turner, Sachdev & Hogg, 1983, p. 228), which is partly aligned with the previous mentioned definition of the emotional component of what a group is according to Tajfel (1982). People also feel more ‘mutual cohesion’ for the in-group members, which is reflected in ‘more positive attitudes’ (Turner et al., 1983). So this implies for this research that the partners will have a positive feeling towards the partner-group and a ‘less-positive’ feeling towards the non-partner-group. It is assumed in this research that the partners do not necessary have a negative of less-positive feeling towards the non-partner-group, but that the partners are – based on this theory – able to make a clear distinction between the partner-group and the non-partner-group. Thus, this research does not explicitly look at the evaluative and emotional component of the group definition, the components are used to establish the distinctions between the groups.
The self-categorization theory of John Turner – which is based on Tajfel’s notion of categorization – focuses on the social groups and how an individual identifies with this social group (Turner, 1982). Social categorization divides the social world into in-groups and out-groups, which can be seen as prototypes (Hogg, 2001). Social categorization of the self, self-categorization, depersonalizes the perception of the self and transforms how an individual thinks, feels and acts into the in-group prototype (Hogg, 2001). “Depersonalization is the basic process underlying group phenomena; it perceptually differentiates groups and renders perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors stereotypical and group normative” (Hogg, 2001, p. 187). Leach et al. (2008) developed a conceptualization of in-group identification which consists of two groups, namely self-definition and self-investment. Because the focus of this research is the ‘self-definition’ of the partner-group, only this relevant group is included. The self-definition of the group consists of the individual stereotyping component, which is aligned with the social categorization theory, and the in-group homogeneity component (Leach et al., 2008). Self-definition is focused on the perception of “being similar to an in-group prototype (individual stereotyping)” (Leach et al., 2008, p. 148) and “their in-group as sharing
13 commonalities (in-group homogeneity)” (Leach et al., 2008, p. 148). Being part of a group is not the same as being able to identify with the group (Tajfel, 1978), therefore the individual stereotyping component will be used to determine the partner-stereotype from the partners’ perspective, so the partners’ self-identity. The in-group homogeneity component will be used to establish the commonalities based on the individual stereotyping and will define part of the partner-group identity. Finally, the self-identity of the partner-group can be compared with the non-partner-group.
14
3. Research methods
A qualitative approach was chosen, because of the exploratory nature of the research question (Spence et al., 2015). Like mentioned in the introduction, there is relatively less literature available concerning the partner identity in Dutch Big Four accounting firms. Where qualitative research “can be used to provide great insight into the framing of practice in context” (Radcliffe, 2010), is quantitative research rarely successful when it concerns representing the real world with its nuances and complexities (Radcliff, 2010; Carter & Spence, 2014). So the qualitative approach in this study will conduct more ‘real life’ and therefore more relevant information concerning the partner identity. According to Haynes (2006a, 2006b), qualitative research also enables the interviewee to tell personal narratives, which makes it possible to describe emotion, memory and identity in a way that distinguishes itself from more ‘formal’ research.
The participants were all contacted through e-mail by the researcher to participate on a voluntary basis. One preliminary interview was conducted at the beginning of this study to gain some basic information, to become familiar with the theme partner identity and to have some ground on how to theorize this theme. The preliminary interview was complemented by 9 semi-structured interviews with partners from two different Dutch Big Four accounting firms. It is relevant to focus on the Dutch Big Four accounting firms and therewith exclude non-Big Four accounting firms, because the Dutch Big Four accounting firms execute approximately 90 percent of the statutory audits of PIEs, half of the statutory audits of non-PIEs and are therefore responsible for 76 percent of the total sales on statutory audits in the Netherlands (AFM report, 2014). Only partners who work at the audit department were interviewed for this research, because this research concerns the audit partners’ self-identity. So, as mentioned previously, this research looks at the partner-identity form the self-perspective, so only the partners are included in the semi-structured interviews.
The interviewees (from here forward referred to as partners) were given the opportunity to share their ‘own interpretive schemes’ (Gendron & Spira, 2010), because of the semi-structured character of the interview method (Smith, 2014). Due to the use of semi-semi-structured interviews, the discussed themes can serve as a heuristic to research the partners (Carter & Spence, 2014; Lillis, 1999). The main themes that are researched are: the educational background; an overview of their career path leading to partnership; functions besides the partner-function; tasks and responsibilities of partners; required competences/skills/characteristics of the partners; development of competences/skills; the
15 change of requirements of partners due to the AFM reports and WTA (2014) recommendations; and the distinction between partners and non-partners. The distinction between partners and non-partners has been determined by comparing partners with other senior-functions like directors and senior managers, but also with ‘junior-functions’ like staff. Employees are shaped to potentially become a partner earlier than senior management and director level (Kornberger et al., 2011), so therefore it is interesting to also make a comparison with the junior-functions.
