managing intellectual capital in a professional service ...jonice/gc_2008/aula_18_03/managing...

Management Accounting Research 15 (2004) 7–31

Managing intellectual capital in a professional service firm:exploring the creativity–productivity paradox

Linda Changa,∗ , Bill Birkett b

a School of Accounting, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australiab Faculty of Law, Business and Creative Arts, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld, Australia

Accepted 2 October 2003

Abstract

This paper explores how a professional service firm managed the paradoxical balance of creativity and productivitywithin its professional workforce. A conceptual framework integrating the concepts of creativity and productivity ascomponents of professional competence is developed. Using this conceptual framework, the competency standardsused by an Australian branch of a large international chartered accounting firm are studied, before and after a majorfirm restructure. The results show considerable changes in competency expectations following the reconstruction.The competency standards before the restructure predominantly ensure professional productivity, while after therestructure, expectations shifted towards encouraging both productivity and creativity from their professionals.© 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Professional service firms; Professional competence; Intellectual capital; Creativity; Productivity

1. Introduction

The emergence of the knowledge age and ‘knowledge intensive’ organisations in the form of profes-sional service firms (PSFs) has seen ‘intellectual capital’ replace land, labour, and physical or financialcapital as the main ‘factor of production’ (Ulrich, 1998; Fitzgerald et al., 1991). The management of intel-lectual capital creates a paradoxical challenge for PSFs management: the need for continuous innovationthrough creative processes within its workforce on one hand, and the need for stability and profitabilitythrough efficient and productive outcomes from its workforce on the other (Stewart, 1997; Lowendahl,2000).

While the need for individual creativity has been recognised as being crucial for the survival of PSFs(Lowendahl, 2000; Maister, 1993), little research has been conducted into how PSFs encourage creativity

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+61-2-9385-5817; fax:+61-2-9385-5925.E-mail addresses:[email protected] (L. Chang), [email protected] (B. Birkett).

1044-5005/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.mar.2003.10.004

8 L. Chang, B. Birkett / Management Accounting Research 15 (2004) 7–31

within their workforce. Moreover, the literature within the management and applied psychology dis-ciplines that advocates the importance of individual creativity to ensure innovation and organisationalsurvival (Mumford, 2000; Amabile, 1998; Oldham and Cummings, 1996) has tended to ignore the equallyimportant role of individual productivity.

This paper addresses how a PSF ‘balanced’ the need for individual creativity and productivity. Literatureon the management of PSFs suggests that structural capital plays an integral role in knowledge creation andmanagement (Empson, 2001; Suddaby and Royston, 2001). This paper seeks to extend this literature by in-vestigating how a PSF configured its structural capital (Sveiby, 1997) in the form of competency standardsto support both creativity and productivity within its professional workforce. The paper also examineshow a PSF’s competency expectations of professionals change as they progress from novice to expert, andhow a PSF adjusts these expectations over time as its competitive and operational environments change.

A conceptual framework, which integrates the concepts of creativity and productivity as componentsof professional competence, is developed in this study. Using this framework, a content analysis ofthe competency standards used by an Australian branch of a large international chartered accountingfirm (IAF) is conducted, before and after a major firm restructure. The competency standards afterthe restructure have a more ‘balanced’ set of expectations about creativity and productivity from theirprofessionals.

This paper contributes to the existing literature on professional competence and intellectual capitalin the following ways. First, it presents a multidimensional view of professional competence and acomprehensive conceptual framework for future empirical studies. Second, it provides insight into how aPSF structured its competency standards over time, with consequential effects on individual creativity andproductivity. Third, it provides practitioners (technical and personnel managers alike) with a framework fordeveloping and structuring competency standards to ensure a ‘balanced’ set of performance expectations.

This paper first reviews relevant literature on PSFs, intellectual capital, the main concepts of occu-pational competence, and creativity and productivity. Against this background, a conceptual frameworkintegrating the concepts of creativity and productivity within a framework of occupational competenceis developed. The framework then is used as a basis for conducting a content analysis of the competencystandards of an IAF before and after a major firm restructure. The paper concludes with discussions ofthe results, research limitations and future research possibilities.

2. Literature review

2.1. PSFs’ dependence on intellectual capital

PSFs are knowledge intensive organisations that provide expert advice and services to clients; examplesof professional services include accounting, engineering, management consultancy and legal services(Lowendahl, 2000; Maister, 1997; De Brentani and Ragot, 1996). Both the services provided and theprocesses involved are customised or adapted to individual customers’ needs (Nachum, 1999; Maister,1993; Fitzgerald et al., 1991). Highly skilled and trained staff provide services in direct contact with thecustomer, developing customer-centric relationships.

PSFs draw on intellectual capital as a crucial resource in creating value for their clients, with knowledgeand information being key components (Lowendahl, 2000). The literature suggests that there are threemain elements of intellectual capital to be managed: human capital, structural capital, and relational

L. Chang, B. Birkett / Management Accounting Research 15 (2004) 7–31 9

capital1 (Mouritsen et al., 2001; Stewart, 1997; Ulrich, 1998; Bontis, 1998; Sveiby, 1997). This paperfocuses on how PSFs configure structural capital to manage human capital.

Much of the human capital of PSFs consists of ‘professionals’, who maintain their own knowledge andexpertise through involvement with the firm or otherwise (Lowendahl, 2000; Maister, 1993). Structuralcapital refers to the combinations of formal and informal ‘structures’2 that support the use of human capitalin an organisation. Structural capital therefore conditions and contains how human capital is deployed,and codifies the residues of past uses of human capital as ‘organisational knowledge’ (Empson, 2001;Stewart, 1997; Bontis, 1998; Sveiby, 1997; Boyatzis, 1982).

The management of intellectual capital has two dimensions. First, there is a need to ensure continuousappreciation in the value of intellectual capital through continuous innovation, providing creative anddistinctive solutions to client problems. Such innovation is very much dependent on the competenceof professionals (human capital) and the extent to which organisational structures (structural capital)support/encourage the production of creative ideas, and knowledge building within the firm (Suddabyand Royston, 2001; Garavan et al., 2001).

Second, there is a need to ensure the efficient use of intellectual capital in creating value for the PSFand its clients in producing efficient service outcomes and ensuring profitable economic outcomes forthe PSF. Because one of the main costs incurred by PSFs is professional salaries (a function of time),efficiency can be achieved by ensuring productive use of professional time.

PSFs, however, face a paradoxical challenge in managing intellectual capital. Limitations in humanattention and cognitive capacity impede an individual’s ability to attend to both creative and productiveperformance demands simultaneously (Simon, 1961).

2.2. The paradox of creativity and productivity

Creativity and productivity place different types of cognitive demand on professionals in PSFs: on theone hand, they are required to do things differently; on the other hand, they are required to do the samethings better. Arguably, each demand competes for attention, given that individual cognitive capacitiesare limited (Mumford, 2000; Shalley, 1991, 1995).

Creativity has been defined as the “production of novel and useful ideas” (Amabile, 1988, p. 126),which is seen as essential to ensure continuous innovation.3 Creativity may be demonstrated throughthe development of new ideas, products, services, technologies and work processes. The production anddevelopment of creative ideas, however, require time resources, and involve numerous trials and errorsand considerable risks, all at the expense of work productivity.

1 Human capital is represented by the quality of the knowledge workers PSFs engage. Relational capital is the relationshipPSFs have with the external environment, including customers, suppliers, and general public. Structural capital represents thestructures and cultures developed to support the use and enhancement of human and relational capital (Bontis, 1998; Ulrich,1998; Sveiby, 1997).

