ARCHETYPAL CHANGE AND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRM

David M. Brock, Michael J. Powell and C. R. (Bob) Hinings

ABSTRACT
This chapter explores archetypal change in the context of professional service rms. To understand recent and ongoing changes in professional service rms, we briey show how the professional archetype has evolved since the 1960s. We then present four theoretical models to describe processes by which institutionalized archetypes can change, and possibly coexist in the same eld. Three professional archetypes are described, each in the context of historical development and the change model described earlier. At the one extreme is the traditional professional partnership; at the other the larger, multidisciplinary, corporate, global professional network, or GPN; in between is the Star form relatively specialized, atter structure, resisting signicant growth, with xations on excellence, and being the leader in a professional niche.

The archetype concept has both its proponents (e.g., Greenwood & Hinings, 1993) and opponents (Kirkpatrick & Ackroyd, 2003) for and against its validity as a tool for understanding organizational change. The idea of archetypes is rooted in issues of organizational design, specically conguration theory and institutional theory. An archetype is a conguration
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Volume 16, 221251 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0897-3016/doi:10.1016/S0897-3016(06)16007-3

221

222

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

of structures and systems that are consistent with an underlying interpretive scheme (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993). Conguration theory suggests that there are a limited number of organizational design types (Mintzberg, 1979; Miller & Friesen, 1982; Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993). For Greenwood and Hinings, the pattern of an organizational design is a function of an underlying interpretive scheme, or set of beliefs and values, that is embodied in an organizations structures and systems. An archetype is thus a set of structures and systems that consistently embodies a single interpretive scheme (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993, p. 1055). Thus, the concept has a strong organizational lineage and represents an important approach to issues of organizational design and change. It is particularly important in understanding why radical organizational change is difcult (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). It has been criticized for being overly functional (Kirkpatrick & Ackroyd, 2003) and also for being difcult to operationalize (Morris & Pinnington, 1999). However, neither of these criticisms have impacted the dominance of the archetype approach for understanding professional service rms (PSFs) where it has been most widely used. In this chapter we aim to provide theoretical bases robust enough to explain archetypeal change in institutional contexts, as well as two apparent outcomes of such change, namely hybrid organizational forms and coexistance of competing archetypes. We begin by sketching the organizational and institutional context of the study the eld of PFSs before approaching the various theoretical frameworks.

THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTEXT

Whether they are safely transferring ownership of a home from one family to another, or advising on questionable accounting practices to major corporations, professional services are a crucial part of our contemporary knowledge economy. But like many other institutions, PSFs, such as accounting and law rms, have experienced considerable change and uncertainty over the past two decades. PSFs and their clients are increasingly global, markets for professional services have been deregulated, competition is increasing both within and between professions, clients are more sophisticated and demanding, and innovative technologies open opportunities for service delivery and encourage the entry of new providers. And institutional boundaries between professions, long protected by statute and tradition, have weakened as governments deregulate professional services and rms move to take advantage of new business opportunities (Brock, Powell, & Hinings,

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

223

1999). Consequently, the organizational elds (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) within which PSFs operate have undergone substantial change. In response, PSFs have changed in signicant ways through internal restructuring, merger, the development of new services, shedding less economic service divisions, and internationalization (Greenwood & Lachman, 1996). Not long ago it was relatively simple to understand professional organizations. By the late 1960s, sociologists had delineated the main characteristics of the archetypal professional organization (Scott, 1965; Hall, 1968; Montagna, 1968; Bucher & Stelling, 1969) with power resting in the hands of professional experts, while managers administered the facilities and supported the professionals. Decision-making was collegial, change slow, and strategy formulated consensually. There was little hierarchy and degrees of vertical and horizontal differentiation were similarly low, reecting respectively the professional culture of collegiality and generalist nature of the professionals. Coordination and control occurred through the standardization of skills and a strong clan culture of professionalism rather than through formalized systems and supervision. This provided the bases for Mintzbergs (1979) classic delineation of the professional bureaucracy within the management literature, leading to Greenwood, Hinings, and Browns (1990) professional partnership (or P2) model, where the professionals (e.g., lawyers in a law rm) were not only the operators but also the managers of the rms. More recently, the same scholars have suggested that new managerial structures are being superimposed over the traditional professional cultures and processes, arguing that increasingly competitive markets have induced professional bureaucracies to adopt more corporate and managerial modes of operation in search of increased efciency (Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood, & Brown, 1996). Beginning from the premise that the classical models of the professional rm may no longer t the changing and more dynamic environment, we suggest that new organizational types are emerging within the professional service sector that need to be analyzed and understood. We regard this as important because of the centrality of professional rms, such as accounting, law, engineering, software development, and health clinics to Western, knowledge-based economies. Increasingly, advanced economies are centered around professional service industries both domestically and internationally (Aharoni, 1993, 1999; Greenwood, Hinings, & Cooper, 2006). Further, autonomy is increasingly recognized as a crucial structural component for contemporary organizations (Brock, 2003; Young & Tavares, 2004), and thus fundamental aspects of the professional rm are seen as alternatives to bureaucratic, hierarchical corporate organizational models in order to

224

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

release innovation, deal with uncertainty and better manage knowledge workers. Also, many organizations that are not PSFs, per se, are utilizing more and more professional workers; so an understanding of the contemporary issues in organizing professionals is important in a general sense. We show how the professional archetype itself a relatively static concept is subject to powerful institutional forces in its eld, and indeed that there currently seems to be multiple archetypes coexisting in the PSF eld. For reasons of parsimony and coherence, this chapters focus is on organizations in the traditional professional elds of accounting and law, not on the professional associations as such, nor on change in the professions generally. There are a number of contributions that the paper makes. First, it adds to and extends the various debates about congurations of organizations. Little work has been done on PSFs. Second, it systematizes what literature there is. Third, we deal with the issue of the ability of various organizational forms to coexist within the same institutional eld. And in examining the multiplicity of professional organizational forms we potentially enable managers to select organizational arrangements appropriate to their particular circumstances. The next section describes a multi-part theoretical framework in which archetypal professional organizations may be conceptualized, develops some theoretical approaches to change in an archetype, and suggests a model for archetypal coexistence. The third section of the paper discusses the three archetypal outcomes of the changes to the professional organizational eld and how these changes are consistent with our theoretical framework. The paper concludes with a discussion of theoretical implications and directions for future research.

