Search results

AbstractThe colonization of adjacent professional fields has been considered as crucial to understand 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 professional service firms' external responses, but also sheds light on why professional groups stay on board despite unfavorable internal conditions.

Building on recent research that stresses the important role of managers in the adoption process of telehomeworking, or telecommuting, this study examines the influence of the institutional context on managers' attitude formation. Drawing on large-scale survey data from 96 CEOs and 380 HR managers in Dutch organizations, we show that normative and mimetic pressures affect managers' beliefs, which are reflected in their perceptions of the relative (dis)advantage of telehomeworking. We also find that the perceived improvements of work outcomes and perceived social costs/benefits vary among managers from different 'occupational communities'. CEOs' beliefs are more susceptible to mimetic pressures, while HR managers' attitudes towards telehomeworking are positively fed by pressures from their occupational community. These findings support the view that current debates on work—life initiatives' diffusion and organizational changes in relation to these initiatives should pay much more attention to the importance of the institutional environment and managers' subcultures.

This article draws on a product innovation perspective to explore the process of knowledge commodification. It is argued that key suppliers of management knowledge do not particularly regard this process as unproblematic. Using interviews with management consultants, this study provides an understanding of the internal elements that may inhibit or encourage the development of new knowledge products. Exploratory results reveal several major impediments to linking commodification efforts with the consultancy and suggest the importance of internal legitimation efforts before market launch. The findings indicate the importance of considering the process in which management ideas gain 'good currency' within the system of knowledge supply. This has some notable implications for research on knowledge commodification and management fashion.

To contribute to the understanding of the evolution of organization concepts, this article focuses on how consultants respond to competing pressures during the maturity and decline phases of an initially popular concept. Management consultants are important fashion setters, but the actual strategies they use to deal with the pressures to remain legitimate, increase efficiency and differentiate themselves from competitors remain unclear. Such supply-side dynamics likely influence how organization concepts evolve and are relevant for understanding how management knowledge may survive a fashion boom and bust. Using interview and print media data from 32 consultants from 14 consultancies, we identify seven response strategies, and show how these are associated with multiple pressures, and comprise different implications for the evolution of a concept. We argue that this variety of responses is essential to better understand the evolution of organization concepts and opens several fruitful research directions.

Purpose– Building on recent research that emphasizes the role of managers as central in the adoption and implementation of management ideas, the purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons why managers may vary in their responses toward these ideas.Design/methodology/approach– Drawing on a cognitive perspective, the research uses a repertory grid approach to analyze survey data from 189 managers.Findings– Rather than stressing only the role of organizational context, the paper indicates the likelihood that more invariant mental models shaped by especially position and disposition play an important role in explaining the way managers view and eventually implement management ideas.Originality/value– The findings indicate the significance of cognitive factors in explaining managers' attitudes toward ideas, and advance the understanding of the variety in managers' responses toward these ideas, particularly in implementation trajectories.

Abstract
On the basis of the EGOS 2021 sub-plenary on 'Professions and Inequality: Challenges, Controversies, and Opportunities', the presenters and panellists wrote four short essays on the relationship between inequality as a grand challenge and professional occupations and organizations, their structures, practices, and strategies. Individually, these essays take an inquisitorial stance on extant understandings of (1) how professions may exacerbate existing inequalities and (2) how professions can be part of the solution and help tackle inequality as a grand challenge. Taken together, the discussion forum aims at advancing scholarly debates on inequality by showing how professions' scholarship may critically interrogate extant understandings of inequality as a broad, multifaceted concept, whilst providing fruitful directions for research on inequality, their potential solutions, and the role and responsibilities of organization and management scholars.