2 Formal structures include the policies, procedures and systems of an organisation. Informal structures include the organisa-tional culture and the network of relationships surrounding workforce interactions (Stewert, 2000; Sveiby, 1997).

3 A hierarchical distinction has developed between the two terms; creativity is seen as the production of new, novel and usefulideas—generating value and being seen as valuable. Innovation is seen as the implementation of creative ideas (Ford, 1996;Mumford et al., 1997; Amabile et al., 1996).


The definition of productivity4 adopted in this paper is that used by most PSFs (Maister, 1993): theratio between input resources (charge out rates× hours) and output (fees charged) (Williams, 1998;Lowendahl, 2000; Maister, 1997). As one of the main costs incurred by PSFs is the time professionalsspend on completing a task or project, productivity is advanced through the efficient use of professionaltime. Thus, non-client service related use of time is detrimental to productivity; conversely, client focusis at a premium, as it is a driver of fees.

Limitations in cognitive capacity, however constrain an individual’s ability to attend to both creative andproductive performance demands (Simons, 1995; Simon, 1961). To pursue creative goals, individuals needto consider many possible solutions to issues, pay attention to a wide range of environmental information,and think divergently (Mumford, 2000; Ford, 1996). The pursuit of productivity goals, on the other hand,requires logical thinking or the use of routines, focus, and convergent thinking (Simons, 1995; Simon,1961). Thus, attention, as a limited cognitive resource, is rationed between demands for productivity andcreativity (Davenport and Beck, 2001; Simons, 1995; March and Olsen, 1979; Simon, 1961).

The challenge faced by PSFs is how to manage the seeming paradox of ‘balancing’ individual creativityand productivity. That is, how can they manage both sets of requirements at once? Under what conditionsshould the ‘balance’ shift in favour of one or the other?

The study of competency profiles and associated assessment structures provides some understandingof how PSFs ‘balance’ their perceived demands for innovation and efficiency, by guiding/redirecting theirprofessional workforce towards creativity and productivity respectively. As a consequence, they are ableto manage the paradox of ‘balancing’ creativity and productivityat the professional levelas one way ofmanaging the paradox of ‘balancing’ innovation and efficiencyat the organisational level.

2.3. Competency standards

PSFs use competency standards as one of their performance management mechanisms.5 Competencystandards are formalised statements about performance goals, and capabilities expected from profession-als (Garavan and McGuire, 2001; Williams, 1998). These statements profile expectations, which relateindividual attributesdisplayed by professionals,task performanceexpectations, andorganisational con-textualfactors that affect how professionals use individual attributes to perform assigned tasks (Birkettet al., 1999; Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1982). Further, competency profiles of professionalschange as they gain knowledge and work experience over time (seeFig. 1).

2.3.1. Professional competenceThe concept of competence refers to the capacity to perform and deliver client services at an expected

level (such as professionalism or best practice) across services contexts, over time and as circumstancesand client needs change. As illustrated inFig. 1, professional competence can be seen as the interactionbetween individual attributes and (task) performance requirements in a particular (organisational) context(Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1982).

4 Perspectives on the nature of productivity vary according to disciplines (e.g. economics, accounting, management, etc.).However, all disciplines reference the concept of efficiency (the ratio between input and output) in some way, in attempting toelucidate the notion of productivity (Williams, 1998).

5 The literature on human resource development suggest that there is a prevalent use of competency standards as a basis forperformance management in organisations (Garavan and McGuire, 2001; Martin, 1995).


Fig. 1. Model of professional competence.

Individual attributes, as a dimension of competence, refers to the knowledge, abilities, experienceand motivation brought to the job (Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1982). These attributes maybe evidenced by formally recognised qualifications and may embody a potentiality to perform differenttasks in different contexts (Birkett et al., 1999; Ellström, 1998).

Task performancerefers to expectations relating to ‘what’ professionals are expected to do (Spencer andSpencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1982). While individual attributes portray a person’s capabilities to perform, taskperformance provides them with the opportunity and motivation to exercise these capabilities (Oldhamand Cummings, 1996; Hackman and Oldham, 1980).

Finally, organisational context, as the third dimension of competence, refers to exogenous factors thatmay affect ‘how’ a person performs or exercises their capabilities in performance (Birkett et al., 1999;Boyatzis, 1982). Competency expectations relating to organisational context, therefore, create conditionsthat influence how individuals use their knowledge and abilities to perform assigned tasks. This dimen-sion of competency establishes expectations in relation to performance goals (creativity or productivityoriented), methods and procedures to achieve these goals and the organisational support provided toindividuals in the pursuit of performance goals (Kopelman et al., 1990). These expectations will, in turn,affect individuals’ motivation and the level of effort exerted in task performance (Amabile et al., 1996).

While individual attributes, task performance and organisational context relate to professional com-petence at agiven role level, competency profiles of professionals will change over time as they gainexperience, responsibility and authority; they will reflect their changing levels of expertise and expec-tations in the organisational hierarchy (Jaques and Cason, 1994). Thus, competency profiles will beestablished foreach hierarchical level, creating a complex and developmental set of role structures foreach professional field built around competency expectations.

2.3.2. Competence levelsThe literature on competence indicates that professionals progress through a number of developmental

stages: from novice to expert levels of competence (Jaques and Cason, 1994; Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986;


Dreyfus, 1982). The Dreyfus model on learning (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986) suggests that professionalswill possess different levels of skills, knowledge, motivation, and perception of responsibility or involve-ment for the work that they do at each developmental stage. The competency profiles of professionalschange as they develop, reflecting not only their changing levels of expertise, but also expectations heldabout them in an organisation.

The Dreyfus model further suggests that, with limited experience, novice professionals will not havethe requisite knowledge or skills to be creative (Ford, 1996). Ericsson et al. (1993)study of musicians’progression from novice to expert (and creative performance) found that novice musicians engaged in aprocess of ‘deliberate practice’ to improve their skills, through continuous repetition of specific activitiesunder close supervision from coaches or teachers.

Correspondingly, competency profiles for novice professionals should include expectations or provisionfor facilitating ‘deliberate practice’ of task performance with the aim of training the professional. Because‘deliberate practice’ enables the perfection of specific skills, it also facilitates productivity (Weisberg,1999; Williams, 1998).

Proposition 1. Expectations embodied within competency standards pertaining to novice professionalswill be focused mainly on facilitating productivity.

With the benefit of years of experience, expert professionals will have rich deposits of diverseexperience, which are vital to creative thinking (Mumford, 2000; Weisberg, 1999). Consequently, asprofessionals advance from novice to expert, competency standards are likely to shift away fromfacilitating ‘deliberate practice’ to focus on utilising acquired knowledge and abilities for creativepurposes.

Prior research on creativity suggests that individuals with a high sense of involvement and emotionalattachment to their work are generally more motivated to be creative (Amabile et al., 1996; Oldham andCummings, 1996). Similarly, the Dreyfus model suggests that novices generally are detached from theirjob, as they have yet to acquire such attachment. Experts on the other hand are generally are highly involvedand emotionally attached to their work, enabling them to be more motivated to be creative (Ryan andDeci, 2000; Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). As a result, expectations about experts embodied withincompetency standards are likely to emphasise creativity as well as productivity—thus creating a need to‘balance’ the relative emphasis given to these apparently conflicting requirements. Experts, thus face theparadox of being both productive and creative.

Proposition 2. As professionals advance from novice to expert, they will be faced increasingly with theneed to manage the creativity–productivity paradox.

