This paper examines professional associations' local responses to global demands of accounting standardisation. Our longitudinal study from 1998 to 2018 analyses how professional associations of the German audit profession engaged in an intense framing contest over the adoption of external quality controls. Drawing on the concept of strategic action field and the literature on framing, we unpack how the gap between large audit firms and small audit firms increasingly undermined the capacity of the professional associations to fulfil their dual role of governance and representation. We unveil how their failed attempt to maintain the image of an unified profession ultimately led to the creation of a new professional association representing the 'small auditor' professional, which successfully, albeit temporarily, took control over the field of German auditing. Our findings suggest that the passivity of small audit firms in the process of translating global regulatory regimes should not be presumed. Rather, we provide insight into how small audit firms can rebuild their own identity by actively responding to waves of global regulation. Doing so, and contrary to prior research, our case highlights that governance units within strategic action fields are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the most powerful field actors.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the commitment of public accountants toward their profession and organization, and to provide evidence for various commitment profiles. Specifically, we analyze the relationships between commitment profiles and differences seen in the work context, professional and commercial values, role conflict and ambiguity, and client commitment. The study is based on a survey of 435 German public accountants. It employs a person-centered approach to identify commitment profiles based on latent profile analysis. Using multidimensional scales of professional and organizational commitment, we identify differences in the manifestation of affective, normative, and continuance commitment. By introducing a person-centered approach in the study of accounting professionals, we found six latent profiles, including a fully committed profile that almost exclusively relates to partners in small- and medium-sized accounting firms. Our results show that studies of accountants' commitment benefit from using a person-centered, multidimensional approach.
JEL Classifications: M100; M420.
Purpose
This study aims to explore how commercial and professional management instruments are combined in accounting firms.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors conducted a qualitative study based on 30 semi-structured interviews with partners from 30 different accounting firms (sole practitioners to Big Four) in Germany. The study mainly draws from the literature on the management of accounting firms.
Findings
The findings of this study indicate that professional and commercial management instruments structure the use of time by accountants. In these management instruments, professional and commercial goals are interwoven by three mechanisms revealed in this study and named as ambivalence, assimilation and integration. The authors further identify the managerial aspects of professional instruments.
Originality/value
This paper offers three mechanisms that combine commercial and professional goals in the management of accounting firms. The authors thereby contribute to the literature on the management of accounting firms by analysing these mechanisms that enable the pursuit of both goals simultaneously. Further, the authors argue that the minimum organisation, defined by regulators, of accounting firms is an essential infrastructure for the commercialisation of accounting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.