This article examines the production of corporate legal elite through a systematic analysis of the profiles of the first three cohorts of partners in nine elite corporate law firms in Beijing. We argue that the social production of the Chinese corporate legal elite is primarily an outcome of domestic social factors rather than international factors. It is characterized by local elite recruitment from elite universities and endogenous elite circulation within the Red Circle firms. International credentials and work experience come only secondary to education and work experience in elite Chinese law schools and law firms for achieving elite status in the profession. Yet, international experience plays a role in promoting gender equality in elite professional service firms. This article contributes to the study of globalization and elite production in professional service firms by investigating how local and global forces manifest themselves in elite production in a major emerging market.
{"title":"Inside the ‘Red Circle’: the production of China’s corporate legal elite","authors":"Jing Zhu, Yang Zhao, Sida Liu","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the production of corporate legal elite through a systematic analysis of the profiles of the first three cohorts of partners in nine elite corporate law firms in Beijing. We argue that the social production of the Chinese corporate legal elite is primarily an outcome of domestic social factors rather than international factors. It is characterized by local elite recruitment from elite universities and endogenous elite circulation within the Red Circle firms. International credentials and work experience come only secondary to education and work experience in elite Chinese law schools and law firms for achieving elite status in the profession. Yet, international experience plays a role in promoting gender equality in elite professional service firms. This article contributes to the study of globalization and elite production in professional service firms by investigating how local and global forces manifest themselves in elite production in a major emerging market.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49508056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What will happen to law firms and the legal profession when the use of artificial intelligence (AI) becomes prevalent in legal services? We address this question by considering three related levels of analysis: tasks, business models, and organizations. First, we review AI’s technical capabilities in relation to tasks, to identify contexts where it is likely to replace or augment humans. AI is capable of doing some, but not all, legal tasks better than lawyers and is augmented by multidisciplinary human inputs. Second, we identify new business models for creating value in legal services by applying AI. These differ from law firms’ traditional legal advisory business model, because they require technological (non-human) assets and multidisciplinary human inputs. Third, we analyze the organizational structure that complements the old and new business models: the professional partnership (P2) is well-adapted to delivering the legal advisory business model, but the centralized management, access to outside capital, and employee incentives offered by the corporate form appear better to complement the new AI-enabled business models. Some law firms are experimenting with pursuing new and old business models in parallel. However, differences in complements create conflicts when business models are combined. These conflicts are partially externalized via contracting and segregated and realigned via vertical integration. Our analysis suggests that law firm experimentation with aligning different business models to distinct organizational entities, along with ethical concerns, will affect the extent to which the legal profession will become ‘hybrid professionals’.
{"title":"Correction to: AI-enabled business models in legal services: from traditional law firms to next-generation law companies?","authors":"J. Armour, M. Sako","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3418810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3418810","url":null,"abstract":"What will happen to law firms and the legal profession when the use of artificial intelligence (AI) becomes prevalent in legal services? We address this question by considering three related levels of analysis: tasks, business models, and organizations. First, we review AI’s technical capabilities in relation to tasks, to identify contexts where it is likely to replace or augment humans. AI is capable of doing some, but not all, legal tasks better than lawyers and is augmented by multidisciplinary human inputs. Second, we identify new business models for creating value in legal services by applying AI. These differ from law firms’ traditional legal advisory business model, because they require technological (non-human) assets and multidisciplinary human inputs. Third, we analyze the organizational structure that complements the old and new business models: the professional partnership (P2) is well-adapted to delivering the legal advisory business model, but the centralized management, access to outside capital, and employee incentives offered by the corporate form appear better to complement the new AI-enabled business models. Some law firms are experimenting with pursuing new and old business models in parallel. However, differences in complements create conflicts when business models are combined. These conflicts are partially externalized via contracting and segregated and realigned via vertical integration. Our analysis suggests that law firm experimentation with aligning different business models to distinct organizational entities, along with ethical concerns, will affect the extent to which the legal profession will become ‘hybrid professionals’.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.3418810","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45302699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa021","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":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61681917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article contributes to the debate about how more recent professions, especially those related to management, might achieve a semblance of ‘professionalism’ in the absence of the conditions that facilitated the creation of the traditional professions such as medicine, law or accounting in the 19th century. Much of the recent literature has either argued that these professions had to rely on some form of ‘image professionalism’ or that the professionalization process was ‘captured’ by the dominant firms within the professional field, with the aim of creating corporate, firm-internal rather than open labor markets for these professionals. Building on Bourdieu’s notions of symbolic and social capital, we suggest an alternative pathway to professionalization in stratified professional fields. We namely argue that a career at one of the ‘elite’ professional service firms (PSFs) can provide privileged access to positions at other firms within the same field. Hence, such a career constitutes a form of closure regime and allows, at least to some degree, the external labor mobility so typical of traditional professions. We explore this alternative pathway to professionalization by analyzing a novel and unique historical data set of former McKinsey consultants, identifying a number of boundary conditions that seem to facilitate such intraprofessional careers and others, which, over time, might weaken it. We conclude by pointing to a number of broader contributions from our research.