Finally, the contingency-based literature suggests that environmental conditions affect the manage-ment structures (Chenhall, 2003) and competency standards of PSFs (that is, their structural capital). Asenvironmental conditions become more demanding for PSFs (e.g. changes in economic climate, marketcompetition, client expectations, etc.), they are likely to adapt their competency standards to require morecreativity from their professionals (Maister, 1993). They are likely to emphasise the exercise of creativityin the performances of experts (relative to novices), while raising expectations about capabilities to becreative from professional staff at more junior levels of development. For example, Chase Manhattan


restructured its competency standards in response to the rapid expansion of the global financial marketin the mid 1980s to allow for greater employee empowerment, work flexibility and a client centric focus(Martin, 1995).

Proposition 3. PSFs will adjust the expectations embodied within competency standards in response togreater environmental demands, so as to require more emphasis on creativity.

3. Method

3.1. Data collection

This study involves the content analysis of two sets of competency standards developed and used inan Australian branch of a large international accounting firm (IAF) providing professional accountingand consulting services, before and after a major firm restructure. As a result of global expansion andthe expansion of non-audit services to clients during the late 1990s, the IAF restructured its operations.Part of the restructure involved the consolidation of 10 product lines into five main lines of business,and the decentralisation of the firm’s human resource management functions. Further discussion of therestructure appears in the analysis below.

The competency standards obtained from the IAF comprised formal documentation of competencyexpectations about professionals (at all levels) in the firm. All professionals are provided with a foldercontaining the competency standards, together with individual performance evaluation policies and pro-cedures.

The competency standards used in the IAF before and after the restructure were obtained after severalmeetings, with senior representatives of the firm, and after providing assurance that the identity of theIAF was to remain confidential. Interviews conducted during the meetings confirmed that the competencystandards were actively employed in all of the firm’s offices for promotion, training and developmentalpurposes.

3.2. Data analysis

Content analysis was conducted on the competency standards of the IAF before and after its restructureto address the three propositions outlined inSection 2.3.2. Krinppendroff (1980)described content analy-sis as “a method of inquiry into symbolic meanings of messages”. Because this paper explores how PSFsuse competency standards to provide cues to professionals on how to manage the paradox of creativityand productivity, content analysis is an appropriate research method for investigating how these cuessignal performance expectations and meaning creation.

The content analysis involved four stages. First, an analytical framework and a coding scheme weredeveloped. Second, a pilot study was conducted leading to subsequent revision of the coding scheme.Third, the two sets of competency standards were analysed. Fourth, validity and reliability of the analysiswere assessed.

3.2.1. Analytical framework and coding schemeThe first stage, an analytical framework was developed. To ensure trustworthiness of findings,

Krinppendroff (1980)suggested that the categorisation of data must be grounded from theories, and


Fig. 2. Expanded model of professional competence: a balance of creativity and productivity. (a) Based onWoodman et al. (1993)andBirkett et al. (1999)frameworks on individual characteristics, competency expectations relating to individual attributes havefour key elements: cognitive abilities, behavioural abilities, motivation and knowledge. (b) Based onHackman & Oldham(1980) framework on job characteristics, competency expectations about task performance have four key elements: (1) taskvariety—range of activities, skills and talents an individual is expect to perform; (2) task identity—level of involvement in thecompletion of the final product; (3) task significance—impact of task within and outside the organisation; (4) autonomy—level ofindependence and discretion an individual is allowed. (c) Based onTesluk et al. (1997)andKopelman et al. (1990)frameworks,organisational context has three key elements: (1) goal emphasis—expectations about the goals that are important; (2) meansemphasis—expectations about the use of procedures and methods in task performance; (3) Socioemotional support—expectationsrelating to the level of support or encouragement for risk taking.

knowledge of the context from which the data stems. Consequently, because this study is aimed atstudying “symbolic meanings of messages” contained within PSF’s competency standards, an analyticalframework was based on the model of professional competence (discussed inSection 2.3.1), where threedimensionsof competence were identified: individual attributes, task performance and organisationalcontext. To enable data categorisation and compression (Weber, 1990; Krinppendroff, 1980), further lit-erature reviews were undertaken to identifyelementswithin each dimension where orientations towardsproductivity or creativity could occur (illustrated inFig. 2).

A further literature review then was used to relate eachelementwithin eachdimensionof professionalcompetence to creativity and productivity. Analytical cues were then developed to identify how eachelement of the model had creativity or productivity ‘effects’: each cue was indicative of a facilitating orconstraining effect on individual action.Facilitating factors enable a particular action, be it creativity orproductivity ‘oriented’.Constrainingfactors on the other hand imply that, even though actions may beinclined towards being creative or productive, the ability to pursue that action is hindered (Ford, 1996).Four types of cues were developed: ‘Facilitators of Creativity’ (FC), ‘Constraints on Creativity’ (CC),‘Facilitators of Productivity’ (FP), and ‘Constraints on Productivity’ (CP). These predispositionalcuesare displayed inTable 1.

L.C

ha

ng,B

.Birke

tt/Ma

nage

me

ntA

ccou

ntin

gR

ese

arch

15

(20

04

)7

–3

115

Table 1Analysis cues

Elements Cues

FC CC FP CP

Individual attributesCognitive abilities (Martindale, 1999; Ford,

1996; Tierney et al., 1999; Woodman et al.,1993; Amabile et al., 1996; Simon, 1961)

Divergent thinkingabilities

Limited divergentthinking abilities

Logical reasoningwithin domainknowledge andavailable information

Lack of logical orefficient informationprocessing abilities

Behavioural abilities (Feldman, 1999; Williams,1998; Amabile et al., 1996; Simon, 1961)

Influential networkingand communicationskills within, andacross domains

Limited networkingand communicationskills

Proficientcommunication, andfunctional/taskmanagement skills.

Lack of managementand communicationskills

Motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Sansone andHarackiewicz, 2000; Mumford, 2000; Collinsand Amabile, 1999; Amabile et al., 1996)

Intrinsically motivationtowards creativity

Non-alignedextrinsic motivation

Extrinsically motivatedtowards productivity

Lack of motivation

Knowledge (Feldman, 1999; Weisberg, 1999;Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Spencer andSpencer, 1993; Simonton, 1984)

Diverse expertise andknowledge sets

Lack of diverseexpertise

Specialised expertiseand knowledge sets

Lack of expertise

Task performanceTask variety (Williams, 1998; Oldham and

Cummings, 1996; Mathieu et al., 1993;Simon, 1961)

Multiple task variety Limited task variety Highly specialisedtask; low task variety

NA

Task identity (Nickerson, 1999; Dodd andGanster, 1996; Mathieu et al., 1993; Umstotet al., 1978)

Performing identifiablepiece of the finalproduct/service

Partial involved inthe completion ofthe finalproduct/service

Specific section withina product/service

No task identity

Task significance (Williams and Yang, 1999;Oldham and Cummings, 1996)

Substantial creativesignificance

Partial creativesignificance

Substantialproductivitysignificance

Unclear significance

Autonomy (Williams, 1998; Amabile et al.,1996; Shalley, 1991)

Substantial freedom Limited autonomy Tight/high job control Unclear autonomy

Organisational contextGoal emphasis (Kopelman et al., 1990; Arad

et al., 1997; Tesluk et al., 1997; Amabile et al.,1996; Ford, 1996)

Unambiguouscreativity in goalemphasis

Unarticulatedcreativity in goalemphasis

Unambiguousproductivity in goalemphasis

Unclear goal emphasis

Means emphasis (Ferris et al., 1999; Hennessey,2000; Kopelman et al., 1990)

Multiple perspectiveand flexible procedures

Confinedprocedures

Well-defined andstructured procedures

Unclear meansemphasis

Socio-emotional support (Ferris et al., 1999;Mumford, 2000; Tesluk et al., 1997; Ford,1996)

Support for risk takingand support learning

Limited support forrisk taking

Risk averse emphasis Unclear support

FC: facilitate creativity; CC: constrain creativity; FP: facilitate productivity; CP: constrain productivity.