ARCHETYPES AND CHANGE

The archetype concept has recently been used to explain change in professional organizations, for example, accounting (Greenwood et al., 2006), architects (Pinnington & Morris, 2002), hospitals (Dent, Howorth, Mueller, & Preuschoft, 2004), and law rms (Pinnington & Morris, 2003). Greenwood and Hinings (1993, p. 1052) dene an organizational archetype as a set of structures and systems that reects a single interpretive scheme. The interpretive scheme is the key (Bartunek, 1984). Structures and systems do not constitute a disembodied organizational frame but rather are infused with meanings, beliefs, intentions, preferences, and values. Interpretive schemes composed of such subjective meanings underpin the objective identities of organizational structures and processes. So a multinational aid

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

225

agency and a global corporation may theoretically have the same organizational structure on paper, but their diverse values, beliefs, and agendas would lead us to identify them as belonging to quite different archetypes. Archetypes are generally considered to be institutionally specic (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993), with organizational conformity based on the institutional norms, legitimacy, and other resource ows (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Using an archetypal approach, then, involves taking a holistic perspective and looking not just at organizational structure and systems but also at the beliefs, values, and ideas they represent (Kirkpatrick & Ackroyd, 2003). This statement is important because it emphasizes the relationship between, and interaction among, the various elements of organizations, such as culture, structure, power, and politics. Archetypal models thus go beyond the culture literature that has tended to treat culture as an autonomous variable. This approach of identifying organizational archetypes is an important step in understanding patterns of organizational change, because although individual organizations may try to adopt new structures and systems from time to time, sustaining that change in the face of an unchanging organizational archetype is likely to be very difcult. For this reason, Greenwood and Hinings (1988) suggest that students of organizational change need to be aware that not all change efforts succeed; and that there are multiple change tracks. Some organizations fail to sustain their change momentum and revert to their prior states, because the latter are more consistent with the archetype; others get caught between the original and an emergent archetype in an apparently schizoid state. Changing the archetype itself is very difcult as it reects deeply held beliefs and values about how organizations should be structured and operated. For example, in 2000 KPMG in Auckland, New Zealand, took over a law rm, renamed it KPMG Legal and tried to integrate it into the rms extant audit, tax, and advising organization. The attempted merger failed after a few years because of the resistance of the lawyers to the adoption of a more corporate model. Similarly, Greenwood, et al. (1990) provide an example of an accounting rm that attempted to move away from a professional partnership archetype to a corporate, business model of operation. However, the existing partners were strongly committed to the values of autonomy and collegiality of the partnership model that they were unwilling to give up authority to a CEO and an executive committee. In addition, they did not have the necessary knowledge or capability to manage a more business-like organization. Institutional theory argues that in a stable, mature eld there will be a dominant archetype (cf. Greenwood & Hinings, 1993, Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000); other forms will either disappear or be relegated to

226

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

subsidiary positions. However, when there are strong pressures for eld level change, i.e., deregulation or technological advances, the number of viable archetypes will increase in response to these pressures (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993). There will be competing interpretive schemes with their associated structures and systems, i.e., more than one archetype will exist in the eld. These archetypes may coexist; however in times of change they are likely to compete. Just as the retail eld has general retailers, department stores, boutiques, and other forms, PSFs seem to have more than one alternative interpretive scheme from which to choose. The following section presents a description of how archetypes might change, based on four related theoretical arguments. First, we draw on institutional theory to show how de/legitimizing forces can eventually impact on archetypes. Then we present resource dependency to include the resource-seeking roles of managers/owners. The third section introduces various ideas to explain the emergence of hybrid organizational forms in certain circumstances. Finally, we develop the coexistence part of the theory, showing how more than one archetype may coexist for a period of time.

TOWARD A THEORY OF ARCHETYPAL CHANGE

Challenging an Interpretive Scheme From an archetypal perspective, successful change1 rst requires that the interpretive scheme underpinning a particular archetype be challenged, and an alternative interpretive scheme presented. For example, reacting to increasing prot motives and decreasing professional collegiality, PSFs can contract to internalize several specialty areas instead of referring clients with specic needs to neighboring rms. As Greenwood and Hinings (1993) note, commitment to interpretive schemes is dynamic rather than static and unchanging, and subject to change. Changing levels of commitment to the values and beliefs of the interpretive scheme provide a potential dynamic for change in the archetype. Infused with new values and beliefs, interpretive schemes may be advanced that delegitimize the old, thereby encouraging change. Furthermore, structure, systems, and their underlying interpretive schemes are in a reexive relationship with each other, so that structures and systems impact on the interpretive scheme, and may potentially change the very beliefs and values that underpin them (Gray, 1999). Further, actions and emotional reactions of organizational members act as modifying

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

227

forces (Bartunek, 1984). Thus, the introduction of new management structures and systems, like new performance measurement or compensation systems, over time is likely to cause the interpretive scheme to internalize these structural and systemic changes. The replacement of the traditional lockstep reward system with the more individualized eat-what-you-kill (or piecework) system in law rms is such an example (Flood, 1999). These changes are unlikely to succeed in the short to medium term, however, unless they are presented and implemented in a way that is seen to be consistent with the overall direction of the existing interpretive scheme or with an alternative set of values that is gaining legitimacy. For example, it may be that, at the same time as new systems and structures are being introduced to PSFs, the old professional values are being challenged by new managerial and societal values. Symptomatic of such a challenge is the rebranding of the global accounting rms as business service or advisory rms, illustrated by the KPMG, The Advisory Firm business card shown in Greenwood, Suddaby, and Hinings (2002). Because key components of the interpretive scheme may well be deeply institutionalized, archetypes are resistant to change. However they are not chiseled in stone. They are subject to challenge, environmental pressures, and consequent delegitimation. Examples of these external pressures are the deregulation of professional markets, increased competition, nancial constraints, cost pressures, changes in government policy, globalization, demands of international clients, increasingly sophisticated clients, and technological change (Brock et al., 1999; Greenwood & Lachman, 1996). Internal (or organizational level) drivers such as performance crises, changing economic utility, increasing social fragmentation, conicting internal interests, and increasing technical specicity may also be factors in deinstitutionalization (Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002; Oliver, 1992). These have all impacted on the PSF, as will be shown in upcoming sections of this chapter. First institutional theory is used to develop an understanding of the eld-level changes, followed by resource dependency to explain the explicit organization level forces. While Oliver (1991) has discussed divergent as well as the convergent assumptions of these two paradigms, here they are discussed separately and used at these different levels of analysis.

The Institutional Perspective PSFs are deeply embedded in institutionalized elds, with strongly held beliefs and values shaping organizational action and behavior, and have

228

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

demonstrated strong commitment to a consistent organizational archetype. For example, law rms and accounting rms have shown themselves to be very resistant to any ownership model other than the partnership even in jurisdictions, such as Australia, where conversion to a public company is allowed. Law rms have also been resistant to the corporate model of a multi-disciplinary rm, believing strongly that only lawyers should be in positions of authority in law rms. Even a strong organizational archetype can be undermined such that it results in change in organizational arrangements. Institutional theory, with which the construct of archetype is closely related (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993), tends to focus on conformity to, and coherence with, institutionalized norms. Such pressure for isomorphism makes organizational change difcult. However, Oliver (1992) builds on Greenwood and Hinings (1988) explanation of how interpretive schemes are delegitimated and replaced, and suggests that a variety of political, functional, and social factors contribute to the delegitimation of particular institutions, and explains the possible deinstitutionalization of accepted structures, practices, and processes. Similarly, we would expect a process of questioning and challenging accepted beliefs and practices to undermine the interpretive scheme that is at the foundation of the dominant organizational archetype. Change in the interpretive scheme may lead eventually to structural and systems changes. The dominant archetype, then, can no longer be taken for granted as alternative archetypes surface and may gain ascendancy. The key issue of coexisting archetypes is addressed in a later part of this paper. It is important to understand how this process of delegitimation of an archetype, or a set of institutional beliefs and practices, occurs. Cooper et al. (1996) tend to see it as a consequence of external forces such as globalization and deregulation that change the environment in which PSFs operate. The organizations must adapt and change to meet the requirements of the new environment. As noted earlier, such environmental change was a feature of the last two decades of the 20th century. At the same time the accepted benets and benevolence of professionals and the professions have been increasingly questioned. Hinings, Greenwood, and Cooper (1999) refer to the serious questioning in the 1990s of the usefulness and validity of the audit functions provided by large accounting rms in the face of major corporate collapses and frauds that these audits failed to predict. The recent allegations of Andersons connection to several scandals such as the demise of the Waste Management and Enron Corporations have been highly publicized, leading in turn to the demise of that PSF (Ringshaw & Wastell, 2002). Such challenging