The various main themes have emerged in the interviews through the use of a semi-structured interview schedule. Based on this schedule it was possible to check if all the themes emerged before the ending of the interview. The semi-structured interview schedule was also necessary through the joint data collection with other thesis-students. In addition, it is possible to deviate from the semi-structured interview schedule. So it is possible to ask the partner additional questions concerning their experiences and interpretive schemes related the main theme. The additional questions are relevant and required for this research to determine the narratives which are inherent to the main themes.
The interviews were conducted in April 2016 and lasted between the 25 minutes and 1 hour. An agenda was sent beforehand, so the partner was aware of the various themes which would be discussed in the interview. Each interview started with a short introduction concerning the objectives of this research. The partners’ permission was asked in advance to record the interview. The partners were also assured that everything mentioned in the interviews will remain confidential. The confidentiality is secured through anonymizing all interviews. Also, in this research all the partners are considered to be male and therefore referred to as his, because of the small amount of woman with a partner-function.
All individuals have been assigned a unique number in their function-group. The partners could withdraw at any time. Also, the partners were told that the transcripts would be sent after the interview, so it was possible for the partner to verify the accuracy of the transcripts (Horton et al., 2004) and make any adjustments or additions. According to Lillis (2006), this method ensures the internal validity to some extent and could avoid biased conclusions.
In this research is chosen to apply thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which is aligned with the objectives of the research and therefore considered appropriate (Horton et al., 2004). “Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82). This choice is aligned with the research of Gendron & Spira (2010), which also uses a form of thematic analysis to analyze the narratives forthcoming from their semi-structured interviews. The analysis of the transcripts is based on the sensemaking theory, the social identity theory and the self-categorization
16 theory to divide the data from the interviews over the previously mentioned themes and to determine which themes were combined to answer the three main questions concerning the data. The coding plan can be found in appendix A. All transcripts were observed multiple times to identify the themes. The themes are based on relevant literature (e.g. Carter & Spence, 2014). The relevant themes were divided into groups and the interrelationships were identified through recurring patterns based on the theory which is inherent to the research question (Scapens, 2004).
First, the individual stereotyping component was analyzed. The inherent findings are a part of the partners’ self-identity. Next, the AFM reports and WTA (2014) recommendations are analyzed from the interview data to determine to which extent the reports and recommendations had an effect on the partners’ self-identity. Based on the findings of those two analysis, the in-group homogeneity is determined, i.e. part of the identity of the partner-group. Finally, the differences between the partner-group and the non-partner-group were determined at the third step. Based on the differences between the partner-group and non-partner-group and the individual stereotyping and the in-group homogeneity, the partners’ self-identity can be determined. Only the parts relevant for this study are included in the results, which are presented in the following chapter.
17
4. Results
In this chapter, a subdivision has been made in accordance with sense-making theory, social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In the first paragraph the individual stereotyping component will be used to determine part of the partners’ self-identity. Also the AFM reports and WTA (2014) recommendations are taken into account to determine the partners’ self-identity and to which extent these events influence the self-identity. In the second paragraph the in-group homogeneity component will be used to define the partner-in-group. Finally, the self-identity of the partner-group can be compared with the non-partner-group to determine the distinctiveness between these groups.
4.1 Individual stereotyping
In line with the research of Carter & Spence (2014), the partner-identity was researched by determining the skills, competences, characteristics, behavior of the partner and if these attributes are teachable or not.
The interviews started with the partners introducing themselves, telling about their (educational) background and their career path to the functions where they now are, the partner-function. All the partners are in the possession of the RA title, so they all achieved their post-master. This was also referred to as the ‘formal aspect’ or the ‘theoretical baggage’. Also, the Permanent Education (PE), earning a certain amount of ‘PE-points’ per year, is part of the ‘formal aspect’. Next to the formal aspect, there is also the ‘informal’ aspect. The partners were asked where they learn how to become a partner. According to all partners, an individual does not learn how to become a partner at school. At school an individual learns how to audit. So they are able to perform audits (under supervision) when they are graduated, but how to become a partner is something an individual learns in practice. The following excerpt shows how a partner makes sense of how to learn to become a partner.