For example, developing cues relating to the effect of theKnowledgeelement (within the individualattributes) on creativity and productivity involved the following steps. Firstly, knowledge was defined asinformation and understandings available to individuals to be used for creative or productive purposes(Bauer and Dahlquist, 1999). Secondly, literature reviews conducted to determine the effects of knowledgeon creativity suggested that a diverse range of available knowledgefacilitates creativity6 (Feldman, 1999;Weisberg, 1999). The lack of diverse knowledge is seen toconstrain creativity7 (Mumford, 2000; Ford,1996; Amabile et al., 1996). Specialised knowledge on the other hand is seen tofacilitate productivity8

(Williams, 1998; Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1982; Simon, 1961). A lack of knowledge of theworking domain is seen toconstrain productivity(Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1982).

3.2.2. Pilot studyA pilot study was conducted to test and refine the coding scheme and content analysis procedure

(Weber, 1990; Krinppendroff, 1980). The pilot study involved coding and analysing Internal Auditor’sBest Practice Competency Standards developed byBirkett et al. (1999).9 Two researchers independentlyconducted the pilot study. As a result, the analytical model, coding, recording procedures, and interpre-tation procedures were modified to provide additional clarity and ensure consistency of the outcomes.

3.2.3. Analytic procedureHaving revised the coding schemes, content analysis procedures were established. In order to establish

independence of data analysis, two researchers analysed the data independently. Comparisons of codingresults were then conducted to ensure consistency. The first step in data analysis involved an overview ofthe structure of the competency standards to establish the number of hierarchical role levels within thecompetency standards IAF pre- and post-restructure.

Second, the predispositional cues from the Analytical Framework were applied to competency state-ments of each role level in the competency standards. If the competency statement ‘matched’ the cue, aparticular type of facilitation or constraint was then indicated in relation to an element as it applied toeach role. All the predispositional cues inTable 1were applied to each competency statement, thoughnot all of them were seen as empirically relevant for each role.

Coded competency statements were entered into the Analytic Tables so as to display the patterning ofthe competency standards across each element, dimension, role level, business division (in the case of theIAF after restructure) and case site (as illustrated in Appendix). Each identified and coded competencystatement was categorised in terms of the Analytical Framework developed to guide the study. Forexample, a competency statement that requires professionals to be “aware of the products and servicesoffered by competitors and their competencies, and is sensitive to market changes” would be coded asa ‘Facilitator of Creativity’ within the ‘Knowledge’ element of theIndividual Attributes dimensionofprofessional competence.

6 The possession of a diverse range of knowledge enables the combination of previously unrelated concepts from other fieldsand allows individuals to take multi-dimensional views of a problem, hence facilitating the production of creative ideas (Wardet al., 1999; Ford, 1996).

7 Limited diverse knowledge confines individuals to drawing ideas from a restricted reservoir of knowledge hence constrainingtheir ability to be as creative as individuals with a diverse range of knowledge (Ford, 1996; Amabile et al., 1996).

8 Productivity involves the efficient production of work outcomes, and specialised knowledge enables individuals to employefficient cognitive processes in pursing such outcomes (Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Boyatzis, 1982; Simon, 1961).

9 The standards were compiled as a global best practice benchmark for internal auditors based on input from 200 expert internalauditor practitioners internationally (Birkett et al., 1999).


Finally, coded data were summarised into tables displaying thedominant focus—in terms of produc-tivity or creativity—for each role level in each case. This summary was achieved by identifying thepredispositional cue coded from the data analysis, and indicating its presence in the summary table. Thus,each summary table will indicate the presence of FC or FP within each element of competency.

3.2.4. Assessment of reliability and validityIn the final stage, the reliability and validity of the procedure and results were assessed. Reliability

relates to the extent to which the research outcomes can be replicated by another investigator who employsthe same research techniques on the same data (Krinppendroff, 1980). Issues of reliability are addressedin two ways in this study. First, the comprehensive and detailed Analytical Framework and set of protocolsdeveloped, and used to analyse data allows for replication. Second, two researchers analysed the dataindependently, with consistency being sought through subsequent comparative reviews of outcomes interms of the Analytical Framework and protocols.

Validity relates to the ability to generalise results beyond the specific data, method or measurementof a particular study (Yin, 1989). Considerable effort was made in this study to ensure research validity.Extensive literature reviews of empirical research were conducted to develop the Analytical Frameworkand cues to guide the content analysis and interpretations derived.

Yin (1989)suggests that one tactic that can be used to enhance construct validity is to have draft researchoutcomes reviewed by key informants. Consequently, the results of this analysis of the competencystandards pre-restructure were presented to the contact partner of the IAF; he approved the inferencesdrawn from the Analytical Framework (the construct) used to interrogate data drawn from the competencystandards of the IAF.

4. Content analysis results

4.1. IAF pre-restructure

Before the restructure, the IAF provided 10 major types of services. As a result, the firm’s competencystructure was based on these lines of business (LoB): (1) tax consulting services, (2) audit services, (3)computer assurance services, (4) corporate finance, (5) credit risk management, (6) emerging businessservices, (7) tax consulting services-migration, (8) management consulting services, (9) superannuationconsulting, and (10) actuarial services.

Each LoB had five hierarchical role levels for professionals, with Level 1 (L1) being the enter-ing/graduate professional and Level 5 (L5) being the manager. For each role level, the IAF identifiedthree major competency domains: (1)client services, describing expected application of technical con-sulting skills, the nurturing of client relationships, and the delivery and management of assignments; (2)people management, detailing self and team development, and management skills; and (3)new businessdevelopment, describing new business and product/service development and creation.

It is noteworthy that, despite the diversity of services provided, competency expectations did not varyacross the LoBs, with the exception of application of technical consulting skills. The competency standardswere developed and administered centrally by the firm’s Human Resource Management Department.

The summary of the results of the analysis as reported inTable 2, show that the competency expectationschanged considerably across the role levels, as entering professionals to managing professional level.

18L

.Ch

an

g,B.B

irkett/M

an

agem

en

tAcco

un

ting

Re

sea

rch1

5(2

00

4)

7–

31

Table 2Competency standards before restructure dominant focus

Professional level Level 1(frequency)a

Level 2(frequency)a

Level 3(frequency)a

Level 4(frequency)a

Level 5(frequency)a

Number of competencystatements analysed

54 79 85 69 68

Analytic cues FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP

Individual attributesCognitive abilities 4 6 6 5 3 5 3 3Behavioural abilities 16 11 11 9 6 9 10 7Motivation 2 12 2 4 2 2 4 3Knowledge 6 11 8 4 7 2 6 3

Task performanceTask variety 4 6 4 9 6 9Task identity 4 4 2 1 2Task significance 3 6 3 4 2 2 3 3Autonomy 5 9 7 4 3 3 2

Organisational contextGoal emphasis 6 7 7 2 9 5 2Means emphasis 3 5 2 3 1 2 1 1Socio-emotional support 6 3 2 3 3

Total number of competencyelements mentionedb

59 6 78 33 14 41 32 7 32 41 8 2459 84 88 71 73

FC: facilitate creativity; CC: constrain creativity; FP: facilitate productivity; CP: constrain productivity. Level 1: entering professional; Level 5: managingprofessional.

a Frequency indicates the number of competencies that ‘match’ the respective coding.b The total number of competency elements mentioned may be greater than the number of competency statements because each statement may be mentioned

in more than one competency element.