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

229

of the value of professional services, and of the special protected position and powers of professionals, is reminiscent of attacks on professional power such as that of Ivan Illich, Zola, McKnight, Caplan, and Shaiken (1977) Disabling Professions. These populist critiques were supported by the revival of neo-classical economics in the 1980s that viewed professionally sanctioned restrictions on practice as unnecessary and self-interested restraints of trade, referring back to work by free market economists such as Milton Friedman (1962). The argument that professionals operated in their own interests, not those of the clients or customers, became the fashionable view of those seeking to reform public sector bureaucracies in the 1980s, pushing for increased consumer power and choice. This was the rhetoric of governments seeking to deregulate the professions and to introduce internal markets into publicly funded service delivery systems. The message was clear: the traditional model of professional dominance, and its manifestation in organizations controlled by professionals, not only was subject to self-interest but also may not have delivered appropriate services. Along with the critique of the professions, came the rise of general management, or managerialism, with its promise of improved efciency and cost-effectiveness (Ferlie, Ashburner, Fitzgerald, & Pettigrew, 1996; Hood, 1991). Management had been undergoing its own self-styled professionalization with the increased prominence of the MBA degree. Highly trained managers who entered professional bureaucracies or partnerships did not simply want to support the professionals, or administer facilities. Nor were they socialized into deferring to the superior knowledge and expertise of professionals. They took a broader, macro view. They wanted to manage, to improve the coordination and production efciency of the PSF, and to introduce a strategic perspective. There has been a shift in paradigm from administration to management that had signicant implications for the interpretive scheme underpinning the traditional archetype (Ferlie et al., 1996; Kitchener, 1999). In these ways the interpretive scheme underlying the traditional professional archetype has been increasingly questioned and challenged. There are two aspects to the institutional perspective for examining change through the concept of archetypes. First, it highlights and reinforces the notion that organizations are deeply embedded in their institutional context based in values and norms. Second, following on from this as Meyer, Goes, and Brooks (1993) have suggested, because of the embedded nature of organizations, very strong jolts are often needed to produce change in professional organizations.

230

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

The Resource Dependency Perspective The challenge to the traditional archetype has not just been from external, delegitimizing forces. A theory of archetypal change must also allow for the active, agentic role of professionals and their organizations in challenging the dominant archetype and in pushing for modication or change. A most useful theoretical perspective to explain and even predict agentic change in archetype is thus derived from resource dependency theory which views organizations as acting to protect or develop or replace resource ows (Oliver, 1991; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Scott, 1987). Faced with resource limitations or uncertainties in one area, organizations will actively seek to develop compensating new resource ows. Organizations in mature markets will seek to enter new markets or develop new products or services. This approach allows a focus on resource acquisition and development as a driving force in strategic organization change (Child, 1997). The search for new resource ows in the face of the uncertainty of traditional revenue earners such as audit, is an important reason why accounting rms enter new businesses and develop new products like management consultancy services, information technology and, more recently, legal services (Suddaby, 2001). In part, such a shift reects a strategic intent to provide a one-stop shop for business services; in part, it is the replacement of a declining resource ow (accounting and auditing services) with a growing resource ow. Similarly, global accounting rms enter new markets, such as China, not just to follow global clients, but also to develop proles in new and growing markets (Rose, 1998). The resource dependency view in the context of the delegitimation of the traditional professional archetype allows for the active search for new opportunities and resources on the part of organizational actors as a crucial factor in organizational change (Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991). This search leads the organization to question traditional ways of doing business and to challenge the institutions that have long underpinned the professional archetype in order to open the door to new resource ows. In periods of environmental uncertainty and ux, organizational upstarts or entrepreneurs frequently arise to challenge the status quo (Leblebici et al., 1991; Powell, 1991). In short order, what was once regarded as too aggressive and beyond the professional pale quickly becomes accepted as legitimate practice (see Powell, 1993 and Sherer & Lee, 2002, for discussions of how professional innovations become accepted practice). A theory of archetypal change needs to recognize this reexive relationship between the changing environments within which PSFs operate and the innovative and

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

231

entrepreneurial activity of some organizational actors. Both environmental factors and organizational agency contribute to the delegitimation of existing archetypes and the development of new, rival archetypes that coexist or compete with the old. While it is clearly not a new idea that PSF leaders (traditionally called managing partners or senior partners, but today may be the CEO or president) are looking for new markets, it is important to recognize agency here. That is, PSF leaders are not simply responding to external pressures (as institutional theory might suggest) but also creating change themselves. Resource search may well lead to change in and of itself. These issues of coexistence within institutional elds, and how our change theory can deal with coexistence, are the topics of the following section. Hybrid Forms A general observation from the organizational change literature is the emergence of hybrid organizational types featuring outwardly changed forms along with the persistence of traditional characteristics at the core (Powell, 1987). For example, Ferlie et al. (1996) suggest that the introduction of the New Public Management into the UK public sector has resulted in hybrid organizational structures and cultures, combining traditional public service values with their new business management tools and systems (see also Kitchener, 1999, on the topic of health care). In the wider organizational literature we see contemporary researchers pointing to the emergence of similar complex, hybrid, old/new structures (e.g., Powell, 1987, 1990). Such hybrid structures are especially likely to emerge when traditional organizational forms are confronted with new, global, information-age structural challenges. For example, in explaining how multinational corporations resolve the structural dilemma of operating effectively across borders in the knowledge age, Nohria and Ghoshal (1997) point to the emergence of the differentiated network. This structure consists of diverse sub-units, each with its own internal structures and with different relationships with headquarters and other afliates, sharing information and resources where appropriate but retaining quite distinctive local organizational structures. Elsewhere, explaining why the introduction of new information technology frequently does not have the anticipated effect of eliminating bureaucracy, Schwarz and Brock (1998) suggest that hybrid structures are quite common. They term the organization characterized by coexisting traditional, hierarchical organizational and contemporary network structures the coexistent organization. This is yet another hybrid form, with the original structural artifacts persisting while new organizational

232

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

arrangements appear at the surface. Meyer and Rowan (1977) and Scott (1987) also discuss the issue of change to supercial as opposed to core features of the organization. In PSFs too, while observing changes, there is much evidence of the continuity of aspects perhaps relics? of the traditional professional archetype reected in Morris and Pinningtons (1999) Continuity and Change title. Below the surface of change there is evidence of traditional professional values and structures like collegiality, consensual decisionmaking, and professional autonomy. The same idea is present in the analogy of sedimentation used by Cooper et al. (1996) to explain the process of archetypal change associated with the emergence of the Managed Professional Business (MPB) form, specically the layering of new practices on top of the old. For example, it is now common for large law rms to retain partnership and its committees, but superimpose a management committee or board of directors that meets more frequently and has more direct managerial inuence. We may thus expect an emerging PSF archetype to reect similar hybrid structures displaying aspects of both change and continuity.