“Yesterday, someone said 90% of what you learn is almost "on the job". So that's my managers, my managers, partners of what I used to work for a lot, that's how you learn a lot. But of course, you have a lot of training, courses and permanent education where you learn things. In the professional field, but also in management or writing a letter, just call it all. So it's a combination of "learning on the job" and learning on training and courses.” – Audit Partner 7
So, from this excerpt it becomes clear that an individual learns from the people they work with and also learns from their training, courses and permanent education. When looking at the
18 ‘people you work with’-aspect, this is aligned with the self-categorization. When an individual has the ambition to become a partner, an individual wants to be part of the partner-group. The individual may see the partners as the in-group they want to be part of and want to become the prototype of that social group (Turner, 1982). One of the partners was very outspoken concerning this aspect, which is shown in this excerpt;
“If you are employed, you should always make sure that you get to the A clients, to get an idea of which office serves which clients, what are the top clients and what should be done in the team. Then you have to make sure that you are working for top partners and top directors. There you will learn the skills that you do not learn at school. […] an example; "If you have two students starting today at this office, both of them have the same IQ, the same educational background and yet one of them is after 10 years far beyond the other one." This depends on your personal alertness, are you busy with the right things, do you ask yourself every month; I have now served clients A and B, is it smart? And I'm working for this manager, should I have to do this differently? If you are busy with your career and you think broader than the audit function, when you try to understand the office when you are employed for a few years and that curiosity in combination with healthy sense making, then you can come a long way.”
- Audit Partner 2
So Audit Partner 2 is convinced that if an individual wants to become a partner, they have to be proactive and work with the best supervisors and clients, because that is how an individual learns to become a partner. This way of sense-making is aligned with the career path narrative of Audit Partner 2, because from the beginning of his career it was clear that he wanted to become partner and he always acted like this. So his way of reasoning and reflecting shaped his social identity (Giddens, 1991). He acted this way until he found out that the partner promotion had to do with other aspects, as the following excerpt shows:
“I knew from the beginning that I wanted to become a partner. When I had my job interview at the Big Four office I have indicated that I would like to become a partner, so they had to laugh a bit, because it was not so common for someone to say that immediately. But well, I've always done that, I have never hidden that fact. I always thought, if you work very hard, you do the most clients, you do the most complex clients, you work the hardest, you write the most hours, then you will become partner, I always thought so. Knowing that, I've always acted like this, always big clients, complex clients, worked hard and then I found out when I was about 30, it all had nothing to do with hard work.” – Audit Partner 2
19 So, the career path to partner-function is not just based on hard work and big clients. What it does concern, will be addressed later in this section.
In addition to the educational background of the partners and their career path, it is also important to determine what the tasks and responsibilities of the partner are. Five out of nine partners explicitly mention that one of the most important tasks and responsibilities of a partner is to make sure that the quality of the dossier is high and they directly link this to the AFM reports. Later in this section we will explicitly look at the influence of the AFM reports. The other four partners also mention quality, but then related to the portfolio of the accounting firm. The portfolio concerns the clients, but also the technical expertise of the employees of this accounting firm. All the partners are aware of their responsibility towards their employees concerning work environment, promotion opportunities and recruiting. The clients are also important, because without the clients and their inherent revenues it is not possible to exist as an accounting firm. So, the most important tasks and responsibilities can be summarized in the following excerpt;
“Look, when it comes to tasks, the most important task is to ensure that the audits are well done. So that the content is good. And quality requirements, your main task is also to ensure that clients are satisfied and ensure that they stay. In addition, you are, an important task is that the audit is also efficient, so we should earn some money. That are, very narrow formulated, the tasks of a partner. In the width, you still have a lot of other tasks, for example 150 people work here, you also need to make sure that they stay happy. Certainly the personnel policy belongs to it, you have to make sure that, by all means, housing, mention it. And what is very important is to ensure that clients come in, that is, acquisition. Yes. What I say is very narrow formulated, make sure that the quality is good, that the clients is happy and that some money comes in. Those three things”. – Audit Partner 8
The fact that all the partners who are interviewed think the same tasks and responsibilities are important, should not be striking. Due to the fact that they are all part of the partner-group, they are all expected to be depersonalized into the in-group prototype (Hogg, 2001). Besides, there is a certain group normative, it is known by the partners what their responsibilities are based on their ‘function-profile’.
Based on how the partners make sense of the tasks and responsibilities, it can be determined which skills, competences and characters are required to become a partner and to which extent these attributes are teachable. All partners mention that the technical skills are
20 important, but that at a certain point less emphasis is placed on this competence because it is assumed that this competence is ‘saturated’:
“You are moving on to adulthood in your profession. You gain more experience, so heavier responsibilities in a technical sense, but also in a relational sense. You get difficult clients, which is a gradual development that you make through. In the development there is an accent shift or important shift from technical to relational and soft skills.” – Audit Partner 9
Looking at the career path to become a partner, other skills and competences are starting to matter. There is a shift from the technical skills towards the social, communicative and relational skills. This is in accordance with the claim that Audit Partner 2 made, namely that it is not all about hard work.