{"title":"Professionalization through symbolic and social capital: Evidence from the careers of elite consultants","authors":"M. Kipping, F. Bühlmann, Thomas David","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz014","url":null,"abstract":"This article contributes to the debate about how more recent professions, especially those related to management, might achieve a semblance of ‘professionalism’ in the absence of the conditions that facilitated the creation of the traditional professions such as medicine, law or accounting in the 19th century. Much of the recent literature has either argued that these professions had to rely on some form of ‘image professionalism’ or that the professionalization process was ‘captured’ by the dominant firms within the professional field, with the aim of creating corporate, firm-internal rather than open labor markets for these professionals. Building on Bourdieu’s notions of symbolic and social capital, we suggest an alternative pathway to professionalization in stratified professional fields. We namely argue that a career at one of the ‘elite’ professional service firms (PSFs) can provide privileged access to positions at other firms within the same field. Hence, such a career constitutes a form of closure regime and allows, at least to some degree, the external labor mobility so typical of traditional professions. We explore this alternative pathway to professionalization by analyzing a novel and unique historical data set of former McKinsey consultants, identifying a number of boundary conditions that seem to facilitate such intraprofessional careers and others, which, over time, might weaken it. We conclude by pointing to a number of broader contributions from our research.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42166538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Collegiality is frequently portrayed as an inherent characteristic of professions, associated with normative expectations autonomously determined and regulated among peers. However, in advanced modernity other modes of governance responding to societal expectations and increasing state reliance on professional expertise often appear in tension with conditions of collegiality. This article argues that collegiality is not an immutable and inherent characteristic of the governance of professional work and organizations; rather, it is the result of the ability of a profession to operationalize the normative, relational, and structural requirements of collegiality at work. This article builds on different streams of scholarship to present a dynamic approach to collegiality based on political work by professionals to protect, maintain, and reformulate collegiality as a core set of principles governing work. Productive resistance and co-production are explored for their contribution to collegiality in this context, enabling accommodation between professions and organizations to achieve collective objectives and serving as a vector of change and adaptation of professional work in contemporary organizations. Engagement in co-production influences the ability to materialize collegiality at work, just as the maintenance and transformation of collegiality will operate in a context where professions participate and negotiate compromises with others legitimate modes of governance. Our arguments build on recent studies and hypotheses concerning the interface of professions and organizations to reveal the political work that underlies the affirmation and re-affirmation of collegiality as a mode of governance of work based on resistance and co-production.
{"title":"Collegiality as political work: Professions in today’s world of organizations","authors":"J. Denis, G. Veronesi, C. Régis, Sabrina Germain","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz016","url":null,"abstract":"Collegiality is frequently portrayed as an inherent characteristic of professions, associated with normative expectations autonomously determined and regulated among peers. However, in advanced modernity other modes of governance responding to societal expectations and increasing state reliance on professional expertise often appear in tension with conditions of collegiality. This article argues that collegiality is not an immutable and inherent characteristic of the governance of professional work and organizations; rather, it is the result of the ability of a profession to operationalize the normative, relational, and structural requirements of collegiality at work. This article builds on different streams of scholarship to present a dynamic approach to collegiality based on political work by professionals to protect, maintain, and reformulate collegiality as a core set of principles governing work. Productive resistance and co-production are explored for their contribution to collegiality in this context, enabling accommodation between professions and organizations to achieve collective objectives and serving as a vector of change and adaptation of professional work in contemporary organizations. Engagement in co-production influences the ability to materialize collegiality at work, just as the maintenance and transformation of collegiality will operate in a context where professions participate and negotiate compromises with others legitimate modes of governance. Our arguments build on recent studies and hypotheses concerning the interface of professions and organizations to reveal the political work that underlies the affirmation and re-affirmation of collegiality as a mode of governance of work based on resistance and co-production.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45900412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As a means by which actors justify beliefs and practices, rhetoric has a key institutional role. In contested settings, where multiple groups and the logics associated with them interact, research has highlighted rhetorical strategies that exploit rival systems. The account we develop expands on these ideas and suggests they embrace forms of counter-rhetoric, or arguments that delegitimize a rival’s logic and refine and reframe others’ values. We use these categories to explore the case of a local mental health service, an area of health policy known for problematic diagnosis and treatment. Here groups of medical and social-care providers were required to work together in a system of intensive inter-professional relations and clashing logics. Our analysis focuses on this interaction, exploring the language-based nature of logics and sources of conflict between logics that are asserted in counter-rhetorical forms.