Coexistence The nal section of our theory building looks down at the archetype level, arguing for the possibility of more than one concurrent archetype. While the above frameworks allow us to understand perhaps even predict archetypal change, these changes are unlikely to be linear or instantaneous. Rather, it is likely that there will be a period of eld incoherence when several competing archetypes may coexist (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993). Hinings and Greenwood (1988) showed how different British local government archetypes coexisted during a decade of change and transition. Kikulis, Slack, and Hinings (1992) went a step further and found three competing sports governance archetypes coexisting among Canadian national sport organizations during the 1980s, similarly a decade of transition. To use a retail analogy again, demand seems to persist for general traders, boutiques, as well as large networks of department stores in the dynamic retail environment. Similarly, as the developing PSF eld itself becomes increasingly differentiated, it seems to be receptive to more than one organizational archetype (Heinz & Laumann, 1982). Bartuneks (1984) analysis indicates that interpretive schemes can change though a dialectical process, the outcome of which is a synthesis of the interacting old and new interpretive schemes. Dialectical analysis emphasizes the interaction of historical forces over time. So, for example, a generation

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

233

ago most professionals operated as individuals or partnerships because legal systems wanted them to have full (unlimited) liability for their work. Next, we observe historical development in terms of change and possibly also progress. As jobs within PSFs become more specialized, specialists from other professions are increasingly hired, international alliances are forged, and thus corporate governance structures become more suitable for managing this more complex, differentiated organization. Finally in the dialectic process, one phase of any historical development tends to be confronted and replaced by its opposite. This opposite, in turn, tends to be replaced by a phase that is somehow a resolution of the two opposed phases. In this case the synthesis is coexisting archetypes, with partnership forms and corporate forms coexisting to meet different needs in the market at the current stage of historical development. We do not, however, propose two dichotomous archetypespartnership and corporate with a movement from one to the other. Rather the emerging hybrid may well become a new archetype itself with a new model that combines features of both originating archetypes. Another approach to explain coexistence would be to view them as different strategic congurations occupying different niches. Increased segmentation of professional organizational elds may result in quite separate niches for strategic development that enable the ongoing coexistence of different types of professional organizations. Indeed, a number of earlier studies, especially in law, have demonstrated the clear segmentation of the professional eld (e.g., Heinz & Laumann, 1982). As a general example, Miles and Snow (1978) present their strategy-structure-process types as not only being viable in any industry but also as potentially equally protable. This is possible because they occupy different strategic prot/market space or niches and thus succeed by serving different types of customers (for example, families, corporations, governmental agencies) and this do not compete head-to-head. In this section we have thus seen how institutional theory and resource dependence can explain the possible complex factors that may result in archetypal change and hybrid PSF forms, while dialectic and strategic arguments suggest how changing archetypes may coexist. We now examine the extent to which the foregoing theoretical bases help understand the archetypal developments in the evolving eld of PSFs.

MULTIPLE ARCHETYPES
The previous sections provided the historical background and theoretical bases for a process of delegitimation and de-institutionalization for the

234

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

traditional professional archetype as a consequence of powerful forces for change. Further, it described the active search for new resources on the part of organizational actors seeking to reduce their dependence on diminishing resource ows and to enhance resource ows from new growth markets or services. The combination of the delegitimation of the existing dominant archetype and the need for new resources could lead to the emergence of new, or substantially different, archetypes of the PSF. New environmental conditions and new resource strategies generally require changed structures (Chandler, 1977). And there is mounting evidence in recent research on professional rms that supports the emergence of new organizational forms, such as the MPB (Cooper et al., 1996) or the Global Business Advisory Firm (Rose, 1998). On the basis of an analysis of secondary sources, and informed by the prior sections theoretical frameworks, a typology of three coexisting archetypes is presented in the following sections.

Professional Archetype 1: The Professional Partnership Amid the dynamism and changes in the PSF eld, the traditional or P2-form is an example of an institutionalized archetype that persists with essentially unchanged characteristics (summarized in Table 1) except for some increasingly business-like approaches to inter-rm alliances, nding and retaining clients (Greenwood et al., 1990, 2002; Lee & Pennings, 2002; Pinnington & Morris, 2002; Morris & Pinnington, 1999). There has been delegitimation and consequent change away from of several aspects of the traditional P2, like partnership in general, the centrality of the audit function in accounting, and generalist (as opposed to specialist) attorneys in law rms (Aharoni, 1999; Sherer & Lee, 2002). However, these forces have had limited effects on the P2, unlike the other archetypes to be discussed later. Several professionals still choose, or are required, to practice in partnerships, thus supporting the persistence of the P2 model. These limited changes clearly support the sedimented change (Cooper, et al., 1996) and continuity and change (Morris & Pinnington, 1999) models within the hybrid framework. Similarly, resource-seeking behaviors have not fundamentally changed the P2 archetype, mainly because as outlined above their key resources remain relatively stable and plentiful. Like general traders in the retail sector, the small-medium, generalist strategies have broad and relatively stable appeal to the broad market (Pinnington & Morris, 2003). These appeals may include convenient locations, personal service, lower prices, and familiarity. The P2 also retains some popularity among unspecialized

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

235

Table 1.

Some Aspects of the Three Archetypes.

P2 Star Peer control, Informal, Small or Medium size, Moderate support staff and moderate technostructure GPN Strong differentiation and integration mechanisms, Spatial differentiation, Formal, Large support staff and technostructure, Networks Multidisciplinary, Leverage, Consistent branding, International Corporate, Money making, Market dominance Baker & McKenzie, Boston Consulting Group, KPMG, Landwell

Structure and process

Strategy

Peer control, Flat structure, Partnership-track, Small size, Moderate support staff and small technostructure, High decentralization Generalist/routine work, Accessibility, Reliability, Local Collegiality, Client focus, Referrals

Niche, Differentiation, Elite, Local or Regional Excellence in professional specialty, Independence, Highest rewards Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts; Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

Interpretive scheme

Examples

Family lawyers and accountants

practitioners both those trained a generation ago as well as those newer or entering the professions due to lower barriers to entry as well as the same accessibility and convenience issues attractive to consumers. Thus, the features of the professional partnerships interpretive scheme described by Greenwood et al. (1990) namely collegiality, client focus, and referrals are still very much unchanged (Lwendahl, 1997). Small professional partnerships may decline in absolute number, but like convenience stores, are always likely to be with us. We should not underestimate their ability to adapt to changed environmental conditions so as to enhance their survivability. Contemporary variations on traditional organization of the P2 include local or national networks, and increased use of nonprofessionals in specialist and even managerial roles within the PSF. Networks or franchise arrangements of smaller law rms or tax accountants, for example, help overcome some of the disadvantages of small size and limited bargaining power while retaining the benets of self-employment and allowing further resource seeking behavior.