Table 2shows that all competency statements for L1s were coded as facilitators of productivity. Asprofessionals gain expertise and progressed towards L5, the total number of competency statements codedas facilitators of creativity gradually increased from 0 to 41 for L1 and L5 professionals, respectively (asshown inTable 2). They were increasingly involved in tasks that: (1) provided them with an opportunityto use the creative capabilities entailed in individual attributes, and (2) required the production of creativesolutions for clients. Regardless of hierarchical level, however, expectations in the organisational contextdimension of the competency standards require professionals to concentrate on being productive.

Competency standards for L1s were oriented predominantly towards facilitating productivity. Becauseof their relative inexperience and lack of knowledge, individual attributes expectations focused theirattention on gaining knowledge and work experience. This focus was sustained by task performanceand organisational context expectations, which directed L1s efforts towards performing simple taskswith limited variety, working under close supervision and following standardised work procedures. Forexample, L1 professionals were expected to “prepare materials for reports using the standard presentationtools” and “research and collate industry statistics and economic data under the supervision of senior staff”.These expectations not only motivate professionals to be productive, but they also reduce cognitive andbehavioural efforts devoted to task performance.

It is evident fromTable 2that as professionals progressed towards L5, expectations embodied withinthe competency standards gradually required them to display individual attributes that support bothcreativity and productivity. These included the need to demonstrate divergent thinking abilities and diverseknowledge, and the intrinsic motivation to be creative. Moreover, expert professionals were expected todisplay the influential networking skills, and behavioural abilities that would enable them to secureacceptance of creative ideas that may challenge existing practices.

At the same time, professionals at all levels were expected to demonstrate individual attributes that willfacilitate productivity. They were expected to think logically and to be able to focus on project outcomes.Behaviourally, they were expected to display proficient communication and management skills, so as toensure stability within teams and good relationships with clients. Further, they were expected to possessspecialised knowledge within their respective fields of expertise. They were expected to be motivatedtoward achieving budget targets and ensuring client demands are met.

Expectations relating to the task performance dimension of the competency standards required pro-fessionals to be progressively involved in a greater variety of tasks (task variety) and in the completionof the ‘whole’ assignment (task identity). For instance, the competency standards required L3 profes-sionals to “manage assignments from start to finish with limited supervision”. Having progressed to L5,professionals were expected to “(manage) the delivery of several assignments at the same time and/ormulti-disciplinary projects”. Thetask significanceelement, however, poses a possible managerial chal-lenge for the professionals. The competency standards suggested that the professionals’ job has highproductivity significance, especially in ensuring “. . . that assignments are carried out within budgets,efficiently and effectively meeting all deadlines”. At the same time, the managing professionals were ex-pected to perform tasks that embodied high levels of creativity, particularly in “developing practical andcreative solutions to complex issues”. Task performance expectations suggest that they should direct theirattention towards being creative, while being conscious of IAF operational policies and client expectations.

On the other hand,Table 2reveals that with the exception of means emphasis, organisational contextexpectations were oriented towards constraining creativity and facilitating productivity. While L4s and L5swere expected to be flexible with project procedures, the competency standards had a strong productivitygoal emphasis and suggest a strong aversion to risk. For example, requirements to “only experience


budget deficiencies where circumstances are totally outside her control” and “undertake risk assessmenton invitations for work” suggest strong goals emphasis for productivity and high-risk aversion emphasis.Considering that organisational context determines ‘how’ professionals use individual attributes to carryout task performance requirements, it is likely that professionals would most probably choose to beproductive, when confronted with the tension of being productiveandcreative.

4.2. IAF post-restructure

During the late 1990s, this IAF restructured its operations and competency standards. With the maturingaudit market and increased litigation risks, all the Big 5(4) accounting firms began to reposition themselvesas multidisciplinary “professional service firms” instead of “Accounting Firms” (Suddaby and Royston,2001). As a result, they saw themselves not only competing with other accounting firms but also withother PSFs; hence the need for organisational restructure. Interviews conducted with senior members ofthe IAF confirmed that increased competition within the IAF’s and their clients’ operational environmentsresulted in the restructure of their operations.

After the restructure, the ten LoBs were consolidated into five main divisions: (1) Human ResourceServices (HRS), (2) Financial Advisory Services (FAS), (3) Audit and Advisory Services (AAS), (4)Legal and Tax Services (LTS), and (5) Management Consulting (MC). In addition, the development andadministration of the competency standards were decentralised to the individual divisions.

Only three (HRS, FAS and AAS) of the five sets of competency standards after the restructure wereavailable for this study. Each division established its own hierarchical levels of professionals: AASand HRS had four hierarchical levels (Level 1 being novice professionals and Level 4 being expertprofessionals), and FAS had six hierarchical levels (Level 1 being novice professionals and Level 6 beingexpert professionals). While the terminology used within each division differed, similar to pre-restructurecompetency standards, the divisions focused on three main components (1) Client Service, (2) PeopleManagement and (3) New Business Development and Innovation—for each competency level.Tables 3–5report the summary of the content analysis results of the HRS, FAS and AAS, respectively.

Comparison ofTables 3–5show that there are several similarities and differences between the com-petency standards for the three divisions (HRS, FAS and AAS). Most notably, competency statementsrelating to novice professionals across all the three divisions are predominantly coded as facilitatorsof productivity. As professionals progress toward being experts, the competency statements relating toindividual attributes and task performance dimensions for the three divisions gradually shift towardsfacilitating creativity. However, while competency statements relating to organisational context for bothHRS and FAS professionals shift towards predominantly facilitating creativity, competency statementsrelating to AAS professionals are predominantly coded as either constraints on creativity or facilitatorsof productivity.

Competency statements for novice professionals (across all three divisions) are mainly geared towardsfacilitating productivity (see Level 1 coding acrossTables 3–5). Novice professionals are required topossess individual attributes that enable them to perform simple, rather than complicated tasks. Withlimited knowledge and experience, novice professionals are expected to possess the knowledge andabilities that will enable them to competently perform simple tasks and start building good workingrelationships with team members and clients. Further, the competency standards focus the professional’sattention on the necessity for knowledge development, learning and achieving productive outcomes.They are expected to perform these tasks under close supervision and with guidance from IAF developed

L.C

ha

ng,B

.Birke

tt/Ma

nage

me

ntA

ccou

ntin

gR

ese

arch

15

(20

04

)7

–3

121

Table 3Human Resources Services—dominant focus

Professional level Level 1 (frequency)a Level 2 (frequency)a Level 3 (frequency)a Level 4 (frequency)a


69 76 98 111

Analytic cues FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP

Individual attributesCognitive abilities 2 8 5 7 7 5 5 7Behavioural abilities 3 14 6 7 20 8 25 7Motivation 6 3 4 4 3 5 3Knowledge 11 4 6 4 5 4 3

Task performanceTask variety 1 5 7 8Task identity 3 5 3 8Task significance 5 2 2 4 1 10 3Autonomy 4 1 3 4 7

Organisational contextGoal emphasis 6 2 9 4 5 3 3Means emphasis 3 4 2 1 5 3 5 3Socio-emotional support 3 4 2 8 4 7 3