{"title":"Counter-rhetoric and sources of enduring conflict in contested organizational fields: A case study of mental health professionals","authors":"R. Fincham, T. Forbes","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As a means by which actors justify beliefs and practices, rhetoric has a key institutional role. In contested settings, where multiple groups and the logics associated with them interact, research has highlighted rhetorical strategies that exploit rival systems. The account we develop expands on these ideas and suggests they embrace forms of counter-rhetoric, or arguments that delegitimize a rival’s logic and refine and reframe others’ values. We use these categories to explore the case of a local mental health service, an area of health policy known for problematic diagnosis and treatment. Here groups of medical and social-care providers were required to work together in a system of intensive inter-professional relations and clashing logics. Our analysis focuses on this interaction, exploring the language-based nature of logics and sources of conflict between logics that are asserted in counter-rhetorical forms.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43717316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Drawing on the ‘corporate professionalization’ model (Kipping, Kirkpatrick, and Muzio 2006; Muzio et al. 2011) of new strategies adopted by managerial occupations, this article explores professionalization processes taking into account the role of the client. Based on an analysis of the professionalization of executive coaching, it demonstrates the influence of the client organizations in such processes, at a collective and institutional level. This influence tends to favor new professionalization strategies of differentiation, regulation, and dissemination. The article suggests that this influence does not necessarily limit the power of corporate professionals, at least in the institutionalization phase, especially if we redefine power as consisting ‘not in restriction and exclusion, but in extension and linking’ (Eyal 2013: 876). Framed primarily to analyze corporate occupations practiced by independent professionals, the ‘client professionalization’ model suggests better taking into account the influence of client organizations in further research on professionalization processes, in line with the research conducted on ‘client capture’ (Leicht and Fennell 2001; Dinovitzer, Gunz, and Gunz, 2014). By studying an emergent corporate profession that is practiced by self-employed, solo practitioners and freelancers, which have been largely overlooked in the literature, this article contributes overall to a more diverse understanding of corporate professions and the ways in which they professionalize.
{"title":"Towards a ‘client professionalization’ process? The case of the institutionalization of executive coaching in France","authors":"Scarlett Salman","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Drawing on the ‘corporate professionalization’ model (Kipping, Kirkpatrick, and Muzio 2006; Muzio et al. 2011) of new strategies adopted by managerial occupations, this article explores professionalization processes taking into account the role of the client. Based on an analysis of the professionalization of executive coaching, it demonstrates the influence of the client organizations in such processes, at a collective and institutional level. This influence tends to favor new professionalization strategies of differentiation, regulation, and dissemination. The article suggests that this influence does not necessarily limit the power of corporate professionals, at least in the institutionalization phase, especially if we redefine power as consisting ‘not in restriction and exclusion, but in extension and linking’ (Eyal 2013: 876). Framed primarily to analyze corporate occupations practiced by independent professionals, the ‘client professionalization’ model suggests better taking into account the influence of client organizations in further research on professionalization processes, in line with the research conducted on ‘client capture’ (Leicht and Fennell 2001; Dinovitzer, Gunz, and Gunz, 2014). By studying an emergent corporate profession that is practiced by self-employed, solo practitioners and freelancers, which have been largely overlooked in the literature, this article contributes overall to a more diverse understanding of corporate professions and the ways in which they professionalize.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49253002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Management consultancy has long been a contested terrain in the sociology of the professions. Although the professionalism of management consultants has always been emphasized by practitioners themselves, the lack of a strong community of peers has been an impediment to their professionalization. In this article, I argue that professionalism is not the outcome of a process of regulation and institutionalization but that it has to be conceived a discourse comprising norms, worldviews, and values that define what is appropriate for an individual to be considered a competent and recognized member of this community. Given the diversity characterizing the field, there are multiple discourses surrounding professionalism of management consultants, and these discourses are shaped by work settings. Work settings are a combination of the type of organization professional partnership or professional service firm and the employment status (employee or self-employed). Drawing on the empirical evidence from various work settings (professional service firms, professional partnership, and self-employment), I investigate four clusters of practitioners identified in 55 biographical and semi-structured interviews conducted with management consultants in Italy. Four types of professionalism emerge from the clusters. Organizing professionalism is the sole professionalism that appears in all work settings. Other discourses (corporate, commercialized, and hybrid professionalism) are context-dependent and more likely to be found in specific work settings.