236

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

Professional Archetype 2: The Global Professional Network A signicant archetypal response to delegitimating forces and resource seeking behaviors is the emergence of a large, differentiated PSF (Covaleski, Dirsmith, Heian. & Samuel, 1998; Pinnington & Morris, 2002, 2003; Roberts, 1998). Indeed, even in the 1960s, when the classic professional partnership archetype was dominant, Scott (1965) suggested there were already signs of a shift from the autonomous model of professional organization to the heteronomous, where professionals were increasingly subject to bureaucratic control. A decade later, Haug (1973) saw the end of professional dominance as professionals underwent a process of deprofessionalization as a consequence of the routinization of their tasks, increased consumer pressure and technological change that gave a wider range of people access to professional expertise. Others suggested the ongoing proletarianization of professionals whereby professionals lost their special status and were subjected to the controls of advanced capitalism a similar fate as that of artisans and craft workers during the Industrial Revolution (McKinlay & Arches, 1985; Derber, 1982). Also, Nelson (1988) and Spangler (1986) pointed to the increased bureaucratization and routinization of legal practice both in large law rms and professional bureaucracies. Like their corporate cousins, large PSFs have increasingly taken on a more diversied and internally differentiated structure (Aharoni, 1999; Lwendahl, 1997). On the basis of their analysis of change in two Canadian law rms, Cooper et al. (1996) argue that the dominant archetype of the professional organization was shifting from P2 to a form they term the MPB. Their MPB retains some of the attributes of the old P2 archetype with an overlay, or additional sedimented layer, of managerialism and business values2 (Pinnington & Morris, 2002, 2003). Whereas the MPB clearly represents the progression along the path of managerialism and business-like interpretive schemes that are more and more common in contemporary PSFs, further reading of related literature on the larger contemporary PSFs suggests a somewhat more radical archeype: According to Brock et al. (1999) the global professional network (GPN) builds on and extends the MPB archetype for two reasons. First, the GPN archetype incorporates a fuller range of the important recurring themes and structures emerging in the eld of professional organizations, such as use of network structures, corporate governance, transnationalism, greater complexity, and internal differentiation. Further, we explained above how, in the context of institutional and resource-seeking tendencies, the contemporary P2 has anyway changed to include some managerial and business-like features. The GPN seems to be an emerging

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

237

archetype, whose interpretive scheme emphasizes generating wealth and market dominance. In the following paragraphs we outline six important characteristics of the GPN, each one a reection of these emerging changes in the eld of PSFs. In each characteristic the traditional professional interpretive scheme seems to be sufciently institutionalized so as to persist, while newer organizational processes are overlaid very much in accordance with the hybrid or continuity and change aspects of our theory described above. Increasing Reliance on Formal Networks Informal networks can be more effective than formal relationships in facilitating cooperation between potentially rival organizations (Chisolm, 1989). These informal networks traditionally characterized the professions: Kitchener (1999) relates a medical professional remembering the goodold-days when expensive equipment would be informally loaned, and other personal favors done by supposedly competing professionals. However, as a result of resource seeking behaviors in contemporary competitive market places with more formalized performance controls, there is more reliance on formal networks and an eschewing of informal links (Aharoni, 1999; Roberts, 1998). In keeping with the business-like theme, relationships are more likely to be contractual (Hoggett, 1996). Law rms of varying sizes around the world may be linked to form a virtual multinational law rm (e.g., Landwell, www.landwellglobal.com/). Smaller accounting rms have a franchise system in order to use a well-known national or international brand name in exchange for a fee (e.g., Nexia, www.nexia.com). These networks of small PSFs benet from potential economies of scope and branding appeal (like H&R Block, an American tax preparation network that is gaining global appeal) and thus threaten to replace traditional, independent P2 rms. More Individualized Reward Systems While many traditional partnership prot-sharing agreements still exist, more eat-what-you-kill remuneration systems are being put in place throughout the professions (Gilson & Mnookin, 1985). Rewards are based on indicators of productivity like number of clients and dollars billed. Floods (1987) case study of a U.S law rm shows the link between productivity, inuence, and power. Sherer and Lee (2002) describe how law rms have developed an alternative to the partnership track traditionally characterized by prot sharing to staff and senior attorneys on short-term, more performance-based and market-related contracts. Traditional professional bureaucracies, such as hospitals, have introduced performance-based

238

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

pay in order to incentivize the health professionals (Denis, Lamothe, Langley, & Valette, 1999). These systems attempt to examine more areas of performance, and are designed and administered by human resource professionals (Ferner, Edwards, & Sisson, 1995). Managerialism and Becoming More business-like Explicit in the MPB archetype (e.g., Cooper et al., 1996) the language of business is increasingly the norm in contemporary PSFs: customers, market share, efciency, and importantly prot (Cypert, 1991; Galanter & Palay, 1991; Morris & Pinnington, 1999). Furthermore, there is widespread adoption of new management structures, functions, and systems such as performance appraisal systems, management by objectives, strategic business units, marketing, business development, cross-selling, chief executive, and senior management team structures (Covaleski et al., 1998; Greenwood & Lachman, 1996; Kitchener, 1998; Lwendahl, 1997). These reect fundamental legitimizing forces that in turn gradually effect changes in the PSFs interpretive scheme, away from the collegiality and profession-focus, toward the more business-like attitude widespread in other commercial enterprises. Increasing Corporate Governance Business-like organizations need business-like governance structures; and the partnership model is considered inexible and tends to inhibit change (Galanter & Palay, 1991; Hinings, Brown, & Greenwood, 1991; Lee & Pennings, 2002; Pinnington & Morris, 2002). There are thus serious questions as to whether it can survive the pressures of globalization and need for decision-making efciency (Greenwood & Empson, 2003). Partnership has not, of course, been used in certain professional organization types (like hospitals and universities); and is gradually being replaced by trusts, corporations, and other limited liability forms in medical practices, some law jurisdictions, and many small-medium accounting rms (Freedman & Finch, 1997). Several large accounting rms have adopted a corporate, limited liability status (Aharoni, 1999; Greenwood & Empson, 2003). The limited liability partnership has already become the dominant form for large North American accounting rm;. and for those remaining in professional partnerships, increased size, consequent dilution in partnership shares, and the introduction of different levels of partnership, effectively change the meaning of partnership for most partners they actually are little different from middle managers in terms of their status, power, and remuneration.

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

239

Increasing Global Reach As discussed earlier, professional service organizations both contribute to and are impacted by the general trends toward globalization (Aharoni, 1993; Cannon, 1997; McAuliffe & Voss, 2003; Roberts, 1998). New communication technologies present opportunities for professional organizations to pursue resource acquisition internationally through mergers and acquisitions (Spar, 1997). Aharoni (1999) suggests that this propensity is a function of various characteristics of particular professions (such as certication and standardization), which he suggests explains why the accounting profession has been more globally oriented than law. However, there is now evidence that law rms are beginning to make up for lost ground in the internation alization process (Mears & Sanchez, 2001). The many burgeoning global institutions like WTO, the EU, and international treaties, like the Hague Convention all create carrying capacity to support GPN type rms.3 From Generalist to Specialist to Multidisciplinary Practice While the trend from generalist to specialist practices has been apparent for some time, the corollary is more specialized PSFs appealing to particular markets or providing particular services. However, we see a further trend from specialist to multidisciplinary practice (Flood, 1999; Suddaby, 2001; Greenwood et al., 2002), with medium-sized general practices typically squeezed out (Aharoni, 1999). Legal barriers to multidisciplinary practice are steadily vanishing4 (Fischel, 2000; McAuliffe & Voss, 2003). Cypert (1991), Rose (1998), and Spar (1997) describe the tendency for professional rms to follow their expanding global clients so that they can deal with one rm wherever they are in the world. By the same logic, these rms have to offer the full range of professional services that the client might require. The result is increasing internal differentiation in these larger organizations. So the strategic shift is toward implementing a global one-stop shop for professional and business advisory services through the development of multidisciplinary practices (Brock & Powell, 2005). The above six categories of change among the large PSFs reect a combination of environmental forces that have delegitimizing effects on traditional professional values (like collegiality, professional afliation, and partnership) and legitimized competing themes (like protability, market dominance, and corporate branding). Professionals who choose to practice in these large PSFs are often driven by resource seeking motivations for example, career progression or career stability through specialization. These six common themes are different in signicant respects from the old professional bureaucracy and P2 forms, and suggest an emerging general

240

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

archetype for todays large PSFs. Contemporary examples of GPNs are the global accounting, consulting, and engineering rms; and networks of large multinational law practices. While most of these organizations are global, large national law rms that establish overseas subsidiaries or network partners also share the characteristics found in the GPN archetype.