“That actually, it was a lot more on the soft side. Also not the best accountants become a partner, not even the smartest become a partner, but it is in very little softer things.” – Audit Partner 2
The shift toward the more ‘social skills’ is aligned with the previously mentioned tasks and responsibilities of the partner, namely paying more attention to the relationship with the client and the employees of the accounting firm. From the junior management function upward, the employees become more important and from the senior functions upward, the relationship with the clients becomes more important in relation to building a portfolio. Because the in-group prototype, so the ‘typical partner’, controls the social, communicative and relational skills, the ‘future-partners’ self-identity depersonalizes the perception of the self and thereby shapes the social identity of the ‘future-partner’ (Hogg, 2001). Like mentioned previously, a partner is also responsible for the employees, so good relational and communicative skills are required, but these skills are also needed to create revenues through the binding of clients according to the following excerpt:
“In general, if you become a partner, you must of course also develop those commercial skills. So what I just said, you must be an entrepreneur, otherwise no clients will enter. So, your technical expertise can be great, but when you just sit down at your office and think: I'm technically fabulous, but where is that client? And what you see is that in your career you are constantly being trained on quality. So when you're a partner you can expect that the selection process has been such that you're just fine with qualitative features. Only then you have to develop that commercial aspect in the recent years. That's why there's more emphasis on it, if you look at it relatively.”
21 Six out of nine partners mentioned being an ‘entrepreneur’ as one of the, or the most important ‘identities’ of a partner. So, according to the interviewed partners, there is a shift from technical skills to the ‘social skills’ and commercial skills in the path to the partner-function.
Next, the partners were asked if there are other functions where these kind of skills can be developed, so if there are other functions that help to become a partner in a Dutch Big Four accounting firm next to the function within the accounting firm. The opinions are divided on this subject. Five partners think a network, like the Rotary, adds value for a ‘future’-partner and four partners think joining a network is more related to the formation of the self. One of the partners state that the big clients will not be brought in based on a social network like the Rotary, while another partner is convinced when she is known in his social network as the partner working at [name office], future-clients will reach out to her. The way the partners make sense of the importance of a social network is inherent with their experience with social networks, because this is related to their narratives concerning the career path to their partner-function and their identity (Giddens, 1991). The following excerpt shows how Audit Partner 5 makes sense of his experience with social networks:
“Actually, you talk about social skills. What we say is; make sure you have finished your studies and that you're going to mix in social networks. Join a junior room, join the round table. Becoming a member of a business circle, become a member of your church, become a member of your tennis association and takes responsibility. The moment you do, a network is created by itself. Did I generate revenues from it now? That's the question. That's also not relevant because you learn how to network there. There you learn to deal with entrepreneurs, learning how to deal with like-minded people, and learn how to behave as you behave in their area.” – Audit Partner 5
One of the partners also mentioned that a function at the University can help the development of the self, but this is less related to the social network and more related to the next theme, namely the AFM reports and the WTA (2014) recommendations. The following excerpt shows how Audit Partner 8 make sense of functions outside an accounting firm:
“Yes, that helps [about function at the university]. But sometimes not. It also depends completely off in which sector you want to be a partner. See you have something nowadays and that's an important other requirement, that I just forgot to become a partner. You have the quality curriculum. That every manager has to go through, which means that you have to make 1400 quality hours in your manager-years. And a funtion at the university helps, because then you only have eight hours a week, which you can list as quality hours. Otherwise you can, follow courses, give courses, or go to technical
22 field work. If people call because they need technical expertise, then they may come to you. So in that way you need to get that 1400 hours. That is an important external requirement to become a partner.” – Audit Partner 8
Next, the partner mentioned that the quality hours are one of the 53 measures that have to be implemented according to the AFM and the WTA (2014). The influence of the AFM report and the WTA (2014) on the partners’ self-identity can be seen through the lens of accountability. The partners’ self-identity is according to Roberts (1991) directly impacted by how external parties make sense of the accountants’ accountability, which is in this case the critique concerning the (technical) quality (WTA, 2014). How Audit Partner 5 makes sense of this accountability is explained in the following excerpt:
“When you look at why the profession has ever occurred. That's because there was unethical behavior in companies. Therefore people wanted a certain control. We originated from the bad of humankind. We have become commercial organizations and we have got competitors. We had to, and in the long run, it has got out of hand through a pricing-war and the dossiers became less [qualitatively]. This had led to scandals. Now, therefore, we have a supervisor [AFM] who keeps track of us (who should actually monitor us). Also tax specialists and consultants joined the accounting firm. This ‘xenogamy’ was found to be useful. Now that's different. Now you have to take into account the independence. Audit versus non-audit at PIEs, because this can affect independence. First, do not advertise or do cold-calling. This arose from the intrinsic function, as a confidential person in accountancy. But because we have become more commercial, it has faded. So all accounting firms have disappeared from these fields. It is also forbidden to give a result-dependent reward to people. So, associate certain goals with salary. That commerciality cannot take place. But accounting firms also have consultancy and tax specialists. We have become more commercial, but in recent years the emphasis has mainly been on technical expertise. Actually, since this year, attention has been paid to commercialization again.” – Audit Partner 5
In this excerpt clearly emerges the influence of the AFM as the supervisor of the accounting profession, the increased attention for the technical expertise and the decreased attention for the commerciality. All the partners state that due to the criticism which arose from the AFM reports, the quality of their dossiers became more important. But not all the partners think the focus on quality means a decrease of commerciality. Partner 9 has a different view – compared with the other partners – on the tension between professionalism and commercialism, which is explained in the following excerpt:
23 “After the discussions around the AFM, the focus on quality has just become more and more important. Ultimately, this is also commercial again, because if you cannot guarantee the quality, it will ultimately cost you money. Because socially speaking, if you cannot guarantee quality, you do not have any right of existence anymore as a professional group. We sell certainty, what if this proves to be worthless? If you want to maintain [the accounting firm], then this should be good. If you want to stand up, then this should be good. Then the returns will also be okay. You must seek clients who respect this and who wants to pay for it. Not everyone wants this. That's okay, but then they may no longer fit in the portfolio, that's a move all Big Four accounting firms make. If you have arranged that well, then you can earn good money with it.”
- Audit Partner 9
All the partners were also asked to make sense of the influence of the AFM and the WTA (2014) on their (daily) work life, so how they have experienced this influence. How Audit Partner 6 makes sense of his (daily) work life and the influence of the AFM and the WTA (2014) is explained in the following excerpt:
“I think it has had a lot of impact on the content of [name accounting firm] and the work as a whole. The culture has changed during that period, really changed enormously. The degree of documentation has changed completely. I think you're also, generically speaking, as a partner much more involved in the dossiers then before. So I think there has been a huge change throughout the practice. And there have also been a lot of partners who had to leave. I was last talking with [name of colleague] about, the CEO of [name organization], that there are actually only partners who have that quality mindset. They are really busy with their dossier. But in the past there were really many partners who were there for the contact with the clients. But that was the file yet ... I've never really worked like that, but you really see a change.” – Audit Partner 6
So the narrative of Audit Partner 6 explains that due to the shift towards quality, there is more focus on the technical expertise, the quality of the dossiers. Through the criticism from the AFM reports and the recommendations of WTA (2014), the partners' self-identity was impacted (Roberts, 1991) concerning the behavior and responsibility of the partner. The excerpt of Audit Partner 6 implies that before the AFM reports, the partner was less involved in the documentation of the dossier and more focused on the client and the contact with the client. So the group normative of the partner-group changed and the perception of the partners’ self depersonalizes (Hogg, 2001). The group normative shifted towards more technical expertise and qualitative better dossiers and this has been endorsed by all partners. The
self-24 definition assumes that an individual prefers a positive over a negative self-image, so there is a form of self-interest (Tajfel, 1982). Therefore, it could also be in the interest of the partner to comply with the recommendations of the WTA (2014) based on the AFM reports, so their self-image will become more positive. Especially in an excerpt of Audit Partner 2 it becomes clear what the shift specifically means for the career path towards the partner-function.
“You never became a partner if your technical skills were not in order, which has always been a precondition. Only is said now; if you want to become a partner, you really need to excel in quality. It's not the way you say it is okay. To make it even very simple, you might say on a scale of 0-10, it was once so if you scored a 6 on quality, you could still be a partner, because they said a sixth is not insufficient. If you were commercially very good and you scored for quality a 6, then you became a good partner. Now, that is not the case. Now you really have to score excellent in terms of quality before you are eligible to be asked for a partner.” – Audit Partner 2
4.2 In-group homogeneity
The shared commonalities of the in-group determine the in-group homogeneity (Leach et al., 2008). As mentioned previously, in this research is the in-group is the partner-group. Based on the commonalities that came forward in the individual stereotyping paragraph, the homogeneity can be determined. All the commonalities are presented in table 1 and table 2.
