Global ends, local means: Making it to partner in professional service firms
Crawford Spence, Claire Dambrin, Chris Carter, Javier Husillos and Pablo Archel
Abstract
An expanding institutionalist literature on professional service firms (PSFs) emphasizes that
these are ridden by contradictions, paradoxes and conflicting logics. More specifically, literature
looking at PSFs in a global context has highlighted how these contradictions prevent firms from
becoming truly global in nature. What it takes to make partner in the Big 4 is at the core of such
interrogations since partners belong to global firms yet are promoted at the national level. We
undertake a cross-country comparison of partner promotion processes in Big 4 PSFs in Canada,
France, Spain and the UK. Synthesising existing institutionalist work with Bourdieusian theory,
our results suggest that PSFs in different countries resemble each other very closely in terms of
the requirements demanded of their partners. Although heterogeneity can be observed in the way
in which different forms of capital are converted into each other, we show there is an overall
homogeneity in that economic capital hurdles are the most significant, if not the sole, criterion
upon which considerations of partnership admissions are based.
Keywords
Careers, Comparative and cross-cultural HRM, Top management, Organizational culture,
Personnel selection, Performance appraisal & feedback, Leadership, Job/employee attitudes
Spence C, Dambrin C, Carter C, Husillos J, Archel P. Global ends, local means: Cross-national
homogeneity in professional service firms. Human Relations. 2015;68(5):765-788.
doi:10.1177/0018726714541489
Introduction
Recent research on Professional Service Firms (PSFs) has produced a vista in which institutional
complexity, competing rationalities and organizational paradoxes are prominent landmarks. This
research, exploring PSFs in a global context, has shed light on the way in which local
institutional and regulatory mechanisms constrain the implementation of global work systems
and practices. In short, the local professional environment places fetters on the globalizing
professional service firm. Notable contributions to this literature include Muzio and
Faulconbridge (2013), who draw attention to the dual existence of both transnational and
national institutional practices in global law firms. This resonates with Barrett et al.’s (2005)
study of Big 4 accounting firms which demonstrates how global audit methodologies are
routinely distorted when appropriated at the local level. Similarly, Malsch and Gendron (2013)
report the co-existence of both order and disorder within Big 4 PSFs, a situation that is said to
preclude the emergence of stable organizational archetypes. Adopting a more regulatory
perspective, Suddaby et al. (2007) describe the emergence of a transnational governance regime
in the field of professional accounting. This new regime, Suddaby et al. (2007) contend, does not
displace national regimes but instead is superimposed upon them. The corollary of this is
institutional complexity. Resonant with this line of thinking is research on multinational
management consultancies, a key insight of which is that these firms’ aspirations to be globally
integrated are chronically thwarted by local institutional factors (Boussebaa, 2009 and Boussebaa
et al., 2012).
One general conclusion that can be evinced from extant institutional analyses of PSFs is
“the recognition of the possibility of the coexistence, copenetration, sedimentation, and hybrid of
different institutional, managerial, occupational, and organizational logics” (Muzio et al., 2013:
703). An important theme reprised in the literature is that paradoxes, contradictions and
competing pressures prevent PSFs from becoming truly global. We refer to these arguments as
the ‘institutional heterogeneity thesis’. This intellectual position provides a refreshing counterfoil
to anodyne suggestions, often emanating from the firms themselves, that PSFs can offer
seamlessly integrated services to their clients throughout the world.
However, whilst corporate claims to global integration need to be treated with suspicion,
it is equally important not to overstate the paradoxes and hybrids of their critics. The notion of
international firms being more integrated into global networks than their immediate locales
(Mueller and Loveridge, 1995) or that global logics significantly shape local work practices
(Ferner et al., 2004; Mueller, 1994) is not new. Indeed, although providing evidence of
heterogeneity on one level, Boussebaa (2009) does question whether this is generally over-
emphasised in institutionalist studies (see also Ferner, Edwards and Tempel, 2011, Mueller,
1994). It may well be the case that complexity and paradoxes reign during times of institutional
change. It is important to note, however, that we are perhaps no longer witnessing an institutional
field that is nascent but is, rather, now mature (Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006) or better
established, at least in the case of professional accounting.
Moreover, while many of the studies highlighting heterogeneity have examined
multinational PSFs, they have not been in multi-country settings. There has been a curious
absence of any substantive comparative work in this area, especially when contrasted with the
burgeoning literature on varieties of capitalism (see Walker, Brewster and Wood, 2014 for an
overview of this literature). Indeed, recent articles have explicitly called for further research to
remedy this: For example, Boussebaa et al. (2012) make the case for more work comparing PSFs
in different countries. Further, Boussebaa et al. (2012) suggest that their work on consultancy
PSFs be extended and tested through analyses “other types of professional service firms such as
accountancies, law firms, advertising agencies and recruitment or head-hunting firms” (482).
One response to this call has already been offered by Muzio and Faulconbridge (2013) who
similarly conclude their analysis of English law firms in Italy by arguing for more
comprehensive comparative research:
“Particularly fruitful here would be multi-comparative studies looking at how
the same home-country practices (such as the one firm model) are introduced in
different host country jurisdictions (i.e. Germany and France) and the different
tensions and outcomes that such processes generate” (22).
Our paper responds to these calls for research by presenting the results of a multi-country
comparative study of Big 4 accounting firms. Looking at Big 4 firms in Canada, the UK, Spain
and France, we aim to draw inferences regarding the extent to which these firms in particular,
and PSFs more generally, can be thought of as homogenous or heterogeneous across different
geographical and cultural contexts. Specifically, we explore this broad theoretical concern
through an analysis of what makes someone ‘partnerable’ in the Big 4. The rationale for focusing
on promotion processes is that they constitute a central activity in the organization of
professional service firms. The decision to make someone a partner is to induct them into the
firm as a ‘joint owner’ and to place trust in them as having the capacity to ensure the future
growth of the firm. In short, it is a critical decision for a Big 4 firm. Promotion processes may
well be appropriated locally and differ from, even contradict, global prescriptions regarding
access to partnership, all the more since partners are co-opted at the country level. Based on
interviews with partners and professionals who might be considered close to partnership, we
analyse the key criteria for making partner across geographical contexts, considering how these
criteria are applied in practice. Particular attention is paid to the differences and similarities that
arise when comparing different countries.
This analysis is informed by drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu, as well as being
informed by extant institutional literature on PSFs. We believe that a Bourdieusian perspective
can enrich the institutional debate on homogeneity/heterogeneity notably thanks to concepts such
as ‘the field’ (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012) and different forms of capital. Institutional field
analysis does not, we argue, pay sufficient attention to the ways in which different forms of
capital effectively stratify participants and practices within fields. Specifically, such an approach
permits an interrogation of the homogeneity/heterogeneity dynamics at play in PSFs vis-à-vis our
research object - partner promotion processes. Overall, our Bourdieusian approach leads us to
question the extent to which heterogeneity prevails in professional service fields.
The paper proceeds as follows. The following section identifies the precise theoretical
concerns that this study seeks to address. This is followed by a discussion of our research
methodology. Subsequent to this, the results of the empirical analysis are presented. We show
that partner admission criteria are strikingly similar across geographical contexts, but that there
are cross-national differences in terms of how individuals satisfy those criteria. There are
therefore cross-national differences in means, but not ends. Overall, we show that partner
admission processes follow a global logic of making income expand for all but a national logic
of determining how various types of capital are converted into economic capital. We then discuss
the findings in light of their implications for research into global PSFs and conclude by outlining
some potential avenues for future research.