Professional Archetype 3: The Star Another emerging archetype seems to be the highly specialized boutique-like professional rm that persists in that form (Brock et al. 1999; Gray, 1999; Sherer & Lee, 2002; Starbuck, 1993). While institutionalization clearly results in structural attributes persisting similar to those of the P2 (see Table 1), the Stars interpretive scheme and strategy are unique. Resource seeking within a relatively narrow range of professional specialty areas or a niche allows the Star to position itself as elite. Unlike the GPN it eschews growth by merger or signicant horizontal diversication because its principals value their independence. Key to its survival is a xation on the highest professional quality standards and a commitment to individual excellence. It is typically the leading rm of specialists in its eld, in its town, and often beyond. The Star is the professionals professional; hence the source of its legitimacy is the tradition of professionalism and high quality service within each professional specialty area. These are often the institutional entrepreneurs of professional services, more accustomed to risk than either the P2 or GPN (DiMaggio, 1988; Lawrence, 1999). The traditional partnership dimensions generally persist in the Star, but its professional and performance supremacy affords more organizational slack. Rewards are signicantly higher than industry average, based on the exceptional effort, expertise, and talent invested. A broader range of individuals in Star organizations are all expected to bring in new business and revenues through aggressive pursuit of big deals and wealthy clients. Notwithstanding the emphasis on these nder roles, senior professionals tend to be more involved in the less glamorous minder and grinder roles than those in the more internally differentiated GPN. It should also be noted, however, that large cases and deals tend to come the Stars way due to a reputation effect but reliance on these lumpy income sources is consistent with relatively low risk-aversion, as mentioned above. The relative absence of hierarchy and bureaucratic controls, and the focus on the successful individual professional rather than the organization or team, also distinguishes the Star archetype from the GPN. It has more in

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

241

common with smaller and highly successful surgical practices or investment banking deal-making units than the large global professional rms described earlier. In the medium term, we suspect that the Star is a viable PSF archetype. It is likely to be more pervasive in law and medicine where localism and national borders have traditionally fostered local rather than global growth. For example, one area where several elite specialist PSFs are found is in forensic accounting, where work is conned to local courts and legal systems (Lawrence, 1999). Published evidence of this archetype is presented by Starbucks (1993) cases of the Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz law rm in New York; and Sherer and Lees (2002) analysis of institutional innovation in Cravath, Swaine and Moore, another law rm with ofces in New York and London. Some quotes from the web sites of these two rms exemplify the Star interpretive scheme:
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz provides a unique service to our clients and enjoys a global reputation as one of the most prominent business law rms y . We operate with a ratio of partners to associates of one-to-one y . We are committed to providing our associates with a level of compensation signicantly higher than that of any other comparable rm. (www.wlrk.com). Cravath emphasizes the quality of its legal services. We are not, and will never try to be, the largest law rm y . Our goal is to be the rms of choice for clients with the most demanding transactions and cases (www.cravath.com).

In fact these two rms consistently earn prots per partner in the $23 million range, outliers even among the highly protable AmLaw 50 colleagues (see www.americanlawyer.com). Gray (1999) also identies his Conner Bertrand as a Star (in Australia). In health care, specialized units that gain national and international reputations like the Mayo and Cleveland clinics exemplify the Star form.

Coexisting Archetypes In the previous section we identied three archetypes of PSFs coexisting today. While there are clearly change processes underway, aspects of these institutionalized organizations also resist change. The contemporary P2, which is the result of gradual market-related evolution around the institutionalized core of the traditional archetype, appears to be under threat in the face of the environmental changes discussed earlier. However it shows much resilience5 amid the trend to larger professional forms (Greenwood et al., 2002). While solo practice and very small rms seem to be less prevalent, it is

242

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

clear they will continue to exist in the foreseeable future, with average size of practices increasing (Aharoni, 1999). Also, we observe two hybrids, each a result of the persistence of some institutionalized organizational aspects along with the result of resource seeking within the context of contemporary deregulated and global economies. First, the large, business-like, diversied, networks of PSFs, frequently with global reach the emerging GPN archetype. The trends toward deregulation, globalization, new technology, increased competition, and client demands all feed into the growth of GPNs. A supercial view of the structures of GPNs hardly differentiates them from other large industrial and commercial enterprises and multinationals. However, the continuity and sedimentation theme is critical here. It implies that many of the internal processes of contemporary GPNs still rest on traditional professional values of collegiality, consensus, quality of service, and technical autonomy in serving clients. In this sense, it reects the emergence of a conjoint, or hybrid archetype (Powell, 1987; Scott, 1965), as noted earlier, combining new business values and structures with central elements of the old professional interpretive scheme. However, remembering earlier arguments concerning the reexivity of structure/process and interpretive scheme, a continuing trend away from professional values toward corporate values in the GPN is predicted. Finally the specialized, small-medium, quality leader, is introduced. Like the other two archetypes, the Star retains several of the characteristics of the traditional professional organization mentioned earlier. In fact because the Star is less focused on growth and managerialism, in many ways it is in fact closer to the traditional form. Ongoing research on PSFs is providing examples of the power of archetype and the risks of archetypal change. For example, Greenwood et al. (2006) show how two accounting rms, facing similar sets of external circumstances move differently in archetype change. Each rm experienced growing disagreement over prevailing practices, with groups in each rm competing over appropriate value commitment. Crucially, in both rms the dissatised groups were beginning to associate the basic features of the P2 archetype as underlying the rms weak performance; and, as contributing to their positions of disadvantage. The MPB Archetype was articulated and it codied their dissatisfaction and provided direction to the push for change. However, movement to a new archetype will occur only if there are enablers of change, namely power and capability, support the desired change. This is where the differences occurred. With regard to power, one rm elected a new leadership team that set about concentrating authority at the apex of the rm and set about

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

243

introducing MPB-like structures and systems. In addition, this new senior management team had previous experience of, and the technical skills to understand the design and operation of the MPB archetype; thus, capability in both the nature of the new organization, and in the processes of change enabled successful change. The other rm made similar power moves, but much later, and in more muted form. After two years only a few aspects of the MPB had been implemented. Senior management felt less able to make wholesale organizational changes, partly because of their own commitment to the P2 values, and partly because of the dispersed power structure. This, of course, meant also that those responsible for the change, senior management, were unsure of how to design and operate anything other than the P2 form. And, they failed to bring in managers with the necessary skills of design or implementation. The result was a failed attempt at archetype change. Resource seeking behaviors clearly help explain the archetypal change, as search for new opportunities and resources spur the emergence of alternative strategies, structures, and interpretive schemes. However it is also apparent from the three archetypes presented that they tend to position themselves in different strategic space: The GPNs main clients are large corporations, the P2 serves private customers and small business, while the Star usually gets the highly specialized clients and cases that neither of the other two have the expertise to handle. So we can further understand this period of coexisting archetypes in terms of strategic differentiation. Greenwood and Hinings (1993) suggest that while there may be a transitional period of archetypal incoherence, there will be pressure toward coherence or isomorphism. The possibility of further future archetypal change is discussed in the nal section of this chapter.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