Table 1: commonalities partner-group Skills/Competences/Characteristics Skill/Competence/
Characteristic
Namely: Teachable? AFM influence?
Consequence Skill & Competence Technical expertise Yes Yes More focus Skills/Competences/
Characteristics
Commerciality Yes Yes Less focus
Skill & Competence Relational Yes No -
Skill & Competence Social Yes No -
Skill & Competence Communication Yes No -
Being able to identify with the group, is not the same as being part of a group (Tajfel, 1978). Therefore only the commonalities were used to determine the in-group homogeneity (Leach et al., 2008). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, all partners indicate the shift from technical expertise towards relational, social and communication skills when an individual is promoted towards the senior-functions within a Dutch Big Four accounting firm. It is assumed at this
25 level of seniority that the technical skills are sufficiently developed, because without this development an individual would not be able to reach this level. Also, all partners indicate that the commercial skills develop at a certain level of seniority. Especially a partner has to be able to generate revenue because of their inherent responsibility to keep their portfolio at a certain value. The influence on the AFM reports and the WTA (2014) recommendations ensure a focus on quality, so technical expertise, but also relatively less focus on commerciality.
The social networks are excluded in determining the in-group homogeneity, because the opinions vary too much. Due to the different experiences of the partners with social networks the identities are differently shaped, so their reflection on the self and the inherent reasoning differ (Giddens, 1991).
Table 2: commonalities partner-group Responsibilities & Tasks
Responsibilities & Tasks AFM influence? Consequence Dossier of clients Yes The quality of the dossier
should meet higher standards. Also the partner is more
involved in the dossier. Clients/Portfolio Yes Higher quality standard for
clients.
Employees Yes More focus on technical
expertise of employees.
The main tasks and responsibilities concern the clients and the employees. The dossier connects the clients and employees. Due to the influence of the AFM reports and the WTA (2014) there is more focus on quality, which is reflected in the in all three areas in table 2.
4.3 Distinctiveness partner-group
In addition to the individual stereotyping and the in-group homogeneity, also the distinctiveness of the partner-group is studied by using the in- and out-groups (Turner et al., 1983). Due to asking the partners to explain the distinctions between partners and non-partners (senior managers and directors) in skills, competences, characteristics and responsibilities and tasks, it could be possible to find additional attributes inherent to the partner identity.
The mentioned distinctions varied. All partners agreed that the senior managers and directors could be the future partners, so based on the technical skills, there should not be much differences. It was also clear that director could be a final function, so it is not necessarily true that a director will be promoted to the partner-function. The distinctions are shown in table 3.
26 Table 3: distinctions in between partners and non-partners
Differences partners and non-partners Stated by
Partners make complex decisions faster Audit Partner 2, 3, 9
Partners have more charisma Audit Partner 1, 4
Partners have more self-confidence and persuasiveness Audit Partner 5, 6, 8
Partners are more commercial concerning clients Audit Partner 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Partners handle the more complex clients Audit Partner 8, 9
Partners determine the direction of their accounting firm Audit Partner 2, 3, 6, 8 Partners influence the work environment Audit Partner 3, 9
Partners have more developed soft skills Audit Partner 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9
What is noticeable is that according to most of the partners the commerciality and the soft skills are more developed. This is in accordance with the individual stereotyping and the in-group homogeneity. The distinctiveness in commerciality is aligned with the partners’ responsibility: “Eventually, the partner is the one who has to sell the brand of his office to the market. When you are partner, you are ultimately responsible for the commercial side of the company, so strategically the commercial policy of the office, how do we position ourselves in the market, what type of clients do we want to pursue and what type of service we want to deliver, that are real partner affairs.” – Audit Partner 2
This excerpt is also related to the direction of the firm, which is the responsibility of the partner. The soft skills are partly linked to commerciality, because the soft skills need to be well-developed to attract and retain clients. The complex clients and the inherent complex decisions has to do with a technical expertise. The following excerpt reflects the development of the technical expertise based on a career path narrative from Audit Partner 5:
“I have been partner for 14 years. Then you have made a lot of hours. So experience is just a very good thing. And you can compare it with your driving license, in the base you have the same skills, minimal skills as someone who has been driving for 20 years. Only if you've driven for some time, you'll see situations arise and signal things. I always say that I am an intuitive accountant. I feel in my gut if something is good or not good and that's because you've been through a lot of things. And then you take the COS or the RJ and then you see, it is right. And if you have just finished your training then you first get the COS and then later on you will encounter it in practice. So you need to develop that intuitive. But in the base you have the same skills.”