8 65 39 41 53 17 34 87 3 2973 80 104 119

FC: facilitate creativity; CC: constrain creativity; FP: facilitate productivity; CP: constrain productivity. Level 1: novice professional, Level 4: expert professional.a Frequency indicates the number of competencies that ‘match’ the respective coding.b The total number of competency elements mentioned may be greater than the number of competency statements because each statement may be mentioned


22L

.Ch

an

g,B.B

irkett/M

an

agem

en

tAcco

un

ting

Re

sea

rch1

5(2

00

4)

7–

31

Table 4Financial Advisory Services—dominant focus

Professional level Level 1(frequency)a

Level 2(frequency)a

Level 3(frequency)a

Level 4(frequency)a

Level 5(frequency)a

Level 6(frequency)a


34 70 71 72 74 69

Analytic cues FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP

Individual attributesCognitive abilities 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 5 2 4 2Behavioural abilities 2 3 7 3 7 11 11 5 8 5 9 2Motivation 4 5 4 4 2 1 2 4 4 2 2Knowledge 8 3 10 4 4 5 2 6 4 6 3

Task performanceTask variety 1 4 3 7 5 3 3Task identity 1 4 3 3 4 3Task significance 1 5 3 2 4 2 5 3 9 2Autonomy 4 6 2 2 5 2 5 1 3 2

Organisational contextGoal emphasis 4 1 5 4 6 3 6 5 4 6 3Means emphasis 6 3 3 3 2 4 5 4 5Socio-emotional support 1 1 2 2 4 2 3 3 4 4


2 36 25 48 42 2 31 48 2 26 52 1 25 54 4 1838 73 75 76 78 76

FC: facilitate creativity; CC: constrain creativity; FP: facilitate productivity; CP: constrain productivity. Level 1: novice professional; Level 6: expert professional.a Frequency indicates the number of competencies that ‘match’ the respective coding.b The total number of competency elements mentioned may be greater than the number of competency statements because each statement may be mentioned


L.C

ha

ng,B

.Birke

tt/Ma

nage

me

ntA

ccou

ntin

gR

ese

arch

15

(20

04

)7

–3

123

Table 5Audit and Advisory Services—dominant focus

Professional level Level 1 (frequency)a Level 2 (frequency)a Level 3 (frequency)a Level 4 (frequency)a


25 39 61 29

Analytic cues FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP FC CC FP CP

Individual attributesCognitive abilities 2 1 1 3 1 1 1Behavioural abilities 5 3 2 7 7 5 3Motivation 5 2 1 4 1 2Knowledge 6 2 3 1 1 1

Task performanceTask variety 2 5 7 2Task identity 1 3 2 1Task significance 2 4 2 2 2 2 1Autonomy 1 2 5 1 1 1

Organisational contextGoal emphasis 1 5 2 10 1 5Means emphasis 4 3 3 2 2 1 1Socio-emotional support 1 3 1 1 2 1


30 8 11 22 29 9 26 11 7 1430 41 64 33

FC: facilitate creativity; CC: constrain creativity; FP: facilitate productivity; CP: constrain productivity. Level 1: novice professional, Level 4: expert professional.a Frequency indicates the number of competencies that ‘match’ the respective coding.b The total number of competency elements mentioned may be greater than the number of competency statements because each statement may be mentioned



methodologies and analytical tools. As a result, they are allowed very little autonomy and opportunityto be creative. These conditions enable them to complete tasks quickly without much cognitive effort,which facilitates productivity.

As professionals (across the three divisions) progress from novices to experts, the competency standardsprogressively require them to display individual attributes that facilitate both creativity and productivity.They are expected to display knowledge and abilities that will allow them think divergently and nego-tiate acceptance of creative ideas produced. Expert professionals are required also to have the intrinsicmotivation to be creative. At the same time, they are expected to possess the knowledge and abilities thatwill enable them to think logically, develop/maintain good relationships with team members and clients,and specialise.

In terms of task performance expectations, professionals across all three divisions are expected to beprogressively involved in more complex tasks and to take on greater responsibility in project oversightand management. Expert professionals are expected to be involved in, and be in-charge of a wide rangeof tasks, ranging from project planning, project management and final sign off, training junior staff,recruitment, marketing and the like. As a result, the task performance dimension of the competencystandards provides them with greater opportunities to use individual attributes for creative purposes.Further, their greater autonomy provides them with the power not only to formulate creative ideas butalso to push for their acceptance.

While all three divisions have similar expectations in the individual attributes and task performancedimensions, they differ in the organisational context dimension, particularly at the expert level. Analysisof competency statements for the HRS (Table 3) division suggests that professionals are progressivelyrequired to be creative in their project approaches. Expert professionals are expected to be aware oftheir client’s environmental changes and modify work procedures, project strategies and methodologiesaccordingly. Similarly, the competency statements suggest that experts are expected to produce creativesolutions, new products and services to clients. At the same time, they are expected also to ensure produc-tive outcomes. Hence, a constraint is placed on creativity, ensuring that professionals are conscious of theeconomic consequences of their creative pursuits, providing a reasonable ‘balance’ between creativityand productivity. For example, one of the expectations regarding Client Services for HRS stated thatexperts should “oversee the refinement of [firm] procedures and methodologies based upon results ofquality and client impact assessments”.

Analysis of FAS (Table 4) suggests that while competency statements relating to means emphasisare coded as primarily facilitators of creativity, competency statements relating to goal emphasis andsocio-emotional support were coded as facilitators of both creativity and productivity. Goal emphasisexpectations required expert professionals to pursue both creative and productive goals. Means emphasison the other hand shifted towards facilitating creativity only. Experts are expected to be aware of changesto their clients environment and continuously develop new work methodologies and “provide creative an-alytical and strategic approaches to problem solving” to match these changes. In terms of socio-emotionalsupport experts are expected to “present ideas, recommendations and innovations to clients that results invaluable/strategic breakthroughs for their business”, and challenge existing norms (both of which involverisk taking), but are expected also to ensure proper risk management to “minimise IAF’s engagementsexposures and risk”.

The organisational context expectations for AAS (seeTable 5) place strong emphasis on the need toachieve productive outcomes. The competency standards across all role levels require professionals towork within assigned budgets, and follow IAF developed analytical tools and work procedures. For exam-


ple, experts are expected to “initiate procedures to improve engagement economics” and “identify waysto leverage technology to ensure effective knowledge management and efficient engagement execution”.This focus on productivity is likely to be detrimental to creativity (Amabile et al., 1996; Cummings andOldham, 1997), over-riding motivations and capabilities for creativity.

5. Discussion

Overall, the results support the three propositions inSection 2.3.2. As predicted byProposition 1, thecompetency standards for novice professionals, pre- and post-restructure, suggest a predominate focuson facilitating individual productivity. Expectations embedded within the competency standards requirenovice professionals to possess basic theoretical knowledge and abilities and perform simple tasks underclose supervision.

Consistent withProposition 2, as professionals progress up the hierarchy from novice towards expertlevels, the competency standards (pre- and post-restructure) increasingly create a paradoxical challengefor them. Analysis of the competency standard pre- and post-restructure suggest that the professionals arerequired to progressively develop the individual attributes to be creativeandproductiveand to exercisethese abilities in suggesting and providing client services. Further, professionals progressively wererequired to perform more complex tasks, providing them with opportunities to be creative. While theorganisational context dimension is used to guide how individuals use individual attributes to managethese paradoxical expectations during task performance, the analysis suggests considerable differencebetween the competency standards pre- and post-restructure.

