会计行业的多样性与人才评价:功绩之谜

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
F. Anderson-Gough, C. Edgley, Keith Robson, Nina Sharma
{"title":"会计行业的多样性与人才评价:功绩之谜","authors":"F. Anderson-Gough, C. Edgley, Keith Robson, Nina Sharma","doi":"10.2308/horizons-2022-103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While accounting firms are facing recruitment and retention problems, regulatory bodies are calling for efforts to improve diversity to be more effective, especially at senior levels. In this paper, we discuss “merit” and assumptions about “meritocracy” in processes of performance evaluation and career progression. Based on interviews in medium and large professional services firms in the United Kingdom, we explore how the language/practices of merit can inhibit moves to improving diversity. Merit has two aspects: “technical” notions of core competencies associated with merit and cultural notions of social fit, which have the effect of favoring the progression of the elite groups embedded within firms. The latter creates a loop in understanding merit, enacted within firm culture over time, that is difficult to disrupt. As such, efforts to improve diversity are unlikely to bring about change without considering how organizational beliefs about merit have unintended consequences.","PeriodicalId":51419,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversity and the Evaluation of Talent in the Accounting Profession: The Enigma of Merit\",\"authors\":\"F. Anderson-Gough, C. Edgley, Keith Robson, Nina Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/horizons-2022-103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While accounting firms are facing recruitment and retention problems, regulatory bodies are calling for efforts to improve diversity to be more effective, especially at senior levels. In this paper, we discuss “merit” and assumptions about “meritocracy” in processes of performance evaluation and career progression. Based on interviews in medium and large professional services firms in the United Kingdom, we explore how the language/practices of merit can inhibit moves to improving diversity. Merit has two aspects: “technical” notions of core competencies associated with merit and cultural notions of social fit, which have the effect of favoring the progression of the elite groups embedded within firms. The latter creates a loop in understanding merit, enacted within firm culture over time, that is difficult to disrupt. As such, efforts to improve diversity are unlikely to bring about change without considering how organizational beliefs about merit have unintended consequences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting Horizons\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting Horizons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2022-103\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Horizons","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2022-103","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在会计师事务所面临招聘和留住人才问题的同时,监管机构也在呼吁提高多样性的工作要更加有效,尤其是在高级职位上。在本文中,我们将讨论绩效评估和职业发展过程中的 "绩优 "和关于 "任人唯贤 "的假设。根据对英国大中型专业服务公司的访谈,我们探讨了 "择优 "的语言/做法如何阻碍改善多元化的举措。绩优有两个方面:与绩优相关的核心能力的 "技术 "概念和社会适应性的文化概念,这两种概念都有利于公司内部精英群体的发展。后者形成了一个理解绩优的循环,随着时间的推移在企业文化中形成,很难打破。因此,如果不考虑组织中关于 "优点 "的观念如何产生意想不到的后果,改善多样性的努力就不可能带来变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diversity and the Evaluation of Talent in the Accounting Profession: The Enigma of Merit
While accounting firms are facing recruitment and retention problems, regulatory bodies are calling for efforts to improve diversity to be more effective, especially at senior levels. In this paper, we discuss “merit” and assumptions about “meritocracy” in processes of performance evaluation and career progression. Based on interviews in medium and large professional services firms in the United Kingdom, we explore how the language/practices of merit can inhibit moves to improving diversity. Merit has two aspects: “technical” notions of core competencies associated with merit and cultural notions of social fit, which have the effect of favoring the progression of the elite groups embedded within firms. The latter creates a loop in understanding merit, enacted within firm culture over time, that is difficult to disrupt. As such, efforts to improve diversity are unlikely to bring about change without considering how organizational beliefs about merit have unintended consequences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounting Horizons
Accounting Horizons BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Accounting Horizons is one of three association-wide journals published by the American Accounting Association AAA. This journal seeks to bridge academic and professional audiences with articles that focus on accounting, broadly defined, and that provide insights pertinent to the accounting profession. The contents of Accounting Horizons, therefore, should interest researchers, educators, practitioners, regulators, and students of accounting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信