27
5. Discussion and conclusion
This research has sought to make sense of the partners’ identity from the self-perspective in Dutch Big Four accounting firms, to better understand the required attributes to become a partner. Also the influence of AFM reports, WTA (2014) recommendations and the increased commercialism (Gendron et al., 2006) are included in the sense-making. The partners’ self-identity has been explored by using the sense-making theory, the social self-identity theory, the self-categorization theory and Braun & Clarks’ (2006) thematic analysis, to set up a coding plan for the data of the semi-structured interviews with the partners. Based on this coding plan, the partners’ self-identity is explored in three steps.
The first step includes the individual stereotyping, which is used to determine how the partners reflect on their skills, competences, characteristics, behavior of the partner, if these attributes are teachable or not and the influence of the AFM reports and the WTA (2014) recommendations. I found that only the technical expertise can (largely) be learned at school, but the rest of the skills and competences develop while working in practice. The more senior the function in a Dutch Big Four accounting firm, the more the skills and competences shift from technical expertise to soft skills like relational and communicational skills. These soft skills are required to manage the employees and deal with clients. Next to the soft skills, also the commercial skills are required to retain and recruit new clients. Social networks can help a partner to recruit new clients, but it can also help develop the self. The influence of the AFM reports and the WTA (2014) recommendations have a huge impact on the partners’ self-identity. Due to this events, the focus is way more on quality then commerce. But this outcome was to be expected. The recommendations of the WTA (2014) will be implemented under the supervision of the MCA (Accountant.nl, 2016), so the focus on quality had to increase. In addition, the partners also revealed that many employees has left because of the focus on quality. As a result, only the employees who want to focus on quality remained.
Next, the in-group homogeneity was determined to show to which extent there are commonalities in the in-group. So, the findings from the individual stereotyping were compared to find the commonalities. The commonalities concern the soft skills, technical expertise and commerciality and the responsibilities and tasks concerning the dossier, the clients and the employees. Only the soft skills are not influences by the AFM reports and WTA (2014) recommendations. Due to the AFM reports and WTA (2014) recommendations, the partner is more focused on the technical expertise, i.e. quality, then before. Therefore it could be possible that the partners become or stay more technical competent then before, because
28 before the AFM reports the technical expertise had to be sacrificed for the shift towards the entrepreneurial mindset (Carter & Spence, 2014).
The third step concerns the distinctiveness between partner and non-partners based on the in- and out-groups. I found that the partner is responsible for the direction of the firm, so more the strategic view, and that commerciality is required for the accounting firm to remain existing. So, commerciality is part of the strategy. Also, the partner handles the more complex clients and makes more complex decisions, indicating that this technical expertise is also inherent to the experience in years of the partner.
These findings contribute to the limited body of research on partner identity (Carter & Spence, 2014; Covasleski et al., 1998). When including the accountants’ traditional role as steward of the public interest and the AFM reports and WTA (2014) recommendations, this research reveals that partners do not have to sacrifice their technical expertise to have an entrepreneurial mindset. Technical expertise can be a part of the commerciality, due to the fact that accounting firms ‘sell certainty’ and this is inherent with a high degree of technical expertise (paraphrased from an interview with a partner). So, the multifarious/homogenous paradox as mentioned in Carter & Spence (2014), is different. Partners’ are multifarious to a certain level. There are different tasks like HR or technical expertise that are assigned to a certain partner, but that doesn’t mean that the other partners do not possess these skills. All the partners have to control these skills/competences to a certain degree. There is also a certain homogenization of the partner-group, namely possessing soft skills, commercial skills and technical expertise. It is not possible to become a partner and only control the commercial skills or the technical expertise (paraphrased from an interview with a partner). The soft skills are required for both the client-relation as the employee-relation and without these skills, it is also not possible to become a partner in a Dutch Big Four accounting firm.
Next to the findings, there are also some limitations concerning this research. First of all, not all Dutch Big Four accounting firms are included in this research. Only two out of four Dutch Big Four accounting firms are included. Due to the consistence in the answers of the partners, there is made an assumption that the results can be generalized for all Dutch Big Four accounting firms. Secondly, there are limitations regarding the way the data is collected. By having multiple interviewers, it is possible that due to the intonation of the voice or the overall attitude of the interviewer, questions are differently interpreted. It also is possible that due to the translation process from Dutch to English errors or misinterpretations arose in the quotations. To allow as little bias as possible, the excerpts are translated as literally as possible, except for Dutch proverbs.
29 This research has sought to identify the partner-group by the self-identity of partners. But the findings are only based on the self-perspective of the partner. It will be interesting to additionally investigate the group, based on the social construction of the partner-identity. So, including the perception of other members of Dutch Big Four accounting firms, like e.g. the research of Carter & Spence (2014).