In relation toProposition 3, there is considerable variation between the competency standards pre- andpost-restructure. Analysis of the competency standards suggests that the IAF pre- and post-restructurerequire professionals to have the individual attributes to be creativeandproductiveandto exercise theseabilities in task performance. The organisational context dimension of the competency standards is usedto guide the management of these paradoxical expectations during performance, but differently in eachcase.

The competency standards for the IAF pre-restructure suggest that professionals are expected to providecreative solutions and services for clients, while at the same time enhancing PSF’s productivity withinpredetermined budgets. The strong organisational context emphasis on productivity provides direction;productivity is at a premium, and creativity must serve productivity goals.

The competency standards for the IAF post-restructure suggest a shift in how creativity and productivityis to be balanced. The competency standards show variations in expectations between the three divisions.HRS and FAS competency standards require professionals (in particular, experts) to be constantly awareof environmental changes and adjust project strategies and provide creative solutions to accommodatethese changes. At the same time, they focus on the need to be productive through cost managementmeasures in HRS and risk management for FAS. Competency expectations for AAS, on the other hand,maintain a focus on facilitating productivity.

A possible explanation for this difference between AAS and the other two divisions (for the IAFpost-restructure) is the differing nature of the services provided and the type of competition each divisionfaces (Arrunada, 1999). Arguably HRS and FAS operate in environments that require greater levelsof creativity. AAS on the other hand operates in an environment that requires less innovation, withproductivity being seen as more important (Suddaby and Royston, 2001).


6. Conclusion

This study examined how PSFs use competency standards to manage the paradoxical challenge of‘balancing’ the need for professional creativity and productivity. The results reveal that there will be cuesembedded within PSFs competency standards that will guide professionals in establishing this ‘balance’in their work. As environmental situations change, PSFs are likely to adjust their expectations about this‘balance’ in their competency standards.

The results of this study should be interpreted in the light of several limitations. First, only one PSFwas studied, hence generalisation is difficult. Further studies into other types of PSF are likely to providemore insight into how individual creativity and productivity are managed through competency standards.Second, this paper only examines structural capital in the form of competency standards. Further researchmay probe other aspects of structural capital used by PSFs to balance individual creativity and produc-tivity in performance. Further studies could also explore the actual effects of competency standards onprofessional behaviour. Finally, further studies could explorehowPSFs adjust their competency standardsunder various environmental conditions.

The study contributes to the literatures on professional competence, intellectual capital and PSFs. First,it presents unique insight into how a PSF structured its competency expectations about professionalsas they progress from novice to expert, and how these expectations change over time as environmentalconditions change. It demonstrates that competency standards are active ingredients of structural capital,used to manage human and relational capital in the light of perceived environmental demands.

Second, while the literature on creativity and innovation advocates the importance of individual cre-ativity for organisational survival (Mumford, 2000; Sternberg, 1988; Amabile et al., 1996; Ford, 1996), ithas tended to downplay the equally important role of individual productivity. This study provides insightinto how a PSF structures its competency standards to ‘balance’ the need for both professional creativityand productivity. It illuminates the paradox of creativity and productivity, and shows how competencystandards guide professional staff of PSFs in negotiating and using it.

Third, comparisons between the IAF pre- and post-restructure suggest that the environment of theorganisation affects how the ‘balance’ between creativity and productivity will be ‘cued’ within the com-petency standards used. Where environments are perceived as benign or unidimensional (even thoughcompetitive), productivity will be elevated over creativity (e.g. pre-restructure and AAS). Where thereis a need or an expectation for innovation in service provision, the competency standards will be ori-ented towards creativity (e.g. post-restructure competency standards for HRS and FAS). A change inenvironmental perception may induce a change in competency standards.

The findings of this study have practical implications. Competency standards are not benign instru-ments; they affect behaviours and the disposition of professionals, thus affecting the performance of PSFs.If individual creativity is a prerequisite of organisational innovation, overemphasis on work productiv-ity, process control and risk aversion in competency standards will discourage professionals from beingcreative and hence impede organisational innovation. Consequently, it is crucial for PSFs to considerwhat effects they wish to produce from their use of competency standards as components of structuralcapital.

Further, while it is desirable for PSFs to employ professionals that have the individual attributes that willenable both creativity and productivity, they need to be aware of the potential tension it may cause. It isnecessary therefore to provide adequate and appropriate guidance on how professionals should ‘balance’the two performance expectations.


Finally, this paper provides human resource managers with a conceptual framework that can provideguidance in constructing a ‘balanced’ set of competency standards. More specifically, practitioners canuse this conceptual framework to ensure that their competency profiles address all dimensions (individualattributes, task performance and organisational context) of professional competence at all role levels, andthat there is ‘congruency’ between expectations embodied within these profiles.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Peter Luckett, Jane Baxter, Helen Kang, Mandy Cheng, Vincent Chong, theparticipants of The Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand conference (Perth, 2002) and3rd Conference on New Directions in Management Accounting: Innovations in Practice and Research(Brussels, 2002), and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the earlier versions ofthis paper.

Appendix A

Analytic Table and sample competencies for competency standards of IAF before restructure: Level 5

Elements Analytic cues

FC CC FP CP

Individual attributesCognitive abilities Demonstrates excellent judgement, considering issues

form all angles to determine the best results for allconcerned.

X

Designs delivers clear, well-structured presentations,briefing and proposals.

X

Behavioural abilities Applies negotiating and closing techniques at a seniorclient level.

X

Confident and behaves professionally and assertivemanner.

X

Motivation Ensure that the assignments are carried out withinbudgets, efficiently, and effectively meeting alldeadlines.

X

Actively develops business and communitynetworks/contacts.

X

Knowledge Substantive knowledge on area of specialisation. XAware of the products and services offered bycompetitors and their competencies, and is sensitive tomarket changes.

X


Appendix A. (Continued)

Elements Analytic cues

FC CC FP CP

Task performanceTask variety Manages the delivery of several assignments at the

same time and/or multi-disciplinary projects.X

Task identity Plans, directs and manages the assignment operationsand processes, ensuring quality analysis and report.

X

Tasksignificance

Develops practical novel solutions to complex clientissues.

X

Ensure total budget and cost control. XAutonomy Selects appropriate team members, provide assistance

to team members and review their performance.X

Conduct assignment in consultation with clients,ensuring customer satisfaction.

X

Organisational contextGoal emphasis Only experiences budget deficiencies where

circumstances are totally outside his/her control.X

Identifies needs and generates ideas for new and orimproved products/services.

X

Means emphasis Adapts and existing approach or devises a new methodto meet needs of current situations.

X

Ensures all work performed is in accordance with thefirm’s policies.

X

Socio-emotionalsupport

Undertake risk assessment on invitations for work andidentifies possible practice improvements.

X

FC: facilitate creativity; CC: constrain creativity; FP: facilitate productivity; CP: constrain productivity.

References

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., St Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad.Manage. J. 39, 1154–1184.

Amabile, T.M., 1998. How To Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review, Boston, September/October, pp. 76–87.Arad, S., Hanson, M.A., Schneider, R.J., 1997. A framework for the study of relationships between organizational characteristics

and organizational innovation. Journal of Creative Behaviour 31, 42–58.Arrunada, B., 1999. The provision of non-audit services by auditors: Let the market evolve and decide. International Review of

Law and Economics 19 (4), 513.Bauer, R.J., Dahlquist, J.R., 1999. Knowledge and The Firm. Managerial Finance 25, 1–22.Birkett, W.P., Barbera, M.R., Leithhead, B.S., Lower, M., Roebuck, P.J., 1999. Competency: Best Practice and Competent

Practitioners. The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation.Bontis, N., 1998. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Manage. Dec. 36, 63–76.


