竞争与合作之间:多学科会计师事务所应对制度压力的内部动态

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Y. Taminiau, Stefan Heusinkveld
{"title":"竞争与合作之间:多学科会计师事务所应对制度压力的内部动态","authors":"Y. Taminiau, Stefan Heusinkveld","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The colonization of adjacent professional fields has been considered as crucial to understanding the success and influence of large accounting firms, such as the Big 4. Yet, given the complexities of managing different professional groups, remarkably little is known about the internal dynamics behind large multidisciplinary accounting firms’ external responses to institutional pressures. In this article, we show how exogenous coercive pressure, such as regulation (in this case Dutch accountancy regulations), not only affect the day-to-day work of accountants, but also that of non-accountants such as tax advisors. From the perception of the tax advisors who confront regulations which are not “theirs”, we show how their internal responses evolve and tread a fine line between contestation and collaboration with their colleague accountants/auditors. Using a boundary work perspective, we examine this shift in responses and explain how tensions between professional groups may be reduced. Overall, our study not only furthers our insights into the internal dynamics behind PSFs’ (Professional Service Firms’) external responses, but also sheds light on why professional groups stay on board despite unfavorable internal conditions.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa021","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between contestation and collaboration: The internal dynamics of multidisciplinary accounting firm responses to institutional pressures\",\"authors\":\"Y. Taminiau, Stefan Heusinkveld\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jpo/joaa021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The colonization of adjacent professional fields has been considered as crucial to understanding the success and influence of large accounting firms, such as the Big 4. Yet, given the complexities of managing different professional groups, remarkably little is known about the internal dynamics behind large multidisciplinary accounting firms’ external responses to institutional pressures. In this article, we show how exogenous coercive pressure, such as regulation (in this case Dutch accountancy regulations), not only affect the day-to-day work of accountants, but also that of non-accountants such as tax advisors. From the perception of the tax advisors who confront regulations which are not “theirs”, we show how their internal responses evolve and tread a fine line between contestation and collaboration with their colleague accountants/auditors. Using a boundary work perspective, we examine this shift in responses and explain how tensions between professional groups may be reduced. Overall, our study not only furthers our insights into the internal dynamics behind PSFs’ (Professional Service Firms’) external responses, but also sheds light on why professional groups stay on board despite unfavorable internal conditions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Professions and Organization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa021\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Professions and Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professions and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

相邻专业领域的殖民化被认为是理解四大会计师事务所等大型会计师事务所成功和影响力的关键。然而,鉴于管理不同专业群体的复杂性,人们对大型多学科会计师事务所对机构压力的外部反应背后的内部动态知之甚少。在本文中,我们将展示外生强制压力,例如法规(在本例中为荷兰会计法规)如何不仅影响会计师的日常工作,还影响税务顾问等非会计师的日常工作。从面对不属于他们的法规的税务顾问的看法来看,我们展示了他们的内部反应是如何演变的,并在与同事会计师/审计师的争论和合作之间走得很好。使用边界工作的角度来看,我们检查这种反应的转变,并解释如何专业团体之间的紧张关系可能会减少。总的来说,我们的研究不仅进一步加深了我们对psf(专业服务公司)外部反应背后的内部动态的见解,而且还揭示了为什么专业团队在不利的内部条件下仍然留在公司。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between contestation and collaboration: The internal dynamics of multidisciplinary accounting firm responses to institutional pressures
The colonization of adjacent professional fields has been considered as crucial to understanding the success and influence of large accounting firms, such as the Big 4. Yet, given the complexities of managing different professional groups, remarkably little is known about the internal dynamics behind large multidisciplinary accounting firms’ external responses to institutional pressures. In this article, we show how exogenous coercive pressure, such as regulation (in this case Dutch accountancy regulations), not only affect the day-to-day work of accountants, but also that of non-accountants such as tax advisors. From the perception of the tax advisors who confront regulations which are not “theirs”, we show how their internal responses evolve and tread a fine line between contestation and collaboration with their colleague accountants/auditors. Using a boundary work perspective, we examine this shift in responses and explain how tensions between professional groups may be reduced. Overall, our study not only furthers our insights into the internal dynamics behind PSFs’ (Professional Service Firms’) external responses, but also sheds light on why professional groups stay on board despite unfavorable internal conditions.
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
36.40%
发文量
14
×
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