Only the self-definition component of the research of Leach et al. (2009) is included. It could be interesting to also include the self-investment component. Self-investment concerns “positive feelings about their in-group membership (satisfaction) as well as “a sense that they have a bond with the in-group”, a certain commitment (solidarity) (Leach et al., 2008, p. 148) and “the importance and salience of individuals’ in-group membership (centrality)” (Leach et al., 2008, p. 148), so is more focused on the mutually relationships and feelings within the group. Due to the AFM reports and the WTA (2014) recommendations, it could be interesting to see if this influences the feelings within the group and the mutually relationships. This future research could be qualitative like this research, but also quantitative like the research of Leach et al. (2008). It could be interesting to study the identity of the partner-group on a quantitative manner, like through a survey methodology. Several questionnaires concerning the skills, knowledge, competence and characteristics of the partner and the influence of the AFM reports on the partner could quantify this variables to make it easier to compare the results.
30
Literature
Accountant.nl (2016). Monitoring commissie accountancy nog veel werk aan de winkel. [Monitoring committee accountancy still a lot of work to do] Available at:
https://www.accountant.nl/nieuws/2016/11/monitoring-commissie-accountancy-nog-veel-werk-aan-de-winkel/ (Accessed at April 28th, 2017)
Accountantworden (2017).Opleiding tot Register Accountant (RA).
https://www.accountantworden.nl/opleidingen/universiteit/ (Accessed at April 28th, 2017)
AFM report (2014). Uitkomsten onderzoek kwaliteit wettelijke controles Big
4-accountantsorganisaties. [Outcomes research quality statutory audits Big 4 accounting firms.] https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjX-8Ho7KnUAhWB7hoKHV6IBikQFggsMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afm.nl%2F~%2F
profmedia%2Ffiles%2Frapporten%2F2014%2Fonderzoek-controles-big4.ashx&usg=AFQjCNF5U1MN1B5PaVWekEiwiPP-r-l8Yw (Accessed at April 28th, 2017)
Anderson-Gough, F., C. Grey, and K. Robson. (2000). In the name of the client: The service ethic in two professional service firms. Human Relations, 53(9), 1151–1174.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13– 17.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research
in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
31
Brouard, F., Bujaki, M., Durocher, S., & Neilson, L. C. (2016). Professional Accountants’ Identity Formation: An Integrative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-14.
Business Insider Nederland (2014). Accountants willen publiek vertrouwen herwinnen, maar niet minder verdienen. [Accountants want to regain public trust, but don’t want to get paid less] Available at: https://www.businessinsider.nl/accountants-willen-publiek-vertrouwen-herwinnen-maar-niet-minder-verdienen-499290/ (Accessed at March 2th, 2017)
Carter, C. & Spence, C. (2014) Being a Successful Professional: An Exploration of Who Makes Partner in the Big 4. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(4), 949-981
Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M., Heian, J., & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 293–327.
Coffey, A. J. (1994). Timing is everything'; graduate accountants, time and organizational commitment. Sociology, 28(4), 943-956.
Empson, L. (2004). Organizational identity change: Managerial regulation and member identification in an accounting firm acquisition. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
29(8), 759–781.
Gendron, Y. (2002), ‘On the role of the organization in auditors’ client-acceptance decisions’,
Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 659–84.
Gendron, Y., Suddaby, R., & Lam, H. (2006). An examination of the ethical commitment of professional accountants to auditor independence. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(2), 169– 193.
Gendron, Y., & Spira, L. F. (2009). What went wrong? The downfall of Arthur Andersen and the construction of controllability boundaries surrounding financial auditing. Contemporary
32
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
Gómez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(6), 1097-1106.
Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 27-48.
Grey, C. (1998). On being a professional in a ‘‘Big Six’’ firm. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 23(5/6), 569–587.
Hamilton, S. E. (2013). Exploring professional identity: the perceptions of chartered accountant students. The British Accounting Review, 45(1), 37-49.
Hanlon, G. (1996). “Casino Capitalism” and the Rise of the “Commercialised” Service Class-an Examination of the AccountClass-ant. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7(3), 339-363.
Haynes, K. (2006a). A therapeutic journey? Reflections on the effects of research on researcher and participants. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 1(3), 204-221.
Haynes, K. (2006b). Linking narrative and identity construction: Using autobiography in accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(4), 339–418.
Horton, J., Macve, R. & Struyven, G. (2004). Qualitative research: experiences in using semi-structured interviews. In: Humprey, C. & Lee, B. (eds.) The real life guide to
accounting research: a behind-the-scenes view using qualitative research methods. London:
Elsevier.
Hogg, M. & Abrams D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.