Boyatzis, R.E., 1982. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. Wiley, New York.Chenhall, R.H., 2003. Management control systems design within its organisational context: findings from contingency-based

research and directions for the future. Acc. Organ. Society 28, 127–168.Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35,

128–152.Collins, M.A., Amabile, T.M., 1999. Motivation and creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge

Press, London, pp. 297–312.Cummings, A., Oldham, G.R., 1997. Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for the high potential employee. California

Manage. Rev. 40, 22–38.Davenport, T.H., Beck, J.C., 2001. The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business. Harvard Business

School Press, Boston.De Brentani, Ragot, E., 1996. Developing new business-to-business professional services: what factors impact performance.

Ind. Marketing Manage. 25, 517–530.Dodd, N.G., Ganster, D.C., 1996. The interactive effects of variety, autonomy, and feedback on attitudes and performance. J.

Organ. Behav. 17, 327–347.Dreyfus, H.L., Dreyfus, S.E., 1986. Mind over Machine. Free Press, New York.Dreyfus, S.E., 1982. Formal models vs human situational understanding: inherent limitations on the modelling of business

expertise. Office: Technol. People 1, 133–165.Ellström, P.E., 1998. The many meanings of occupational competence and qualification. J. Europ. Ind. Train. 21, 266–273.Empson, L., 2001. Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: impediments to knowledge transfer in mergers. Human

Relations 54, 839–861.Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Clemens, T.R., 1993. The role of deliberate practice in expert performance. Psychological Rev.

103, 363–406.Feldman, D.H., 1999. The development of creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge Press, London,

pp. 226–250.Ferris, R., Hochwarter, W.A., Buckley, M.R., Harrell-Cook, G., Frink, D.D., 1999. Human resources management: Some new

directions. Journal of Management 25, 385–415.Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R., Voss, C., 1991. Performance Measurement in Services Businesses. The

Gresham Press, New York.Ford, C.M., 1996. A theory of individual creativity in multiple social domains. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21, 1112–1134.Garavan, T.N., McGuire, D., 2001. Competencies and workplace learning: some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. J.

Workplace Learn. 13, 144–164.Garavan, T.N., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P., Collins, E., 2001. Human capital accumulation: the role of human resource development.

J. Europ. Ind. Train. 25, 48–68.Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1980. Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Hennessey, B.A., 2000. Rewards and creativity. In: Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J.M. (Eds.), Intrinsic Motivation: The Search for

Optimal Motivation and Performance. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 14–48.Jaques, E., Cason, K., 1994. Human Capability: A Study of Individual Potential and Its Applications. Cason Hall & Co Publishers,

Fall Church, VA.Kopelman, R.E., Brief, A.P., Guzzo, R.A., 1990. The role of climate and culture in productivity. In: Schneider, B. (Ed.),

Organisational Climate and Culture. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 282–318.Krinppendroff, K., 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage Publications, London.Lowendahl, B.R., 2000. Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms, 2nd ed. Copenhagen Business School Press,

Copenhagen.Maister, D.H., 1993. Managing the Professional Service Firm. Simon & Schuster, New York.Maister, D.H., 1997. True Professionalism. Free Press, New York.March, J.G., Olsen, J.P., 1979. Ambiguity and Choice in Organisations. Universitetsforlaget, Norwey.Martin, S., 1995. A Future Market for Competencies. People Manage., 23 March, 20–25.Martindale, C., 1999. Biological basis of creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge Press, London,

pp. 137–152.Mathieu, J.E., Hofmann, D.A., Farr, J.L., 1993. Job perceptions—job satisfaction relations: an empirical comparison of three

competing theories. Organ. Behav. Human Dec. Processes 56, 370–387.


Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H.T., Buku, P.N.P., 2001. Intellectual capital and the ‘capable firm’: narrating, visualising and numberingfor managing knowledge. Acc. Organ. Society 26, 735–762.

Mumford, M.D., 2000. Managing creative people. Human Resource Manage. Rev. 10 (3), 313–651.Mumford, M.D., Baughman, W.A., Suppinski, E.P., 1997. Thinking creativity at work: organisational influence on creative

problem solving. J. Creative Behav. 31, 3–17.Nachum, L., 1999. Measurement of productivity of professional services: an illustration on Swedish management consulting

firms. Int. J. Operations Product. Manage. 19, 922–949.Nickerson, R.S., 1999. Enhancing creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J., (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge Press, London,

pp. 392–430.Oldham, G.R., Cummings, A., 1996. Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manage. J. 39, 607–

634.Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. When rewards compete with nature: the undermining of intrinsic motivation and self regulation. In:

Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J.M. (Eds.), Intrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance. AcademicPress, San Diego, pp. 14–48.

Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J.M., 2000. Rewarding competence: the importance of goals in the study of intrinsic motivation. In:Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J.M. (Eds.), Intrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance. AcademicPress, San Diego, pp. 14–48.

Shalley, C.E., 1995. Evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Acad. Manage. J. 38, 483–503.Shalley, C.E., 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. J. Appl.

Psychol. 76 (2), 179–185.Simon, H.A., 1961. Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organisation, 2nd ed.

The Macmillan Company, New York.Simons, R., 1995. Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal. Harvard

Business School Press, Boston.Simonton, D.K., 1984. Genius, Creativity and Leadership, Cambridge University Press, London.Spencer, L.M., Spencer, S.M., 1993. Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance. Wiley, New York.Sternberg, R.J., 1988. A three-facet model of creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary

Psychological Views. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 125–147.Stewart, T.A., 1997. Intellectual Capital: The Wealth of Organisations. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.Stewert, T.A., 2000. Intellectual Capital: The Wealth of Organisations. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.Suddaby, R., Royston, G., 2001. Colonizing knowledge: commodification as a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional.

Human Relations 54, 933–953.Sveiby, K.E., 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-based Assets. Berrett-Koehler, San

Francisco.Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L., Klein, S.R., 1997. Influences of organisational culture and climate on individual creativity. J. Creative

Behav. 31, 27–41.Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M., Graen, G.B., 1999. An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and

relationships. Personnel Psychol. 52, 591–620.Ulrich, D., 1998. Intellectual capital= competence× commitment. Sloan Manage. Rev. 39, 15–26.Umstot, D.D., Mitchell, T.R., Bell, C.H., 1978. Goal setting and job enrichment: an integrated approach to job design. J. Manage.

Rev. 3, 867–879.Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., Finke, R.A., 1999. Creative cognition. In: Sternberg, R.J., (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge

Press, London, pp. 226–250.Weber, R.P., 1990. Basic Content Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Weisberg, R.W., 1999. Creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity.

Cambridge Press, London, pp. 226–250.Williams, R.S., 1998. Performance Management: Perspectives on Employee Performance. Thomson Learning, London.Williams, W.M., Yang, L.T., 1999. Organisational creativity. In: Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge Press,

London, pp. 373–391.Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., Griffin, R.W., 1993. Toward a theory of organisational creativity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 18, 293–

321.Yin, R., 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, revised ed. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.


Further reading

Conlisk, J., 1996. Why bounded rationality? J. Econ. Lit. 34 (2), 669–700.Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Rittenberg, L., 2003. Jurisdiction disputes over professional work: the institutionalisation of

the global knowledge expert. Acc. Organ. Society 28, 323–355.LaBerge, D., 1999. Attention. In: Bly, B.M., Rumelhart, D. (Eds.), Cognitive Science. Academic Press, New York, pp. 44–95.

managing intellectual capital in a professional service ...jonice/gc_2008/aula_18_03/managing...

Documents