It should be noted that the GPN and Star archetypes, as developed here, are hybrid models retaining elements of the more traditional professional archetype while adopting new strategies, systems, structures, and values. Hybrid structures themselves may well be relatively unstable (see Powell, 1990), perhaps representing a schizoid state as suggested by Hinings and Greenwood (1988). Future research could examine the ongoing development and elaboration of the GPN archetype in order to ascertain whether this hybrid condition is sustainable in the medium to long run, or whether

244

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

there will be an inevitable pull toward internal archetype coherence. This may result in the archetype moving either back toward its traditional roots, what Hinings and Greenwood (1988) call an aborted excursion, or forward toward the eventual triumph of the market-driven model. An alternative possibility, of course, is that the emergent, hybrid GPN archetypes developed here, or the MPB version developed by Cooper et al. (1996), represents a new synthesis of values and interpretive schemes previously in dialectic tension with each other. In-depth, micro research within professional organizations representing this archetype is needed to determine the extent to which a new interpretive scheme has emerged that synthesizes the old professional and the new business values and beliefs. The research question is whether the old and the new values, beliefs, and structures coexist independently within professional organizations (as in what Schwarz & Brock, 1998, call the coexistent organization) or whether they have merged to form a new reality or a new web of meaning. Stability in the longer term is more likely if the old and the new elements of the emergent archetype are interwoven, resulting in a new organizational fabric. Morris and Pinnington (1999) imply with their motif of continuity and change in UK law rms, supported by Kitcheners (1999) research on the emergence of hybrid marketbureaucratic structures in UK hospitals, a more recursive and reexive model where old and new values and systems interact and re-interpret each other. Furthermore, much of the evidence upon which the typology of professional archetypes presented here is derived from Anglo-American research. More research is needed on those European and Asian contexts where the traditional archetype of professional organizations has not been so well established to ascertain the generalizability of the changes observed in this chapter.6 This is increasingly relevant in the face of the globalizing tendencies of American professional rms, with the view to dealing with clashes of national cultures that may occur around the organizational and professional cultures. In moving to the GPN, PSFs are opening themselves up to multiple inuences in setting standards and making decisions. While this is primarily being done to ensure standard, high quality service at all points of delivery, it also opens up the possibility of new tracks of evolution as practitioners from different jurisdictions work together. Recent research by Hitt, Bierman, Uhlenbruck, and Shimizu (2006) on global law rms, for example, has shown not only how crucial human resources are to performance in global markets, but also how these large rms often struggle to maintain protability as they expand overseas. Also, as Aldrich (1999) has argued about organization theory in general, the evidence primarily comes from the study of large PSFs. One of the

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

245

contributions of this paper is that it takes the size differences among professional rms seriously. To back this up we propose a focused research initiative on smaller PSF in general and the Star construct in specic. There may also be signicant inter-profession differences (Kirkpatrick & Ackroyd, 2003). It was noted earlier that the number of viable archetypes in an institutional sphere increases as institutional forces lessen (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993), i.e., with deregulation or technological advances. So it seems that less regulated professions (e.g., law in Europe or Accounting in general) will be more subject to archetypal change than the more regulated professions (e.g., medicine or law in the U.S.). Similarly, multidisciplinary practice became a viable strategy for PSFs earlier in Europe and South America than in North America (Herman, 1999; Fischel, 2000; Suddaby, 2001). These interprofessional differences in general, and multidisciplinary practice in specic, are potentially fruitful areas for further PSF research. There is no doubt that the PSF is undergoing substantial change, and this process is likely to continue in the future. However, even should one archetype achieve dominance, the evidence presented in this chapter suggests that it will retain a distinctive professional character. There is little evidence to suggest that professional organizations will lose their distinctiveness and simply be subsumed under a monolithic corporate business archetype. Indeed, the tendency seems to be in the other direction as large corporations seek to adopt atter structures wherein employees have ownership and autonomy reminiscent of the traditional professional forms. Further research is needed to delineate the changing dimensions of PSFs as they transform themselves to meet the demands of new institutional environments and uncertain resource ows. There is no reason to believe that PSF leaders are under any illusions as to the internal and external challenges facing their organizations in the contemporary competitive arena. On the one hand this chapter should convey many of the difculties and complexities of archetypal change. On the other research has demonstrated that successful change tracks are feasible as long as attention is paid to the underlying interpretive scheme, and the ongoing reexive relationships among the PSFs structures, values, and beliefs.

NOTES
1. Note that here we are talking about fundamental organizational change to a different archetype. Organizations certainly may undergo minor change within archetype without changing interpretive scheme.

246

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

2. Comprehensive summaries of the MPBs features are in Cooper et al. (1996) and in Hinings et al. (1999). 3. The authors are grateful to Dev Jennings for this point. 4. While the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) has been widely debated, its effect is limited both in national as well as disciplinary scope; and may well be short-lived. 5. If Hollywoods presentation of popular culture is a gauge, small-medium, generalist professional rms are more prevalent than ever! The serial drama The Practice is a perennial award winner, and reruns of LA Law are still sought-after. The ubiquitous daytime soap operas are largely centered on small-medium general hospitals, as are the blockbuster evening dramas Chicago Hope and ER. (Somehow Accounting has not caught on among Hollywood scriptwriters!) 6. For example, Hofstede (1991, pp. 155158) explains how accounting is deeply rooted in cultural value systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Yair Aharoni, Mark Dembovsky, Laura Empson, Daniel Feldman, P. Devereaux Jennings, Jiunn Chieh Lee, Avi Meshulach, Tim Morris, Bill Pasmore, Ran Lachman, Bill Starbuck, and Dick Woodman for their constructive comments that contributed to the development of this article.

REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. (1993). Ownership, networks and coalitions. In: Y. Aharoni (Ed.), Coalitions and competition: The globalization of professional business services (pp. 121142). London: Routledge. Aharoni, Y. (1999). Internationalization of professional services: Implications for accounting rms. In: D. M. Brock, M. J. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds), Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care & law (pp. 2040). London: Routledge. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355372. Brock, D. M. (2003). Autonomy of individuals and rganizations: Towards a strategy research agenda. International Journal of Business and Economics, 2(1), 5773. Brock, D. M., Powell, M. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1999). Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care and law. London: Routledge. Brock, D. M., & Powell, M. J. (2005). Radical strategic change in the global professional network: The Big Five 19992001. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(5), 451468. Bucher, R., & Stelling, J. (1969). Characteristics of professional organizations. Journal of Health and Sociological Behavior, 10(1), 315.