{"title":"Fragmented fields: Professionalisms and work settings in Italian management consultancy","authors":"Lara Maestripieri","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Management consultancy has long been a contested terrain in the sociology of the professions. Although the professionalism of management consultants has always been emphasized by practitioners themselves, the lack of a strong community of peers has been an impediment to their professionalization. In this article, I argue that professionalism is not the outcome of a process of regulation and institutionalization but that it has to be conceived a discourse comprising norms, worldviews, and values that define what is appropriate for an individual to be considered a competent and recognized member of this community. Given the diversity characterizing the field, there are multiple discourses surrounding professionalism of management consultants, and these discourses are shaped by work settings. Work settings are a combination of the type of organization professional partnership or professional service firm and the employment status (employee or self-employed). Drawing on the empirical evidence from various work settings (professional service firms, professional partnership, and self-employment), I investigate four clusters of practitioners identified in 55 biographical and semi-structured interviews conducted with management consultants in Italy. Four types of professionalism emerge from the clusters. Organizing professionalism is the sole professionalism that appears in all work settings. Other discourses (corporate, commercialized, and hybrid professionalism) are context-dependent and more likely to be found in specific work settings.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47559338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Bierman, R. Brymer, Scott B. Dust, Hyunseo Hwang
Social capital deterioration in the USA, and indeed throughout the world, has had considerable impact on professional service firms (PSFs). Governmental entities at various levels have enacted new laws and regulations (e.g. the Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts in the USA) to help ameliorate this situation, but to relatively little avail. Traditional gatekeeping functions of PSFs seem to be deteriorating. Is there hope for the future? This article addresses that issue in the context of work by drawing on the insight and research of Robert Putnam and John Coffee and encouraging advancement of multiple agency theory and governance for today’s world.
{"title":"Gatekeeping and our moral fabric: Has social capital deterioration vanquished professional oversight?","authors":"L. Bierman, R. Brymer, Scott B. Dust, Hyunseo Hwang","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Social capital deterioration in the USA, and indeed throughout the world, has had considerable impact on professional service firms (PSFs). Governmental entities at various levels have enacted new laws and regulations (e.g. the Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts in the USA) to help ameliorate this situation, but to relatively little avail. Traditional gatekeeping functions of PSFs seem to be deteriorating. Is there hope for the future? This article addresses that issue in the context of work by drawing on the insight and research of Robert Putnam and John Coffee and encouraging advancement of multiple agency theory and governance for today’s world.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45581367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article advances our understanding of network internationalization by professional service firms. We address gaps in the literature concerning the various kinds of networks; their role in international strategies, including learning, and knowledge transfer; and their structural and governance mechanisms. Concentrating on the network dependency of 177 European law firms, we analyse and summarize their structural and governance tendencies. Then we develop a typology of seven international peer networks. The seven types identified are: ‘Loose’, a network of disconnected actors, where exchange is mostly limited to referrals; ‘Constricted’, referral-based networks aimed at optimizing exchange flows and cooperation; ‘Focused’, networks aimed at a specific sector or specialty; ‘Friends’, informal, non-exclusive networks; ‘Exclusives’, formal alliances or cooperative relations; ‘Monogamous’, well-established, broad, longstanding, and close relationships; and ‘Isolated’, project-related alliances of limited duration. We conclude with a discussion that considers this typology in light of possible intangible outcomes of membership and proposes how this might be extended in future research.
{"title":"Opening the black box of PSF network internationalization: An exploration of law firm networks","authors":"Rany Salvoldi, David M. Brock","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article advances our understanding of network internationalization by professional service firms. We address gaps in the literature concerning the various kinds of networks; their role in international strategies, including learning, and knowledge transfer; and their structural and governance mechanisms. Concentrating on the network dependency of 177 European law firms, we analyse and summarize their structural and governance tendencies. Then we develop a typology of seven international peer networks. The seven types identified are: ‘Loose’, a network of disconnected actors, where exchange is mostly limited to referrals; ‘Constricted’, referral-based networks aimed at optimizing exchange flows and cooperation; ‘Focused’, networks aimed at a specific sector or specialty; ‘Friends’, informal, non-exclusive networks; ‘Exclusives’, formal alliances or cooperative relations; ‘Monogamous’, well-established, broad, longstanding, and close relationships; and ‘Isolated’, project-related alliances of limited duration. We conclude with a discussion that considers this typology in light of possible intangible outcomes of membership and proposes how this might be extended in future research.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42497126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：