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

247

Cannon, P. (1997). International practice: The big six move in. International Financial Law Review, 16(11), 2528. Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Child, J. (1997). Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and the environment: Retrospect and prospect. Organization Studies, 18(1), 4376. Chisolm, D. (1989). Coordination without hierarchy: Informal structures in multiorganizational systems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cooper, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Greenwood, R., & Brown, J. L. (1996). Sedimentation and transformation in organizational change: The case of Canadian law rms. Organization Studies, 17(4), 623647. Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M., Heian, J., & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in big six public accounting rms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 293327. Cypert, S. A. (1991). Following the money: The inside story of accountings rst mega-merger. New York: AMACOM. Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 4557. Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., Langley, A., & Valette, A. (1999). The struggle to redene boundaries in health care systems. In: D. M. Brock, M. J. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds), Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care & law (pp. 105130). London: Routledge. Dent, M., Howorth, C., Mueller, F., & Preuschoft, C. (2004). Archetype transition in the German health service? The attempted modernization of hospitals in a North German state. Public Administration, 82(3), 727742. Derber, C. (1982). Professionals as workers: Mental labor in advanced capitalism. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment (pp. 321). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational elds. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147160. Ferner, A., Edwards, P., & Sisson, K. (1995). Coming unstuck? In search of the Corporate Glue in an international professional service rm. Human Resource Management, 34(3), 343361. Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischel, D. R. (2000). Multidisciplinary practice. The Business Lawyer, 55, 951974. Flood, J. (1987). Anatomy of layering: An ethnography of a corporate law rm. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University. Flood, J. (1999). Professionals organizing professionals: Comparing the logic of United States and United Kingdom law practice. In: D. M. Brock, M. J. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds), Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care & law (pp. 154182). London: Routledge.

248

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

Freedman, J., & Finch, V. (1997). Limited liability partnerships: Have accountants sewn up the Deep Pockets debate? The Journal of Business Law, September, 387423. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Galanter, M., & Palay, T. (1991). Tournament of lawyers: The transformation of the big law rm. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gilson, R., & Mnookin, R. (1985). Sharing among the human capitalists: An economic inquiry into the corporate law rm and how partners split prots. Stanford Law Review, 37, 313392. Gray, J. T. (1999). Restructuring law rms: Reexivity and emerging forms. In: D. M. Brock, M. J. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds), Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care & law (pp. 87104). London: Routledge. Greenwood, R., & Empson, L. (2003). The professional partnership: Relic or exemplary form of governance? Organization Studies, 24(6), 909933. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change. Organization Studies, 9(3), 293316. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1,0521,081. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1,0221,054. Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Brown, J. (1990). P2-form strategic management: Corporate practices in professional partnerships. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 725755. Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Cooper, D. (2006). An institutional theory of change: Contextual and interpretive dynamics in the accounting industry. In: W. W. Powell & D. Jones (Eds), Bending the bars of the iron cage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Greenwood, R., & Lachman, R. (1996). Change as an underlying theme in professional service organizations: An introduction. Organization Studies, 17(4), 563572. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized elds. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 5880. Hall, R. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33, 92104. Haug, M. (1973). De-professionalization: An alternative hypothesis for the future. Sociological Review Monograph, 20, 195211. Heinz, J., & Laumann, E. (1982). Chicago lawyers: The social structure of the bar. Chicago: American Bar Foundation. New York: Basic Books. Herman, T. (1999). Ernst & Young will nance launch of law rm in special arrangement. Wall Street Journal, November 3, p. B10. Hinings, C. R., Brown, J. L., & Greenwood, R. (1991). Change in an autonomous professional organization. Journal of Management Studies, 28(4), 375393. Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (1988). The dynamics of strategic change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hinings, C. R., Greenwood, R., & Cooper, D. (1999). The dynamics of change in large accounting rms. In: D. M. Brock, M. J. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds), Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care & law (pp. 131153). London: Routledge.

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

249

Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., & Shimizu, K. (2006). The Importance of resources in the internationalization of professional service rms: The Good, the bad and the ugly. Academy of Management Journal, in press. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hoggett, P. (1996). New modes of control in the public service. Public Administration, 74, 932. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 319. Illich, I., Zola, I. K., McKnight, J., Caplan, J., & Shaiken, H. (1977). Disabling professions. Salem, NH: Marion Boyars. Kikulis, L., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (1992). Institutionally specic design archetypes: A framework for understanding change in national sport organizations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27, 343370. Kirkpatrick, I., & Ackroyd, S. (2003). Archetype theory and the changing professional organisation: A critique and alternative. Organization, 10(4), 731750. Kitchener, M. (1998). Institutional change in U.K. hospitals. Public Administration, 76(1), 7395. Kitchener, M. (1999). All fur coat and no knickers: Contemporary organizational change in United Kingdom hospitals. In: D. M. Brock, M. J. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds), Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care & law (pp. 183199). London: Routledge. Lawrence, T. B. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25, 161187. Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational elds: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 333363. Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2002). Mimicry and market: Adoption of a new organizational form. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 144162. Lwendahl, B. R. (1997). Strategic management of professional service rms. Copenhagen business school. Copenhagen, Denmark: Handelshojskolens Forlag. McAuliffe, D. J., & Voss, T. (2003). Transactions go global: Can lawyers follow? Business Law Today, 12(3). McKinlay, J. B., & Arches, J. (1985). Toward the proletarianization of physicians. International Journal of Health Services, 15(2), 161195. Mears, P. E., & Sanchez, C. E. (2001). Going global. How do law rms do it and what does it change? Business Law Today, 10(4). Meyer, A. D., Goes, J. B., & Brooks, G. R. (1993). Organizations reacting to hyperturbulence. In: G. Huber & Glick (Eds), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 66111). New York: Oxford University Press. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340363. Meyer, A., Tsui, A., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Congurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1,1751,195. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1982). Structural change and performance: quantum vs. peicemealincremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 867892. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Montagna, P. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization in large professional organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 6869, 138145

250

DAVID M. BROCK ET AL.

Morris, T., & Pinnington, A. (1999). Continuity and change in professional organizations: Evidence from British Law rms. In: D. M. Brock, M. J. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds), Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care & law (pp. 200214). London: Routledge. Nelson, R. (1988). Partners with power: The social transformation of the large law rm. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. (1997). The differentiated network: Organizing multinational corporations for value creation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145179. Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 565 588. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row. Pinnington, A., & Morris, T. (2002). Transforming the architect: Ownership form and archetype change. Organization Studies, 23(2), 189210. Pinnington, A., & Morris, T. (2003). Archetype change in professional organizations: Survey evidence from large law rms. British Journal of Management, 14, 8599. Powell, M. J. (1993). Professional innovation: Corporate lawyers and private lawmaking. Law & Social Inquiry, 18, 423452. Powell, W. W. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form or transitional development. California Management Review, 30, 6787. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. (Vol. 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In: P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ringshaw, G., & Wastell, D. (2002). Can Andersen survive? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2002/01/20/ccenron20.xml Roberts, J. (1998). Multinational business service rms: The development of multinational organisational structures in the U.K. business services sector. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Rose, T. (1998). Coordination and integration processes in global business advisory rms: The role of global clients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Schwarz, G. M., & Brock, D. M. (1998). Waving hello or waving good-bye? Organizational change in the information age. The International Journal of Organization Analysis, 6(1), 6590. Scott, W. R. (1965). Reactions to supervision in a heteronomous professional organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 6581. Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Caronna, C. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sherer, P. D., & Lee, K. (2002). Institutional change in large law rms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 102119. Spangler, E. (1986). Lawyers for hire: Salaried professionals at work. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Archetypal Change and the Professional Service Firm

251

Spar, D. L. (1997). Lawyers abroad: The internationalization of legal practice. California Management Review, 39, 828. Starbuck, W. H. (1993). Keeping a buttery and an elephant in a house of cards: The elements of exceptional success. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 885921. Suddaby, R. (2001). Field level governance and the emergence of new organizational forms: Multidisciplinary practices in law. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Young, S., & Tavares, A. (2004). Centralization and autonomy: Back to the future. International Business Review, 13(2), 215237.